assault rifles

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Because people 'need' them?

It makes me sad that we've shifted from a society of "don't do something if it's illegal" to a society of "you're only allowed to do such and such if it's made explicitly illegal".

Also, let's put to rest the extensive amount of ignorance in here.
A fully automatic M16 rifle is an assault weapon.
A semi-automatic AR15 is not an assault weapon.

The gun control fanatics have decided to try and label just about any modern long gun as an assault rifle because the term is scary. Not a single firearm used in the Colorado shootings was an assault weapon or had the capabilities of a full-auto fire mode.


Now, in this thread we have people saying that extended magazines in Glocks are unneeded, the general public should not have access to fully automatic weapons (again, these were not used in the CO shooting), there needs to be more gun control... why? "Because why do people *need* access to these things that cause death?"

Ok... let's look at mortality rates and apply that philosophy:
2008 Gun Deaths in America - About 30.4k (18.2 of which were suicides - people that could have killed themselves another way if guns weren't avail)
http://www.cdc.gov/Injury/wisqars/pd..._US_2008-a.pdf
2000 - 20004 Mortality rate related to tobacco products - Approximately 443,000 deaths per year
CDC - Fact Sheet - Fast Facts - Smoking & Tobacco Use
2001 - 2005 Alcohol Related Deaths - Approximately 75,000 per year
CDC - Alcohol-Related Disease Impact (ARDI) - Alcohol

So, we should increase gun control and outlaw those scary "assault weapons" because of how many people die from them and "no one needs access to these guns and there's no purpose to them."

Who needs alcohol?
Who needs tobacco?

Alcohol related deaths are 2.5x that of guns. Take out suicides and alcohol kills 6x as many people in this country as guns. Where's the outrage?

Tobacco related deaths were over 14x as many people killed by guns, 37x as many when you take out suicides. Where's the outrage?

And Jim in CT as a staunch Conservative, these socially liberal views of yours disappoint me:

I agree with you, I'm not big on limiting freedom. But millions and millions of peopl eenjoy beer. Only a very small number of people are the types that enjoy these weapons.

There are 70-80 million adults in this country of 300 million people that own a firearm. I'm willing to bet that there are "millions and millions of people" that enjoy these types of weapons.
Gun Control

[spence]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Also, let's put to rest the extensive amount of ignorance in here.
A fully automatic M16 rifle is an assault weapon.
A semi-automatic AR15 is not an assault weapon.

I believe the AR-15 was designed to be a military weapon. It has a detachable magazine so it can be rapidly reloaded. It accomidates many accessories rarely used for hunting and from what I hear is pretty easy to convert to full auto.

You didn't put anything to rest. You did make yourself look pretty silly.

-spence

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by spence

You didn't put anything to rest. You did make yourself look pretty silly.

-spence

DadF - please note who ratches this stuff up. Likwid and Spence cant help but be insulting.

[spence]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

DadF - please note who ratches this stuff up. Likwid and Spence cant help but be insulting.

Oops, it's the hall monitor

Are you asserting that the AR 15 is clearly not in fact an assault rifle? let's put this one to rest...there's an excessive amount of ignorance here that needs to be addressed.

-spence

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by spence

Oops, it's the hall monitor

Are you asserting that the AR 15 is clearly not in fact an assault rifle? let's put this one to rest...there's an excessive amount of ignorance here that needs to be addressed.

-spence

just be respectful in discussion, no need to insult or demean people. Im a southerner now, I've let go of my east coast attitude.

[likwid]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

just be respectful in discussion, no need to insult or demean people. Im a southerner now, I've let go of my east coast attitude.

steers & queers.

[spence]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

just be respectful in discussion, no need to insult or demean people. Im a southerner now, I've let go of my east coast attitude.

You didn't answer my question.

-spence

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by spence

You didn't answer my question.

-spence

I never made one comment about the ar-15. I have no clue what type of gun it is.

[ReelinRod]

Originally Posted by spence

Are you asserting that the AR 15 is clearly not in fact an assault rifle? let's put this one to rest...there's an excessive amount of ignorance here that needs to be addressed.

Uhhhh, yeah that.

Words have meanings.

"Assault Rifle" is the name of a type of arm that does exist and the characteristics that make the gun an "Assault Rifle" are not met by the AR-15 and its clones.

OTOH, "Assault Weapon" is an invented term that was intended to cultivate a response in the general population unfamiliar with the mechanical operation of firearms, specifically the difference between a semi-automatic AR-15 and a fully automatic Assault Rifle like the M-16:

"Assault weapons, just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms are a new topic. Assault weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully-automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons --anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun-- can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons."

Josh Sugarmann, 1988, founder, Violence Policy Center

If you are going to use an incorrect term please use the one that is less incorrect.

[spence]

Originally Posted by ReelinRod

If you are going to use an incorrect term please use the one that is less incorrect.

For the purposes of this thread they are pretty much interchangeable. The historic naming of such devices is pretty much irrelevant unless it's to distract from the point at hand...

There is a legal precedent that classified the AR 15 as an assault weapon. That the law expired doesn't change the description, it simply means those in charge of policy at the time didn't feel necessary to continue with the ban.

-spence

[ReelinRod]

Originally Posted by spence

For the purposes of this thread they are pretty much interchangeable. The historic naming of such devices is pretty much irrelevant unless it's to distract from the point at hand...

Yeah I guess. Kindasorta like how bicycles and motorcycles are the same because some idiots can't discern further than each having two wheels. I wouldn't be comfortable with those people being given the task of creating policy and laws for them.

Originally Posted by spence

There is a legal precedent that classified the AR 15 as an assault weapon.

Except when an AR wasn't an "Assault Weapon", like when the bayonet lug and flash suppressor was removed.

So, under the "assault Weapons Ban", which one is an "AR-15 Assault Weapon" and which one is just an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle?



OR

Originally Posted by spence

That the law expired doesn't change the description, it simply means those in charge of policy at the time didn't feel necessary to continue with the ban.

Well, if you really want to pick nits, if the "legal precedent" that defined what an "Assault Weapon" has expired, can you really say that "Assault Weapon" remains a valid descriptor of anything since legally no "Assault Weapons" exist?

All in all I see this exchange as validation for my earlier stated position:

"The hallmark of a typical vocal anti-gun Liberal / Progressive is a profound ignorance of the most simple functions of firearms as mechanical objects, (i.e., fully automatic vs semi-automatic) let alone technical aspects like ballistics (i.e., "hollow point armor piercing ammo") . . . Liberals / Progressives "just know" that guns are "bad" and no amount of logic, legal citation, stats or facts will dissuade their illogical and emotional based position. In fact, their ignorance is worn as a badge of honor because they don't want to share anything, even knowledge, with sub-human "gun-nuts". They will never acknowledge being corrected and will never modify their terminology; a pro-gun person can never be recognized as being correct about anything."

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

DadF - please note who ratches this stuff up. Likwid and Spence cant help but be insulting.

Oh I know who the usual Suspects are.....and they were already on "The Watch List"

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

It makes me sad that we've shifted from a society of "don't do something if it's illegal" to a society of "you're only allowed to do such and such if it's made explicitly illegal".

Also, let's put to rest the extensive amount of ignorance in here.
A fully automatic M16 rifle is an assault weapon.
A semi-automatic AR15 is not an assault weapon.

The gun control fanatics have decided to try and label just about any modern long gun as an assault rifle because the term is scary. Not a single firearm used in the Colorado shootings was an assault weapon or had the capabilities of a full-auto fire mode.


Now, in this thread we have people saying that extended magazines in Glocks are unneeded, the general public should not have access to fully automatic weapons (again, these were not used in the CO shooting), there needs to be more gun control... why? "Because why do people *need* access to these things that cause death?"

Ok... let's look at mortality rates and apply that philosophy:
2008 Gun Deaths in America - About 30.4k (18.2 of which were suicides - people that could have killed themselves another way if guns weren't avail)
http://www.cdc.gov/Injury/wisqars/pd..._US_2008-a.pdf
2000 - 20004 Mortality rate related to tobacco products - Approximately 443,000 deaths per year
CDC - Fact Sheet - Fast Facts - Smoking & Tobacco Use
2001 - 2005 Alcohol Related Deaths - Approximately 75,000 per year
CDC - Alcohol-Related Disease Impact (ARDI) - Alcohol

So, we should increase gun control and outlaw those scary "assault weapons" because of how many people die from them and "no one needs access to these guns and there's no purpose to them."

Who needs alcohol?
Who needs tobacco?

Alcohol related deaths are 2.5x that of guns. Take out suicides and alcohol kills 6x as many people in this country as guns. Where's the outrage?

Tobacco related deaths were over 14x as many people killed by guns, 37x as many when you take out suicides. Where's the outrage?

And Jim in CT as a staunch Conservative, these socially liberal views of yours disappoint me:

There are 70-80 million adults in this country of 300 million people that own a firearm. I'm willing to bet that there are "millions and millions of people" that enjoy these types of weapons.
Gun Control

"alcohol kills 6x as many people in this country as guns"

So do cars. But cars and beer are not as inherently dangerous as firearms.

"There are 70-80 million adults in this country of 300 million people that own a firearm"

Yes. And I'm sure that a huge majority of those are handguns and hunting rifles. Not assault rifles. I include an AR-15 with a 60(?) round magazine as an 'assault rifle'.

I have no issues with handguns or hunting rifles. I'm conflicted on this, I'm not an anti-gun radical. But I have reservations about these specific weapons.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by PaulS

To the proponents, is it absoult or are you worried about a slippery slope (auto, semi auto, rifle, etc.) and how about anciliary products (cop killer bullets, mag. that can hold 100 bullets, etc.)

Thanks

To answer your question, it is an absolute.

Now, to further my point that this thread is filled with misunderstandings: what exactly is a "cop killer bullet"?

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"alcohol kills 6x as many people in this country as guns"

So do cars. But cars and beer are not as inherently dangerous as firearms.

So we're not concerned with actions that actually save the most lives, we're concerned with arbitrarily outlawing what appears most dangerous and is scariest? My point is, if we're going to start banning things on the premise of "that's dangerous and no reasonable person needs access to that" then we should ban guns, alcohol, cars that travel faster than 30 MPH, skydiving, ice skating on ponds, tobacco products, refined sugars and any number of other items and activities that cause harm.

"There are 70-80 million adults in this country of 300 million people that own a firearm"

Yes. And I'm sure that a huge majority of those are handguns and hunting rifles. Not assault rifles. I include an AR-15 with a 60(?) round magazine as an 'assault rifle'.

So now we're doing exactly as the politicians do and slapping whatever definition we want on the terms? So what's the magazine size-limit that will decrease the number of deaths and make a semi-auto AR-15 *not* an assault rifle? It takes all of 2 seconds to change out a magazine. He's a guy that changes out six 10-round magazines in under 20 seconds:


Let's also keep in mind that AR-15's are becoming a standard for modern-day hunting rifles. Their modular design allows for the flexibility of a person to buy one receiver and switch out the upper for the game being hunted. So in your "I'm sure that a huge majority of those are handguns and hunting rifles", you're right and semi-auto AR-15s should be grouped in the "hunting rifle" category. I own a mil-surplus 1943 Swiss K31. Was standard issue to all Swiss citizens during WWII. It *is* (or was rather) a military weapon. Later this year or next, I plan on using it down in FL to boar hunt with. It is bolt-action, has a 7 round magazine and an effective range of over 800 meters. Is it an assault rifle or a hunting rifle?

Some people today think that every rifle with a black synthetic stock is an "assault weapon".

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

To answer your question, it is an absolute.

Now, to further my point that this thread is filled with misunderstandings: what exactly is a "cop killer bullet"?


So we're not concerned with actions that actually save the most lives, we're concerned with arbitrarily outlawing what appears most dangerous and is scariest? My point is, if we're going to start banning things on the premise of "that's dangerous and no reasonable person needs access to that" then we should ban guns, alcohol, cars that travel faster than 30 MPH, skydiving, ice skating on ponds, tobacco products, refined sugars and any number of other items and activities that cause harm.


So now we're doing exactly as the politicians do and slapping whatever definition we want on the terms? So what's the magazine size-limit that will decrease the number of deaths and make a semi-auto AR-15 *not* an assault rifle? It takes all of 2 seconds to change out a magazine. He's a guy that changes out six 10-round magazines in under 20 seconds:


Let's also keep in mind that AR-15's are becoming a standard for modern-day hunting rifles. Their modular design allows for the flexibility of a person to buy one receiver and switch out the upper for the game being hunted. So in your "I'm sure that a huge majority of those are handguns and hunting rifles", you're right and semi-auto AR-15s should be grouped in the "hunting rifle" category. I own a mil-surplus 1943 Swiss K31. Was standard issue to all Swiss citizens during WWII. It *is* (or was rather) a military weapon. Later this year or next, I plan on using it down in FL to boar hunt with. It is bolt-action, has a 7 round magazine and an effective range of over 800 meters. Is it an assault rifle or a hunting rifle?

Some people today think that every rifle with a black synthetic stock is an "assault weapon".

"So we're not concerned with actions that actually save the most lives"

Wrong. I never said I'm not concerned with DUI laws, or laws that discourage other risky driving habits. And I agree 100% that laws banning texting while driving, and mandatory seat-belt laws, will save more lives than laws banning assault rifles.

But I don't see that we have to choose one or the other. Why can't we talk about both? Why do you assume that if I'm talking about assault rifles, that automatically means that I don't support safe driving laws?

You have an absolutely valid point that I may be over-reacting to something that looks more threatening than it actually is. That's probably my knee-jerk reaction to ths shooting.

I still feel most guys who own these weapons are trying to compensate for some other physical shortcoming.

I don't buy the slippery slope argument, either, why do we assume that things will always go to an extreme? I love grizzly bears, been to Alaska twice to see them. But I like laws that ban keeping them as pets. I'm not concerned that if the feds today tell me I can't have a grizzly bear, that tomorrow they're going to take away my golden retriever.

Johnny, a lot of the things you said would be banned next (like skydiving) are not exactly the same. If I go skydiving, I'm taking on the risk myself. The only person at risk is me, and it's my choice to go skydiving.

If my next-door neighbor buys an assault rifle, I feel like my kids are in a little bit of danger, and it wasn't any of my choosing.

Apples and oranges, no?

You have me convinced that thy hype around this argument is likely not proportional to the intended benefit. But banning assault rifles is not the same thing as banning skydiving. If the only people that got hurt with assault rifles were the people that choose to own them, I would not have started this thread. These weapons put people at risk (how much risk is debatable) who did not ask to become part of the situation.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

You have me convinced that thy hype around this argument is likely not proportional to the intended benefit. But banning assault rifles is not the same thing as banning skydiving. If the only people that got hurt with assault rifles were the people that choose to own them, I would not have started this thread. These weapons put people at risk (how much risk is debatable) who did not ask to become part of the situation.

I see two parts to this discussion, one being the slippery slope of increasing government regulation, the other being the risks we take for our freedoms.
The slippery slope is true in my opinion, the legislators say we are only going to___________ and that is what they do at that time, the next time it comes up they say the same thing not recalling that the basis was all they were going to do. Examples: Taxes, seat belts, etc.
The risks we take for our freedoms are also part of this discussion, if you want limited risk and someone to control yours and others actions there are places in the world you can live.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

You have an absolutely valid point that I may be over-reacting to something that looks more threatening than it actually is. That's probably my knee-jerk reaction to ths shooting.

Probably, but you would be the best judge, if your honest, of why you are reacting.

I still feel most guys who own these weapons are trying to compensate for some other physical shortcoming.

But you would not be the best judge on other peoples actions or reactions.

I don't buy the slippery slope argument, either, why do we assume that things will always go to an extreme? I love grizzly bears, been to Alaska twice to see them. But I like laws that ban keeping them as pets. I'm not concerned that if the feds today tell me I can't have a grizzly bear, that tomorrow they're going to take away my golden retriever.

Be concerned first, if the feds are doing what is legitimately in their power to do rather than trampling on either inalienable or constitutional rights. And if the feds legally have the right to take away your golden retriever they have the power to take most anything from you. And if you allow, as a society, the feds to deny you any right, they have power to deny you all rights. If you are going to go on feelings and knee jerk reactions rather than principles, you have abandoned principle and opened the door to your subjection to any whim of the feds.

Johnny, a lot of the things you said would be banned next (like skydiving) are not exactly the same. If I go skydiving, I'm taking on the risk myself. The only person at risk is me, and it's my choice to go skydiving.

If the feds have the power to tax your risk taking, such as not buying health insurance, they have power to tax your skydiving. They could make it expensive enough to discourage your risk taking. It's for your own, and society's good, after all. Freedom is frought with risks. It is attractive for many to give up freedoms for safety. And all you need is confidence that the fedgov knows what's best for you and will always do that best.

If my next-door neighbor buys an assault rifle, I feel like my kids are in a little bit of danger, and it wasn't any of my choosing.

Generally, when one feels his neighbor is a little, or a lot, "off," one feels like his kids are in a little bit, or more, of danger. And your neighbors "offness" is not of your choosing. You might be more concerned with your neighbor's mental stability and character than what he owns. And if you choose to remain next door to him, you might want to arm yourself, in your best way of choice, to protect your kids.

Apples and oranges, no?

Are you in a little bit of danger if he owns any other gun? Is it only the assault rifle that puts your kids in danger?

You have me convinced that thy hype around this argument is likely not proportional to the intended benefit. But banning assault rifles is not the same thing as banning skydiving. If the only people that got hurt with assault rifles were the people that choose to own them, I would not have started this thread. These weapons put people at risk (how much risk is debatable) who did not ask to become part of the situation.

Could your last sentence not apply to any gun?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Could your last sentence not apply to any gun?

Yes, it could, to a different degree. Detbuch, do you deny that assault rifles are inherently more dangerous than handguns? Assault rifles don't allow murderers to kill more people than handguns? Do we really need to have that discussion? If that's what you're saying, allow me to ask you the same thing I asked Likwid (who chose not to answer). When soldiers stormed the beaches of Normandy and Iwo Jima, how many do you think were holding their handguns, and how many do you think were holding their rifles? When my unit was attacked in Iraq, every guy under my command had a standard-issue handgun. Do you know how many of them dropped their rifles and grabbed their handguns? Exactly zero. Why do you suppose that is?

"And if you allow, as a society, the feds to deny you any right, they have power to deny you all rights."

I hear pro-gun zealots talk about the necessity of guns to keep the feds at bay. In this country, I'm not sure that passes the common-sense test. If anything, it sounds delusionally paranoid. If someone wants a gun for hunting, that's one thing. If someone thinks they need a gun to keep the 82nd Airborne off their property, I assume that's a guy who wears a tin-foil hat so that the aliens can't control his thoughts or eat his brain.

I don't want my kids to live next door to someone with an assault rifle, or any other automatic weapon. If my neighbor is disturbed, my kids are less safe, you are correct.

Detbuch, if my neighbor is deranged but un-armed, that's one thing. If my neighbor is deranged (or even simply careless, or stupid) but has an assault rifle, do you disagree that represents a different threat to my kids? Seriously?

If you want to tell me the Constitution guarantees the right to buy an assault rifle, you have a compelling case, I have read the 2nd amendment. If you're telling me that assault rifles are not capable of significantly escalating the danger of any situation, I think you are 100% wrong.

[FishermanTim]

Hey, here's a novel approach: why not ban all idiot psychos that lose their minds in some idiotic fantasy world?
Seems that the gun issue is only a secondary concern since this wacho could have easily booby trapped some other building an killed many more people if he didn't have guns.

So a crazy man got some weapons? Go after the person that supplied him with them. Apply the gun laws that already exist, and stop trying to change them to fit this one scenario.

Why didn't anyone notice this guys drastic change of personality?
If he was a "loner" that kept to himself, maybe they could request a psyche evaluation when applying for or renewing a gun permit or FID card?

Why won't the mental stability (or lack of) be considered MORE of a driving factor? Because we have become a spineless society that doesn't want to offend ANYONE, ever to the extent of our own safety!!!

Keep the guns, maybe be more aware of the type of ammo being purchased, and be MORE aware of the mental state of the person buying the weapon(s).

AS for the car comparison, I'd say that if the operator of any device, be it gun, cannon, car, bike, boat or even plane does so while willingly impaired, THEY are at fault and not the device.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Yes, it could, to a different degree. Detbuch, do you deny that assault rifles are inherently more dangerous than handguns? Assault rifles don't allow murderers to kill more people than handguns? Do we really need to have that discussion? If that's what you're saying, allow me to ask you the same thing I asked Likwid (who chose not to answer). When soldiers stormed the beaches of Normandy and Iwo Jima, how many do you think were holding their handguns, and how many do you
think were holding their rifles? When my unit was attacked in Iraq, every guy under my command had a standard-issue handgun. Do you know how many of them dropped their rifles and grabbed their handguns? Exactly zero. Why do you suppose that is?

I have not stated nor implied that assault weapons or rifles are less or as equally "dangerous" than hand guns. I have implied just the opposite in my previous two posts in this thread, especially when I asked what if all the Jews of Germany during Nazi power were armed with assault weapons and sufficient ammo? That might have led to an easier task, if necessary, when our troops stormed the beaches of Normandy.

"And if you allow, as a society, the feds to deny you any right, they have power to deny you all rights."

I hear pro-gun zealots talk about the necessity of guns to keep the feds at bay. In this country, I'm not sure that passes the common-sense test. If anything, it sounds delusionally paranoid. If someone wants a gun for hunting, that's one thing. If someone thinks they need a gun to keep the 82nd Airborne off their property, I assume that's a guy who wears a tin-foil hat so that the aliens can't control his thoughts or eat his brain.

One might then say the rebels of our revolution were delusionally paranoid. They took on the greatest military might of their time, and even half of their neighbors not only didn't support them, they openly fought them and gave aid and comfort to the British. If you assume that you have no chance from the start, much will never be accomplished. Might it be more difficult now, maybe so, but that's what the second ammendment is for, not hunting. And it surely would not be possible without a commitment to liberty and the virtue to stand up for that principle.

I don't want my kids to live next door to someone with an assault rifle, or any other automatic weapon. If my neighbor is disturbed, my kids are less safe, you are correct.

You're entitled to your personal desires, but how does that trump your neighbor's desires?

Detbuch, if my neighbor is deranged but un-armed, that's one thing. If my neighbor is deranged (or even simply careless, or stupid) but has an assault rifle, do you disagree that represents a different threat to my kids? Seriously?

Yes, that's one thing. Every thing is one thing, different than all the other one things. What is the principle behind banning things simply because they are different?

If you want to tell me the Constitution guarantees the right to buy an assault rifle, you have a compelling case, I have read the 2nd amendment. If you're telling me that assault rifles are not capable of significantly escalating the danger of any situation, I think you are 100% wrong.

I am telling you no such thing. On the contrary, if you wish to protect yourself against a tryrannical government, then you and your cohorts must have the firepower that can escalate the danger to your enemy--just as the troops who stormed the beaches of Normandy had. If you think you would be able to do that with handguns, I think you are 100% wrong.

The argument about alllowing some guns but not others because some are less dangerous is puzzling to me. If you can kill 10 or 30 people quickly, that's a no-no, but if you can only kill one or two or five in the same amount of time, that's OK.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Hollow point armour piercing.

Paul, I sincerely mean this respectfully but this response demonstrates that conclusions are made based on completely inaccurate information. Couple things, the common full metal jacket bullet has a better penetration ability than hollow-point rounds. Hollow-points are designed to flatten out and transfer the maximum amount of energy into whatever it penetrates. However, from what I understand, this design to "flatten" also makes hollow-points *less* effective than common full metal jacket rounds at piercing bullet-proof vests.

"Hollow point armor piercing" is a load of hogwash created through propaganda and holds no actual credibility.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"So we're not concerned with actions that actually save the most lives"

Wrong. I never said I'm not concerned with DUI laws, or laws that discourage other risky driving habits. And I agree 100% that laws banning texting while driving, and mandatory seat-belt laws, will save more lives than laws banning assault rifles.

But I don't see that we have to choose one or the other. Why can't we talk about both? Why do you assume that if I'm talking about assault rifles, that automatically means that I don't support safe driving laws?

I think you're misunderstanding my point. It's not a slippery slope argument or either-or argument. What I'm saying is that on the premise of outlawing things based on their danger and a lack of perceived "need", then the same people that thinks a 60rd magazine should be banned because no one "needs" them should also support making alcohol illegal.

My point comes down to a lack of priorities. People keep saying, "we need to outlaw these guns because they kill people." Then I say we should outlaw alcohol because it kills people, causes addition and is frequently a factor in sexual assaults.

You have an absolutely valid point that I may be over-reacting to something that looks more threatening than it actually is. That's probably my knee-jerk reaction to ths shooting.

I still feel most guys who own these weapons are trying to compensate for some other physical shortcoming.

I don't buy the slippery slope argument, either, why do we assume that things will always go to an extreme? I love grizzly bears, been to Alaska twice to see them. But I like laws that ban keeping them as pets. I'm not concerned that if the feds today tell me I can't have a grizzly bear, that tomorrow they're going to take away my golden retriever.

Johnny, a lot of the things you said would be banned next (like skydiving) are not exactly the same. If I go skydiving, I'm taking on the risk myself. The only person at risk is me, and it's my choice to go skydiving.

Just to reemphasize the above, I'm not trying to make a slippery slope argument. I'm not saying that if we let big brother outlaw specific guns, that any at-risk activities will be banned. My argument is based more on the premise of how people are justifying the reasons arbitrary aspects to firearms should be banned.

You have me convinced that thy hype around this argument is likely not proportional to the intended benefit. But banning assault rifles is not the same thing as banning skydiving. If the only people that got hurt with assault rifles were the people that choose to own them, I would not have started this thread. These weapons put people at risk (how much risk is debatable) who did not ask to become part of the situation.

You've mentioned a few times that you're conflicted about the whole situation and I think it's because there's an emotional and rational response that are in conflict. Emotionally, you think "these things are bad and people shouldn't have access to them." Rationally, you think "do we really want the government imposing more restrictions on the American public? and if they do, would those restrictions even be effective?" Or I'm completely off-base

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Now, to further my point that this thread is filled with misunderstandings: what exactly is a "cop killer bullet"?

Hollow point armour piercing.