Yet another shooting.

Post Reply New Topic

"Assault weapon" is a political term, and the notion that you assault people with it is propaganda aimed at very simple minds that was repeated until many no longer questioned it. There is no special feature that can define them, and there isn't a single design that can't be used for hunting, recreation, or personal defense. Instead, it is assumed that if you have enough [largely] cosmetic features from a list on a gun, that somehow that makes it bad. For example: in California, the legislature banned (but did not confiscate) the AR-15 a long time ago. But after a court battle that created a loophole, there are now dozens of parts and different configurations that can make the AR-15 legal to buy, build, and own here again and the legislature is having trouble figuring out how to ban this since these ARs do the same thing as the rifles that were never banned. The bullets are the same too-all bullets "assault weapons" shoot are useable in any type of rifle and the bullet designs available for them are found in almost all other rifle calibers. The bullets most designs shoot are significantly less powerful than the most common deer hunting calibers (but still can be used either for deer or smaller game), and in many cases will even break up in home walls easier than most handgun bullets.

Oh, and some of those "weak" handguns are more powerful than "assault" rifles.

It's the fact that every time there's a shooting the cry goes out for more gun control. And I for one am not interested in what the antis think of me.

what hand gun is more powerfull than a AR15 in 5.6 Nato.

i had venison in a balslmic vinagerette sauce for dinner and i am a reloader and killed this deer with ammo i made,so dont talk to me like im stupid.

I disagree with the pro-lobby ignoring personal liberty, and I stay with the personal liberty argument as I am simply a collector that shoots paper. However, you do have the right to self-defense against any threat. As for hunting, I have no desire to kill anything that is not trying to kill me.

I agree, you do have the right to self-defense against any threat. If you are in immediate danger of deadly force being used against you, you can pre-empt that with deadly force of your own. I've got no problem with that.

On the other hand, if you aren't in any immediate danger but wish to prepare yourself against some threat that might materialize in the future, I think that there must be some sort of reasonable belief that there's a likelihood that such a threat might actually materialize.

Also, while I believe in proportionate use of force, at some point there's no point going beyond "mere" deadly force. Do you need to "outgun" someone when your gun can kill them just as easily as their gun can kill you?

So I'm not sure why people seem to feel the need to equip themselves with machine guns and other forms of extreme heavy weaponry. Especially when, if we actually had real gun control laws, it would reduce the likelihood of all these perceived threats.