Originally Posted by
Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/2970940
You obviously aren't paying attention.
First off, you can't stick an assault rifle in your back pocket either.
2. A cannon had the capacity to kill how many people in one shot? Equivalent to one magazine of any assault rifle.
3. You keep saying it will reduce crime. Yet the criminal element does not purchase guns legally, and they don't go to a gun show to do it either. It is done on the black market or in alleyways. assault weapons account for 2% at the max of gun crimes in this nation. So you are going to cut a market 20% to MAYBE give your self a 2% drop in gun crimes? wait a minute, the criminals will still have and purchase assault rifles however. This doesn't say turn in the guns it prevents the sale of them. Therefore the assault guns in the criminal market will still be available. The criminals in possession of them will still be there. and the kid that wants to shoot up a school with a gun will just grab a different gun or get one off the street.
During the assault rifle ban, on three separate occasion I had the opportunity to still purchase an assault rifle off the street, (I used to be less than stellar citizen when I was younger) Had I wanted the gun for criminal purposes I could have still got it.
Like I said, what is the concrete valid reason for banning the gun.
Would you be ok with the Corvette or Viper automobile getting banned because 1-2% of high speed crashes involve these vehicles when mixed with alcohol.
Drunk Driving kills more people each year that guns do....yet I don't hear a call for prohibition back. Alcohol has one purpose now days, to get drunk.
What's a valid reason for not banning them? I get tired of the "It's my right and I'll have one if I want one" rhetoric. I'll ask you, what is the logical reason for a normal citizen to own a weapon like an Uzi, TEC-9, or other compact semi-auto weapon? Please don't give me the 'target practice' response, or how it's the perfect weapon for home security. We both know that's a crock. Like I said, those style of weapons were created for the sole purpose to be used in military combat.
You keep bringing up the Vette analogy. Gun advocates will use these type of comparisons to justify their arguments. The problem is, someone driving a car fast, or under the influence, does not knowingly have the intent of harming someone with that device. Someone walking around with a semi-auto weapon that's designed for the purpose of nothing more than killing someone, does. How many bank robberies have you seen someone use a Vette for a weapon? Guess you could do a Drive-thru instead of a drive-by with one.
