In view of the recent Aurora massacre that killed a dozen people and wounded nearly 60, the suspect used an assault weapon and other deadly ones. He bought all the weapons in the past month or so. Assault weapons are used by people who are assigned for general security of the people. Should an individual be allowed to buy an assault weapon knowing that it can be used to kill in successive and fastest ways?
sort by best latest
js KNOWS that the Oct. '09 issue of Outdoor Life, the premier magazine of hunting/fishing, prominently featured an AR rifle on it's front cover, and declared it one of the top ten deer hunting rifles of the year. Ask yourself... why does he lie?
A high-end platform performing mundane tasks well, does not mean a mundane platform performs well at high-end tasks. That's a logical fallacy. I have no reason to be deceptive. Anyone with eyes can see the differences for themselves.
junk obviously believes that he knows better about what makes a top hunting gun over the experts at Outdoor Life. So be it. Leading a horse to the truth isn't going to make him believe it. And he wants a "reasonable" debate?
You don't think the people at Outdoor life had political aim for that? I have already said they should be legal but the AR 15 is not a hunting rifle, it's the civilian version of the US M16 combat rifle, it's made to kill people, we both know that.
Who gives a crap about top hunting guns. What we are talking about are TOP TACTICAL GUNS of which the AR-15 is one. It is a great hunting gun BECAUSE it is a great weapon period. I think your Outdoor Life mag is the closest you've ever been to a gun.
Yes, Josak, the Outdoor Life mag is nothing but a political rag. :0 And junk is the one who's been claiming all along that the AR platform is not good for hunting. Good to see that he's come around and now believes that it is.
Jack, you really are dense. Please point out the spot where I said it wasn't good for hunting. I have said it wasn't designed for it. I have said it is a good tactical rifle. That's all. Stop making shit up.
As the question of hunting is raised, I would like to ask , where is the sport in killing an animal with an assault rifle. If a hunter is skilled in tracking and killing, an ordinary rifle or a crossbow would suffice.
junko,, you stated people "pretend" it is a hunting rifle. Blond, check out my hub on Evil Black Rifles and you'll find your answer in great detail. Go ahead, it only takes five minutes to read.
Pretend it is "just like any other hunting rifle" is what I said. Not, "pretend it is a hunting rifle". Those are distinctly different statements.
Fires same caliber as hunting rifle - check. First 1 bullet at a time as hunting rifle -- check. Used as hunting rifle - check. Excellent "pretense" going on there. Smells like a duck, walks and quacks like a duck... well, we all know the rest.
All weapons could be evaluated for their tactical capacities (e.g. weight, ROF, ammo cap, accuracy, maneuverability, accessories, etc.) Of legal guns, the AR-15 would rate near the top. Do you disagree? I really don't care what we call it.
Sure it's the top... which is rather pointless. When the lever action was invented for the Civil War it was the top also. The war rifle Mauser bolt action was the top 50 years later. Both became premier, traditional hunting rifles.Same with the AR
Most people seem to agree with placing restrictions on highly capable weapons such as machine guns. I don't find it pointless or unreasonable to at least consider shifting that line to include other very capable weapons.
We can argue about this as much as we like, but it doesn't change what happened. As I wrote in my hub about the criminal mind, taking away the gun only takes away one tool while leaving the criminal free to find another tool.
It will never work.
So, who cares what tools they use? By that logic, let's sell rocket launchers, Sarin gas, and Dynamite to anyone who has a hankering for such stuff. It is difficult, so let's no try is an unacceptable argument to me.
How about motive, when one purchase assault weapon - the main purpose is to use for assault. Thanks for commenting.
By your own definition, Alex, all weapons should be classified as assault weapons, even knifes and clubs. All weapons are created to do harm, that is their purpose. There is a difference between using a weapon to kill game and using it to kill a man.
We can't police motive. At that point we are getting into the "thought police" mode.
I'd edit that definition to read, "Assault Rifle (n.): a photogenically evil-looking, black rifle demagogging politicians can use as a cheap prop to help fool the voters into thinking they actually are trying to 'do something.'"
My father own one of those and as such living during those times when I was a kid, that put our lives in danger. We had problems about peace in the area! It doesn't make sense when weapon should protect lives and yet it is also used to kill as many.
There are some weapons which can kill as many as it can with rapid firing??
1 answer hidden due to negative feedback. Show
1 answer hidden due to negative feedback. Hide