I don't really like this term but since it stuck its what we have to work with. Recently there have been posts about crime statistics involving "assault weapons" leading more cries for them to be banned (by antis). I am not really on the fence about this one but have seen reports of drive by shooting using this type of fire arm. Note that they are very rare compared to hand guns. Also note that they are not used much outside of drive-by because they are not concealable.
The given defence for the continued possession of these rifles has been kind of absurd. People insisting that they have a legitimate use for hunting. This argument is bogus and should not be the focus for the debate. The real argument should be that they DO HAVE a legitimate use. Its just not one most people deal with. They are the best weapon you can have after a disaster where there are roaming gangs. For one they are intimidating and highly visible. So when you use them as such, the BG get the picture vary quickly. Besides the intimidation effect they have more rounds typically then a handgun and more accuracy and more stopping power.
Because the media love to confuse them with machine guns the public gets really upset. The best thing to do is explain that they are to different animals. The latter takes a special permit with an even bigger background check and a hefty tax.
I don't personally think Machine guns are for everyone but if you have the money and the inclination you should not be stopped from the hobby(also very expensive). Besides they really are fun to rent on the range. As for the use during a SHTF scenario full auto might be a liability. Considering that we are not in a war zone (lots of friends around) even during an emergency. Besides if the situation is really bad we need to conserve ammo and check shot placement. Also note that we probably won't have the military to resupply us.
I guess what I'm really trying to say is that machine guns and assault weapon have there place they also fit into the upper part of a need/use triangle. Kind of like a pickup truck vs. a lamborghini. these are just my thoughts as I was thinking of the arguments about weapons of mass destruction(small arms misrepresentation). Example: a missile and a hand grenade would be classifiable as WMD because they are indiscriminate and can kill many people with one use. Semi-autos are not WMD because you can only shoot one bullet per trigger pull and it is very discriminating. Machine guns would fit a grey area.
I'm not trying to imply that these things need never be possessed. I think they they are an very specialty items that wold not fit in to our normal arguments.
The given defence for the continued possession of these rifles has been kind of absurd. People insisting that they have a legitimate use for hunting. This argument is bogus and should not be the focus for the debate. The real argument should be that they DO HAVE a legitimate use. Its just not one most people deal with. They are the best weapon you can have after a disaster where there are roaming gangs. For one they are intimidating and highly visible. So when you use them as such, the BG get the picture vary quickly. Besides the intimidation effect they have more rounds typically then a handgun and more accuracy and more stopping power.
Because the media love to confuse them with machine guns the public gets really upset. The best thing to do is explain that they are to different animals. The latter takes a special permit with an even bigger background check and a hefty tax.
I don't personally think Machine guns are for everyone but if you have the money and the inclination you should not be stopped from the hobby(also very expensive). Besides they really are fun to rent on the range. As for the use during a SHTF scenario full auto might be a liability. Considering that we are not in a war zone (lots of friends around) even during an emergency. Besides if the situation is really bad we need to conserve ammo and check shot placement. Also note that we probably won't have the military to resupply us.
I guess what I'm really trying to say is that machine guns and assault weapon have there place they also fit into the upper part of a need/use triangle. Kind of like a pickup truck vs. a lamborghini. these are just my thoughts as I was thinking of the arguments about weapons of mass destruction(small arms misrepresentation). Example: a missile and a hand grenade would be classifiable as WMD because they are indiscriminate and can kill many people with one use. Semi-autos are not WMD because you can only shoot one bullet per trigger pull and it is very discriminating. Machine guns would fit a grey area.
I'm not trying to imply that these things need never be possessed. I think they they are an very specialty items that wold not fit in to our normal arguments.