5.4 average deaths in mass shootings compared to 8.3 when an assault weapon was used. Statistics don't lie, in practice and crime assault weapons are more lethal. Besides your cosmetic arguments about how specific pieces of the gun were banned, though true, is relevant to gun control. These parts (take for instance the pistol grip), are made for shoot from the hip type firing, not scope or from the shoulder. The intent for this type of grip is to allow quick shots of mass ammunition into a target. As is the case, I cannot think of a single case of self defense where such an action would be necessary. -Citation: Washington Post, and Police Chief Joseph Polisar.
I say that not because other weapons are not dangerous, but assault weapons were designed for war. They were improved upon for maximum casualties. Hunting weapons were designed to give sport to food and hide gathering, but assault weapons would leave nothing of the animal for food or sport. Long gone, are the day of the crazy man running around with an axe or 6 shooter. Now they have the might of an army soldier to unleash on the unfortunate people in their path.
Assault weapons are use by the military. Should only be used by the military. Why on earth does the general public need to access to these weapons? How is justifiable that people can own commercial businesses that provide access to combat weapons to the general public for commercial gain? How is this even seen as a democratic right? Just plain crazy talk. All guns are potentially lethal. The argument that it is people that kill not guns does not make sense. If you do not put in place litigation that prevents likely nutters to have access to these weapons you justify the right of gun nutters to commit massacres pure and simple. You want to put an end to this trend put an end to universal gun access.
Assault rifles are not dangerous. The people using guns are dangerous. An assault rifle by itself, without anyone using it or holding it, is not dangerous. It would only become dangerous if some one was using it or holding it. Without a round in the chamber or ammo in the magazine, it is not loaded, and it's not dangerous. It's just a piece of metal.
First of all assault rifle are banned in the United states because according to the governemnt an assault rifle is a selective fire (semi AND automatic fire) detachable box magazine fed rifle shooting bullets between rifle and pistol ammunition. And to answer the question yes semi and automatic weapons are dangerous however when it comes to attacks it truly depends on the situation. Certain areas and plans require different weapons systems. At the end of the day all fire arms are dangerous and no weapon is truly more dangerous than another. There ar emote effective weapons than others and that again depends on the situation it is placed in. Pistols are more effective in buildings and tight spaces, rifles are good for long range and assault rifles are best for situations where there are more than one target.
People are dangerous, not inanimate objects. The people who blame guns are afraid of admitting that they share the same human nature as those who kill. And if humans actually believed inanimate objects can be dangerous, then where are all the people screaming for the banning of cars? BTW, cars kill at least 200 times as many people as "assault rifles".
A bullet is a bullet, a powder is a powder. Every NATO cartridge has a civilian variant, for example 5,56 NATO has .223 remington. Those cartridges are the ones fired from semiautomatic rifles originally developed by the military, which is the majority of hunting self loading rifles. But how does that make them more dangerous? Fully automatic capability is the only thing, and that is disabled for all civilian weapons since the mid eighties and the type of ammunition used- rather than using, say, NATO standard 5,56x45, civilian accessible ammunition is .223, a round designed for hunting with similiar dimensions. So what else is left? All guns work the same. A primer is hit, ignites the powder and propels a bullet. There is not really quite a way to make the process anymore harmful by the origin of the firearm's design- to make myself clear, it's the same as insinuating that a car engine will be more powerful if you make the engine block out of steel instead of aluminium.
Are self loading (a.K.A. Semiautomatic) weapons potentially lethal? Yes, they are to be usable for hutning. But that doesn't make them anymore dangerous than self loading firearms that were designed for hunting from the start.
A pistol grip, a forward vertical grip, a bayonet mounting lug, a flash hider, a detachable box magazine. None of these make these anymore dangerous or lethal and if I need to explain that then you don't belong in this discussion. Go answer a question you may know something about.
I am an avid gun enthusiast and hunter. I own several firearms of various types makes and models. I can tell you from personal and military experience that my hunting rifle is far more deadly than my AR-15 with 1 exception. The 30 round magazine in my AR-15. Although I love going out and shooting and the high capacity magazine makes this more fun, it is also what makes my "assault rife" more dangerous. As a staunch 2nd amendment supporter I would actually support laws against high capacity magazines. Just don't judge my rifle by the way it looks.
For the people citing statistics, please cite your sources, otherwise you do not sound credible...
For the people who say a pistol grip is to fire from the waist have obviously never fired a gun before, you can hip fire regular guns too but that's ok since they are not scary black murder weapons of mass destruction. And the person who said that assault rifles leave nothing of the animal left, then tell me why it fires the same ammunition as regular rifles? A semi automatic rifle is a semi automatic rifle no matter how it looks. And if you know in the slightest anything about firearms, then tell me how a .22lr caliber AR15 is any more dangerous than a Marlin .22? Because one looks modern and one is made of wood but they fire exactly the same! I'm a liberal democrat who makes a 4.0 in school majoring in physics, and I believe assault rifles are no more dangerous than a "regular" rifle. I plan on buying a Beretta ARX before some jerk tells me I'm not responsible enough to own a scary rifle... And no, I don't plan on using it for violence because somehow according to my fellow democrats, mere possession turns you into a monster gun nut -_-
To begin the discussion we must first define what is an assault weapon. Assault weapon is a nebulous term, the law covering assault weapons typically bases the definition off of cosmetic features, however the legal definition is both over broad and over narrow. To cut a long debate over what is an assault weapon short an assault weapon is a semiautomatic rifle that fires smaller rounds than a traditional rifle. Now it is also important to point out the difference between an assault weapon and an assault rifle (used by the military). An assault rifle has a select fire option allowing it to be fired in semiautomatic or full(or burst mode). An assault weapon can only be fired in semiautomatic ( one trigger pull per round fired).
The assault weapon packs less power than a hunting rifle and has less cncealability than a handgun. Making the assault weapon less dangerous than either a handgun or a rifle.
Hunting rifles are designed to make accurate clean and quick kills, Assault weapons are for efficiently taking out larger groups of people. So that is why I believe that assault style weapons are less dangerous rather than a hunting rifle designed to kill with high power and accuracy. Case closed.
Most people that I see talking about "Assault Weapons" think that they are talking about "Assault Rifles," the AK 47s and M16s that are familiar as military weapons. These fully automatic weapons are already banned, and current ban proposals are for arbitrary features like a bayonet mount or folding stock that will make no difference in the lethality of a weapon. Sure, the guns will look less dangerous, but they are not going to actually be less dangerous. An "assault weapon" that looks like an M16 (aka a bushmaster) is not more deadly or accurate than your standard hunting rifle, so why should it be banned while the hunting rifle is still legal? Banning features deemed to make something an "assault weapon" will have no impact on the actual crime rate, as statistics from the 1994 assault weapons ban show. Yes, the number of "assault weapons" used in crimes will decrease, but the number of successful crimes will stay the same, which proves the point of people that are against arbitrary laws that make no functional difference.
The term assault weapon is a made up term. It has no real definition, and that's why the gun control advocates have such a hard time. You're trying to ban something that isn't real, so there will always be loopholes. What you deem as an assault weapon is no more than a hunting rifle that has been ergonomically improved. A pistol grip? Easier on your wrist for aimed fire, but worse for hipfire. A bayonet lug? Can't even remember a time when a mass shooter used a bayonet. Barrel shroud? Basically a heat shield so I don't burn myself on a hot barrel. A telescoping or folding stock? Allows for easy transport, and adjustability while using. Doesn't make it more concealable. A flash suppressor? Just stops the rifle from damaging your night vision. Nowhere did anything I say make it a more powerful firearm. So, you gun control advocates are against me transporting my weapon more easily, against my night vision, against me protecting myself from burns, against me from using it without damaging my wrist over time. You need to urge your leaders to figure out how to stop the want to commit violence. All the energy they are putting into this could do so much properly channeled.