Does the average civilian require a firearm that has a rate of fire of hundreds of rounds per minute? All the practical uses of guns (e.G. Hunting) can be done with shotguns and pistols. What's the point of using an assault rifle to shoot a deer or use in target practice?
Assault weapons just give people w/ bad intentions a chance to bring down innocent people, and why do we need assault weapons, when we can use other types of guns for hunting and self defense, so we should ban assault weapons, so that innocent people don't get killed by assault weapons!
The term assault weapon is vague and controversial. Instead
of trying to ban so-called assault weapons, activists should concentrate on
restricting the use of specific types of weapons, starting with guns everyone
can agree are useless for hunting or personal protection. For example, a
semi-automatic weapon with a detachable magazine and a flash suppressor has
enormous killing power, reloads quickly, and is hard to shoot back at. By
restricting their opposition to especially lethal weapons, those working to get
rid of dangerous guns might at last achieve a degree of success.
General access to these weapons is asking for trouble. The army and some private enterprises should and need to access to these weapons. With people screened and taught how to use them and why they are using them. People should only have access to Assault weapons while they are professionally associated with these regulated and approved organisations. Once they are retired or disassociated their access should be denied.
Assault weapons should be outlawed, at least they should only be allowed in military or police operations. There is no reason why any ordinary person would need to possess a firearm that can kill mass amounts of people at one time, unless they intended to harm others or commit a robbery.
Assault weapons should definitely be outlawed in this country. Outside of the military and the police using them, there is no reason for people to have them. Assault Weapons cause thousands of deaths a year and have severe consequences. There should be a rule on who can and cannot have them.
I do not see what purpose an assault weapon serves for a law abiding citizen. The word "assault" implies harm. The only people who need to be armed with any kind of assault weapon are military service members, while in battle during war, and police officers. I do not buy the argument that the right to bear arms should include any kind of gun you can think of. Are you really going to kill a deer or go to target practice with an assault weapon?
No I do not believe that assault weapons should be outlawed. People from other countries own assault weapons and I would not feel comfortable that they could kill me at anytime with us being allowed to own a weapon of equal strength. Also there are people who already have assault weapons and inevitable those will go on the black market and be tracked less if outlawed.
They make up less than 2% of gun homicides, the 2 worst mass shootings in the entire WORLD were not committed by them (which dismisses the argument that they have the ability to kill more people) and in the past TEN YEARS, less than 70 people have been killed by "assault weapons" in mass shootings? It just makes no sense. Not to mention, 90% of law enforcement officers say they do NOT support a ban on them and an "assault weapons" ban would have NO POSITIVE EFFECT.
AR 15s are sporting/home defense rifles. Nothing special about them. Tell me something. Why should "assault weapons" be banned if less than 300 people are killed a year by them (75% being criminals since most murder victims are criminals) but alcohol shouldn't be banned when 10,000 people are killed a year by drunk drivers?
The anti-gunners have argued that no one "needs" an "Assault Weapon" and they can certainly make that argument. However do not delude yourself into thinking banning these weapons will have any meaningful impact on crime or the murder rate. According to FBI statistics, in 2012 6,371 people were murdered with handguns, 1,589 with knives or "cutting instrument", 518 with blunt instruments, and 678 with "personal weapons" i.e. hands, fists, and feet. So you have 6,371 killed with handguns and 2,875 killed in some type of melee attack where you have 322 people killed with rifles. That includes all rifles including bolt action rifles, "Assault weapons" and other semi-automatic rifles not classed as "Assault weapons". Under these circumstances, do not delude yourself into thinking banning assault weapons will have any meaningful impact on crime.
In the case U.S. vs. Miller, who had a sawed off shotgun with a barrel less than 18-inches long today had no reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia. AR-15''s and such rifles absolutely do. So therefore the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects citizens' rights to own a rifle that is suitable for militia purposes.
The problem with banning "assault weapons" is that the definition can be adjusted to mean pretty much any weapon. Currently proposed, and previously enacted, assault weapons bans loosely defined the weapons based on seeming arbitrary physical characteristics that have more to do with a weapons appearance than with its functionality. Most people that support these bans mistakenly think that they are supporting banning automatic assault rifles such as the ones used by the military. This is not the case, as those weapons are already banned from public ownership and sale, and these weapons are not the targets of new "assault weapons" bans. Rather, these bans single out things such as a bayonet mount, the type of grip, and other physical characteristics that do not make the weapons any more effective at killing people than the average hunting rifle.
These are bans that have not, and will not, reduce the number of violent crimes or the effectiveness of killers, and for that reason they should not be implemented.