27 dead at Connecticut school, including 14 kids

[JimC]

Handguns are effective for home defence and so have a defensible use. Assault weapons (gun nutters really hate it when you call them that ), however, do not. They are not suitable for home defence, they are not suitable for hunting (the .223 is not high powered enough for hunting anything bigger than coyotes), they have no defensible purpose in the hands of civilians.

Well, I hope Obama at least manages to get them banned. It would be something...

[Svartalf]

Except that civilians are supposed to be able to resist tyranny, and that implies having access to the same equipment the military does. THAT is the intent of the 2nd A.

[Jason]

As KLR wrote earlier, that interpretation of the 2nd amendment logically allows for the personal procurement of advanced anti-tank weapons (Javelin missile launchers anyone?), anti-aircraft weapons, anti-materiel weapons, explosive ordnance of all kinds, armoured fighting vehicles of every sort, fightercraft, bombers, .. it goes on.

As that clearly is not the case currently in the United States, the supposed 'intent' of the 2nd amendment is either interpreted quite differently by the supreme court or the 2nd amendment is dismissed as an anachronism and the only thing considered is the right to own firearms deemed acceptable for civilian possession.

[JimC]

Except that civilians are supposed to be able to resist tyranny, and that implies having access to the same equipment the military does. THAT is the intent of the 2nd A.

And as most people have said, it is an absurd anachronism, used as a political crutch by folk who want to selfishly enjoy owning any gun they like, and fuck any thought of communal responsibility...

[klr]

As KLR wrote earlier, that interpretation of the 2nd amendment logically allows for the personal procurement of advanced anti-tank weapons (Javelin missile launchers anyone?), anti-aircraft weapons, anti-materiel weapons, explosive ordinance of all kinds, armoured fighting vehicles of every sort, fightercraft, bombers, .. it goes on.

Except that civilians are supposed to be able to resist tyranny, and that implies having access to the same equipment the military does. THAT is the intent of the 2nd A.

And as most people have said, it is an absurd anachronism, used as a political crutch by folk who want to selfishly enjoy owning any gun they like, and fuck any thought of communal responsibility...

It also dates back to a time when - apart from force of numbers and rigid organization - there was very little that the professional military had that the common man couldn't have in the way of weaponry. Don't forget, it was before the days of the industrial revolution, never mind machine guns, mechanized warfare, aerial warfare, and so on. Back then, men could and often did switch between being civilians and being soldiers/militia, often (literally) at the drop of a hat.

[Blind groper]

Faku

Military style weapons are not the big problem. It is not often I agree with Seth, but he was right in saying that. Few murders are done with military style weapons. The biggest problem, by far, is hand guns. They are the weapons used in most murders and also most suicides. It is hand guns in the hands of non police that need to be eliminated. How to do that, of course, is the subject for major debate.

As for them being effective for home defense......
Bear in mind that very, very few illegal intruders are ever shot with hand guns*. However, thousands of people are murdered or commit suicide with hand guns each year in the home. The idea that you make yourself and your family safer by having a hand gun at home is pure fallacy. Statistically, that gun increases the risk of death to a family member many fold. As I pointed out earlier, 87% of all gun deaths in the home are suicide. Most of the rest are murders using the gun owned by one of the people living there.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1308093

* Of those that are shot by a home owner, it is highly debatable about how many needed to be shot. Such killings will be 'explained away' as self defense whenever possible, whether it was a necessarily self defense act or not.

[Jason]

Faku

Military style weapons are not the big problem.

That's right. Only the latest two mass murderers have used them, one at a theatre and the other at an elementary school. They're only high-capacity weapons designed with one single purpose: killing people in an assault situation. But they're not a big problem. Nope.

[mozg]

Handguns are effective for home defence and so have a defensible use. Assault weapons (gun nutters really hate it when you call them that ), however, do not. They are not suitable for home defence, they are not suitable for hunting (the .223 is not high powered enough for hunting anything bigger than coyotes), they have no defensible purpose in the hands of civilians.

Define 'assault weapon' without referring to any feature that is purely cosmetic or has no effect on caliber, rate of fire, or ballistics.

As for hunting, .223/5.56 makes an excellent varmint gun, and is suitable for hunting such animals as groundhog, prairie dog, coyote, wolf, and lots of other small game. Why would you assume that it needs to be suitable for game larger than coyotes in order to be a 'valid' hunting caliber?

This is considered to be a relatively popular prairie dog hunting rifle:



Has exactly the same functionality as the scary looking black rifle that you're calling an 'assault weapon'.

[Tero]

Plus it puts them out of their misery faster, since they are going to be killed anyway by the well planned mass murderer. He would spend minutes with two handguns shooting 18 rounds each.

[Svartalf]

How many assault rifle owners turn their gun on the innocent?
The tool isn't the problem. Punishing the majority for the sins of an isolated loon would be a problem.

[FBM]

I used to hunt with an assault rifle, and I knew people who would hunt whitetail with a .223, though not a Bushmaster. Anyway, I would support an assault weapons ban in the current climate. They're not a superior hunting weapon and regular hunting rifles are available to hunters. They're redundant.

[Jason]

As for hunting, .223/5.56 makes an excellent varmint gun, and is suitable for hunting such animals as groundhog, prairie dog, coyote, wolf, and lots of other small game.

That's not hunting. That's shooting animals for sport. Unless you eat groundhogs? Even if you do, the .22WMR or .17HMR are just as effective, in the case of the .17HMR far more effective (and popular), for varmint shooting. Coyotes and Wolves are best handled with a .30 caliber rifle that will put them down quickly and painlessly. A .223 won't cut it.

[Jason]

Has exactly the same functionality as the scary looking black rifle that you're calling an 'assault weapon'.

You know nothing about firearms if you wrote that in earnest.

[FBM]

The average whitetail deer is often smaller than the hunter. If a .223 can kill a human, it can kill a deer.

Edit: Or did I mean that the other way 'round?

[Tero]

How many assault rifle owners turn their gun on the innocent?
The tool isn't the problem. Punishing the majority for the sins of an isolated loon would be a problem.

Except there is no legal/practical use for the assault weapon. How many owners protected their home against an army of looters, immigrants, gangs, in 2012?