yeah, cept for the 2 people who he killed.
ok, if you want to pull that (lame) rationale, how about we actually make it so they make it difficult for people to get guns that aren't necessary?
as in, why the fuck would someone who is sane and normal, buy a semi automatic gun?
Be a gun owner, fine. But seriously, what do you need a semi automatic gun for? Because that deer just needs an extra 20 holes?
But you're arguing against assault rifles, and in this case you could just as easily kill two or three people with any other gun. I'm just saying, in this case the gun jammed because it was a magazine fed semi-automatic rifle. He had no idea how to clear the weapon and ended up doing much less damage than he could have.
Semi-automatic covers a wide field of weapons. Most handguns are semi-auto. Some shotguns are semi-auto. It just means that the gun reloads itself. You don't have to physically rack the bolt every time you want to reload. Many hunting rifles are semi-auto, and I'm not talking about AR-15s.
I believe you are talking mostly about guns that have the ability to hold high capacity magazines. ARs, AKs, etc. The thing is, the only reason why those guns have a certain stigma is because they replicate the look of weapons that are used by the military. There are plenty of guns that are just as bad and actually more dangerous but look like your average, everyday, run of the mill hunting rifle.
I have a Remington 30-06 hunting rifle. It was my grandfathers. The gun is over 60 years old.
The bullets are significantly more expensive and cause much more damage to flesh than a .223 round that an AR15 uses. Most AR15 rounds are not hollowpoint, so they would go straight through whatever they make contact with. Most 30-06 rounds are hollow points, which means they shred whatever they come in contact with.
So my point is, you are saying that "assault rifles" should be banned, but which would you rather be shot with?
