are so called assault weapons more deadly

I bring this up because i hear over and over about ar-15s and aks being superior killing machines, with no purpose but to mow people down. It really sickens me the dishonesty or severe lack of knowledge from too many on the subject.

What people call assault weapons is a made up term, assault rifles are medium range, medium ammo, medium size to carbine size, and semi auto with select fire. What people dub assault weapons are the same without selective fire, which the military barely uses because it was shown to be a waste of ammo vs one well placed shot. Outside selective fire i can not see a difference, Heck i can not see a difference between them and civilian style weapons other than cosmetics.


An ar15 and a ruger mini14 both fire just as fast as the trigger is pulled, fire the same ammo, and have similiar accuracy. The ar-15 itself with a ring sight is very accurate if it is zeroed properly, but if not it is extremely difficult to shoot vs a firearm with a dovetail sight. The ar 15 has no noticeable feature that make it any more deadly than a semi auto porting rifle, heck people will whine about large capacity magazines, but they are a convenience, anyone who understands their weapon can reload with little interuption.


The ar15 ak47 etc technically all assault rifles and non selective fire variants, do not have superior killing power, infact they lose in any given area against specalized weapons. They were designed to be a jack of all trades, and master of none, which beneffitted the military by only needing one rifle per soldier to handle multiple situations, rather than issuing 3-4 weapons per soldier plus all the ammo to go with it. It can be easy to see why civilians want that, one rifle that when properly trained on can be used for close quarters self defense, medium range and long range hunting, and most shooting styles inbetween.

[fallacy]But guns are dangerous, so they should be illegal. Then criminals won't buy them.[/fallacy]

beerftw said:

I bring this up because i hear over and over about ar-15s and aks being superior killing machines, with no purpose but to mow people down. It really sickens me the dishonesty or severe lack of knowledge from too many on the subject.

What people call assault weapons is a made up term, assault rifles are medium range, medium ammo, medium size to carbine size, and semi auto with select fire. What people dub assault weapons are the same without selective fire, which the military barely uses because it was shown to be a waste of ammo vs one well placed shot. Outside selective fire i can not see a difference, Heck i can not see a difference between them and civilian style weapons other than cosmetics.


An ar15 and a ruger mini14 both fire just as fast as the trigger is pulled, fire the same ammo, and have similiar accuracy. The ar-15 itself with a ring sight is very accurate if it is zeroed properly, but if not it is extremely difficult to shoot vs a firearm with a dovetail sight. The ar 15 has no noticeable feature that make it any more deadly than a semi auto porting rifle, heck people will whine about large capacity magazines, but they are a convenience, anyone who understands their weapon can reload with little interuption.


The ar15 ak47 etc technically all assault rifles and non selective fire variants, do not have superior killing power, infact they lose in any given area against specalized weapons. They were designed to be a jack of all trades, and master of none, which beneffitted the military by only needing one rifle per soldier to handle multiple situations, rather than issuing 3-4 weapons per soldier plus all the ammo to go with it. It can be easy to see why civilians want that, one rifle that when properly trained on can be used for close quarters self defense, medium range and long range hunting, and most shooting styles inbetween.

Click to expand...

Wanna keep those particular styles of rifles legal? I have zero problem with that..as long as all firearms are registered. If they were registered, we'd know already who gave the rifles to that man and woman in San Bernadino. We'd also know who are among those who are smuggling a quarter million firearms to Mexico each year. We'd also know who sells the firearms to idiots online.

If you want to cut down on violent crime, that's the number-one way to do it. Tough criminal sentences obviously ain't the way, since we've already got the largest prison population on the planet (in terms of size AND of percentage of population) and we've STILL got a lot of violent crime. Somehow identifying all the crazies obviously ain't the way, since anyone - idiot or not - can get a firearm here if they try hard enough...and besides, other nations have just as many crazies (relative to population) as we do, but they don't have nearly the same level of violent crime.

I know you oppose registration of all firearms...but if you really care about keeping them out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them, that's the only truly effective way to do so.

beerftw said:

I bring this up because i hear over and over about ar-15s and aks being superior killing machines, with no purpose but to mow people down. It really sickens me the dishonesty or severe lack of knowledge from too many on the subject.

What people call assault weapons is a made up term, assault rifles are medium range, medium ammo, medium size to carbine size, and semi auto with select fire. What people dub assault weapons are the same without selective fire, which the military barely uses because it was shown to be a waste of ammo vs one well placed shot. Outside selective fire i can not see a difference, Heck i can not see a difference between them and civilian style weapons other than cosmetics.


An ar15 and a ruger mini14 both fire just as fast as the trigger is pulled, fire the same ammo, and have similiar accuracy. The ar-15 itself with a ring sight is very accurate if it is zeroed properly, but if not it is extremely difficult to shoot vs a firearm with a dovetail sight. The ar 15 has no noticeable feature that make it any more deadly than a semi auto porting rifle, heck people will whine about large capacity magazines, but they are a convenience, anyone who understands their weapon can reload with little interuption.


The ar15 ak47 etc technically all assault rifles and non selective fire variants, do not have superior killing power, infact they lose in any given area against specalized weapons. They were designed to be a jack of all trades, and master of none, which beneffitted the military by only needing one rifle per soldier to handle multiple situations, rather than issuing 3-4 weapons per soldier plus all the ammo to go with it. It can be easy to see why civilians want that, one rifle that when properly trained on can be used for close quarters self defense, medium range and long range hunting, and most shooting styles inbetween.

Click to expand...

you are correct--for extreme close quarters like in a room or a stairwell, a pistol is the most useful self defense or offensive weapon. at short ranges-under 50M a semi auto shotgun or a sub machine gun (i.e. a full automatic firing pistol cartridges like an UZI) is superior (i.e. 95% of "street fighting or jungle fighting in areas like Viet Nam, or the campaign against Japan) and at ranges over 200m (such as most of WWI and much of the European fields and Midwestern Desert terrain) a real battle rifle firing a full sized military cartridge is far superior to an "assault rifle"

but you can use an assault rifle or the semi auto equivalent fairly well for just about any of those situations up to about 500M. a full battle rifle is hard to deploy in close quarters like clearing houses, a submachine gun or a shotgun is generally ineffective against targets-especially ones utilizing cover past 100 yards but with good sights you can hit targets with an assault rifle past a quarter of a mile

Glen Contrarian said:

Wanna keep those particular styles of rifles legal? I have zero problem with that..as long as all firearms are registered. If they were registered, we'd know already who gave the rifles to that man and woman in San Bernadino. We'd also know who are among those who are smuggling a quarter million firearms to Mexico each year. We'd also know who sells the firearms to idiots online.

Click to expand...

NO! Registration also means that the government knows where to go to confiscate weapons and if they cannot be found, to prosecute people for hiding/losing them. They start with those labeled "assault weapons." Easy to convince people that citizens don't need them.

Then down the line with new laws restricting private ownership based on some new media "atrocity," until you'd be lucky if you can have a .22 caliber single-shot rifle to preserve under your right to keep and bear arms.

Wouldn't stop anyone with nefarious purposes from obtaining and keeping them either. People who intend to break the law won't be registering any weapons they intend to use to break the law.

Glen Contrarian said:

Wanna keep those particular styles of rifles legal? I have zero problem with that..as long as all firearms are registered. If they were registered, we'd know already who gave the rifles to that man and woman in San Bernadino. We'd also know who are among those who are smuggling a quarter million firearms to Mexico each year. We'd also know who sells the firearms to idiots online.

If you want to cut down on violent crime, that's the number-one way to do it. Tough criminal sentences obviously ain't the way, since we've already got the largest prison population on the planet (in terms of size AND of percentage of population) and we've STILL got a lot of violent crime. Somehow identifying all the crazies obviously ain't the way, since anyone - idiot or not - can get a firearm here if they try hard enough...and besides, other nations have just as many crazies (relative to population) as we do, but they don't have nearly the same level of violent crime.

I know you oppose registration of all firearms...but if you really care about keeping them out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them, that's the only truly effective way to do so.

Click to expand...

But you would not know who is smuggling weapons from mexico to here. You would also not know who is making these weapons them selves with no way of tracking these weapons.

Just think guns are almsot completely banned across europe, africa etc, infact africa the middle east eastern europe south america etc still gets these weapons. Last time i checked america was not manufacturing millions of full auto ak47's and selling them to africa asia middle east etc.

Captain Adverse said:

NO! Registration also means that the government knows where to go to confiscate weapons and if they cannot be found, to prosecute people for hiding/losing them. They start with those labeled "assault weapons." Easy to convince people that citizens don't need them.

Then down the line with new laws restricting private ownership based on some new media "atrocity," until you'd be lucky if you can have a .22 caliber single-shot rifle to preserve under your right to keep and bear arms.

Wouldn't stop anyone with nefarious purposes from obtaining and keeping them either. People who intend to break the law won't be registering any weapons they intend to use to break the law.

Click to expand...

Yeah, yeah, the old "fear registration 'cuz guv'mint" canard...never mind that every other first-world nation HAS registration and has had registration for generations, and not a single one of them has become the tyranny that the American Right is SO sure would happen within days of registration.

beerftw said:

But you would not know who is smuggling weapons from mexico to here. You would also not know who is making these weapons them selves with no way of tracking these weapons.

Just think guns are almsot completely banned across europe, africa etc, infact africa the middle east eastern europe south america etc still gets these weapons. Last time i checked america was not manufacturing millions of full auto ak47's and selling them to africa asia middle east etc.

Click to expand...

Some guns are indeed smuggled into America...but it's a very small percentage of the quarter million we smuggle to Mexico each year. Are you saying that because we wouldn't be able to track the relative very few that are smuggled into America, that we shouldn't try to track any at all, even if it would cut down greatly on the power of the drug cartels in Mexico?

Glen Contrarian said:

Yeah, yeah, the old "fear registration 'cuz guv'mint" canard...never mind that every other first-world nation HAS registration and has had registration for generations, and not a single one of them has become the tyranny that the American Right is SO sure would happen within days of registration.

Click to expand...

I don't give a fig for what "every other first-world nation" (whatever you think that means) has! Nor do I have to live under their forms of government so I cannot speak to what all members of those societies think about whether or not they feel oppressed.

I just know that every step towards gun control is another step towards divesting the individual of his inherent right to self-defense of both his person and his liberty. If YOU want to register YOUR weapons, feel free to do so. Requiring all others to do so on penalty of law? Screw that.

beerftw said:

I bring this up because i hear over and over about ar-15s and aks being superior killing machines, with no purpose but to mow people down. It really sickens me the dishonesty or severe lack of knowledge from too many on the subject.

What people call assault weapons is a made up term, assault rifles are medium range, medium ammo, medium size to carbine size, and semi auto with select fire. What people dub assault weapons are the same without selective fire, which the military barely uses because it was shown to be a waste of ammo vs one well placed shot. Outside selective fire i can not see a difference, Heck i can not see a difference between them and civilian style weapons other than cosmetics.


An ar15 and a ruger mini14 both fire just as fast as the trigger is pulled, fire the same ammo, and have similiar accuracy. The ar-15 itself with a ring sight is very accurate if it is zeroed properly, but if not it is extremely difficult to shoot vs a firearm with a dovetail sight. The ar 15 has no noticeable feature that make it any more deadly than a semi auto porting rifle, heck people will whine about large capacity magazines, but they are a convenience, anyone who understands their weapon can reload with little interuption.


The ar15 ak47 etc technically all assault rifles and non selective fire variants, do not have superior killing power, infact they lose in any given area against specalized weapons. They were designed to be a jack of all trades, and master of none, which beneffitted the military by only needing one rifle per soldier to handle multiple situations, rather than issuing 3-4 weapons per soldier plus all the ammo to go with it. It can be easy to see why civilians want that, one rifle that when properly trained on can be used for close quarters self defense, medium range and long range hunting, and most shooting styles inbetween.

Click to expand...

The first problem is that the great majority of what's called assault weapons in America aren't actually assault weapons. They just look like assault weapons. Second, an "assault weapon" is no more deadly than it's civilian or sporter twin...just looks different. Compare the AR-15 and the Ruger Mini 14 (Ruger ranch rifle). They look completely different, one commonly misidentified as an "assault weapon" and one never identified as such. Pretty much the same rifle, performance wise.

Glen Contrarian said:

Some guns are indeed smuggled into America...but it's a very small percentage of the quarter million we smuggle to Mexico each year. Are you saying that because we wouldn't be able to track the relative very few that are smuggled into America, that we shouldn't try to track any at all, even if it would cut down greatly on the power of the drug cartels in Mexico?

Click to expand...

They are only smuggled into mexico due to convenience, which is still convenient for us because we can somehow track them atleast through serial numbers. If all guns ceased to exist here mexico would still have a demand, and others would supply them.
Firearms are actually easy to make, infact in some cases easier than methamphetamine, which still thrives despite a complete ban.


Africa middle east and eastern europe do not get the bulk of their weapons from the us, so this destroys your argument, they widely use black market made firearms to old soviet stock firearms, despite bans and no easy connection to any us firearm supply, saying mexico is somehow incapable of obtaining black market firearms and old soviet stockpiles like other countries is a statement made by someone who has no understanding of supply and demand.

TurtleDude said:

you are correct--for extreme close quarters like in a room or a stairwell, a pistol is the most useful self defense or offensive weapon. at short ranges-under 50M a semi auto shotgun or a sub machine gun (i.e. a full automatic firing pistol cartridges like an UZI) is superior (i.e. 95% of "street fighting or jungle fighting in areas like Viet Nam, or the campaign against Japan) and at ranges over 200m (such as most of WWI and much of the European fields and Midwestern Desert terrain) a real battle rifle firing a full sized military cartridge is far superior to an "assault rifle"

but you can use an assault rifle or the semi auto equivalent fairly well for just about any of those situations up to about 500M. a full battle rifle is hard to deploy in close quarters like clearing houses, a submachine gun or a shotgun is generally ineffective against targets-especially ones utilizing cover past 100 yards but with good sights you can hit targets with an assault rifle past a quarter of a mile

Click to expand...

Much of what you say, TD, is true, however, in Europe, Manilla, Seoul, the Garands did fine work in house to house combat and could still 'reach out and touch someone'.

My experience shooting competitively has been that much over 200 to 300 yards more than good sights are needed. Most people that were shooting the 600 yard matches were not using standard 55 grain FMJ ammo, but different powders with 80 grain FMJ or hollow point ammo. That was usually in higher barrel twist rifles.

We had several guys that were shooting a lot of X-rings at 600 yards. Way out of my class.

Been a few years since I've shot competitively, though.

An Ar-10, in 308 has the best of both worlds.

Captain Adverse said:

I don't give a fig for what "every other first-world nation" (whatever you think that means) has! Nor do I have to live under their forms of government so I cannot speak to what all members of their societies think about whether or no they feel oppressed.

I just know that every step towards gun control is another step towards divesting the individual from his inherent right to self-defense of both his person and his liberty. If YOU want to register YOUR weapons, feel free to do so. Requiring all others to do so on penalty of law? Screw that.

Click to expand...

If you did go to those other nations, you'd find that they're just as free as you are (and in some ways MORE free than you are), and that they treasure their freedom every bit as much as you do.

But you've learned to hunger for the fear-mongering fed to you by the right-wing fear machine, and so you can't allow yourself to even consider ideas outside your personal echo chamber.

beerftw said:

They are only smuggled into mexico due to convenience, which is still convenient for us because we can somehow track them atleast through serial numbers. If all guns ceased to exist here mexico would still have a demand, and others would supply them.
Firearms are actually easy to make, infact in some cases easier than methamphetamine, which still thrives despite a complete ban.


Africa middle east and eastern europe do not get the bulk of their weapons from the us, so this destroys your argument, they widely use black market made firearms to old soviet stock firearms, despite bans and no easy connection to any us firearm supply, saying mexico is somehow incapable of obtaining black market firearms and old soviet stockpiles like other countries is a statement made by someone who has no understanding of supply and demand.

Click to expand...

Ah, so it's the "somebody else will do it anyway so it might as well be legal for us to do it" argument.

Got a bank in your town? Why don't you rob it? Might as well, since somebody else is probably going to do it someday anyway, right? Might as well be you, right? That's the kind of "logic" in your argument above.

Glen Contrarian said:

Ah, so it's the "somebody else will do it anyway so it might as well be legal for us to do it" argument.

Got a bank in your town? Why don't you rob it? Might as well, since somebody else is probably going to do it someday anyway, right? Might as well be you, right? That's the kind of "logic" in your argument above.

Click to expand...

But if someone else is gonna do it, we can track ours by serial number, while we have zero way of tracking the black market.


The real issua is though you attack the supply and assume it should end the demand, even though historically that has never worked. Some one who really wanted to end the violence would focus on why there is such a demand for criminals to commit crimes and how to counter it, not to attack a tool that will be replaced just as easily as it was taken away, by makers who do not care how they are used as long as they profit.

Shooterman35 said:

Much of what you say, TD, is true, however, in Europe, Manilla, Seoul, the Garands did fine work in house to house combat and could still 'reach out and touch someone'.

My experience shooting competitively has been that much over 200 to 300 yards more than good sights are needed. Most people that were shooting the 600 yard matches were not using standard 55 grain FMJ ammo, but different powders with 80 grain FMJ or hollow point ammo. That was usually in higher barrel twist rifles.

We had several guys that were shooting a lot of X-rings at 600 yards. Way out of my class.

Been a few years since I've shot competitively, though.

An Ar-10, in 308 has the best of both worlds.

Click to expand...

I know all of this but thanks. I shot expert on the military course as a teen with a Garand. and I have two NM AR 15 rifles and yeah-we use 68 grain match bullets for the 600 yard stage

beerftw said:

But if someone else is gonna do it, we can track ours by serial number, while we have zero way of tracking the black market.


The real issua is though you attack the supply and assume it should end the demand, even though historically that has never worked. Some one who really wanted to end the violence would focus on why there is such a demand for criminals to commit crimes and how to counter it, not to attack a tool that will be replaced just as easily as it was taken away, by makers who do not care how they are used as long as they profit.

Click to expand...

What you're demanding is a perfect way...and because "perfect results" would be impossible, you oppose it.

What I'm supporting is something that WILL make a significant dent in the illegal gun trafficking and - by extension - our gun violence here in America. Would it stop all of it? Of course not - there is no way to achieve the "perfect results" that you seem to demand - but it WOULD make a significant dent...and many more innocent people would live instead of die each year.

Glen Contrarian said:

If you did go to those other nations, you'd find that they're just as free as you are (and in some ways MORE free than you are), and that they treasure their freedom every bit as much as you do.

But you've learned to hunger for the fear-mongering fed to you by the right-wing fear machine, and so you can't allow yourself to even consider ideas outside your personal echo chamber.

Click to expand...

why are you so afraid of guns or is the real motivation is that you don't like the politics of gun owners. any society that bans say handguns is not free IMHO. Your claim about a fear machine is beyond silly.

TurtleDude said:

I know all of this but thanks. I shot expert on the military course as a teen with a Garand. and I have two NM AR 15 rifles and yeah-we use 68 grain match bullets for the 600 yard stage

Click to expand...

I hope you know I wasn't trying to be a wise ass.

Glen Contrarian said:

What you're demanding is a perfect way...and because "perfect results" would be impossible, you oppose it.

What I'm supporting is something that WILL make a significant dent in the illegal gun trafficking and - by extension - our gun violence here in America. Would it stop all of it? Of course not - there is no way to achieve the "perfect results" that you seem to demand - but it WOULD make a significant dent...and many more innocent people would live instead of die each year.

Click to expand...

IT will not make a dent in illegal gun trafficing at all, numerous other countries with no supply to the us have plenty of black market guns with bans.


Heck the biggest counter argument should be the war on drugs, drugs have been completely banned, yet despite bans and harsher punishments, use has risen not declined, which goes back to if a supply exists it is because there is a demand. You need to adress the demand not the supply, because supply will always exist with a demand.

Glen Contrarian said:

If you did go to those other nations, you'd find that they're just as free as you are (and in some ways MORE free than you are), and that they treasure their freedom every bit as much as you do.

But you've learned to hunger for the fear-mongering fed to you by the right-wing fear machine, and so you can't allow yourself to even consider ideas outside your personal echo chamber.

Click to expand...

Really? You've been to every one of those "first-world nations," lived in every locale within their borders, and have personally interviewed every citizen to assess their views on the subject? I'd love to see your research. :roll:

The only "fear-mongering" I have been "fed" came from my research on our revolutionary leaders.

Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined. Patrick Henry

Click to expand...

along with

The great object is that every man be armed. Patrick Henry

Click to expand...

(Hence my icon.)


Or perhaps this quote which I am sure you've heard but always dismiss for some "rational" reason?

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin

Click to expand...

Or maybe this:

"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." Thomas Jefferson.

Click to expand...

I am not so stupid as to trust our oligarchy with my liberty.

beerftw said:

IT will not make a dent in illegal gun trafficing at all, numerous other countries with no supply to the us have plenty of black market guns with bans.


Heck the biggest counter argument should be the war on drugs, drugs have been completely banned, yet despite bans and harsher punishments, use has risen not declined, which goes back to if a supply exists it is because there is a demand. You need to adress the demand not the supply, because supply will always exist with a demand.

Click to expand...

Right but with larger supply, the price decreases and then a bigger pool of crazies can so arm themselves.

Your complex syllogism rambles. So I am going to chop it up and reply to the pieces of it individually, since your rant is very verbose. Here goes --

beerftw said:

I bring this up because i hear over and over about ar-15s and aks being superior killing machines, with no purpose but to mow people down. ...

Click to expand...

It is correct that AR's and AK's are specifically designed as anti personnel and are not very good for hunting any kind of animals. Ask any true hunter and they will tell you that for hunting animals the bolt action WW1 rifles (which were the assault weapons of their day) have evolved into the most perfect hunting platforms and are preferred to any other kinds of designs. So there is no doubt among expert hunters that the AR's and AK's are inadequate for game animals of any kind. You need to put this into your pipe and smoke it so that you can come to grips with reality on it. You can keep denying it all you want, but then you are just being a whiner and a cheerleader, verbosity taken to its extreme.

beerftw said:

It really sickens me the dishonesty or severe lack of knowledge from too many on the subject....

Click to expand...

You should talk. Partisanship and parochialism was never good at figuring out what is true and what is false and you have fallen into the same trap.

beerftw said:

What people call assault weapons is a made up term, assault rifles are medium range, medium ammo, medium size to carbine size, and semi auto with select fire. ...

Click to expand...

Since Adolf invented the word, we should remember he was referring to the 1942 STG. Take a good look at the STG and see what it reminds you of.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StG_44

beerftw said:

What people dub assault weapons are the same without selective fire, which the military barely uses because it was shown to be a waste of ammo vs one well placed shot. ...

Click to expand...

Why are you picking nits ??

beerftw said:

Outside selective fire i can not see a difference, Heck i can not see a difference between them and civilian style weapons other than cosmetics....

Click to expand...

You have not yet formulated any good definition yourself for the sturmgewehr. You seem to be denying there is a difference. I already showed you one difference -- the sturmgewehr are designed for anti personnel and do not work well for animal hunts of any kind.

beerftw said:

An ar15 and a ruger mini14 both fire just as fast as the trigger is pulled, fire the same ammo, and have similiar accuracy. ...

Click to expand...

The Rugers do not have a pistol grip, which is very fortunate, since the inexperienced public and the politicians look for Adolf's pistol grip from his STG and when they see it on Kaloshnikov's AK and on Stoner's AR they say "Ah hah !!"

It is lucky for Ruger that their Mini's do NOT look like sturmgewehr. The difference is only cosmetic. Your argument in favor of the AK's and AR's however being based on the Rugers is only going to get the Rugers in trouble.

You should shut up about the Rugers.

If AK's and AR's are ever banned in the USA, you should buy yourself a Ruger mini and just keep your mouth shut about it.

beerftw said:

The ar-15 itself with a ring sight is very accurate if it is zeroed properly, but if not it is extremely difficult to shoot vs a firearm with a dovetail sight. ...

Click to expand...

So what ??? All guns need to be sighted-in properly. So what ???

beerftw said:

The ar 15 has no noticeable feature that make it any more deadly than a semi auto porting rifle, heck people will whine about large capacity magazines, but they are a convenience, anyone who understands their weapon can reload with little interuption....

Click to expand...

DUH !!! You just defined the STG, the AK, the AR, the Ruger Mini's, and any other sturmgewehr that the various legislatures might want to ban. You just defined it for them. Foolishness.

beerftw said:

The ar15 ak47 etc technically all assault rifles and non selective fire variants, do not have superior killing power, infact they lose in any given area against specalized weapons. ...

Click to expand...

There is no support for this conclusion.

CONTINUED ...

beerftw said:

They were designed to be a jack of all trades, and master of none, which beneffitted the military by only needing one rifle per soldier to handle multiple situations, rather than issuing 3-4 weapons per soldier plus all the ammo to go with it. It can be easy to see why civilians want that, one rifle that when properly trained on can be used for close quarters self defense, medium range and long range hunting, and most shooting styles inbetween...

Click to expand...

The STGs, AKs, and ARs were designed to be anti personnel. That's what they are and that's what they do. They are not good at hunting at all -- you yourself are perpetuating this far right myth.

You should read Heller vs. DC and see what Scalia has to say about what guns are protected by the 2nd Amendment and what guns are not.

That's what this issue of proposed bans of AK's and AR's is all about.

Scalia says that a sawed off shotgun is not protected by 2A.

And that any other guns (1) which are popular and (2) which are appropriate for historical and/or modern militia service are protected by 2A.

You need to change your tune.

Right now you are just wasting your time and anyone with any firearms knowledge can easily refute you.

Absentglare said:

Right but with larger supply, the price decreases and then a bigger pool of crazies can so arm themselves.

Click to expand...

The problem however is with the crazies ...

- crazies with guns

- crazies with cars

- crazies with bombs

- crazies with gasoline.

The crazies need to be eliminated.

Eliminating gun rights does nothing to eliminate crazies.