I voted yes. Seems like a step towards sanity to me. We can debate the smallness or largeness of the step itself but whatever the general consensus, I can't see how the step should be avoided altogether.
-The AWB did not affect full-auto weapons such as those used in that event.
-Even if it sdid, there's no way to show that the ban prevented another shooting like that
Factual errorSecondly, such weapons serve no purpose other than murder.
'Assault weapons' can be effctively used for just about any legitimate purpose on emight have for a gun.
factual errors and fallacyHow many people hunt with an assault rifle or even target shoot.
-I shoot competitively wity my 'assault weapons', as do tens of thousands of others.
-There isnt any reason an 'assualt weapon' cannot be used to hunt as effectibely as any other weapon you;d hunt with
-The reason for protecting the right to arms has nothing to do with hunting or target shooting.
Factual error.Standard bolt-action rifles are 10-times more accurate
The accuracy of many 'assault weapons' compares favorably to and may exceed that of a standard bolt-action rifle -- as anyone thats fired in service rifle class from the 1000yd line.
I wonder: now that you know that the stated basis for your support of the ban has been shown to be factually and logically flawed -- will you change your mind?Assault rifles are used for compound protection by insane zealots, so I have no problem making it more difficult for them to own them.