For the record, I'm pro-gun rights. But I'll be goddamned if I listen to the NRA when it comes to determining what the laws/enforcement/regulations/restrictions ought to be. And I'll be goddamned if the right wing is gonna control the debate. Same goes for the opposite extreme groups and the left wing.

The NRA in particular isn't interested in honest debate. If you doubt me, just check out the hysteria they've whipped up about Obama coming for our guns and ammo when the guy gets "F" ratings from the Brady people on every fucking issue. Their shit is completely self-serving. They are only interested in power.

The right policies are out there. We need to determine what they are. And that means talking about it now, tomorrow, next week, etc., until we get it right.

Thread disappearing in 3...2...1...

_________________

I agree with the sentiment that we shouldn't have to worry about going to the walk in theater and being murdered by some crazed evil demented sick fuck.

That said, I think we're beating a dead horse as neither side will concede their argument. Not trying to change anyones opinion here just stating the numbers. Out of 80 million people in the United States that own guns one "random evil sick bastard" at a time gets to ruin it for everyone else? Ridiculous! (BTW, The majority of gun-related deaths in the United States are suicides.)

Should we be "anti-car" since people are randomly killed by collisions in cars every year? 24,474 car related fatalities in 2009. Should we be "anti-doctor" then because physicians "accidentally" kill 120,000 patiences per year? Where does the madness stop?

_________________
Honor the Fallen. http://www.militarytimes.com/valor/

You're engaging in reductio ad absurdum. Banning one type of weapon does not require also banning anything that can cause a death.

ol skool, no one side wins in this argument. My point was to the ridiculousness with the knee jerk reactions that always follow such tragic events. Both sides have valid concerns. As I stated neither side will concede their position.

_________________
Honor the Fallen. http://www.militarytimes.com/valor/

'77, I wish no one had guns. That said, I'm not big on attempting to disarm people that hunt, feel like they need a weapon for personal protection,etc. I'm really not that strident about it.

One question though, seriously....'cuz I don't know the answer. I understand all these weapons were legally purchased.....but really, is there any legit reason why someone NEEDS an assault rifle??

As long as there is gun powder and chunks of metal for projectiles yes there will always be a neccessity for weapons like assault rifles. Just the way human logic works. The evolution of firearms won't ever stop. He/she who has the bigger more powerful weapon wins, I think has become the mentailty. JMO

Weapons are a creation of man as an extension of himself. For protection, for food and for enjoyment. It's when those weapons are used in a manner like last night that remind people of a weapons destructiveness. First rule in weapon ownership is "respect" that weapon. Never, ever take it for granted.

With sick demented inbalanced individuals that kill just to kill I have no answer as to their intentions accept to cause chaos and mayhem for their personal entertainment. Sadly this is truly tragic for every victim everywhere and incomprehensible for those who respect the firearm.

_________________
Honor the Fallen. http://www.militarytimes.com/valor/

I understand that weapon technology is going to continue to advance......don't know that it's a necessity though. And that doesn't really answer my question, 77....which is why a private citizen needs to own an assault weapon. Don't need it to hunt, right? Don't really need a weapon like that for self-protection, right? I know that law enforcement agencies,feeling as though they have a firepower deficit vs. criminals, have advocated against the legality of these weapons. So....why is it legal to buy and own these items? Seems to be the influence of powerful lobbies that think that any reduction of one's ability to own anything is a threat to their 2nd amendment rights. So the question remains. What is the practical necessity for someone to own a weapon like this?

Gun rights advocates also want to arm themselves against a potentially-tyrannical government, and argue that their being well-armed is a deterrent to a government becoming tyrannical in the first place. That's the only place assault weapons seem to fit in, IMO.

Swiss I think it comes down to money for one. Armorers/gunsmiths build these weapons for people who are eccentric about weapons as a means to provide for themselves and their family. Lots of money to be made in that industry. If I had to do it all over again and had a high school counselor worth a box of rocks, that profession would have been in their list with all the other top earning professions like accountant, doctor, stock broker etc.

As far as being practical? I don't believe they're practical. For hunting it's simply over kill. Self defense may be debateable. As far as entertainment value? It's really up to each individual. Personally, I'm more fond of a semi-automatic weapon as it allows for better placement of each round on its contrived target.

I have to agree with ol skool. The whole reason why bigger, more powerful, higher capacity and rapid firing weapons have become more popular. *sign of the times*

_________________
Honor the Fallen. http://www.militarytimes.com/valor/