.....if someone knew that their mark had a gun in the house, that burglar is going to move on to an easier mark. They're lazy and want to do as little work and have as little risk as possible to get what they want. Hence why they are criminals in the first place.

You can't possibly know who has a gun and who doesn't. The only thing you can do is be prepared to defend yourself.

Why the hell would anyone need an assault rifle?

People don't need ****ing assault rifles. They are so easily modified to be fully automatic, it's sick.

People don't need sports cars. At least assault rifles could be used for hunting. They are designed to provide a large amount of knock-down power.

I fire two pre-banned assault rifles fairly regularly. I find them to be much more thrilling to shoot targets with than a .22, and far less sensitive than a hunting rifle. If you can't understand that people enjoy shooting targets, then you must be one of those people who doesn't like FPS games, or net-based sports.

And Flex, the problems that arise from knowing that a mark might have a gun inside is enough to stop a lot of would-be robbers. Being arrested for robbery is much different than being arrested for homicide, and most people would rather not risk getting busted for shooting some sleeping family.

America has problems. The gun murder rate is ridiculous and something really has to be done about it.

There isn't some huge line between "criminal" and "civilian". A guy walks in to his house, he finds his wife sleeping with another man. He has a gun in his closet. He takes it out and shoots them both. He is a criminal.
If he didn't have that gun, the wife and the other guy wouldn't be dead.

A kid wants some quick money. His Dad has a gun. He takes it, hides it under his coat, and goes out and mugs someone, threatening to shoot them. It goes wrong, and he shoots them. They're dead.
If his Dad didn't have that gun, he wouldn't have shot them. Yes, he might have still mugged them without the gun, and they'd be a wallet poorer, but they wouldn't be dead.


If firearms were banned, then the average Joe wouldn't have a gun. The average Joe wouldn't be able to commit crimes. And the vast majority of crimes are committed by the average Joe. I imagine there ought to be some statistics on how many crimes are committed with registered firearms and how many are committed with illegal firearms.

If they were banned, then it would be considerably harder for the criminals to get guns. The bum on the street looking to mug someone, he wouldn't be able to get a gun.
The people that would get guns are the organised gangs, they would probably get guns on the black market. Their targets are specifically other gangs, and so banning firearms wouldn't necessarily do much against gang warfare. Something else would have to do for that.

But the crimes committed by the average Joe, the moment of madness when he just pulls out the gun and shoots someone without thinking about it, that simply wouldn't happen.


Yes, I'm sure someone will throw in Canada, a country with similar gun laws but with drastically lower gun crime rates. What is their solution? I don't know.
But look at Europe, or Japan, with much stricter gun laws and with drastically lower gun crime rates. Gun control does work. Yes, I think the culture of guns is also to blame, American children growing up thinking guns are 'cool'.
I have never seen a real gun, aside from on airport security. I don't know anyone that has even held a real gun. The only person I know of that actually has a gun is a friend's father, who is a farmer, who has a hunting rifle.
And I don't know anyone that has any intention of owning a gun, or thinks guns are 'cool'.

But in tackling the culture of guns, gun control will have to play a part.


Now, I know that "constitutional rights!!" tend often to be the argument cited for gun rights. Screw the constitution.
The whole point of the 'right the bear arms' was that as America didn't have an army, the Americans could defend against the invading British. Somehow I don't think Britain is a threat anymore. When America developed an army, the 'right to bear arms' should have been removed, it was no longer necessary. It's like many of the archaic laws that haven't been repealed, like I can supposedly request free archery lessons from my local church.
The right to bear arms was not intended for Americans to have guns to defend themselves against criminals.

Having a firearm should be a privelidge, not a 'right'.

Quoted for truth.

If every citizen has a personal firearm for "self defense" purposes, and decides to take matters into their own hands (as brian so eloquently described earlier), then you might as well get rid of the entire police force, along with jails, and the whole 'trial' thing.

If your job doesn't require you to have a gun, you shouldn't have a gun. I don't care how "fun" it is to shoot paper targets in a straight line, and how it makes you feel like a big man.

Yeah... Why the hell do you need an assult rifle to go hunting? Can you not hit the frelling deer with a normal rifle? Do you need to pump this thing full of fifty bullets before it hits the ground?

My Social Issues teacher had a good idea. Instead of sitting up in a tree drinking beer and and waiting for some poor deer to wander past (Stereotype), maybe we should go back to a bow and arrow, something that takes real skill.

Or at least we should attach lasers to the heads of the deers, so they have a way to defend themselves.

For one, none of you really know what an assult rifle is, it's obvious.

Secondly, if Joe doesn't have a gun, than he's probably going to use another weapon. Do you realise how many crimes are commited with knives, not guns? By crimes, I mean your 'wife sleeping in my bed' etc. As long as people are around, they will find ways to kill eachother. Taking their guns away IS NOT going to stop that, at all. Gun crime will obviously go down, but knife crime will go up, bomb crime will go up. People will start resorting to bomb threats instead of suicide threads with a revolver. You ban guns, they use knives.

You ban knives, they use big sticks. You ban big sticks, they use rocks. You ban rocks, they use their bare hands, you ban hands, they use their legs. You ban legs, they use their teeth.

You may think that guns have the upper hand on a knife, which they generally do, but if you ban guns, than knives will become the most dangerous things. More fear will be put towards knives, and more people will have knives under their pillows. There will always be the 'I can kill you' variable in human nature, no matter what weapon you ban.

JediKirby

Thank you, Kirby.


And here are some more points:

You people who come here and say, "I've never seen a gun before. I've never held a gun before. I've never shot a gun before. I don't even know anyone who owns a gun," just...argh. If you could just hear yourself. You sound so pitiful and frightened. I don't mean any personal insults against anyone here who has said things like that, but it's true. Maybe you should go take a handgun training class, and learn how to handle a firearm properly. Maybe then you wouldn't be so fearful of something you don't understand.

You people who are so afraid of automatic weapons: They aren't nearly as useful as you think! It's far more difficult to fire accurately in full-automatic mode. At 100 feet, I'd rather be shooting against a criminal with a full-automatic rifle than a semi-automatic rifle. You know why? Because he will be missing and wasting his limited ammo. After he's emptied his 20- or 30-round magazine, he'll be defenseless. All the while I'll either be taking cover, waiting for him to run out of ammo, or carefully taking single shots at him. Spray-and-pray vs. carefully-aimed shots will lose except at very close range. At close range, the first shot will win, or it'll be a knife-fight anyway. Automatic weapons aren't that useful without sufficient ammo, and you can only carry so much with you. We're talking about convenience store robbers here, not soldiers. Automatic weapons are almost a red herring for gun control advocates and police-state enthusiasts.



What a naive attitude. Take a look at this. You can even see there the responsible use of firearms without firing a shot. If you don't get it from reading that, let me put it in more obvious terms: The police isn't everywhere. The police isn't always going to be there when a crime happens. In fact, by far, most of the time they won't be there when it happens. Even if they are, they aren't Superman: they can be shot too. If 10% of citizens were armed, I would gladly bet that the crime rate would go down. Just think, whenever a robber started to think about committing a crime, there'd be a good chance that someone in the vicinity would be armed, and if he started getting violent, he'd risk being shot. That's going to make any sane criminal think twice (by sane, I mean not needing to be committed to an asylum). Geez, just think about massacres like Columbine, or Jonesboro, or any others! If one citizen in the vicinity had been armed, he would have had a chance to stop the killers at some point, and save lives. By the time the police arrive, it's clean-up time, not stop-the-bad-guys time.


Mm-hmm. So let's make all the firearms illegal, so that the percentage of crimes committed with illegal firearms will go up even more. Wow, that'll stop those evil, law-abiding criminals from using guns.

It comes down to this:

FEAR

That's seriously what it's all about: fear. Sure, guns can be dangerous in the wrong hands. So can a multitude of other things. Sure, guns can be used to kill innocent people. They can also be used to save innocent lives.

"All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

I'd rather the good men be armed and ready to act, than be helpless to defend what's right when an evil person starts acting.

So what is your solution to America's problem?

People in Europe, or Japan, they don't need guns to 'protect themselves'. They don't have guns and they live happily. They don't need guns. Why do you?

It is Americans that are afraid, totally afraid of everyone else.

The "we will descend to caveman wars if guns are banned" argument doesn't hold much water.

How many people can you kill with a baseball bat? Not bloody many.

Assault Rifle? 30+ on a good day.

Of course it's always society dependant... The swiss have lax gun laws and they don't shoot each other much.

As for sports cars, Toyota's inventor of the MX-3 once said "If you can't go fast with 90HP, you're not going to go much faster with 900HP". You can kill yourself or other people in any motor vehicle.

If however you make everyone ride bikes/walk, then all of a sudden it becomes a damn sight harder to kill people by bumping into them.

Do you know why we don't need guns here? Because guns are used for like, two things here: Large-scale robberies (stores, postal offices, banks) and gangster activities (criminals shooting other criminals). Not small-time burglars, thieves or thugs.

But yeah, the criminals that do have weapons arm themselves with military grade weaponry anyway, like rocket launchers (yes, I can recall at least two instances where rocket launchers have been used in motorcycle gang wars), sub-machine guns and assault rifles. If they want to get it, they'll get it.

I do agree, though, that tackling the causes of crime is a much better solution. Poverty is a big factor in crime, and America's poverty problem affects all areas of society. But tackling poverty, and setting up a decent wellfare system, that is hard, and takes a long time.

Tightening gun control will give short-term benefits that will make it easier to solve the more fundemental problems. If people have no reason to commit a crime, they won't, whether they have a gun or not. (of course, owning a gun would seem pretty pointless then)

But a whole host of deaths will be easily avoided. Such as teen suicides. Hanging yourself, slitting your throat or wrists, drowning yourself, jumping off a building, that is all actually quite difficult. It will take some preperation, some research, and a lot of determination to actually carry out. Only those really willing and desperate to end their lives will go to all that trouble.
Shooting yourself in the face isn't difficult. Guns allow people to commit suicide on a whim, after just a sudden bout of depression or sadness, being rejected or turned down. Instead of going to your room, crying, thinking "oh I wish I were dead", when there's a gun in the cabinet downstairs, you can actually do it. Do it quickly, painlessly, and easily, before you have time to change your mind.
Without that gun, potential suicides can be averted and the individual recieve the help they need.

Then of course there's the issue of accidental deaths, caused by people cleaning their guns and whatnot.



Let's go back to average Joe, the guy that's just caught his wife cheating. He doesn't have a gun. But he's angry, he wants to kill them both. He grabs a knife. The guy runs off. If he had a gun, he could just shoot him as he runs away. But he has a knife, he has to run up to him and get close, and stab him and cut him, and even then he isn't sure he'll be dead. The other guy can fight back, get away. If Joe had a gun, he could just shoot him and he'd go down. And then he'd shoot him some more.

Killing someone with a knife isn't nearly as easy as it is with a gun. If you have training with a knife, yes, maybe it is. But a complete idiot can kill anyone with a gun. A complete idiot isn't going to kill anyone with a knife. Average Joe might cause some injuries to the guy and/or his wife, but he's a lot less likely to kill them. They'll be treated for their injuries, Joe might do time for assault, but no-one will be dead.


Like I said, gun control is not going to be the complete solution to all of America's problems, but it will certainly solve some of them, and ease the burden of solving others.
There is no reason why anyone should feel the need to have a gun to protect themselves.

There is no magic solution. Gun control isn't it, neither is every citizen having a gun. Crime is a fact of life. Deal with it. Be prepared, then live your life without constant fear.



Because I don't live in Japan or Europe.



I'm not afraid of everyone. Neither is any other American that I know. Where do you live, anyway? Since you're such an expert on the USA, and all.



Balderdash. There are so many ways to kill yourself, it isn't even funny. The easiest, most painless way doesn't even involve a weapon. Ever heard of an overdose? Your "fewer guns will result in fewer instances" argument is even less true in the case of suicide. If someone really wants to kill himself, he'll find a way to do it.



That is without a doubt the most pathetic, untruthful argument I've heard so far. An accidental death caused by cleaning a gun?!?!?!?! You obviously have zero, ZERO knowledge of any kind of guns. You are not even qualified to discuss them! In case you didn't know, you don't clean a loaded weapon!



You know, I actually agree with you there. No one should feel the need to have a gun to protect himself, or other people.

But guess what? We don't live in your fantasy land. Only Heaven will be perfect and free of crime. Until then, we live on planet Earth, and crime and risk to life and limb is a fact of life. Deny it and live in ignorant bliss if you want, I don't care too much since I can't change your mind. But don't take away my right to defend myself and other innocent people just because you are afraid to take a little responsibility.

so, i'm coming in real late and having just read Brian's first post i have to ask a question.
do you want the ban to be gone so there will be more guns available, or would you like the ban to remain and have the ban include the guns that actually are unnessesary (like any of them really are :p )?

no one, NO ONE, i repeat, NO ONE, needs an uzi. no one needs a gun that holds 30 rounds. guns like these should not be allowed in peoples homes.
there is NO argument for the need to have a 30 round clip in a gun. NONE!!!!!
being the anti-gun guy i am, i will actually accept the need for a gun in a home with 9 or 11 rounds or whatever a .45 might hold. but no one needs a gun with 30 rounds.

For everyone who has tried to counter the "need" point by saying we don't need video games or cars, I'm sure you already know this but cars and games have purposes besides mowing down human beings.

Personally I think there's something wrong with owning something that has NO REASON to be in your hands besides extinguishing human life.

And then there's the fact that firearms are so easy to acquire. Maybe this is because they have been legal for so long? Have you ever considered that maybe allowing the guns in the first place has made them so available? I think this mistake has come along way in feeding the black market. Here in Toronto there was a huge weapon bust in the past year - and a significant portion of the guns were stolen.

I don't see any practical reason for owning a gun.

Let's just say I, or even my neighbor owned an assault rifle. I could so easily take it, conceal it in a large backpack with ammunition, and walk down to the Eaton Centre. I could whip it out in the middle of the crowds of people, and do some serious damage. And what could prevent me from doing this? Nothing. I've carried a backpack downtown countless times and never been searched.

LOL! You sure are passionate for someone who hasn't even used one. Your argument would have more credit if you actually went hunting or target shooting or something.

Why?

My argument is based on logic and you have done nothing to counter it.
I have no interest in ever owning a gun, so it isn't surprising that I have no interest in ever "going shooting". That's like saying you can't have an opinion on drugs unless you've shot up on heroin.

Try looking at my argument, not 'me'.

And I don't see how my argument is at all "passionate". I could go on about all the 'innocent children' that are killed from accidental gunfire, but that doesn't prove anything. My arguments are based on logic. Counter them using logic, please.

Maybe we can illegalize all guns except rifles.
Semi-auto, auto, whatever. Try concealing that.

For those of you arguing that Americans need (or at least should be allowed to have) assault rifles, I have a question: where do you draw the line? I’m honestly curious about this. You believe I should be able to purchase assault rifles, but should I be allowed to make bombs? Should I be allowed to stockpile massive amounts of weapons and ammunition? Should billionaires be allowed to purchase tanks or jet fighters to protect their mansions? What about nuclear weapons or biological weapons? Does the second amendment allow me to own those things? I’m curious to know where you believe the line should be drawn, and why.

You wuss!

Last time I checked we were talking about ARs, not all guns. Your attack on all guns is outright OT. Just because you may not live anywhere near where there's hunting or haven't been exposed to hunting culture, doesn't mean that firearns don't have legitimate uses.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to go target shooting in 5 minutes.

Hell, he could stab them with a screwdriver if he wanted to. Does that mean that everything that is sharp, pointy, and could possibly be used as a weapon should be banned too? I could potentially beat someone to death with just my fists-- should my hands be cut off?

Law-abiding civilians should be heavily armed b/c law enforcement is stretched too thin to effectely protect everyone at once.

I feel that i should be allowed to have a loaded mp5 or an AK-47 if i wanted one, but I don't think anyone should have their own private air force or WMDS or anything.

The thing is Page, I can't kill a dozen people in the middle with a screwdriver. With an mp5 or ak47 on the other hand...

however, if someone can legally hold a mp5 or ak-47, it doesn't mean that they are going to go out and rob a bank with it or commit mass murder. Sure, there are exceptions, but most probably won't.

Most guns used in crimes are obtained illegally.

We don't need one right now, and let's hope we never do. But that's no reason not to own one. There are other reasons to shoot than to shoot at people. As long as it's not misused, there is not a problem.



Coward. No personal offense intended, but you are a coward. Why? Because sometimes, as unfortunate as it is, it's sometimes necessary to extinguish human life to save another human life. Ever since Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, there has been evil and sin in the world. If you deny it, or if you refuse to be prepared for it, you're a fool and a coward.

I mean, I don't want to insult anyone, but let's quit beating around the bush here. It's all about fear: fear of someone hurting you, fear of what might happen, and fear of doing something about it. Fear of taking a little responsibility. That's the truth.



Ok. Let's go back in time, destroy all guns, destroy all plans for making guns, and kidnap everyone who knows how to make one. Then maybe we can really keep them out of the hands of certain people. But that still doesn't mean that evil people won't get them.



I believe that is in the category of theft, not violent gun crime.



Go ahead. Bury your head in the sand. Just hope that someday, you don't have to prematurely bury your whole body because no one could defend you from an evil person.



Are you or your neighbor evil? Would you do something like this? Would you?! Then stop talking about it. If you are not an evil person or an insane person, or a completely irresponsible one, there's no reason for you not to own an assault rifle.



Then what would prevent anyone from doing the same thing with a bomb? A knife? An axe? A chainsaw? A cane with a sharp end hidden inside? If you take away the guns, it isn't going to stop people from killing people.



Maybe he hasn't, but I have. I notice that you haven't replied to my points. Ignore me, deny the truth. Go ahead. Ignorance is bliss.



Never heard of a sawed-off shotgun? A heavy overcoat? A bag of golf clubs?



Bombs of what size? Bombs big enough to blow up a city, or a bomb big enough to blow up a mole as he burrows through your yard for the 99th time? I don't have a problem with anyone owning weapons, or ammo, or tanks, or jet fighters, as long as they don't hurt anyone with them. Owning something like that shouldn't be a crime. Misusing it should be the crime.

As for nuclear or biological weapons, those are different. Those can get out of control and hurt people far and wide. They are also very complex. A gun is simple: don't point it at anyone, don't let it out of your hands...be responsible with it.

Stop denying the truth. Stop being afraid. Have a little courage, take a little responsibility. If more people would do that (and I don't just mean with guns), the world would be a better place.

I'm not completly Sure where I stand on this, But has of right now....

I for people Being able to have reasonable guns... But there's really No need for some one to have an ak-47 or mp5..

If you can't hunt/defend your self with a pistol or rilfe/shotgun, then I doubt you need a more powerful gun, what you need is more training

and BTW the you don't NEED games/ect is a very weak argument, a JK cd isn't going to help some one kill a mass amount of people..

but thats just my 2 cents

and yes I have fired a gun and Went hunting...

I'm not sure of the exact laws, but is it legal to have an assault rifle if you are a gun collector and have it in your collectio, but you don't have any ammo for it?

most mp5s use easily obtained 9mm ammo, but still....

I think the assumption being made by a lot of people is that it's the government's responsibility to tackle the "gun problems" that Mort brings up.

It might be true that the Average Joe can kill more easily with a gun.

It might also be true that some people (or all people) shouldn't have guns. I don't necessarily agree, but I don't even think I need to address that in this post to win the argument.

The root of crime is irrationality. It's not rational to kill because A) it makes others more likely to dislike you B) if you can kill others in cold blood, then they can do the same. (It's not a good precedent to set) C) getting along with people is always best for your interests.

With that said, the government is never going to solve crime. It will always exist in a society of irrational people. Laws should ban acts that harm individual rights- murder, stealing, etc. To take away ability to be rational and to make our own decisions will kills us one day.

Why does gun control prevent us from being rational decision makers?

If a person comes into my house to rob, it would be best for my survival to at least have the gun ready or to threaten him with it. Robberies can easily be turned into my death. Also, private property is a right that should never be taken away by the government or other citizens, and I need to be able to defend it. A government can't decide that "guns do only harm the majority of the time." This is a subjective decision and therefore not rational. Rational decision making requires an assessment of the situation as brought by our senses and reason. In other words, let people act:

If they want to own a gun because they live in a rough neighborhood and need protection, let them do it. If they want to use it to hunt because they get enjoyment/food out of it, let them do it. If they want to shoot at targets on a saturday afternoon, let them do it.

Nazi Germany decided that guns were a danger. They used gun registration to take them away. Government IS the threat. As Brian said (I think it was Brian), the founders of the consitution knew that they had to overthrow a ruler and that it might have to happen in the future. Guns are a check on the government.

We can't have the government making laws to protect ourselves from misusing a tool. There's already a law against killing a person.

Edit:

So what's the alternative to government gun control?

1. Private programs aimed to convince people to turn their firearms in.
2. Private programs meant to educate people on how to keep their urge to use their gun under control.
3. etc

I know you don't intend offense blujay, but calling someone names in a debate doesn't really help your position that much. No matter how many times you deny that you aren't trying to insult someone, it still seems immature when you are trying to refute an argument.

I don't believe that everyone deserves the right to have the power to kill dozens with a relatively low risk of being stopped.



The guns were in possession of "evil" people. Gangsters, if you will. People who have caused deaths in crossfires during gangfights. If you owning a gun leads to more guns on the street, is it your fault? Not completely, but if you didn't have it in the first place, it wouldn't be on the street.



You are correct in this case. But how do you determine whether someone is evil or not? How do you determine whether they would do something like this? I think it's better if nobody is allowed to have assault rifles unless you have some foolproof method of stopping "evil" people from acquiring them legally. Step out of your "fantasy land" - evil people exist and they could get an assault rifle just as easily as you under this system.



Ok, so if someone comes with a bomb, it would be even more destructive, but would an assault rifle be able to defend against this? NO! It's also much easier to overcome someone with a knife, axe or chainsaw than someone wielding an extended clip rifle.

What it seems is that you are not for trying to prevent crime, but rather dealing with it when it actually happens. This does not seem logical to me. I admire your courage and heroism, but it is far from the best solution. Why add the blood of the heroes to victim tally? If you are so eager to claim responsibility, take up a career in law enforcement.

how about removing the hands of every newborn?

in a few years time that will drastically cut crime.

Jedi Legend speaks truth. An armed population keeps tyrannical rulers down. I'd hate to be in Europe when that happens...again.

I admit I got a little upset there. But I still think it's the truth. Fear and cowardice are the main reasons behind gun control in the U.S.




That's an illogical argument. There are many ways to kill dozens of people. Causing a 20-car pile-up on a freeway where the traffic averages 75+mph would do it easily. The only way to take away that "right" would be to lock everyone up.



That is a naive and illogical assumption. It also assumes that a gun in my possession will leave my possession, also illogical.



I think it's better if people are allowed to have them unless you have some foolproof method of stopping evil people from acquiring them illegally. Because people who want to commit violent crimes won't care if acquiring their weapon is illegal or not.




Yeah, I can't argue with you there. Except it's not really relevant, because the point of owning assault rifles is not to defend against people carrying bombs.



Another illogical assumption. I'm all for crime prevention. However, I don't think the best way to prevent crime is to ban guns. I also think it's quite logical to deal with crime when it happens, because as much as you may try to prevent it, crime is and always will be a fact of life.

It is the purpose of the government to protect its citizens.
Laws that expect citizens to protect themselves are basically promoting vigilantiism. It is the government that upholds the law, not you.



No, introducing private corporations into it will only mess things up even more. It is the government's responsibility to protect its citizens. Yes, it would be terribly easy to just lump problems onto private companies, but corporates are inteded to make a profit, not solve problems. It is the government that can solve problems. Making money is not an issue here. It is the government that has the control and it is the government that has to be involved.

Alot of people here dont seem to know what theyre talking about.

Example:

The Eaton Centre is in Canada. In Canada ALL guns that are owned must be locked in a large metal safe, attached to a wall permantly, with a lock on it at all times. Ammo must also be stored in a seperate safe like device from the guns.
Point being you could not "Easily take it", and it would probably not fit in a "large backpack" unless this backpack is like 4-5 feet tall.
Another point is that the most you could kill is around 5 people, because rifles in Canada are ILLEGAL if they carry more than 5 rounds in them, also handguns can only have 10 round capacity.
END OF POINT

Murder was just as much of a problem as it was before guns were invented. Mr. Average Joe still has his hands or a knife. Killing people is not hard. Just because harm can be done with it is no reason to ban it. Guns are dangerous if used wrongly. Bikes are dangerous if used wrongly. Just because you don't need it doesn’t mean it should be illegal. Uzi's are fun to shoot down at the range.

It is a naive government that believes that its officers will be at the scene of a crime when it happens. It is an irresponsible government that denies its citizens the means to defend themselves.

You all have a lot of homework to do: Learn what an assult rifle is. All of your opinions are based on movie knowledge of firearms.

Have any of you fired an assult rifle? Have any of you ever been shot? Have any of you ever cleaned a gun and shot yourself? Have any of you ever held a single firearm? It's not like you just point and shoot. You don't just turn on auto-aim and start pressing your WASD. A firearm takes far more to fire than just picking one up and firing.

JediKirby