*groan*

Huh? Reread his post. He said that "there is no reason" to shoot the bad guy in the head. At the distances we're talking about, anyone who knows how to fire a gun could shoot a shoulder instead of a head, assuming the target is not moving.

If I wanted to wreak havock and kill a bunch of people, a bomb would be easier than assault rifle. When the bomb explodes, you have little evidence, its all destroyed. However, if you use a gun, you have to worry about ballistics tracing, fingerprints, and a lot of other stuff.

bombs are easy to acquire /make compared to assault rifles.

I know how to make plastic explosives out of bleach, and then toss in a few handfulls of nails for shrapnel. I could make even other weapons out of common household items, were I so inclined.

For example,

If I wanted to assassinate a political leader and I knew where he kept his car, I would get a pill with gelatin casing, open it up, remove the medication, and replace it with drain-o crystals. I would then drop this into the car's gas tank. The fuel would slowly eat through the capsule, exposing the draino to the gasoline. Draino + gas = HUGE EXPLOSION. No gun needed whatsoever.

I am afraid.
Forum members trained in explosives, sharpshooting, fencing etc.
Elite killers.



And all teenagers still

I never said I wanted an assult rifle... what I want is correct justice for assult rifles. Some are banned simply because they were common weapons used in crime, while others were just as attainable, and weren't banned. The banning process was vague, and wasn't really all that considerate of the gun companies, and the actual effect the weapon had on crime, not just it's consistancy in crime.

And your logic on googling assult rifles proves my point in every respect: The AK-47 is not the only assult rifle in existance, at all. But as soon as you say the words, people instantly think of the AK-47. That's exactly what I meant by the ignorance of firearms.

And lastly, a shotgun, a handgun or a pistol is going to give you FAR more range, and power when going on some shooting of people. A killer wouldn't probably want to use a a high rof assult rifle due to it's high rate of fire, (obviously) wasting many bullets. Not to mention, a single bullet from even the AK-47 is unlikelly to kill you unless at close range, and well aimed. Assult rifles are for ASSULTS on a group, not MURDERS of a group. Assult rifles are used more in combat to simply hold lines and spray more cover bullets around at a higher speed than a shotgun or rifle. Otherwise, a high powered rifle is used for actually killing enemies.

Like I said, you people know nothing of guns (And I really don't know all that much either, to tell you the truth. But even with the little knowledge I have, I can tell most of you how sickeningly incorrect you are.) and shouldn't suggest a firearm ban until you've studied even remotly about the firearms you'd like to ban, just like the original framers for the former assult rifle ban.

JediKirby

Um...Assault rifles have far better range and accuracy (if used correctly) than a pistol. Not to mention that, but an assault rifle will do much more damage, most likely.

Pistol--12 shots on average, with hollowpoints, inaccurate, short-range.

Shotgun--powerful, short range, spread.

Assault rifle--long range, accurate, powerful, high rate fo fire (more bullets to kill people with, my dear).

Either way, that school mascot's going to die. I mean...gang...member who was...assaulting me...yeah

<.<

If you're commiting a murder you don't want something large, powerfull and with a high rate of fire. An AR would only be usefull if you wanted to go on a murderous rampage. However a Nail bomb would work just a well for that.

That's the whole point. And also, in organized crime, what about gang wars? But either way, they'd be able to get AR's. I don't really care banned or not, so it doesn't affect me.