At 1/16/13 03:47 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
How does this bear on whether or not AWBs are an unessecary infringement?
It is directly related to it being unnecessary. If the guns are not used in crime and not a significant source of gun deaths...why ban them?
Everyone is asking 'why should civilians own these guns'? That's the wrong question, the right question is: 'what reason is there to ban them'? The reality is, there is nothing that makes military clones something that we need to ban.
But a great deal of military ammunition is meant to tumble after hitting a soft target thus creating large and deep wound cavity. Sounds more than harmful enough. Other military ammunition is meant to shatter into shrapnel upon impact with a soft target. Sounds pretty harmful. SO which is worse: mushrooming with shallower depth; tumbling with extreme deoth; or shrapnel? The only real difference in lethality or capacity to harm in these is the distance with which either happens from the barrel to the target.
Tumbling is possible with any bullet. But guess what? A .223/5.56 round (what is used in a AR-15) travels at such a high velocity that the possibility is actually reduced by these firearms. When it comes out of the barrel a .223 is travelling at 3,110 fps. A .44 mag is traveling at 1,282 fps by comparison.
Either way, saying assault weapons are not meant to harm is nothing less than specious. Guns are designed solely to harm flesh. You may be right that in close situations the most crime takes place assault weapons may end up causing less harm, but to imply that any gun is truly safe is just plain false. Guns are meant to be lethal.
I did not say , so please do not re-phrase what I said to put words in my mouth.
What I said is: . Furthermore, Obama said military weapons are designed to inflict maximum damage...and that's what I'm taking issue at: while they are capable of killing they are designed to minimize the chance of death.
In no one am I saying that they do not harm, nor am I saying that any gun is truly safe. I know guns. I know that even can kill if the circumstances are right.
But what I said stands: military ammo is designed to wound than they are designed to kill.
3) Rate of fire does not make a gun more deadly; in fact the faster one fires the less probable people will get hurt.Depends on use and intent, but in the vast majority of case this is correct. Still not sure how this makes AWBs an uneccesary infringement.
Because this is a reason advocates for an AWB claim that this is a reason that makes it necessary. However, it is false. Ergo, since it is false and untrue...it does not makes it necessary.
So without this justification...it adds to the unnecessary column.
You still haven't shown where these firearms need to be treated as a special case.
High Cap mags
All you have done here is shown that Assault weapons don't make that good of crime weapons. Come back and say why that fact has anything to do with an AWB being an unessecary infrigement.
Don't focus on the crime aspect, focus on the infringement aspect.
I am focusing on the infringement aspect by deconstructing the reasons why policy makers and advocates claim that this infringement is necessary.
Ergo...their claims that an AWB infringement is necessary is based upon claims with no foundation or basis in reality. So at this point...there has been no cause shown that makes the policy a necessary good to the public. Nothing supports it as good public policy.
In the end the burden of proof is not on me...it is on anyone who supports these measures to demonstrate why we should pass this law.
And they fall far short of this benchmark.