Gun accidents? Guns are dangrous?

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
Can someone explain to me why an assault rifle, such as the AR-15, should be available to civilians?

[/ QUOTE ]

because in the LA riots the only shops that weren't looted were the ones where the korean owners protected their stores with AK47's and AR-15's.

good enough answer?

maybe you'll be so kind as to put up a bond in case it happens again and then they can just let their stores be looted and you will pay, that way they won't need the guns.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
This still seems like a weak argument to me when we have lots of up and running democracies that aren't, for example, enslaving 49% of the population.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well for one thing the US is a republic with checks and balances and a bill of rights, not a democracy. A true democracy is indeed very bad because there is no protection of individual rights.

[renodoc]

[ QUOTE ]


Can someone explain to me why an assault rifle, such as the AR-15, should be available to civilians?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because governments do tyrannical things if left to their own devices.

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
Lucky enough to be from a country where even law enforcement don't carry guns, I find the US gun policy to be completely insane.

However, I think it is too late to just remove all of them now. It might do something long-term, but not short-term. The American culture and the insane amount of guns already in possession makes it very difficult.

Can someone explain to me why an assault rifle, such as the AR-15, should be available to civilians?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because we learn from the Swiss model of society that by having a machine gun (yes a machine gun, not mearly a semiautomatic rifle) in every home leads to a safe society.

[slickss]

[ QUOTE ]
because in the LA riots the only shops that weren't looted were the ones where the korean owners protected their stores with AK47's and AR-15's.

good enough answer?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not at all.

First, are you saying that AR-15s are legal because of the LA riots? I find that hard to believe. I don't think that a one-day-civil-war-like example, like the LA riots, will convince me of anything. That was a very unique happening and not representative for society in general.

Second, out of curiosity, couldn't the Korean shop owners you refer to have protected themselves with other weapons? Wouldn't a shotgun or a glock do the trick just as well?

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Can someone explain to me why an assault rifle, such as the AR-15, should be available to civilians?

[/ QUOTE ]

because in the LA riots the only shops that weren't looted were the ones where the korean owners protected their stores with AK47's and AR-15's.

good enough answer?

maybe you'll be so kind as to put up a bond in case it happens again and then they can just let their stores be looted and you will pay, that way they won't need the guns.

[/ QUOTE ]

If guns are so dangerous, why are gun store owners and gun store employees not murdering each other left and right? I mean, lets get real, they are around guns ALL THE TIME!!!

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]

Not at all.

First, are you saying that AR-15s are legal because of the LA riots? I find that hard to believe. I don't think that a one-day-civil-war-like example, like the LA riots, will convince me of anything. That was a very unique happening and not representative for society in general.

Second, out of curiosity, couldn't the Korean shop owners you refer to have protected themselves with other weapons? Wouldn't a shotgun or a glock do the trick just as well?

[/ QUOTE ]

I gave you an example of their constructive use. I disproved the argument that they have no legitmate use. The riot example is not the best example or the best argument, but it is enough to disprove your argument that these "types" of guns are totally unnecessary.

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
Lucky enough to be from a country where even law enforcement don't carry guns, I find the US gun policy to be completely insane.

[/ QUOTE ]

Many Americans still recognize that the right to keep and bear arms is one of the foundations of a free society, like the right to free speech. Thus, to us, it is "insane" to live in a place where such a basic civil right is infringed. I can't imagine being helpless to effectively defend myself against criminals or (and especially) the government.

[ QUOTE ]

Can someone explain to me why an assault rifle, such as the AR-15, should be available to civilians?

[/ QUOTE ]

Unfortunately, they aren't. Assault rifles, which are fully automatic military weapons, have been heavily regulated since the National Firearms Act of 1934. (To purchase one, you must undergo an extensive background check and pay a large "tax".)

I suppose you might be talking about "assault weapons," which is a politically-created term for arbitrary semi-automatic firearms which only have a cosmetic resemblance to assault rifles. These guns function in the same way, and are no more lethal than other semi-autos not classified as "assault weapons." In fact, I own an AR-15 "assault weapon," and it's illegal in my state to use to hunt deer, because it's round is not sufficiently powerful.

Even if you are in favor of gun control, why should certain guns be banned based on cosmetic features?

[slickss]

[ QUOTE ]
I gave you an example of their constructive use. I disproved the argument that they have no legitmate use. The riot example is not the best example or the best argument, but it is enough to disprove your argument that these "types" of guns are totally unnecessary.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, without answering my second question in my previous post you're not disproving anything. For assault weapons (not fully-automatic assault rifles) to be necessary, I argue that they must have some positive ability that other weapons don't. So, again, couldn't the shop owners have defended themselves with something like a glock?

[slickss]

bluesbass: What is your reason for owning an AR-15? (I'm just wondering)

Also - how would an American approach getting a normal handgun, like the glock?