as·sault ri·fle. : noun-a rapid-fire, magazine-fed automatic rifle designed for infantry use.
Obviously it's not any gun used to fight. You act on one hand like you're a near expert, and on the other like you know nothing about the subject. Why must you feign being so obtuse and naive as a pretext to sesquipedalian and pedantic argument of your own creation?

Shotguns aren't rifles, and pump action isn't semi auto. No need for semi auto to hunt ducks.

Indiscriminately pumping animals, even nuisance animals full of lead isn't acceptable, even when you're just eradicating them and intentionally wasting the meat. That's why professionals trap them for humane disposal. You get more that way too. If you can't hunt humanely, leave it to those who can, please.

Home defense, I think short barrel pump action shotguns are the best choice...easier to wield in close quarters, and much easier to hit your target with. Also, the unmistakable sound of chambering a round is usually all it takes.

This brings up some interesting points.

What is an "assault rifle"? My grand-dad's 303 bolt action rifle was used to fight Germans in the war. It was an "assault rifle". Yet I don't believe this is what you mean. Do you mean AR-15s or similar? The AR in AR-15 stands for Armalite Rifle. It was a select fire gun (capable of automatic fire). The civilian version is semi-automatic. It isn't an "assault rifle" but you could use it as one. You can use any gun as an assault weapon if you so choose to designate it for that purpose.

You may not need a semi-auto for deer hunting, but hunting doesn't end with one animal. Going duck hunting - it's much easier with a semi-auto and 6 round versus a 2 round break action. Going on a pig hunt (for animal destruction). You'll want a semi-auto with a high capacity magazine.

What about home defense? You most certainly DO need a semi-auto long gun. If you choose a pistol over a long gun then you are putting yourself at a massive disadvantage - and the whole point of using a tool to defend yourself is to give yourself an advantage over the aggressor.

Should a gun be harder to get in the USA? In my opinion yes. It should be harder. Whether that is by making ownership of some firearms dependent on being an active member of a club (where the club has the requirement to be each other's keeper) or stopping unvetted second hand sales or some other solution or combination thereof, I don't know the answer. But the two suggestions I've put here are a really good start. Along with a storage onus (don't properly store your firearm and it gets used in a crime - you get a BIG fine). Basically I believe there are plenty of solutions that won't infringe on an American's 2nd amendment rights to acquire and own a firearm.

For the most part, I don't have anything against gun ownership but it seems like commonsense that we shouldn't be selling high-capacity assault rifles to anyone. You don't need an assault rifle to hunt deer or for personal defense and, therefore, they should be extremely hard to acquire. It's fine to be an enthusiast but the average person should not be able to get a hold of them. These mass killings would be much more difficult for someone to enact with a knife.

Nope.

The only effective way is to practically eliminate the prevalence of guns beyond say a hunting rifle across the general population. Everything else is wack-a-mole, and won't solve the problem.

I'm a political moderate, and I generally gravitate towards moderate "common sense" effective regulations when needed. I don't see any point in regulations that don't do any good.

Universal background checks, banning assault rifles, three day waiting periods, banning bump stocks, stopping people who have been evaluated with psychiatric problems, all of it will insignificantly reduce gun violence.

I just don't see a way forward on this issue because what's needed is so politically impossible when people start declaring armed insurrection when a Democrat gets elected President.

Ok, then rimfire isn't assault weapon ammo. You're mixing up topics, adding confusion for nothing on topic....
....and the data massively contradicts your contention that any normal handgun is more powerful or faster than assault weapons, which are 7.62x39 and .223, both over 3 times the power of .357 magnums and beat .44 magnums handily.

To be honest, .50 AE pistols do actually appear to have slightly more power than .223 caliber rifles, I had to look them up separately as they weren't listed, but they are far slower, and a .50 cal bmg has around 7.5 times more power, and desert eagles in the AE .50 configuration aren't normal pistols.

I've always thought Assault-style rifles are just rifles.. no more no less... Just looks like it belongs to a soldier.

This video suggests that assault-style rifles are worse than hand guns.. Not necessary is the AR15 more deadly than a 9MM or 357?

Would think mass and velocity / distance are the key things to think about when doing damage to a body.



I don't own a weapon and never did.

Ah no. I didn't misquote this.

Go to the 16 second mark thank you very much.

Including rimfire was to point out that just because it is a rifle doesn't mean it is more powerful than a handgun.

Good video. But...

"The speed of an assault weapon is substantially higher than the speed of a handgun".

No. The velocity of the projectile from a centerfire rifle is generally much higher than that of a centerfire pistol. It does not matter if the rifle is semi-automatic or not. The velocity of the projectile from a rimfire rifle is also generally much higher than that of a centerfire pistol. But rimfire rifles have very low projectile weights and deliver substantially less energy, have substantially less momentum, have generally smaller projectile diameters, and hence are much less lethal than centerfire pistols.

Some projectiles are designed to tumble. Most projectiles for disrupting flesh are designed to flatten out (and not fragment).

Mental health is a completely separate issue that's being used as a distraction. It's certainly worthy of discussion but it does not belong as part of the gun debate.

I am not for banning weapons.

I would, however, set the bar for ownership so high that only committed hobbyists would own the most extreme weapons.

The more potentially impactful the weapon, the higher the bar. I have no problem with someone casually walking into a store and buying a bolt-action .22 target rifle or a break action sporting shotgun with a fast background check. The licensing, training and security check requirements would then grow progressively stringent until you get to fast shooting, large ammo capacity, medium-large caliber weapons. At which point there should be annual training and recertification requirements, in-home verification of safe storage compliance, thorough background checks and anything else.

Any committed hobbyist is already training regularly with their firearms and storing them safely. The certification requirements are no more than a verification of the practices they already follow. What's needed is to weed out the casual purchasers, the revenge-fantasy dreamers and the paramilitary idiots.

Your video, How powerful assault-style rifles lead to devastating wounds, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

I don't really have a problem with owning guns and it's certainly not "all or nothing".

My issue with the gun arguments in the states is that they're asking the wrong questions. The problem isn't the guns, it's why you seem to think you need them.

No other developed nation has this issue. The rest of the world all have guns, we're just responsible with them. We're ok with reasonable legislation and we don't have a lunatic fringe screaming about tyranny if we can't own assault rifles.

Most importantly, no civilised country thinks you need a gun for self-defence. A) we have police for that and b) most of us just aren't afraid that someone is coming to kill us... because they aren't.

I don't think there's an easy fix to America's gun problems. Fundamentally I think the issue is cultural rather than regulatory, but honestly, at this stage, you're like a bunch of kids, who need their toys taken off them until they can prove they're mature enough to use them properly.

If someone is an alcoholic, the most important thing isn't taking the booze away, it's getting them to admit there's a problem. But sometimes, you need to take the booze away long enough for them to sober up and admit there's a problem.

All good points, but that's another problem.

I don't think the vast majority of gun owners have government overthrowing in mind when purchasing guns anyway.

Why can't I own bombs & shoulder mounted firing rockets? That's because governments are sensibly enough to think these weapons don't belong in the public.

Should that bar for publicly-available weapons set above or below these AR-15 type assault rifles? I think that's the legitimate discussion. It's not "all or nothing."

The intent of the 2nd amendment was so that The People could rise up against a tyrannical government and overthrow it, should the need arise. That was practical back then, when both sides were just a bunch of dudes with muskets.
Nowadays, it would be impossible to rise up and overthrow the military (and militarized police), even with the best assault rifles. So an overthrow-by-violence just isn't practical.

I think it would be OK for active military or SWAT police to own and practice with AR-15, but I support a ban for everyone else (similar to what was in place 1994-2004). I like your idea about allowing them at shooting ranges too, where they are rented, not owned.

Some AR-15 owners say they use them to hunt coyotes, but give me a break- you can use any rifle for that.

Good points.

I'm not a gun nutadvocate, but I have friends who are. I have shot a fairly wide range of guns with them, including an AR-15. For myself, I only ever owned BB guns and a .22 pellet air rifle, for target shooting and varmint control on my family farm. I did go pheasant hunting with borrowed 20 and 12 gauge shotguns a couple times.

My friend that owns the AR-15 is a responsible gun owner. Do I think he needs it? Hell no. But he likes it. Do I need a PC with an i7 processor and nVidia 1060 GPU? Hell no. But I like it.

So I guess it becomes a question of to what extent the things that we like can be used for negative purposes. My nVidia 1060 is unlikely to be used to facilitate a crime (unless games or bitcoin mining get criminalized). However, even though AR-15s might be one of the primary firearms of choice for murderous wackos, the percentage of people that own AR-15's who are murderous wackos is also extremely low.

If banning AR-15s would significantly reduce the rate of mass shootings and/or the average number of deaths per incident, it could be well worth doing even though it would annoy many responsible owners like my friend. ...But, I just don't think that would be the case. Not by itself.

I think we're at a point where we NEED to do something. If the something that we decide to do is to ban AR-15s, well, so be it I guess. But I don't think we'd be pleased with the long-term results of that. It'd be cutting the flower off of the top of the weed. We need to dig deeper, and I think that registration and licensing are sane ways to attempt to do that.