[JediJones]

I think the idea is to ban things that cause MORE harm than good. There is the idea that standard guns are enough to defend yourself against criminal and personal attack. And that the harm caused when automatic weapons are used wrongly outweighs the benefit they have as a form of defense. You don't need a lot of rapid-fire bullets to kill an attacker. But they sure help you if you want to kill a lot of people in a spree.

[Monty22]

"And that the harm caused when automatic weapons are used wrongly outweighs the benefit they have as a form of defense. You don't need a lot of rapid-fire bullets to kill an attacker. But they sure help you if you want to kill a lot of people in a spree."

I think everyone except libertarians agree on this. However, the specific subject on this thread, the 1993 assault weapons ban, doesn't have anything to do with those weapons. They are long since regulated to the point of needing a ton of effort to get legally.

Unfortunately, you stick the label 'assault weapon' on something, and it looks 'evil'.

[vbmoneyspender]

Automatic weapons were already illegal before the 'assault' weapons ban was enacted into law. Let me ask you something -- do you own any guns?

[El Gato]

I think the idea is to ban things that cause MORE harm than good. There is the idea that standard guns are enough to defend yourself against criminal and personal attack. And that the harm caused when automatic weapons are used wrongly outweighs the benefit they have as a form of defense. You don't need a lot of rapid-fire bullets to kill an attacker. But they sure help you if you want to kill a lot of people in a spree.

It's the use of those things, not the things themselves that cause the harm. Let's concentrate on the people who misuse them, not the things themselves.

What if you have lots of attackers? As in a mob. Many Korean shopkeepers found asault rifles to be just the thing for assuring that their stores weren't burnt to the ground during the "Rodney King" riots.