Posted on 12/22/2012 11:32:10 AM PST by rellimpank
In the wake of the deadly Connecticut school shooting last week, one question has repeatedly surfaced in the Black Hills and across much of the country: Why would anyone want to own an assault weapon?
One thing is clear — the high-powered rifles capable of shooting multiple rounds in a hurry are in high demand. After President Barack Obama said this week he would push to renew a ban on purchasing the rifles, local gun-shop owners said the weapons have been flying off their shelves.
Meanwhile, gun owners in Rapid City cite diverse reasons for purchasing the weapons. Some say they are durable and accurate; a few see them as a financial investment or a way to exercise their constitutional rights; while others point to their value in self-protection or in the fun of target shooting.
Whatever the reason, assault-rifle owners are committed to the weapon.
"There is something kind of zen-like in setting up a bench and trying to put
(Excerpt) Read more at rapidcityjournal.com ...
Would high cap mags really make a substantial difference in these mass-shooting scenarios? Unless the people you’re shooting at are able to shoot back, taking an extra few seconds to change mags doesn’t seem like it’s going to change the outcome much.
2-legged or 4-legged feral hogs?
Let me give you all some food The FBI defines mass murder as being an event where there are 4 or more fatal victims. Out of a population of 313 million, some of which committed a little over 9,000 murders with firearms in 2012. 6-8 of those incidents were mass murders.
What this means is that if you exclude 6-8 mass murders, almost all of the 9,000+ other murders killed less than 3 people per event. No doubt the majority of events produce one victim.
My point is that neither so-called assault weapons or hi-cap mags played any role in our crime rate.
We could magically snap our fingers and remove all the assault weapons with hi-cap mags and that 9,000+ number would remain the same. I don’t know how many were used, but they gave no advatage to their shooters who were only killing 1,2 or 3 people at a time. This could be done with a 5 shot revolver.
I have an old jeep and it has a 500 hp engine. I clearly don’t need this, but I don’t want to give it up just because I don’t need it.
I own all of my guns simply because I can - any more questions?
You got that right. Even a clenched fist is scary to libs.
Except the New BP types wielding billy clubs (or worse) and gubmint/union thugs. ‘Cause they are there to ‘help us’.
We are no longer a free society. Pretty soon even thinking un-pure thoughts will be outed.
If you describe it as a "22 rifle", you get a completely different response.
I use a .223 to hunt aircraft carriers.
I mean .. a pencil is an assault weapon .. a bobby pin .. a friggin' fist, fer cryin' out load.
America is SO done.
What I want to know is why anyone would call my nice, peaceful firearms “Assault Weapons”? They haven’t assaulted anyone under my watch.
I bet the Tutsi population of Rwanda wished they had had some assault weapons. A lot of them were hacked to death with machetes because soldiers did not want to waste their bullets on them.
Anybody asks me this question I refer them to the movie “Panic Room” with Jodie Foster and Dwight Yoakum. Most have seen it, and I simply say “if I’m attacked by three men in my house I could easily need 20 rounds to hold them off until help arrives.” People just don’t want to believe something like Sandy Hook or Panic Room could happen to them, so they shut it out. Face reality people.
Exactly! And that’s why I am so concerned about people even suggesting that there is something to discuss or negotiate because if you believe there is something to negotiate then you put yourself in a position to justify it’s very existence.
I agree with everything you wrote. However it does not invalidate anything in my post.
An AR15 is not a functional assault weapon because it is not capable of full auto or burst fire.
The reporting is deficient because reporter refers to the rifle using an incorrect adjective.
It is similar to calling fire truck a tow truck because it has a similar engine and chasse and it is capable of pulling a car out of the mud.
The way our government is going.........we need all the firepower we can get our hands on.
Did you know that those bullets can pierce organs, sever arteries, and shred tissue and bones? It’s true. I read it in the New York Daily News.
Libtards are too ignorant, irrational and emotional to comprehend simple facts and statistics.
There, fixed it. I've only been paying attention since Ruby Ridge and Waco but I'm more concerned now than ever.
Those atrocities showed me that the federal government could slaughter American men, women and children whose only crime was exercising their God given Constitutioal rights and a majority of the population would just shrug their shoulders and look away.
People like Dianne Feinstein don’t understand that or won’t face the facts. I think they would like to ban any weapon that has magazine, which would be almost every semi-auto that there is.
It seems like it should, to some degree.
If for instance magazines are limited to 10 rounds that should reduce the rate of aimed fire by maybe 50%. It is easy to shoot at least 5 rounds in the time it takes to change a magazine.
This is not actually a stupid statement.
Aircraft carriers exist because there is a state and a society capable of putting sufficient resources to making and operating them.
.223 rifles, in sufficient numbers and in the right hands, are a way to make that society incapable of operating aircraft carriers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.