This I agree with.. the classification of an assault rifle/weapon needs clear definition however.

Additionally, I think there should be tiers of weapons and training/licensing needed to possess the different classes/tiers of weapons.

The right to own a gun is protected by the amendments of this country, but that doesn't mean it should be completely unregulated.

Even if we take your example as an exaggeration to make a point (very few weapons, and as far as I'm aware, no legal weapons fire half that quickly), I firmly believe that at least 75% of Americans (including many gun owners) believe that banning the sale of weapons like that is acceptable.

Like many other political issues these days (spending, taxation), I think the problem arises when nobody is willing to firmly define terms and explain what is and is not acceptable. People will point fingers at problems and bad things and propose solutions, but they don't define what IS acceptable and what IS a reasonable balance of liberties and safety. Obviously, there's people on extremes of the political spectrums that won't be happy no matter what, but for most people closer to the middle, I do believe there's room for agreement and compromise with enough rational and effective communication.

This is the legislation many politicians want to re-enact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/...eral_Assault_Weapons_Ban


While there are certainly many things in here I think most of us can agree should be banned, why is there other crap in there? Why are we banning firearms by name rather than using simple, measurable terms to determine what should and should not be legal? Why can't we say that any semi-automatic weapon capable of firing over x rounds per minute is illegal, any magazine size over x is illegal? Why is everybody saying X, Y, and Z need to be banned without firmly defining where the trail of banning should end?

Personally, I don't see the need to own a firearm. Hell, the day I moved into my new home, I heard a series of pops from a parking lot two blocks north of me and there were cop cars out there for about 6 hours afterwards. Nobody got killed but it was apparent there were shots fired. But still, I don't think I'm responsible enough to own a firearm with my history of depression and much earlier in life, suicide attempts. That being said, I understand why many people want to own firearms to protect their families in the case of home invasions and the like.

And I know that if I did have a handgun, I would want a semi-auto handgun. If I honestly need to shoot someone, I'd absolutely love to be able to simply incapacitate someone as the thought of killing ANYBODY sickens me, but if someone is in my house and is threatening myself and my wife I am not going to take the chance. If I lived out in the country, I could see myself having a rifle of some sort and if it was in an area known for druggies raiding houses, maybe something semi-auto. I could never see myself with a semi-auto shotgun though.

The problem lies in the government's/media's definition of 'assault weapons'. And the continued ignorance of what a semi-automatic and a full automatic weapon is.

Between semi-autos and full-autos?

Semi-autos, regardless if the trigger is pulled or held, one round is fired. Full-autos, if you hold the trigger, it will continue firing rounds.

As far as the definition of an 'assault weapon', basically, the government/media considers any weapon that LOOKS scary/militaristic as an 'assault weapon'.

There will be the argument, that with some work, tools and knowledge.. one can take a semi auto and convert it to fire more than one round per pull.

Here is my problem with both the semi and fully automatic weapons (and yes I have fired one a couple different times) is neither is very accurate and to be honest.. past the first couple rounds.. you are not taking the time to aim and fire between the adrenaline and recoil. So in my opinion, they don't make very good sport guns because of this.

I agree we in the public sector do not need a fully automatic weapon at all.. and probably not a semi either. But I guess I would make the regulations on them much stiffer to obtain the ability to own them at the very least.

And no.. just like the drug trade, you are not going to stop the criminals from obtaining what they want as the US regulations are always going to differ from the worlds. But lessening the opportunity for the types of "killer" that commit these spree killings.. such regulations as a tier program will limit the probably some.

We live not in bubbles and we are a "free" society... you are not going to stop it all.. even in a full out removal of guns. Personally, if those in power would just define in black and white what is allowable and not by the law abiding public within reason, it is about as good as the issue is going to get without changing the "free" society concept more than we already have.

I personally know alot of hunters that use semi automatic rifles when they hunt. They are easier to use, as you can shoot and not have to do anything to get another round into the barrel.
I myself use a lever action rifle, and can shoot almost as fast as a semi auto, as i have been using it for over 30 years.
It becomes a natural movement to reload when you practice with it.

Automatic weapons are already illegal, so you don't need any new laws. If someone is already breaking laws that are there now, what makes anyone think that criminals will suddenly follow NEW laws?
Answer: They won't. That's why they are bad people. They don't care about ANY laws.
Stricter enforcement and harsher penalties is what is needed to stop bad people. Not new laws that have no more "teeth" then the current ones.
Drunk driving is illegal, but doesn't stop the drunks. Harsher penalties if you are caught drunk driving might stop some people. Some though, as you already know, will do it anyway. You see people caught for 6 and 7 or more times drunk driving. Some just don't care and the only way is to incarcerate them, same as they should do for those using guns to commit crimes.

Yeah Cheesey, but those semi-auto's used for deer rifles only hold 4 rounds, so you get four shots. That's not the type of rifle that is going to be made illegal. And please quit using those stupid apples to oranges comparisons on your argument. All it does is waters down your argument, because they have nothing to do with the topic at hand. A 4 round clip on a deer rifle is plenty - ban anything holding more than that. We will all survive just fine.