Please keep this civil as I would like this thread to last. A politically neutral friend of mine is posting on facebook asking why American civilians need assault rifles, and suggesting that they be banned. Here is an excerpt.
"To me, guns serve only two civilian purposes: self-defense and hunting. Why would you need an assault rifle for either of these purposes? And it's not the firepower of the gun that's so important; it's the capacity of the magazine, of which assault rifles generally are larger. This allows for a wider range of damage across targets, say, in shooting sprees. There is a problem, however, in that if someone wants to kill people, they'll find a way to do it. We shouldn't outlaw civilian possession of firearms in general, only those styles which can injure many people at one time."
The last sentence concerns me. What would you say?
"To me, guns serve only two civilian purposes: self-defense and hunting. Why would you need an assault rifle for either of these purposes? And it's not the firepower of the gun that's so important; it's the capacity of the magazine, of which assault rifles generally are larger. This allows for a wider range of damage across targets, say, in shooting sprees. There is a problem, however, in that if someone wants to kill people, they'll find a way to do it. We shouldn't outlaw civilian possession of firearms in general, only those styles which can injure many people at one time."
The last sentence concerns me. What would you say?
Comment