> Do you not consider a gun that can kill several children in a classroom at once a weapon
of mass destruction?<
Do not misuse defined terms to your advantage, Christine. The phrase "weapon of mass destruction" has a defined meaning. It is a nuclear, biological or chemical weapon. A conventional explosive bomb or mine, a flamethrower, a high-rate heavy machine gun - these are conventional weapons. Very deadly but not WMDs.
Similarly - an "assault weapon" is defined as a firearm with a selective-fire provision. That means one trigger pull can cause multiple sequential firing events. A "machine gun". An autoloading rifle, pistol or carbine that operates in a "one pull, one shot" manner is not an assault weapon, regardless of the bad English being used by the antigun crusaders. It does not matter if a gun is styled to resemble a current mil-spec arm. No army or militia on the planet will issue semi-auto guns to its troops as a primary weapon. They ALL have the selective-fire provision.
As for a gun that can kill several etc. - do you mean a gun that can kill? Do you mean several children at once or in short succession? Do you mean a gun in a classroom, or several children in a classroom, or a classroom at once?
>weapons which have no real
legitimate purposes at all for civilians<
Any projectile weapon has a civilian use. Competition perhaps, or hunting, or personal defense, or you name it. Most important - lots of people owning suitably deadly weapons, like autoloading pistols and rifles, is the final guarantor of acceptable behavior by our government.
I saw the movie "The Siege" last night. It was horrifying. Such a scenario required a venue like NYC, where almost all people had no credible means of defense in their homes or on their persons.
We've been around and around this. You believe and proclaim that guns are the very root of violence in this country. But you cannot substantiate it! Your supporting links come from (to put it kindly) interested parties. I contend that you need something more than a visceral belief if you want to undercut my Constitutional entitlements. I really and truly believe that AR15 rifles and Glock pistols in the hands of the voting public are of real value in keeping government honest.
(They are not the only things. Cell phones and the Internet are marvelous tools of free expression and policy review. But when the army goes door-to-door as in the movie - these weapons of civil discourse are worth zero.)
I despise violence. You know this, and I want you to start respecting it. The scenario in your earlier post fails to distinguish between potential and action. The terrible things are 1) carrying a gun into a classroom, 2) using it in the classroom. The gun's existence is not the issue. Both 1 and 2 are severe crimes. Let's enforce those. I wonder if enforcement of those strictures is deliberately spotty in order to prosecute the continuing attack on legal gun ownership. Prove me wrong.
Choosing the correct word - what's wrong with "firearms"? Not repulsive enough? |
