Why does Joe Citizen need these?  What purpose do they serve beyond giving somebody the ability to kill a lot of people in a very short period of time? 

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/16/2012 4:10:00 PM (view original):
FWIW, I don't think Joe Citizen needs HCAW.   I'm just saying someone intent on killing people will find a way.

I agree.  I just don't see the need to give them a tool that enables them to kill more, faster.

There's going to be a lot more talk about gun control in the wake of the Newtown elementary school massacre.  A total ban on guns is not going to happen, nor do I think it's reasonable for anybody to demand that.  But removing private citizen ownership of HCAW should be on the table.  Unless somebody can provide a valid reason why Joe Citizen should still have a "right" to possess one.

Posted by tecwrg on 12/16/2012 4:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/16/2012 4:10:00 PM (view original):
FWIW, I don't think Joe Citizen needs HCAW.   I'm just saying someone intent on killing people will find a way.

I agree.  I just don't see the need to give them a tool that enables them to kill more, faster.

There's going to be a lot more talk about gun control in the wake of the Newtown elementary school massacre.  A total ban on guns is not going to happen, nor do I think it's reasonable for anybody to demand that.  But removing private citizen ownership of HCAW should be on the table.  Unless somebody can provide a valid reason why Joe Citizen should still have a "right" to possess one.

I agree.

As a 2nd Amendment supporter (and not a gun owner), I don't see a real problem with banning the assault weapons either. 

I would point out that no gun control laws had any effect on a soul intent on doing evil.  This wasn't a gun issue.  It was evil....

Had this particular individual not decided to kill himself at the first approach of LEO he could have killed many more with the hundreds of rounds he was carrying in high capacity clips. You are right Swamp...it is about control...controlling people who want the right to have weapons with capabilities far beyond any reasonable need for self-defense.

I am all for controlling the ability of individuals to carry out this kind of evil. Semi-auto...ban them, high cap clips....ban them....bullets designed to do maximum damage to the human body....ban them.    9,000+ gun deaths in the US last year...25 people every day...essentially a Newtown every day of every week of every month. But nope, let us not address that in any way. Shopping malls + schools + movie theaters + colleges + work places + homes = hunting grounds. I bet it will take a massacre at a major sporting event.

So do you really want a law that bans...

All semi-automatic weapons. For the untrained we are not talking about machine guns, we are talking about 1 pull and 1 shot.

The last time we were told high capacity clips it meant 8 bullets. Simple hunting shotguns were banned and farmers had to give their guns to the State.

Bullets? Hollow tips? Armor piercing? This is a new one to me. Have not heard anyone crying about ammo since the misnamed "Cop Killer" mythology.

What's your solution?

Some interesting points here.

Before I address them, let me just say that I am not a gun owner myself.  I've never even fired a gun.  Never had the interest.  But, I have no problem with other people owning guns for self defense.  And even though I just can't personally wrap my head around the concept of hunting "for sport", I don't begrudge those who do, and have no problems with gun ownership for hunting for sport.

Silentpadna mentioned the Second Amendment.  When talking about gun control, some people run and hide behind the Second Amendment as an inalienable, funamental and far-reaching right. 

I, too, support the Second Amendment.  The founding fathers of our country crafted and included the Second Amendmant for a reason, and I think that reason needs to be respected.  But first, we need to understand the reason why it's there . . . what was their real intention?  To the best of my knowledge, without doing any deep research, single-shot ball and powder muskets were the high-tech weaponry that was all the rage when the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were written and adopted.  Something like HCAW would have been unimaginable to the founding fathers 225+ years ago.  How would they have regarded weapons like these when they wrote the Second Amendment?  Is this the kind of weaponry that they intended for the citizenry to "keep and bear arms"?  Would the Second Amendment have been worded differently if HCAW could have been comceivable and anticipated?