Posted by MikeT23 on 2/18/2013 3:34:00 PM (view original):
If I said "I want to fire 100 rounds into a crowd really quickly", don't you think my weapon of choice would be an AW? That's what the left is telling you.
That said, the obvious counter is "How many times has that happened?" The answer is "one". Now the question is "Do we want to infringe upon individual rights due to one incident?" Some people think that's enough. I don't happen to agree.
I'm not interested in an assault weapon ban because of what has happened. That's clearly the wrong reasoning. You generate a ban because of what you have reasonable fear WILL happen. The reality is that even at Sandy Hook, similar carnage could easily have been enacted with conventional weapons, given the circumstances. But I would rather have a ban BEFORE 3 guys with automatic weapons kill 1000 people in 10 minutes than AFTER that incident.
It HAS happened, just not here. The Tian Mingjian Incident in China involved 1 man killing and injuring upwards of 100 people with a Chinese military assault rifle. The Uiryeong Massacre saw one South Korean police officer kill 57 people with an M2 automatic rifle and some grenades. The history is there.
I don't want as big a ban as many democrats, but I would at least like to ban anything automatic and live grenades. If tanks are illegal, grenades sure as hell should be. They're a lot easier for the average person to use.