Paul Revere
New member
Now I suspect we have all heard the various arguments regarding the subject and definition of "assault weapons", but I thought I'd throw another one on the table for those interested. Its more of a rebuttal.
Now, it is my understanding that the lead argument in this debate is that these so-called "assault weapons" are quite deadly and there is no "legitimate" "need" for Americans to own them. They are constantly linked to various mass shootings from Columbine to the Jewish Community Center.
But lets use those two incidents as our example. The Tec-9 used at Columbine apparently was responsible for only one direct hit and then it jammed, most of the killing was done with shotguns. At the Jewish Community Center an UZI apparently was "sprayed" but killed no one, injuring a few. So, in these too cases, were "assault weapons" all that deadly? Or could we say that the weapon is only as deadly as the man (or woman) firing it?
What I mean by this is, many of us are very competent shooters, many have served in the military, are LEO's, have taken training and firing practice seriously. Imagine now the same weapons, as used in these incidents, in the hands of a competent shooter. Now, it goes without saying that 99.999% of responsible law abiding gun owners would NEVER stoop so low as to blow a gasket and haul their weaponry out to do a little human target practice as these nutcases have. But this is in fact the argument, that it is NOT the weapons that kill, but the hands and the minds firing the weapons.
Much the same as many NASCAR races where the vehicles all meet certain performance requirements, where it is up to the skill of the driver to win the race, accomplish the best time, and out manuever his fellow racers. All of those vehicles are capable of winning, but their operators are not. It is their skill or lack therof that prevails.
You can say the same about major league baseball bats. The bats are basically the same, capable of hitting homeruns, but only some players actually succeed in hitting homeruns consistantly. Or a grand piano...it can either be fiddled with by the hands of a beginner or play concert quality works of artistry by the hands of a skilled pianist.
A gun is just a tool, like the baseball bat, the NASCAR vehicle, or the piano. What one does with that tool becomes the individual outcome that mirrors the competance or incompetance of its user.
BTW, it is my opinion that the argument regarding "assault weapons" has nothing at all to do with crime prevention. It has a broader objective to create an impotent armed citizenry, by removing military type firearms from the hands of American citizens. The very arms in which our founding fathers meant for Americans to keep and bear to retain its precious freedom.
Now, it is my understanding that the lead argument in this debate is that these so-called "assault weapons" are quite deadly and there is no "legitimate" "need" for Americans to own them. They are constantly linked to various mass shootings from Columbine to the Jewish Community Center.
But lets use those two incidents as our example. The Tec-9 used at Columbine apparently was responsible for only one direct hit and then it jammed, most of the killing was done with shotguns. At the Jewish Community Center an UZI apparently was "sprayed" but killed no one, injuring a few. So, in these too cases, were "assault weapons" all that deadly? Or could we say that the weapon is only as deadly as the man (or woman) firing it?
What I mean by this is, many of us are very competent shooters, many have served in the military, are LEO's, have taken training and firing practice seriously. Imagine now the same weapons, as used in these incidents, in the hands of a competent shooter. Now, it goes without saying that 99.999% of responsible law abiding gun owners would NEVER stoop so low as to blow a gasket and haul their weaponry out to do a little human target practice as these nutcases have. But this is in fact the argument, that it is NOT the weapons that kill, but the hands and the minds firing the weapons.
Much the same as many NASCAR races where the vehicles all meet certain performance requirements, where it is up to the skill of the driver to win the race, accomplish the best time, and out manuever his fellow racers. All of those vehicles are capable of winning, but their operators are not. It is their skill or lack therof that prevails.
You can say the same about major league baseball bats. The bats are basically the same, capable of hitting homeruns, but only some players actually succeed in hitting homeruns consistantly. Or a grand piano...it can either be fiddled with by the hands of a beginner or play concert quality works of artistry by the hands of a skilled pianist.
A gun is just a tool, like the baseball bat, the NASCAR vehicle, or the piano. What one does with that tool becomes the individual outcome that mirrors the competance or incompetance of its user.
BTW, it is my opinion that the argument regarding "assault weapons" has nothing at all to do with crime prevention. It has a broader objective to create an impotent armed citizenry, by removing military type firearms from the hands of American citizens. The very arms in which our founding fathers meant for Americans to keep and bear to retain its precious freedom.
