"Overthrowing the government is not the only reason for gun ownership" - Jebus
Actually this is what the founding fathers (if you are American) had in mind when they drafting the second amendment. This WAS the reason for it. While I agree it has basically no meaning in our current times, and am not arguing against owning guns for self protection.
"I have a feeling you like others, (Piers Morgan) are discriminating based on cosmetics rather than the function of the gun." - Jebus
Yes, when a gun is used to murder over 20 schoolchildren, I am purely arguing against "cosmetics".
"Actually the guns used by our armed forces are pretty weak. Accurate, but weak." - Jebus
I didn't necessarily mean maximize damage as in caliber or firepower, but the ability to shoot a lot of rounds accurately and in a lot quicker time. I am glad Jebus that you at least acknowledged the legality of grenade launchers and the like. To be honest, I am actually undecided on this issue, and all of this, and really playing devil's advocate, only if someone can convince me why the "assault rifles" should be legal and more destructive weapons not.
"By your logic muzzleloaders should also be illegal" -Matt Z
How many mass killings have muzzleloaders been involved in? The logic is valid now because technology has rapidly advanced weaponry so quickly and we are still playing catch up to learn the consequences. While yes, muzzleloaders were created for the same thing, revolutionaries had no idea how sophisticated firearms would get, and so quickly, since comparing a sword of medieval times and a muzzleloader is a fraction more effective than comparing a muzzleloader and any gun intended for warfare in this century.
"However, I don't know of any military using AR-15s or semi-auto civilian AKs." - Matt Z
They are an imitation of a *current* military issued weapon and weapons used by militas all around the world.
Semi-auto rifles (including AR-15s) are used in a variety of shooting sports as well as informal recreational shooting, hunting (the AR platform can be chambered in a variety of calibers) and lawful self defense. These weapons are actually very popular. Meanwhile, their use in crime is relatively rare (maybe 1% of all guns used in crimes are semi-auto rifles). Furthermore there's very little mechanical difference between an AR-15 and any other semi-auto rifle. For example, the Ruger Mini-14 is rarely considered an assault weapon, however it's chambered for the same cartridge as most ARs and can be fitted with high-capacity magazines." - Matt Z
Valid points. I don't claim to know the specifics of every rifle and how capable they are for spraying as many bullets as possible, all I know is in most of the mass killings as of late, these have been the weapons of choice.
"There's also concern that banning all or some semi-auto rifles for mostly emotional reasons would set a dangerous precident, and could lead to increasingly restrictive laws, especially if the ban(s) failed to achieve their desired effect. Frankly, I think it's idiotic that so much of the debate on gun control revolves around mass shootings, which, while terrible, account for an extremely small percentage of all murders." - Matt Z
How can you expect people NOT to react with the recent mass shootings as of late? While I agree that their arguments are emotional and they probably aren't thinking of the consequences, neither are the people on the other side of the coin wanting to arm everyone in the country (including teachers). People are going to react when politicans and children are gunned down by psychos, and the weapons that the psychos used were legally obtained. Expect to hear that if bad things happen.
"I just read an article about a New York newspaper that published the names and addresses of pistol permit holders in two New York counties. ... Great illustration of some of the problems that can go along with licencing and registration." - Matt Z
True. That newspaper is straight up idiotic for doing that.
You have still yet to explain why guns capable of high round capacity are legal and not bazookas and flame throwers in the like, which is the main question I am asking. Do you think they should be legal? Since more effective weapons are on the streets than the normal pistols and hunting rifles, and the claim is that the lawful abiding citizens who own them don't do anything wrong with them, why can't these same claims be made to more destructive weapons? These could certainly be used for hunting (like hoosegow said) and recreational shooting as well.