[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Hollow point armour piercing.

Paul, I sincerely mean this respectfully but this response demonstrates that conclusions are made based on completely inaccurate information. Couple things, the common full metal jacket bullet has a better penetration ability than hollow-point rounds. Hollow-points are designed to flatten out and transfer the maximum amount of energy into whatever it penetrates. However, from what I understand, this design to "flatten" also makes hollow-points *less* effective than common full metal jacket rounds at piercing bullet-proof vests.

"Hollow point armor piercing" is a load of hogwash created through propaganda and holds no actual credibility.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"So we're not concerned with actions that actually save the most lives"

Wrong. I never said I'm not concerned with DUI laws, or laws that discourage other risky driving habits. And I agree 100% that laws banning texting while driving, and mandatory seat-belt laws, will save more lives than laws banning assault rifles.

But I don't see that we have to choose one or the other. Why can't we talk about both? Why do you assume that if I'm talking about assault rifles, that automatically means that I don't support safe driving laws?

I think you're misunderstanding my point. It's not a slippery slope argument or either-or argument. What I'm saying is that on the premise of outlawing things based on their danger and a lack of perceived "need", then the same people that thinks a 60rd magazine should be banned because no one "needs" them should also support making alcohol illegal.

My point comes down to a lack of priorities. People keep saying, "we need to outlaw these guns because they kill people." Then I say we should outlaw alcohol because it kills people, causes addition and is frequently a factor in sexual assaults.

You have an absolutely valid point that I may be over-reacting to something that looks more threatening than it actually is. That's probably my knee-jerk reaction to ths shooting.

I still feel most guys who own these weapons are trying to compensate for some other physical shortcoming.

I don't buy the slippery slope argument, either, why do we assume that things will always go to an extreme? I love grizzly bears, been to Alaska twice to see them. But I like laws that ban keeping them as pets. I'm not concerned that if the feds today tell me I can't have a grizzly bear, that tomorrow they're going to take away my golden retriever.

Johnny, a lot of the things you said would be banned next (like skydiving) are not exactly the same. If I go skydiving, I'm taking on the risk myself. The only person at risk is me, and it's my choice to go skydiving.

Just to reemphasize the above, I'm not trying to make a slippery slope argument. I'm not saying that if we let big brother outlaw specific guns, that any at-risk activities will be banned. My argument is based more on the premise of how people are justifying the reasons arbitrary aspects to firearms should be banned.

You have me convinced that thy hype around this argument is likely not proportional to the intended benefit. But banning assault rifles is not the same thing as banning skydiving. If the only people that got hurt with assault rifles were the people that choose to own them, I would not have started this thread. These weapons put people at risk (how much risk is debatable) who did not ask to become part of the situation.

You've mentioned a few times that you're conflicted about the whole situation and I think it's because there's an emotional and rational response that are in conflict. Emotionally, you think "these things are bad and people shouldn't have access to them." Rationally, you think "do we really want the government imposing more restrictions on the American public? and if they do, would those restrictions even be effective?" Or I'm completely off-base