I’m all for protecting the Second Amendment from government and court interference.
But…
What do civilians need AK-47s for? Home defense? Let’s go with a home defense scenario: If someone were to cut loose with an AK-47 in their house to shoot a bad guy, it’s very likely that the rounds would go through two more houses next door before they stopped. It’s like using a sledgehammer to kill a mosquito.
During the North Hollywood shootout a few years ago (1997), bank robbers armed with AKs opened up on the police and the bullets were hitting the police cruisers so hard that they were punching clean through the cars and hitting the crouching cops who were valiantly returning fire with everything they had in their arsenal. One squad car took 57 AK hits in a few seconds; it took over 350 police officers to stop the criminals.
1980 saw a bank robbery in Norco, California that was similar: five men robbed a bank with assault weapons and explosives and wounded eleven police officers, killing one. They then fled and shot down a police helicopter that was in hot pursuit. Eventually the police tracked down and captured/killed all of the criminals, but the damage was done.
And it might now be possible to freely acquire fully automatic assault weapons?
If the ban expires, the next time we have a Columbine-like situation, and two nutters acquire machine guns, there will be ten times as many dead students as in Littleton, Colorado.
I can’t imagine seeing a hunter firing at a deer with an AK-47. There might not be anything left to eat.
Another way to look at this: why should a civilian need to outgun their police department? Some police departments in the country still use older weapons and would be no match for a single AK-47 in the hands of a lunatic.
Keep the machine guns in the hands of the military and the SWAT teams. Assault weapons are too powerful for most civilian uses.
The last thing we need is someone blazing away at a bad guy in his house and then having to go to jail for killing his next door neighbor, who dies after the bullets start coming in through the walls or floor of his house or apartment.
That already happens, but we don’t need a bigger problem.
If I had a chance to buy an AK-47, I would decline it and go with something a little more contemporary like a nice shotgun or rifle, then buy a computer or something else. I wouldn’t want to accept the additional responsibility of an AK.
I am no gun control freak, but I see no need for AK-47s or similar weapons to be available for purchase. They’re much too powerful to be on the streets.
3 comments:
The "power" of the AK-47 is not the factor that matters. Lots of guns can shoot the same caliber. The guns can be made in any caliber you want..from .22 to the Russian 7.62x39. But the Russian has only 60% of the power of the NATO 7.62x36 std. military round so "power" varies. What makes these guns so deadly is their ability to be re-loaded with a clip. The more clips you carry the deadlier you are. The assault gun ban didn't cure anything. The re-newal of the ban however would have. It would have banned semi-automatic rifles and those with clips. Legal guns would resemble those from 1890..slow to reload.
i don't agree with the last comment. the bann kept dangrous weapons out of the hands of killers. if you ban the guns, the clips become useless. nra people just want to support the gun makers.
I'm in partial disagreement with both of the previous comments. Clips do make machine guns more dangerous but the rate of fire is what concerns me the most. I used the AK-47 as the example because it is better known to the general American public than the AR-15, TEC-9 or (arguably) the Uzi.
Americans see the AK on the news every day. Which weapon is the most common one that is waved around by Iraqi guerillas? More often than not it is a Soviet/Russian or Chinese-built AK-47.
When someone is shooting up a school, it doesn't matter which assault weapon they use; it's going to be a very bad day.
I disagree with the comment about the NRA, too. I don't always agree with their stands, but they're fighting to keep the Second Amendment intact.
This is all about the guns and the extras. I still think there is no need for that type of armament in the public sector. The military and the police need them, but Johnny and Jane American do not.
Weapons that are built exclusively for military purposes have no business being on the streets.
Post a Comment