So called "assault weapons" should NOT be prohibited

"I am just saying is that combining a fixed knife with a gun is not good." Yes, and neither does putting cup holders in a car turn out to be a good thing. if we didn't have cup holders in cars, believe it or not, a'lot of people would be saved on the road because individual drivers would not distract themselves. "If they don't have any bullets, they have a blunt object (but-stock) and a knife to inflict damage." AGAIN, what is going to stop them from properly welding or really duck taping a bayonet to a gun? There are over 5 million rifles in this country capable of being fit with a bayonet. Only one person was killed with a bayonet and that person could have simply just have been shot with the gun rather than stabbed. "Well I never really researched the topic" Exactly. This is my point. You don't know the law, meanwhile you feel you are capable of debating. "They should ban assault and military grade guns as well as guns with a high capacity magazine." Who is talking about military grade? semi automatic rifles are not military grade weapons. Military grade is FULLY AUTOMATIC. The AR 15 and civilian Ak 47 are semi automatic therefore civilian rifles. STILL, you are proving my point you have no idea what you are talking about. And as a matter of fact, in a poll asked to law enforcement officers, the vast majority said that a ban on so called "assault weapons" (which is a ridicules term created by the media) and "high" capacity magazines would have no effect on crime what so ever. The 1994 AWB proves my point. http://www.factcheck.org... http://www.policeone.com...- findings-on-officers-thoughts/ I don't want to discuss alcohol because it will go way off topic, but all I will say is rather than banning alcohol or ANYTHING, why not just look for alternative solutions? For example, in Japan, if you drunk drive, the police will revoke your license for LIFE. and it reduced drunk driving deaths SUBSTANTIALLY "3.7% is still a number of people dying in gun homicides regardless of what is used. It would be better if that was 0%." Where is your proof that the 3.7% of homicides could not have been committed by a different gun? That's like wanting to ban just vodka to stop drunk driving. Aren't there other beverages capable of making you drunk? Not to mention, I even showed you before the vast majority of cops say a ban on "assault weapons" would have no positive effect, and the 2 worst mass shootings in the WORLD were NOT committed by "assault weapons" So with that evidence, how can you STILL conclude that the 2% of people killed by "assault weapons" could not have been killed by a different kind of firearm? "1. it hides the flash making it harder to find the shooter and 2. it is adding another weapon to a gun that is not necessary" I have not been able to find any article relating to cops struggling to find a shooter because he had a flash suppressor. Out of the 5 million rifles with bayonet lugs, I was only able to find one story of a man stabbing someone to death with a bayonet when that man could have simply shot the person to death. The flash suppressor is there for looks. Without the flash suppressor, the rifle itself looks less attractive, and when it looks less attractive, people won't buy as many and it will actually hurt profit. A ban on these "evil weapons of the devil" can actually effect on the economy in a negative matter. In New York for example, Remington lost so many profits due to the NY "Safe" Act and were forced to move to Tennessee. They weren't able to produce the most popular sporting rifles in America in NY because the law (written by pin heads who don't have the slightest knowledge of firearms) prohibited the sale of AR 15 rifles. With the seats thing, do you understand my point though? if you are willing to ban bayonet lugs and flash suppressors when there is no record of flash suppressing causing police to search for a suspect and only one rifle out of the 5 million rifles with bayonet lugs in America was used to stab someone, is it necessary to ban everything that makes things a little more convenient to save lives. Should there be a law that requires a sour proof shield between the front and back seats that way if kids are fighting, the driver won't be distracted? http://www.dailymail.co.uk... Excellent, so you admit it. So if you know there are other firearms capable of killing the same amount of people, why are you just after "assault weapons"? Also, Adam Lanza trained in advance as well. You are throwing in irrelevant knowledge. Your wasting time typing this extra knowledge about how he got it. I know the whole story. It's irrelevant. But I don't understand. You feel you have the superior authority to control your fellow citizens by telling them they can't drink alcoholic beverages because some people abuse alcohol? I just don't understand that? "To remove cars is a good idea but there is a need for cars at the moment" Have you heard of a bus or a train? There are a'lot of people who don't drive cars in America. Especially in cities. So I don't understand how you can say people NEED cars if there are buses and trains which people take EVERY DAY in America. Again, I have NO PROBLEM with tougher background checks. I genuinely believe that tougher background checks can lead to fewer firearms in the hands of citizen. I have no reason to debate that. "Since he was a white supremacist, he was delusional and messed up in the head." In medical standard, a white supremacist would not be delusional and messed up in the head. (maybe messed up in the head or brainwashed) but chances are good, if he wasn't on psychiatric drugs, he would not have killed those people. http://www.foodmatters.tv...