mass murder weopons should be banned by statute

"too bad i didn't have my AK47" people often say prolimits on guns people are just appealing to emotion when someone goes on a rampage and shoots a bunch of people.. and in response are saying we should ban machine guns AK's etc. that we're better off with those types of guns. you want to talk about mushy emotional appeal? who ever hears about people not saving themselves, or better yet actually saving themselves, because they had access to an AK47? i never hear about it. i agree it doesn't mean it doesn't happen but. it's just mushy emotional appeal. who ever hears about people getting ak47ed or machine guned down? lots of pepole hear this. school shootings, irate police, gang shootings etc there's a difference between AK47's and axes etc (the idea that axes kill ppl too so all should be legal). the analogy makes the point that they're all killing machines, true. but, it's just an analogy, cause AK47's are mass killing machines. the analogy that axes should allow Ak's is the same as the analogy that AK's should allow nuclear arms in hand gun form etc. there are actually people who argue that. most people don't want nuclulear arms. so instead of all the analogies.... look to the fact. the fact is, we don't know what save who etc. but, i insist that common sense and understanding is that AKs kill more people than they save though, again, cause people don't hear about AKs saving people but do hear about people getting gunned down. AKs are mass killing devices. i don't think it's unreasonable to say that banning htem or seriously limiting them to very spective people would reduce the number of them. true, criminals have them, but allowing them freely would make them a lot more available. If you want to argue, on principle, that it doesn't matter that more peple die without the bans, but that those who can defend themselves should have full opporutnity to, then sure, that's an argument that has a basis, but at least admit what you're saying, the premises. personally... i think reality is that if you have a gun, you're able to defend yourself... it doesn't have to be an AK. you can have guns without having mass killing devices. the times you'd actually need an AK are so rare as to render it far being outweighted by the times people get hosed down by them and freeer access. the doomsday scenario of a giant invasion of the US is just that... a doomsday scenario, very unlikely to happen. again, talk about mushy emotional appeal. and in most invastions... it wouldn't be that difficlut to arm the populace. only very very unlikely invasions would make us unable to. again, just mushy emotional appeal. the constitution might provide an argument for mass killing devices.... but even if it did, that's not arguing sound policy, but rather techincal law. the law of man... not to downplay it completely, but it's not a policy argument. plus... the 2nd amendment is notoriously unclear by academics, so to say it's clear is simply wrong. it could be argued either way. personally, for those types of situations, i look past the text and look at policy, which is what should be the focus of the debating in the first place. look past rhetoric people, and see the facts for what they are. as i see them, and i'd insist almost certainly true... more people get hosed by AKs etc than do people actually save themselves with them. (if those people had AKs would that have helped them? maybe. but the fact is they chose not to have them, many times. and usualy the free access to them simply enables someone to go on a rampage a whole lot easier. i admit studies show that guns being legal might be effective generally, but that doesn't mean mass murder weopons.) i admit studies need done, to see which policy is most effective, if the studies can be determinative. if they can't, then people should just say.... 'if you're right about who gets saved more etc, then your position is good' to me... mushy emotional appeal to be proAK47's etc, is usually just blind adherence by conservatives who simply want to tout the party line. it doesn't have to do with looking at the reality of the situation.