To arms!

So, as many of you may have probably noticed, I'm a strong proponent of the second amendment so I figured I'd talk a little bit about gun control and such.  I know I'm about to stir up a hotbed of controversy and I'm probably gonna catch a lot of crap for this, but this is my opinion and I'm entitled to it.


First off, I'm going to address the now-defunct Assault Weapons ban.  Now, first of all, it is defunct as a FEDERAL law, but many states still have similar restrictions on firearms.  So let's start with the basics.

So, what is the difference between the above two weapons?  They have the same receiver, take the same ammo, and fire the same magazines.  Both are semi-automatic only, but the rifle above is legal under the AWB while the bottom rifle is not.  So what are the differences?  The stock.  The shape of the stock, which is of mostly cosmetic value, is the only reasoning behind the ban.  Actually, nearly all of the criteria for legality, according to the assault weapons ban, are cosmetic.  So what makes a rifle an "assault weapon?"


Flash hiders/Flash suppressors or the ability to attach one
Pistol grips (hence why the thumbhole-stock AK above is legal)
Folding or collapsible stocks


As well as some other, more sensible things like grenade launchers (no one needs an underslung grenade launcher).  But for the most part, these are COSMETIC changes.  The AWB is less about limiting dangerous weapons than it is about limiting weapons that "look scary."  This is a bit like outlawing racing stripes because they make a car LOOK like it can break the speed limit.  Now, I'm sure most of you will agree that this is pretty stupid.


So, automatic weapons.  The general argument against automatic weapons is that no one needs one, which is true.  However, keeping with the car metaphor, no one NEEDS a 527 Chevy engine in a 1960s era muscle car, but people in this country are allowed to have hobbies.  Obviously, it's a bit of a stretch to compare a firearm to an automobile, but the thought processes are the same.  Most violent crimes involving firearms are committed with the use of handguns, usually not fitting the federal definition of "assault weapon." These are cheap, easily available guns, not expensive collectors items.  And make no mistake, most popular automatic weapons are VERY expensive and not terribly disposable, the last thing you want to commit a crime with.  Furthermore, most automatic weapons used to commit crimes are semi-automatic weapons, illegally modified to fire full-auto.  Why?  It's cheaper, easier, and less suspicious.  This leads into my next argument against gun control in general; people who own guns legally are the least likely to use them to commit crimes.  Yes, there are cases of hot-blooded murder but, let's be honest, if you're mad enough to murder someone, not having a gun handy will not stop you.  At the end of the day, people are responsible for their actions, not the inanimate objects they use to commit them.  If you deny a mugger a gun, he will use a knife OR he will acquire a gun illegally.  By restricting firearm ownership, you only limit the use of them in violent crime, not the crime itself.  You end up treating a variable as opposed to the result.  The only thing you end up hindering is self-defense and hobbyists, not exactly the most dangerous crowd.  


Now, I know this probably will convince no one who is anti-gun, but it's late and I needed to rant.  Goodnight all.  See you in the morning.