1. is the heightened effectiveness worth infringing my American right to own a weapon like a carbine? So weapons like a semi-auto mk18 should be banned completely because they are more effective? What if I WANT the extra security and reliability, or a better edge in competition shooting? Am I, as a mentally sound, law-abiding citizen, any more of a potential threat to the general public because I legally posses such a gun? Your average teenager with a driving permit is more of a threat than someone like me with a semiautomatic firearm. What you're asking could be compared to a question such as "why would a civilian NEED a dodge challenger hellcat instead of a chevy cruze?" After all, cars kill more people a year in the US, so shouldn't we ban the ones that are "over-the-top" in unneeded performance that could make it a more effective killing tool? "but cars aren't meant for killing people" bitch stfu there's not even anything about cars in the constitution but the document DOES grant US citizens the right to bear arms, with no limits like "but only pistols tho lmao"
2. that's hard to predict
3. if you don't kill you can get sued by the guy you shot. Disturbing but that's how it works here in the USA
1. The problem with your brown townogy is that cars are designed for transport, guns are designed to kill. Sure, cars can kill and guns can be fun, but something with the purpose of killing should have regulations.
2. I'd argue that it is more likely that if one is disarmed by an invader/assailant the invader/assailant has a way to follow-up, leading to incapacitation.
3. That is a problem with the legal system, not gun control.
Poll