First of all, you need to revise your language, Dr. McCarthy. What do you mean by “assault weapon?” The people who committed murders in Newtown and Aurora used these firearms – firearms that fire ONE round with ONE pull of the trigger. These are semi-automatic firearms, no more deadly than the .45 caliber M1911 I carry on my hip. I would venture to say that my .45 caliber round will make a bigger hole than the .223 varmint round used by the AR-15. These are not automatic weapons. They are rifles. They get better distance, but they are no more deadly than your average revolver that also fires ONE round with ONE pull of the trigger. These firearms DID NOT KILL ANYONE. I realize how tempting it is to personify these firearms and ascribe to them some sort of evil intent, but fact of the matter is that MEN committed these crimes, and they would have committed these crimes just as easily and likely with the same amount of damage as with a regular handgun....and then, commenter Svigor REALLY lets the good Dr. have it!
As for having a good reason to have them available…
Ask the Korean shopkeepers during the Los Angeles riots in 1992 how effective these firearms were at keeping them and their property safe.
There needs to be a really good reason to keep them available–can someone please tell me what that reason is?(Unfortunately, this guy seems to be an Aryan Supremacist type, upon examination of his blog. Not something I'm down with at all, and I pray that his eyes shall be opened. But if Hitler, Stalin, Soros or Obama say that things fall down when you drop them, it doesn't make gravity evil. Truth is truth, no matter where you find it.)
Wrong. There needs to be a really good reason to ban them. This is western civilization, where all that is not forbidden is permitted, and where one must justify removing freedom, not granting it. If you want to live where that is reversed, where all that is not permitted is forbidden, and where one must justify granting freedom, not removing it, try the Muslim World. That’s how they do things over there, so you might find living there more suitable to your temperament.
You have to explain why 20-odd deaths, even of children, justifies taking away the rights of 300+ million Americans.
Would you curtail free speech of 300+ million Americans if 20-odd kids died because the Globe printed something untrue?