[JediJones]

Well, that's the most reasonable argument I've heard so far. I don't have a strong opinion on the issue myself. I just think that there is a reasonable discussion to be had on where the line is drawn in terms of what weapons should be legally owned and produced and which ones shouldn't. If someone pulls up data showing me assault weapons have caused more unintended or malicious damage than other legal guns, I would be swayed to that side.

[vbmoneyspender]

If someone pulls up data showing me assault weapons have caused more unintended or malicious damage than other legal guns, I would be swayed to that side.

If you are going to go around banning things that cause harm when they are used in an illegal or improper fashion, there is a whole list of things you are going to have to end up banning -- like cars, knives, golf clubs, bats, hammers, pipes, etc.

[Sender]

The bottom line is that the people that would misuse military-styled 'assault weapons' to commit crimes or terrorism would just as soon get real full-auto weapons cheaply on the world market, or make them, or steal them. There's no way to keep terrorists or crazies from obtaining a weapon if they want one badly enough. There are 50 million Kalashnikovs out there alone.

So what good does it do to keep legal American gun store buyers from buying military-looking semiauto rifles that just happen to be the most reliable and practical rifles?