Originally Posted by cutthemdown
Maybe slightly more deadly not much more. Which is why they have to be legal. Law abiding citizens should be able to have that extra punch when going up against a bad guy. Not to mention in a riot i may have to shoot multiple people.
Ever fired any of the following:
I've fired all of those rounds (and a whole lot more). There is a huge difference between the recoil of a .308 and a .223, and the ability to control a rifle when firing fast is far greater than that of a pistol (simple physics there).
Fed will you agree that if a riot occured and 10 or more people were trying to loot your property that an assault rifle would be better then a shotgun? or a handgun? Now throw in that 2-3 of the 10 rioters are armed?
In other words, yes an "assault rifle" does provide significantly more ability to engage multiple targets. Thanks for finally
admitting that, even though you didn't mean to.
For sure a law abiding citizen should be able to have an assault rifle. There is no reason law abiding citizens shouldn't.
I'm, at worst, on the fence about whether or not a very. At this point I'm just trying to see if you'll at least acknowledge there is a significant difference between a .223AR and a pistol. Ironically, when you think it supports your position, you are *glad* to talk about the significant superiority, but when asked straight up you spew bull****.