Firepower

[gekko]

The point is it's not about need.  Need is completely subjective, and irrelevant.  Some would say that people don't need cigarettes, that people don't need cars than can exceed 100mph.  Those people would be like you, arrogant enough to assume that they know what people need and don't need.

Ok, I'll tell you why civillians in the states don't need assault rifles.

Guns can be used for three purposes: self defence, hunting, or an offensive weapon (I'd personally argue that every use of a gun boils down to use as an offensive weapon, but since that's only my opinion, we'll leave it be for now). Since a US civilian cannot declare war on his neighbour and just assault him (say, for refusing to hand over imaginary weapons of mass destruction?), use as a purely offensive weapon is out. If you take an assault rifle hunting, well... that's both illegal and stupid. There'd be so little left of anything you actually HIT, it's clearly pointless far past the level of stupidity. So that leaves self defence. And I will flat out say that in reasonable, realistic situations, an american civilian defending him or herself and family with an assault rifle would be just as effective using a rifle or small handgun.

There is no need for assault rifles in the hands of civilians. I consider it a self-evident truth, but there's my reasoning.

Oh, by the way. Here's how I, as a debater, would analyze this thread:
- problem recognized by all (bad guys better armed than cops)
- 2 solutions suggested: (1) give the cops bigger and better weapons, (2) take the bigger weapons away from the bad guys.

The second solution is more difficult. I readily admit that. However, I would also point out that the first solution is impossible. There will always be a bigger gun, and the bad guys have more money (and will) to spend to have the "biggest" weapon.

gekko

<edit: ps: oh, and one more thing.

The State would step in.&nbsp; They wouldn't however say, "Sorry, Bill.&nbsp; You don't need a nuclear warhead, so you can't have one.&nbsp; If you in fact did need one, we'd let it slip by, but since you don’t, the answer's no."&nbsp; Instead, they would say, "Bill, owning a nuclear warhead violates local, state, and federal laws.&nbsp; They are prohibited by statute.&nbsp; You are not permitted to own nuclear warheads."&nbsp; Need has nothing to do with it.

Actually, you're wrong here. I'm talking about changing gun control laws in the states. My reason is that people don't need assault rifles (see above). So in this case, need has EVERYTHING to do with it, because we're discussing the need for changing the current laws.