Simple visual that clarifies why the Assault Weapons Ban renewal

[Tommy_Carcetti]

237. Well, obviously an AR-15 *could* be used for sport or hunting purposes. It is a gun, after all.

Likewise, a stick of dynamite can be used for fishing, and will probably work a lot more efficiently than a reel and rod in killing vast amounts of fish. Yet blast fishing is typically frowned upon and is in fact illegal in most jurisdictions. Not because the government wants to be mean ol' "nanny staters" (I hate that term, by the way), but because it's considered destructive to the ecological habitat, and besides, rather unfair to the fish. It takes most of the sport out of it.

The AR-15 (and its variants) is a rifle that was first designed for military use. I have no problem for its use in such a setting, but given that we live in a relatively peaceful society, it comes off as rather gratituous in the face of more practicable alternatives.

Our guys in the Olympics use guage shotguns for skeet shooting; that seems to do the job fine for them. Likewise, a single fire shotgun with buck shot will often land a hunter a buck just as fine as any AR-15 or variant would.

When it comes to ice cream and guns, my opinions diverge. The more the variety, all the better when it comes to ice cream. I'm sure you'd agree. But then again, ice cream is a delicious blend of frozen cream mixed with flavoring. A gun, on the other hand, is a deadly weapon designed with the intent to either kill or hurt, put in imminent fear of being killed or hurt, or simulating killing or hurting vis a vis a target. The use of a gun in a given setting should be no more excessive than the situation practically calls for. In the heat of battle, maximum fire power is logical. But for stalking a deer? Hitting a target? Warding off a single intruder? Not nearly as much.

In other words, a gun isn't exactly your rock road ripple.