Sure, but I would like you to articulate your actual position on the subject. Gun ownership that is.Mober said:
You seem to be latching onto esoteric concepts, and trying to present a theoretical argument, but I'm not sure exactly to what end?
There really is no discussion on the violence aspect of any weapon that can be colloquially called an "Assault Weapon". Since virtually every firearm, of any type, can be called an "Assault Weapon" within the context of an individual myopic vernacular, dependent on an a point of view, or political agenda.
You need to define for us exactly what physical designs and functional mechanics you believe constitutes an "Assault Weapon".
Violence is visited in many forms on people, and not always with firearms. Look to the Mideast and Africa. It's done there with rocks, burning tires, machetes, and of course home made bombs. And it is done by the dozen score on occasion.
A firearm, any firearm, by design can extend a great amount of violence.There is no debate here. It is the nature, and purpose, of the tool.
Simply because a firearm can be be preconfigured with large capacity magazines does not make it any more, or less,suited to accomplish violence. It just facilitates ease by an untrained user. In the right hands a bolt action rifle, or one with smaller magazine capacity can be just as effective as a semiautomatic with a large capacity magazine.
I would ask you to please define your position.