Jon Stewart's plea for gun control

SaintBrad said

This is the problem that everyone seems to be missing. Everyone is hung up on the name "assault rifle", when fact is, a rifle is a rifle. The difference between an "assualt rifle" and a hunting rifle is mostly just attachments. Flashlight, holo graphic site.... these are things that cannot be put on a wooden shouldered harnessed rifle. Let me tell you what can be....

A scope, and a very large magazine clip for the non bolt action rifle.

Difference is, is made up of mostly plastic to allow attachments while the other is not.

That is why a lot of people who use guns and are familair with em look at the anti gun people like loonies. They speak as if they know something. Most of em don't.

The reason the "assault rifle" has its name is because it can be customized with attachments to aid in attacking such as a grip for increased accuracy, holographic sites for increased aim without losing site of perifial vision, laser pointers that are absolutly worthless and are for looks. Nothing more. And flashlights for better vision.

Thats it. Bottom line.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

Click to expand...

Until the last two decades or so, the vast majority of hunting rifles were bolt action and not semi automatic. In fact, bolt action rifles are still generally the more accurate rifles.

Very few people (at least ones worth bringing into an adult discussion) think we should ban or further limit bolt action rifles. Hunting is okay. There is almost zero need for a semi automatic rifle when hunting. Most hunters even agree that bolt action rifles are generally better overall for hunting due to it being more accurate as well as cheaper to use (can much easily load your own ammo for bolt rifles than semi due to more tolerance in minute differences in loads).


The arguments on why we need Semi automatic rifles in the hands of civilians don't really convince me.
One argument is self defense. A shotgun or handgun is better for self defense in almost all cases.
The other one I hear is that they're fun to shoot. I'm sure they are. Rocket launchers should be fun too. I bet RPG's are a blast (heh) to fire. Doesn't make that a legal basis for owning the rifles. (Though making them legal to shoot at approved fire ranges might be an option like some countries do).

What argument am I missing?