Research paper

I'm taking online classes for a Criminal Justice degree. For my current class, I have to write a paper on a controversial subject and the subject I chose was whether assault rifles should be available to the general public for sale. I personally think only police and the military have any real need for assault rifles, but I have heard arguments for their legality to the public.

Being as how there are so many gun enthusiasts on this site, I thought I would ask for some good sources relating to the "for" and "against" arguments. Books and websites are fine, I just have to be able to cite the sources and websites must be credible (i.e. not Wikipedia). Also, with your responses, say whether or not you are personally against the general public being able to purchase AR's or AK's and the like. Just a yes or no, please. I am not wanting a debate as to the legality, only a general survey of feelings towards the subject. I plan on using the survey findings in my paper. Remember, this is only about assault rifles, not guns in general.

Your help is appreciated.

I don't know enough about assault weapon issues to have a strong opinion about banning or not banning them.

Try typing "assault weapons" into Google Scholar to see academic publications about them.

I'm all for the public have access to assault weapons. True assault weapons that have a switch between semi automatic and fully automatic fire.

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:A...vYnR6bn44S_SMg

I agree, the public should have access. HOWEVER, as with all firearms I believe a standard form of background checking (and thorough as well ),needs to be done. Ownership should, in my opinion, be restricted to those who show competiency and have no life issues which could create a deadly situation. That mindset also applies to handguns as well.

If this is any help....

you could start a poll to get your results.

Yes we should have access to all firearms, including true assault weapons. As a matter of fact your the first actual street cop that I've heard ever say that we shouldn't.

For access.

I'm not big on labeling semii or full auto rifles "assault weapons", but understand that has become the commonly accepted moniker for them.

I feel that Americans have the constitutional right to have access to firearms; even those with rapid fire capability.

And while I don't see much need for the average citizen to have anything that is full auto or cannon caliber; it is not my place to say that he can't or shouldn't. No more so, than anyone should be able to tell me I can't have a Ferrari just because I want one.

The Second Amendment is not about Duck Hunting, as it has been said before.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

I don't know why this is so difficult for people to understand. There's no "unless" in there or "buts" or "if's".

Yes, I am for it.

Yes

The public should have access to weapons. The same stuff that I can have.

Poll Added.

I'm not quite as far as the poll would indicate. I'd draw the line somewhere short of arming yourself with a nuke.

And I definitely support training and waiting periods for first-time gun buyers. I've seen more than a few cases where the gun is a fear-driven purchase following nearby crime or direct victimization, and then gets shoved into a closet and forgotten about... A brief cooling off period, and some basic mandatory safety training is all I'm after.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jks9199

I'm not quite as far as the poll would indicate. I'd draw the line somewhere short of arming yourself with a nuke.

And I definitely support training and waiting periods for first-time gun buyers. I've seen more than a few cases where the gun is a fear-driven purchase following nearby crime or direct victimization, and then gets shoved into a closet and forgotten about... A brief cooling off period, and some basic mandatory safety training is all I'm after.

---

I don't believe high explosives have any place in the hands of the general population, and I would consider that to include firearms that fire explosive rounds (20/40mm cannons, grenade launchers etc).

Other then that, I'm pretty open. I was a 240B AG for awhile, can't say I'd turn down an opportunity to put one through its paces again every now and again. I'm not sure I'd ever buy one though, the cost to practicality factor would be my hangup. As a matter of fact, I don't see any need for someone to actually have one, but I don't see that as a legimate reason to prohibit a law abiding citizen to own one.

Thanks for the help, guys.

Most average citizen will not own a full out assualt rifle. Most have shotguns, some long rifles and a wide selection of pistols in their abodes or close by. Should a john q public own a fully auto Thompson or M4? Sure, so long as they have the proper paperwork and such and the guns are registered. It's not against the law to own or possess firearms, some people just dont want to go through the hassle of obtaining a Class III Federal license to own fully auto weapons.

I personally dont own any, yes I used them extensively while in the Army, but dont feel that every townie needs a M2 sitting in their closet. If they want them, sure go right ahead, but youll find that most Americans dont really have them in their possession.

I am not a fan of Joe Schmoe owning a full auto weapon. As a LEO I like the feeling of having more firepower than anyone else in the civilian world. If everyone could carry full auto Our job would be that much more dangerous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abom334

I am not a fan of Joe Schmoe owning a full auto weapon. As a LEO I like the feeling of having more firepower than anyone else in the civilian world. If everyone could carry full auto Our job would be that much more dangerous.

---

this sort of bothers me. The ones owning legal auto weapons aren't very likely (of course there always is some chance) to be the ones making your life dangerous. No, I don't have a full auto...can't afford one and at the current time I think I can defend myself with what I have....but I sure think I should be able to have one to defend myself if the world gets even just a bit worse than it currently is-- if I want to. Why should the criminals always be better armed than the victims?

And, it may not be so far away where there will be the need. In the county where I just moved from (and still own property), there is both a deputy, and a civilian employee of the PD, very close to where my property is, who have had their homes fired upon (the civilian multiple times) this past month.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abom334

I am not a fan of Joe Schmoe owning a full auto weapon. As a LEO I like the feeling of having more firepower than anyone else in the civilian world. If everyone could carry full auto Our job would be that much more dangerous.

---

I think that if more good people were usually well armed, our job would be that much safer. Sometimes the bad guys already have more firepower than we do.