Is it the guns fault?

[The Hunter of Jahanna]

Actually, what killed these people was a military weapon (or styled weapon) that has no reasonable purpose being disseminated in any 20th or 21st century population. It looks something like this: www.bushmaster.com/images/a3cover_small.jpg It has ZERO hunting applications, is too big to wield for personal self-defense, and has No Purpose other than as a sniper rifle that kills people. [Don't even bring up target shooting; if you 'have' to use one of these to compete, you must be legally blind and arthritic. There are no rifle ranges built long enough to make these a challenge] The only place these weapons should have are in the locked gun racks of law enforcement and military armories. They are, however, routinely marketed as 'macho guns', implying you aren't a man if you don't own one. This is how people get suckered into buying these things. Basically this suit goes to the point that these were manufactured and marketed for a purpose that is illegal by its very nature. Am I going to tell you you can't have any gun? Please re-read what I wrote. Get a shotgun or a deer-rifle if you hunt. Get a revolver if you're a bonded courier. Carry a Glock if you are a cop. But lets keep these AR-15 Killing Machines off the street, shall we?

There are so manny assumptions and inaccuracies in here I dont know where to begin. THis thing can hardly be considered a sniper rifle. #1 it has too short of a range. #2 it lacks real stopping power. #3 without some type of telescope sight it isnt very accurate over long distances. A better choice for a sniper rifle would be a deer hunting rifle. It has a heavier frame for more stability. A longer usualy better machined barell for longer range. Most of my fathers deer rifles didnt come with sights because they are meant to be used with telescope sights. For the most part a hunting rifle is better desighned for long distance shooting that this half plastic piece of junk is.

The target ranges comment is almost laughable. There is a range my father uses close by at West Point that is 2000 yards long and desighned for long distance target shooting. When he used to go to shooting competitions around the north east , most of the ranges we went to were that long and longer.

You make the AR-15 sound like some kind of killing machine , when in reality it is less dangerous than a shot gun is. I posted here last week about someone who shot 2 robbers with 1 shot from a shot gun.Some of the newer desighns are prone to jamming if they are fired too rapidly and ones with shortened barrels to make them more compact and better for home defense also have shortened ranges. On top of all that their light weight puts them at the mercy of their recoil, so it takes longer to recover from each shot fired. All in all , from my expierience "assault rifles" like this are just there to separate a fool and his money.

[homer]

Originally posted by MagiK: quote: Basically this suit goes to the point that these were manufactured and marketed for a purpose that is illegal by its very nature.

Are you saying there is already a state or federal regulation against selling this gun? If that is so then maybe there is a basis for the suit on the manufacturer.

Your ignorance of firearms is showing again. The Bushmaster and its uses are completely legal. [/QUOTE]I did not mean to imply I knew anything about guns; the fact is I know very little about them. I have two small children and would never have one in my house. As well, I live in a city so I have no use for hunting weapons. My wife just goes to jewel.

As far as this particular weapon being legal, I am sure you are correct. This strengthens my original point about the manufacturer not being at fault. I did not know if it was legal or not I was just responding to the other comment.