Assault Weapons

[Chock]

Just to correct a minor omission on this topic, while it is true that the AK-74 has a comparable round to the NATO 5.56 (being 5.45), the AK-47 in it's original form is very much more deadly with its 7.62 round. These rounds (more by accident than design) tumble upon penetration and create a massive wound channel with horrendous shock damage, which can indeed be fatal simply from shock in many cases, let alone the trauma and blood loss.

However, since the purpose of an assault rifle is largely for fire and maneuever tactics, where you spray bullets up the street during house-to-house fighting purely with the intention of keeping your enemy's head down while your buddy moves up into grenade-throwing range to toss one in a bunker or something, they are hardly the ideal weapon for holding up a seven-eleven.

But even if that were not the case I would agree with you, it's not the gun that commits the crime, it's the person, and they could do that with a hammer, breadknife or whatever (and in the case of the AK, they'd be far less likely to miss with a breadknife), which is why the sweeping UK gun ban (largely a kneejerk reaction from the infamous Hungerford AK-47 shootings, from the land of preposterous kneejerk reactions), has done nothing to lower gun crime here, in fact it's gone up.

Many were quick to yell 'ban all guns' when that happened, but how many were asking, what can we do to prevent someone from considering such a course of action in the first place? All the ban did was hurt legitimate law-abiding gun enthusiasts, and as a result put a few more illegal guns into the community, which are now devoid of any sort of regulation or monitoring. What needs to be addressed (in every country) is the morality which would make anyone want to use a gun (or anything else for that matter) to commit a crime in the first place, and banning weapons does not address this issue one iota, it merely makes guns more desireable as a status symbol for criminals, since they are effectively, 'the forbidden fruit'.

I am personally an advocate of the idea that in the UK, children of age 14 or so should be taught to shoot responsibly as part of a curriculum, as I think it would serve to point out the very real difference between a gun on playstation and something which can cheerfully blow someone's head off with no possibility of pressing a reset button. If kids saw what gun can do to a few cinder blocks and targets, I suspect they might think twice about desiring one to settle an argument of some puberty-related incident, or anything in later life for that matter. but that's only half the story, what people also need is a moral compass, so that even if they had a gun, it would not enter their heads to commit a crime with it, or anything else for that matter.

Of course, guns are not everyone's cup of tea, and many will not see that you could be interested in them and still be a perfectly nice person who helps old ladies across the road and who wouldn't hurt a fly. I should know, behind me right now there are several field target rifles and pistols and numerous assualt rifles on the wall, such as an AK-47, AR-15 and a even a 1928 Thompson drum magazine sub machine gun (don't worry Mr UK Plod IP tracker dude, they are all either deactivated or perfectly legal, and yes I am in a recognised field target shooting club, so committing a crime with any of them would be like robbing a bank and using my own car for the getaway, and if you are waiting for me to hold up a petrol station with one, all I can say is, don't hold your breath).

Gun legislation is a childishly naive approach to what can of course be a problem, but it completely circumvents the real issue, sadly, it's always a vote-winner with those of a more left wing political bent, which is sort of ironic when you consider that AK-47's origins and it's iconic status with guerrillas. Tough on the causes of crime, rather than the (potential) tools of it should be the way to go.

Chock