It just doesn't make sense to me how someone is legally able to obtain guns like this. Especially when it serves no real purpose (asides from hunting and shooting ranges). Home protection, sure... but are people that scared that they need a gun in their home? Is it necessary to even own something other than a pistol? There's always going to be a person with a bigger and badder gun out there under current laws. It's a law that forces people to be reactive instead of proactively finding other ways to protect themselves.
Now before anyone says anything, I understand protecting yourself and your family. What I don't understand is these "fuck yo couch" guns.
Honest question, but what exactly is a clone? Couldn't a clone iono be modded or something?
Hunting, shooting ranges, varmint control, personal/home protection (though a shotgun is more effective, or pistol I think), and sport shooting tournaments are all good purposes for the gun.
Home invasions are a sad reality even in the secluded area I live in, they're very real. Some people are more fight than flight, and want to protect themselves, their loved ones, and their assets, so it's very logical in that thought of owning one.
An "AK-47" isn't some magical beast. The vast majority here in the States are the Semi-auto version of this rifle. It's a design that's been knocked off for decades. They come in various calibers. They are, especially by old design compared to others, inaccurate and uncomfortable to use, yet more reliable and durable. Could they be modded to fully auto? Yes, some can, but that's a federal offense, thus doing so makes you a felon and a criminal. Of which, most criminals buy their guns illegally anyways, or are acquired from robberies.
Gun sales are not just sparked by "Teh Obama fear" of him taking them away, but the fear of the economy getting even worse, making quality and safety of life even worse, that'll impact gun sales. Then again, the Republicans themselves are just as guilty giving a shitty candidate as well, just like the Democrats.
Taking the guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens will just "hurt" them more than the number of prevented incidents. "But even one life saved!", kk, once we remove alcohol first which causes acts of passion, or incidents via DUI, then we can begin to talk. Then we got to look into automobiles as well, since they cause so much loss of life.
How many times has a legally armed citizen ever stopped a crime from happening to himself?
You'll never know because they're not properly recorded, and the media "picks up" on these incidents far less because they're not "juicy, controversial, and edgy".
