I have also stayed out of this til now on the basis it's likely a hiding to nothing, but I don't quite follow the above.
Look, full disclosure: I don't own a gun. I never have. I don't actually like them that much. But I do accept that there are legitimate reasons for people needing to own one.
However: not being wise in the way of weapons: how is a semi automatic rifle more accurate, than, say, a bolt action?
You say:
"Using a semi auto rifle with a 30 round mag will allow me to get quick and accurate rounds out to stop the threat."
Then you say:
"One round is not always enough to stop a threat."
Is this because, there are multiple threats? If a round fired is accurate, why, otherwise, would there be a need to fire more than one? Unless you're not shooting to kill?
I'm not necessarily challenging your comments, however I do profess to not really understanding how your statements sit with each other.
Generally: unless I've missed it, I have yet to see discussed the role the gun industry in America plays in influencing the types and volumes of firearms that are available in the USA. On the one hand I should think that they have a market, and are catering to it. On the other, to what extent, if any, do they drive the availability of the various types of weapons and the manner in which they are marketed?
I'm basing these queries on the reasonably logical assumption (I hope) that they are a part of the problem (and I hope noone woud deny that the USA does have a problem in relation to the use of firearms).
Regards
Brett
Footnote, catching up on recent posts as I've typed this one the thread seems to be heading downhill...maybe this may get it back on track. Or not. I've appreciated the respectful conversation on a contentious and emotive issue until now, so it would be disappointing to see it deteriorate to the point it's closed, as inevitable as that might appear.
Cheers,
Brett