TheRedSnifit said: Why would an "armor piercing sniper rifle" be particularly dangerous in a civilian context? How many mass shootings have you heard of being done with a .50 AM rifle?



This is the problem with gun control efforts: They almost always focus on things that look scary. Unless you're in the military or otherwise driving around in a tank for some reason, the most dangerous guns are going to be small and easy to conceal. Click to expand...

This mindset is baffling. For one, there has been sniper-style attackers where 10 people died over a few weeks. There's no reason that couldn't be repeated with a more powerful rifle at longer ranges. If they regulated other kinds of weapons, it's not unreasonable to think sniper style attacks would gain more popularity and take their place.Second, you mention mass shootings as a measure of danger and then say small and easy to conceal weapons are the most dangerous (even though they aren't the weapon of choice for mass shootings).Third, why the hell do civilians need armor piercing capabilities? It's not hard to imagine bad scenarios that would be worth preventing. Where's the positive utility that makes it worth keeping? Do we have to wait for their excessive lethality to be used in an actual massacre before addressing the obvious dangers?And lastly, gun controlfocus on weapons used in mass shootings (your measure of danger) as well as handguns used in more conventional homicides (what you declared to be more dangerous), so I'm not sure where you're getting this idea that they don't... except simply repeating these ignorant claims that assault weapons just "look different" than hunting rifles while you ignore the very real utilitarian ergonomic designs that separate them.