Here's some examples of prohibitionist lies.
http://www.psr.org/documents/psr_doc_0/program_2/Assault_Weapons_Questions_and_Answers.pdf
12) Why are assault weapons more prone to causing severe injuries and death than other firearms?
Bullets fired from an assault weapon have higher energy and greater velocity, penetrating the body more easily and causing greater damage to the victim than other firearms.
Now look closely at the energies and velocities of "assault weapons" vs. hunting firearms.
An ordinary .30-06 hunting rifle is twice as powerful as my "AK-47" lookalike and six to eight times as powerful as an "Uzi" lookalike. By and large, "assault weapons" fire cartridges that are among the LEAST powerful of all centerfire rounds.
Here's some raw energy figures:
.Uzi lookalike (9x19mm)...................450 ft-lb
.AR-15..................................1,275 ft-lb
.AK-47 lookalike (7.62x39mm)............1,495 ft-lb
.30-06 deer hunting rifle...............2,900 ft-lb
.375 big-game hunting rifle (.375H&H)...4,230 ft-lb
.577 big-game hunting rifle (.577NE)....7,000 ft-lb
You can find velocities, energies, and so on on the 'net; if you know the bullet weight in grains and the velocity in ft/sec, you can do the conversion yourself (there are formulas out there as well). Ballistics tables for many common civilian rounds can be found at the Remington ammunition ballistics page, among other places. (I have a program on my TI-81 to do that but you can't cite my calculator as a source.)
Quickie graph: Comparison of the Output Delivered by Various Rifle Calibers
http://www.ballistics-experts.com/images/News/Sniper/Sniper_ME_Comp.jpg
(contained in page
http://www.ballistics-experts.com/News/Beltway Sniper/sniper 2.htm
AFAIK, you can't find a common centerfire rifle round that is LESS powerful than the .223 Remington. (There are a few uncommon rounds that are weaker, but I can't think of any common rounds less powerful than the .223.) The only exception I can think of would be .30 carbine, IF you consider that a bona fide rifle round (I don't think most people do).
--any .30-caliber centerfire rifle round that is less powerful than the 7.62x39mm used in civilian AK lookalikes. There aren't many, if any.
As far as velocity, "assault weapons" don't rate all that high. Civilian Uzi lookalikes nominally propel a 115-grain bullet at only 1250 to 1350 ft/sec, compared to a .30-06 hunting rifle's 180-grain bullet at 2700 ft/sec. My "AK-47" lookalike is in the middle of the range, throwing a 123-grain bullet at 2350 feet per second. The .223 throws a little 55-grain bullet at 3250 ft/sec or a 62-grain bullet at 3000 ft/sec, but a .30-06 hunting rifle can throw the same weight bullet at 4080 ft/sec or a 125-grain bullet at 3140 ft/sec.
Another lie by prohibitionists--find someone talking about how we need to ban "weapons of war like AK-47's and Uzi's" (even Senator Kerry said things to that effect during the campaign), and then point out that all military AK-47's and Uzi's--as well as all other automatic and burst-mode weapons--are strictly regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934 and weren't affected by the 1994 "assault weapons ban."
Or point out that the said ban actually banned all firearms holding over 10 rounds, with a few inconsequential exceptions.
As far as the "you can't use that for hunting" argument, point out that the vast majority of gun owners don't hunt. (There are between 13 and 16 million licensed hunters in the U.S.--you can probably find an up-to-date number--and 65 to 80 million gun owners, depending on who you ask. So 4 out of 5 of us don't hunt, and many of us nonhunters don't particularly CARE if we are "allowed" to own a bird-hunting shotgun...
Here is a gold mine of gun-related facts, often with links to 3rd-party sources:
www.guncite.com
Excellent article on the "assault weapons" issue:
Rational Basis Analysis of "Assault Weapon" Prohibition [20 J. of Contemp. L. 381-417 (1994)]
http://www.guncite.com/journals/rational.html
, so I’ll just have to site a lot of information against it instead. For my report all sources have to be "factual"... my teacher is looking for news sites and such, not personal articles. If anyone has anything that could help me, I’d be really thankful if you could reply.
