Do u believe that all assault weapons should be banned in the US ? 🔫

[image deleted]

I found this response on FB. Found it fairly interesting. It was written by a veteran in response to his mom's gun control rant. Anyway, it should serve as good fodder here.
Enjoy
*********

“Completely agree with the sentiment here, Mom. However, in order to make educated arguments for gun control, it's important to actually know what you're proposing and use the right language. Otherwise, you'll just get completely shut down as "not knowing anything about guns" to people you're trying to convince. And if you don't know anything about guns, you can't really advocate for responsible gun policy.

AR15s are not the problem alone. Yes, it's the most popular military-style rifle, and it is designed to kill people effectively. But banning one model of weapon will just make people switch to other, equally effective killing machines. If you banned the Toyota Camry, would people stop buying midsize sedans? No, you'd just end up with more Honda Accords on the road. If you want to fix the problem, you have to ban all semi-automatic rifles. Semi-automatic means the weapon is loaded with a magazine (or belt in some cases) with multiple rounds; and for every trigger squeeze, one bullet is discharged. There is no real need for these weapons in civilian use. They aren't necessary for hunting, where the point is to kill the animal with one shot. It is only useful for killing a lot of things in a short amount of time or having fun at a gun range. I think our children's lives are more important than a fraction of the population's fun shooting a bunch of rounds quickly at a range. They'll cope.

Handguns are far more responsible for gun deaths in America than semi-auto rifles. You mentioned the kid who brought a gun to school as only having a "handgun, not a semi-automatic." Well, almost all handguns are semi-automatic. They have magazines and one bullet per trigger squeeze. Though most handgun rounds aren't as deadly as rifle rounds, it's inconsequential at short range. And handguns are far easier to conceal than a rifle. With the exception of maybe revolvers (which have 5-6 round max before reloading), I believe handguns should be outlawed. The Virginia Tech massacre, the most deadly school shooting in American history, was accomplished with handguns only. Don't underestimate their lethality. I think military style rifles only account for about 2% of gun deaths each year. If you want to solve the problem, semi-auto handguns have to go, as well.

If we really want to make a difference in gun deaths, we need to do WAY more than universal background checks and better mental health screening. Banning all semi-automatic weapons would make that difference. Keeping shotguns, revolvers, and bolt-action rifles legal accomplish all the typical, common uses of guns. (Bolt-action rifles are typical hunting rifles that you have to reload between shots.) With these types of firearms legal, you can still hunt, defend your home, and compete in sport shooting.

Combine the following with the semi-auto ban.
Government buy-back program of all semi-automatic weapons. Once a grace period for turn-ins ends, possession will be a felony without a special (and rare) license for Federally approved dealers and collectors.
Gun licenses for all who want to continue to own approved firearms. Licenses will be granted by completing a comprehensive background check, psych evaluation, safety training, marksmanship training, and meeting strict storage requirements. Storage requirements would include safes, weapons unloaded, with ammo stored separately. Licenses expire after a certain number of years and all the requirements must be completed again for license renewal.
Registration of all firearms.
Insurance for all firearms. If your gun is used in a crime or if there's a accident with your gun, your insurance company is liable for damages. Let the insurance market set rates based on their analysis of risk. Then, people can decide if it's financially worth it to own a gun.
Finally, here's your counterarguments for the most common pro-gun arguments:
Pro-gun argument - assault weapons aren't an actual thing. Banning them won't make a difference.
Counterargument - none. This is true. Classifying a gun as an "assault weapon" is something people who know nothing about guns do. Having a bayonet stud (a place to mount a bayonet) used to be one way to classify a gun as an assault weapon. Last I checked, we don't have a bayonet problem in this country. Talk about banning semi-auto guns instead of made-up things like "assault weapons."
Pro-gun argument - 2nd Amendment guarantees my right to bear arms!
Counterargument - sure, it does, but there can be limitations. And in case anyone needs a history lesson, the individual right to bear arms has only existed since 2008. From the adoption of the Constitution until the DC v. Heller decision in 2008, the 2nd Amendment had never been interpreted to mean private citizens have a right to own guns. (Thanks, Scalia.) But that decision is now the law of the land and precedent for future court decisions. Nevertheless, even in Scalia's majority opinion, he asserts that there are limitations to the 2nd Amendment. Weapons allowed should be those in common use at the time. And limitations should be made on "dangerous and unusual" weapons, per previous precedent in United States v. Miller. I argue that semi-auto firearms should now be considered "dangerous and unusual," given their lethality.
Pro-gun argument - if law-abiding citizens get rid of their guns, criminals won't follow the law, and we'll be in more danger.
Counterargument - this is an argument against having laws. Since criminals don't follow the law, there should be no limits on anything. Also, when we do outlaw things, it can work. Purchases of large quantities of ammonium nitrate fertilizer was restricted after the Oklahoma City bombing, and there hasn't been a similar bombing since. We outlawed fully automatic weapons, grenades, rocket launchers, etc. in the 20th century, and what has happened? We don't see violence with those types of weapons. Most weapons used to commit crimes are purchased lawfully. If we change the laws, it will work to reduce gun deaths.
Pro-gun argument - if we ban guns, people will just use knives or baseball bats
Counterargument - there are plenty of incidents around the world of mass stabbings or clubbings, etc. Show me one that is as lethal as a mass shooting.
Pro-gun argument - we need armed security guards in every school
Counterargument - do you trust the security guard won't become a mass shooter? The Texas church shooter was an Air Force veteran. The Pulse nightclub shooter was a security guard. Further, it's relatively easy to get the drop on a security guard. Shoot him first when he's not expecting, then keep going. That's what the Pulse nightclub shooter did. It's not difficult if you draw first. Columbine had armed security, too. Adding more guns to schools adds more risk, it doesn't reduce it.
Pro-gun argument - it's a mental health issue, not a gun issue *or* guns don't kill people, people kill people
Counterargument - The United States has the same rates of mental illness as other developed Western countries, but we're the only ones with this type of violence. The mentally ill are actually less likely to commit crime than those who aren't mentally ill, which many find surprising. Also, those who are mentally ill are more likely to become the victim of a crime than those who don't have mental illness. It's a common refrain to hear "anyone who would do that must be crazy." That's not true. Being a murderer doesn't actually mean you are mentally ill, which is why you hardly ever see successful insanity defenses in trials. And if "people kill people," then we really should stop giving all these people guns, right? We don't allow private F-22s or nuclear weapons, do we? Why? Because people would use them to kill other people. People use people-killing machines to kill people. Go figure.
Pro-gun argument - We, as a society, have turned our backs on God. This is why crime is getting worse. We need God/Jesus to heal people's hearts, not get rid of law-abiding citizens' guns.
Counterargument - Crime has actually decreased overall in recent decades. Things are getting better, not worse. Murder rates and violent crime overall have trended down as we've advanced as a society. Mass shootings have remained steady, though, because angry people have easy access to guns.
Pro-gun argument - we need guns to fight against the government in case it becomes tyrannical.
Counterargument - I doubt semi-automatic weapons will defeat a tyrannical government with fighter jets, bombers, tanks, artillery, drones, advanced cyber capabilities, and nuclear weapons.
Pro-gun argument - gun registrations will make it easier for the government to disarm us
Counterargument - The registration is necessary to keep track of deadly weapons in case they are used in a crime, or in case a law-abiding citizen commits a crime that revokes their right to guns. There's over 300 million privately owned guns in America. If the government wanted to take everyone's guns, they'd do it the same way they would if there wasn't a registry: by going door to door and searching everyone.
I truly believe we need to do far more than anything advocated by most mainstream gun control organizations like Everytown and Moms Demand Action. We need to follow the lead of countries like the UK, Australia, and Canada. They've figured it out. Why can't we?”

Yes just as there should be stricter gun controls in general but sadly America will do nothing and its citizens will continue to die due to the 2nd Amendment

Banned from the public, yes. I'm all for the Second Amendment but I never understood what we the public need assault weapons for. They're not used to hunt wildlife, they're not even ideal for personal defense...

Well, this is my compromise: If the 2nd Amendment is going to be supported and enforced as a God-given right communicated by the Founding Fathers, then it should be enforced exactly as it was written, as the conservatives want. If you have a weapon commonly used in 1798 - like a musket or rifle firing two or three .60 balls per minute at an accurate range of 300 yards, or maybe the 6-pound field gun, firing projectiles 1500 yards, usually one shot every two minutes - then you're covered and need not worry about the liberals coming fer yer guns. However, if the amendment isn't open to interpretation or revision to fit the times, then neither should be the weaponry it covers.

Yes and that number is way way overblown. Should ban cars though, 200k deaths a year. Or Doctors malpractice. Death culture there.

What is a assault weapon? What makes it one?

I always hated the term "assault weapon." What is that, a weapon you use to assault somebody? That could be anything from a pocket knife to a walking stick to a gun. Basically anything that could be used as a weapon, which is virtually anything in the world.

It is true that some weapons are able to do much more damage than others, and joe public doesn't really have a use for them. The same is true of a high-performance sports car or a big rig. Would you want to ban those?

One does need a special lenience for a big rig, and therein may lie the answer. Before owning a weapon, require not only training in gun use ans safety, but also a psychological screening. Would that be good enough?

So yes, technically an "assault rifle" is a fully automatic rifle with at least a 30-round magazine. Some people argue that a semi-automatic AR-15 is not classified as an assault rifle. However I think a big factor that comes with AR-15 style rifles is the ability to fill a magazine with anywhere from 30 to 100 rounds. Even if it is semi-automatic, having that many rounds, and with multiple guns and magazines can be so deadly (Las Vegas, Orlando). If Steven Paddock or Omar Mateen were using regular rifles (Not a rifle with 75 rounds packed in a magazine) the damage would have been significantly less. So if the country decided to ban rifles that use high capacity magazines like ARs and rifles similar to it, I feel like that would be a start. I was just at the range using my friend's AR-15. Sure its fun, but if it meant less innocent people being gunned down, I would not care one bit if they were banned. And I'm not even saying to ban handguns or shotguns or anything else right now. But maybe the Australian people have a point in banning weapons like that. Just a thought/ opinion. Not a political expert, literally just a thought right now.

Define assault weapons.

NO...they shouldn't be allowed to have them!😠 There's just no justification for owning such weapons when you're a civilian.

yes yes yes there is absolutely no reason anyone needs one.

There's no reason for someone to have military style assault weapons. Their not going to be hunting zombies or zombie deer (for the hunters anyways.) Even though I'm not going to lie, I'd like to see zombie deer 😂

The whole argument over not banning them stems from fears of "Govt control" of past dictators, there's many reasons why that is a myth because it ignores historical context.

Like how Hitler actually had legislation to loosen gun restrictions for German people and (his words in his own paper) keep guns out of the hands of "mentally unstable" people (which Hitler deemed the Jewish.)

Hitler took weapons from minorities and gave them to German people. Which sorry to tell the gun rights activists this, that isn't anywhere near gun control.

[c=#800055]I believe only trained individuals such as officers should be able to carry assault weapons, not someone's brainwashed teenage son or the average citizen. 🤷 [/c]

Those are bogus stats you are trotting out there. The term 'school shootings' include accidental discharge of a weapon on or near a school after hours.

I don’t know where I stand with this. Part of me says, guns were made with one intentionl. I don’t think citizens should have them as well as law enforcement. However, If law enforcement Is allowed, everyone should be allowed. With the right restrictions

You mean semi-automatic guns? No

I dislike the term "assault weapons". All guns are "assault weapons", they aren't designed to do anything else but assault.

If we are talking about a powerful rifle with military-style accessories that is being used to pump out massive amounts of fire-power, then I think that's pretty unnecessary.

There’s a pattern. Follow the pattern.

They made a law about texting and driving, because there was a pattern of people being killed in car accidents, due to driving while texting. So they should ban assault weapons as too.

How many people were saved by guns?

What are the reasons for a civilian to own an assault rifle ? To protect themselves from terrorist attacks in the USA ? That is what the military is for. When is the last time a civilian actually encountered a situation where they needed an assault rifle ?

In most countries where civilians can own a gun more innocent people get hurt by those guns than criminals or terrorists. And when civilians are allowed to buy assault rifles...well, we see the results in US schools repeatedley don't we ?

Heroin now kills more people than guns: Drugs overdoses claimed 50,000 lives in the US last year then add in prescription opiate deaths ...

i see no crime scenes no blood

Yes it should be if it isn’t. 🤦

No. Let Americans kill each other. They can't get enough of it anyway.

Either ban all arms or none at all, though I'd actually prefer if you tried the former. It'd make for an absolutely beautiful day, with streets all across America just painted red in blood for centuries to come.

https://newrepublic.com/article/125498/its-time-ban-guns-yes-them

If Estonia can have their Defence Forces then civilians can have their AR

Yes, take lessons from Europe and Australia.