I understand that people kill people, yet if the people do not have the weapons for it, then there would be less shootings, death, and more protection. I think guns should not be COMPLETELY banned. Like the police, hunters, and etc, should be kept, but not the people who can randomly shoot anyone, anywhere.
See I understand why people want guns and why they think its important. I do! So I'm gonna put it this way. "Guns don't kill people, but people use guns to kill people." You don't need an AR-15! Get a Colt Python or something. Self protection? HAH! More people get killed by guns then actually using it for self protection. If you don't have a pistol, rifle, or knife, then you can't hurt anyone with it. Criminals get there guns, yes, yet stricter gun laws could possibly take some of the people who give criminal guns out. Wouldn't that be nice? And it wouldn't be pointless. It would help so people don't have M119 Brownings and crazy stuff like that. Just trying to make a point. And don't get me wrong and think I'm anti gun, I'm just anti-automatic-100rounds-50pounds-suppressed-guns
It all goes back to the old expression, "Guns don't kill people. People kill people." It does not matter what type of weapon you are talking about. It can be a handgun, a pistol, a rifle, a knife, a bow and arrow, or an automatic weapon. The weapons themselves do no harm. The problem only arises when these weapons are left in the hands of a dangerous person.
Automatic weapons are no longer manufactured for civilians, thanks to a 1988 law. While I disagree with that law, this debate also shows that there's a general ignorance regarding firearms and the law. It also shows how we get a spaghetti type system of laws in our country. We don't need more laws banning something that is ridiculously difficult to obtain.
Fully automatic weapons already require you to get very expensive permits and jump through numerous legal hoops. Even then, this is when you are in a state where full autos are even legal. Full autos are already illegal in most states, and in the States you can legally own full autos in, the legal process to get one is a nightmare.
If the Headline doesn't sum it up, I'll go deeper. During prohibiton people still drank. When weed was illegal every where in the U.S. people still smoked. If guns get banned, those who want to cause harm to others with them will still find a way to get the gun they need. Outlawing them just makes law-abiding citizens unable to protect themselves, or in jail for no reason.
Automatic weapons are already banned from being in the hands of the citizenry and are reserved for the military and in some cases police only. The only rifles we have resemble them yes but do not have the automatic function. They are semi automatic meaning you have to pull the trigger each time and it fires one bullet. The only way to get automatic weapons is illegally, that being said that makes this question null and void.
If a criminal really wants a semi automatic firearm they'll get it. But wait why would they not listen to our laws? Well...I think that's because they're criminals. Criminals do t listen to laws. Remember how we used to have prohibition? Even though alcohols as banned people got it and hey what about drugs- even though there illegal people still get them so if you ban any weapon people will still get them.
I believe firmly that people will have what they want regardless of it is legal or not. The point of a person's right to bear arms is so that in the event of foreign invasion the entire population is armed. Automatic weapons are no exception. If the general population is not allowed to carry automatic weapons, then the only people with them will be criminals who already don't care about the gun laws.