Rifles consist of only 1-3% of gun homicides in the US. Out of the 11,000 gun homicides according to the Fbi, only 300 are because of a rifle. Handguns seem to be the main portion taking up thousands.
Taking away people's right to own a certain firearm because they look scary, is moronic.
As of 2014, no one would care if you owned a handgun with normal magazines. Almost everyone underestimates the lethality of a handgun. A handgun is the most likely gun to be used in a crime according to the FBI. But when someone buys a rifle that is functionally identically, well then everyone looses their minds. Over nothing.
If we have the right to bear arms why are we only allowed to use the guns that are on a certain list? People can be killed with plenty of things so why not ban knives, bars, heavy objects, power tools, sharp objects, rocks, trees, ice, water, pesticides, cleaning detergents, and so on? They can all be used for murder? So why is it the "all mighty gun" that's feared? Because "it has range"? So does anything throw able. "It's accurate"? That takes practice and with practice anything could be a viable tool for murder. "It's scary!"... A lot of things are scary.
People can go back and forth all day on whether or not Americans should have the right to own semi-automatic rifles or not. But, the one overruling factor in this argument is the presence of the 2nd Amendment which guarantees the right for all Americans to bear arms, regardless of the era. I'm sorry guys, case closed.
Assault weapon bans only punish law abiding citizens. Criminals don't listen to rules and they will get their hands on a gun no matter what so banning any type of gun would not help our problem. Drugs are illegal and people still get them. During the prohibition people still got alcohol even though it was illegal. Why wouldn't people get semi automatic guns if they're banned?.
The majority of gun owners are responsible, mentally stable and law abiding citizens with good morals. They've never had an accident with one of their guns and they never will. They won't shoot up a school, university or theater and they would only shoot someone if they had to defend them selves or others. It's not fair to punish the majority of gun owners for crimes they did not commit and never will commit. Go after the criminals, mentally I'll and irresponsible gun owners but leave the rest of them alone.
Our enemies and criminals won't be deterred by our laws. Until we have a solution for crime permanently, we should not deter sane gun owners from having the right to protect themselves. 'Course we could go all final solution on criminals, if you don't want use to be able to handle crimes individually.
Semi-auto rifles are ideal weapons of choice for people who want to go on a mass shooting spree and murder as many people as they can. Although banning the right to own semi-auto rifles won't guarantee that these weapons won't be acquired, legalizing them would obviously make them much easier to posses. And even though the 2nd amendment grants the right to bear arms, that was during a time period where the U.S. relied on its local gun owning militia men for defense, but now we have specially trained military and police forces to protect us in the national, state, and local level. We can't just rely on background checks, because everyone at some point had a clean record- someone could commit their first crime by gunning down innocent first-graders with an m16
Semi-automatic weapons, while often intended for home defense, have more devastating consequences. There have been accidents where children playing with the gun have been injured or killed.
Proper regulation is not feasible. Simply because an individual has not yet been diagnosed mentally unstable, does not mean they don't have it within them to take radical violent action when pushed.