Sadly, even making them illegal will not make them obsolete. Criminals will find a way to get their hands on weapons the same as people find a way to get illegal drugs. It may be a silly belief but I don't think assault weapons should have ever been invented.
They make up less than 2% of gun homicides, the 2 worst mass shootings in the entire WORLD were not committed by them (which dismisses the argument that they have the ability to kill more people) and in the past TEN YEARS, less than 70 people have been killed by "assault weapons" in mass shootings? It just makes no sense. Not to mention, 90% of law enforcement officers say they do NOT support a ban on them and an "assault weapons" ban would have NO POSITIVE EFFECT.
AR 15s are sporting/home defense rifles. Nothing special about them. Tell me something. Why should "assault weapons" be banned if less than 300 people are killed a year by them (75% being criminals since most murder victims are criminals) but alcohol shouldn't be banned when 10,000 people are killed a year by drunk drivers?
I'll have whatever gun I want. IF you are a MENTALLY SANE LAW ABIDING CITIZEN, you should NOT be told what to do.
This page tells seven reasons why the assault weapon ban won’t work. The first is that it didn’t work before. It says that according to studies of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, the ban had little effect on reducing gun crime. The second reason is that the assault weapons ban targets the wrong firearms. This section said that according to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports in 2011, of the 8583 firearm homicides that occurred, 6220 were committed by handguns, and only 323 were committed by rifles. The third reason is that the ban targets guns with mostly cosmetic features. This means that by adding or removing features you could affect the legality of your gun. To see the rest of the reasons copy the link below.
There is no concrete, set definition for the term 'assault weapon.' It was previously defined by a set of characteristics that a weapon may or may not have, including such things as a pistol grip on a rifle, a detachable magazine, or even a simple semiautomatic action, the latter two of which are features that even pistols have. These features are useful to civilian shooters for a number of reasons, including the physically impaired. However, due to similarity of the phrases, 'assault weapons' are often confused 'assault rifles' which are weapons such as the AK-47 or the M16, with automatic actions allowing more than single bullet to be fired at a time. This feature is heavily regulated in the US already and is not a feature of the so-called 'assault weapons'. Ultimately, banning 'assault weapons' will only prevent law-abiding civilians from acquiring rifles with features that are commonly found in handguns and can be useful for a variety of reasons.
With the recent outbreaks of violence in the United States, such as the movie theater shooting during the latest Batman movie and the massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, people should have very limited access to assault weapons. Making it fairly easy for people to carry guns can help to significantly reduce violence in this country, and could potentially save lives.
The term, as noted to the left, is used erroneously. that does not mean there is a need for many of the items that fall under it to exist in society. I get the idea of "this isn't an assault rifle until I put __ on it, now it is" being a really stupid way to define things, but I don't want the gun in question around regard.
The majority of people saying yes are listing reasons and statistics that support the idea that making assault weapons illegal will not impact violent crime (or at least will not impact it too much). That is their reason why they should not be banned. Also saying something like "criminals will get their hands on them whether they or legal or not" is honestly a not well thought-out statement. All laws can be broken obviously, so yes some criminals will be able to acquire assault rifles but the amount will be less and obtaining of such firearms will be much more difficult.
Why though should they be legal? Is there any reason to own an assault rifle other than for the sake of owning one? Maybe you want to have one because you enjoy shooting it or some reason similar to that, but do you really need an assault rifle to enjoy your life? Or maybe you say you need an assault rifle to defend yourself. No, there are many other guns available for your protection.
Maybe it isn't about the owning of an assault rifle itself, but is about the loss of a freedom that we have. Assault rifles would not be taken away to take away freedom, nor does it symbolize a loss of freedom. The purpose would be to save some lives and help some people. Whether it saves a ton of lives or not does not matter. A law doesn't need to be made to save a million people.
Lastly something I have heard from a few people is that "we need assault rifles incase we need to revolt against the government" or something to that extent. This can be addressed quickly and easily. A bunch of untrained civilians with a handful of trained civilians that are armed with assault rifles will not stand a chance against the US military. Good luck using assault rifles to destroy a tank or a fighter jet.
The main point I am trying to make is that there just isn't any reason why we need assault rifles.
Look at Australia assault rifles are banned and they have not had anything like the U.S since but they need to get it right and not take collectors historical firearms or farmers rifles for vermin control like they did in Australia then told them they could buy them again 5 years later anything over 5 shot mag is a waste if you are a decent shooter it should only take one shot