The statistic has shown that during the federal assault weapon banned period (1994-2004) we have seen a dramatic reduction of mass shooting and the death toll is also lower. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/02/22/the-real-reason-congress-banned-assault-weapons-in-1994-and-why-it-worked/?utm_term=.9291df0dd7b4
But it's also after 2004 when the law become expired, mass shooting are becoming more deadlier and there are more of such incidents :
And especially devices such as bump stock or high capacity magazine which turn semi automatic weapon like automatic weapon, even make mass shooting more deadlier.
We need to outright banned these weapon. It's not protected under second amendment. It's not useful for hunting,sport or self defense.
It's merely a weapon of war design for killing people especially in warzone.
Civilian are not soldiers therefore it's no need that they should use them.
A weapon of war like the one use in parkland,las vegas,orlando,sutherland,san berdinando, and auora massacre are neither hunting rifles or for sport.
Thes weapon are design to mow down as much as people in a minute. It's absolutely unnecessary and nedless to own these weapon.
My Grandfather love go hunting. But he doens't have an assault weapon instead he has shotguns and snipers.
Assault weapon are not hunting rifles and there are very few hunters who hunt with such weapon.
I support a law banning assault weapon because it would prevent or at least reduce mass shooting. Also it's not unconstitutional according to the Second Amendment.
But nevertheless i support the right to own guns such as handguns or hunting rifles. But it shouldn't be easy to get.
There should be mandatory background check,
Having a license or gun registry
And demonstrating a need to own a gun.
While there are some weapons civilians are and should not be allowed to own, even militaries and governments should not have access to certain weapons: nuclear, chemical and biological weapons for one thing. If they have access, they will be tempted to use them. Machine guns like the ones used in killing sprees such as Sandy Hook, Las Vegas and Parkland are not hunting or sporting rifles. They are designed to cause mass carnage and very few hunters use them. There are those who say we need certain weapons to defend ourselves from our enemies who are in possession of them, but they should not have them either. Whether we use them against our enemies or they strike first, the results will be the same: innocent civilians will die. When you play with fire, you get burned.
We've gone on this long without giving drunk idiots machine guns. Why do I think allowing drunk idiots to have access to machine guns is a bad idea? Is it just me or does this sound like a bad idea? People get drunk, and for some strange reason I have this grudge giving a drunk idiot with a machine gun won't be good. What about when drunk idiots get 50 cals. Are saying that's a good idea. I don't mean to be rude, but are you crazy. I'm sorry, but I can't even argue reasonably, because of how stupid it is to make it EASIER for drunk idiots to get machine guns. I would like to ask you exactly what you think will happen some depressed teen comes to school with a machine gun. Do you support the depressed teen shooting 50 students, or did you not think about that. I realy hope you just didn't consider it, because otherwise you're just sad.
370 murders are done with all rifles combined. 7,553 murders are done with handguns, shotguns, and revolvers. Why aren't people worried about handguns when they do most of the damage? People need AR-15's for home self-defense, and in the case of a tyrannical government.(https://www.Statista.Com/statistics/195325/murder-victims-in-the-us-by-weapon-used/) Facts don't care about your feelings.
I would love to shoot guns as a hobby, and use many other types of weapons, but not on people.
That doesn't make me or any gun enthusiast a killer in the slightest.
Sure, the stats for crime show that it might be high, in countries like America, but in the UK for example, where guns are almost completely banned, alternative crimes are higher, such as knife crime which is 400% higher than other countries. Let's not talk about nail bombs and acid attacks as well.
Sure, there is no need of guns, no need to exactly 'protect' yourself, but I feel like it's not fair on people who like guns as a hobby.
More people are killed every year in America via Drunk Driving (10,000+ in 2016 alone) and impaired driving, so should we ban alcohol? Should we ban cars? People have their right to drink. People have their right to a vehicle. So why is my right to own a weapon to defend my home and my country being challenged when a far worse offender is freely sold and given to the public with now checks what-so-ever?
Okay, that may be a faulty analogy, but the heart remains the same. When it comes to guns, they tend to be sold without fully knowing the person who is buying it. We should have psychological checks in school for many reasons, one of which is violent tendencies! Violent crimes happen all the time without the need of guns, yet we can help mitigate the current atmosphere simply by identifying threatening people. Or would this be a violation of their rights?
Again, more concerned over a gun than the cause... How about training? Why aren't gun owners required to take gun safety classes? I took one of my own free will. I own multiple rifles and I have access to Class III weapons if I was so inclined. Yet, I haven't gone into a shooting spree.
For the claim that such weapons are not protected under the second amendment, that's ridiculous, the second amendment doesn't limit what weapons can be owned. At the time the rifle that the military used was the same rifle I could buy from the same smith. Now, there are civy models and military models. But what if war comes to our door? What if there is a government collapse? What if tyranny descends upon us (the last president established multiple Czars that were completely unchecked by law)? There's a lot of what ifs, but there's precedent for each one as well. How do we expect to stand up for what is right to a military that vastly out guns you?
Since the war of 1812, there has been a mainland invasion doctrine in play that basically establishes the US citizen as the US protectorate. In other words, if China came a knockin' on our lands, the people would become the largest standing army in the world.
So no! We need better education. We need better mental health care. But we do not need to ban weapons that are already regulated.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
This means that, should our country be attacked, our citizens should have access to guns. Seeing that a foreign invader would likely use modern military weapons, you can't expect people to fend them off with single action rifles. Sure, this was written back when we had only muzzle loading weapons but so did our enemy.
I would support a nation wide regualtion on background checks for any firearm but in trade, I would like it to be legal for those who pass a background check to have access to military weapons. Deal?
If it becomes okay to ban weapons of war, some group of people with personal agendas will most likely have to decide the definition of a "weapon of war", and they can theoretically include any weapon they wish in the definition.
Gun control never ends well for the population, and people have a right to defend themselves.