I'd just like to take this time to thoroughly rebut some of the more nonsensical arguments made ITT:
1. "Assault weapons should be banned"- The main problem with this argument is mostly from ignorance; ignorance in gun laws, licensing, and crimes committed with said weapons. Besides the nebulous definition of what an "assault weapon" is (again due mainly to ignorance) there is the fact that functionally a Ruger Mini-14 and an AR-15 function exactly the same. Semi-auto technology has been around for over 100 years. The other frustrating aspect with this argument is the claim that, "joe blow can walk into a gun store and walk out with fully-automatic assault rifles." This simply isn't true and it's a claim that makes even the most casual gun-owner laugh.
2. "Regulate ammo sales; that'll stop the mass shootings"- In a word, no. It will slow people down in the way that speed bumps slow down cars; it's a minor inconvenience for a crazy person and will do absolutely nothing to curb violence. In addition, what agency and with what funds is said ammo regulation going to be done by? The understaffed and underfunded BATFE? The FBI? DHS? Not to mention the logistical nightmare it would be to try and enforce and how easy it would be to subvert.
3. "You don't need an "assault weapon" to hunt deer or self-defense"- This argument presupposes that the Second Amendment was written for the benefit of only hunting and/or self-defense from non-government forces. Neither of which is correct. It absolutely includes those reasons and the SCOTUS has twice now in the past four years reaffirmed this vs. McDonald and Heller decisions. But in all actuality it was created with the express purpose of the (thankfully) unlikely notion that the American people need to violently overthrow the government. To ban said weapons that are (in some ways) comparable to what our LE and Military possess would defeat the main purpose of the Second Amendment.
4. "The Second Amendment is outdated" or "The founders could've never predicted modern weaponry"- In what manner is the Second Amendment outdated? It provides adequate ways to protect oneself from criminals/harm (U.S. average police-response time is eight minutes nor are they required to protect you, per SCOTUS decision). Great for hunting and recreation (an often forgotten use in this debates) and in the unfortunate event of a civil uprising/war guns are pretty good for those too.
As for the second argument: It is so laughably short-sighted and hypocritical that it smacks of parody. I assume that if one made an argument to restrict the First Amendment because our forefathers couldn't foresee radio, television, or the internet would be completely acceptable to the person that makes this argument. Or that the Fourth Amendment is outdated because its unreasonable to have privacy in this age of technology that the Founders couldn't possible of imagined.
5. "If we banned guns, there would be less/no violence"- Not only does history (both recent and ancient) show us otherwise but aside from the restrictions on freedoms this would entail it would do nothing to address why violence actually occurs in societies. As others have stated, it's merely a band-aid solution. If America was serious about reducing violence (which is already at an all-time low: http://dailycaller.com/2011/09/28/gun-crime-continues-to-decrease-despite-increase-in-gun-ownership/) we'd be investing money/research in reducing poverty, inequality, and reforming our mental healthcare system.
This also doesn't even mention the eventual black markets and criminal syndicates that will rise to supply the demands of a market. Also if we were really want to save lives we should install ignition-lock devices on all vehicles as almost two thousand people were killed due to drunk driving accidents than gun homocides: http://www.centurycouncil.org/drunk-driving/drunk-driving-fatalities-national-statistics.
In conclusion, guns are here to stay and we need to look at the real causes of violence and address those rather then grandstand on an issue that won't even make a difference. I'm propose more education on the issue for all. But we all know how apprehensive we're to fund that but that's for another day and thread.
Log in to comment