And the results would change even more if you’d run them with ‘semiautomatic rifle’ or ‘selfloading rifle’ instead of ‘assault rifle’.
There a numerous semiauto hunting rifles with wooden stock and handguard, some with a tube magazine instead of a box magazine, so with a different silhouette.
Technically they are no different but a huge group of people have no clue about how guns work and those are easily manipulatable in both directions.
It’s not if you talk about regulations, because you must be precise in what is regulated and how and what is not.
If you want to ban outright all, then you are right, then any distinction is unnecessary.
We’ve heard that argument before.
If you would like to challenge his points please do so in the catch-all topic linked above.
Again, if the argument is that it’s too difficult to define and regulate all these things, the answer is always, “well, every other country managed to do it”.
In this case, even the US did it. Clinton’s “assault weapons ban”, however they defined “assault weapon” reduced mass shootings by 3x. Those 3x came back when the ban was repealed.
That dog won’t hunt.
There was an assault weapons ban. It existed for ten years till it hit its sunset timeline.
It was very effective in preventing mass shootings.
“A 2019 DiMaggio et al. study looked at mass shooting data for 1981 to 2017 and found that mass-shooting fatalities were 70% less likely to occur during the 1994 to 2004 federal ban period“
The real evidence is that it would stop a shitload of mass shootings. More now because the number of AR-15’s have jumped off the charts just as the number of mass shootings have.
I think the point is that the nation’s reaction to the massacre of seven Chicago gangsters in 1929 created enough national outrage to force American politicians to take immediate and meaningful action on gun control, whereas the massacre of hundreds of school children in recent years has led to diddly-squat.
I don’t know what Facebook arguments would look like if social media existed in 1929 but I kind of doubt there would be so many people on the pro-Tommy-gun side.
Indeed, because that was long before anyone thought 2A was some venerable ancient right. This whole “America was founded on the idea of everyone having guns” thing is entirely new and manufactured. Like, “within 20 years” new. The Heller decision was 14 years ago, but people speak as though assault weapons are mentioned in the federalist papers. America happily banned guns regularly before that. Especially when the Black Panthers declared themselves a well-regulated militia.
I don’t know about y’all but there a lot of regulations on things that I dont personally and individually understand completely and it works great!
Oftentimes with the support of the NRA.
Next up - guy who says cars are guns.
Yet seat belts are legal?
If the gun-wankers want specifics, ban the ownership of weapons based on the Colt AR-15 (AKA Armalite-15) design/platform by civilians (with an exception for licensed industrial uses, such as ranches or security companies). For the vast majority of law-abiding citizens, including sport hunters*, there is no plausible or legitimate reason to own this specific type of weapon (which was originally designed as a military platform).
Ammosexual predictably responds: “ok, but if you do that the bad guys with guns will move on to another semi-automatic rifle type or platform.” Fine, ban that one too. And the next one. Until it becomes clear that all semi-automtic rifles should be banned for civilian ownership.
[* the firearms industry tries to market it as a “modern sporting rifle”, but that’s more BS. A sport hunter who uses a semi-automatic rifle is basically cheating against the animal. Bolt-action rifles and shotguns can be manufactured with materials and features that replicate the improvements of the AR-15 without the semi-auto action.]
It sure is strange how so few people who owned guns for hunting or home defense considered the AR-15 (or similar models) an indispensable tool just a few decades ago.
When my grandfather went hunting he’d carry a bolt-action rifle or a shotgun, not a weapon of war. I guess growing up in rural South Dakota didn’t give him an opportunity to learn the right tools for the job.
I wonder if we will hear that one less now that gun violence has outpaced car accidents as the leading cause of death for children in the U.S. .
“The ArmaLite AR-15 was designed to be a lightweight rifle and to fire a new high-velocity, lightweight, small-caliber cartridge to allow infantrymen to carry more ammunition.”
It’s a military infantry weapon designed to kill people most efficiently. Military style weapons designed to kill many people efficiently shouldn’t be allowed in general population.
It’s not as if you can’t protect yourself with many other weapons or go hunting with them. You just can’t kill as many people or as quickly. And that’s what people are arguing for - the ability to kill more people, more quickly.