Fallacies of the Assault Weapons Ban

The issue of banning assault weapons and large capacity magazines has been debated for years, but has never been discussed with such urgency as it is now. The issue is the banning of assault weapons in our society. Are we the kind of country that allows and encourages its citizens to own weapons of mass destruction? The moral issue we face is banning ownership of these weapons to ordinary citizens while protecting their rights under the second amendment of our Constitution. Considering the bloodshed and death that assault weapons cause in the hands of citizens and criminals, it seems to me that assault weapons do not have a place in our homes and society.

The United States contains 5% of the world’s population. However, our nation covers 35-50% of the world’s civilian-owned guns, is ranked first for firearms per capita, and holds the highest homicide rate among all other nations of wealth and democracy at 88.5% (Masters). Such high rates and loose restrictions are bound to lead to tragedy. We will not sit here and make excuses, we will not allow power in the hands of insanity, and we will not allow the safety of our children to be hindered. After each tragedy that has struck, we have failed to successfully improve gun control. As of now, we hold no federal law banning semi-automatic assault weapons, just like the weapons used in the Las Vegas massacre, resulting in

July 20th, 2012, twelve are killed and fifty-eight are injured at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado. The man who killed them used a semi-automatic rifle with a one hundred round magazine. An automatic weapon has no use in the United States because all sporting events, and activities with guns can be accomplished without automatic weapons. It is important because it limits the possibilities of events like the shooting at the Sandusky school in Ohio. Some would say they are a good for shooting range activity and most people don’t commit crimes with them, getting rid of automatic weapons would get rid of the crimes committed with them overall. People die because of the actions taken with with assault rifles. Automatic weapons should be banned in the US because they are not needed for self defense, and they have almost no use in recreational activities.

Laws regulating the use of guns in America have been a hot topic for years. Media coverage of mass shootings, acts of terrorism in and outside of the United States, and stories of families being murdered in the night has resulted in a desensitized, or perhaps, overly sensitized nation. People are scared and have centered their idea of safety on one of two main approaches: creating stricter gun laws so less crime occurs, or taking away gun restrictions so everyone can protect themselves against crime. Policies stemming from these vantage points begin by the agenda set by pertinent support and opposition groups, reflecting these approaches.

The common argument that the anti gun movement push is that high caliber weapons mainly so called ¨assault rifles¨ cause mass destruction and that they kill thousands of people a year. They also claim that there is no use for the weapons and they wish to impose a nationwide ban on ¨assault rifles¨. Now to the average American the term ¨assault rifle¨ may sound intimidating but anti gun politicians use this term to scare Americans into thinking that a regular semi automatic rifle is an fully automatic machine which it is not. The most common rifle that the movement goes after is the ar-15 which is a semi automatic rifle. Now according to FBI crime statistics rifles accounted for 285 of murders in 2013,

The history of firearms has changed dramatically since the late 1700’s. A rifle is no longer defined as a single shot, muzzle loading musket. Should

Countless opinions have been broadcasted on national news media regarding what society ought to do about gun control. This controversial topic sparks many heated debates with people of either position reluctant to compromise. Gun supporters claim that the proposed gun laws infringe on their constitutional right to bear arms. Conversely, others believe that restricted gun access would cause gun violence to decrease. Regardless of what side one stands on, with the increase in gun violence, it is safe to say that something must be done.

The author makes several main claims throughout his articles such as, “national news stories are virtually never done on permit holders stopping mass public shootings,” and “the proposals put forward by gun control advocates wouldn’t have stopped this attack.” The columnist firmly believes in the power of the second amendment and as such, he wants to limit the amount of new laws that control how much the people can hold and use weapons. The claims listed are claims of fact and policy respectively. He gives several examples of how these different prevented mass shootings were not widely advertised and how the ones that were not stopped were all over news stations to convince people that guns are not helping the common people. The author then proposes that the changes that gun control advocates propose will not make a difference and begins to give reasons why which makes this a claim of policy. He says that making a change will not make any change so the laws should be left the same as they are now, or they should be more inclusive to allow more people to carry a concealed weapon.

The current legislation in America is pushing for an “Assault Weapon” ban, in the hopes of diminishing and stop, mass shootings and gun crime, although the ban of “Assault Weapons” will have absolutely no effect on gun crimes and mass shootings. We as Americans are in a crossroad, dived in this issue we face today, everyone has different views and opinions on how should we approach these assault weapons, that we are constantly being informed on the daily news, commonly used by portrayers of evil. The majority of Americans, that are not informed with the way current gun laws, and restrictions are normally the ones that agree with an assault weapon bar or stricter gun control laws.

There is currently an ongoing debate in the U.S whether or not the government should ban assault weapons. An assault weapon is a semi-automatic weapon that has a larger magazine that is capable of holding more bullets, and fires a bullet every time the trigger is pulled. There are also assault weapons categorized as machine guns that fire bullets as long as the trigger is held down in a constant state. What differentiates assault weapons from other guns is that assault weapons are deadlier for they have semi-automatic capability, larger ammunition and military like features. It makes the weapons more appealing to people who want to kill large amounts of people. The likelihood or ability to obtain an assault weapon in the United States are

What brought this law about are the tragedies of 2012 that caused ripples in all ideas for assault weapons. The shootings that lead to this are tragic and not to be overlooked.

Jill Silos-Rooney’s current professional associations include Bethel Woods Center for the Arts., MassBay Community College, and Oxford University Press. She begins her article, “The Top 3 Liberal Arguments for Gun Control”, with an anecdote about a nine-year-old girl who accidentally killed her gun instructor with an Uzi and proceeds to list off two counterarguments and rebuttals and three assertions for gun control in her Thought Co. article, covering what she believes the best arguments for said gun control are. Her strongest pieces of evidence that support her central claim that “America Needs More Gun Control” (page 1) are “Australia, which has a similar frontier history to that of the United

To start with, many American citizens will agree that mass shootings have become a severe issue of the modern day. Many “[g]un violence researchers say that no law can eliminate the risk of mass shootings, which are unpredictable and represent a small minority of gun homicides over all” (Sanger-Katz, Bui 2), which goes to say that in order to prevent mass shootings, a number of various laws would have to be put in place. However, while some of these laws sound as if they could be effective, Congress still has the ability to shut down the potential application of these laws. An example of this occurred in 2013, when Congress considered “[e]xpanding background checks for gun purchasers to a wider range of gun sales…” (5), but this idea was ultimately disregarded. If this continues to occur, it is a possibility that no laws on gun control will be changed or implemented, which will keep the gateway open for potential perpetrators to commit mass shootings.

The United States of America is a nation of massacres by military-type assault weapons. Aware of the deadliness of these weapons and due to public safety concerns clearly outweighing the benefits of personal ownership of military-type assault weapons, the United States passed the 1994 Federal Ban on military-type assault weapons. This ban was notably effective during the 10 years it was in effect. However, the Ban automatically expired in 2004. Since that time, the number of U. S. mass murders has markedly increased. Attempts to reinstate the Ban, most recently the stricter 2013 Ban, have all failed. Nevertheless, the less restrictive 1994 Ban did pass the Senate and House of Representatives at one point and was successful. Therefore, the 1994 Federal Ban on military-type assault weapons should be reinstated.

The AR-15 (ArmaLite Rifle) is a modern sporting rifle that has been a main controversy in America which dominates the gun control conversation. With the mass shootings that occurred in the previous years, the AR-15 was the dominant weapon used in these tragedies. This semi-automatic rifle is classified by the media as an assault rifle in which it is not because the AR-15 is not automatic. The supporters of banning the AR-15 and Gun Control believe that it will stop mass shootings from happening, but there is no evidence that banning any assault weapon would prevent mass shootings. The AR-15 should not be banned because the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution protects individual gun ownership. This weapon is mainly used for hunting and defense, but banning this rifle will not prevent any more mass shooting from occurring since the gun is not doing