"There will always be a fraction of the population that cant be responible - with guns or anything else. That some people arent responible with firearms is not an argument agianst firearms.
I'm not arguing against firearms, I'm arguing for restricted ownership via gun control laws. Every American citizen over the age of 16 should be allowed to own small arms firearms and sporting guns given the fact that they serve a practical non-malicious purpose such as hunting. I even had a hunting permit for what it's worth. Supporting the AWB lift just doesn't make sense.
You might as well be arguing that the increasing number of senior citizens relative to the population serves no other purpose than to make members of the AARP happy.
I'll conced that the NRA and CC links to the ban lift are weak, but the link between accessibility to firearms and death rates has been suggested in a number of studies. One study which examined the link between gun ownership rates and firearm deaths within Canadian provinces, the United States, England/Wales and Australia concluded that 92% of the variance in death rates was explained by access to firearms in those areas. Another review of 13 countries showed that there was a strong correlation between gun ownership and homicide rates and suicide rates. This new lapse in legislation certainly isn't going to lower that total.
No it doesnt.
These guns were available --during-- the ban. There isnt a single gun that you could buy on 9-13 that you could not buy on 9-10. I bought 2; I know people that bought 3 or more. All perfectly legal.
Actually there were 19 guns that were banned in that law, loopholes allowed a name change for some to get around it. It was a step in the right direction, at least it warranted a new law sans loopholes to be instated instead of a complete lapse.
Yes - they all took place while the "assault weapon ban" was in effect. Whats that tell you?
Since 1994 when the AWB was implemented, there was a LARGE drop in semi-automatic weapon related crimes. While not 100% effective, it doesn't hurt.
Because DUI fatalities occur even though drunken driving is illegal, is that grounds to make driving while intoxicated legal by not renewing a law should it come time? That's the same twisted logic you are trying to spoonfeed me...
Like it or not, the 'banned' weapons are exactly the kind that are protected by the 2nd amendment. T hey clearly qualify as "arms".
Wrong again. The US Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment only protects the collective right of the people to maintain well-regulated militias. It makes no restrictions as to what types of arms are acceptable. That is left to federal and state law, hence the ban. If it did make restrictions, my state's ban would have been declared unconstitutional long ago (Which was attempted and defeated in court, BTW).
"You make a 'reasonable' argument for the "AWB" and I'll consider it. Note that I will actively question your reasoning."
1. Guns are a major cause of death: 30 countries in the UN study reported more than 200,000 deaths per year in murder, accidents and suicide. Many are preventable. These numbers can only go up with more advanced weapons on the market.
2. Firearms are used in crime. Firearms theft fuels other crimes. More powerful firearms, increased violence in crimes.
3. The
unrestrained proliferation of firearms undermines peacebuilding, governance and civil society.
I won't step on your right to question those three, but your ethics and morals would definately come into play.
"Assault weapons" are perfectly capable of being used in any legitimate lawful role you might have for a firearm. As such, there isnt a legitimate question of "needing" them - you clearly have the constitutionally protected right to one.
Semi-automatic weapons have only ONE PURPOSE: To kill groups of people. They are not "sporting" guns, they are meant to kill humans quickly and efficiently. Since you seem to think that all arms are OK, why don't I just go out an buy some tanks, F-22s, some RPGs, and M-16s..."just in case." I'm a responsible law-abiding citizen, why shouldn't I be allowed to since it is a constitutionally protected right to bear arms? I'll give fingerprints, a DNA test, pee in a cup, pass an FBI background check, and sit out a three MONTH waiting period. Of course I'm being absurd here, but in seriousness where do you draw the line? When do things become "Not OK" to own? Given your arguments thusfar, there should be no line given enough monitary resources because it is a constitutionally protected right to own any defensive arms I choose. I'm stating that the line was drawn (poorly) with the AWB.