Figures that you wouldn't even attempt to come up with any counter argument.
And its all true, mostly easily verifiable as true.
Guns are less likely to kill than cars. By a very strong amount if you don't count suicides where someone is trying to kill themselves and might just choose another method if they don't have a gun (there are countries with few guns that have a much higher suicide rate than the US, Japan in particular stands out but its not the only one).
The NRA does argue against felons having guns (even though with the expansion of crimes defined as felonies that might be problematic in some cases).
"Assault weapons" are defined largely by how they look rather than what they do, or what they are. The term is used to apply to semi-auto weapons (full auto weapons are already heavily restricted under other laws, the so called "assault weapons" ban did nothing, or at least nothing significant, to restrict them. The weapons that where banned are no more dangerous, and in many situations are less dangerous, than common weapons that the law did nothing to restrict. Shotguns are more devastating at close range, ordinary hunting rifles are more powerful, and more accurate at long range, pistols are far more concealable. There is no gain whatsoever (except perhaps political gain from banning them. They where never used in many crimes, and more importantly there is no type of crime where some other weapon wouldn't serve just as well or better, including other weapons that where functionally identical, but just had wood stocks and lacked bayonet lugs or flash suppressors (which are useless, or at least near useless to criminals). The "assault weapons" category is basically a fiction created by gun banners to try to get momentum by banning some weapons. Even if one assumes both "less guns, less crime", and "gun control laws are enforceable and effective" (both very dubious claims), the assault weapons ban would still be pretty much a farce.
|
