Focusing on "assault weapons" is not sensible
If you fear for yourself or your children and that fear would be in any way alleviated by restoration of the assault weapons ban then your notions of risk-assessment are flawed.
You, me, your child, your neighbor... any and all of us run a far-too-good chance of being shot.
By a hand gun.
Focusing on assault weapons makes sense only if your fear is being shot in a way that ends up on TV.
But in terms of actually being, you know, shot the sensible focus is the same as it was in 1950, 1970, 1990 and 2010.
Recall that the Brady bill was a handgun bill. Because Brady and Reagan were shot with a handgun.
The whole, "Why does anyone need an assault weapon?" thing is silly. As opposed to what? A handgun?
A handgun is truly designed only to kill people in civilian life. It isn't a hunter's weapon. It isn't a soldier's weapon.
It is an anti-personal weapon designed for concealment and action at close quarters... designed for everyday life, not for a battlefield.
It is a gun designed to be available 24/7. For road rage, for shooting your ex-wife, for altercations outside the club, for your children to take to school. It fits in your glove compartment or under your car seat. It is ideal for armed robbery and drive-by shootings.
Why is a sawed off shotgun illegal? Sawing off most of the barrel of a shotgun doesn't increase the pellets' velocity. It doesn't make it penetrate body armor. It does not confer any novel ballistic scariness or change the nature of the load fired. It reduces the accuracy of the weapon greatly.
So why is it illegal to cut down a shot gun? Because it makes it like a handgun... concealable. It takes a very, very powerful weapon into something you can carry inside a coat in an everyday urban environment, and thus a favorite of criminals and a great danger to the populace.
If we want to ban assault weapons then have it, but please don't think it makes us much safer. Reducing the number of inexpensive handguns is what would do the most to make ordinary everyday people safer.
The objective of gun control should be practical, not political. NRA members are a bunch of Republicans but they are rather unlikely to shoot you or your kids. Mass shootings are attention getting, but account for a small fraction of gun deaths.
Is this about harassing Republicans or about not getting shot? Because if you get shot it will probably be by an unexceptional handgun with no special scary features.
If we have the power to ban everything then do so. Cool.
If, however, one is limited to an incremental approach then I would suggest looking at what actually kills people every damn day, rather than looking at whatever is on television.
= new reply since forum marked as read
