> I do not see how banning assault weapons is a "crap" solution. Sure, other guns may still be available but at least it's something.
This is exactly parent post's point. Something must be done, even if it is going to have little or no discernible effect on the problem.
Banning assault weapons won't stop the next lunatic from committing a mass shooting because:
A. You can easily kill dozens of people with handguns like the VT shooter did.
B. Millions of assault weapons are already in circulation. Trying to confiscate those weapons would likely cause violence.
Not to say that an assault weapons ban would not prevent some would-be shooters from getting a more powerful firearm, but it won't reduce the incidence of these shootings and you're still going to have a lot of people dead or injured if a shooter is forced to use a handgun.
And that's assuming that mass shootings are the most important problem to be solved in terms of gun violence. Mass shootings still make up something like 1 or 2 percent of all gun homicides in the US. If we really care about people being killed by gun violence, we would focus our efforts on the vast majority of gun crime that is committed by people with prior violent felony convictions with illegal firearms. We would also take serious steps towards ending the drug war and all of the violence associated with the black market for drugs.
Spending a ton of effort and political capital on getting a law passed that has very little effect on reducing gun homicides is silly. Because when a new AWB inevitably doesn't solve the problem, it's going to be all but impossible to pass another gun control law. If Hillary Clinton wins and forces through a new assault weapons ban she will have a tough time getting re-elected and Democrats will certainly lose Congress. Why not spend that political capital on something that will actually make a measurable difference.
Also keep in mind that gun violence is down dramatically[0]. So the problem isn't really that gun violence is increasing but rather public knowledge of it has.
Guns are often political focus because they are high profile in the media, but there are lots of "silent killers" that are responsible for orders of magnitude more deaths per year that don't get high profile press coverage (medical malpractice, alcohol-related deaths, etc.).
Politicians aren't looking out for us, they are just trying to prop themselves up.
This is exactly parent post's point. Something must be done, even if it is going to have little or no discernible effect on the problem.
Banning assault weapons won't stop the next lunatic from committing a mass shooting because:
A. You can easily kill dozens of people with handguns like the VT shooter did.
B. Millions of assault weapons are already in circulation. Trying to confiscate those weapons would likely cause violence.
Not to say that an assault weapons ban would not prevent some would-be shooters from getting a more powerful firearm, but it won't reduce the incidence of these shootings and you're still going to have a lot of people dead or injured if a shooter is forced to use a handgun.
And that's assuming that mass shootings are the most important problem to be solved in terms of gun violence. Mass shootings still make up something like 1 or 2 percent of all gun homicides in the US. If we really care about people being killed by gun violence, we would focus our efforts on the vast majority of gun crime that is committed by people with prior violent felony convictions with illegal firearms. We would also take serious steps towards ending the drug war and all of the violence associated with the black market for drugs.
Spending a ton of effort and political capital on getting a law passed that has very little effect on reducing gun homicides is silly. Because when a new AWB inevitably doesn't solve the problem, it's going to be all but impossible to pass another gun control law. If Hillary Clinton wins and forces through a new assault weapons ban she will have a tough time getting re-elected and Democrats will certainly lose Congress. Why not spend that political capital on something that will actually make a measurable difference.