Should the U.S. ban assault weapons? | The Tylt

Should the U.S. ban assault weapons?
In the wake of the Florida school shooting that left 17 people dead, a prominent Republican donor issued an ultimatum: ban assault weapons or lose my support. The AR-15 has been the weapon of choice for mass shooters in Las Vegas, Orlando, Newtown and now Parkland, and many argue civilians should not be allowed to own weapons of war. But gun rights advocates argue banning assault rifles won't prevent mass shootings and will only infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens. What do you think? 🔫
FINAL RESULTS
Politics
Should the U.S. ban assault weapons?
A festive crown for the winner
#BanWeaponsOfWar
#RespectThe2A
Dataviz
Real-time Voting
Should the U.S. ban assault weapons?
#BanWeaponsOfWar
#RespectThe2A
#BanWeaponsOfWar

Al Hoffman Jr., a real estate developer and prominent Republican donor issued an ultimatum in the wake of the Florida school shooting that left 17 people dead: ban assault weapons or you will lose my support.

Alluding to past mass killings, Mr. Hoffman argued in his email that future gun massacres were inevitable without government intervention: “If we go from Orlando to Las Vegas, and now Parkland, you just have to know that there are others around the country just dreaming about staging another mass murder.”

The AR-15 has been the weapon of choice for mass murderers in Las Vegas, Orlando, Newtown and now a Florida school. The AR-15 is a military-style semiautomatic weapon that "can fire dozens of rounds in seconds." The rifle is designed for combat situations, and many believe American civilians should not be entitled to own weapons of war.

Many are calling for the Federal Assault Weapons Ban—which Republicans let expire in 2004—to be reinstated, including Republican governor John Kasich. Experts agree a ban on assault weapons, while not completely eliminating gun violence, would drastically reduce the amount of people killed or injured in any given mass shooting.

Compared with the 10-year period before the ban, the number of gun massacres during the ban period fell by 37 percent, and the number of people dying from gun massacres fell by 43 percent. But after the ban lapsed in 2004, the numbers shot up again — an astonishing 183 percent increase in massacres and a 239 percent increase in massacre deaths.

The answer is clear: keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of civilians and there will be less bloodshed.

#BanWeaponsOfWar
imageSupportingMedia
#RespectThe2A

But not everyone is convinced an assault weapons ban would make us safer. Sean Davis of The Federalist argues banning guns that "look scary" won't actually reduce the amount of damage a deranged shooter can do.

A bunch of gun controllers who don’t understand the slightest thing about guns have decided that rifle needs to be banned. Not because it’s more deadly than a typical hunting rifle (it’s absolutely not), but because it looks scarier.

Davis argues the assault weapons ban is a cop-out. A way for lawmakers who know nothing about guns to appear to do something about gun violence without actually making an impact. The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, Davis argues, was more a ban on the cosmetics of a gun than on the actual damage a gun could do.

If the cosmetic features used to define an “assault weapon” in the 1994 law strike you as really stupid ways to define an “assault weapon,” it’s because the 1994 law was a stupid law with stupid definitions written by stupid people. 

Gun rights advocates believe it is dangerous people, not guns, that we should fear and address in the wake of a mass shooting. Criminals who wish to carry out attacks like the one in Florida will find a way to get their hands on a gun whether it's legal or illegal, so how will more gun regulation solve the problem?

#RespectThe2A
imageSupportingMedia
FINAL RESULTS
Politics
Should the U.S. ban assault weapons?
A festive crown for the winner
#BanWeaponsOfWar
#RespectThe2A