"Assault weapon" legalization

My current position is that all guns should be legal, from muskets to AR 15s and AK 47s. 

Your more likely to die from a lightning strike than you are to die from an "assault weapon" statistically.  Yet no one advocates for more research done to prevent humans from dying from lightning.

Yet plenty of people talk about banning "dangerous" weapons they think are dangerous, even though dying from them is more rare than dying from lightning.

If they have a history of mental illness that makes them want to shoot someone, they should get put into a mental institution, banning guns for them would make them get guns illegally or another weapon legally. 

I also don't believe that all guns should be locked up so a kid can't get them, largely because they don't use the gun to shoot someone.

why stop there. If you think there should be no restrictions, why not grenades, and rocket launcers and nuclear weapons for every household. I mean who is going to try to rob a house armed with thermo-nuclear weapons?

"The definition varies among regulating jurisdictions but usually includes semi-automatic firearms with a detachable magazine, a pistol grip and sometimes other features such as a vertical forward grip, flash suppressor or barrel shroud.   Some firearms are specified by name.  At the time that the now-defunct Federal Assault Weapons Ban passed in 1994, the U.S. Department of Justice said, "In general, assault weapons are semiautomatic firearms with a large magazine of ammunition that were designed and configured for rapid fire and combat use."

"Results suggest assault weapons (primarily assault-type rifles) account for 2-12% of guns used in crime in general (most estimates suggest less than 7%) and 13-16% of guns used in murders of police. Assault weapons and other high-capacity semiautomatics together generally account for 22 to 36% of crime guns, with some estimates upwards of 40% for cases involving serious violence including murders of police."

Investigations by the FBI and Special Counsel Robert Mueller resulted in indictments of Russian agents on charges of developing and exploiting ties with the NRA to influence US politics. The deputy governor of the Central Bank of Russia, Aleksandr Torshin, is suspected of illegally funneling money through the NRA to benefit Trump's 2016 campaign. In May 2018, Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee released a report stating it had obtained "a number of documents that suggest the Kremlin used the National Rifle Association as a means of accessing and assisting Mr. Trump and his campaign" through Torshin and his assistant Maria Butina, and that "The Kremlin may also have used the NRA to secretly fund Mr. Trump's campaign." Torshin, a lifetime NRA member who is close to Russian President Vladimir Putin, has been implicated in money laundering by Spanish authorities who have characterized him as a "godfather" in Taganskaya, a major Russian criminal organization

--> @oromagi

Reply

What utility do lightning strikes have?

--> @oromagi

Reply

Also, while 616 is certainly more than anyone would like, I think we can safely say that .000187% of our population could be described as “barely anyone”.

i'm pretty sure research is done to protect people and property from lightning. 

There are alot of people who can function in society but should not be allowed to possess a gun because they have proven they cannot be trusted to use it responsibly.

. Here is an article about how 73 children died from gun accidents in 1 year. Children are, by nature of being children, not old enough or responsible enough to be able to be around guns safely. You shouldn't keep knives where children can get them either. 

Lightning oxidizes diatomic nitrogen into the nitrates which fertilize the growth of plants as well reacting with sunlight to produce ozone which in turn protects the planet from deadly ultraviolet radiation.

I left that to READERS to decide for themselves.  

--> @oromagi

Reply

I'll respond to you when I have the time and recources I think.

dont do a school presentation on something political, you never know someones views

so if that is the case, and they are so helpful, why would you support hypothetical legislation banning it?

Guns have utility as well, self defense, helping us hunt, shooting is a sport, and they help ensure the government doesn’t rob us of our rights. Now you said to just ban them around schools, festivals, etc, but I’d argue that is where they are currently needed.

The vast majority of mass shootings happen in gun free zones. Lots of people die when gun aren’t present.

However, a recent church shooting was cut very short by parishioners with guns, saving many lives.

Let's agree that guns have some utility.  I assume that I am rather more skeptical of a gun's absolute value in the purposes of self-defense and rebellion than the average gun lover.  I don't think I mind guns at schools so long as underage children don't have access and the armed personnel are vetted, trained, and licensed to  a rational degree.  Likewise, I'm OK with armed police and security at a festival but I think the public at that festival deserves some assurance that no armed people will be drinking or dancing or getting into fist fights so let's ask the festival-goers to leave their guns at home.

We ought to be able to agree that not every useful thing is useful in every context.  A uranium solid fuel rod is great in the context of a nuclear reactor but unwelcome at an orgy.  Tigers are important apex predators but should be kept out of nurseries.

You are citing JR Lott's research which does not claim that the majority of mass shootings happen in gun free zones but rather the majority of mass public shootings happen in gun free zones.  Lott defines mass public shootings as four or more deaths in malls, schools, churches, health care facilities, government buildings, and military sites.  In other words, Lott's report ONLY amounts to the unsurprising finding that the majority of shootings in gun free zones happen in gun free zones.  We should note that Lott excludes drug shootings, gang shootings, domestic and residential violence to conclude that there were only 28 mass public shootings between  2009 and 2016 or an average of 3 per year which seems like a pretty obvious low ball.  We should also note that Lott's list of gun-free zones included many sites where armed defenders were present and actively engaged- Ft. Hood, Washington Navy Yard, Pulse Night Club.

Anecdotal, although I do not dismiss the example as irrelevant. Should we not also consider the considerable anecdotal evidence that the presence of guns does not always save lives?  Four Broward County deputies were fired for failing to advance while students died at Parkland.  Armed Mandalay security guards engaged Stephen Paddock in the first minutes but failed to prevent the worst mass shooting event in US history.  An armed Las Vegas police officer was later fired for cowering in the stairwell while Paddock continued to kill and injure.

I don't deny the utility of guns although I suspect the utility of guns as tools for self-defense is both overrated and less effective than common sense measures excluding the violent, the addicted, and/or mentally ill from gun ownership.  I don't generally mind the notion of an experienced gun instructor sitting in back of the church for protection although I may regret any sense of necessity.  I do mind the notion of a church filled with armed parishioners who each feel empowered to assess and execute a defense of the congregation- mostly because in my experience, individuals attracted to such authority exhibit a poorer capacity for a correct assessment and righteous defense than individuals who decline that authority.  That is again anecdotal but important to informing my opinion regarding practical gun usage and control in my country.