"Assault Weapons" can kill more people because they can shoot faster. Sure you can kill people with other weapons, but not quite as many quite as fast. Because of this, most young people want them all banned.
Using that premise, if we could just have firearms that load so slowly that a mass shooting is not possible, then we should be fine........right? Then law enforcement would not be "outgunned" and the ill informed masses would not want to ban it. Problem is, as far as I know, you would have to ban everything back to muzzleloaders to accomplish this.
I disagree. In my gun owning life I've had both an HK-91 clone and a Remington 700 bolt action rifle. Both rifles were chambered in .308. The HK-91 had magazines that held 20 rounds, at least the ones I had. The Remington 700 had a "fixed magazine" that held maybe five or so rounds. With enough time and money, I could load up hundred of rounds for the HK-91, and firing them off wouldn't be all that slow. It is true I could carry hundreds of rounds for the Remington 700, but the amount of time it would take to shoot the same number of rounds from the HK clone would've been astronomically higher. I'm not saying someone couldn't do a lot of damage with a bolt or lever action gun, what I'm saying is that there is a very noticeable time difference when it comes to reloading, both the feeding device and the firing of shots.
And considering the fact that many mass shooters have not used any "Assault Weapons" but rather used handguns and shotguns.....how long do you think it would be after all the "Assault Weapons" are banned that the new mass shooting weapons of choice is deemed to dangerous and must also be banned?
If the mass shootings continue with handguns using magazines that hold more than ten rounds, I do believe you'll see a strong push to either limit capacity of magazines. I do feel many people will want people forced to go back to revolvers. Again, same concept as with magazine feed, semi-auto rifles. Sure, a determined person can become quick at reloading a revolver, but there is still a large time difference in using speed loaders holding five or six rounds vs slamming in a magazine holding anywhere from say 12-21 rounds.
England is our case study. Because of mass shootings they started banning guns segments. Now all gun segments are banned. However, now that terrorist and mass killers have started cutting people apart in public with machetes and hatchets, They are banning all knifes and sharp objects to the point of utter ridiculousness.
I don't believe England is a good case study. They have a completely different mindset when it comes to self-defense, firearms, etc.. Yes, things are getting bad, but those people have a history of being ruled over, so no surprise the ruling class wants to just throw in more controls. Their entire history seems to be that. Before their current government they were ruled by monarchs.
I'm not claiming that banning "assault rifles" will prevent shootings, even mass shootings. What I'm saying is that there is a valid argument about the physical aspects involved if someone uses a semi-auto, magazine feed rifle vs. a Remington 700. I know many gun owners who've never owned an "assault rifle," but they've owned bolt or lever action rifles as well as semi-auto handguns. Plenty of these people will have no issue with supporting a ban if these mass shootings don't stop. Not sure how they'd feel if they continue with semi-auto handguns, something they do want to have for personal safety.
Yet despite what the 24/7/365 MSM would have everyone believe mass shootings are still an extremely rare occurrence and the chances of anyone becoming a victim of one is somewhere less than being struck by lightning (probably less than being struck by lightning while being attacked by a shark).
True enough, but then if they are so rare, should the whole "fight or fight" type drills we are providing to so many people continue? I've read on-line comments that having do this sort of drill is becoming a mental issue for some.
What do fractions matter, when shooters have minutes (or longer) unchallenged?
I've read police response has been all over the board. The guys in Ohio and California were engaged very quickly. If I need to get away from a killer with a gun, I'll take every second I can.
This was tried before. Bill Clinton's AWB was an abject failure. It had zero impact.
There was no magazine feed, semi-auto rifle ban under the Clinton AWB. That law banned simple cosmetic features. I purchased my first such rifle during the ban. The stock was fixed into place. Using that to compare what a true ban would do isn't a fair comparison.
I'll add one thing. Sure, the number of killings with a firearm due to a mass shooting is minimal, but the problem is that people do see a difference between drug dealers killing each other and say a robbery vs people who are just out to enjoy life getting blown away for no reason at all. People who don't really see themselves being robbed or engaging in the black market really don't care about stats that they feel have nothing to do with them. They do care about the stats that have to deal with them and their kids.