Gun control is a tricky problem, tricky in the sense that it has been taken over by extremes. On the one hand you have those who believe the government should take away all guns, or cover this argument weakly by saying hunting guns are allowed, but not any other guns.
On the other hand you have NRA zealots who think we should be able to buy any weapon imaginable, because a fully automatic assault weapon is essential for your personal safety.
Somewhere in the middle there is a healthy balance. Like all things in life, balance is necessary, and the whole argument that this will start a slippery slope to gun abolishment is asinine. That is like saying requiring a drivers license was the first step to outlawing driving, or limiting the speed on cars is the first step to increase our reliance on government sponsored public transportation.
I agree that laws need to be made carefully, but we as citizens need to inform ourselves of whats going on and not solely rely on left wing or right wing media to inform our choices. This only helps to further the polarisation that has crippled our nation.
So lets start with step one, more guns does not mean less crime. Less guns does not mean more crime. Everyone likes to point to such and such country, state, city, etc. and claim that because they have more/less guns on the street there is more/less crime. There are too many examples of both to reasonably determine that it doesn’t make a damn bit of difference. The only truly definitive statistic to increased crime rates seem to be in areas that are poverty stricken. So if we really want to fight crime, lets focus on that.
Next, a handgun is a reasonable means of self protection. It can be concealed, or be easily accessible in your home when you need it. You don’t need a high capacity magazine, or be able to shoot 3 round taps. So lets not restrict handguns. I may never buy one, but I can understand and sympathise for the desire/need to have one for self protection. And for that I think handguns and hunting rifles are all perfectly acceptable.
A semi-automatic, or fully automatic rifle, is complete overkill for everything. Who needs one of these? How is it useful for self-protection? You’re not going to walk around with one over your shoulder. Its not like your going to sleep with it under your pillow, why do you need a high powered, large magazine gun designed for killing. How many times have you ever heard of someone successfully protecting their home or otherwise with an AR-15.
Lets just look at the basics of it. An AR-15 is a big weapon, not what you want when you are looking for self defence during a home invasion when you are possibly walking through tight spaces. Also, the AR-15 is a high powered weapon, if you fire it in your home you are going to blow holes through all the walls, possibly hurting people you never intended to hurt, and because it is a semi-automatic it will be very easy to riddle your home with bullet holes.
It also sucks as a hunting weapon, using ammunition that doesn’t have enough stopping power for anything other than small game. And the type of person that goes hunting with an AR-15 is one of those idiots who sees a deer and sprays thirty bullets in under a minute taking out everything in site, instead of just shooting the deer.
It also sucks as a militia weapon. The right to bear arms to fight our own government, right. Because a semi-automatic will do a hell of a lot of good against drones and tanks.
The only thing it is really good for is what it was initially designed for in the 1950’s. Shooting a lot of bullets that can pierce armour in a short amount of time without having to reload too often. This was a weapon designed for war, not anything else, and as such it has no business being used for anything else. There was a reason it was banned until 2004. Will it reduce gun crime in the states, probably not, but will it make it harder to take part in mass shootings, damn right it will.