I’m not opposed to an assault weapons ban, but I’m not an outspoken advocate of either. I’m far from being well versed in what the research says on assault rifles and mass shootings- but I know the results are contradictory- not surprising considering the statics can be easily manipulated based on inclusion exclusion criteria- especially when there are no universally accepted definition of mass shooting. I think there are generational/cultural factors that cannot necessarily be accounted for either. Mass shootings have evidently become such a romanticized fantasy for disturbed and angry young men (in particular) looking to take the world down with them. And there’s definitely pattern of the same style of gun popping up in nearly every high profile masa shooting.
My thought considering his practically is that if the desire exists in person to perpetrate such an attack, they will use the next best tool, presumably a pistol. So I wouldn’t assume an AR ban to influence the numbers significantly from what they would have been otherwise. There might very well be some reduction in the number of people killed due to reduced “efficiency” (not to sound so clinical on such a morbid topic).
It’s a complex problem and I don’t believe there is any one solution, let a simple one. If every gun with w legal history were turned in with a gun ban, there would still be an unimaginable amount of guns in this country. Given our gun culture here you can bet black market arms sales would become a massive industry with likely many previously law abiding citizens getting involved.
I’ve never considered this but those who want to legalize drugs because banning them hasn’t worked are often people who want to ban guns. Kinda ironic but I digress. I don’t subscribe to binary ideas on any of these matters.
Back to guns, i believe we need a multifaceted approach that provides protection to society but also strives to maintain our freedoms. The irony, as I often say is, the more the “not another inch” people fail to inch.. or in some cases inch backwards into less protections; the more heinous atrocities occur, the more people support outright bans or other severe restrictions.
First we need high quality data and for it be analyzed objectively and without aiming to promote an agenda. That data should then inform laws- like we already have really good evidence those <24 (really men specifically) are most likely to be involved with gun-related violence. Maybe raise the age, at least for pistols and ARs, to 24? Grandfather in existing owners under 24 so as not to deprive a right they already had. After X years assesses the data to see if the law worked (based on predetermined metrics). If yes, keep the law on the books. If not, remove it. Or extend it and reassess again when you have more data
Testing out laws like this that must meet agreed upon outcomes and be supported by evidence makes it a lot harder to argue in absolutes the merits of a law when by design the law must prove itself. And laws that serve no meaningful benefit can get tossed. Maybe politicians would be more likely to cooperate and do more than virtue signal if their policy lwould be formally reviewed for their outcomes.
