The right to bear arms

Or Assault Weaponry?

My thoughts

I think assault weaponry should not be banned because they are literally just looks. The wooden rifle in your grandparents' barn could do the exact same thing an assault weapon could do. They could fire the same amount of ammunition and either be semi-auto. And again, they are just looks.

Banning guns for looks is not going to do anything.

According to Charles Krauthammer, he says that "banning these 19 types of assault weapons will reduce crime rate is laughable." Banning guns for looks is not going to decrease homicides in the US. Just because a gun looks like military gear doesn't mean the government should ban it.

Assault weapons only make up 1.7% of the United States firearms.

According to Jake Matthews of Harvard IOP, a poll showed that not many gun owners used assault weapons because they are easily visible, bulky, and inaccurate. So if only 1.7% of gun owners even own assault weapons, and not much used for mass-shootings, what's even the point of banning them?

Self-defense is an individual's right.

Even at the dawn of the United States, citizens had the right to carry weapons at the time of compromise. And carrying out this law would ultimately just make one of our 1st rights in the Constitution half-obsolete. If this continues at a rate, we might be able to say goodbye to this right.

Final thoughts

If we ban assault weapons, we may lose one of our most important rights, all because the gun had a pistol grip or telescoping stock. If they implement this law, they might as well ban all the weapons in the United States since assault weapons are just looks.

Citations

Krauthammer, Charles. "DISARM THE CITIZENRY, BUT NOT YET." Washingtonpost.com. 5 Apr. 1996. Web. 11 Dec. 2015.


Follman, Mark, and Jaeah Lee. "More Than Half of Mass Shooters Used Assault Weapons and High-Capacity Magazines." Motherjones.com. 27 Feb. 2013. Web. 11 Dec. 2015.


ProCon.org. "Gun Control ProCon.org." ProCon.org. 11 Nov. 2015. Web. 11 Dec. 2015.