It is very clear that you know basically nothing about firearms or ballistics, so here's some good information. First off, the 5.56x45 Nato round fired by most AR-15s was adopted by the military not because it was more lethal, but because it was lighter. Warfighters in Vietnam quickly realized that while they could carry more ammunition with the same weight kit, the accuracy and efficacy of this round was hampered by any type of obstacle. This was a significant disadvantage to them when fighting through undergrowth and many desired the M14 which fires the heavier and much more powerful 7.62x51 cartridge. The other aspect often overlooked by ignorant spectators is that more often than not, the type of bullet used is more important than the cartridge. A hollowpoint round, whether fired from a pistol or a rifle, has the potential to be a lot more lethal than standard ball (or Full Metal Jacket ammunition) and also has an added advantage of being less likely to overpenetrate the target. In addition, the wound channel is hardly unique to rifles of any sort, pistol ammunition creates this effect as well. Then there is your statement about recoil. Anyone who is a shooter will know this is bunk; while a larger caliber will create more recoil by definition, the felt recoil can be mitigated with firearm weight or a muzzle device such as a brake. When set up properly, one can have a firearm firing a much more powerful round with very little (if any) more felt recoil than a 5.56 Nato rifle. Furthermore, most US military members wounded by enemy fire are being hit with the aforementioned 7.62mm diameter bullets, fired from AK-47 type rifles. Finally, the pair of elephants in the room; In the United States, long guns of any sort are one of the least likely weapons to be used in any homicide (FBI statistics for the past 10+ years) and there are a number of studies, including from government sources, that state the Assault Weapons Ban had no effect on crime rates across the country. So, next time, please do some research rather than just copying what other people say and peppering it with buzzwords. Sincerely, a qualified rifle and pistol marksman.
MT - 6 years ago
A lot of good responses here...a couple of things. To the writer, go check out the AR10 for a much more lethal round. The .223/5.56 pales in comparison to a .308. There are plenty of rounds out there that are far more lethal. Second, I’d be willing to bet a shooter with two .40 semiautomatic handguns would be more lethal in a mass shooting. It’s a hell lot easier to hit a target with a handgun than an AR unless one shoots the AR slower and more deliberately. People who only listen to the media propaganda have no idea how much more the death toll is with handguns compared to the AR platform because somewhere along the line we forgot all about the ability to do our own research and come up with our own answers based on factual data versus inane nonsense like this “article.” The use of guns as a tool for criminals is a far deeper issue than just taking one platform away. It’s complex and has deep reaching arms into different parts of society and what we’ve let our country become. For fun though, do check out how liberally gun laws are applied and the sentences given out for things like strawbuying in places like Chicago. Every responsible gun owner I know wants to see guns laws that are applied harshly to criminals but some judges don’t do much for the problem. Another fun project...subtract the gun deaths from Chicago, Baltimore, New Orleans, and Detroit and see the percentage of carnage that are those four cities. It’s a large majority of firearm related deaths in the US. It’s easy to simplify and blame one platform. It’s hard to actually figure out the cause and fix it.
Mac - 6 years ago
Any bullet that has ever been manufactured, was designed to cause damage. If you're going to make the argument that a semi-automatic weapon is a "perfectly designed killing machine", then you are implying that any gun is such. Which, in turn, implies that you believe that no one should own any guns. A gun is a tool, just as any hammer, wrench, broom, or shovel. The person using it determines the actions, intent, and result of the use. You CANNOT make an arguement against that.
Col Breinzi - 6 years ago
Anyone who would propagate barring citizens from owning firearms outs themselves as a supporter of criminals and despotic government. These people would want you to be helpless against both and are, therefor, as dangerous as the criminals and despots themselves. They should, in all regard, be treated exactly the same as a criminal or despot. I took an oath to the Constitution for the United States of America, and I WILL keep that oath. That Constitution includes the Bill of Rights, of which the 2nd Amendment is part of. If you don't comprehend what that amendment reads, I would suggest getting a dictionary, or go back to grade school and learn how to read again.
Mark - 6 years ago
The poll is defective: there is no choice that reads, "Writer is a Commie Douchetard in need of half a helo flight."
Danny Scales - 6 years ago
You are a dumb*as. Please educate yourself before you start typing.
roger daughtry - 6 years ago
You should really educate yourself so you don't come off like a total idiot before you make an article as stupid as this one. Your opinion is mute for the simple fact you are so stupid regarding the issue you chose to spout off about. I really hope you don't procreate.
Jay Lowman - 6 years ago
These polls never turn out the way you want them to when created it, do they? How does it feel when the answers don’t fit your agenda ?
Joe - 6 years ago
The 10 year assault weapons ban did NOTHING to reduce gun violence during the 10 years it was in existence. Hence why it wasn't renewed. The bullets that the government has been stockpiling is FAR MORE deadly than the rounds available to civilians. At least with 223 and 556 which are the 2 most common rounds for the AR platform of rifles, you can and most do survive. Most returning veterans who were shot were shot by 233 or similar. The ammo the government has been stockpiling, you can not and will not survive. A good example of this as someone told me, and then demonstrated, is if you were to get shot in the eye, the entry wound would be about the size of your eye. The EXIT on the other hand, is the whole back of your head. Regardless of where you got hit there would be nothing left. So why does the government been BILLIONS of these rounds?
David b mcwilliams - 6 years ago
The founders believed that if the government had it, the citizenry should have it too. They believe that the citizenry should be able to have enough armaments to be able to maintain a level of independence from any one who should try to impose tryanny, including their own government.
While the AR-15 platform of rifle has features that make it appear like a "military style weapon," unless it has select fire with the option for 3 round burst or full autofire, it is in fact a civilian weapon. I have one (semi-automatic only) and I hope to never have to use it for anything other than time on the range or hunting. However it fires .223 rounds and it diies the exact same damage as a .223 round out of any other .223 rifle.yes, being legal, I have 2 30 round magazines which may make it more efficient to fire that many rounds but as a responsible owner, I also accept that I am responsible for any bullet that I fire from it from the time I pull the trigger until that same bullet stops moving of it's own inertia. The people firing those rifles or any other firearm are responsible for those crimes. Not the firearm itself, it's manufacturer nor any other responsible, legal gun owner.
The 2nd amendment to the Constitution of The United States secures our right to keep and bear Arms, it does not grant it. A well regulated militia may be the justification clause of the sentence but that is because it calls upon the able-bodied citizen to use their Arms in defence of a free State. And while both versions of the movie "Red Dawn" are fictional and not likely to come true, as a story, it is a good one to tell you WHY the founders did in fact expect citizens to own "military style weapons." As a candidate for the U. S. Senate in Tennessee, you can quote me on that.
Sincerly, Aaron Pettigrew, candidate for U. S. Senate, Murfreesboro, Rutherford County, Tennessee.
Kevin - 6 years ago
It is sad that the media still cherry picks people to suite their politics.
The truth is, you could be shot with an arrow and have far greater damage. Let us also note that hollow point rounds from a pistol will cause far greater damage than a 5,56 round. Any shot gun round will cause greater damage.
What you fail to report is that the AR is used is less than 1% of all firearm related homicides yet you keep stacking the gun.
I do hope you see the numbers in the poll and realize, this is the type of editorialized biased garbage that started the #fakenews trend.
Dwight - 6 years ago
This article is a joke. They state that it’s the round that causes the damage. Ah, duh? Being SHOT with any round is going to do damage. And was this guy thinking? You state early in the article that AR doesn’t stand for “assault rifle” then proceed to call it an “assault rifle” 6x in some shape or form the rest of it. Assault is a VERB. A verb is an action. The rifle didn’t “do” anything, these evil people did. Go home.
Robert - 6 years ago
The same argument over and over and the fact is - don't blame the law abiding, blame the criminal. If we keep attacking law abiding gun owners then why not attack people that sell cars, ladders, knives? All OBJECTS at inanimate...its what the person does with them that counts. Also, it is completely WRONG and shows lack of knowledge on the wound from an AR-15 5.56 round vs others. The AR-15 is basically a high-velocity .22 Makes a very small wound track compared with a hunting rifle which can hit you the size of a quarter and blow out the back the size of a small dinner plate. The problem is anti-gun people just don't deal in facts. They deal in emotion. It doesn't seem to matter to them that guns are used almost 1 million times per year in self-defense STOPPING crime. That's per the federal government ...
Bob Terwillager - 6 years ago
Dear USA staff,
Your position regarding the legality of the AR-15 is simply, incorrect. It’s chambering, 5.56x45mm is no more or less destructive then any other rifle caliber, as a matter of fact. Even so, this point is also irrelevant. Your issue with it is it seemingly revolves around a few incidences of criminal misuse. You seem to think it’s being used by derranged criminals at a disproportionate rate. Not so, as even you noted it’s America’s most popular rifle, the AR-15 is really, really common, that’s it. Your “reporting” is the equivalent of looking over auto accident stats and then concluding that Ford, GM, Honda, and Toyota are intrinsically unsafe because a large portion of car accidents involve vehicles from one of these manufacturers. Actually, in reality, it’s even worse than that, as the AR-15 is a design type, more then a specific rifle at this point. Many manufacturers make an AR-15’s, or AR-15 variants. So your reporting is closer to claiming to claiming that “sedans” must be more strictly regulated, because nearly all car accidents involve at least one sedan, so therefore they must be really, really dangerous. In short, do your job. This is pathetic pandering. You should be embarrassed. Investigate, report, and do it honestly. How does a person who desires to be a moral and decent person dare claim that they hold the moral high ground, if the arguments for that position are based on intentional manipulation of emotions and outright deception?
Here, I’ll show you how to do your job. Here’s a suggested topic: Why aren’t all states, police departments, and military institutions in compliance with mandatory background check reporting? At this point I'd dare say it seems fairly self-evident that law breakers won't stop breaking laws because we wrote more laws, and furthermore, this is obviously true of law-breakers who plan to die right from the beginning. The National Instant Check System must be fixed. Without fixing it, any new laws are just being written to boost various politicians ratings before the election and placate the public, WE MUST UNILATERALLY DEMAND that ALL states be brought into compliance regarding background check reporting. Currently blaming individuals for not running a form 4473 background check is tantamount to scapegoating, for one really, really, simple, and very bothersome, fact. Currently, it isn't possible, or even legal, for an individual to do so. The NICS system is only available to L.E.O's and licensed gun dealers. So, speaking of "common sense measures" it is obvious that private individuals who're selling need to be able to run background checks on prospective buyers. Additionally, if a prospective buyer fails the background check, there is currently no requirement or provision for law enforcement or social services notification or intervention. So, I think everyone can clearly see that without a requirement for intervention on a failed purchase, even a felon or mentally ill person who made it into the database, will just walk out the door, and try some other store. Without the requirement for law enforcement or social services notification and/or intervention on a failed purchase attempt, the whole thing is a stupid waste of time.
Chuck Holloway - 6 years ago
Regulate the behavior, not the object. Absent firearms, anyone bent on killing the innocent will turn to trucks (refer to NYC), bombs (refer to the Boston marathon), airplanes (9/11), or machetes (most of the world still butchers people the old-fashioned way)
If you believe you can reduce violent behavior by regulating a particular tool, you are wrong. And you will trample the rights of countless people while taking away one of their best options for self defense. Shame on you for such ignorant, presumptuous behavior.
Bill - 6 years ago
Evil walked into a small church in Texas. Evil carried an AR15.
Good saw what Evil was doing, and came with it's own AR15.
Good killed Evil, and prevented Evil from going to another church to kill more people.
It's not the guns, it's Good vs Evil.
Michael - 6 years ago
The problem is people, not guns. People make the decision to do horrendous things, not guns. And don’t preach to me about access. We have always had relatively easy access to weapons. We have thousands of regulations that did nothing to stop determined villains. People have used, or tried to use, propane bombs, fertilizer bombs and even box cutters, to commit evil acts. Banning guns will solve nothing, it will take guns away from law abiding citizens like me. It’s a feel good move, aimed at eventual control of the population.
J. - 6 years ago
The individuals on the Editorial Board are waiting about a subject, that they very obviously know absolutely nothing about. The op ed is chock full of hearsay with facts. I challenge the members of the Board to sit through just one firearms safety class, taught by a reputable instructor, and stop using wiki and Facebook for research, then write your op ed. At that point you should have at least a small grasp on the subject matter.
Michelle - 6 years ago
Ivan.. If I could, I would high five you! I am right there with you!
Chad - 6 years ago
Given that the perpetrators of these heinous mass-shootings OVERWHELMINGLY identify as Democrats, Liberals, Communists, Socialists, or otherwise fall on the Left-side of the political spectrum (seriously, it's more than 85%, the statistics are mind-boggling), when will you admit that the problem is not guns themselves, which the political Right by an large can own and enjoy without mass murder, but GUNS IN THE HANDS OF THE POLITICAL LEFT.
Come on, let's have a little journalistic integeity, shall we? The media always blames the gun, and completely glosses over the ideology of the person actually using the gun.
Michelle - 6 years ago
Lonnie... Perfectly written and said! YES!
Michelle - 6 years ago
I agree whole heartidly with what Mark wrote! Amen!
Michelle - 6 years ago
I find it interesting being the daughter of a Doctor and a mother who used to work in the ER with him that neither one of them have ever mentioned this kind of ridiculousness! My father is still a practicing physician in his 70's, knows that I have a love for AR's and still has never once mentioned anything like this story mentions, in fact.. Not even close! It is such a shame that our mainstream media will do, lie, and cover up ANY THING right which IS all I want to learn about and all President Trump is about.. but would rather lie to all of us, be completely, flat out dishonest about guns, especially AR's and our President! I love my guns, AR 15' s include and am so sick and tired of people, the mainsreet media and the intensive Libs always spreading lies solely based on hatred or fear! If you're afraid, I strongly encourage you to try it before you bash it. And if you know nothing about it then either keep your mouth shut or go get educated! This IS MY SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHT! Again.. Not only have I never heard my father a Doctor of 30 years discuss this, but my mother who was an ER nurse either!!! Here is the thing, if you do not steal, break in or do anything that you are not suppose to do or wouldnt want done to you... Then just don't do it and then you do not have to even consider worrying about the possibility of people like me standing up and protecting myself, my family, my home and my animals! If you do not like it, then don't do something illegal!
mark - 6 years ago
Thankfully, the neighbors also had AR-15 rifles and ended the slaughter by engaging the suspect.
JimmyZ - 6 years ago
So, you base your entire position on the idea that these should be banned because of the round they fire. Then you point out that this ban only affects guns with certain cosmetic features. Given that this means the Las Vegas shooter could have easily gone and bought a plain old wooden stocked Ruger .223 and done the exact same thing (look up how to create a bump stock effect with a rubber band) you essentially killed your own argument.
Why is it that y'all only get "up in arms" when a bunch of suburban white folks get shot up, but you don't care at all that Chicago, on any given weekend, sees about the same level of carnage? City kids don't count?
If they did, you'd be promoting taxing all Glocks sold in major cities by about 200 percent, and using that to pay for mentoring and parenting education/support.
Frank Castle - 6 years ago
THIS IS NOTICE TO THE MSM: We see your collectivist push for cultural marxism and we raise you an army of armed patriots. Liberty and justice for all is the true purpose for the reason for owning a semi-automatic ar-15 rifle and you are alienating the law abiding patriots of this country. You cannot simultaneously say that Trump is a fascist and tell us to give up our guns. Nothing you people say is factual or even reasonable.
Ivan - 6 years ago
I'm so tired of people who know nothing about firearms writing articles to scare people into pushing for gun bans. The AR-15 is no different than any other semi-automatic rifle. It is NOT an Assault Rifle. An assault rifle would be full-automatic, not semi. Yes, the .223 round can tumble, but it does far less damage than other, larger rounds used in military rifles throughout history.
Lonnie - 6 years ago
Self ownership and individual liberty is the most basic and fundamental right an individual has. From that flows the right of self-defense and self-preservation. Consequently, the right to keep and bear arms -- the tools necessary to protect one's life and liberty -- is enumerated in our Bill of Rights. It is part of our national DNA. The tools necessary for individuals must be equal to, or surpass, that which a tryannical government -- whetger foreign or domestic -- has available to destroy individual liberty. The AR platform is a great weapon of choice for individuals.
Lonnie - 6 years ago
Self ownership and individual liberty is the most basic and fundamental right an individual has. From that flows the right of self-defense and self-preservation. Consequently, the right to keep and bear arms -- the tools necessary to protect one's life and liberty -- is enumerated in our Bill of Rights. It is part of our national DNA. The tools necessary for individuals must be equal to, or surpass, that which a tryannical government -- whetger foreign or domestic -- has available to destroy individual liberty. The AR platform is a great weapon of choice for individuals.
Michae - 6 years ago
Whether you agree or not, it's an interesting lesson in history. Something to think about...
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
Germany established gun control in 1918 and in 1938 Hitler banned Jews from owning firearms. Then from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million 'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
-----------------------------
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
------------------------------ So it might be said that guns don't kill people, gun control does!
~ From somebody in the Facebook Calguns forum.
Michae - 6 years ago
Yes, there’s massive carnage from head-on car accidents too. Let’s ban cars too, Mr. and Mrs. Paramedic. There’s massive carnage from war. Let’s ban all wars. There’s massive carnage in MMA. Let’s ban the MMA. There’s massive carnage in airplane accidents. Let’s ban airplanes.
krejaton - 6 years ago
Despite the obvious and hackneyed scare tactics, here are the facts:
According the FBI figures (https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2009-2013.xls), these are the guns used in murders:
2009: 6,105 handguns vs 351 rifles (this includes the AR-15)
2010: 6,115 handguns vs 367 rifles
2011: 6,251 handguns vs 332 rifles
2012 6,404 handguns vs 298 rifles
2013: 5,782 handguns vs 285 rifles
Even the most ardent anti-gunner in America can easily see that rifles are not a significant cause of deaths in America. But the Leftist media wants to get a major victory against guns, so they start with the big, black scary one that they might have a shot at obtaining. In short, it's all a lie, a media ploy to bait you along the path.
MosinTom - 6 years ago
Articles like this, written by someone who hates guns as much as he is clueless about them, go past stupid to downright idiotic.
Only a fraction of those adjudicated mentally ill ever have their condition reported into the NICS system. Even worse, in 2010, there were 10's of thousands who illegally attempted to purchase a firearm. Of those, only .0005% (44) were ever prosecuted.
Let's fix the broken systems and enforce the current laws we have before we start thinking up new ones that make criminals out of good people who own firearms, shall we?
We will soon see legislation by Sen. Diane Feinstein proposing the ban of the so called assault rifle, which is similar in function and capability to most of the hunting rifles sold today.
Don't be fooled by this PR stunt designed to gain public favor. The FBI's own statistics show that only 5% of all type of murders are committed with a rifle of any type.
Eric Blust - 6 years ago
In the last 100 years governments have killed their own people, for political reasons, 270 million times, it is called democide. The private ownership of weapons is an insurance policey that one political party doesn't round up their political enimies in the middle of the night. The news media is bi polar, they claim Trump is hitler, but, we got to give up Guns because their dangerous. Go to Mexico, where only the police and military own guns, see how that is working out, just like chicago and D.c., gun laws and gun safe zones, create victims, giving criminals a monopoly of power.
Jerry - 6 years ago
There's no different between the style of weapon. Do ABC News know anything about guns? There's many type of rifles that chamber in 223/556. Same ammo an AR shoots.
Thomas - 6 years ago
The intent and purpose of the second amendment is to ensure that citizens always posses the means to oppose any person, groups of persons or government from forcing their will upon the people in violation of their "RIGHTS" and "FREEDOMS".
Obviously as weapon technology increases citizens will have to maintain weapons equal to any that their oppressors might posses.
Since the "CONSTITUTION" and "SECOND AMENDMENT" places the responsible of maintaining freedom on the citizens, then citizens are "AUTHORIZED" to use those guns against Tyranny or any who may infringe on their "RIGHTS and "FREEDOMS", Domestic or Foreign Government.
Soldiers/Cops risk a chance of dying daily to keep our freedoms, Citizens should too.
Auto accidents kills thousands each years, yet we don't ban them because of the greater good they offer,
Armed citizens are the greatest defense this nation has against tyranny, and with people like Obama and Hillary, we may have to lift the ban on "Machine guns".
Only a fool would want to disarm the Military or Cops, and the consequences would be the same if citizens were disarmed.
Politicians needs to know that the second amendment places an open season and no bag limit on those who attempt to deny us our "RIGHTS".
Jo Bu - 6 years ago
Trucks and big rigs also butchered people here and in Europe. Why are they still legal? Fertilizer used to make the bomb in Oklahoma is still legal. Why? Because a determined mass murderer will always find a way, gun or no gun.
Scott - 6 years ago
How can such stupidity continue to be printed? FIRST, no ban on guns existed. the Clinton Scary Gun "ban" banned bayonet lugs, flash hiders and new manufacture of normal 30rnd mags. It did not ban a single gun, or even make any changes in them.
An AR fires a .223 caliber bullet. A jumped-up .22. It's LITERALLY so small most states don't allow it for deer hunting. You have to rechamber your AR for something bigger. It's an anemic cartridge. ANY hunting rifle does more damage. Many pistols do more damage to a body.
If you extremists can't deal in anything even resembling facts why do you insist on spewing your BS?
Susan P - 6 years ago
Despite what Justice Scalia might have thought, the 2nd amendment places no restrictions on what type of weapon a citizen may keep and bear. The purpose of the 2nd amendment was NOT for hunting or sporting purposes. It was to insure that the citizens of the USA will always have the means to overthrow our own government should said government ever forget who they work for and who really controls the country. Its purpose is to insure that government can never become dictatorial or tyrannical. Most seemed to have forgotten this, or more likely never learned it as our schools have been systematically dumbed down by those who harbor a socialist/communist ideology and want to rule over us.
True liberty is not possible if the people do not have the power to stop tyranny when ever it raises its ugly head.
FREEDOM IS NOT FREE!
Pete - 6 years ago
The one point that isn't mentioned here in most comments :
Making the guns illegal, will only remove them from the hands of people who obey the Laws. So lets say that there was an assault rifle ban after the Vegas shooting.. That would mean that the law abiding individual who stopped the lunatic at the church would be disarmed. Or would at least have to bring a pistol to a Semi-auto rifle fight. Again tipping the advantage towards the criminals.
John Wear - 6 years ago
They are legal bc of the constitutional right. We have the right to legally and responsibly posses firearms of our choice. Hope that helps the author of this biased and narrow focused article. It must be tough to constantly have to come up with ridiculous stories for a living.
I am also stopping payment on all usa today subscriptions immediately.
Jack Lipton - 6 years ago
Articles like, especially your title are why criminals choose thar particular weapon. Focus as much time of the domestic violence or other motives behind the crimes instead of what is used. That will fix this issue. Unfortunately Trucks can also do massive harm to large groups of people as we have seen recently in Nyc and other places. All you need $20 proof of car insurance and there is one at your local home store ready for a criminal to rent. If you would do more articles on that topic, you will see an increase in those types of crimes for example.
Our family will no longer be subscribers to your publication. God Bless America
littlemike - 6 years ago
Ridiculous headline, stupid "article." We should take advice about guns from doctors? More people die per year from medical malpractice than guns. And more people die per year from prescription medication overdoses (the #1 cause of accidental death) than guns.
And "Infection is usually the biggest problem." Really, it must have taken an Einstein IQ to figure that out! The #1 cause of death among Civil War soldiers was infections, and they didn't even have any of those "eeeeeevil" AR-15s.
Jay St.Retton - 6 years ago
facts don't lie. Numbers don't lie. But you, editor, have NO CLUE what you are talking about. Less than 5% of all firearm deaths are caused by rifles. Most firearm deaths are caused by handguns. The original Assault weapons ban was sunsetted by congress because it found NO SIGNIFICANT REDUCTION in firearm deaths. None.
Yet here you are, calling for another one. Why? Because guns scare you? Is that it? Then don't be a coward and state WHY.
Here are some numbers for you.
32,383 people killed in 2015 by firearms. Of those, 21,175 were suicides. In the same year, there were 37,808 people killed in the US by Automobiles. There are an estimated 310 million firearms in the US, while only 263.6 million automobiles. That means that Cars are FAR more deadly than firearms. Less cars than guns, with more deaths.
Why don't you call for a ban on Automobiles? Why are you not out there crying for the government to restrict access to cars in a tremendous way? They are far more dangerous than guns. Especially when you consider that a majority of gun deaths are attributed to suicides. The average american is far more likely to die in an automobile accident than they are to a firearms related incident.
Get your facts straight.
Kevin l. Reed - 6 years ago
Not only is this article disingenuous, the author clearly doesn't have any understanding of history, the constitution or firearms. This article is replete with incorrect statements and convoluted reasoning.
The AR15 doesn't maim, it is a bullet which does the damage.
This is nothing more than disinformation spread to promote the fallacy of gun control which in the end is nothing more than an attempt to control the citizenry
Kimberly - 6 years ago
You people whining about how they want to take away your guns are broadly missing the point. Guns are a right given to us by the Constitution...however, the military grade weapons like the AR-15 are unecessary. Conpletely and totally unnecessary to keep and own a gun that can tear a person apart in such rapid succession. A handgun and shotgun/rifle is plenty sufficient to fend off any would-be intruder or protect yourself on a regular basis. Most of the shootings he mentioned, the guns were obtained legally. So the gun laws didnt fail...the lack of the ban on automatic weapons did. We dont NEED them to still uphold our right to carry. I am disgusted in the angry self-righteous comments on here about how gun control is about taking away all guns. Grow up and get a clue...educate yourself.
Stay out of my business. If you don't like guns, don't buy them. You people are absolutely clueless. Teach children gun safety, teach them to respect guns and life, take them shooting, spend time with them, stop letting the TV, video games, or their phones raise them. I'd bet 95% of the parents have no idea what are in the games their kids play because they're too busy to be a parent. Maybe if people raised their kids better and concentrated on their own circle instead of trying to run everyone else's life, then we wouldnt have these whackos who shoot up places because mommy didn't hug them enough etc.
Its not a gun issue, its a bad parenting/mental health issue.
Why do you liberals want all of these "extra" rights yet want to take away mine? Hypocrites!
Tyler - 6 years ago
A knife is a very efficient killing tool. Heck one variant is literally called a "butchers knife" because it's so much better at dismembering and chopping. So why aren't you bleeding heart liberals screaming for a knife ban?? Several terrorists have resorted not to guns or bombs or knives, but have rented trucks and cars and slammed them into crowds, killing many and injuring even more. Where is the cry for a truck and car ban??
The .223 is just a .22 caliber round. A .300, .308, or .338 round can do potentially more damage to a human. GUNS DO NOT KILL PEOPLE. PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE. It takes a human being to take a gun, apply the proper force to the trigger, and point at another human for a death to occur. Thus it's not a gun problem it is a people problem. Look at Chicago and tell me how great it is to have strict gun laws... If restrictive and tough gun laws "work" then why isn't Chicago homicide free?? Why is a veritable battlefield for killings?? Plain and simple, gun laws will ONLY affect the law abiding citizen. BY definition a criminal WILL NOT OBEY THE LAW. That's why he is a criminal to begin with. So in what world do you live in where criminals and the evil insane will magically turn into law abiding citizens?? If you believe that I do not want you making decisions for me. The problem in Texas was that the Army didn't report to the FBI about his DV conviction, thus making him ineligible to purchase a firearm. So once again, failure to enforce existing laws caused this problem. The laws we have are good enough if enforced properly. I will echo a sentiment I saw earlier.... Those who know the absolute least about guns are crying to get rid of them, yet the ones who know the most are the ones who are in favor of an armed lawful citizenry. Which category are you??? Educate yourself and don't just swallow the lies put out to you by the liberal cowards who have never owned a gun or lived with guns....
Paul - 6 years ago
A little history the 5.56 NATO round was developed to injure more than out right kill someone. The reasoning was it takes two solders to removed one injured solder than you leave the dead until the battle is over. The military also went with the 5.56 NATO round because a solder can carry a lot more of it compared to the 308 and the 30-06 round. If you get shot with the 308 or especially the 30-06 round you are not getting back up. So to everyone that thinks the 5.56 round is so evil think again. By the way there is a small difference between an actual 223 round and a 5.56 round even though you can shoot a 223 round in an AR15 you do not want to shoot a 5.56 round in most older bolt action rifles chambered in 223.
To all the people that want the government to implement gun control it was the government gun control that failed to prevent this last church shooting.
Hassan - 6 years ago
I will be happy to support banning guns. But,....... Only if the police give up theirs first, and we also ban all devices or things that cause more death than firearms. To include cars, high cholesterol foods, smoking and drinking. If you do not do that first, then you are being a hypocrite by allowing MORE dangerous things to be allowed in our society that aren't protected by the Bill of Rights.
Robert Wesley - 6 years ago
It was finally reported that the hero in the Texas shooting incident used the same type of rifle as the perpetrator. Now we have two of the same rifle, one evil and one good. What does that say about your argument that the AR=15 is the enemy here. Gun control advocates always use misinformation and emotionally drawn conclusions to further their misguided agenda. Without the 2nd amendment all the other rights we enjoy will soon be gone as well. The liberals and their agenda have an unsatisfiable hunger to oppress those who they feel are beneath them.
americans against ignorance - 6 years ago
Ban guns, save lives,it's that simple.But people need to have their toys to play with.Shame on you,you gun lovers.You could care less about human lives ,as long as you have your toys your happy.Let people die ,you obviously don't care!
Jaime Cancio - 6 years ago
There is a old adage that reads "only a fool blames his tool". Devin Kelly was a extreme suffering mental patient who escaped from his hospital and with no reportage to law enforcement. It has been reported he was under the influence of mind altering mind control medications as well. Both of those issues if reported to lawful authorities would of eliminated any ability for Kelly purchase firearms legally. This incident could of been avoided had the government and the Air Force did their duty and filed the appropriate warnings to government agencies. The blame rest with Kelly and the lack of responsibility by the Air Force and the mental health agency that had control of Kelly. Had Kelly used any other weapon the people dead would still be dead. This incident reminds me of the Texas AM shooter who had a brain tumor and the shooter had asked for medical help for a period exceeding two years and the medical and VA system refused to address his problems as well. To blame the weapon, to blame the bullets - is insane. One wonders if this reporter can find his own rear end to wipe it when necessary?
jazz - 6 years ago
don't forget to ban assault trucks. They can cause damage to the intestines and brain when psychopaths rent them from home depot and mows down people with it.
michael lane - 6 years ago
a 223 in any semi-auto or bolt action has the same recoil. the AR15 is available in bigger calibers. any argument you can use for police having ar-15s i will have the same for civilians. 223 is not a powerful body butchering round! an AR10 in 308 would have been.
Someone who knows her rights - 6 years ago
So if these assault rifles you hate so much get banned, what will you want banned next? I doubt you'd be satisfied just taking my AKs. If the liberals get their way, eventually they'll go after all the guns. And then next maybe even knives will be banned, a lot like in England. You people also want to do away with things like Stand Your Ground, which would allow a person to have some other options than running or cowering - hoping the police arrive. No thank you.
ACE - 6 years ago
PLEASE READ: No disrespect but you gun supporters might be missing the point. Gun control doesn't become an issue after one man kills another. People are always going to kill each other. The issue surfaces after massacres occur. The focus then should be to figure out the best way to curb these incidences? Take the incident from Las Vegas: automatic guns are illegal so the shooter resorted to bump stocks and AR15. If automatic weapons were legal more people would have died. If we take away the bump stocks maybe the shooter would have just used the AR15. And if we take away the AR15, well you get the point. A pistol in hand seems less disastrous than a high powered rifle. I'm not going to pretend that I know how the gun game goes, but I would imagine that the mentally ill aren't very well connected, thus finding an illegal gun dealer could prove to be difficult. Plus the guns would inevitably become more expensive. All these factors I believe would have a curbing effect, maybe not completely preventing, but minimizing the damage.
If gun control doesn't work then we try something else, but until we give it a fair shot we will never know. I believe both sides of this argument know how daunting of a task it would be to try and treat the mentally ill, but we should try that too. After all it is the mentally ill that commit massacres. And lets not complicate the issue with false equivalencies, there's no point. We are all looking for real solutions, and comparing a truck to a weapon pointlessly clouds the topic. If all a truck did was kill we'd have truck control too, probably banning them. But without a doubt as truck incidences arise we will have to tackle that issue too. But I'm not suggesting banning all guns because I believe guns do more than just kill, they protect. We just don't need high powered rifles at our finger tips. A killer will find a way to kill, just as a thief will find a way to steal. That doesn't mean that its pointless to lock your doors at night.
Nanno - 6 years ago
USA Today... The same publication that recently brought us the Tweet about chainsaw bayonets and under barrel shotgun attachments. Wow. These people know SO MUCH about AR-15's! I totally trust everything they say about "assault weapons"! (Has anyone ever actually defined that term yet by the way?)
Earl Arthur - 6 years ago
Automobiles have killed more people in their just-over-hundred-year existence, than every firearm ever built, from every country, COMBINED to include all wars. Now how is it that the instrument that was "designed" to kill, hasn't killed as many humans as the instrument that was never designed to do so? BUT DOES IT IN A VERY EFFICIENT MANNER....
My trailer hitch (stinger) that sticks out from the back of my pickup has hurt more people than any of my guns.
Fact: IT IS NOT A GUN PROBLEM, IT IS A PEOPLE PROBLEM....
Bob Krug - 6 years ago
Any varmint class ammunition will cause similar death and destruction. The 223 Remington started life as a slightly modified varmint cartridge. There are others way more powerfull cartridges and some cartridges somewhat less powerful. The same 223 cartridge can be fired from single shot rifles and bolt action rifles. One commenentator has noted that semi automatic rifles are simply hunting rifles in costume. Whether the rifle is black plastic or finely grained wood, the function remains the same. Remember semi automatic firearms are 19th century technology. During the Revolutionary War the British would claim flintlock pistols and Pennsylvania or Kentucky long rifles were terrorist weapons. Remember the first battle at Lexington was over a British attempt to confiscate firearms and gunpowder. If the government was magically able to remove every AR type rifle, there would soon be a home cottage industry of people manufacturing firearms and high capacity magazines. The knowledge has escaped Pandora's box - never to be returned. All the gun banners have left is the mistaken belief the violence can be prevented by banning firearms. It is a false hope. Evil will always find a way to death and destruction. Ban firearms and bombs or poison would increase in popularity. But with 350 to 600 million arms in circulation, the task of collecting all firearms is next to impossible. Pass what ever laws you like. Prisons cant be built fast enough to incarcerate several million more citizens. As it is now the prison system cant keep up with a mere 1.5 million inmates. Banning alcohol was a failure and no one seems to think we are winning the drug war - which claims far more victims than homicides by orders of magnitude.
Mike Wilkerson - 6 years ago
Why did you not blame the rental truck used to kill those people in New York a week or so ago? No, you blamed the individual and rightly so. So, why blame the weapon this time? Put the blame where it belongs, the individual.
Guns don't kill people. People kill people.
Lance - 6 years ago
Why do the gun control crowd constantly make definitive statements on subjects of fact that they have no education on? Why is it the biggest gun control advocates are the ones who know the least about firearms but the biggest firearm advocates the ones that know the most?
Tom G - 6 years ago
I wonder if the liberal editorial board realizes that more people this year will be beat to death by hand than will be killed by all long guns combined, so-called assault or otherwise. FBI statistics. So lets remove everyones hands. Again, they focus on a tool and ask all the wrong questions instead of focusing on the real issue and asking the right question. Why are so many people in this country willing to kill? Until you figure that out and figure out a way to combat it, people will continue to die and the tools used will be immaterial.
rick - 6 years ago
plus the ban really did'nt stop any killings It mostly just stopped legal pepole from buying guns but the thugs
still had them
GARRY CROSS - 6 years ago
Honest questions for the anti-gum people,, everyone keeps talking about this lethal round, You do understand there are many other firearms,single shot,bolt action ect,,that fires this same bullet ?? Taking the AR-15 away is not going to take the 223 round away. Next,,You do understand this gun is so popular because it is so easy to build ? I have built them myself sitting at my Kitchen table,,banning them will just take them away from honest,law abiding gun owners, just like when there was a liqueur prohibition, people built stills and sold moonshine,,you prohibit any firearm,,people will just build them,if there is a profit for the Criminals,,they will do it.. Do you understand the AR-15 style rifle comes in many calibers ? Not just the military 5.56 or 223 but in hunting rounds like the 300 blackout, yes many people do hunt with them, Do you know that there are larger versions like the AR-10 that fires the popular 308 hunting round among many other calibers ?? Almost every mass shooter had mental problems,,the Sandy Hook shooter murdered his own Mother before going on a rampage, This last one had even escaped a mental ward on top of domestic abuse..we dont need gun control that will be impossible to enforce or regulate, we need our Government to start enforcing the LAWS on the books,,We are at a time in History where whom ever is in charge decides what they are going to enforce and what they are going to sweep under the rug..Its time,,if its on the books enforce it,, if you dont like the law,,dont ignore it,,go to your lawmaker and change it.
With a madman at the helm is not the time to disarm the citizenry. Why disarm the people but not the police and military? And finally, why ban the AR-15 before the H-Bomb?
The public who want to be armed must be allowed to as an insurance policy against the tyranny of the near future which is obviously approaching like a locomotive. That wall ain't to keep Mexicans out bro, it's to keep us in as conditions are allowed to degrade further and further as big oil has its way.
JR
George - 6 years ago
Yes, the founding fathers envisioned a country where the people are armed with military rifles. The 2nd amendment states "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." You have to remember the historical context, they had just fought a war against their government (they would've considered themselves British before the revolution). The well regulated militia part hasn't been done very much and whether or not US civilians could overthrow the government is debatable, not something we could know unless it happened.
Guns are just tools, the they make it easier for people to kill people, but don't cause people too (it could be argued they let some people kill themselves or others in the heat of the moment). The cause behind gun violence is metal health issues. Unfortunately most gun supporters are conservatives who say it's a metal health issue, so banning guns won't solve it (which I agree with), but then don't want to put any funding into mental health to solve the problem! As if mentally ill people are supposed to be able to get a high paying job so they can afford the crazy prices for treatment with this screwed up healthcare system.
It is very clear that you know basically nothing about firearms or ballistics, so here's some good information. First off, the 5.56x45 Nato round fired by most AR-15s was adopted by the military not because it was more lethal, but because it was lighter. Warfighters in Vietnam quickly realized that while they could carry more ammunition with the same weight kit, the accuracy and efficacy of this round was hampered by any type of obstacle. This was a significant disadvantage to them when fighting through undergrowth and many desired the M14 which fires the heavier and much more powerful 7.62x51 cartridge. The other aspect often overlooked by ignorant spectators is that more often than not, the type of bullet used is more important than the cartridge. A hollowpoint round, whether fired from a pistol or a rifle, has the potential to be a lot more lethal than standard ball (or Full Metal Jacket ammunition) and also has an added advantage of being less likely to overpenetrate the target. In addition, the wound channel is hardly unique to rifles of any sort, pistol ammunition creates this effect as well. Then there is your statement about recoil. Anyone who is a shooter will know this is bunk; while a larger caliber will create more recoil by definition, the felt recoil can be mitigated with firearm weight or a muzzle device such as a brake. When set up properly, one can have a firearm firing a much more powerful round with very little (if any) more felt recoil than a 5.56 Nato rifle. Furthermore, most US military members wounded by enemy fire are being hit with the aforementioned 7.62mm diameter bullets, fired from AK-47 type rifles. Finally, the pair of elephants in the room; In the United States, long guns of any sort are one of the least likely weapons to be used in any homicide (FBI statistics for the past 10+ years) and there are a number of studies, including from government sources, that state the Assault Weapons Ban had no effect on crime rates across the country. So, next time, please do some research rather than just copying what other people say and peppering it with buzzwords. Sincerely, a qualified rifle and pistol marksman.
A lot of good responses here...a couple of things. To the writer, go check out the AR10 for a much more lethal round. The .223/5.56 pales in comparison to a .308. There are plenty of rounds out there that are far more lethal. Second, I’d be willing to bet a shooter with two .40 semiautomatic handguns would be more lethal in a mass shooting. It’s a hell lot easier to hit a target with a handgun than an AR unless one shoots the AR slower and more deliberately. People who only listen to the media propaganda have no idea how much more the death toll is with handguns compared to the AR platform because somewhere along the line we forgot all about the ability to do our own research and come up with our own answers based on factual data versus inane nonsense like this “article.” The use of guns as a tool for criminals is a far deeper issue than just taking one platform away. It’s complex and has deep reaching arms into different parts of society and what we’ve let our country become. For fun though, do check out how liberally gun laws are applied and the sentences given out for things like strawbuying in places like Chicago. Every responsible gun owner I know wants to see guns laws that are applied harshly to criminals but some judges don’t do much for the problem. Another fun project...subtract the gun deaths from Chicago, Baltimore, New Orleans, and Detroit and see the percentage of carnage that are those four cities. It’s a large majority of firearm related deaths in the US. It’s easy to simplify and blame one platform. It’s hard to actually figure out the cause and fix it.
Any bullet that has ever been manufactured, was designed to cause damage. If you're going to make the argument that a semi-automatic weapon is a "perfectly designed killing machine", then you are implying that any gun is such. Which, in turn, implies that you believe that no one should own any guns. A gun is a tool, just as any hammer, wrench, broom, or shovel. The person using it determines the actions, intent, and result of the use. You CANNOT make an arguement against that.
Anyone who would propagate barring citizens from owning firearms outs themselves as a supporter of criminals and despotic government. These people would want you to be helpless against both and are, therefor, as dangerous as the criminals and despots themselves. They should, in all regard, be treated exactly the same as a criminal or despot. I took an oath to the Constitution for the United States of America, and I WILL keep that oath. That Constitution includes the Bill of Rights, of which the 2nd Amendment is part of. If you don't comprehend what that amendment reads, I would suggest getting a dictionary, or go back to grade school and learn how to read again.
The poll is defective: there is no choice that reads, "Writer is a Commie Douchetard in need of half a helo flight."
You are a dumb*as. Please educate yourself before you start typing.
You should really educate yourself so you don't come off like a total idiot before you make an article as stupid as this one. Your opinion is mute for the simple fact you are so stupid regarding the issue you chose to spout off about. I really hope you don't procreate.
These polls never turn out the way you want them to when created it, do they? How does it feel when the answers don’t fit your agenda ?
The 10 year assault weapons ban did NOTHING to reduce gun violence during the 10 years it was in existence. Hence why it wasn't renewed. The bullets that the government has been stockpiling is FAR MORE deadly than the rounds available to civilians. At least with 223 and 556 which are the 2 most common rounds for the AR platform of rifles, you can and most do survive. Most returning veterans who were shot were shot by 233 or similar. The ammo the government has been stockpiling, you can not and will not survive. A good example of this as someone told me, and then demonstrated, is if you were to get shot in the eye, the entry wound would be about the size of your eye. The EXIT on the other hand, is the whole back of your head. Regardless of where you got hit there would be nothing left. So why does the government been BILLIONS of these rounds?
The founders believed that if the government had it, the citizenry should have it too. They believe that the citizenry should be able to have enough armaments to be able to maintain a level of independence from any one who should try to impose tryanny, including their own government.
While the AR-15 platform of rifle has features that make it appear like a "military style weapon," unless it has select fire with the option for 3 round burst or full autofire, it is in fact a civilian weapon. I have one (semi-automatic only) and I hope to never have to use it for anything other than time on the range or hunting. However it fires .223 rounds and it diies the exact same damage as a .223 round out of any other .223 rifle.yes, being legal, I have 2 30 round magazines which may make it more efficient to fire that many rounds but as a responsible owner, I also accept that I am responsible for any bullet that I fire from it from the time I pull the trigger until that same bullet stops moving of it's own inertia. The people firing those rifles or any other firearm are responsible for those crimes. Not the firearm itself, it's manufacturer nor any other responsible, legal gun owner.
The 2nd amendment to the Constitution of The United States secures our right to keep and bear Arms, it does not grant it. A well regulated militia may be the justification clause of the sentence but that is because it calls upon the able-bodied citizen to use their Arms in defence of a free State. And while both versions of the movie "Red Dawn" are fictional and not likely to come true, as a story, it is a good one to tell you WHY the founders did in fact expect citizens to own "military style weapons." As a candidate for the U. S. Senate in Tennessee, you can quote me on that.
Sincerly, Aaron Pettigrew, candidate for U. S. Senate, Murfreesboro, Rutherford County, Tennessee.
It is sad that the media still cherry picks people to suite their politics.
The truth is, you could be shot with an arrow and have far greater damage. Let us also note that hollow point rounds from a pistol will cause far greater damage than a 5,56 round. Any shot gun round will cause greater damage.
What you fail to report is that the AR is used is less than 1% of all firearm related homicides yet you keep stacking the gun.
I do hope you see the numbers in the poll and realize, this is the type of editorialized biased garbage that started the #fakenews trend.
This article is a joke. They state that it’s the round that causes the damage. Ah, duh? Being SHOT with any round is going to do damage. And was this guy thinking? You state early in the article that AR doesn’t stand for “assault rifle” then proceed to call it an “assault rifle” 6x in some shape or form the rest of it. Assault is a VERB. A verb is an action. The rifle didn’t “do” anything, these evil people did. Go home.
The same argument over and over and the fact is - don't blame the law abiding, blame the criminal. If we keep attacking law abiding gun owners then why not attack people that sell cars, ladders, knives? All OBJECTS at inanimate...its what the person does with them that counts. Also, it is completely WRONG and shows lack of knowledge on the wound from an AR-15 5.56 round vs others. The AR-15 is basically a high-velocity .22 Makes a very small wound track compared with a hunting rifle which can hit you the size of a quarter and blow out the back the size of a small dinner plate. The problem is anti-gun people just don't deal in facts. They deal in emotion. It doesn't seem to matter to them that guns are used almost 1 million times per year in self-defense STOPPING crime. That's per the federal government ...
Dear USA staff,
Your position regarding the legality of the AR-15 is simply, incorrect. It’s chambering, 5.56x45mm is no more or less destructive then any other rifle caliber, as a matter of fact. Even so, this point is also irrelevant. Your issue with it is it seemingly revolves around a few incidences of criminal misuse. You seem to think it’s being used by derranged criminals at a disproportionate rate. Not so, as even you noted it’s America’s most popular rifle, the AR-15 is really, really common, that’s it. Your “reporting” is the equivalent of looking over auto accident stats and then concluding that Ford, GM, Honda, and Toyota are intrinsically unsafe because a large portion of car accidents involve vehicles from one of these manufacturers. Actually, in reality, it’s even worse than that, as the AR-15 is a design type, more then a specific rifle at this point. Many manufacturers make an AR-15’s, or AR-15 variants. So your reporting is closer to claiming to claiming that “sedans” must be more strictly regulated, because nearly all car accidents involve at least one sedan, so therefore they must be really, really dangerous. In short, do your job. This is pathetic pandering. You should be embarrassed. Investigate, report, and do it honestly. How does a person who desires to be a moral and decent person dare claim that they hold the moral high ground, if the arguments for that position are based on intentional manipulation of emotions and outright deception?
Here, I’ll show you how to do your job. Here’s a suggested topic: Why aren’t all states, police departments, and military institutions in compliance with mandatory background check reporting? At this point I'd dare say it seems fairly self-evident that law breakers won't stop breaking laws because we wrote more laws, and furthermore, this is obviously true of law-breakers who plan to die right from the beginning. The National Instant Check System must be fixed. Without fixing it, any new laws are just being written to boost various politicians ratings before the election and placate the public, WE MUST UNILATERALLY DEMAND that ALL states be brought into compliance regarding background check reporting. Currently blaming individuals for not running a form 4473 background check is tantamount to scapegoating, for one really, really, simple, and very bothersome, fact. Currently, it isn't possible, or even legal, for an individual to do so. The NICS system is only available to L.E.O's and licensed gun dealers. So, speaking of "common sense measures" it is obvious that private individuals who're selling need to be able to run background checks on prospective buyers. Additionally, if a prospective buyer fails the background check, there is currently no requirement or provision for law enforcement or social services notification or intervention. So, I think everyone can clearly see that without a requirement for intervention on a failed purchase, even a felon or mentally ill person who made it into the database, will just walk out the door, and try some other store. Without the requirement for law enforcement or social services notification and/or intervention on a failed purchase attempt, the whole thing is a stupid waste of time.
Regulate the behavior, not the object. Absent firearms, anyone bent on killing the innocent will turn to trucks (refer to NYC), bombs (refer to the Boston marathon), airplanes (9/11), or machetes (most of the world still butchers people the old-fashioned way)
If you believe you can reduce violent behavior by regulating a particular tool, you are wrong. And you will trample the rights of countless people while taking away one of their best options for self defense. Shame on you for such ignorant, presumptuous behavior.
Evil walked into a small church in Texas. Evil carried an AR15.
Good saw what Evil was doing, and came with it's own AR15.
Good killed Evil, and prevented Evil from going to another church to kill more people.
It's not the guns, it's Good vs Evil.
The problem is people, not guns. People make the decision to do horrendous things, not guns. And don’t preach to me about access. We have always had relatively easy access to weapons. We have thousands of regulations that did nothing to stop determined villains. People have used, or tried to use, propane bombs, fertilizer bombs and even box cutters, to commit evil acts. Banning guns will solve nothing, it will take guns away from law abiding citizens like me. It’s a feel good move, aimed at eventual control of the population.
The individuals on the Editorial Board are waiting about a subject, that they very obviously know absolutely nothing about. The op ed is chock full of hearsay with facts. I challenge the members of the Board to sit through just one firearms safety class, taught by a reputable instructor, and stop using wiki and Facebook for research, then write your op ed. At that point you should have at least a small grasp on the subject matter.
Ivan.. If I could, I would high five you! I am right there with you!
Given that the perpetrators of these heinous mass-shootings OVERWHELMINGLY identify as Democrats, Liberals, Communists, Socialists, or otherwise fall on the Left-side of the political spectrum (seriously, it's more than 85%, the statistics are mind-boggling), when will you admit that the problem is not guns themselves, which the political Right by an large can own and enjoy without mass murder, but GUNS IN THE HANDS OF THE POLITICAL LEFT.
Come on, let's have a little journalistic integeity, shall we? The media always blames the gun, and completely glosses over the ideology of the person actually using the gun.
Lonnie... Perfectly written and said! YES!
I agree whole heartidly with what Mark wrote! Amen!
I find it interesting being the daughter of a Doctor and a mother who used to work in the ER with him that neither one of them have ever mentioned this kind of ridiculousness! My father is still a practicing physician in his 70's, knows that I have a love for AR's and still has never once mentioned anything like this story mentions, in fact.. Not even close! It is such a shame that our mainstream media will do, lie, and cover up ANY THING right which IS all I want to learn about and all President Trump is about.. but would rather lie to all of us, be completely, flat out dishonest about guns, especially AR's and our President! I love my guns, AR 15' s include and am so sick and tired of people, the mainsreet media and the intensive Libs always spreading lies solely based on hatred or fear! If you're afraid, I strongly encourage you to try it before you bash it. And if you know nothing about it then either keep your mouth shut or go get educated! This IS MY SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHT! Again.. Not only have I never heard my father a Doctor of 30 years discuss this, but my mother who was an ER nurse either!!! Here is the thing, if you do not steal, break in or do anything that you are not suppose to do or wouldnt want done to you... Then just don't do it and then you do not have to even consider worrying about the possibility of people like me standing up and protecting myself, my family, my home and my animals! If you do not like it, then don't do something illegal!
Thankfully, the neighbors also had AR-15 rifles and ended the slaughter by engaging the suspect.
So, you base your entire position on the idea that these should be banned because of the round they fire. Then you point out that this ban only affects guns with certain cosmetic features. Given that this means the Las Vegas shooter could have easily gone and bought a plain old wooden stocked Ruger .223 and done the exact same thing (look up how to create a bump stock effect with a rubber band) you essentially killed your own argument.
Why is it that y'all only get "up in arms" when a bunch of suburban white folks get shot up, but you don't care at all that Chicago, on any given weekend, sees about the same level of carnage? City kids don't count?
If they did, you'd be promoting taxing all Glocks sold in major cities by about 200 percent, and using that to pay for mentoring and parenting education/support.
THIS IS NOTICE TO THE MSM: We see your collectivist push for cultural marxism and we raise you an army of armed patriots. Liberty and justice for all is the true purpose for the reason for owning a semi-automatic ar-15 rifle and you are alienating the law abiding patriots of this country. You cannot simultaneously say that Trump is a fascist and tell us to give up our guns. Nothing you people say is factual or even reasonable.
I'm so tired of people who know nothing about firearms writing articles to scare people into pushing for gun bans. The AR-15 is no different than any other semi-automatic rifle. It is NOT an Assault Rifle. An assault rifle would be full-automatic, not semi. Yes, the .223 round can tumble, but it does far less damage than other, larger rounds used in military rifles throughout history.
Self ownership and individual liberty is the most basic and fundamental right an individual has. From that flows the right of self-defense and self-preservation. Consequently, the right to keep and bear arms -- the tools necessary to protect one's life and liberty -- is enumerated in our Bill of Rights. It is part of our national DNA. The tools necessary for individuals must be equal to, or surpass, that which a tryannical government -- whetger foreign or domestic -- has available to destroy individual liberty. The AR platform is a great weapon of choice for individuals.
Self ownership and individual liberty is the most basic and fundamental right an individual has. From that flows the right of self-defense and self-preservation. Consequently, the right to keep and bear arms -- the tools necessary to protect one's life and liberty -- is enumerated in our Bill of Rights. It is part of our national DNA. The tools necessary for individuals must be equal to, or surpass, that which a tryannical government -- whetger foreign or domestic -- has available to destroy individual liberty. The AR platform is a great weapon of choice for individuals.
Whether you agree or not, it's an interesting lesson in history. Something to think about...
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
Germany established gun control in 1918 and in 1938 Hitler banned Jews from owning firearms. Then from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million 'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
-----------------------------
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
------------------------------ So it might be said that guns don't kill people, gun control does!
~ From somebody in the Facebook Calguns forum.
Yes, there’s massive carnage from head-on car accidents too. Let’s ban cars too, Mr. and Mrs. Paramedic. There’s massive carnage from war. Let’s ban all wars. There’s massive carnage in MMA. Let’s ban the MMA. There’s massive carnage in airplane accidents. Let’s ban airplanes.
Despite the obvious and hackneyed scare tactics, here are the facts:
According the FBI figures (https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2009-2013.xls), these are the guns used in murders:
2009: 6,105 handguns vs 351 rifles (this includes the AR-15)
2010: 6,115 handguns vs 367 rifles
2011: 6,251 handguns vs 332 rifles
2012 6,404 handguns vs 298 rifles
2013: 5,782 handguns vs 285 rifles
Even the most ardent anti-gunner in America can easily see that rifles are not a significant cause of deaths in America. But the Leftist media wants to get a major victory against guns, so they start with the big, black scary one that they might have a shot at obtaining. In short, it's all a lie, a media ploy to bait you along the path.
Articles like this, written by someone who hates guns as much as he is clueless about them, go past stupid to downright idiotic.
Whats next? Turn people against Steven Willeford? We should have more neighbors lile him!
Promoting hoplophobia should be a criminal offense.
Creating gun free zones made it a favorite target of spree murderers. The ones who made those laws are liable and have blood on their hands
Only a fraction of those adjudicated mentally ill ever have their condition reported into the NICS system. Even worse, in 2010, there were 10's of thousands who illegally attempted to purchase a firearm. Of those, only .0005% (44) were ever prosecuted.
Let's fix the broken systems and enforce the current laws we have before we start thinking up new ones that make criminals out of good people who own firearms, shall we?
We will soon see legislation by Sen. Diane Feinstein proposing the ban of the so called assault rifle, which is similar in function and capability to most of the hunting rifles sold today.
Don't be fooled by this PR stunt designed to gain public favor. The FBI's own statistics show that only 5% of all type of murders are committed with a rifle of any type.
In the last 100 years governments have killed their own people, for political reasons, 270 million times, it is called democide. The private ownership of weapons is an insurance policey that one political party doesn't round up their political enimies in the middle of the night. The news media is bi polar, they claim Trump is hitler, but, we got to give up Guns because their dangerous. Go to Mexico, where only the police and military own guns, see how that is working out, just like chicago and D.c., gun laws and gun safe zones, create victims, giving criminals a monopoly of power.
There's no different between the style of weapon. Do ABC News know anything about guns? There's many type of rifles that chamber in 223/556. Same ammo an AR shoots.
The intent and purpose of the second amendment is to ensure that citizens always posses the means to oppose any person, groups of persons or government from forcing their will upon the people in violation of their "RIGHTS" and "FREEDOMS".
Obviously as weapon technology increases citizens will have to maintain weapons equal to any that their oppressors might posses.
Since the "CONSTITUTION" and "SECOND AMENDMENT" places the responsible of maintaining freedom on the citizens, then citizens are "AUTHORIZED" to use those guns against Tyranny or any who may infringe on their "RIGHTS and "FREEDOMS", Domestic or Foreign Government.
Soldiers/Cops risk a chance of dying daily to keep our freedoms, Citizens should too.
Auto accidents kills thousands each years, yet we don't ban them because of the greater good they offer,
Armed citizens are the greatest defense this nation has against tyranny, and with people like Obama and Hillary, we may have to lift the ban on "Machine guns".
Only a fool would want to disarm the Military or Cops, and the consequences would be the same if citizens were disarmed.
Politicians needs to know that the second amendment places an open season and no bag limit on those who attempt to deny us our "RIGHTS".
Trucks and big rigs also butchered people here and in Europe. Why are they still legal? Fertilizer used to make the bomb in Oklahoma is still legal. Why? Because a determined mass murderer will always find a way, gun or no gun.
How can such stupidity continue to be printed? FIRST, no ban on guns existed. the Clinton Scary Gun "ban" banned bayonet lugs, flash hiders and new manufacture of normal 30rnd mags. It did not ban a single gun, or even make any changes in them.
An AR fires a .223 caliber bullet. A jumped-up .22. It's LITERALLY so small most states don't allow it for deer hunting. You have to rechamber your AR for something bigger. It's an anemic cartridge. ANY hunting rifle does more damage. Many pistols do more damage to a body.
If you extremists can't deal in anything even resembling facts why do you insist on spewing your BS?
Despite what Justice Scalia might have thought, the 2nd amendment places no restrictions on what type of weapon a citizen may keep and bear. The purpose of the 2nd amendment was NOT for hunting or sporting purposes. It was to insure that the citizens of the USA will always have the means to overthrow our own government should said government ever forget who they work for and who really controls the country. Its purpose is to insure that government can never become dictatorial or tyrannical. Most seemed to have forgotten this, or more likely never learned it as our schools have been systematically dumbed down by those who harbor a socialist/communist ideology and want to rule over us.
True liberty is not possible if the people do not have the power to stop tyranny when ever it raises its ugly head.
FREEDOM IS NOT FREE!
The one point that isn't mentioned here in most comments :
Making the guns illegal, will only remove them from the hands of people who obey the Laws. So lets say that there was an assault rifle ban after the Vegas shooting.. That would mean that the law abiding individual who stopped the lunatic at the church would be disarmed. Or would at least have to bring a pistol to a Semi-auto rifle fight. Again tipping the advantage towards the criminals.
They are legal bc of the constitutional right. We have the right to legally and responsibly posses firearms of our choice. Hope that helps the author of this biased and narrow focused article. It must be tough to constantly have to come up with ridiculous stories for a living.
I am also stopping payment on all usa today subscriptions immediately.
Articles like, especially your title are why criminals choose thar particular weapon. Focus as much time of the domestic violence or other motives behind the crimes instead of what is used. That will fix this issue. Unfortunately Trucks can also do massive harm to large groups of people as we have seen recently in Nyc and other places. All you need $20 proof of car insurance and there is one at your local home store ready for a criminal to rent. If you would do more articles on that topic, you will see an increase in those types of crimes for example.
Our family will no longer be subscribers to your publication. God Bless America
Ridiculous headline, stupid "article." We should take advice about guns from doctors? More people die per year from medical malpractice than guns. And more people die per year from prescription medication overdoses (the #1 cause of accidental death) than guns.
And "Infection is usually the biggest problem." Really, it must have taken an Einstein IQ to figure that out! The #1 cause of death among Civil War soldiers was infections, and they didn't even have any of those "eeeeeevil" AR-15s.
facts don't lie. Numbers don't lie. But you, editor, have NO CLUE what you are talking about. Less than 5% of all firearm deaths are caused by rifles. Most firearm deaths are caused by handguns. The original Assault weapons ban was sunsetted by congress because it found NO SIGNIFICANT REDUCTION in firearm deaths. None.
Yet here you are, calling for another one. Why? Because guns scare you? Is that it? Then don't be a coward and state WHY.
Here are some numbers for you.
32,383 people killed in 2015 by firearms. Of those, 21,175 were suicides. In the same year, there were 37,808 people killed in the US by Automobiles. There are an estimated 310 million firearms in the US, while only 263.6 million automobiles. That means that Cars are FAR more deadly than firearms. Less cars than guns, with more deaths.
Why don't you call for a ban on Automobiles? Why are you not out there crying for the government to restrict access to cars in a tremendous way? They are far more dangerous than guns. Especially when you consider that a majority of gun deaths are attributed to suicides. The average american is far more likely to die in an automobile accident than they are to a firearms related incident.
Get your facts straight.
Not only is this article disingenuous, the author clearly doesn't have any understanding of history, the constitution or firearms. This article is replete with incorrect statements and convoluted reasoning.
The AR15 doesn't maim, it is a bullet which does the damage.
This is nothing more than disinformation spread to promote the fallacy of gun control which in the end is nothing more than an attempt to control the citizenry
You people whining about how they want to take away your guns are broadly missing the point. Guns are a right given to us by the Constitution...however, the military grade weapons like the AR-15 are unecessary. Conpletely and totally unnecessary to keep and own a gun that can tear a person apart in such rapid succession. A handgun and shotgun/rifle is plenty sufficient to fend off any would-be intruder or protect yourself on a regular basis. Most of the shootings he mentioned, the guns were obtained legally. So the gun laws didnt fail...the lack of the ban on automatic weapons did. We dont NEED them to still uphold our right to carry. I am disgusted in the angry self-righteous comments on here about how gun control is about taking away all guns. Grow up and get a clue...educate yourself.
Stay out of my business. If you don't like guns, don't buy them. You people are absolutely clueless. Teach children gun safety, teach them to respect guns and life, take them shooting, spend time with them, stop letting the TV, video games, or their phones raise them. I'd bet 95% of the parents have no idea what are in the games their kids play because they're too busy to be a parent. Maybe if people raised their kids better and concentrated on their own circle instead of trying to run everyone else's life, then we wouldnt have these whackos who shoot up places because mommy didn't hug them enough etc.
Its not a gun issue, its a bad parenting/mental health issue.
Why do you liberals want all of these "extra" rights yet want to take away mine? Hypocrites!
A knife is a very efficient killing tool. Heck one variant is literally called a "butchers knife" because it's so much better at dismembering and chopping. So why aren't you bleeding heart liberals screaming for a knife ban?? Several terrorists have resorted not to guns or bombs or knives, but have rented trucks and cars and slammed them into crowds, killing many and injuring even more. Where is the cry for a truck and car ban??
The .223 is just a .22 caliber round. A .300, .308, or .338 round can do potentially more damage to a human. GUNS DO NOT KILL PEOPLE. PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE. It takes a human being to take a gun, apply the proper force to the trigger, and point at another human for a death to occur. Thus it's not a gun problem it is a people problem. Look at Chicago and tell me how great it is to have strict gun laws... If restrictive and tough gun laws "work" then why isn't Chicago homicide free?? Why is a veritable battlefield for killings?? Plain and simple, gun laws will ONLY affect the law abiding citizen. BY definition a criminal WILL NOT OBEY THE LAW. That's why he is a criminal to begin with. So in what world do you live in where criminals and the evil insane will magically turn into law abiding citizens?? If you believe that I do not want you making decisions for me. The problem in Texas was that the Army didn't report to the FBI about his DV conviction, thus making him ineligible to purchase a firearm. So once again, failure to enforce existing laws caused this problem. The laws we have are good enough if enforced properly. I will echo a sentiment I saw earlier.... Those who know the absolute least about guns are crying to get rid of them, yet the ones who know the most are the ones who are in favor of an armed lawful citizenry. Which category are you??? Educate yourself and don't just swallow the lies put out to you by the liberal cowards who have never owned a gun or lived with guns....
A little history the 5.56 NATO round was developed to injure more than out right kill someone. The reasoning was it takes two solders to removed one injured solder than you leave the dead until the battle is over. The military also went with the 5.56 NATO round because a solder can carry a lot more of it compared to the 308 and the 30-06 round. If you get shot with the 308 or especially the 30-06 round you are not getting back up. So to everyone that thinks the 5.56 round is so evil think again. By the way there is a small difference between an actual 223 round and a 5.56 round even though you can shoot a 223 round in an AR15 you do not want to shoot a 5.56 round in most older bolt action rifles chambered in 223.
To all the people that want the government to implement gun control it was the government gun control that failed to prevent this last church shooting.
I will be happy to support banning guns. But,....... Only if the police give up theirs first, and we also ban all devices or things that cause more death than firearms. To include cars, high cholesterol foods, smoking and drinking. If you do not do that first, then you are being a hypocrite by allowing MORE dangerous things to be allowed in our society that aren't protected by the Bill of Rights.
It was finally reported that the hero in the Texas shooting incident used the same type of rifle as the perpetrator. Now we have two of the same rifle, one evil and one good. What does that say about your argument that the AR=15 is the enemy here. Gun control advocates always use misinformation and emotionally drawn conclusions to further their misguided agenda. Without the 2nd amendment all the other rights we enjoy will soon be gone as well. The liberals and their agenda have an unsatisfiable hunger to oppress those who they feel are beneath them.
Ban guns, save lives,it's that simple.But people need to have their toys to play with.Shame on you,you gun lovers.You could care less about human lives ,as long as you have your toys your happy.Let people die ,you obviously don't care!
There is a old adage that reads "only a fool blames his tool". Devin Kelly was a extreme suffering mental patient who escaped from his hospital and with no reportage to law enforcement. It has been reported he was under the influence of mind altering mind control medications as well. Both of those issues if reported to lawful authorities would of eliminated any ability for Kelly purchase firearms legally. This incident could of been avoided had the government and the Air Force did their duty and filed the appropriate warnings to government agencies. The blame rest with Kelly and the lack of responsibility by the Air Force and the mental health agency that had control of Kelly. Had Kelly used any other weapon the people dead would still be dead. This incident reminds me of the Texas AM shooter who had a brain tumor and the shooter had asked for medical help for a period exceeding two years and the medical and VA system refused to address his problems as well. To blame the weapon, to blame the bullets - is insane. One wonders if this reporter can find his own rear end to wipe it when necessary?
don't forget to ban assault trucks. They can cause damage to the intestines and brain when psychopaths rent them from home depot and mows down people with it.
a 223 in any semi-auto or bolt action has the same recoil. the AR15 is available in bigger calibers. any argument you can use for police having ar-15s i will have the same for civilians. 223 is not a powerful body butchering round! an AR10 in 308 would have been.
So if these assault rifles you hate so much get banned, what will you want banned next? I doubt you'd be satisfied just taking my AKs. If the liberals get their way, eventually they'll go after all the guns. And then next maybe even knives will be banned, a lot like in England. You people also want to do away with things like Stand Your Ground, which would allow a person to have some other options than running or cowering - hoping the police arrive. No thank you.
PLEASE READ: No disrespect but you gun supporters might be missing the point. Gun control doesn't become an issue after one man kills another. People are always going to kill each other. The issue surfaces after massacres occur. The focus then should be to figure out the best way to curb these incidences? Take the incident from Las Vegas: automatic guns are illegal so the shooter resorted to bump stocks and AR15. If automatic weapons were legal more people would have died. If we take away the bump stocks maybe the shooter would have just used the AR15. And if we take away the AR15, well you get the point. A pistol in hand seems less disastrous than a high powered rifle. I'm not going to pretend that I know how the gun game goes, but I would imagine that the mentally ill aren't very well connected, thus finding an illegal gun dealer could prove to be difficult. Plus the guns would inevitably become more expensive. All these factors I believe would have a curbing effect, maybe not completely preventing, but minimizing the damage.
If gun control doesn't work then we try something else, but until we give it a fair shot we will never know. I believe both sides of this argument know how daunting of a task it would be to try and treat the mentally ill, but we should try that too. After all it is the mentally ill that commit massacres. And lets not complicate the issue with false equivalencies, there's no point. We are all looking for real solutions, and comparing a truck to a weapon pointlessly clouds the topic. If all a truck did was kill we'd have truck control too, probably banning them. But without a doubt as truck incidences arise we will have to tackle that issue too. But I'm not suggesting banning all guns because I believe guns do more than just kill, they protect. We just don't need high powered rifles at our finger tips. A killer will find a way to kill, just as a thief will find a way to steal. That doesn't mean that its pointless to lock your doors at night.
USA Today... The same publication that recently brought us the Tweet about chainsaw bayonets and under barrel shotgun attachments. Wow. These people know SO MUCH about AR-15's! I totally trust everything they say about "assault weapons"! (Has anyone ever actually defined that term yet by the way?)
Automobiles have killed more people in their just-over-hundred-year existence, than every firearm ever built, from every country, COMBINED to include all wars. Now how is it that the instrument that was "designed" to kill, hasn't killed as many humans as the instrument that was never designed to do so? BUT DOES IT IN A VERY EFFICIENT MANNER....
My trailer hitch (stinger) that sticks out from the back of my pickup has hurt more people than any of my guns.
Fact: IT IS NOT A GUN PROBLEM, IT IS A PEOPLE PROBLEM....
Any varmint class ammunition will cause similar death and destruction. The 223 Remington started life as a slightly modified varmint cartridge. There are others way more powerfull cartridges and some cartridges somewhat less powerful. The same 223 cartridge can be fired from single shot rifles and bolt action rifles. One commenentator has noted that semi automatic rifles are simply hunting rifles in costume. Whether the rifle is black plastic or finely grained wood, the function remains the same. Remember semi automatic firearms are 19th century technology. During the Revolutionary War the British would claim flintlock pistols and Pennsylvania or Kentucky long rifles were terrorist weapons. Remember the first battle at Lexington was over a British attempt to confiscate firearms and gunpowder. If the government was magically able to remove every AR type rifle, there would soon be a home cottage industry of people manufacturing firearms and high capacity magazines. The knowledge has escaped Pandora's box - never to be returned. All the gun banners have left is the mistaken belief the violence can be prevented by banning firearms. It is a false hope. Evil will always find a way to death and destruction. Ban firearms and bombs or poison would increase in popularity. But with 350 to 600 million arms in circulation, the task of collecting all firearms is next to impossible. Pass what ever laws you like. Prisons cant be built fast enough to incarcerate several million more citizens. As it is now the prison system cant keep up with a mere 1.5 million inmates. Banning alcohol was a failure and no one seems to think we are winning the drug war - which claims far more victims than homicides by orders of magnitude.
Why did you not blame the rental truck used to kill those people in New York a week or so ago? No, you blamed the individual and rightly so. So, why blame the weapon this time? Put the blame where it belongs, the individual.
Guns don't kill people. People kill people.
Why do the gun control crowd constantly make definitive statements on subjects of fact that they have no education on? Why is it the biggest gun control advocates are the ones who know the least about firearms but the biggest firearm advocates the ones that know the most?
I wonder if the liberal editorial board realizes that more people this year will be beat to death by hand than will be killed by all long guns combined, so-called assault or otherwise. FBI statistics. So lets remove everyones hands. Again, they focus on a tool and ask all the wrong questions instead of focusing on the real issue and asking the right question. Why are so many people in this country willing to kill? Until you figure that out and figure out a way to combat it, people will continue to die and the tools used will be immaterial.
plus the ban really did'nt stop any killings It mostly just stopped legal pepole from buying guns but the thugs
still had them
Honest questions for the anti-gum people,, everyone keeps talking about this lethal round, You do understand there are many other firearms,single shot,bolt action ect,,that fires this same bullet ?? Taking the AR-15 away is not going to take the 223 round away. Next,,You do understand this gun is so popular because it is so easy to build ? I have built them myself sitting at my Kitchen table,,banning them will just take them away from honest,law abiding gun owners, just like when there was a liqueur prohibition, people built stills and sold moonshine,,you prohibit any firearm,,people will just build them,if there is a profit for the Criminals,,they will do it.. Do you understand the AR-15 style rifle comes in many calibers ? Not just the military 5.56 or 223 but in hunting rounds like the 300 blackout, yes many people do hunt with them, Do you know that there are larger versions like the AR-10 that fires the popular 308 hunting round among many other calibers ?? Almost every mass shooter had mental problems,,the Sandy Hook shooter murdered his own Mother before going on a rampage, This last one had even escaped a mental ward on top of domestic abuse..we dont need gun control that will be impossible to enforce or regulate, we need our Government to start enforcing the LAWS on the books,,We are at a time in History where whom ever is in charge decides what they are going to enforce and what they are going to sweep under the rug..Its time,,if its on the books enforce it,, if you dont like the law,,dont ignore it,,go to your lawmaker and change it.
With a madman at the helm is not the time to disarm the citizenry. Why disarm the people but not the police and military? And finally, why ban the AR-15 before the H-Bomb?
The public who want to be armed must be allowed to as an insurance policy against the tyranny of the near future which is obviously approaching like a locomotive. That wall ain't to keep Mexicans out bro, it's to keep us in as conditions are allowed to degrade further and further as big oil has its way.
JR
Yes, the founding fathers envisioned a country where the people are armed with military rifles. The 2nd amendment states "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." You have to remember the historical context, they had just fought a war against their government (they would've considered themselves British before the revolution). The well regulated militia part hasn't been done very much and whether or not US civilians could overthrow the government is debatable, not something we could know unless it happened.
Guns are just tools, the they make it easier for people to kill people, but don't cause people too (it could be argued they let some people kill themselves or others in the heat of the moment). The cause behind gun violence is metal health issues. Unfortunately most gun supporters are conservatives who say it's a metal health issue, so banning guns won't solve it (which I agree with), but then don't want to put any funding into mental health to solve the problem! As if mentally ill people are supposed to be able to get a high paying job so they can afford the crazy prices for treatment with this screwed up healthcare system.