Whenever a situation like this arises, all eyes turn to the guns sooner or later. I personally believe that the legality of assault guns used in shootings such as these is somewhat unjustified. I also believe in the second amendment, so I think that people should be able to have weapons that are not overly efficient in killing. On the flip side, I also have an argument for the legality of the guns used by the Bernardino shooters. When it comes down to it there is no substantial argument for "only kinda" limiting the power of these guns. People say that semi auto rifles are excessive compared to semi auto pistols. When it comes down to it, someone can kill someone easily with both weapons and pistols aren't "safer" just because they are smaller and visually less intimidating. Sure, the potential for more killed with a rifle might be higher, but who cares if the end result is the same- dead people.
While news in somewhat unclear, the shooters had two "assault-style" weapons, and unsuccessfully tried to convert them to fully automatic. They had 3000 rounds of ammunition, but they did not really have the capacity to really greatly exceed the capabilities of a pistol since their rifles were semi auto.
Interesting points in relation to gun rights vs. gun control, I think you have good insight into the legality of weapons. I think it is always good to put this sort of thing into perspective, because yes guns can be seen as a problem, but perhaps our definitions of what is legal and what is not legal should be redefined.
ReplyDeleteIn light of all of the recent mass shootings, I think all fully automatic weapons should be outlawed for public ownership. Ordinary individuals do not have any need for these kinds of weapons designed for mass casualties. I think personal hand guns should be legal for protection purposes, but all assault style weapons should be outlawed.
ReplyDelete