| > While it may feel righteous to regulate them more, it is all but guaranteed to have next to no effect on gun violence. .... You realise that there are dozens of examples of other countries that have enacted gun control, and then seen gun violence go down, right? > The AR-15 undoubtedly has a military background, although it isn't the exact same weapon as the M16. Does this mean firearms with a less militaristic style, like the Ruger Mini-14[0], should be allowed? Ok, so a few things here.
(a) I just referenced AR-15's because most people have heard of them. A mini-14 is no more appropriate for sport shooting than the aforementioned AR15. (b) The rifle you mentioned is named so because it resembles a previous military rifle (M14), and is itself used by a number of military and law enforcement agencies around the world, so it's still "military style" anyway (c) My point was that semi-automatic rifles aren't needed for hunting, or target shooting, regardless of how "militaristic" they look. 12 people being shot in a school aren't going to feel any less shot because the gun doesn't look like the military use it. > This weapon wasn't banned during the assault weapons ban, Given that the law in question required a weapon to have 2 feature from a list that includes grenade launcher to be considered a "assault weapon", that's not really surprising. It's a semi-automatic rifle. It also wouldn't be affected by a ban on trans fats either. > It is no less unpleasant to get shot by a sport or hunting rifle If someone is shooting into a crowd with a bolt action rifle, you are a lot less likely to be shot in the first place. That's literally the whole fucking point: it's a much slower rate of fire. |
Abroad, I'm only familiar with Australia, which didn't see any significant effects either way. There was a secular decline[0] in firearm violence which continued through the ban, but it doesn't appear as if the ban had anything to do with it - the USA saw an even larger decline, and it doesn't seem to have dropped any faster after the ban[1].
It seems like the easiest way is to just look at the USA, where there is no correlation at all. So on a state level, these regulations are utterly ineffectual. It does not seem to follow that more of the same would have any effect.
It is sort of like metal detectors in airports: On some level, it makes intuitive sense that they should help, but in reality they are just useless security theater - it's possible to build a grenade from stuff you can buy after airport security, and people have accidentally brought guns on planes without knowing it.
> If someone is shooting into a crowd with a bolt action rifle, you are a lot less likely to be shot in the first place. That's literally the whole fucking point: it's a much slower rate of fire.
On the other hand, the opportunities for serious terrorism are arguably worse[2].
0: https://www.gunfacts.info/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/GUNS-IN...
1: https://www.gunfacts.info/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/austral...
2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D.C._sniper_attacks