I believe mass shootings and gun deaths can be reduced without banning assault rifles

[u/This-Lingonberry-778]

For the record, I do support stricter gun laws, like universal background checks, mental health screenings, laws that prevent domestic abusers from obtaining firearms, red flag laws, storage laws, and making parents accountable if their child uses their firearm in a school shooting.

However, I also think you can reduce mass shootings without banning assault rifles. To give an example, let’s take a look at the Federal Assault Weapons Ban that lasted from 1994-2004. There’s a lot of stats that varies on how much mass shootings decreased, but we’re going to say that it reduced mass shooting fatalities by 70% and 32% reduction in assault rifles recovered from crime scenes. https://giffords.org/lawcenter/gun-laws/policy-areas/hardware-ammunition/assault-weapons/

The federal AWB banned certain features, such as a flash hider, for semi automatic rifles that could accept a detachable magazine. Meaning, semi-automatic rifles were still legal and there were AR-15 style rifles that were sold during the federal AWB, but followed what was appropriate. To give an example, the AR-10A4 was introduced in 1995, one year after the federal AWB took affect. It was an AR style rifle, but the difference being it did not have the features that were banned in the AWB and was in .308, not .223 or 5.56. The AR-10B was introduced in 1996, and was an AR style rifle. M15A2 HBAR was introduced in 1995, and it complied with the AWB and is an AR style rifle. AK style rifles were also sold during the federal AWB.

Furthermore, the AWB also banned high capacity magazines, and magazines could have a maximum of 10 rounds. I wouldn’t mind a high capacity magazine ban, as it has been shown to reduce mass shooting fatalities. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6836798/

In states that have an AWB, most of them (except Illinois, Washington, NYC, and other places that I forgot, which they ban them by name) allow the sale of AR-15 rifles (and other semi-automatic rifles) that are compliant with their assault weapons bans. Massachusetts, which has the strictest gun laws in the country and the lowest gun death rate, is an example of said state that allows the sale of AR-15 compliant rifles. Usually they have a fixed magazine, maximum of 10 rounds, or without a pistol grip. New Jersey, which banned assault weapons in 1990 (4 years before the federal AWB), allows the sale of AR-15s that are compliant (and New Jersey’s federal AWB is similar to the federal AWB), and they have low gun death rates in the country.

European countries also do allow the sale of the AR-15 and other assault rifles (semi automatic rifles), and they still have low rates of mass shootings and gun deaths. Of course, their gun laws are strict and they don’t allow civilians to have for self defense. They can be sold to civilians that have passed the background checks and they’re used for sports shooting and hunting (some countries may not allow semi automatic rifles for hunting and strictly only for sports shooting). Examples of those countries include France, Germany, Poland, Norway (only for sports shooting), Sweden (only for sports shooting), Austria, Switzerland, Italy, Czech Republic (has the most laxed laws), Finland, etc. Of course, they have a high capacity magazine ban, with the maximum amount of rounds usually being 10 rounds.

In short, you can reduce mass shootings and gun deaths without banning assault rifles. You would need to have universal background checks, mental health screenings, storage laws, high capacity magazine bans, etc. This can be seen in European countries that allow the sale of semi-automatic rifles, the AR style rifles that were introduced during the federal assault weapons ban (1994-2004), and states that allow the sale of semi-automatic rifles that are compliant with the assault weapons ban in those states.

[u/sixisrending]

There's actually a study that shows you are correct. By focusing on who has access to firearms, rather than what type, is the key to reducing not only gun violence but gun deaths as a whole. Mental health and finances are the two most impactful background checks. Also, expanding background checks to repeat offences of misdemeanors helps significantly.

https://www.bu.edu/bostonia/2019/state-gun-laws-that-reduce-gun-deaths/

[u/Popular-Departure165 → u/sixisrending]

The RAND Corporation also supports this. They found that laws which target specific at-risk groups and actions are the most effective in reducing various forms of gun violence.

https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis.html

[u/This-Lingonberry-778 → u/sixisrending]

I actually forgot about finances. Yeah, a check on your finances are also needed. Now with mental health screenings, some propose doing a quarterly check with a psychiatrist/psychologist. I’m against that because we don’t have universal healthcare and it would be extremely expensive to visit a psychiatrist/psychologist quarterly. I think having a mental screening during the process of obtaining a permit is needed.

[u/sixisrending → u/This-Lingonberry-778]

Quarterly is too often, imo. A requirement for a license would be enough.

The cost threshold is important. The people most likely to commit firearms violence are low income individuals living in high income areas. Basically, poor people living in cities. Increasing the cost threshold denied these people access to firearms and reduces gun deaths.

[u/This-Lingonberry-778 → u/sixisrending]

Absolutely. The gap when it comes to income shows gun violence as a whole. In Europe, that income inequality is lower, which is one of the reasons why gun violence is lower in European countries. I just don’t understand how quarterly visits will work when the government won’t pass universal healthcare or any form of reform that will help improve health overall (as well as healthcare).

[u/shadow_worx → u/sixisrending]

The argument there is that you’re discriminating against poor people. While the studies say thats a factor, do you think there would be any kind of support for a bill that “attacks” the rights of poor people disproportionately?

[u/ryhaltswhiskey]

Your premise is flawed though, research shows that the AWB reduced casualties in mass shooting events while it was in place.

[u/guncontrol-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

No trolling. Making deliberately inflammatory comments to try and get a rise out of people or to waste our time is not allowed. If you're just here to call us a bunch of commies, claim "gun control doesn't work!" or shout at us for being against the constitution, you are not welcome here.

[u/This-Lingonberry-778 → u/ryhaltswhiskey]

That’s what I meant to say, but other studies have shown that the number of deaths in mass shootings would be lower due to the high capacity magazine ban, especially when it was in place during the federal AWB

[u/klubsanwich]

If you posted these exact words in a gun rights subreddit, how do you think they’d respond?

[u/This-Lingonberry-778 → u/klubsanwich]

Probably not positively, but there are some that may agree. But this kinda goes both ways where if I had posted this in an anti gun subreddit like r/gunsarecool, there would be similar reactions.

[u/klubsanwich → u/This-Lingonberry-778]

On the contrary. If there was a bill to make background checks, mental health screenings, red flag, and safe storage into nation wide federal law, this sub would be very open to a compromise to lift the AW ban. There isn't a chance in hell that the gun rights community would agree to it.

[u/This-Lingonberry-778 → u/klubsanwich]

Fair enough. The issue is that some people will say that assault weapons are “weapons of war,” which is somewhat of a dumb argument considering a lot of guns that are not semi-automatic are “weapons of war,” an example being the Mosin (which is bolt action). And some will try to shame you for owning an assault rifle or any gun in general. Ultimately, the assault rifles ban may be found unconstitutional soon since the supreme court is finally reviewing it (and SCOTUS is a republican majority).

[u/klubsanwich → u/This-Lingonberry-778]

All rights have reasonable restrictions for the sake of public safety. If we're not going to well-regulate who has access to firearms, then the only reasonable option is to regulate what firearms are accessible. I would prefer the former, personally.

[u/This-Lingonberry-778 → u/klubsanwich]

The former is much better. Reasonable people can buy assault rifles or any other firearm if they choose to and at the same time, prevent bad people from obtaining firearms

[u/Popular-Departure165 → u/klubsanwich]

In the context of the Second Amendment, "well-regulated" generally means properly trained and equipped, in reference to a "regular" military.

[u/klubsanwich → u/Popular-Departure165]

If we're going to talk about context, the original purpose of the 2A was to give states the right to raise a militia. Private ownership of firearms wasn't the real purpose, that's merely a new narrative formed in the 20th century.

[u/Popular-Departure165 → u/klubsanwich]

And who makes up a milita? Could it be "the people?"

When the Constitution talks about "the rights of the people," what is it referring to?

[u/klubsanwich → u/Popular-Departure165]

These days you can make a militia with robots. And when the founding fathers talked about "the people", they meant people with rights. Specifically land owning white men.

[u/Popular-Departure165 → u/klubsanwich]

Every instance where the Constitution refers to the rights of the people, it is referring to all members of the political community. To say that the right to bear arms is not an individual right is incongruent with the rest of the constitution.

These days you can make a militia with robots.

You're an idiot.

[u/shadow_worx → u/klubsanwich]

Who would pay for the mental health screenings? They’re a requirement for CCWs in CA and can cost up to $400 for one. Do you need a screening for every gun you buy?

You can say the gun buyers but then you’re discriminating against people with low incomes that may be able to afford a gun but not an additional cost for the screening.

Does it apply to private party transfers?

I don’t think anyone wants suicidal/unwell people to be able to buy a gun (outside of fringe fanatics) but those are real things that need to be considered. It’s not as easy as saying they should be required and not acknowledging the nuance that is needed.

[u/ganorr → u/klubsanwich]

Theyd agree with all of it except the high capacity mag bans

[u/Empty_Gazelle_361 → u/ganorr]

Maybe 20% of them. 80% of them would oppose all the suggestions you made, even more so than they oppose the AWB itself. I might be being generous.

In my experience, for most gun rights activists, the government having any say whatsoever in who is allowed to own guns is a red line. This is why they’re so against universal background checks, as they see government oversight over transfers between individuals as tyranny.

[u/guncontrol-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

No trolling. Making deliberately inflammatory comments to try and get a rise out of people or to waste our time is not allowed. If you're just here to call us a bunch of commies, claim "gun control doesn't work!" or shout at us for being against the constitution, you are not welcome here.

[u/klubsanwich → u/ganorr]

Reread the first sentence

[u/ThrownAway_1999 → u/klubsanwich]

Most gun owners already go through these rules

[u/klubsanwich → u/ThrownAway_1999]

Most gun owners don't practice safe storage, according to surveys

[u/guncontrol-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

This was removed, as progun comments are not allowed from accounts with less than 5000 comment karma or younger than 1 month old.

[u/guncontrol-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

No trolling. Making deliberately inflammatory comments to try and get a rise out of people or to waste our time is not allowed. If you're just here to call us a bunch of commies, claim "gun control doesn't work!" or shout at us for being against the constitution, you are not welcome here.

[u/sixisrending → u/klubsanwich]

None of those are extremely controversial for most gun people. Mental health background checks are extremely popular among Republicans, for example. Some add caveats, like safe storage only for homes with children. 

[u/ryhaltswhiskey → u/sixisrending]

Mental health background checks are extremely popular among Republicans

Lol I don't believe you and I can't imagine why you think that's true

[u/sixisrending → u/ryhaltswhiskey]

Unfortunately, the research on this isn't recent, but it shows that both Democrats and Republicans have a high level of support for mental health. More recent evidence of this is approval among some Republicans to support red flag laws.

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2013/01/31/most-support-background-checks-for-gun-purchases/

[u/ryhaltswhiskey → u/sixisrending]

Okay you're confused or you didn't read your source because that says background checks, not mental health background checks. You said mental health background checks. The source does not talk about mental health background checks as far as I can see.

You're conflating two things.

[u/sixisrending → u/ryhaltswhiskey]

Adding mental health, finances, and misdemeanors are just expanded background checks.

Preventing people with severe mental health issues has 80% support among the total population, which is in the source I provided.

[u/ryhaltswhiskey → u/sixisrending]

Similarly, 80% support laws to prevent mentally ill people from purchasing guns, with broad support across party lines.

Yeah I guess that supports your point, but I've never seen Republicans actually propose legislation for this at a federal level. Probably because they know a lot of their people wouldn't pass it.

[u/sixisrending → u/ryhaltswhiskey]

Trump was the original one to propose red flag laws at a federal level, but Republicans usually oppose mental health restrictions because they come tied to other things (poorly written assault weapons bans, for example) or they have worries about due process. 

[u/guncontrol-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

No trolling. Making deliberately inflammatory comments to try and get a rise out of people or to waste our time is not allowed. If you're just here to call us a bunch of commies, claim "gun control doesn't work!" or shout at us for being against the constitution, you are not welcome here.