freediver wrote on Jul 5
th, 2016 at 6:46pm:
Suppose there were three types of guns, each involved in 1/3 of gun homicides. Do you think it would make sense to argue that each type of gun should not be banned because it only accounts for a minority of gun deaths?
Note that I am no asking whether you agree with the argument or its conclusion. I am asking you whether it makes sense.
As we saw here we banned the type of gun that caused 1.3% of all firearm deaths from 1980-1995.
Many of those who owned semi autos had other rifles as well so they were still armed after 1996 laws they only had to hand in a certain type of gun.
Our second worst mass shooting was done with a bolt action single shot .22lr which didn't need to be handed in back in 1996.
The FBI data show rifles which include those scary black semi auto ones are responsible for around 300 homicides a year while pistols cause over 6000 homicides, when people call for assault rifle bans do they want to ban the type of gun that causes the least homicides or the most?
When they talk assault rifle bans they show their hoplophobia and ignorance, assault rifles are selective fire between semi auto and full auto, they were never legal in Australia and the registry for owning these has been closed fr a few decades in the USA.