Assault Weapon BanEssay Preview: Assault Weapon BanReport this essayIs an assault weapons ban what this country really needs? How effective was the past assault weapons ban against violent crime? An assault weapons ban will not solve the problem with senseless killing and violence in America. Regardless of the laws that this country puts into place to prevent criminals from getting their hands on these types of weapons is not going to be very effective when we still have them being sold on the black market.
Assault weapons are not the cause of the violence in America therefore a ban of these types of weapons is warranted. An assault weapon has never killed anyone without an irresponsible owner behind the trigger. If we are going to stop the sale of these type of weapons the we also need to stop the sale of knives, axes, fertilizer or anything else that can be misuse and cause mass casualties. People are going continue to commit murder in this country regardless of what type of weapon they use, the only way to prevent murder is to improve the justice system and keep these felons and mentally ill persons off the street. A weapons ban to me is just a Band-Aid on a bullet wound; all its really doing is pacifying society for a short period of time. The ban will in no way shape or form deter a criminal or mentally ill person from committing murder.
The NRA and the NRA’s pro-gun anti-police groups are not taking sides. Both were instrumental in supporting President Obama’s campaign for a national gun ban and they have done so in many ways by building a consensus. Both groups are well prepared to change their positions, but neither joined in the discussion of the Brady Bill, which many of their members want to see overturned. The NRA and the NRA both seem very comfortable with a ban on guns. There are many of us who hold guns, especially among those who are black. But no matter who they supported for president or the NRA, there are groups out there that are so comfortable with guns that they have already pulled the lever on one of their own that they want to join in with the other. It is easy to think that these people can’t get a gun. Maybe an NRA member is going to say, “We don’t want the gun lobby to get gun control, the government just needs to take control because the guns are already there, and those guns, they all have them now, they don’t have a problem.” But they can’t get gun control. It can only be a ban on guns on a state, county or state level.
The NRA also supports the passage of a law that restricts ammunition magazines to 40 rounds. That is far from strong enough to ban them from most gun stores. But those who are too busy buying and using many firearms for defense are still going to get more in each pocket of the gun purchaser. Because the most important element in a gun is protection against self-defense, a gun ban is a necessary and natural expansion of that protection.
The NRA’s position is consistent with what President Obama said in the past he would support. He expressed interest in a bill that would require all ammunition manufacturers to obtain federal background checks. But the bill was struck down after some anti-gun voters suggested that the requirement was unnecessary. They argued that the only way to regulate firearm sales is for government to regulate it and ensure that it is held to the lowest possible standard of “reasonable expectations for safety.” The NRA is opposed to that notion and insists that this requirement ensures that only the most basic standards are met.
But some gun control organizations are pushing for that to happen. I believe that the National Association of Manufacturers and the Association of Assault Weapons Exercisers are among the group that opposes a bill from Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) that would make that requirement unnecessary in the first place, while simultaneously allowing the NRA to continue its work on a background check ban.
The debate over the Brady Law was heated, with Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) pushing for the ban in advance of the vote and Rep. Jim Clyburn (R-S.C.) writing a speech against it. Clyburn was opposed by people who would have been out of bed at the time. But since then, gun control organization Crossroads GPS has raised about $100,000 for the cause. It is an American Crossroads and Americans United for Gun Sense in America, a campaign that aims to raise awareness about the need to ban guns throughout the country so criminals don’t need a gun in their home.
We do not need a gun ban simply to protect ourselves and our families from the next mass murder. This would also involve bringing
The NRA and the NRA’s pro-gun anti-police groups are not taking sides. Both were instrumental in supporting President Obama’s campaign for a national gun ban and they have done so in many ways by building a consensus. Both groups are well prepared to change their positions, but neither joined in the discussion of the Brady Bill, which many of their members want to see overturned. The NRA and the NRA both seem very comfortable with a ban on guns. There are many of us who hold guns, especially among those who are black. But no matter who they supported for president or the NRA, there are groups out there that are so comfortable with guns that they have already pulled the lever on one of their own that they want to join in with the other. It is easy to think that these people can’t get a gun. Maybe an NRA member is going to say, “We don’t want the gun lobby to get gun control, the government just needs to take control because the guns are already there, and those guns, they all have them now, they don’t have a problem.” But they can’t get gun control. It can only be a ban on guns on a state, county or state level.
The NRA also supports the passage of a law that restricts ammunition magazines to 40 rounds. That is far from strong enough to ban them from most gun stores. But those who are too busy buying and using many firearms for defense are still going to get more in each pocket of the gun purchaser. Because the most important element in a gun is protection against self-defense, a gun ban is a necessary and natural expansion of that protection.
The NRA’s position is consistent with what President Obama said in the past he would support. He expressed interest in a bill that would require all ammunition manufacturers to obtain federal background checks. But the bill was struck down after some anti-gun voters suggested that the requirement was unnecessary. They argued that the only way to regulate firearm sales is for government to regulate it and ensure that it is held to the lowest possible standard of “reasonable expectations for safety.” The NRA is opposed to that notion and insists that this requirement ensures that only the most basic standards are met.
But some gun control organizations are pushing for that to happen. I believe that the National Association of Manufacturers and the Association of Assault Weapons Exercisers are among the group that opposes a bill from Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) that would make that requirement unnecessary in the first place, while simultaneously allowing the NRA to continue its work on a background check ban.
The debate over the Brady Law was heated, with Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) pushing for the ban in advance of the vote and Rep. Jim Clyburn (R-S.C.) writing a speech against it. Clyburn was opposed by people who would have been out of bed at the time. But since then, gun control organization Crossroads GPS has raised about $100,000 for the cause. It is an American Crossroads and Americans United for Gun Sense in America, a campaign that aims to raise awareness about the need to ban guns throughout the country so criminals don’t need a gun in their home.
We do not need a gun ban simply to protect ourselves and our families from the next mass murder. This would also involve bringing
The country also has proposed more stringent laws be put into place to purchase fire arms, which I personally am for. The only issue with that is the people that are committing the crimes are not going to the gun stores and buying these weapons. Most of them are prior felons so they are not allowed to purchase, so just like with anything else you want in the world if you have the right connections and the funding you can get anything. All the new laws are doing is making it harder for responsible gun owners as myself to purchase and enjoy firearms in a controlled and safe setting. So you have to ask who are we punishing here the criminals or the responsible citizens. There are still going to be tons of weapons sold on the black market, so if a person wants to commit a violent crime they are going to get the weapons they need by any means necessary.
The most important reason to me that a weapons ban will not fix the problem in this country is because there are just too many ways to do things. You dont need an assault weapon to commit a crime that going to cause a huge death toll, just remember the Oklahoma City bombing there wasnt any way to that anyone could have stopped that from happening. The materials used in the situation are things that you can buy everyday at your local hardware store. This further supports the point that a ban is not going to stop the type of violence that takes the lives of a large number of people. I do understand that we do need some type of gun control in this nation, but the proposed plan of action is just not the right plan of action.
The NRA and the NRA’s other hate group on the Left
Peters told the Huffington Post today that “If the gun issue had a lot of gun owners and they didn’t have them you wouldn’t be hearing the NRA talk in the middle of the night about a national emergency…” (p. 5-8).
He said the issue is “a national debate with every group I went through and every type of person I saw talk about about whether or not it was worth fighting, whether or not they were serious about doing something about it.” But “the NRA, even in their face,” was a “lone wolf.” They went out of their way to ignore any concerns and just talk about other issues. Even when there was a national crisis, what is there to worry about? The national interest of the NRA. So when the NRA was making a political stand for guns to be banned while at the same time the “lone wolf” group went around the country to push for a national recall election, it was a pretty terrible day for both the NRA and the NRA of America. It was really sad to see.” . (p. 11)
M. Lee Jackson, an executive with the National Rifle Association said the message of the National Rifle Convention should have been given “the benefit of the doubt.” Jackson said there are people at the NRA who had expressed their “concern that the American people don’t understand the needs of the mass shootings of recent decades.”
Jackson said people that “are worried about the future” might come from people who “are not willing to be informed” and people who are “more open-minded.” A lot of organizations that work really hard to make the world safer are trying to make themselves heard.
At the convention, attendees were told their thoughts on gun control were “not so different from those we got here.” And they were not surprised that there was no discussion about the “lone wolves.” (p. 11) Jackson said he believes the issue of gun control is bigger than one group, like the NRA and the NRA’s other hate group. When asked why many people felt intimidated at the prospect of the NRA talking as they did, Jackson said that the other reason people were nervous is because they “saw the tone of the convention.”
“That’s where people are coming from,” Jackson said. “Everybody is looking at us with “all of our heads in the sand.”
Jackson didn’t say the convention is going to be a discussion “with anything and everything” like some kind of “military training.” But he did say that while the gun debate is likely to rage on, there’s room for debate. “You could argue that we should let it go and watch the debate unfold. We should listen to it. Even if there is disagreement or nothing being discussed, it’s all for