Originally Posted by petegz28
Aries, I want you to think long and hard about what you said. You want to ban the least used weapon in firearm crimes so you can stop "some" of the deaths with "some" being the minority of such.
At the same time you said handguns were one of the best firearms for home defense. Handguns are also the most easily concealed and most used firearm in firearm related deaths but you aren't wanting to ban those.
So don't you think your desire to ban "assault" weapons is nothing more than symbolic at best as well as largely ineffective?
I had a slow day at work today. I had plenty of time to think long and hard about this, and I have the jotted-on Post-Its in my trash can to prove it.
First of all, I said handguns were better
for home defense than assault weapons. That's not the same as me saying that they were "one of the best". A small but important difference.
To the main point, Congress and the American people would never stand for a handgun (or even just a semi-automatic handgun) ban. You know that, I know that, everyone here knows that. Therefore, in order to reduce the amount of killings with handguns, we have to use other methods - increased penalties for use of a firearm in a crime, closing that no-background-check gun-show loophole, funding buyback programs, limiting magazine sizes, and actually prosecuting the people who deserve it are all good steps. They're kind of outside the scope of this thread.
But because we can't ban the handguns that do all of that damage, we take what we can. As I said (#2 in my earlier post), an assault weapons ban might pass. A statue that might pass, but would do less, is better than one with no chance, that would theoretically do more. Something is better than nothing.
So, no, I don't think that it's only symbolic or largely ineffective.