Some people (including Marco Rubio) say that we can’t ban assault rifles because we can’t define them. But there was a ban from 1994 to 2004, when the law lapsed. So evidently lawmakers in 1994 did manage to figure out how to define what they were banning. Furthermore, I gather that after the ban lapsed there was an increase in the number of mass shootings. The ban did not, however, have an effect on other kinds of gun violence. That’s not surprising, since most ordinary gun violence probably involves pistols. There are various sorts of gun violence, and therefore there is no single solution. But a ban on assault rifles would be a start. And it’s clear that the courts would allow it. What possible justification can there be to allowing people to have these weapons? (And I will ignore all the nit-picking responses about "Oh, but that’s not an assault weapon. Read the first three sentences again.)
Some people (including Marco Rubio) say that we can’t ban assault rifles because we can’t define them. But there was a ban from 1994 to 2004, when the law lapsed. So evidently lawmakers in 1994 did manage to figure out how to define what they were banning. Furthermore, I gather that after the ban lapsed there was an increase in the number of mass shootings. The ban did not, however, have an effect on other kinds of gun violence. That’s not surprising, since most ordinary gun violence probably involves pistols. There are various sorts of gun violence, and therefore there is no single solution. But a ban on assault rifles would be a start. And it’s clear that the courts would allow it. What possible justification can there be to allowing people to have these weapons? (And I will ignore all the nit-picking responses about "Oh, but that’s not an assault weapon. Read the first three sentences again.)