I heard that from a probably well-intentioned liberal woman today.
I'm sure she believes it.
The problem is, it's utterly untrue.
She probably means the AR-15, "popularly" used in a couple of high profile shootings, and falsely claimed for several others where the gun was "close enough" to an AR-15.
The AR-15 went on civilian sale in 1963. That's 55 years ago.┬á When did it suddenly become a problem?
The AR-15 is based on the AR-10. That came out in 1955.
There are literally hundreds of rifles (yes, that get used for hunting) derived from those designs.
The AK-47 predates both, to 1947.
The first semiauto rifle dates from 1885.
They all function in variations of the same mechanical process.
So you really can't ban "one."
In 1934, the National Firearm Act required certain weapons--machine guns, short barreled weapons, "silencers"(which aren't actually a weapon), and "destructive devices" to be registered, taxed insanely and accompanied by papers everywhere.
In 1986, the "Firearm Owners Protection Act" banned new machine guns.┬á Yes, you read that right.┬á That's like having a "Car Drivers Protection Act" that bans sports cars.
So, there are already banned guns.
Moving back, I'm particularly enamored of the Soviet SVT-38 rifle, from 80 years ago. Were your parents even alive then?
Now, if I lived in Canada, I could just buy one.┬á Yes, in Canada. With all its "reasonable gun control."┬á I could buy one.
In the US, I can only buy those that came into the country before a certain date. New importation is banned.
I can list hundreds of guns I can't get in the US that civilians in other countries can get.
So, even if you're being honest, you can't ban "one."┬á And the claim fails because hundreds of guns have already been banned.
And given that precedent, there is no reason for me to believe that if I just agree to letting you ban one more that somehow all our problems will be solved. In fact, every time something is banned, your side comes back and insists we have to ban yet something else to fix a "loophole."
We've "only banned one gun" a thousand times, and you and I seem to agree that it hasn't worked.
Now, let's do a comparison:
Let's say we banned ownership of Corvettes to "cut down on drunk driving deaths," because "no one needs a car that does three times the speed limit."
And then there was a drunk driving death with a Ferrari, so we ban those, too.
And then the Dodge Viper.
And then the Lamborghinis.
Meanwhile, up in Chicago, hundreds of people die in drunk driving accidents every day, but those are black people, and they get killed in Toyota Camrys, Chevy Impalas and old Ford Tauruses, which are "normal" cars.
Then tomorrow there's a high profile crash with a Lotus.
And you say, "We need to ban Lotuses to save lives.┬á It's only one car."
Would you really be surprised when I first stare at you, then tell you to grow up and learn something about the subject before you start opining?
It's not the cars.
It's not the guns.
Next I heard, "All we want is age limits and background checks. It's 'common sense.'"
Per Federal law, you have to be 18 to buy a rifle or shotgun. That is an age limit. It's the same age limit as for marriage, legal contracting, military service, employment and several other things.
Outrageously, while 18 year olds can carry pistols in the military and in police service, they have to be 21 to buy their own. But, as outrageous and immoral as that is, it's an age limit.
When one does buy a gun from a dealer, even at a gun show, one must fill out a BATFE Form 4473. Then, a phone call is made to the FBI to verify if this person, at this address, with this Social Security Number, is eligible.
That's a background check.
Now, if you're admitting you don't think the age limits are doing anything, I agree with you.
And if you don't think the background checks are working, I agree with you.
But my solution isn't, "Keep trying the same thing but harder, until it works." That's like drinking until you're sober, or smashing your hand with a hammer until it stops hurting. When I see something isn't working, I STOP DOING IT.
And this is why we can't have a discussion on the subject.┬á You're so ignorant of the matter you're not even wrong.
Did you see any of the debate around the recent "cut up your AR-15" fad?
To summarize:┬á There is a specific, legal way to destroy an AR-15. There is a specific, legal way to destroy an AK-47.┬á In fact, every firearm out there has a specific, ATF-approved way of destroying it.┬á The people who just chopped them in the middle:
FIRST, did not actually render the weapon inoperable. And if you don't know enough about guns to do that, then I'm probably glad you got rid of yours, though possibly selling it to someone more competent would be a better choice.
SECOND, they committed a felony by chopping the barrels short, per the National Firearms Act of 1934.┬á "Intent" does not matter.┬á Creating the felonious weapon is a crime.┬á If you then make a few more cuts, or hand it to the police, you have not destroyed the weapon in the approved manner, and that is a SECOND felony.
Do you grasp that? The gun control laws we already have make it illegal to even destroy your own gun in the wrong way.
Does it sound like more laws will make things any better?
Please. Do some research. It will require going to "gun nut" sites and the ATF's website, to find sources that actually understand the subject. And even on the "gun nut" sites, there will be errors, because the law is THAT complicated, incoherent, contradictory, outdated, obscure and specific all at the same time that compliance is a minefield even for people who want to comply and learn about it.
The danger you face is that by learning about the subject, you may come to agree that most of these laws serve zero purpose and only make matters worse.
Either way, once you have an idea what laws are out there, we can have that "Discussion" you want, rather than you demanding we do things that are already the law, or have already failed, or both.