The last thing I'd want to be, or even possibly be seen as is a person who takes a time of absolute sadness and grief in order to push any type of agenda. I, in fact, along with many of you I assume, am completely disgusted by the immediate reaction to insert specific ideology into such an immense tragedy as what we as a country experienced from the recent mass shooting.
I want to preface this post with the clear message that I wish I didn't feel compelled to write this post at a time like this.
I want to make sure it's understood (it won't be) that while I will be sharing my opinion of the media reaction to tragedies like this over the past couple of years, I have no tolerance of any violence and feel nothing but absolute pain, respect, and sadness for the individuals, families, and nation that has been disrupted by any mass killings.
And now let me pose a question related to the title of this post.
What really is the argument against assault rifles?
I am not being facetious or trying to be sarcastic. I would actually like someone to give me an answer. If you feel offended or are scoffing at my question please understand I'm would actually very much appreciate your dialogue and contribution. Please help me understand.
I really want to understand the point of view that seems to be populating the mainstream psyche and is ruthlessly pushed moments after any such tragedy occurs.
I am not a gun owner.
I am not antigun.
I am a pacifist and 100% anti-violence however, which is in my opinion the only way any person should be. After all, why would we need violence if there was no violence in the first place? Of course this is the real world and there are clearly violent people, evil people who need to be stopped, and multiple causes for violence that counteract any notion of a peaceful utopia no matter how hard we wish it to be.
I'll get straight to my point instead of droning on about anything that is going to dance around the subject. "Assault Rifles" - as many are so keen to point out, are clearly designed for the purpose of destroying life. There are hundreds of different kinds, manufactured all over the world.
The argument as I understand it from the most concise opponents of these weapons is that nobody should be able to have them. Nobody needs them for self defense or hunting. They give mass murderers the ability to more easily commit unspeakable acts of violence, and therefore civilians should not have access whatsoever.
Sounds fairly reasonable, but here's the simple reason why it's actually complete bullshit.
If a person is so disturbed that they will plan and follow through with a mass killing of human beings, they would do it with or without an assault rifle.
Does it logistically make it easier for a person with a semi/fully automatic 30+ round assault rifle to engage in a mass killing? Yes. It does.
So let's take the assault rifle out from this situation altogether.
All you have now is a slightly more ambitious plan from a person who was already motivated to destroy the lives of a group of people.
Removing a certain type of gun is a meaningless panacea to a far more complex problem.
If you have a box of matches, and a flame thrower ,in a dry forest, just waiting for a pyromaniac to come in and lay waste to it- taking the flamethrower away is still going to produce the same result for a motivated enough pyromaniac.
Clearly this allegory is not 100% matching and that's why it's an allegory.
Hope you enjoy my shitty, probably incomplete and incompetent, error riddled thoughts about this topic.