Should Mass Shootings Be Banned

Mass shootings have become a commonality for Americans, and we as a country have become used to the high death toll associated with these tragedies. Killers armed to the teeth seek a highly dense hunting ground to rake in as many kills during their bloodbath. Mass shootings are not uniquely an American problem, but they are uniquely common here. Federal bans, public safety campaigns, and state laws have attempted to attack the mass shooting dilemma. As shootings continue, the issue remains a prevalent debated topic in politics and leaving many dumbfounded on what course of action needs to be taken to save us from the plight we’re in. Extreme anti-gun hardliners issue cries exclaiming weapons are to blame and banning assault rifles would eliminate mass shootings entirely. The predicament is America is extremely well-armed with the assault rifle, so more would need to be done in conjunction with the ban to combat the issue such as a

All a ban can and will do is ban certain rifles with “assault style” modifications which allows multiple loopholes for gun consumers. Piled onto the fact that a ban could only ban the sale of new guns from stores, it wouldn’t resolve seemingly endless amounts of guns in circulation, which would leave “1.5 million assault weapons privately owned in the United States.” That estimate was taken in the early 2000’s, and newer estimates place the amount around 2 million weapons. One of the most deadly features of weapons used in the mass shootings is the large-capacity magazine, and recent estimates say there is, “Nearly 25 million guns equipped with large-capacity magazines,” are currently in the U.S. today. This would effectively render a ban useless as the most deadly weapon available to the U.S. public would still be out and available. Bans are past the point of being useful because they don’t deal with the millions of weapon currently in circulation.