- Sep 2017
I support an outright ban on individual ownership of a number of arms -- various chemical, nuclear, and biological arms, for starters, as well as certain anti-aircraft weapons, howitzers, bombs, landmines, etc. As for firearms, in particular, I can see value in banning new purchases/transfers of weapons that are particularly useful for causing mass havoc. However, I wouldn't focus on aesthetic difference, the way some gun-control measures have in the past (e.g., I don't care if it looks like a "military style" weapon or a hunting weapon, the question is functional capability). So, if I were to come up with those rules, they'd be based around the functional output of the weapons. The main features that make a firearm useful for mass havoc are (1) the number of rounds it can put out in a given time period by a competent user, and (2) the amount of energy each of those rounds imparts (a combination of caliber and muzzle speed, which goes to the question of how deadly each shot is likely to be if it hits). Bans designed to limit how many rounds a nut job can churn out before reloading and how long reloading takes might well cut down on the body count in mass shootings. And such limits aren't going to mean anything with regard to how useful firearms are in practical hunting and self-defense scenarios.As much as I’d like to delve in to those individually, I’d rather stick closer to the intent of my topic. So I will ask...do you support banning any other types of firearms? Like “assault weapons.” Or do you take the same approach? I’m more looking for thought process if you are wondering on intent.