Since 1966, about 25% of mass shooters used semi automatic firearms to carry out murders, according to a 2022 study by the National Institute of Justice. Most shooters, a full 77%, acquired their weapons legally. In cases involving shootings at K-12 school, 80% of individuals who carried out shootings stole weapons from family members.
Reading this makes a lot of the "assault weapon" rhetoric questionable at best. Also, only one side of the argument is being raised. If you raise a hue and cry about misuse of "Assault weapons" why is nothing said about using them to protect property, families, and others? For example, at least 3 of the mass shootings at churches were halted by armed citizens with an AR15. In those cases, possibly dozens of people were saved and are alive today because of the responsible use of an AR15. Why has nothing been said in the discussions about this?
In the Watts riots, the only businesses that were left unburned were protected by owners armed with AR15s and similar semi-auto rifles. In fact, historically, citizens armed with AR15 and similar weapons have back off Federal marshalls from illegally seizing a farmers cattle, prevented home invasions, stopped rioters in their tracks preventing them from destroying property and possibly lives in these incidents, most of these incidents also involved making criminals back off without actually having to shoot them. None of this is mentioned in the "assault weapon" rhetoric. Factual discussion is not the forte of the people who want to disarm Americans.
The real motivation for "gun control" is and historically has been people control, not gun control. Even Obama admitted that "people who are armed are difficult to control and restrain. Unarmed people are less of a threat to law enforcement". Obama's damage control team backpeddaled on this really fast, but you can't unsay something like that. The First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech, religion and the right to petition the government for redress. When the government wants you to not do that, they have to force you to "behave" much like the Brits tried to do while we were Colonials. The rights enumerated in the First Amendment are literally dependent on the rights enumerated in the Second
But, but, but.. what about the "children" or whomever was shot in the latest criminal action by a mentally ill person whose right to commit those criminal actions is protected far more than the rights of the victims to be free from harm, which harkens back to the Second Amendment again. Armed citizens are literally the answer to criminals. It is the lack of armed and trained citizens at the sites of these shootings that is the cause of mass deaths, not the "epidemic of assault weapons". Although you wouldn't know it to listen to mainstream media, every time a citizens exercises hie 2nd amendment rights, lives are saved, not lost.
Apparently liberals really don't care all that much about the loss of young lives. Sure they use them to push an agenda, but not really to save kids from harm. Why are government buildings, Courthouses, politicians and "important" people protected by people with guns? Because armed people who ar trained are the very best way to protect the vulnerable. Unfortunately, the Left doesn't want that kind of protection for kids, mainly because they only care about their agenda, not the kids. If teachers were armed and trained, they could do a lot more than just lodk the door to protect their kids, and the Left/ anti-gun crowd certainly don't want that, no do they?
Instead, they ignore the lessons from the "War on Drugs", which we lost, badly, and like any deranged person, keep doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results. There is one reason why courthouses don't have mass shootings like schools and other "gun free" zones do. The only guns in a gun free zone are the ones carried by the crazy and the criminal. The bad guys will ALWAYS have and get more guns, they aways have, they aways will. After Decades of the war on drugs, law enforcement members admit they cannot keep drugs off the streets, no matter how they try or what they do. It is exactly the same with guns. Gangs and other criminal elements will have guns. More gun laws put restrictions only on those who obey the law, exactly the ones you WANT to be armed and trained.
These are factual arguments, historically validated and statistically proven. Japan has literally he strictest gun laws on the planet, yet the minister of justice tasked with investigating Om Shinriki, the cult who use sarin nerve gas to kill people in a subway years ago, was gunned down at a Tokyo street cafe. Seven French police were killed when Islamic terrorists attacked Charlie Hebdo, a satirical political newspaper for "insulting" Islam. France disarmed its people, and they died like flies in a country where guns are illegal because the criminals and terrorists will ALWAYS have guns.
Let that sink in before you blindly drink the Koolaid and support "gun control" pay better attention to what you are really supporting. Think, don't follow blindly what the liberals broadcast. Read about Germany in the 1930 post Reichstag fire. You will see the similarities between the Nazis and today's Left. Those who fail to understand history are doomed to repeat it.
