At the beginning of my law enforcement career, dead center of an “Assault Weapon” ban, I didn’t understand the issue with my access to things non-LE couldn’t obtain legally. It was unfair, but a perk of the job. I didn’t consider what that meant for people who were not me.
As I matured I began to better understand what rights are. We all have a right to our life – we have the right to defend that life. In the wild it is survival of the fittest- we don’t live (well most of us) in the wild. In normal conditions, normal people don’t kill each other in normal interactions for food. What about when we deal with abnormal people (like wild animals) in abnormal conditions? What if we are discussing violent people who don’t adhere to our accepted codes of conduct and law? We do have the police, but they are at a minimum minutes away. Do we allow the violent criminal to rape and kill family members or ourselves because they want to? They already know rape and murder is illegal and don’t seem to care. A gun ban would not have stopped this violence- what that ban would do is limit the options of the law abiding citizen to use to defend themselves and their family.
Restrictions and bans in most cases are not eliminating the “offensive” weapons from ownership, they are just restricting them from law abiding citizens. Cops will still have them, criminals will still have them, but the people who need these weapons most will be without. I have yet to read or hear a thoughtful response from someone intimately knowledgeable with firearms that pushes any form of gun control. Every professional successful firearms instructor, and every skilled and knowledgeable firearms user I know does not see any positive outcome from these bans- why? Because these restrictions can not do what the masses who don’t know about firearms or violence think they wll do. We have laws that cover every undesirable action possible, to include laws governing things that negatively affect no one. Law enforcement type weapons happen to be some optimal choices for personal and home defense. There is no reason for them to be restricted. I want people to have optimal – I want them to live and have the ability to defend themselves and their families. If your response to this idea includes and eyeroll and some snide remark to this – you don’t understand violence or firearms and you shouldn’t be making decisions for others regarding their self defense options.
Remember when barrel shrouds were banned? Barrel shrouds do nothing for the lethality of a weapon, but they were made illegal by clueless politicians preying on clueless masses to make an emotional vote.
Don’t vote with ignorant emotion. If you don’t understand violence or weapons, you probably shouldn’t be speaking or voting about it – that especially applies to all the clueless politicians who get 24 hour armed security- even in ban states.