There is clear disagreement as to what, if any, changes are needed related to gun control in the US. Without taking a position I thought is would be good to look at some of the key issues/questions related to gun control.ALL GUNS ARE VERY LETHAL
Simplistically, the relevant types of guns being discussed are: assault weapon, AR15, hunting rifle, hand gun, flintlock. Assault weapons historically referred to the weapons used by soldiers which today would have one key differentiating characteristic: automatic fire. Automatic fire means that the gun will repeatedly and rapidly shoot, 12+ rounds per second, with just one constant pull of the trigger. The most common rifle owned today in the USA and one surrounded by controversy is the AR15. AR15s physically resemble assault rifles, fire a similar high velocity bullet BUT have a key difference; semiautomatic fire. Semiautomatic guns shoot once with each pull of the trigger and can fire as rapidly as one can pull the trigger which might be as much as 3 times per second. Hunting rifles also fire high velocity bullets and can be semiautomatic or bolt action. Bolt action guns require the shooter to physically handle the bolt to reload the gun and can fire as much as 1 round per second. Hand guns typically fire lower velocity bullets and for the most part are semiautomatic with a small number of revolvers. Revolvers can fire with each pull of the trigger, maybe up to 2 times per second, but due to a different mechanism are not considered semiautomatic. For comparison, flintlocks, the typical guns at the time of the constitution fired a bullet with a bullet velocity similar to a handgun and could fire 1 times per 20 seconds. ,
It should be noted that it would be extremely difficult to shoot semiautomatic guns accurately on target at the maximum rate and difficult to shoot automatic guns accurately on target.
MOST GUN HOMICIDES ARE FROM HANDGUNS, NOT AR15's
"ASSAULT WEAPON" BAN HAD NO MEASURABLE EFFECT ON GUN HOMICIDES
In 1994, The Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act was passed that banned some semiautomatic weapons, including AR15s, but at the same time did not ban other semiautomatic weapons with the same power and rate of fire as the AR15 such as the Mini14. This law expired in 2004. As automatic weapons were already and remain restricted, the name of Assault Weapons Ban often referred to when referencing this law can be confusing.
CHATGPT: List the official studies and reports on the assault weapons ban and summarize the conclusions.
There have been several official studies and reports on the assault weapons ban in the United States. The following is a summary of some of the major studies and their conclusions:
National Institute of Justice (NIJ) Report (1997): This report analyzed the effectiveness of the 1994 federal assault weapons ban. The report found that the ban had little to no impact on gun crime rates, likely due to the fact that assault weapons were rarely used in crimes to begin with. The report did find some evidence that the ban reduced the lethality of mass shootings.
Congressional Research Service (CRS) Report (2004): This report analyzed the expiration of the 1994 federal assault weapons ban. The report found that it was difficult to determine the impact of the ban on crime rates due to a lack of data. The report did note that assault weapons were used in a small percentage of gun crimes.
National Research Council (NRC) Report (2004): This report analyzed the effectiveness of various gun control measures, including the assault weapons ban. The report found that there was limited evidence to support the effectiveness of the ban, although it did note that it may have reduced the use of some specific types of firearms in crimes.
RAND Corporation Report (2018): This report analyzed the effectiveness of various gun control measures, including the assault weapons ban. The report found that there was limited evidence to support the effectiveness of the ban, although it did note that the ban may have reduced the number of mass shootings and the lethality of such shootings.
Overall, the official studies and reports on the assault weapons ban suggest that while the ban may have had some limited effectiveness in reducing certain types of gun violence, its overall impact on crime rates was difficult to determine and may have been minimal.
2ND AMENDMENTS's RIGHT TO A GUN (for MILITIA PURPOSES)
2nd Amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
It is clear that at a minimum the Constitution grants people the right to keep and bear arms, e.g. own a gun, in order to be available to participate in a militia.
CHATGPT: What were the justifications for the Constitution allowing a militia.
The justifications for including this provision in the Constitution were varied. One major reason was to ensure that the new nation could defend itself against external threats, as well as protect its citizens from internal threats such as insurrections and uprisings.
Additionally, many of the Founding Fathers believed that a well-regulated militia would serve as a safeguard against tyranny. They feared that a standing army could be used by a powerful central government to oppress the people, and they believed that the militia, composed of ordinary citizens, would be more likely to resist such oppression.
Furthermore, the right to bear arms was seen as an important individual right that could be used for self-defense and hunting, as well as for participation in the militia.
Overall, the inclusion of the militia provision in the Constitution reflected the Founding Fathers' belief in the importance of individual liberty and the need for citizens to be able to defend themselves and their country.
CITIZENS CAN OWN AR15
One of the purposes of a Militia, where individuals have the right to keep and bear arms to participate in the militia, was to defend from tyranny of government. As a consequence it is reasonable to accept that the type of arm would include arms comparable to the potential government arms. This would include AR15's.
Why not automatic weapons? there are at least two reasons. First, SCOTUS has ruled that automatic weapons can be restricted balancing the right to bear arms and public safety. second, there is only marginal difference between automatic arms and semi-aromatic arms.
Why not F15's or nuclear bombs? The argument that if the 2nd Amendment allows arms it allows F15s or nuclear bombs is intellectually dishonest for two reasons. First is the clear language. The 2nd amendment specifically refers to arms and not ordnance. At the time there was essentially arms (guns) and ordnance (cannons.) The Framers did not grant the right to keep and bear ordnance. Second is the balance between the right and public safety. The world has seen where armies armed with limited weapons have stood up to or even defeated much stronger armies where having the basic weapon is enough to gain support or time.
Some make an argument that the constitution only allows the guns typical at the time of ratification: i.e. flintlocks. There is no reasonable intellectually honest argument that can justify this position.
RIGHT OF SELF DEFENSE
While it seems clear that throughout the world and most of recent history most societies recognize an individuals right to self defense, it is only in the US where this right has developed to include the right to own a gun. However, given that the US is unique in individual's having the right to own a gun for the purposes of participating in a potential militia, the US is unique with widespread ownership of guns and, as a result, it is reasonable that having a gun for self defense is justified. In 2004 SCOTUS made this ruling clear.
CHATGPT: What are the arguments that a US citizen has a right to self defense?
The right to self-defense is recognized as a fundamental right in the United States, and it is protected by the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The Second Amendment states that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." This has been interpreted to mean that individuals have the right to possess firearms for the purpose of self-defense.
In addition to the Second Amendment, many states have "Stand Your Ground" or "Castle Doctrine" laws that allow individuals to use deadly force to defend themselves if they believe they are in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm. These laws generally remove the duty to retreat before using deadly force and provide legal protection to individuals who use such force in self-defense.
Moreover, the right to self-defense is considered a natural right that predates any government or constitution. This right is recognized not only in the U.S. but also in international law and is considered a basic human right.
Overall, the argument for the right to self-defense is based on the notion that individuals have the inherent right to protect themselves and their loved ones from harm and that this right should be protected by law.
SIGNIFICANT CHANGES TO GUN CONTROL REQUIRE AMENDING CONSTITUTION
