Argument Essay on "Assault Weapons" Ban
Congress had approved an "assault weapons" ban bill. Which will expire on September 2004 if the president does not sign it. Us pro gun groups will not let this bill even hit the president's desk for him to sign it. This ban is wrong. Despite the claim by former presidents "that this is a matter of vital importance to the public safety." There is little reason to believe that banning these weapons will have any affect on violent crime.
Suppose a lobby group wants congress to ban "death cars." They are a little unclear about what exactly "death cars" are, but the vehicles seem to share certain characteristics including red paint and speedometers that go above 100mph. These cars are said to be the special vehicles of speeders and drunk drivers and they are supposedly considered to cause accidents that kill as many people as possible.
Supporters of the ban cannot back up their claims with explanations, but they can provide the shocking details of crashes involving "death cars."
The logic behind the "assault weapons" ban is hardly more forceful then the case against "death cars." The legislation's success says more about the point of disapproval for the Second Amendment than it does about the strong point of arguments for the ban.
The "assault weapons" ban forbids making or importing ammunition clips holding more then 10 rounds and semi-automatic firearms that accept such clips and have two or more of these features folding stock, pistol grip, bayonet mount, threaded barrel for a flash suppressor, grenade launch mount or even a barrel shroud. The law bans 19 firearms by name, but it covers a total of 184 current models as well as any new guns that fit the description. Even though the scary...