Argumentative Essay: The Use Of Assault Weapons In America

Tashfeen Malik and Syed Rizwan Farook killed fourteen and wounded twenty in San Bernardino; Adam Lanza killed twenty-seven and wounded two in Newtown; and Omar Mir Seddique Mateen killed forty-nine and wounded fifty-three in Orlando. These mass shooters all have one thing in common: the use of assault weapons in their crimes. (Ingraham, 2016). Despite the loss of life, there remains little restriction on who can own assault weapons and buy ammunition in America. There is also no set definition of assault weapons, however for the sake of this argument I will use the definition provided by “Assault Weapons” from the info base: “considered to be a semiautomatic weapon with a detachable ammunition magazine and some type of advanced feature typically used in military-grade weapons. A semiautomatic weapon is one that automatically loads the next round

An article in the National Journal dispels the belief that improving mental health treatment will combat mass shootings. It states that multiple of the mass shooters in America had “no contact with the mental-health system” (Sanger-Katz, 2013). It is also states that statistics show that violent crimes are not often committed by the mentally ill. The belief by opponents is that because guns require something or someone to trigger them, they cannot kill on their own and the answer is not to limit the access to them. Because that would limit “the good guys” from owning them also. They propose to instead focus on treatment for the mentally ill. That is like saying cars do not kill people, mentally ill people operating them do; so limiting those who drive, where they drive, what they drive and how they drive is pointless. It does not make sense to allow almost anyone to buy assault weapons without restrictions. Everything needs limits, including constitutional rights; and the fix for tragedies does not lie solely in mental health