That doesn’t answer the question. Why should It even be on the market? And saying guns cannot kill is ridiculous. If the guys who did all the mass shootings had to re-load all the time or had six bullets we wouldn’t have mass shootings
Oh Trump has you right where he wants you… Be afraid be afraid be afraid be afraid. Nobody wants to ban private ownership. How many more mass shootings there have to be to out some controls in guns.
And, yet, another one without knowledge of firearms educated by the anti gun media. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1525107116674926 Common myth strikes again along with a conclusion fueled by ignorance. After you digest the article, come back and try to make the case that if only 6 shot revolvers were allowed, we’d have no mass shootings and we can shatter that wish as well.
The argument above fails when it is pointed out that firearms registration in these specific states is mandatory, meaning failure to do so is a crime, specifically a felony offense. These states are not mandating you protect your property in the event of needing to file a stolen property report with law enforcement. Firearms do not need to be registered with state governments to achieve such a goal of protecting the legal owner from mechanical defect. There are only two ways for states to not be in possession of such data with regards to firearms, whether they are registered or not. The first is that they have failed to actually find the firearms being used in the commission of crimes, thus meaning law enforcement is incompetent at doing its job. The second is that the serial number itself has been obliterated and the firearm is thus rendered impossible to trace. Those are the only two options available for the data not being available.
There are no guns on the market that can kill "dozens in seconds", unless you count an awful lot of seconds. Box magazine fed rifles have been "on the market" for civilians since 1905, alomost 40 years before the US military adopted one. The AR-15 had been for sale and used by civilians for 48 years before one was used in a mass shooting. Since their introduction in 1964, deaths from AR-15s in mass shootings average 5 deaths per year; there are more homicides from knives, blunt weapons, shotguns, bare hands and water every year.
Nothing - it's not mine any more. Point is, I -don't- need to register my guns wit the state to prove they are mine, and thus, doing so does nothing to protect me. It is impossible to soundly argue that it is necessary for the state have on record the owner of each of the >356,000,000 gun in the US.
Is it suitable for any of the traditionally legal purposes of a firearm? Does it fall under the definition of "bearable arm" and the USSC outlined in Heller and the cases that spring from it? Is it made to a sufficient quality that it is safe for the owner/use to use? Yes? Then there's no reason it should not be on the market.
Gun control schemes only serve to enable the mass shooting of defenseless human beings. More Guns = Less Crime
Mass shootings have happened with "assault weapons", semiautomatic rifles not classified as "assault weapons", bolt action rifles, lever action rifles, pistols, revolvers, pump action shotguns, double barrel shotguns, and rimfire rifles and pistols. It's not the weapon type.
We've added 200 million guns to the civilian inventory since 1986 according to ATF records. According to FBI UCR, every category of violent crime has declined since then. We have more guns, we have less crime. http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm