Meghan Frisch

Professor Frances McCue

Honors 205
31 October 2016

Its Time to Ban Semi-Automatic Weapons in America

The ever increasing number of mass shootings across America is a tragedy, one that is
created by the barrel of assault-style rifles in the hands of violent, and often mentally unstable,
people. These weapons can fire dozens of rounds in seconds, and are modeled after military
grade-guns. These firearms are designed to kill. Yet, somehow, we have allowed them to become
incredibly easy to obtain.
The Second Amendment right to bear arms was ratified in 1791, and was originally
written for protection and militia. At this time, guns consisted of flint-lock muskets and rifles,
which could shoot one bullet approximately every 20 seconds. Over time, the need for militia has
faded and the advancement of firearms has increased exponentially. Around 1885, the first
semi-automatic rifle was introduced, shooting once every second. Today, we see automatic guns
that can shoot up to 600 rounds per minute, and even semi-automatic models that can shoot as
fast as your finger can trigger the weapon.
The 49 people killed and 53 wounded at the Orlando Night Club, the 14 killed and 22
wounded in San Bernardino, the 12 killed and 70 wounded at the Aurora Movie Theater, the 26
killed (20 of whom were children) at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Connecticut, were all
killings by the hands of shooters with a semi-automatic firearm as their weapon of choice.

Frisch 2
Semi-automatic weapons allow for this large scale murder to occur. If these guns were banned,
the mass destruction of these events would be greatly diminished.
Nevertheless, firearm advocates continue to view semi-automatics as no more dangerous
than any other gun. One argument is that the government has set up a ploy to make the public
afraid of semi-automatic weapons in order to create public support for gun control. But how
would one explain the dozens of fatal mass shootings across America that were executed with
the use of a semi-automatic firearm? Yes, other guns are dangerous, but a handgun cannot do the
same amount of damage in the same amount of time as a semi-automatic. As Americans, we are
not afraid of semi-automatic firearms because they appear menacing, we are afraid because we
have watched the news and we realize the violent capabilities of this gun if placed into the wrong
hands.
But, regardless of whether the hands are right or wrong, a semi-automatic weapon
possesses the ability to immediately end the lives of dozens of innocent people. The notion that
guns dont kill people, people kill people, is a one dimensional argument, as both the people
and the guns are necessary in the equation for destruction. Therefore, this does not counter the
argument that guns are dangerous because without the gun, a shooting could not happen. This
notion makes it easy to assume that it is not the guns that should be controlled but the people that
are holding them. However, this implementation would require effective background checks
across the market, closing loopholes for citizens and criminals to acquire a gun without a check,
thereby increasing gun control in the US. This argument for stagnant gun regulation indirectly
implies the implementation of gun control, deeming it both insignificant and hypocritical.

Frisch 3
The appeal of the semi-automatic weapon resides in its aura of strength and power. These
weapons represent a significant technological innovation that has expanded the abilities and
prestige of the firearm industry. Advertisements for the AR-15 play into mens insecurities using
slogans like Consider your man card reissued, and Attention politicians: over 5,000,000 sold.
The worlds largest army aint in China. These ads build up mens confidence in themselves
and their battalion of peers. Based on these campaigns for AR-15s, the target market for
AR-15s is men looking for a way to be seen as more macho rather than men and women
looking for a practical weapon to keep themselves safe. Which brings me to the question: Why
would we allow dangerous weapons to inhabit our homes when a pistol or shotgun could serve
the same purpose of protection?
Perhaps because of our American addiction to innovation and our endless pursuit of the
new iPhone, the new car, and the new fashion statements. Perceived obsolescence has spread
throughout the country which, in turn, makes us want to purchase the big, flashy, and powerful
weapons. We are a materialistic society that views our belongings as depictions of our
self-worth, and without innovation, how would we know our social standing? As technology
innovates, we cannot control our inherent desire to experience the new and improved. We
believe that this is somehow a right of ours, and that if someone takes it away, one of our
American freedoms has been violated; trying out the newest firearm has become a right to us,
rather than a privilege. In order to justify our materialism, we pretend the right to bear arms
entitles us to the purchase of every new semi-automatic weapon that is manufactured. Rather
than arguing for the guns we want, we are actually arguing for our right to purchase them, even
though there would never be a practical reason to use them. We have reached a point where the

Frisch 4
gun is irrelevant, as long as we are able to buy it. Thus, if America were to ban semi-automatic
weapons or even speak of a ban, protests of an infringement on our right to bear arms would
ensue.
In 1994, President Bill Clinton attempted to ban semi-automatic weapon manufacturing,
but this law expired in 2004 due to a lack of renewal by Congress. If we were to have a ban
today, as Americans, we would argue that the first time we banned semi-automatic weapons in
our country, it did not make a difference in the usage of such guns. However, the 1994 ban only
prohibited the manufacturing of semi-automatics for citizen use and limited the volume of
high-capacity magazines. Citizens who had owned a semi-automatic before the ban was put in
place were grandfathered in and could still use their firearm and sell it if they so desired. The
guns were not completely eradicated, so the ban did not solve the problem of semi-automatic
crime. Manufacturers could also alter semi-automatic weapons to fit the restrictions of the law,
creating an assault weapon that was not legally defined as such. To achieve substantial results
that would reduce the severity of mass shootings, we must remove this destructive weapon from
our market and our homes.
Take Australia as an example: In 1996 they enacted a ban of semi-automatic weapons,
banning both the manufacturing of these weapons, but also buying out owners across the
country. The result was 10 plus years without a deadly mass shooting, compared to the USs 21
plus mass shootings in the last 10 years alone. Yes, this action would be a big check to write, but
it would save thousands of lives. While many believe restriction of semi-automatic weapons in
America would begin the slippery slope to mass confiscation and the eradication of our second
amendment right, politicians like President Barack Obama who have pushed for gun control have

Frisch 5
specified that they are not against the second amendment. Restriction of one type of firearm does
not imply the confiscation of the rest.
If you are worried that I am suggesting that the government confiscate your weapons,
stop. Confiscating your firearms would be a blatant infringement on your right to bear arms and
would therefore be unconstitutional. I am, however, suggesting that there should be a secure,
regulated location outside of the home for the use and storage of semi-automatic weapons. This
would provide a secure environment for us to test out new weapons and satiate our materialistic
curiosities, where law-abiding citizens could use and experience these guns without endangering
others.
A ban on semi-automatic weapons would not have to make your life more difficult. To
make the transition as comfortable as possible, the ban should be implemented with a grace
period. This grace period would allow semi-automatic gun owners to either sell their weapons to
the government, or put their guns into regulated facilities for storage and use, while
manufacturers shut down production of semi-automatic weapons. Only after this period of time,
would it become illegal to manufacture semi-automatics and house semi-automatic weapons
outside of these regulated facilities. The weapon would not be confiscated unless it were to be
found on a property without the proper license.
Throw away the materialistic and ignorant notion that this incredibly dangerous weapon
is necessary for your protection. Semi-automatic weapons are designed to kill. They are not
designed to protect, they are not designed to hunt; there are better and more practical guns suited
to those tasks. Removing semi-automatic weapons from the streets would greatly reduce the

Frisch 6
severity, if not entirely prevent, mass shootings. A ban on semi-automatic weapons would
indisputably make our communities safer.