The issue is not guns. More people are killed by cars than guns, but we don't ban cars. We don't ban cars because we understand that it is not the car, but the improper use of the car by people that kills people. The same is true about guns. It is the improper use of guns that causes the killing. Look at the cities that have very strict gun laws, cities like Chicago, Washington DC, New York, and others like them. They are all run by Democrats, all have very strict gun laws, most do not allow concealed carry, and they have the highest gun violence and the most gun murders in the country. This is because the good and law abiding citizens cannot have guns to protect themselves and the gangsters have no respect for the law and therefore carry whatever guns they want, and use them offensively against the police, against innocent citizens who are unable to protect themselves, and against each other in gang wars and drug wars. The problem with gun deaths is people, not guns. There are two basic groups that are responsible and we need ways to address these two. One are the criminals and gang members, including radicalized Islamists like the Ft. Hood killer and the Orlando killer, who use guns to intimidate and kill innocent citizens, and the others are the mental cases, like the shooters at Sandy Hook and Virginia Tech. In each case they are anti-American, anti-social, cowards and predators. They include the gang members from Mexico who burn the American flag while waving the Mexican flag at political rallies in American cities. Good and law abiding American citizens are not the problem, regardless who how many or what type of gun they own because they are law abiding and understand the difference between protection and unwarranted assault.

Gun ownership is a constitutional right, and that right was given to us by our founding fathers so we can protect ourselves, from enemies and from a government gone amuck. It is not a limited right or a restricted right. It is a right we have because we are American citizens. It is a defensive right, not an offensive right, and was not given to us so we can go around killing people. In states and cities where people can own guns and carry guns (bear arms), especially where concealed carry is permitted, none of which are run by Democrats, the gun related deaths are significantly lower simply because the gangsters, cowards that they are, know that someone they might want to target might also be carrying, and if they are then it also means they have had professional training in how to use a gun.

Therefore, it is not guns, whatever the type or how many, that is the problem. It is people with criminal intent or those with a deranged mind. As we already know, it is not stricter guns laws that will solve gun violence. It is laws that help us address the kinds of people who should not have guns; criminals and the mentally defective, and we need to find a way to use what we know about people to stop the violence. We knew a lot about the mental state of the Virginia Tech killer, but the medical privacy laws prevented the doctors from communicating this. We now know many people, including the FBI and his co-workers and neighbors, knew there was something going on with the Orlando killer but they did not have a correlation scheme and process in place to correlate the disparate pieces of information on this guy to be able to tell when something was going down. We need better information sharing and processing systems to prevent things like this. No gun laws will accomplish that.

There is a clear legal definition of an assault weapon in the now sunset Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 in no way shape or form is "fully automatic" necessary for a weapon to be defined as an assault weapon. A combination of several features such as detachable high capacity ammunition magazines, belt fed ammunition, a pistol grip, collapsible stock, lugs for or permanent attachment of bayonets or grenade launchers and flash suppressors in various configurations constitute the legal definition of an assault weapon weather semi or fully automatic. This definition is also consistent in many state laws defining assault weapons.

There is a clear legal definition of an assault weapon in the now sunset Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 in no way shape or form is "fully automatic" necessary for a weapon to be defined as an assault weapon. A combination of several features such as detachable high capacity ammunition magazines, belt fed ammunition, a pistol grip, collapsible stock, lugs for or permanent attachment of bayonets or grenade launchers and flash suppressors in various configurations constitute the legal definition of an assault weapon weather semi or fully automatic. This definition is also consistent in many state laws defining assault weapons.

What you say about cars is true, they pose a great danger and yet are incredibly useful. In order to balance this we regulate their use. Where you can drive is limited to roads. Drivers are licensed and routinely tested for proficiency. People with medical issues that make them hazardous drivers are precluded from driving. The size and type of vehicles allowed on public roads are regulated and as new safety devices such as seat belts, air bags and anti lock brakes become available they are required on new cars. For very few in this country is a firearm any way near as important or useful as a car, we however have a constitutional right to bear arms as part of a well regulated milita. All most proponents of gun legislation propose is that that regulation be similar than that for driving and possessing automobiles.

That was a California definition when they attempted to outlaw the AR15 style rifles that was brought down as illegal by the Supreme Court and nullified years ago. What other states have the same definition as that? The military spec opps definition of an assault weapon was ANY weapon, even a spoon that is used to attack or kill another person. Technically there is no such thing as an assault rifle to my knowledge as that would mean the rifle could act on it's own behalf without human interaction to assault an individual, a distinctly impossible action.