@dr-pepper Let’s simplify things: The advantages of banning all automatic weapons far outweighs the disadvantages.
To get to your points specifically: Are there situations where a civilian wielding an automatic weapon is useful? Yes. But those situations are extremely rare. The single example you gave is something that literally never happened (Rittenhouse could have used a .22 pistol. Or just no gun to begin with, the reason he was attacked was because he was visibly armed). It’s rare enough to quantify: the number of lives legal automatic weapons save in a decade is probably less than 10. On the other hand, fully legal weapons are used all the time in murders, possibly dozens of deaths annually.
Basically, what I’m saying is that there’s no good reason to have so many big guns.
You say you don’t know much about the NRA, yet you repeat their talking points near-verbatim. I guess that just shows that how much of the pro-gun “culture” is controlled by them and the weapons lobby.
So banning all big guns is by far the best way to go about things.
In 20 years, cigarette smoking went from being the cool thing that every teen and adult does, to something frowned upon and heavily regulated. In 20 years marijuana went from being synonymous with heroin to something you can find at a corner drug store. Maybe in 20 years from now, automatic weapons will be seen as illegal and become rare and difficult to acquire. And maybe in 20 years from then so will semi-automatics. Perhaps another 20 years later we can even rethink the 2nd amendment.
Which means that the disadvantages of banning big guns is that some people won’t feel safe but a whole lot of other people will feel much safer and that’s something I can live with and so should you.
And I can compare the US to other civilized countries. Rates of violence in the US are comparable to Somalia. And gun deaths (excluding suicides) top the list of violent crime-related deaths. No other civilized country even comes close.
The availability of guns makes people who would otherwise not commit gun violence, be more prone to committing gun violence. It’s simple logic. The more guns there are, the easier they are to acquire. How much armed robbery or mass shootings are there in places with strict gun control laws? Furthermore, someone willing to commit mass murder without a gun will have to carefully plan things out, like the Boston Bombers. But if they have a gun, there’s barely any planning at all required, just head to a crowded area and open fire. Which is probably why out of all the mass murders in the last 20 years, only one or two were committed without guns. The rest? You got it! High capacity high caliber high rate firearms!
What I’m trying to say is that I have yet to hear a convincing argument why the USA needs so many guns.
On the subject of mental illness. You seem to vastly underestimate the sheer amount of invasive power it would take to find dangerously mentally ill people before they commit crimes. The systems you describe are already in place. Just try opening up a Facebook or YouTube page with pictures of guns and hints that you plan on using them. You’ll have police at your door within the day. But that doesn’t cover everyone. Most mass shooters didn’t really have any major red flags. It’s basically impossible to get everyone the help they need, and to force someone to get help will only work if you’re absolutely certain that said individual is violent. You know what’s not impossible? Banning big guns so that mentally ill people are much more limited in potential for violence.
In conclusion: No guns. OK, maybe some guns. But only small ones.