As Covid cases surge once more in the US, another public health crisis is pummelling the country too. Last year, gun killings soared by around 4,000, to almost 20,000 in total – the worst single-year increase on record. So far, 2021 looks even worse. In the first five months alone, more than 8,100 people died. America is set for the deadliest toll in nearly two decades.

The Guardian view on soaring US gun violence: America must face the problem

In addition, while the AR-15 does not fit the standard definition of an assault rifle

Being of course a weapon capable of full auto fire. The gun industry, inevitably, insists that the semiauto weapons it produces are therefore, not assault rifles. This is disingenuous because it implies a significant difference in lethality between full auto and semiauto weapons. How many people killed by semiauto paramilitary weapons are required to make this definition moot?

“Finally, removing the ability of the general public to buy AR-15s impairs the public’s right of self-defense exactly as much as removing my ability to buy a Ford Explorer impairs my ability of self-transport. Which is to say not at all.”
Yup. There is a great bit of rationalisation going on here.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/02/what-i-saw-treating-the-victims-from-parkland-should-change-the-debate-on-guns/553937/

In addition, while the AR-15 does not fit the standard definition of an assault rifle, our lawmakers can propound their own definition, as they did for the 1994 ban. Defining it as “a rifle commonly used in mass shootings” is perfectly reasonable when the goal is to make mass shootings less common.

Finally, removing the ability of the general public to buy AR-15s impairs the public’s right of self-defense exactly as much as removing my ability to buy a Ford Explorer impairs my ability of self-transport. Which is to say not at all.

By the way, the AR-15 is not an assault weapon is a bleating from the pro-gun lobby. The technical differences are largely that – technical – but the end-result of the use of this weapon is no different to the use of formally-classified assault weapons.

That people will argue semantics when attempting to legitimise the public ownership of such horrific weapons is nothing short of abhorrent. Speak to the parents of the 17 kids who were killed at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High and ask them if they think the technical definition of an assault weapon is the central issue here. Ask them if any weapon remotely resembling an AR-15 should be available outside the military. In any same society the answer will be categorically against the public ownership of these obscene weapons.

Do you even know what an ‘assault weapon’ is?

Yes, I do.

The bans being talked about in ‘assault weapons bans’ are not machine guns.

Besides the fact that you appear to be conflating ‘bans’ and ‘machine guns’, I haven’t mentioned machine guns at all. I spoke of assault weapons, and the apparent application of the 2nd amendment to permitting Joe/Jane Average the right to bear them. But why on this sacred Earth should any person who is not in the specialised military (and perhaps even then…) be allowed to use these weapons? They are high velocity (= high momentum) weapons, and their bullets are intended to turn the insides of victims to blood smoothies.

Who in the general public needs to have this guaranteed ability to cream the internal organs of others? If the right to bear arms is about defending oneself, a low velocity weapon will do that nicely with far less inevitability of death.

The idea that a member of the public needs a weapons that fires bullets at more than 2,000 mph is obscene, and insane.

As for the rest of your post, it’s just fallacious thimble-rigging.

“That aside, I can’t understand why the 2nd amendment applies to assault weapons.”

Because what the public owns 100 million + copies of are NOT assault weapons, but guns that look like assault weapons. They are semi-automatic rifles, just like hundreds of millions of other hunting guns that look different from so-called assault weapons but have basically the same mode of operation and lethality.

And the 2nd Amendment also applies, because the Supreme Court decisions in the past decade made it clear that the more popular is any given gun owned by the general public, the more protected it is. AR-15 type rifles are popular as heck. Lots of people bought them – I kid you not – as a way to protest anti-gun efforts.

So, banning guns that look like true assault weapons is probably unConstitutional. And banning ammunition, or making it restrictively hard to get is probably unConstitutional as well.

Can we get something clear here? The rights of individual citizens to own and use guns for their own personal protection has never been stronger in the entire history of the United States.

And the ability of Republicans to get elected and re-elected by single-issue redneck yahoos whose only reason to vote and vote consistently is to show Democrats that they can’t take their guns away – that ability has been strong for thirty years.

See the difficulty here? There is no “simple way” to solve this problem.

While this latest incident was tragic, it is not the worst ever. Both Virginia Tech and Sandy Hook had more killed.

That’s OK then, no problems everything is fine and everybody will now be safe.

Every time I think you have got to the bottom you go and prove me wrong.

what he said he don’t have seance what he should have talk anything useless points he covered in any seminar and also motivational speeches total are bullshit ,