TL;DR I'll get that out of the way now, but there is a lot to unpack from his mouth breathing laid out below.
The AR-style rifles, the XM-15, the M&P-15.
So, because they look scary or have letters and numbers in their name they are somehow bad? What is it about "AR-style" that makes them different from any other rifle? This is all nice for you to say, but all it does is demonstrate a lack of knowledge on your part. Specifics matter. Details matter. Just because it looks scary and you've been told a thousand times that it's bad and it's a a weapon of war doesn't make it so.
You know, all those self-loading automatic weapons
This is a flat out media/gun grabber lie and again demonstrates your lack of knowledge. An automatic weapon is one that fires multiple rounds with only one pull of the trigger. It fires until the trigger is released or you exhaust the number of rounds. Technically speaking, a private citizen
can own an automatic weapon (also known as a machine gun),
but it's not easy. If one lives in the right location and has a lot of time and money, they can eventually get one. And I mean a lot. Just the law of supply and demand kicks in because a private citizen is basically prevented from owning any machine gun manufactured after May of 1986. That significantly limits legal supply.
As I said, details matter and you likely meant to say
semi-automatic weapons. That means one round fired for each separate trigger pull and the action loads the next round. The problem that limits you from defining things as I had asked is that this describes the vast majority of rifles (excluding things like single shot, bolt action, lever action, muzzleloader) and the overwhelming majority of handguns sold in the last couple decades (again, excluding single shots and revolvers). It even includes many, many shotguns that one would take hunting or clay bird shooting. So, functionally, referring to an "AR-style" does nothing to differentiate from the majority of firearms out there. You can't define it because there is NO difference from a functional standpoint, only appearance, but boy are they scary.
so cheap and easy to purchase
Again, this is a complete falsehood. There is nothing cheap about them. In fact, the AR-15 that was used by the shooter the last time we discussed all of this with the Valde, TX shooter cost over two grand (from Daniel Defense out of Georgia). It's a false narrative and there is no "so cheap" source. Nor are they "easy to purchase". The same background check that is required for other firearms exists for your "AR-style" firearms. I can't give you details because the level of checking can vary depending on any given locale. But this isn't like you running out to grab some Q for supper.
To bring back something similar to the Federal Assault Weapons Ban with more stringent background checks would be a start but the gun owners see that as a threat.
Why would you bring back a law that did nothing? The ban was an utter failure and had no demonstrable impact on crime. Furthermore, even if it did, we are talking about individuals who are committed to the idea of accomplishing mass murder. Who would be stupid enough to think that criminals wouldn't break the law and illegally acquire any weapon they wanted when they are already committed to mass murder? (you can answer that in your head and not as a reply because there is no need to embarrass yourself further). A ban would do nothing. It would be like that current ban they've got to control the spread of fentanyl. With regard to "more stringent background checks", it's a great talking point, but that's all it is. Again, details matter. Just exactly what does that mean? Sadly, background checks have not stopped this from happening (the Uvalde shooter passed his check or he would not have been able to get his firearm from the FFL). Realistically, what is "more stringent"? It might make you feel better to say such general things, but the details of what it means matters. There must be some connection between the implementation and the actually goal. Just throwing out talking points like "reasonable gun laws" means nothing. It's sales and marketing by the gun grabbers. I mean, how could you be against REASONABLE gun control laws. They're REASONABLE by definition. But what are they? Exactly what does more stringent background checks mean?
You're the one who introduced statistics with your "blue cities-gun violence" remark. Now that I counter with the violence in red states you want to dismiss numbers, or blame the sources, or over complicate it.
Sorry if you find being challenged to justify your claim to be a complication. I mentioned that the vast majority of crime (what you described as "gun violence") occurred in dem run cities and that it occurred with handguns - NOT your targeted "AR-style" rifle. You distracted from these facts by citing a study that attempts to take away the focus from the cities by asserting that red states have higher crime rates. This is, of course, an attempt to indict red state policy. But it still doesn't address the fact that most of the crime is in the blue cities, with blue policies, with blue politicians, and with HANDGUNS, not with AR's. And what's behind it are things no one wants to talk about.
The bottom line is that these things are horrible when they happen. But, there has to be some connection or nexus between the problem and the proposed solution. It may make you feel better to make such sweeping and easy pronouncements, but false perceptions and false claims are not the way to get there. Running around screaming do something just for the sake of doing something is never the answer.
