Even aside from that, a ban on certain models just creates a larger demand on a different one. Gun owners buy what works for them. In the case of the AR15, gun buyers like the modularity and ability to customize. Also the accuracy at longer ranges, light recoil, and also the higher capacity and the ability to use different calibers by changing the upper portion.
Of course, the more uninformed people will only see them as being the choice of school shooters.
They are quite versatile, which, unfortunately, makes them attractive to would-be maniacs as well as legitimate firearms enthusiasts.
Although there's plenty of opportunity to abuse such laws.
The same could be said for any law. But your point is valid, which means such laws should be used sparingly and their invocation monitored closely in order to prevent abuse... or at the very least, old abusing agencies accountable.
Nevertheless, there is a certain logic to them. We both agree that criminals should not have access to firearms. Now, a person who goes on social media and posts about his intent or desire to kill/injure someone has just committed a criminal act -- threats are not protected speech under the First Amendment, after all. The authorities
will be called in to investigate the validity of those threats, and while they do, it would be quite prudent of them to remove any firearms from your possession until they determine whether or not your threats were legitimate.
There
is a legal precedent for this. Consider: Under the Fourth Amendment, the police cannot search or seize your property without due process,
vis a vis, a warrant.
Now, suppose the police have probable cause to search your house (you're not home at the time) -- they can phone a D.A., who will run to a judge, who will sign a warrant, which will be delivered to the officers ASAP. Now, while this is happening, you come home and see the police waiting outside your door.
Until that warrant is delivered, they still
cannot enter your house... but they
can "secure the scene," which means stopping
you from entering your own home, based on their belief that you will tamper with, remove, or destroy evidence while they're waiting for the warrant to arrive.
Seems to me that the same principle applies to red flag laws. Your right to bear arms is not being infringed -- the firearms are still yours, but, like your home, you don't have access to them until the police complete their investigation.
That's already been done, and the same old ideas come out each time: Bans on certain guns, confiscations under certain conditions, red flag laws, bans on carrying in certain places, bans on magazines over a certain number of rounds---none of which would prevent someone who wants to kill people from doing so.
I wouldn't consider that "in depth research"; just the usual emotional outcry one would expect in the wake of whatever most recent massacre occurred that week.
The time to talk about responsible gun ownership (and the steps to insure that
only responsible owners have them) shouldn't be right after a grammar school gets shot up... sadly, it seems the only time people are willing to speak or listen.
Just more government control that limits the rights of gun owners. When another shooting happens, the outcry is for more government control. It hasn't worked so far, and more of it isn't going to help.
In all fairness, it hasn't worked because it hasn't been tried. The
outcry is for "more government control," but it rarely proceeds beyond a token level. For example, Donald's already done more for gun control in his 3 1/2 years in office than Obama did in 8... and yet
Obama was the big bad gun grabber.
Read for yourself what the NRA had to say to combat Obama's re-election:"If Barack Obama wins a second term in office, our Second Amendment freedom will not survive. Obama will never have to face the voters again, and will therefore be unleashed to push the most extreme elements of his gun-ban agenda to every corner of America."
And yet, what did Obama end up taking away?
