The increasing and gruesome mass killings in schools and other public arenas is connected to military type assault rifles and hidden handguns, carrying large amounts of ammunition magazines. These artilleries of war are modeled to cause overwhelming damage within short periods without reloading (Rosenthal, 2016). There is an upcoming logical debate to convince the government to ban these artilleries among the public.A large number of Americans prefer banning "assault weapons"; the same case applies to the majority of students who strongly support criminalizing the possession, receipt, transfer and manufacture of assault weapons. The congress of 1994 permitted the assault weapons ban. It expired in 2004. Arguments to renew the ban happen periodically and a number of federals have enacted the bans.

The Sandy Hook basics school massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, which took place in December, 2012, caused a new round of ideas in relation to banning assault weapons as a plan to stop and prevent shootings in schools, or at least minimize casualties. The Sandy Hook bill, which was strongly supported by the Obama administration, didn't gain a vote in the senate's House of Representatives. A number of state legislatures argued, and very few passed assault weapons bans [AWBs]. Seven states currently have an assault weapons bans (Jacobs, Why Ban "Assault Weapons"?, 2015). There is enormous economic cost connected with rifle violence in the United States of America. Firearm connected deaths and injuries caused expenses and lost productivity worth about $32 billion in the medical field in 2005. Therefore, the overall expense of the violence has gone up beyond these figures. When destroyed quality of living, emotional and psychological trauma, reduced property values, and other consequences are summed up, the cost of this violence in America was approximately $100 billion in 1998. A new research has revealed that direct and indirect expenses of violence in 8 diverse geographical cities in the United States of America approximated average annual expenses of crime to above $1,300 for every man and child. Since a lot of these costs are due to reducing residential values of property, violence greatly lowers tax revenues. The government should, therefore, address the massive needs of citizens. The straight annual expense of violence crimes at every level of government was approximated to be $325 per resident (Webster, et al., 2012). The researchers summarise that programs laid by law are stronger than "gun laws." They analyse that the most effective plans incorporated punitive and supportive plans to reduce the violence. It's important to note that research findings are more than theoretical. Supreme Court Justice, Stephen Brever, and America Court of Appeals Judge, Richard Posner, are leading jurists in the country, who recently made a review of relevant academic work and combined it into their own opinion on rifle restriction connected cases. As stated in New York Times, the jurists concluded that the grassroots' findings is not conclusive to back certain types of gun restrictions, particularly resulting to ban on carrying guns in public (Weigel, 2013). The differing arguments which have substantial social and legal point of mind encourage all to think deeper on the matter. This too has been assessed in the paper.

Significance

The most serious crime problem in America has continued to be gun violence. In the last ten years, the state government has set a number of initiatives to curb gun crime. These include reforms of licensing systems for fire arm dealers, a ban on juvenile handgun possession, an establishment of a national background check method for rifle buyers, crowned with project safe surroundings. This is as a result of collaborative work of American attorneys and authorities at local levels to end local gun violence and improve punishment for gun criminals. Probably, the greatest controversy of these state initiatives was banning semi-automatic assault artilleries and large amounts of ammunition magazines entitled Title XI, Subtitle A of violent crime control and law enforcement act of 1994.

The law forbids a small group of weapons known by ban advocates to be specifically risky and attractive for the purposes of the criminals (Koper, Woods, & Roth, 2004). Owners, as expectedly, defy gun registration processes as it has led to seizure in the past. Also, extending the ban on individuals who do inter-state businesses of it is legally not allowed. It brings upon additional problems in management with no incremental advantage.... Hence, this brings us back to the registration debate (Kopel, 2015).
These findings explore whether a complete ban on assault guns would assist in the fight or whether there is a better reason for the government to let people keep these weapons.

Literature Review

i. Legally acquired weapons used in violent crime in records of past events

During the 1980s and early 1990s, legal weapons used by criminals increased. Semi-automatic arms and AWs equipped with LCMs were connected with a number of strongly publicized murder incidents that raised concern for the public to access powerfully, high powered military weaponry and other rifles whose ability can discharge bullets at high numbers in a short time. There was high profile situations in which criminals with semiautomatic handguns with LCM, wounded and killed high numbers of people (Koper, Woods, & Roth, 2004).

ii. The More the guns, the lesser the crime rates?

In the United States of America, murder rate increased twice in the 10-year span in the middle of the 1970s. Because this coincided with widely growing gun sales, it was argued by many people, and high evidence existed to show, that the increased number of guns equalled more deaths. This summary doesn't follow suit. It was almost impossible that this was reversed i.e. the spectacular decade increase in all kinds of crimes connected to murder and burglary may have caused people to buy guns out of fear (Kates & Mauser, 2007).

iii. Are the assault weapons the crime guns?

Crime artilleries are not assault guns. It is true, however, that the majority i.e. ninety percent of guns used in crime activities are handguns. Shotguns, long guns and assault weapons are rarely found in street crimes, gang crimes, and drug crimes, anyway. Even if assault weapons were used disproportionally in crimes, it would be more illogical to stop them than to ban a model of a car that appears in drunken driving circumstances. This defies order of the mind, believing that a criminal who couldn't get a certain weapon would do away with committing the crime when there are many non assault models serving the same purpose (Jacobs, Why ban 'Assault Weapons?', 2015).

iv. On Necessity

As evidenced in Great Britain and Australia, arms possessed by individuals illegally has been done on a large scale in countries like Great Britain and Australia. But in a country like the U.S., an operation of such a magnitude would be near to impossible. Only through effective policy making and alternate arrangements can people considered to be of grave danger to the neighbourhood be brought under scrutiny. As the President, Barrack Obama iterates, it is the civil commitment on improving care and stronger laws that is the need of the hour (Kopel, 2015).

v. Using Law as an Instrument

Scholars agree that the existing laws are largely incompetent. Because the demand for ban covers even the most ordinary rifles available with the common people. This would lead to a confiscation of at least 50% of guns in the open, today; and this includes rifles used for hunting, as well. Instead, what the policy makers focus on now is, to ban semi-automatic rifles that has a high degree of sophistication, like, having military-style features, bayonet attachment and flash suppressor. The state of California leads the nation on this. Yet, sale of assault guns continue. A scaled down version of a sophisticated gun that is correct under the purview of law goes on (Winkler, 2015).

vi. Historical basis of the possible effect of the ban

Following the ban on ownership of assault rifles, it was observed that these weapons were used on fewer crime occasions than before. A primary study conducted by the federal authorities revealed that assault weapons that were recovered from crime scenes dropped significantly in the period that the ban was in force. The percentage fall in the number of assault type rifles stood at 70% from 1992 to 2002 (Gerney & Parsons, 2014).

vii. What opponents of gun control are saying

The arguments presented by opponents of gun control vary based on the types of control proposed. However, they all agree that controlling ownership of guns does not achieve its intended purpose. They pose an argument to the effect that it is just as hard to keep guns from being purchased by people who pose a high risk of abuse as it was to stop the sale of illicit liquor when there were such bans on it. Some of these opponents point out that the low level of crime rates in some countries has nothing to do with policies on…