Those in favor argue many things need to happen in order to keep the public, especially students, safe. They feel an assault weapons ban is where it needs to start. House Democratic Whip Steny H. Hoyer (MD) said, “Congress has a responsibility, under the Constitution, to provide for the safety and general welfare of the American people, and this includes protecting our children from mass murderers. This would end the legal sale of military-style assault weapons of the kind used in recent school shootings and other mass shootings that have taken thousands of innocent lives.”  Supporters say after the previous ban ended the number of mass shootings increased 183% and the number of deaths in such attacks rose 239%. Many also feel that when the 2nd Amendment was written the Founding Fathers could not have envisioned that these types of weapons would ever exist.

Those against argue the types of guns they are trying to ban are not military-style weapons. They feel some use that rhetoric to scare the public into agreeing with their agenda. Opponents point out that a ban of this nature would not make any kind of difference because these “assault weapons” are much less powerful than many rifles used to hunt deer and other large game. They also argue that it is ridiculous to think that the Second Amendment would only apply to the types of guns that existed in the 18th century when the Constitution was written. The Second Amendment extends to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding. Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-WI) said, “We shouldn't be banning guns for law abiding citizens. We should be focusing on making sure that citizens who shouldn't get guns in the first place don't get those guns.” Gun owners also point out that the majority of gun deaths in this country are committed with hand guns and not so called “assault weapons.”