Recommendation # 10: Banning Military Weapons

Banning military weapons is a common recommendation that can also be a show-stopper regarding possible bipartisan agreement on how to stop school shootings and reduce general gun violence. Those opposed to a ban, state that some Minnesotans hunt with these weapons and this is, therefore, protected by the Second Amendment. Conversely, eleven states and Washington D.C. have differing bans on assault weapons. Recommendation # 10's definition of military weapons uses Minnesota's legal definition of a military weapon (i.e. semi-automatic, automatic, and assault weapons but in greater detail).

It is hard to imagine an image more horrifying than the bodies of school children shot with powerful military weapons. Dr. Tim Kummer describes this horror in his testimony before the Minnesota legislature following the Annunciation shooting. One approach is to continue the debate and do more research. Numerous organizations have information and volunteer opportunities on both sides. Organizations wanting to ban military weapons are listed in the Resource Section including Protect Minnesota/Preventing Gun Violence Together, Everytown for Gun Safety, Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, Moms Demand Action and the Giffords Law Center. Likewise, numerous organizations such as the NRA, Gun Owners of America, Second Amendment Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition and others are against banning military weapons. Are there simpler solutions? Are we pursuing the wrong strategy? Do you agree that no one, other than the shooter, wants to see more school shootings or gun violence? Can't we solve this issue by putting people over politics and people over profit?

If Minnesota would agree to limiting military weapons to those $>25$ years old, ban frangible bullets, and approve the other recommendations, most of the military weapon risks would disappear. While horrifying, mass shootings only make up $1\%$ of total gun violence. Handguns are purported to account for $90\%$ of American gun violence. The NRA membership is dropping. Hunting with military weapons is not a Minnesota tradition. It is extremely new and the number of hunters that want a military weapon are minimal. In brief, is the debate over military weapons worth all the emotion and political capital? Can't we make this more of a win win?