I stumbled upon this article from a while back and, while I do believe the author has her intentions in the right place, I think she's been listening to the wrong sources.
1. Banning assault weapons would do almost nothing
"...banning these guns would not do much to save American lives. Only 3.6 percent of America’s gun murders are committed with any kind of rifle, according to FBI data."
OK, 3.6 sure does sound like a small number. But another way to think about it would be that it's 25 times higher than what occurs in 22 other high income nations. If we could bring our number in line with the rest of the world - at the expense of access to a product that was never even designed for consumer use in the first place - isn't that worth doing?
2. Owning 17 guns really isn’t that extreme
"Just 3% of American adults own half the country’s guns, a new Harvard/Northeastern study estimated—and they own an average of 17 guns each.
As one gun rights activist put it, “Why do you need more than one pair of shoes? The truth is, you don’t, but do you want more than one pair of shoes? If you’re going hiking, you don’t want to use that one pair of high heels.”
Call me when a pair of shoes gets stolen - goes unreported because freedom - and gets used in a crime. I’ll wait.
3. Only a tiny fraction of America’s guns are used in crimes
“American civilians own between 265 million and 400 million guns. That’s at least one gun for every American adult. But the vast majority of America’s gun owners—and their guns—aren’t involved in this violence.”
Um, congratulations? See #1.
We can do better - without impacting the vast majority of responsible gun owners.
4. Gun crime dropped even as Americans bought more firearms
First off, it's irresponsible to assert that the whole of the gun violence epidemic has to do with crime. For example, a woman is 5x more likely to be killed by her abuser if there's a gun present, there's a straight line between easy access to guns and incidents of suicide, and - in 2016 - someone in the United States was more likely to be killed by a toddler gaining access to an unsecured gun than by a terrorist.
But assuming one still wants to confine the conversation to crime, the author falls into the dreaded "causation/correlation" trap. There are many reasons for the drop in crime that have nothing to do with a rise in gun ownership... and, just as it's both true yet irrelevant that the number of people who drowned by falling into a pool correlates with the number of films Nicolas Cage has appeared in, it's somewhat obtuse to assume that it does.