# Assault Rifle Ban ends soon **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 22, 2003, 7:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764 "2003-05-22T07:13:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2003, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/221 "2003-05-25T16:45:28Z")
:sigh: > [@](#): > > An assault _rifle_ is a military weapon. A particular type of military weapon, yes. > [@](#): > > An assault ‘weapon’ is a semi-automatic weapon, defined by congress, as having more than one feature that essentially makes it look not unlike an assault _rifle_. No. The specifically identified models singled out for prohibition are essentially identical to the military assault rifles, except they’re semiauto only. It’s not that that _look_ like an assault rifle; it’s that they _are_ an assault rifle, lacking only the capability for full auto fire–not that it’s all _that_ terribly difficult to convert 'em to full auto in many instances. The catch-all provision, with its list of five putatively “cosmetic” features, was also _intended_ by Congress to bring other military-derived models under the scope of the ban, to prevent manufacturers from evading the law through slight design changes and redesignation of the enumerated models. This part of the act is rather less than fully effective, however, since it’s also easy enough to just drop the flash suppressors and bayonet mounts and still have an equally dangerous weapon. Like I said, I would happily redraw the line somehow to capture those weapons too. > [@](#): > > Assault rifles can be fully automatic, ‘machine guns’. Assault ‘weapons’ are not, as they are civilian in manufacture to start with. Nonsense. By and large, they’re simply military models that have had the full auto option removed. Does that about wrap it up? ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2003, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/222 "2003-05-25T17:25:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > **The specifically identified models singled out for prohibition are essentially identical to the military assault rifles, except they’re semiauto only. It’s not that that _look_ like an assault rifle; it’s that they _are_ an assault rifle, lacking only the capability for full auto fire–not that it’s all _that_ terribly difficult to convert 'em to full auto in many instances.** I’m still waiting for a cite or even an explanation as to why these weapons, stripped of their ability to fire in fully-automatic or burst modes, are any more dangerous than other semiautomatic weapons firing the same caliber of ammunition. Just because a product started its life as military hardware does not mean the civilian version of that product is suitable for military use. ---
**Author:** ![Kalashnikov](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/2bfe46/32.png) [@Kalashnikov](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalashnikov)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2003, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/223 "2003-05-25T17:32:13Z")
So, **Minty** , you’re saying you wouldn’t want to restrict rifles like [these](http://mem.tcon.net/users/5010/5491/rimfires.htm), right? Or like [my friend’s plinker](http://hometown.aol.com/bishop042/plinker.html)? ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2003, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/224 "2003-05-25T18:09:55Z")
As DC&H stated, they are civilian weapons, made to look like military weapons. They do not have the capability for full automatic fire. In fact and in short, they are not especially different from a nonbanned weapon, except for certain, outstanding, trendy features, such as a barrel shroud or a bayonet lug. Are these features that make it banned that dangerous in and of themselves? Furthermore, it is not true that ‘they have had the full auto option removed’, but that the guns themselves have had a rebuilt action that does not have that feature. Sort of the difference between an automatic and manual transmission in a car. (Yes, I’m simplifying slightly) ---
**Author:** ![John\_Harrison](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5ac83/32.png) [@John\_Harrison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Harrison)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2003, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/225 "2003-05-25T21:38:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow \* > \*\*I’m still waiting for a cite or even an explanation as to why these weapons, stripped of their ability to fire in fully-automatic or burst modes, are any more dangerous than other semiautomatic weapons firing the same caliber of ammunition. > > Just because a product started its life as military hardware does not mean the civilian version of that product is suitable for military use. \*\* I think **Minty** may want to consider banning all semi-automatic centerfire rifles, since the only difference may be magazine capacity, and I assume that isn’t enough to reduce the military/assault functions that they share with “assault weapons”. I say this because any semi-auto rifle that fires centerfire ammo isn’t much different than the Springfield rifle I linked to earlier, which Minty thanked me so he could include it in his list of banned rifles (that he hasn’t given us). Quoted by tracer: > [@](#): > > I support the inclusion of a pistol grip and a folding stock on this list. Why? Because the main effect of both of these devices is to make the sun easier to fire from the “assault position” at the waist or hip. Similarly, a flash suppressor makes it easier to fire repeatedly from the assault position, because you won’t be blinded between shots. When fired from the assault position, a rifle is more difficult to control and aim. You are more likely to shoot something you didn’t intend to shoot. > [@](#): > > I doubt it’s an official military term, but Bushmaster sells a sling that it advertises as allowing “easier assault position carry of your weapon”. Also, this guy claims to have invented an “under the shoulder assault position”, and take a look at the description of the “tactical sling” near the bottom of this webpage. Carrying your weapon does not mean firing the weapon from the hip, and the “Underarm Assault position” that Chuck Taylor speaks of is a technique that is very close to a mounted shoulder position, and is for a submachine gun, not an assault rifle. Clearly you haven’t actually seen this position in use. I have. It is nowhere close to “firing from the hip”. I’m sorry, but anyone that has been trained in the military or by qualified instructors or has been in competition knows that the only proper way to fire a rifle is aimed from the shoulder, whether standing, kneeling, sitting or prone. Firing from the hip is fodder for the movies, nothing more. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2003, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/226 "2003-05-25T23:34:27Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow \* > I’m still waiting for a cite or even an explanation as to why these weapons, stripped of their ability to fire in fully-automatic or burst modes, are any more dangerous than other semiautomatic weapons firing the same caliber of ammunition. The only reason you’re still waiting is because you’ve consistently refused to acknowledge the reasons I’ve already supplied, including large-capacity clips, accuracy of fire, effective rate of fire (note since you didn’t get it before, that is NOT just how fast you can pull the trigger), ease of illegal conversion to full auto, relative concealability, etc. Nevertheless, I have no doubt that you’ll still be registering the same complaint two pages from now. You’ll have to pardon me if I ignore you on this question from now on. And btw, caliber isn’t everything–the rounds fired by assault weapons are high-velocity, which greatly increases their capacity to kill. Some hunting rifles use identical or similar ammo, but generally without any of the other objectionable features of assualt weapons. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2003, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/227 "2003-05-25T23:42:08Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Kalashnikov \* > So, **Minty** , you’re saying you wouldn’t want to restrict rifles like [these](http://mem.tcon.net/users/5010/5491/rimfires.htm), right? Or like [my friend’s plinker](http://hometown.aol.com/bishop042/plinker.html)? Looks like the “plinker” features a folding stock and high-capacity clip, so yeah, I’ve got some potential problems with that. The same might be said of some of the models on the other page. On the whole though, those models wouldn’t be real high on my list of priorities, since they appear to only fire .22LR ammo, not the high velocity stuff normally fired by assault weapons. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2003, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/228 "2003-05-25T23:43:56Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by John Harrison \* > I say this because any semi-auto rifle that fires centerfire ammo isn’t much different than the Springfield rifle I linked to earlier, which Minty thanked me so he could include it in his list of banned rifles (that he hasn’t given us). So, is that $100K check in the mail? ---
**Author:** ![catsix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e19b73/32.png) [@catsix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/catsix)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2003, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/229 "2003-05-26T00:19:35Z")
> [@](#): > > **minty green** said: > The only reason you’re still waiting is because you’ve consistently refused to acknowledge the reasons I’ve already supplied, including large-capacity clips, accuracy of fire, effective rate of fire Those are not reasons that certain firearms should be banned, those are features. For what _reasons_ should those features be banned, and on what data are you basing your belief that those features should be banned? ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2003, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/230 "2003-05-26T00:25:02Z")
The better to kill lots of people with, my dear. ---
**Author:** ![Kalashnikov](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/2bfe46/32.png) [@Kalashnikov](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalashnikov)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2003, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/231 "2003-05-26T00:44:27Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > **I would oppose drawing the line anywhere near a single-shot .22, or even a semiauto .22 for that matter.** > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > \*\*Looks like the “plinker” features a folding stock and high-capacity clip, so yeah, I’ve got some potential problems with that. The same might be said of some of the models on the other page. \*\* Not much point in arguing with Minty then, since he’s either a liar or can’t even name one kind of gun he doesn’t “have problems with” (how’s _that_ for a euphemism). :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2003, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/232 "2003-05-26T00:50:23Z")
My, that was thoroughly dishonest of you to omit the part where I said “On the whole though, those models wouldn’t be real high on my list of priorities, since they appear to only fire .22LR ammo, not the high velocity stuff normally fired by assault weapons.” ---
**Author:** ![catsix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e19b73/32.png) [@catsix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/catsix)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2003, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/233 "2003-05-26T01:00:55Z")
> [@](#): > > **minty green** said: > The better to kill lots of people with, my dear. Not necessarily, but I suppose since you said so, you’d be happy to provide some kind of evidence that the legal ownership of what you call an ‘assault weapon’ increases the rate of crime committed with them, or the number of people murdered with them. ---
**Author:** ![Kalashnikov](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/2bfe46/32.png) [@Kalashnikov](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalashnikov)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2003, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/234 "2003-05-26T01:03:01Z")
“not high on list of priorities” does not equal “should not be regulated more than other guns” ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2003, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/235 "2003-05-26T01:32:32Z")
Nor does it mean “should be regulated the same as assault weapons.” ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2003, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/236 "2003-05-26T03:04:00Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > \*\*The only reason you’re still waiting is because you’ve consistently refused to acknowledge the reasons I’ve already supplied, including large-capacity clips, accuracy of fire, effective rate of fire (note since you didn’t get it before, that is NOT just how fast you can pull the trigger), ease of illegal conversion to full auto, relative concealability, etc. \*\* Yes, you’ve stated these things as items of concern. What you HAVEN’T done is present any kind of evidence that the weapons we’re talking about in fact have higher accuracy, effective rates of fire, ease of conversion or larger clips than other semiautomatic weapons. IOW, all we have is your idle speculation that these guns might be more powerful than other semiautomatic weapons. You’ll pardon me if I find that a less than credible basis for concluding that these guns actually do outperform other semiautomatic weapons.\*\* > [@](#): > > Nevertheless, I have no doubt that you’ll still be registering the same complaint two pages from now. You’ll have to pardon me if I ignore you on this question from now on.\*\* I’m still registering the complaint because you haven’t bothered to respond in a meaningful fashion – all you’ve said is that these guns MIGHT (for example) have higher effective rates of fire than ordinary non-banned semiautomatic weapons. You haven’t said that these weapons DO IN FACT have such higher effective rates of fire, nor have you presented any evidence to that effect. \*\* > [@](#): > > And btw, caliber isn’t everything–the rounds fired by assault weapons are high-velocity, which greatly increases their capacity to kill. Some hunting rifles use identical or similar ammo, but generally without any of the other objectionable features of assualt weapons. \*\* Cite for the proposition that the listed assault weapons have a higher firing velocity than other non-banned civilian firearms? ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2003, 3:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/237 "2003-05-26T03:46:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow \* > Cite for the proposition that the listed assault weapons have a higher firing velocity than other non-banned civilian firearms? There appear to be two possible interpretations of this question: 1. You are ignoring the fact that I _already_ stated that “[s]ome hunting rifles use identical or similar ammo,” although such weapons generally do not have “any of the other objectionable features of assualt weapons.” 2. You have pretty much no clue about [how assault rifles actually work and the ammunition they fire](http://www.guncite.com/assausup.txt). Oh yeah, almost forgot that [Cecil himself](http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a1_203b.html) has described how low caliber and high velocity work: > [@](#): > > Large bullets, and small bullets that travel very fast, such as those from an M-16 rifle, can kill almost instantly, mainly by reducing the region of impact literally to hamburger. They also generate something known as “hydrostatic shock.” The body is composed largely of water and as such may be viewed as a hydraulic system. Liquid being noncompressible, the shock caused by the high-velocity entry of a large projectile (don’t you love this Tom Clancy technobabble?) is transmitted throughout the body, causing widespread organ damage and disruption of nervous functions. Even a wound to an arm or leg can be fatal in some instances. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2003, 5:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/238 "2003-05-26T05:19:17Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > \*\*There appear to be two possible interpretations of this question: > > 1. You are ignoring the fact that I _already_ stated that “[s]ome hunting rifles use identical or similar ammo,” although such weapons generally do not have “any of the other objectionable features of assualt weapons.”\*\* Hey, _you’re_ the one who brought up the fact that “caliber isn’t everything.” You suggested that assault weapons, as defined in the law, are more dangerous than other semiautomatic weapons of the same caliber because they shoot at a higher velocity. All I’m asking for is proof for the assertion that assault weapons do in fact shoot at a higher velocity than their non-banned counterparts of the same caliber. \*\* > [@](#): > > 1. You have pretty much no clue about [how assault rifles actually work and the ammunition they fire](http://www.guncite.com/assausup.txt). \*\* Do you even read the websites you post? Nothing on that site indicates that assault weapons shoot at a higher velocity or have a higher effective rate of fire than non-banned semiautomatic weapons. It compares the effective rate of fire of exactly two military-grade weapons, the MM16A1 and AKM, for both full-auto and semiautomatic fire. It also notes that different assault rifles use different cartridges, some of which are higher-powered than others – but does _not_ state that the higher-powered cartridges are the exclusive province of the weapons listed in the assault weapons ban. The rest of the page is descriptive, and irrelevant to the point I was making. I also note, just in the interests of precision, that here we aren’t talking about “assault rifles” as that term is defined in the above URL. That site defines “assault rifle” as follows: > [@](#): > > Two key characteristics that identify “assault rifles” are full automatic fire and detachable magazines with a capacity of 20 or more cartridges. These weapons were designed to produce roughly aimed bursts of full automatic fire. While some assault rifles offer an option of semiautomatic fire (i.e., single-shot), all true assault rifles fire at least fully automatic. > > (Emphasis added) Oddly, your own cite subscribes to the distinction you earlier derided as the “Guns & Ammo” definition. I also note that this side trip of your is a total red herring. Congress clearly wasn’t concerned about banning rifles exceeding some combined mass-velocity threshold – if they were, they would have made caliber plus velocity a premise upon which non-listed weapons could be banned. ---
**Author:** ![patchbunny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/dc4da7/32.png) [@patchbunny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/patchbunny)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2003, 5:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/239 "2003-05-26T05:27:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > \*\*Oh yeah, almost forgot that [Cecil himself](http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a1_203b.html) has described how low caliber and high velocity work: \*\* Except that Cecil is incorrect on several points. Dr Martin Fackler did a lot of research on wound ballistics during the 80’s. His findings contradict Cecil’s statements. In short: –You don’t need a fast-moving projectile to create a large temporary cavity –Temporary cavities create damage by stretching tissues beyond their elastic limit –Pressure waves generated by temporary cavities don’t move or injure tissue –Presure waves generated by the sonic shock wave doesn’t move or injure tissue –The M-16 does the damage it does because the round fragments at striking velocities over 2500fps I don’t want to take the thread off-topic, but folks interested in how bullets interact with tissue should go to [http://www.firearmstactical.com/wound.htm](http://www.firearmstactical.com/wound.htm) and [http://www.iwba.com](http://www.iwba.com) for nice starting references. –Patch ---
**Author:** ![lucwarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e19adc/32.png) [@lucwarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lucwarm)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2003, 1:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/240 "2003-05-26T13:13:47Z")
From what I understand, all available evidence suggests that ‘assault weapon’ bans, such as those of New Jersey, Massachusetts, California, have not had any appreciable impact on crime rates. (true or false?) If this is the case, then by **minty green** ’s own statements, he should not be against a repeal (or sunset). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764.md?page=13)