# 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:** 17
**Author:** ![lucwarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e19adc/32.png) [@lucwarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lucwarm)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2003, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/321 "2003-05-28T13:52:59Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > **Certainly. “Costs” measure bad stuff that has happened or will happen. “Risks” measure things that _may_ happen. For instance, there are no measurable costs for private ownership of nerve gas. There are, however, substantial risks.** IMHO, the number of people and guns in the USA is large enough that crime statistics should accurately reflect the increased or decreased “risks” as you define that term. In any event, it’s worth noting that your position is now (conveniently) unfalsifiable, since you are claiming that A/W legislation has benefits that are essentially impossible to measure. \*\* > [@](#): > > I’d posit that it has led to a reduction in crimes committed with assault weapons. Still waiting on that research grant, however. \*\* IMHO, you should bear the burden of proof on this point, given that (1) you are the one supporting a restriction on peoples’ freedom; and (2) the country has plenty of experience with A/W’s and A/W legislation. But ultimately it’s a question of values. I believe that peoples’ freedom should not be restricted absent a compelling reason. You (apparently) believe in restricting peoples’ freedom unless they can demonstrate a compelling need for such freedom. ---
**Author:** ![lucwarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e19adc/32.png) [@lucwarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lucwarm)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2003, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/322 "2003-05-28T13:57:50Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > \*\* > > I’d posit that it has led to a reduction in crimes committed with assault weapons. \*\* One other point: the real question is whether or not total crime has been reduced. An analogy: If we banned blue cars, it would lead to a reduction in the number of drunk driving deaths involving blue cars. So what. ---
**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 28, 2003, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/323 "2003-05-28T14:40:33Z")
**Debaser** , do try to read for context. My “Annoys gun worshipers” crack was a freakin’ _joke_, directly responsive to **lucwarm** ’s immediately-preceding comment that a “cost” of the assault weapon ban was that it “Annoys gun owners.” Furthermore, when **lucwarm** suggested that I made the comment out of “spite,” I responded that it was not so, several posts _before_ you decided to recast “spite” as “hate.” I will state for the record that it really can be amusing watching people rend their garments and pull their hair when someone suggests that their idols are false gods. That hardly translates into the hatred you falsely accused me of. I do not hate gun owners (self-loathing’s not really my style) and I do not hate supporters of gun rights (loathing of my good friends is also not really my style). I do, however, oppose many of your positions, and I enjoy debating the issues, as my gun-loving friends can attest. Now, is that really so difficult to understand without resorting to slander? ---
**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 28, 2003, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/324 "2003-05-28T14:46:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by lucwarm \* > An analogy: If we banned blue cars, it would lead to a reduction in the number of drunk driving deaths involving blue cars. So what. A better analogy: If we banned SUVs, it would lead to a reduction in the number of deaths attributed to SUVs. ---
**Author:** ![My\_Darn\_Snake\_Legs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f14d63/32.png) [@My\_Darn\_Snake\_Legs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/My_Darn_Snake_Legs)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2003, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/325 "2003-05-28T15:21:32Z")
You’re still missing the point as I see it. The point would be that you should get rid of the person who is using the tool in a dangerous manner and not the tool that is being used. The point that has been made over and over again in this thread is that **any** weapon (or car) can be dangerous to the public at large if it is in the wrong hands. You seem to be of the opinion that we should just get rid of all of the weapons or cars and that would solve the problem. It won’t. If a nutcase wants to kill someone, and she can’t find a gun, she will undoubtedly use something else to accomplish those ends. Be it a screwdriver or a pair of scissors. Would those then need to be banned? ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2003, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/326 "2003-05-28T15:27:01Z")
No, I like the cars analogy better. Blue cars are to cars as assault weapons are to weapons. SUV’s are to cars as rifles are to pistols. **Minty** , I missed that you were not the first to bring up the “annoys gun owners” comment. However, I didn’t take your “More like entertainment.” comment to dispute the accusation of spite. I read it as admitting it was so. I still maintain that after having been keeping up with this thread since the beginning, that there is only one explination that I can see to explain your postion. That you are an anti who wants any law to make guns illegal, regardless of how little sense it makes. Your refusal to cite any figures to back up your claims that the weapons in question are more dangerous. (You request money for a study). You want them banned regardless of actual danger. Your vague notion that the lines should be redrawn. You want more guns banned, but won’t say which ones. Your deliberately obtuse use of a layman’s definition of the term “Assault weapons” rather than the legal one, when you obvously know better. If there is another explinaiton for your position on this issue, I can’t see it. ---
**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 28, 2003, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/327 "2003-05-28T15:35:08Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by My Darn Snake Legs \* > The point would be that you should get rid of the person who is using the tool in a dangerous manner and not the tool that is being used. That strikes me as an unduly reactive theory of harm prevention. Me, I prefer to be proactive whenever possible. > [@](#): > > The point that has been made over and over again in this thread is that **any** weapon (or car) can be dangerous to the public at large if it is in the wrong hands. Some weapons are more dangerous than others. At a certain point, the dangerousness of a particular weapon begins to outweigh any benefits that it offers. That’s why we ban nerve gas, biological weapons, and assault weapons. > [@](#): > > If a nutcase wants to kill someone, and she can’t find a gun, she will undoubtedly use something else to accomplish those ends. Be it a screwdriver or a pair of scissors. Would those then need to be banned? I’ll let you do your own cost-benefit analysis for scissors and screwdrivers. Suffice it to say that your suggestion here is beyond silly. ---
**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 28, 2003, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/328 "2003-05-28T15:40:19Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > \*\*A better analogy: If we banned SUVs, it would lead to a reduction in the number of deaths attributed to SUVs. \*\* Except this law does not ban SUVs. It bans Ford Explorers, and other SUVs with any two of fog lights, brush guards, mag tires or luggage racks. To which the average SUV buyer will simply respond by purchasing a Chevy Blazer or Jeep Grand Cherokee or Canyonero or whatever else is the equivelant of an Explorer, and will only get one of the proscribed items. And to which the Ford Motor Company will respond by changing the Explorer body shape somewhat, move around a few components under the hood, and re-christian the SUV the Traveler. Net effect: no reduction in traffic deaths, either in general or by SUVs in particular. What a stupid, stupid law. ---
**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 28, 2003, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/329 "2003-05-28T15:42:20Z")
Actually, in my analogy above, that first sentence should read “…and other _automobiles_ with any two of…” ---
**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 28, 2003, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/330 "2003-05-28T15:56:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Debaser \* > That you are an anti who wants any law to make guns illegal, regardless of how little sense it makes. This, despite the fact that I explained quite clearly (to Gus 'n Spot) four or five pages ago what it is that I want in the way of gun control, and that it in no way resembled “any law to make guns illegal”? I’m afraid we’re back to basic reading skills as an alternative to your unnecessary and factually incorrect assertions about what I believe. > [@](#): > > You want them banned regardless of actual danger. Not so. I want assault weapon stringently regulated _because_ of actual danger. A nutball armed with an assault weapon is, generally speaking, far more dangerous than a nutball armed with a handgun or an ordinary hunting rifle. > [@](#): > > You want more guns banned, but won’t say which ones. Sorry, my subscription to Soldier of Fortune lapsed some time ago. I’ll be sure to renew when the research grant arrives. > [@](#): > > Your deliberately obtuse use of a layman’s definition of the term “Assault weapons” rather than the legal one, when you obvously know better. Do you ever get tired of making shit up about my motives? If you had bothered to _ask_ why I have generally used “assault weapon” in this thread, the answer would be two-fold: (1) the legislation under discussion defines and regulates “assualt weapons”; (2) gun fans freak out and cause endless hijacks when someone uses the ordinary meaning of “assault rifle” instead of the Guns and Ammo definition. > [@](#): > > If there is another explinaiton for your position on this issue, I can’t see it. Free your mind. **Dewey:** Remember that rersponse I asked you to file away for future reference? Please refer back to it. ---
**Author:** ![BF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b5ac83/32.png) [@BF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BF)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2003, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/331 "2003-05-28T16:41:23Z")
> [@](#): > > gun fans freak out and cause endless hijacks when someone uses the ordinary meaning of “assault rifle” instead of the Guns and Ammo definition. Actually **minty** you could turn that around and say “gun fans freak out when they hear the media/anti-gun control derived meaning of assault rifle”. If you don’t read G&A, how do you know what they call 'em? ---
**Author:** ![My\_Darn\_Snake\_Legs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f14d63/32.png) [@My\_Darn\_Snake\_Legs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/My_Darn_Snake_Legs)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2003, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/332 "2003-05-28T17:16:57Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > That strikes me as an unduly reactive theory of harm prevention. Me, I prefer to be proactive whenever possible. This strikes me as a bit tyranical. And pointless. Putting the problem in bubble wrap doesn’t make it go away. The guns aren’t the problem. The criminals are.:eek: > [@](#): > > I’ll let you do your own cost-benefit analysis for scissors and screwdrivers. Suffice it to say that your suggestion here is beyond silly. That’s the point. When you carry your theory to the end of it’s logical implications it is beyond silly. Yes: firearms are dangerous. Yes: Some people will use them in an illegal manner. Does that mean that the guns are the problem? No. The people who commit the crimes are the problem. That is the factor that needs to be removed. The message needs to be that crimes committed with firearms are not going to be tolerated. ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2003, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/333 "2003-05-28T17:47:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SenorBeef \* > > > [@](#): > > > > _Originally posted by minty green_ > > **Not so. If you look back a page or two, you’ll see where I posted links to five dictionary definitions of “assault rifle.” Four of those definitions agreed with the broad usage.** > > Give me a break. You’re a lawyer who often stresses the needs for precise terminology on here - and you’re purposefully ignoring the technical definition of assault rifles for the overly broad and incorrect definitions _in a discussion about the technical definitions of a law_. > > To insist that the dictionary definition is more appropriate than a precise technical definition when defining something in law is just disingenuous on your part. In **minty** ’s defense, he was countering my claims about the term “assault **rifle** ” as distinct from “assault **weapon** ”. I do not believe that he was referring to the Assault Weapons Ban (with its precise-but-controversial definition of “assault weapon”) when he said this. ---
**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 28, 2003, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/334 "2003-05-28T18:42:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by My Darn Snake Legs \* > This strikes me as a bit tyranical. Not me. But maybe that’s because I’ve lived in countries where guns were regulated right out of existence, but the governments were not in the slightest bit tyrranical. Such is the difference between rhetoric and reality, I suppose. > [@](#): > > The guns aren’t the problem. The criminals are.:eek: Do you get all your arguments off the backs of cars? ---
**Author:** ![My\_Darn\_Snake\_Legs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f14d63/32.png) [@My\_Darn\_Snake\_Legs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/My_Darn_Snake_Legs)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2003, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/335 "2003-05-28T18:57:51Z")
do you dismiss an arguement just because it may be on the back of someone’s car? “Appeal to the Man” is always a logical fallacy. ---
**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 28, 2003, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/336 "2003-05-28T19:04:51Z")
They can have my sarcasm when they pry it from my cold, dead hands. ---
**Author:** ![My\_Darn\_Snake\_Legs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f14d63/32.png) [@My\_Darn\_Snake\_Legs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/My_Darn_Snake_Legs)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2003, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/337 "2003-05-28T19:15:53Z")
You keep your sarcasm and I’ll keep my logic. Lets go have a pint and shoot at something. ---
**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 28, 2003, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/338 "2003-05-28T19:23:20Z")
That’s the first sensible thing your side has said in this thread. 😃 ---
**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 28, 2003, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/339 "2003-05-28T19:37:10Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > \*\*Dewey: Remember that rersponse I asked you to file away for future reference? Please refer back to it. \*\* Remember my response to that suggestion? Please refer back to it. ---
**Author:** ![BF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b5ac83/32.png) [@BF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BF)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2003, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/340 "2003-05-28T20:35:34Z")
“Lets go have a pint and shoot at something.” Tsk-tsk, that would be go shoot at something(s) first, then go have a pint and regale ourselves with sea stories. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764.md?page=16) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764.md?page=18)