# 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:** 19
**Author:** ![jonpluc](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/fbc32d/32.png) [@jonpluc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jonpluc)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2003, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/361 "2003-05-29T16:24:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > \*\* > And just out of curiosity, **jonpluc** , don’t you think such studies should be done BEFORE Congress allows major legislative initiatives to expire? The lack of study cuts both ways, you know. \*\* Thats nonsence,as the horse comes before the cart. You dont run around making laws IN THE FIRST PLACE unless you have something quantitative to improve by such legistaltion.I think its the burden of the government to prove to its electorate that there IS a problem, that this is what the best solution to the problem is, and that its done in the fairest and most equitable measure possible. I do not feel that this law in any way mets these standards. Government, if you make a claim, SHOW ME THE STUDY!! ---
**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 29, 2003, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/362 "2003-05-29T16:29:50Z")
I disagree. ---
**Author:** ![jonpluc](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/fbc32d/32.png) [@jonpluc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jonpluc)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2003, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/363 "2003-05-29T16:36:12Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > \*\*I disagree. \*\* To what part? A law should be fair and equitable? You should show how limiting my rights is good for me before you do it?That you shouldnt find the best solution?That the government hasnt provided any reasonable study as to its effectiveness?Or does the cart come BEFORE the horse? ---
**Author:** ![Phoenix\_Dragon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/65b543/32.png) [@Phoenix\_Dragon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Phoenix_Dragon)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2003, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/364 "2003-05-29T17:57:33Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > **I agree that if gun control were to be implemented with the goal of drastically reducing gun crime, then the place to start would be with handguns. But if you think my argument in this thread is made out of a desire to drastically reduce gun-related crimes overall, you are mistaken. My claim is simply this: When you weigh the costs, risks, and benefits of essentially unregulated private ownership of assault weapons, the costs and risks outweigh the benefits.** You keep _asserting_ that the cost of assault weapons is high, and people keep bringing forward cites showing that such weapons are used in a vast minority of crimes, in fact are less used in gun crimes than handguns and shotguns. The “costs and risks” of assault weapons appears to be very low, by the statistics so far, both pre- and post-ban. The reduction in crime that you parade around has been occuring for many years before the ban. > [@](#): > > **Quite possibly. Nevertheless, the availability of alternative means of destruction does not lead to the conclusion that any _particular_ means of destruction should be left unregulated.** Uh-huh… So it’s okay to switch weapons for an example when it fits your purposes, but not when it doesn’t? That’s rather dishonest of you. > [@](#): > > **Propane tanks (or was that Columbine?)** That was Columbine (And for the record, I’d like to thank the stupidity of those two, as there were a couple things they did wrong that saved a lot of lives that day). Anyway, since you’re so keen on “cost versus benefit”, I’d like to see the comparisons of benefits that make an assault weapon not worth it, while the handgun (Which is five times more likely to be used in a crime) _is_ worth it. I certainly think it’s worthwhile to have handguns availible, and since the _facts and statistics_ show that assault weapons (Regardless of how you complain about how “dangerous” they are) are less likely to be used in a crime, I don’t see any reason that they should be restricted like this law does. In general, assault weapons are a good deal larger than handguns, making them harder to conceal (Even the shortest “assault weapon” rifle, as mentioned earlier, can not be shorter than 26" in any configuration, considerably larger than any handgun), usually require two hands and a shouldered possition to fire accurately, are much more expensive to buy and own (And for those who want to steal them, rarer than handguns, shotguns, or rifles), and often require more maintenance. This is offset by higher accuracy than handguns (Generally, rapid-fire in close-quarters the way most inexperienced shooters would shoot would waste any increased accuracy), higher-power rounds than handguns (Less powerfull than many other rifles), and usually larger magazines. But as I already mentioned, criminals don’t generally go after assault weapons _or_ semi-automatic autoloading handguns. The most prefered weapon in crime is a large-caliber revolver. Assault weapons are very low in the “ranks” of sought-after weapons, outranked by handguns and shotguns of all types. The criminals aren’t exactly going to be lamenting the loss of assault weapons when they already have the weapons they want. ---
**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 29, 2003, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/365 "2003-05-29T18:23:25Z")
Sarin nerve gas has never been used in any recorded crime. You think it should be legal, PD? ---
**Author:** ![Doc\_Nickel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5fc32e/32.png) [@Doc\_Nickel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doc_Nickel)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2003, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/366 "2003-05-29T18:45:13Z")
That’s another of your increasingly-numerous straw men, there **Mints** , but you might want to note that nerve gas is available widely, over the counter and with zero controls. It’s called bug spray, many of which are in fact nerve agents. ---
**Author:** ![jonpluc](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/fbc32d/32.png) [@jonpluc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jonpluc)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2003, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/367 "2003-05-29T18:57:24Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > \*\*Sarin nerve gas has never been used in any recorded crime. You think it should be legal, PD? \*\* I may be wrong but wasnt sarin what was used in the Japaneese subway attack? ---
**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 29, 2003, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/368 "2003-05-29T19:10:30Z")
Yes, it was – but obviously, countries other than the U.S. don’t count. ---
**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 29, 2003, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/369 "2003-05-29T19:31:39Z")
Merely pointing out the silliness of defining the cost of a weapon only with reference to its incidence of use. Even if you count the Aum Shinriko guys, the incidence of nerve gas in crime is utterly dwarfed by the use of assault weapons in crime. Therefore, under the argument PD keeps making, sarin should be legal. ---
**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 29, 2003, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/370 "2003-05-29T20:50:10Z")
I just thought of something: The statistics on that page on gun crime say that 6% of guns involved in gun crimes are assault weapons, right? Well … what criteria are they using to determine whether a given gun is an assault weapon or not? Are they including all guns that would qualify as assault weapons under the Federal AWB if the Federal law covered guns manufactured before 1994, or are they only including guns which are banned under the Federal AWB (and are therefore illegally posessed)? ---
**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 29, 2003, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/371 "2003-05-29T21:30:54Z")
Allow me to refer you to page 1 of this thread and my post of 05-22-2003 09:43 PM. That post addresses both the definition used by the BJS and your misunderstading of the statistic. ---
**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 29, 2003, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/372 "2003-05-29T22:19:10Z")
Ah, you mean this one: > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > **The Bureau of Justice Statistics report on [Firearm Use By Offenders](http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf) report (Nov. 2001, revised 2/04/02) says that among inmates who carried a firearm during the offense for which they were incarcerated, 6.8% of state prisoners and 9.3% of federal prisoners reported carrying a “military-style semiautomatic,” defined by Bush II’s own Department of Justice as “a semiautomatic rifle with military features such as [_Oh, the humaity!_] a pistol grip, folding stock, flash suppressor, or bayonet mount.” See pp. 2-3.** _Extremely minor nitpick:_ The definition of “military-style semiautomatic” used in that study included not only military-style semiautomatic rifles, but also military-style semiautomatic pistols (defined as a semiautomatic pistol where the magazine or clip is visible) and military-style semiautomatic shotguns (defined as semiautomatic shotguns with the same kinds of features as military-style semiautomatic rifles). I say that this nitpick is extremely minor because all 3 of the above are addressed in the Feferal Assault Weapons Ban that this thread is about, and although the study didn’t say specifically, most of the “military-style semiautomatics” were probably rifles. A point that may be somewhat more important is that this 6.8% figure is the percentage of convicts who had been carrying a gun during their crime, who **reported** that the gun in question was a military-style semiautomatic. These reports were apparently not checked for their veracity. It is possible (although not very likely) that some of the inmates participating in this study reported carrying a heavier weapon than they actually were carrying, in order to inflate their egoes (even if the study was anonymous they might like to brag). ---
**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 29, 2003, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/373 "2003-05-29T22:38:36Z")
Let’s be fair. Here’s the [chart](http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf) **minty** is referring to, as best I can approximate it: ```auto % Inmates carrying firearm during current offense Type of Firearm State Federal Handgun 83.2% 86.7% Rifle 7.3 8.9 Shotgun 13.1 13.7 Single-shot 53.9% 49.2% Conventional Semiautomatic 43.2 51.8 Military-style Semiautomatic 6.8 9.3 Fully automatic 2.4 3.8 Number of inmates 190,383 12,936 ``` The problem is that “military-style semiautomatic” embraces handguns and shotguns as well as rifles. Given that handguns are the overwhelming gun of preference for criminals, I suspect your fears about the AR-15 are misplaced. If anything, we should be talking about the Tec-9. And as I noted earlier, I’d _prefer_ for criminals to use that handgun over others because it’s a piece of shit. A scary-looking piece of shit, but a piece of shit nonetheless. Certainly not useful for holding the Mekong Delta. And on preview, thanks to a pokey server, I see **tracer** has beat me to the point. ---
**Author:** ![Phoenix\_Dragon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/65b543/32.png) [@Phoenix\_Dragon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Phoenix_Dragon)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2003, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/374 "2003-05-29T23:31:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > \*\*Sarin nerve gas has never been used in any recorded crime. You think it should be legal, PD? \*\* Biological and chemical weapons have been used in crimes. We are talking about a group of weapons, not a specific weapon. It would be dishonest of me to use for an example that a _particular make_ of “assault weapon” has not been used in a crime, just as it’s dishonest of you to use for an example that a _particular make_ of chemical or biological weapons have not been used in a crime. It’s also a completely different degree of weapon. The similarities between “assault weapons” and other firearms, and biological/chemical weapons, are almost nonexistant. And you wouldn’t make a law that outlaws only certain NBC weapons because it makes a “scary green mist” or some other such cosmetic feature. As it stands now, however, many of the nerve gasses with valid non-military uses are not only completely legal, buch much cheaper and more easily availible than assault weapons. The point of bringing up the frequency of “assault weapon” use was not an argument soley on its own, but a comment on your cost-vs-benefit comparison, pointing out that the costs of them being availible seems to be quite low, already. Personally, I’m not convinced that the “benefit” of making them illegal or heavily restricted is worth it… ---
**Author:** ![Dogface](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9d8465/32.png) [@Dogface](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dogface)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2003, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/375 "2003-05-30T17:07:50Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Wyld Stallyn \* > \*\*I support the right to bear arms, and in the future, I intend to be a hunter. My question is: Why do you need an assault rifle? It seems like they’re mainly used in combat to spray down the opponent, and it wouldn’t be that effective while hunting. Thanks for the feedback. \*\* Thank you for proving your ignorance. The weapons banned in the 1994 law (to expire in 2004) were NOT assault rifles. They were “assault weapons”. This was defined as having a pistol grip, a flash suppressor, etc. Fully automatic weapons are regulated by a 1930s law and will still be regulated. ---
**Author:** ![45\_70](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/4/5f9b8f/32.png) [@45\_70](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/45_70)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2003, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/376 "2003-05-30T19:51:09Z")
So other than **Minty** padding his post count and nobody agreeing on what is means what has really been accomplished here? ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2003, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/377 "2003-05-30T20:37:44Z")
1. **Minty** ’s credibitity has been damaged. 2. Anyone reading this thread now knows that the 1994 assault weapons ban was a waste of trees and should be allowed to sunset. ---
**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 30, 2003, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/378 "2003-05-30T21:33:20Z")
Now you’ve gone and broken my heart, Debaser. How can I ever recover from the pain? :rolleyes: Incidentally, my response of a day or two ago appears to have been nibbled away by the hamsters. In a nutshell, the critique advanced by Dewey is essentially meritless. The weapons that are classified as “military-style semiautomatics” by the BJS are virtually identical to the “assault weapons” covered by the AWB. It’s pointless to complain that the BJS definition “embraces handguns and shotguns as well as rifles” because _so does the assault weapons ban_. Go ahead, compare the definitions in the two documents–there ain’t much, if any, difference. (tracer, of course, made the same critique, but also correctly noted that the BJS category overlapped with the AWB definition.) ---
**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 30, 2003, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/379 "2003-05-30T21:57:57Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > **In a nutshell, the critique advanced by Dewey is essentially meritless. The weapons that are classified as “military-style semiautomatics” by the BJS are virtually identical to the “assault weapons” covered by the AWB. It’s pointless to complain that the BJS definition “embraces handguns and shotguns as well as rifles” because _so does the assault weapons ban_.** I never said otherwise, and I wasn’t complaining about the definitions the BJS used. I only said that your fixation on rifles like the AR-15 might be misplaced, since the criminal’s weapon of choice is a handgun. One of those 6.8/9.3% of felons packing a AWB-defined assault weapon is thus more likely to be carrying a Tec-9 than a AR-15. And after reviewing my post, I think I made that point with reasonable clarity. Do please try to read my posts before you critique them. ---
**Author:** ![Phoenix\_Dragon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/65b543/32.png) [@Phoenix\_Dragon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Phoenix_Dragon)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2003, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/380 "2003-05-30T22:27:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > **The weapons that are classified as “military-style semiautomatics” by the BJS are virtually identical to the “assault weapons” covered by the AWB. It’s pointless to complain that the BJS definition “embraces handguns and shotguns as well as rifles” because _so does the assault weapons ban_. Go ahead, compare the definitions in the two documents–there ain’t much, if any, difference.** Actually, it looks as if the BJS cite defines a rifle as a “military-style semiautomatic” if it operates in semi-automatic mode, and has any of the cosmetic features (pistol grip, threaded barrel, bayonet lugs, folding stock, etc). The assault weapon ban defines a rifle as an “assault weapon” if it operates in semi-automatic mode, has a detatchable magazine, and _two or more_ of the cosmetic features. The BJS would include many weapons that the AWB does not, and this further illustrates the problems of determining how many “assault weapons” are used in crimes. Everyone has different definitions. Further, there are many weapons that would have been produced post-ban specifically to not fall under the ban, that would fall under the BJS definition of “military-style semiautomatic”. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764.md?page=18) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764.md?page=20)