# 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:** 3
**Author:** ![Monster104](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Monster104](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monster104)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2003, 4:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/41 "2003-05-23T04:41:14Z")
Oh yeah, an addendum for the above proposition: All bats described in said proposition will from here on be referred to as “Assault Weapons”. ---
**Author:** ![Beagle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/85f322/32.png) [@Beagle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beagle)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2003, 5:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/42 "2003-05-23T05:01:35Z")
Here’s one problem with an assault weapons ban in a [nutshell.](http://www.winchester-guns.com/prodinfo/catalog/detail.asp?cat_id=535&type_id=012&cat=001C) There may be an anecdotal connection between crazy people and their weapon of choice. But, there is little or no rational reason I can imagine to ban some scary _looking_ weapons. It’s the shooter, stupid! ---
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2003, 5:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/43 "2003-05-23T05:30:30Z")
To hell with defining a need that makes someone else feel good. I want 'em 'cause _I like 'em._ I _love_ going to the range and ripping through a half-dozen 30 rd clips at a half-dozen man sillhouettes. It ain’t hurting nothin’ but my pocketbook. And I’m not alone. BTW: If Georgie Boy decides to strongarm the GOP into extending the Ban, he might wanna talk to Daddy, first. Bush The Elder’s Executive Order banning the importation of certain “assault weapons” cost him at least a few million votes; possibly the '92 election. If Indecision 2000 was any example, Bush The Younger can’t spare the votes. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2003, 5:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/44 "2003-05-23T05:42:00Z")
There really wouldn’t be any love lost between the Bush family and the NRA. Remember, Daddy Bush resigned his membership in the NRA after Wayne LaPierre’s idiotic “jack-booted thugs” comment. The assault weapons ban is actually a winner with swing voters, and where are the hardcore right-wingers going to go? They’re not going to vote for the Dems, so GWB wouldn’t really be risking anything ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2003, 5:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/45 "2003-05-23T05:51:03Z")
> [@](#): > > Quite possibly. Risk-benefit and all that stuff, my dear Doctor. If the risk is significant and the benefit is nonexistent, as I believe to be the case with assault weapons, then I am quite happy to regulate 'em out of existence. Well I don’t see what the benefit of cigarretes are, the risks seem very apparent, but I certainly wouldn’t advocate banning them. ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2003, 5:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/46 "2003-05-23T05:55:56Z")
I think the arguments in favor of allowing people to enjoy themselves by firing projectiles into paper targets with scary looking weapons are at least as compelling as the arguments in favor of letting people enjoy themselves by sucking carcinogenic smoke into their lungs, or swilling down the product of fermented grains in order to intentionally impair their judgement. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2003, 6:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/47 "2003-05-23T06:17:37Z")
I’m curious about a few things: I have been told (by people I trust but maybe they were pulling my leg) that semi-auto rifles are very easy to turn into full auto weapons. True or not? Also, does anyone have or know of a link that would show the history of the Assault Weapon Ban Bill from conception to final passage? Specifically I am curious if there was a stronger version that wouldn’t seem as silly as a ‘scary weapons’ ban that was hamstrung by the NRA or other lobby groups. I can see how some in Congress might tell the NRA that while they really appreciate the compaign donaitons they need to _look_ like they are doing something about guns because it is politically popular at the moment to look tough on that issue. The NRA says fine…pass a law banning bayonet mounts and grenade launchers and we won’t fight you. Am I off base for wondering if such back-room negotiations occured? I do remember one instance of assault weapons being used in a crime. That bank shootout in LA (or around there) where two guys manhandled the LA police department 30+ minutes. The police supposedly had to go to a local gun shop to get more powerful weapons to stop the guys (they also wore body armor from head-to-toe…police weapons weren’t affecting them). The police won in the end (killing both men) but it was a shocking display nonetheless. ---
**Author:** ![bdgr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a87d85/32.png) [@bdgr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bdgr)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2003, 6:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/48 "2003-05-23T06:17:56Z")
Monster104…You hit a home run with that one…(couldnt resist) Shooting is a sport. People find value in indulging in that sport, just like in baseball. If scary looking guns are not being used in crime, it is silly to ban them. ---
**Author:** ![bdgr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a87d85/32.png) [@bdgr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bdgr)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2003, 6:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/49 "2003-05-23T06:20:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Whack-a-Mole \* > \*\*I’m curious about a few things: > > I have been told (by people I trust but maybe they were pulling my leg) that semi-auto rifles are very easy to turn into full auto weapons. True or not? > > Also, does anyone have or know of a link that would show the history of the Assault Weapon Ban Bill from conception to final passage? Specifically I am curious if there was a stronger version that wouldn’t seem as silly as a ‘scary weapons’ ban that was hamstrung by the NRA or other lobby groups. I can see how some in Congress might tell the NRA that while they really appreciate the compaign donaitons they need to _look_ like they are doing something about guns because it is politically popular at the moment to look tough on that issue. The NRA says fine…pass a law banning bayonet mounts and grenade launchers and we won’t fight you. > > Am I off base for wondering if such back-room negotiations occured? > > I do remember one instance of assault weapons being used in a crime. That bank shootout in LA (or around there) where two guys manhandled the LA police department 30+ minutes. The police supposedly had to go to a local gun shop to get more powerful weapons to stop the guys (they also wore body armor from head-to-toe…police weapons weren’t affecting them). The police won in the end (killing both men) but it was a shocking display nonetheless. \*\* Good thing those guns they got at the gun shop werent banned huh?..Cuz the bank robbers weapons were illegal, and they had them anyway…obviously the ban had no effect on them. If law abiding citizens werent allowed to own guns, the Cops would have been screwed. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2003, 6:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/50 "2003-05-23T06:21:33Z")
If I’m not mixing up my dates, I believe the event that really started the assault weapons ban rolling was when that nutcase in Seattle, I believe, used an AK-47 to shoot a bunch of kids in a schoolyard. The ironic thing is that he would have done a lot more damage if he had used a garden-varienty 12 ga shotgun, but no one even considered suggesting a ban on those. ---
**Author:** ![bdgr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a87d85/32.png) [@bdgr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bdgr)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2003, 6:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/51 "2003-05-23T06:25:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Sam Stone \* > \*\*If I’m not mixing up my dates, I believe the event that really started the assault weapons ban rolling was when that nutcase in Seattle, I believe, used an AK-47 to shoot a bunch of kids in a schoolyard. > > The ironic thing is that he would have done a lot more damage if he had used a garden-varienty 12 ga shotgun, but no one even considered suggesting a ban on those. \*\* Or he could have just run them down in his car. ---
**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 23, 2003, 6:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/52 "2003-05-23T06:45:41Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Whack-a-Mole \* > \*\*I do remember one instance of assault weapons being used in a crime. That bank shootout in LA (or around there) where two guys manhandled the LA police department 30+ minutes. The police supposedly had to go to a local gun shop to get more powerful weapons to stop the guys (they also wore body armor from head-to-toe…police weapons weren’t affecting them). The police won in the end (killing both men) but it was a shocking display nonetheless. \*\* Not just assault weapons, most actual assault rifles. 4 assault rifles (3 Kalashnikov AK-47 type, and one Bushmaster .223 converted to full auto) and one semi-automatic “assault weapon” (HK91). Plus some 9mm pistol fire. They fired more than 1,100 rounds, and killed nobody. Pretty pathetic, really. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2003, 6:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/53 "2003-05-23T06:58:17Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Phoenix Dragon \* > **…and one Bushmaster .223 converted to full auto)** Can I take this as an answer to part of my question earlier that converting semi-auto rifles (or weapons) to full-auto is easy? Certainly seems doable given what you wrote. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2003, 7:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/54 "2003-05-23T07:09:02Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Phoenix Dragon \* > \*\*They fired more than 1,100 rounds, and killed nobody. Pretty pathetic, really. \*\* > [@](#): > > Several years ago, a similar robbery in the community of Norco, California, created a shootout of parallel dimensions. Five suspects with assault rifles and explosives robbed the bank in Norco and fled. They shot eleven police officers, killing one, and shot down a police helicopter during a pursuit that lasted for over an hour. Eventually all suspects were captured or killed, but the cost was high. > > [Above regarding 1980 Security Pacific Bank robbery in Norco, California] > SOURCE: [http://www.snowcrest.net/marnells/officer.htm](http://www.snowcrest.net/marnells/officer.htm) > Secondary link: [http://lightsnsirens.freeyellow.com/norco.htm](http://lightsnsirens.freeyellow.com/norco.htm) That better? ---
**Author:** ![Riboflavin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Riboflavin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riboflavin)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2003, 7:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/55 "2003-05-23T07:09:21Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > Nothing. As I said above, I’m willing to listen if you can come up with some beneifts of assault weapons that outweigh their risks. Please, feel free to contribute. Note carefully that Minty feels no obligation to elaborate on what the ‘risks’ involved are, much less to provide cites showing that the ‘risks’ in this case are anything other than his irrational prejudices. If you can get away with rambling on about ‘risks’ without even specifying the risks (to say nothing of showing that such risks actually exist) to justify banning such things, then you can call for all kinds of bans that gun controllers don’t tend to like. For example, Minty’s line of reasoning can be used to justify sodomy laws, by just asking “what benefits of homosexual sex outweigh the risks?” > [@](#): > > As I understand it, what Congress was attempting to do in that subsection (B) definition was to regulate semiautomatic rifles that are _specically designed for military use_. That’s why, after specifically regulating that shopping list specific models, they added subsection (B) and defined it with reference to certain specific features: folding stocks, pistol grips, bayonet mounts, flash suppressors, and grenade launchers. If you really believe that the AWB was attempting to ban semiautomatic rifles that are “_specically designed for military use_”, and not semiautomatic rifles that look like rifles used by the military, could you tell us one military that actually uses these semi-automatic rifles which are allegedly specifically designed for them? ---
**Author:** ![Riboflavin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Riboflavin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riboflavin)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2003, 7:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/56 "2003-05-23T07:20:21Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Whack-a-Mole \* > Can I take this as an answer to part of my question earlier that converting semi-auto rifles (or weapons) to full-auto is easy? Certainly seems doable given what you wrote. \*\* “Easy” is an ill-defined term here. For example, constructing an open-bolt submachine gun (full-auto) from scratch can be done on home machining kit in less than a day, and (full-auto) AK-47s are routinely manufactured via hand tools in third world countries. Generally, converting any semi-automatic rifle to fully automatic is easier than making one from scratch, so it could certainly be said to be ‘easy’ if by easy you mean ‘takes less than a day for someone who knows what they’re doing’, but by that standard it’s also easy to simply make a fully automatic weapon from scratch. Converting a modern semi-automatic rifle to fully automatic is not a trival task, since some years back the ATF started telling manufacturers to include ‘anti-conversion’ features (different trigger mechanisms, slightly changes in internal dimensions to make certain parts not switchable) or have their guns classified as machine guns, and simply possessing the parts to convert a given semi-auto gun into a full-auto gun qualifies as possession of a machine gun under Federal and most state law. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2003, 7:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/57 "2003-05-23T07:30:31Z")
**For the people who oppose the Assault Weapons Ban:** Do you believe there should be _any_ limits to the power or types of weapons available legally the Joe Citizen? Forget what is or is not legal to own today. Imagine you can re-write the firearm laws to your choosing. Where would you draw the line in the sand? ---
**Author:** ![Riboflavin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Riboflavin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riboflavin)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2003, 7:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/58 "2003-05-23T07:32:00Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Sam Stone \* > The ironic thing is that he would have done a lot more damage if he had used a garden-varienty 12 ga shotgun, but no one even considered suggesting a ban on those. No, the ironic thing about the Stockton shooting is that police had the shooter in custody two years before the shooting, and had clear evidence that he was a felon in possession of a firearm. However, the feds weren’t interested in prosecuting a case of a felon possessing a firearm (which carries a minimum 5-year sentence), so he ended up walking free. I think the fact that the gun-control crowd pressed for more restrictions on law-abiding citizens instead of for actually convicting criminals under existing laws (which, in this case would have had the shooter in jail from his arrest two years before instead of shooting up a schoolyard) says a lot about the gun control movement in general. ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2003, 7:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/59 "2003-05-23T07:33:14Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Whack-a-Mole \* > \*\ ***For the people who oppose the Assault Weapons Ban:** > > Do you believe there should be _any_ limits to the power or types of weapons available legally the Joe Citizen? Forget what is or is not legal to own today. Imagine you can re-write the firearm laws to your choosing. Where would you draw the line in the sand? \*\* I’d draw the line with fully automatic weapons, unless you apply for a special permit. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2003, 7:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/60 "2003-05-23T07:45:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Blalron \* > \*\*I’d draw the line with fully automatic weapons, unless you apply for a special permit. \*\* How about especially lethal ammunition types (e.g. armor penetrating ammunition such a teflon bullets [I know they are not available to the public today nor has a police officer been killed by one])? Silencers? Flash suppressors? Anything else I’m not thinking of? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764.md?page=4)