# 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:** 5
**Author:** ![Kalashnikov](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/2bfe46/32.png) [@Kalashnikov](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalashnikov)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2003, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/81 "2003-05-23T15:21:31Z")
It seems to me that most multiple shootings happen rather slowly (at least until police or someone starts shooting back). Can anyone comfirm this, or am I just generalizing from a few of the most famous incidents? ---
**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 23, 2003, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/82 "2003-05-23T15:24:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ExTank \* > Get fucked. Every chance I get, my man. Unless, of course, you meant that as an insult, in which case I invite you to ponder what forum you’re in and, perhaps, reconsider your choice of words. ---
**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 23, 2003, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/83 "2003-05-23T15:27:29Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > \*\*I do consider target hunting to be a valid recreational activity. \*\* Hmmm. Okay. How about [this.](http://www.guncite.com/asw.html#IV) > [@](#): > > A. Hunting > > Proponents of laws against semiautomatics enjoy making the strawman argument that no-one requires a 30 round magazine to go hunting. The point is true, and it is already illegal in every state to hunt with more than a specified number of rounds (usually 3 to 6) in the magazine. The fact that 30 round magazines are not useful for hunting, however, has nothing to do with whether guns that can use small or large magazines (e.g. most semiautomatics) are good for hunting. > > It is also true that politically incorrect semiautomatic rifles are not as accurate at long distances as traditional bolt-action hunting guns. The longer barrel length and tighter chambering of the bolt action guns gives them greater long-ranger accuracy (especially for a single shot) than is enjoyed by most semiautomatics. (The semiautomatics’ pistol grips and low recoil improve accuracy for repeated shots at shorter ranges, as discussed above at page 26, but the bolt action’s advantages become more important for single shots at longer distances.) > > One other disadvantage of “assault weapons” as big-game hunting guns is that they fire only intermediate-sized cartridges, and not the large cartridges necessary to kill large animals such as moose or elk from far away. Thus, it is not surprising that most hunting guides (who tend to specialize in big game) do not place semiautomatic “assault weapons” at the top of their recommendation list for hunting rifles. > > Nevertheless, many hunters do prefer to use a Kalashnikov or Colt AR-15 Sporter rifle. > > First of all, the intermediate caliber cartridge used in most “assault weapons” is adequate for game no larger than deer at reasonable distances.**(Although .308 is a common hunting and “assault weapon” cartridge)** [129] Significantly, the ruggedness and durability of “assault weapons” makes them well-suited for the rough outdoor conditions of hunting. [130] > > Further, the low-recoil semiautomatic mechanism and pistol grip make an accurate second shot easier. That is why a Finnish company has designed a Kalashnikov especially for hunting, the Valmet Hunter, which is especially prized for its quick follow-up shots.**(Still banned in the US)** Similarly, Rugers and Colts are particularly popular as ranch or varmint-control rifles. [131] The destructive power of a single cartridge is low enough for the guns to be usable on rodents, and the greater accuracy of the follow-up shots makes the guns more effective. > > B. Competitive Target Shooting > > Some politically incorrect rifles, such as the Colt AR-15 Sporter and the HK-91 are among the best-built rifles that a citizen can purchase. With sterling accuracy (at shorter distances), they are valuable target rifles. [132] > > For competitive target-shooting, the military design background of some “assault weapons” makes them the most preferred of all firearms. The apex of the world of target shooting is the national target matches held every year Camp Perry, Ohio, under the supervision of the federal government’s Civilian Marksmanship Program. [133] > > In fact, the Colt AR-15 Sporter and its ancestors, loaded with 20 or 30 round magazines, have long been required weapons in some Civilian Marksmanship competitions. [134] Most of the other politically incorrect rifles outlawed by the gun bans are usable in other Civilian Marksmanship events, and are highly prized competition target guns. [135] Before the “assault weapon” controversy erupted, the firearms experts with the California Department of Justice had privately warned that “assault weapon” legislation would devastate the world of target competition. [136] > > That the federal government has for many decades encouraged civilians to purchase and practice with firearms like the Colt indicates that the assertions of gun prohibitionists that such firearms have “no legitimate use” is false. Few gun uses could more legitimate that government-sponsored target competition. > [@](#): > > Second, the reason that they then wrote the catch-all provision with reference to military features (bayonet mounts, flash suppressors, folding stocks, etc.) is because they were targeting military style weapons on the theory that those weapons are intentionally designed to kill assloads of people. Ok. Please explain how this rifle: [FN-FAL](http://www.securityarms.com/20010315/galleryfiles/0100/128.htm) can kill assloads of people better than this rifle: [M1A](http://www.springfield-armory.com/prod-rifles-m1a.shtml) Same caliber. Same magazine capacity. Same rate of fire. What’s the difference? (Hint: one is banned, guess why) ---
**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 23, 2003, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/84 "2003-05-23T15:31:58Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow \* > Just one not worthy of the same level of legislative deference as hunting, apparently. Costs and benefits, Dewey. Hunting has greater societal benefits than target shooting. While they’re both entertaining, hunting also provides food for the hunter and (much more significantly IMO) helps reduce numbers several hunted species that have become vastly overpopulated since we wiped out their natural predators. As hunting has greater social utility than target shooting, hunting properly gets greater legislative deference. ---
**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 23, 2003, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/85 "2003-05-23T15:32:28Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > **Nonsense. First, the act specifically outlawed the sale of a dozen or so specific models of military-style assault weapons.** Emphasis on the word _style_. The guns specifically named in the ban don’t have extraordinary performance characteristics – they just look nasty. \*\* > [@](#): > > Second, the reason that they then wrote the catch-all provision with reference to military features (bayonet mounts, flash suppressors, folding stocks, etc.) is because they were targeting military style weapons on the theory that those weapons are _intentionally designed to kill assloads of people_. Get over the “cosmetic” stuff, guys. It’s just a shorthand way of getting to the stuff Congress really wanted to regulate.\*\* That’s a mighty stupid way to go about things. If Congress is concerned about guns that have a certain effective rate of fire, why not premise the ban on, gee, I dunno, _the effective rate of fire_? Seriously. The assault weapons ban is like banning racing stripes on cars on the theory that such cars are more likely to go faster (and are thus more dangerous) than average automobiles. It’s beyond stupid.\*\* > [@](#): > > If you’re talking about effective rate of fire the AK-47 smokes any handgun, and that’s not even considering the 2x as large clip capacity of an assault rifle.\*\* Dare I ask for a cite? I’m no expert on firearms, but it seems to me the limiting factor on firing speed for a semiautomatic weapon is the shooter’s trigger finger. ---
**Author:** ![catsix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e19b73/32.png) [@catsix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/catsix)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2003, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/86 "2003-05-23T15:32:54Z")
> [@](#): > > **minty green** said: > And while a bullet from an AK-47 will kill a person just as dead as a bullet from a 9mm Glock, that AK-47 is designed to fire a whole lot more bullets a whole lot more accurately than any handgun. And my Remington 700 will fire those shots at much longer range much more accurately than any AK-47. Of course, you wouldn’t ban my Remington 700, because it’s an ordinary hunting rifle. > [@](#): > > If, for instance, NASCAR was killing thousands of people every year, we’d have it banned in a heartbeat, and quite justifiably. Could you provide a cite for the number of deaths annually that are directly attributable to target practice at a firing range? > [@](#): > > I do consider target hunting to be a valid recreational activity. Fine then. Please leave me alone to target shoot with my AK-47 and H&K MP5. > [@](#): > > First, the act specifically outlawed the sale of a dozen or so specific models of military-style assault weapons. As has been explained to you several times, they were banned entirely based on their names and cosmetic features like pistol grip stocks, material the stock consisted of, having a bayonet lug, and having a folding stock. Not one of the features that caused those particular guns to be banned, or that are listed in the ban, have anything at all to do with how the action of the gun works. They do not influence accuracy, rate of fire, or the type of ammunition the rifle uses. The banned features have absolutely **nothing** to do with the functionality of the rifle. > [@](#): > > If you’re talking about effective rate of fire the AK-47 smokes any handgun, and that’s not even considering the 2x as large clip capacity of an assault rifle. Fifteen rounds in a second and a half from the AK, and the same fifteen rounds in a second and a half from my Ruger P95D. One’s a rifle, one’s a handgun. > [@](#): > > I assert that it makes tremendous amounts of sense to draw the line in the general vicinity of where Congress put it. Yet no matter how many times you’ve been asked, you have yet to give a specific reason. What are the risks you think exist, and what evidence do you base your belief on? ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2003, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/87 "2003-05-23T15:33:15Z")
> [@](#): > > Not quite as easy as that. You also need a lower receiver (which is the serial #'d part and therefore the part ATF considers the gun from a legal standpoint) capable of accepting those parts. AR-15 lowers as manufactured by Colt, for example, differ internally and in sizes/placements of various pins. Even if you had all the parts you listed, you’d still need to do some substantial work on the receiver before it would accept the parts and function as an automatic weapon. Bushmaster lowers are the closest to mil-spec, and even then you still would need to do some very precise drilling in order to install the select-fire trigger group. Converting an AR to an M-16 isn’t quite as simple as “drop in the parts and rock!” FWIW, if you have an old enough Colt AR, it is capable of accepting a “drop in auto sear” that will cause it to fire full-auto only. BATF has been running a sting operation for years offering them for sale in such periodicals as Shotgun News. Actually, it _is_ quite as easy as that. The parts are fully interchangeable. At least they were. It is possible that Colt changed the layout for post-ban guns. (Mine was made in 1979 and my other lowers are pre-ban.) Also, the “drop in auto sear” will allow selective fire with the M-16 selector. The AR-15 will not accept an M-16 automatic sear, since the interior of the receiver where the sear goes is narrower than on an M-16. That’s why people came up with the drop-in sear. Otherwise the AR receiver would have to be machined. AFAIK, you _can_ legally buy a drop-in auto sear; but it has to have been made before a certain date (1984?) and you must live in a Class III state and pay the transfer tax and buy it from a Class III dealer and undergo the background investigation and register is just like it is a machine gun. I’m not sure if you can actually _use_ it in your AR though, since that would make your rifle a “machine gun” and manufacture of new machine guns for civilian consumption has been illegal for a number of years. ---
**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 23, 2003, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/88 "2003-05-23T15:35:06Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by John Harrison \* > Same caliber. Same magazine capacity. Same rate of fire. What’s the difference? (Hint: one is banned, guess why) You’ve made a compelling argument for drawing the line to include a weapon not covered by the original legislation. Thank you for your contribution. ---
**Author:** ![Scumpup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce73a5/32.png) [@Scumpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scumpup)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2003, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/89 "2003-05-23T15:44:54Z")
> [@](#): > > If you’re talking about effective rate of fire the AK-47 smokes any handgun, and that’s not even considering the 2x as large clip capacity of an assault rifle. Hogwash. First, let’s be clear on the AK-47. It was a select fire weapon. It hasn’t been manufactured even in its country of origin in decades because it was long since superseded by the AKM, the AK-74, and other weapons all of which were also select fire. There is only a tiny number of true select fire Kalashnikovs in the US because they were never imported for civilian sales. The ones that are here are as tightly regulated as all machine guns have been since the '30’s. Presumably, you are using “AK-47” as a generic term to mean all the semi-automatic rifles that were imported from China, Egypt, Bulgaria, Romania, and Russia. They fire exactly one shot per pull of the trigger just like any other semi-automatic firearm. If by “effectively” you are refering to hitting a target, rifles in general are easier to shoot accurately than handguns in general. Clearly, you know very little about firearms in general, and military type weapons in specific. Why don’t you go do a little studying so that you have more to contribute to the debate than “they scare me!” ---
**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 23, 2003, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/90 "2003-05-23T15:46:17Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow \* > If Congress is concerned about guns that have a certain effective rate of fire, why not premise the ban on, gee, I dunno, _the effective rate of fire_ You draft up that letter, Dewey, and I’ll be happy to send a copy to my representatives too. > [@](#): > > The assault weapons ban is like banning racing stripes on cars on the theory that such cars are more likely to go faster (and are thus more dangerous) than average automobiles. It’s beyond stupid. Grenade launchers, bayonet holders, flash suppressors, folding stocks, and pistol grips are hardly decorative, you know. They serve quite functional purposes, particularly _military_ purposes. If you really want to get your analogy up and running, try high-performance tires and scooped engines. > [@](#): > > I’m no expert on firearms, but it seems to me the limiting factor on firing speed for a semiautomatic weapon is the shooter’s trigger finger. As any shooter can attest, there is a vast difference between pulling a trigger and hitting a target. Go down to the range sometime and see how accurately you shoot, pulling the trigger as fast as you can, with an assault weapon vs. a pistol. ---
**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 23, 2003, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/91 "2003-05-23T15:56:05Z")
Chill, Scumpup. I was using “AK-47” as a generic assault weapon of the type covered by the '95 ban. And “clearly,” you don’t know me or my personal firearms experience, so you might want to make be a little less cavalier in making such assertions. I’d hate to see you fall into the same ridiculous argument that so many past gun debaters around here have made: “You’re just afraid of guns and think they’re yucky and they scare you and you don’t know anything about them.” I assure you, that is not the case. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2003, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/92 "2003-05-23T16:03:58Z")
**Minty** , I have a sense that you’re not fully serious in your arguments. Let’s get real. There are people who, rightly or wrongly, want guns to generally be banned. They have gotten such a law passed in a few places like New York City and Washington, D.C. (I won’t dwell on the murder rates in those “fortunate” cities.) However, it’s politically impossible to get a federal ban on guns enacted. So, gun opponents have sought bans on certain allegedly special classes of guns, even though the arguments might be contradictory. E.g., assault weapons must be banned according to these people, because they’re powerful, accurate, expensive, and look like big military weapons. OTOH, “Saturday Night Specials” must be banned because they’re weak, inaccurate, cheap, and small. See, the reasons don’t really matter. The real goal is to ban guns, one type at a time. ---
**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 23, 2003, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/93 "2003-05-23T16:08:35Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > **You draft up that letter, Dewey, and I’ll be happy to send a copy to my representatives too.** I generally don’t support gun bans for constitutional and policy reasons. But I think it reasonable to say that, if there must be a ban, at least let it make sense. > [@](#): > > \*\*Grenade launchers, bayonet holders, flash suppressors, folding stocks, and pistol grips are hardly decorative, you know. They serve quite functional purposes, particularly _military_ purposes. \*\* With the possible exception of flash suppressors, this is a crock. No civilian purchases a weapon with a bayonet holder because he’s planning a bayonet charge. He buys it because it looks cool. Grenade launchers are eye candy without the already-highly-regulated grenades. And folding stocks and pistol grips just plain don’t add much to a weapon. \*\* > [@](#): > > As any shooter can attest, there is a vast difference between pulling a trigger and hitting a target. Go down to the range sometime and see how accurately you shoot, pulling the trigger as fast as you can, with an assault weapon vs. a pistol.\*\* Why do you insist on comparing a rifle to a pistol? Let’s compare a banned semiauto rifle to a non-banned semiauto rifle and see what the effective rate of fire is. ---
**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, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/94 "2003-05-23T16:15:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > \*\* > If you’re talking about effective rate of fire the AK-47 smokes any handgun, and that’s not even considering the 2x as large clip capacity of an assault rifle. > \*\* Cite? Ive fired an AK-47. I’ve also fired an M-16, a SKS, An M-1 Carbine, and numerous semi auto rifles and pistons. The highest rate of fire I got out of any of them was a glock 9mm pistol. I would bet that most semi auto pistols fire faster than an AK… ---
**Author:** ![g8rguy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/7cd45c/32.png) [@g8rguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/g8rguy)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2003, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/95 "2003-05-23T16:21:18Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > **Grenade launchers, bayonet holders, flash suppressors, folding stocks, and pistol grips are hardly decorative, you know. They serve quite functional purposes, particularly _military_ purposes.** Full disclaimer: I am not a gun expert and am perhaps about to display shocking ignorance here. However… let me understand your argument, **minty**. Certain features such as folding stocks serve a military purpose. Therefore, we should ban them, as there is a risk associated with them (which you really do need to quantify, I think) which outweighs the benefits (which people who like them ought probably to quantify as well). Working for the moment under the assumption that this isn’t misrepresenting your argument (if it is doing so, it isn’t intentional, at least), I have to wonder something. If that which is banned is really features such as grenade launchers and pistol grips, when you do your risk-benefit analysis, how can you possibly justify analyzing anything other than the risks and benefits of grenade launchers and pistol grips? And having done that, I’d be very surprised to hear that bayonets mounted to an assault weapon are involved in anything more than an utterly negligible fraction of violent crime. Similarly, I’d be rather surprised to hear that pistol grips are involved in more than a similarly small fraction. I guess what I’m saying is that I’ll buy an appeal to a risk-benefit analysis, but it has to be a good, useful, risk-benefit analysis. I mean, if a bayonet kills 2 extra people a year, I could see no reason whatsoever to ban bayonet mounts. Whereas if bayonets killed 10,000 extra people a year, there’d certainly be a point to banning them. I, perhaps naively, expect that the first is rather closer to the truth than the last. ---
**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, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/96 "2003-05-23T16:43:20Z")
Beer kills far more people every year than assault rifles. I say we outlaw beer. I know people will still get beer, but it will be so expensive to get that it wont be a problem. Worked last time we did it. ---
**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, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/97 "2003-05-23T17:04:40Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by bdgr \* > \*\*Motorcycles. People die on them all the time. Should they be banned? Dogs bite people, maybe we should ban those too. You dont need to own a dog or a motorcycle. Deep fryers. Does anybody really need to own a deep fryer? Deep fried food is bad for your health, and you could burn yourself, or your kid could pull it off the counter on top of themself(happened once…it was in the news). Boating. Nobody needs to own a boat, and people drown every year. Im not talking about fishing boats here, just the ski boats, and waterskis. Nobody needs those things. Monsters baseball example is being iignored here. Where do you stand on banning baseball Minty? > > Theres a lot of dangerous stuff we have around for our own enjoyment. Unless it is being misused a significant amount of the time, you don’t just go banning it. \*\* The difference with most of the examples you cited are the risks are assumed by the person engaging in the activity…not by bystanders. If you drown while swimming or shoot yourself while hunting it may be sad but not, in my view, as upsetting as if you intentionally drown or shoot someone else. I find the lack of responses to what legal restrictions to weapons should be in place interesting. I got one answer…no machine guns (without a special permit so even that restriction was mitigated). I can follow the reasoning here and see thatthe AWB as it stands today does seem silly. Still, I get no answer as to how the original bill might have been conceived and how it may have been whittled away at till something that could be passed was brought to the floor for a vote. Given the power of the NRA and other lobbies I do not find it surprising that a bill to pass over their objections would almost perforce have to be close to useless. I would have a LOT more respect for the NRA and pro-gun groups in general if THEY sat down and agreed on what should and should not be allowed when it comes to firearm ownership and presented that to the American public. Perhaps they view it as a slippery-slope where they cannot give an inch for fear that bending will bring an outright ban on firearm ownership that much closer…a fair concern in my view. Still, I would have much more faith in their credibility if they allowed that some weapons and their add-ons are simply inappropriate for public use. I have seen many posters say there is really no difference between weapon X and weapon Y and I am nowhere near expert enough to argue. However, I worry at the sense that a gun is a gun is a gun…all the same when you get down to it. To my mind there is a reason for different types of weapons on the market (not including overlap by competitors). Each weapon will either surpass any other weapon for a specific application or it will be more cost effective (cheaper and thus easier to obtain). It was said earlier that while it is possible to turn a semi-auto weapon into a full-auto weapon it isn’t all that easy considering you can make a homemade bomb with gasoline and fertilizer. Well…I can kill with a pen, a rock, a pillow or my barehands. The argument that guns should be legal because if you want to kill womeone getting rid of guns won’t stop them is disingenuous. We arm our police and troops with guns rather than pillows because guns are MUCH more efficient at killing people than pillows are. At some point I maintain that a weapon’s efficiency at killing surpasses what is needed for target shooting or hunting (or other legal, non-police/non-military applications). While greater accuracy, larger calibers and higher rates of fire might make anyone a more successful hunter at some point I think you need to stop the betterment of the weapon and focus on your skill and live with it. I am willing to discuss and debate where that line might reasonably be drawn but I feel the line must be drawn. ---
**Author:** ![catsix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e19b73/32.png) [@catsix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/catsix)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2003, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/98 "2003-05-23T17:22:47Z")
> [@](#): > > **Whack-a-Mole** said: > Still, I would have much more faith in their credibility if they allowed that some weapons and their add-ons are simply inappropriate for public use. The NRA has allowed that, in that they’ve never suggested getting rid of the federal class III restrictions, never argued that citizens have a right to have RPGs and grenades, etc. The NRA has supported crime bills that punish offenders more severely if they use a firearm in the commission of a crime, was instrumental in the creation of NICS (National Instant Check System). The NRA has drawn a line between what they believe citizens should reasonably be able to own and what they don’t, the thing is, you just don’t seem to agree with where that line is. ---
**Author:** ![Scumpup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce73a5/32.png) [@Scumpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scumpup)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2003, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/99 "2003-05-23T17:25:56Z")
> [@](#): > > Actually, it is quite as easy as that. Nope, sorry, it isn’t. Get yourself a copy of _The AR-15/M-16 Sourcebook 2nd Edition_ by Duncan Long. It has lots of information about building your own AR and the various full-auto conversions. Well before the ban Colt AR lowers were different from the M-16 lowers they also manufactured specifically because they were trying to make it as inconvenient as possible to convert an AR to full auto. You might also consider going over to [http://www.ar15.com/](http://www.ar15.com/) and poking around. The site is a treasure trove of AR information and was invaluable when I was building two of the ones I own. ---
**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, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/100 "2003-05-23T17:49:25Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by catsix \* > \*\*The NRA has drawn a line between what they believe citizens should reasonably be able to own and what they don’t, the thing is, you just don’t seem to agree with where that line is. \*\* To some extent yes but we have to be careful here. There are black areas, white areas and gray areas. RPGs and rocket launchers are pretty easy for all to agree to restrictions. Machine guns as well (probably). I personally feel the bar needs to be lower than prohibitions on the ownership of bazookas. Stronger laws to punish people more severly if they use a firearm in the commission of a crime is all well and good (and appropriate IMO) but I have seen people on this board state that someone who is ready to kill someone won’t be deterred by stronger legal penalties (and I agree). Either criminals are irrational so laws won’t help no matter what or they are rational and figure a firearm gives them more benefit than the legal penalties they risk by its use. Does the AWB do any good? Probably not. Besides what has been written here I doubt most criminals would use them (assault weapons) anyway. They want a weapon that can be concealed and is good for close-in work. If they plan on squaring off with a rival gang across a parking lot with dozens of people involved then an assault weapon would probably be useful but that rarely (if ever) happens. Additionally I don’t think even most criminals who are willing to shoot someone want to fire indiscriminantly and catch bystanders. They may not care overly much but they aren’t gunning for those people either (a few wack-jobs aside). If they did use a machine gun and/or caught innocent bystanders the police are going to be MUCH more interested in chasing them down. Basically, I think the police will try much harder to catch someone who killed a six year-old girl crossing the street with her mother than one crackhead who killed another in a drug deal gone bad. In short, semi-auto ‘scary’ looking rifles don’t bother me too much (which is not to say I wouldn’t be scared staring down the barrel of one…I would be very scared as I would with any weapon pointed at me). Handguns scare me more. Barring an outright ban on firearms of all types I could support anything that aids me should I be unfortunate enough to have someone shooting at me. No silencers (which might give the criminal more reason to think they can shoot and not alert authorities), flash suppressors (same idea), laser sights, unusually damaging ammunition (I seem to recall some kind of ‘razor’ ammo that would go shrapnel inside the body but I can’t find a link), calibers so large that cause huge amojnts of damager regardless of where I might be hit and still threaten my life, high rates of fire and so on. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764.md?page=6)