# 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:** 6
**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, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/101 "2003-05-23T18:01:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by catsix \* > \*\*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). \*\* I do not know details on this so correct me if I’m wrong (i.e. don’t flame me) but I thought gun shows rendered the NICS essentially useless. ---
**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 23, 2003, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/102 "2003-05-23T18:10:55Z")
> [@](#): > > **I do not know details on this so correct me if I’m wrong (i.e. don’t flame me) but I thought gun shows rendered the NICS essentially useless.** -Nope. Any licensed dealer _must_ follow proper procedure to sell a firearm whether he’s in his store, at his house, at a gunshow, at a garage sale or selling out of the trunk of his car. Records are kept and regularly scrutinized. At any recent gunshow I’ve been to, the dealers all had cellphones with which to call the 24-hour FBI “instant check” line. The so-called “gun show loophole” is a fallacy. ---
**Author:** ![BF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b5ac83/32.png) [@BF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BF)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2003, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/103 "2003-05-23T18:16:08Z")
At your service **Whack** … > [@](#): > > This is where the **police only** Winchester Ranger Talon (formerly Black Talon and Ranger SXT) bullet departs from conventional expanding hollowpoint bullets. Ranger Talon adds an additional wounding mechanism: cutting. From [here](http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs2.htm#Black-Talon). ---
**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, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/104 "2003-05-23T18:20:15Z")
The best arguments I’ve seen for keeping the ban is a vague notion that the lines have to be drawn “somewhere”, and that nobody “needs” these “assault weapons”. Whether these scary looking weapons actually pose a greater threat to anyone than 'legitimate" weapons doesn’t seem to matter. They aren’t “neccesary” therefore they must be banned. ---
**Author:** ![Sofa\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/58956e/32.png) [@Sofa\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sofa_King)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2003, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/105 "2003-05-23T18:22:39Z")
I realize this conversation has moved on to greener pastures, but I wanted to say that I somewhat agree with **minty** ’s assertion that the law was designed to capture most or all mil-spec weapons. It is utter folly to discern the logic of Congress from the outside, but we are forced every day to deduce the intent of legislation, and I think **minty** ’s explanation is as good as any. _However_, that does not change the fact that the catch-all provisions targeted gun features which by and large do not affect the lethality of the weapon, but which do enhance the lethal _appearance_ of the weapon. And plenty of gun enthusiasts here point out that there are equally lethal weapons which did not make the list. Provision IX of the '94 Crime Bill was, in my opinion, one of those “there oughta be a law” laws which need never have happened. ---
**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, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/106 "2003-05-23T18:26:35Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Doc Nickel \* > The so-called “gun show loophole” is a fallacy. Quite true. It’s really a “private sales” loophole. ---
**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, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/107 "2003-05-23T18:29:35Z")
> [@](#): > > 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. I’m not really interested in continuing this hijack, but I can tell you from experience that M-16 parts will work perfectly well in pre-ban AR-15s. Of course, I never had or used a drop-in sear; and not wanting to take chances, I never used the M-16 selector. I never made them capable of full-auto fire – but the parts _did_ fit and worked perfectly well. When the BATF decided that people can’t have machine gun parts, I got rid of the M-16 parts and replaced them with civilian parts. I did say that the AR-15 lower receiver is different from the M-16 receiver. It’s narrower inside so that an “official” auto sear cannot be used. But I can tell you from experience that M-16 internal parts work in pre-ban AR-15s, including Colts. I’ve built four AR-15s from parts, and they all worked. ---
**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, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/108 "2003-05-23T18:31:40Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Sofa King \* > _However_, that does not change the fact that the catch-all provisions targeted gun features which by and large do not affect the lethality of the weapon, but which do enhance the lethal _appearance_ of the weapon. That’s certainly true of flash suppressors, and pretty much also accurate for bayonet mounts and grenade launchers, since in the real world nobody actually uses them. Folding/telescoping stocks, however, aid in the concealment of the gun ( ---
**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, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/109 "2003-05-23T18:37:02Z")
quite unlike most ordinary rifles). And while I’ve never fired a rifle with a pistol grip, I’m given to understand that the point there is to enable the user to rapid fire more effectively close in without raising the rifle to the shoulder. So at least two of the five catch-all criteria have some reasonable relationship to the lethality of the weapon. ---
**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, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/110 "2003-05-23T18:38:27Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Doc Nickel \* > \*\*-Nope. Any licensed dealer _must_ follow proper procedure to sell a firearm whether he’s in his store, at his house, at a gunshow, at a garage sale or selling out of the trunk of his car. Records are kept and regularly scrutinized. > > At any recent gunshow I’ve been to, the dealers all had cellphones with which to call the 24-hour FBI “instant check” line. > > The so-called “gun show loophole” is a fallacy. \*\* What about ‘un-licensed’ dealers. Maybe ‘dealers’ is the worng word but what I mean is what if Jonh Doe wants to sell his gun to Joe Citizen? Neither of them are gun dealers…just two people agreeing to a swap. Are they covered by the NICS? > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Blalron_ > The best arguments I’ve seen for keeping the ban is a vague notion that the lines have to be drawn “somewhere”, and that nobody “needs” these “assault weapons”. > > Whether these scary looking weapons actually pose a greater threat to anyone than 'legitimate" weapons doesn’t seem to matter. They aren’t “neccesary” therefore they must be banned. As you (and I see **Sofa King** ) seem to be implying passing laws because people have a vague sense that ‘some law’ needs to be passed does not make for good legislation. One side wants no guns and the other wants no (or very little) restriction at all. The resulting legislation tends to be no more than window dressing. It doesn’t placate the no-gun lobby and pisses off the pro-gun lobby as utter uselessness. That’s why I was trying to take a different angle. Get the people who fervently defend the right to own firearms to come to a consensus on what restrictions are appropriate. I think it is safe to say that _some_ restriction is appropriate. Driving doesn’t carry the Constitutional protections that guns do but no one has a problem restricting NASCAR class autos to the race track and off of the public streets. Why can’t it be similar with guns? > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Sofa King_ > I realize this conversation has moved on to greener pastures… Sorry…I can return this thread to its more divisive stance if you prefer ;). ---
**Author:** ![Balle\_M](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/13edae/32.png) [@Balle\_M](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Balle_M)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2003, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/111 "2003-05-23T18:44:56Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > \*\*In fact, assault weapons have significantly less utility as a means of self-defense than other firearms. \*\* Huh…??? ---
**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, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/112 "2003-05-23T18:51:16Z")
**minty** , would you be in favor, then, of changing things so that rather than meeting at least two of the five criteria is banned, meeting at least one of your two significant criteria (folding stock and pistol grip) is the bad thing instead? Or would you argue it’d be better to leave things as they stand? If so, why? ---
**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, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/113 "2003-05-23T18:54:34Z")
> [@](#): > > That’s why I was trying to take a different angle. Get the people who fervently defend the right to own firearms to come to a consensus on what restrictions are appropriate. All right. I think fully automatic weapons are a good line to be drawn, and that line was drawn back in the 1930s. > [@](#): > > I think it is safe to say that some restriction is appropriate. Driving doesn’t carry the Constitutional protections that guns do but no one has a problem restricting NASCAR class autos to the race track and off of the public streets. Why can’t it be similar with guns? Ok. Keep guns on hunting lands, shooting ranges, and private property. But that’s the way it already is. Unless you have a special Concealed Carry permit or you are a law enforcement officer, you can’t carry guns around on the streets. That’s the way it is now. ---
**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, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/114 "2003-05-23T19:05:00Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Balle\_M \* > \*\*Huh…??? \*\* I think you have to define what you are defending against. If you are in a trench facing a thousand angry soldiers rushing at you then you will definitely want an assault rifle as opposed to a handgun to use. However, for most instances an average person is likely to encounter at home or on the street an assault rifle is not as useful as a handgun. More likely than not you will be in close proximity to your attacker. Bringing a handgun to bear is generally much faster than bringing an assault weapon to bear. If your opponent has a handgun and is five feet away your likely to have three shots in you before you could begin to fire. ---
**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, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/115 "2003-05-23T19:07:27Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Balle\_M \* > Huh…??? Assault weapons are designed for taking out groups of people at a distance through withering fire, not to pop a burglar sneaking through your patio door. If you want a weapon for protection against crime, get a handgun or a shotgun. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by g8rguy \* > minty, would you be in favor, then, of changing things so that rather than meeting at least two of the five criteria is banned, meeting at least one of your two significant criteria (folding stock and pistol grip) is the bad thing instead? I think I’d be cool with that as long as they also updated the laundry list every time a manufacturer comes up with a model that skirts around the edges of the intended class of assault weapons. Like others have said above, it’s pretty ridiculous to ban one model because it has a flas supppressor and a bayonet mount when another model is identical in every way except for not including those tow features. Ban 'em all, I say, and let Charlton Heston sort 'em out. ---
**Author:** ![Balle\_M](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/13edae/32.png) [@Balle\_M](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Balle_M)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2003, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/116 "2003-05-23T19:07:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic \* > \*\*FTR, GWB has said that he is in favor of extending the law when it sunsets. He may strongarm the GOP into extending the ban whether they want to or not. If he does, it will be the first decent thing he’s done as POTUS. \*\* Not a decent thing, but a smart thing. Extending the ban will placate the soccer moms and others who get their panties in a knot over whether my SKS has a bayonet on it while allowing the NRA, GOA, and others to spend their dinero on other issues such as a national concealed carry 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, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/117 "2003-05-23T19:19:51Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Blalron \* > **All right. I think fully automatic weapons are a good line to be drawn, and that line was drawn back in the 1930s.** What about silencers? Especially lethal ammo? Laser sights? Higher calibers that are especially devastating? > [@](#): > > Ok. Keep guns on hunting lands, shooting ranges, and private property. But that’s the way it already is. > > Unless you have a special Concealed Carry permit or you are a law enforcement officer, you can’t carry guns around on the streets. That’s the way it is now. Like many analogies the NASCAR one isn’t perfect. Despite the laws people (many people) do carry concealed weapons. I’d wager those people carry them for no good purpose (more often than not). I can take you to parts of Chicago where I guarantee you would not feel safe…not safe because you can be reasonably sure there are guns nearby in the hands of people you don’t want to meet. Could those people threaten you with a knife as well? Certainly but you have a better chance of avoiding being hurt by the guy who pulls a knife than the guy who pulls a gun on you. No matter what laws or restrictions are passed there are likely to be such people out there. However, as it stands today, it is easy for ‘undesirables’ to get their hands on a gun. What I’d like to see is a way to make it difficult to very difficult for them to obtain a gun while not being ‘too’ burdensome on law abiding gun enthusiasts. Of course it’s the ‘too burdensome’ aspect that is open to huge debate. I still think it’s a good start for the gun community itself to start it off by trying to suggest measures themselves…something they can live with that also makes it harder for criminals to get guns. It doesn’t have to be a 100% solution…it never could be but a significant decrease would be worthwhile. ---
**Author:** ![BF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b5ac83/32.png) [@BF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BF)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2003, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/118 "2003-05-23T19:39:34Z")
> [@](#): > > What about silencers? > Especially lethal ammo? > Laser sights? > Higher calibers that are especially devastating? Are currently regulated like machine guns. I want the most lethal ammo I can buy (I want the deer to be dead before it hits the ground). Are only as good as the shooter. One of the most powerful handguns in the world was just introduced by S&W. It weighs about 51/2 pounds and holds 5 shots and retails for $1K. I highly doubt we’re gonna see a rash of gang-banger’s totin’ this thing around… ---
**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 23, 2003, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/119 "2003-05-23T19:41:28Z")
The Federal Assault Weapons Ban bans all semiautomatic rifles manufactured after the ban went into effect that have a detachable magazine and 2 or more of the following features:[ul][li]A grenade launcher[/li][li]A bayonet clip[/li][li]A flash suppressor (or a threaded barrel that can accept one)[/li][li]A protruding pistol grip[/li][li]A folding stock[/ul][/li] I am opposed to the inclusion of a grenade launcher on this list. A grenade launcher (as scary as that sounds) is a place below the barrel that can accept a rifle grenade. Rifle grenades with real explosives are already banned. Furthermore, a “grenade” launcher can also be used for things like tow lines that aren’t designed for use as weapons. I am opposed to the inclusion of a bayonet clip on this list. A knife holder, even if it has a knife in it, doesn’t make a rifle any more deadly or dangerous to use as a rifle. I am opposed to the inclusion of threaded barrels “that can accept a flash suppressor” on this list. It means that if someone goes into business manufacturing a new flash suppressor designed to fit barrels that had previously been threaded only to accept a compensator (or other non-flash-suppressor screw-in device), then many of the guns that this new screw-in flash suppressor fits will suddenly become illegal assault weapons even if the owner has never heard of this new flash suppressor. The inclusion of a flash suppressor on this list, though, I’m ambivalent about. Yes, having a flash suppressor means you won’t blind yourself when firing at night, which is a good thing. But see below. **I support the inclusion of a pistol grip and a folding stock on this list.** Why? Because the main effect of both of these devices is to make the sun easier to fire from the “assault position” at the waist or hip. Similarly, a flash suppressor makes it easier to fire repeatedly from the assault position, because you won’t be blinded between shots. When fired from the assault position, a rifle is **more difficult to control and aim.** You are more likely to shoot something you didn’t intend to shoot. So it would seem there **is** a reason why some of the features listed in the assault weapons ban are more than merely cosmetic. ---
**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 23, 2003, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/120 "2003-05-23T19:43:49Z")
Make the **gun** easier to fire. (Not make the sun easier to fire. The sun is _already_ on fire.) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764.md?page=7)