# 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:** 7
**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, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/121 "2003-05-23T19:46:59Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > \*\*Quite true. It’s really a “private sales” loophole. \*\* -Although it’s only considered a “loophole” by the same people who assume that cosmetic differences have any effect on the lehality of a firearm. > [@](#): > > **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.** -Cite? I was always under the impression that a firearm was designed and intended to launch a projectile via the combustion of a propellant, and to do so accurately and reliably. The use of said item is purely up to the user: “taking out groups of people” applies equally to the Korean store owners during the Rodney King riots as it does to the squad of soldiers out on patrol. > [@](#): > > \*\* 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?\*\* -No. In most juristictions, though with numerous exceptions, private sales from person to person are still legal with no paperwork. Thoughout California, however, even private transactions must go through a dealer and thus through the NICS (at least, the last I read about it, it may have changed since then.) I believe Chicago and New York all but ban private transactions as well. However, even private sales have limits- one may not knowingly sell to a drug user, felon, or otherwise-ineligible person. To do so is itself a felony (5yr/$50K fine, etc.) > [@](#): > > **Folding/telescoping stocks, however, aid in the concealment of the gun** Straw man argument. Prior to the '94 law, Federal law had already stated that a rifle barrel could not be shorter than 16", nor could the overall firearm length in any configuration (IE, folded or unfolded) be less than 26". Yep, those dinky over-two-foot-long rifles sure are easy to conceal, compared to those huge-ass pistols that are a whopping 8" long (or 5-1/2" for a snubbie Chief’s Special revolver.) > [@](#): > > **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”.** Actually, **Minty** keeps saying how exceptionally dangerous and horrible these particular cosmetically-evil guns are, even though it’s already been stated that such things are used in a very small fraction of either gun crime or overall crime. **Minty** simply doesn’t like them and so will argue any reason to ban 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, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/122 "2003-05-23T19:55:47Z")
> [@](#): > > What about silencers? Ok, silencers make it easier to kill people and not be heard. I could see the logic in banning that. > [@](#): > > Especially lethal ammo? “Cop killer” bullets? Ok, I can go without those. > [@](#): > > Laser sights? No way! Home defense and whatnot. I’d have a burglar by the balls if he was at the wrong end of a laser sighted semi-automatic rifle. > [@](#): > > Higher calibers that are especially devastating? I’m not sure how much more devastating higher calibers are. In fact, I believe smaller caliber weapons tend to be the murderers weapon of choice, since they have less recoil and make less noise. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2003, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/123 "2003-05-23T19:58:31Z")
> [@](#): > > 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. Bolding mine. So these people are already breaking the law. Passing another law will have some effect on this? The NRA and most pro-gun folks would be the first ones to cheer if these criminals you describe get locked up. But, if they are already in violation, what’s the point of passing another law? 30,000 gun laws aren’t preventing these “shady Chigaco folks” from illegally owning guns. Will 1 more, or 1,000 more make a difference? I fail to see how taking away my gun will stop these undesirables from having them. > [@](#): > > 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. I believe what you are saying and think it’s reasonable. However, I think most gun control advocates are against all guns and don’t care about the rights of gun owners at all. **Minty’s** posts certainly seem to lean in that direction. > [@](#): > > 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. It’s unrealistic to expect that the gun community would help their opponents in any way. Considering that most of the anti-gun folks just want to take away the guns, why would they? There is no reasonable concession that the NRA could make that would make the Brady people say “OK, that sounds reasonable, lets pack up and quit.” The only way to show a significant increase is to increase the penalties for crimes committed with guns and to crack down on illegal gun ownership. ---
**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, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/124 "2003-05-23T20:01:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Doc Nickel \* > \*\*–Cite? > > I was always under the impression that a firearm was designed and intended to launch a projectile via the combustion of a propellant, and to do so accurately and reliably. > > The use of said item is purely up to the user: “taking out groups of people” applies equally to the Korean store owners during the Rodney King riots as it does to the squad of soldiers out on patrol. > \*\* C’mon…isn’t this a little disingenuous? I don’t know if a definitive ‘cite’ could be found but doesn’t simple experience and observation tell us otherwise? Do soldiers use their sidearm or their M-16/AK-47/whatever more often? Wouldn’t one reasonably suppose that using an M-16 is superior at taking out large numbers of people and keeping its user alive than a 9mm pistol when in a war situation? ---
**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, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/125 "2003-05-23T20:22:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Blalron \* > **No way! Home defense and whatnot. I’d have a burglar by the balls if he was at the wrong end of a laser sighted semi-automatic rifle.** Fair enough but what if it is the burglar with the laser sighted gun and you without one? > [@](#): > > I’m not sure how much more devastating higher calibers are. In fact, I believe smaller caliber weapons tend to be the murderers weapon of choice, since they have less recoil and make less noise. I agree that a .45 is likely harder to shoot than a .22. I can also say that I expect if I am shot with a .22 or a .45 I am going down…the Terminator I’m not and don’t pretned otherwise. However, assuming a non-lethal hit from either weapon aren’t I much worse off from the .45 impact? Say I got hit in the shoulder…will I even have a shoulder left (not to mention the use of the attached arm) if a .45 nailed me there? > [@](#): > > Originally posted by _Debaser_ > It’s unrealistic to expect that the gun community would help their opponents in any way. Considering that most of the anti-gun folks just want to take away the guns, why would they? There is no reasonable concession that the NRA could make that would make the Brady people say “OK, that sounds reasonable, lets pack up and quit.” Fair enough and I even mentioned in an earlier post that I could see how this might be a slippery slope enabling the outright gun ban people to get closer to their goal. It’s unfortunate that our society seems to work this way. Many issue would be better off (not just gun control) if both sides could agree to a middle ground most can live with. You are likely to have loonies on the fringe (both sides) who will never be happy but the majority would be ok with it. Think of a typical bell curve and take, say, the middle 66% on this issue. One caveat to this is that unlike many other divisive issues guns enjoy Constitutional protection in the US. Theoretically the NRA and other such lobby groups could propose legislation that gun owners can live with and would have a real impact on criminal use without real fear that they’ve given-up the ship to the outright ban advocates. They can’t get an amendment passed today…with real reform and a lessening of public perception (however skewed) of gun crimes there chances are less than zero. Just from this thread I expect the real reason that the NRA won’t do such a thing is that it would seriously divide their own membership. Even here advocates of fewer gun laws have been dodgy at best about what would be reasonable restrictions. I thnk the gun ownership community would be hugely divided amongst itself if forced to come up with their own solution and THAT is what the NRA could not abide. ---
**Author:** ![nswgru1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/c4cdca/32.png) [@nswgru1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nswgru1)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2003, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/126 "2003-05-23T20:54:25Z")
I am going to paste a post from another forum if the mods think this should be removed then feel free to do so. You guys are asking for more definition of what should and shouldn’t be banned well take a gander at this: > [@](#): > > The implications of the 2003 Assault Weapon for American Gun Owners > > A new and much more far-reaching ban on firearms has been proposed in the House of Representatives. The purpose of this document is to give a fairly concise overview of the newly proposed law, and how it will affect gun-owning Americans. Unfortunately, much of the wording of the proposal, HR 2038, does nothing but modify parts of the original ban. In order to get a decent idea of what the whole picture looks like you have to cross reference HR 2038 with Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 44, Sec. 922 of the United States code. For the purposes of this document, HR 2038 was referenced from [http://www.thomas.loc.gov](http://www.thomas.loc.gov), and Sec. 922 was referenced from the US Code Collection available at the Legal Information Institute of Cornell Law School, available at [http://www.law.cornell.edu](http://www.law.cornell.edu). > > This newly proposed law is a much more sweeping piece of legislation that will have a far-reaching effect much beyond the so-called ‘black rifle crowd.’ No one, from shotgun hunters to Olympic shooting competitors is left untouched. Those who wrote this legislation are engaging in nothing short of Orwellian doublethink. They have taken the original definition of what an ‘assault weapon’ is, completely discarded it, and are now reinventing it to cover a much more broad swath of firearms. > > 1. Hunters > > ## Most of the time legislators attempt to paint themselves as pro-gun by associating themselves with hunters, and pointing out that they would never attempt to take away anyone’s duck gun. Time to wake up. Under the newly proposed ban, any and all semiautomatic shotguns will be banned that have any of the following: quote: > > `(i) a folding or telescoping stock; `(ii) a pistol grip; > `(iii) the ability to accept a detachable magazine; or `(iv) a fixed magazine capacity of more than 5 rounds. > > * * * > > Yes, I know that state law requires your shotgun to be plugged to a 3-round capacity. But since it’s not a permanent fix, you just lost your right to own many autoloading shotguns on the market. Admittedly, hunters are the least affected by this new law, but they are affected nonetheless. What’s worse, this bill would outlaw many shotgun configurations that are well suited to home defense. > > 1. Competition shooters > > Competition shooters are not left out, and the proposals are such that it hits pretty much every competitor from High Power to IPSC to International Bullseye shooters. > > A) Shotguns > Since pretty much all autoloading shotguns are toast with this bill, don’t expect to be running one in an IPSC or 3 gun match. > > B) Action pistol > The magazine ban is still in place. So if you’re an IDPA shooter you’ll still be limited to 10 round magazines. If you’re an IPSC shooter, you’ll be forced to pay the inflated price for standard capacity mags. Oh, and the burden of proof as to whether that magazine of yours is truly preban has been shifted from the government to you. More on this later. > > C) Bullseye pistol > > You think that Pardini is safe? Think again. > > ## quote: > > `(F) A semiautomatic pistol that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine, and has-- `(i) a second pistol grip; > `(ii) a threaded barrel; `(iii) a barrel shroud; or > `(iv) the capacity to accept a detachable magazine at a location outside of the pistol grip. > > * * * > > This exact same ban was instituted in California. When it was pointed out that high-end competition guns like the Walther GSP fell under the ban, the legislature’s response was “So what?” > > D) Rifle competition > > Be it 3 gun or high power rifle shooting, these sports will now be essentially closed to any and all new comers. The AR15, FAL, and AR10 are mentioned by name, and the features listed all but put the M1 Garand and M1A on the endangered species list. Also, those with fixed-magazine guns are not left untouched. If you have a rifle with a fixed magazine that holds more than 10 rounds you have an assault rifle. So you can no longer skirt the law by attaching those 30-round fixed magazines to an SKS, and might, in fact, be committing a felony if you try to sell that rifle. Also, please note that in the original bill an assault weapon is defined as one with the ability to take detachable magazines, and includes at least two so-called ‘evil features’ (bayonet lug, flash hider, etc.) In this law an ‘assault weapon’ is defined as being semiautomatic with the ability to take detachable magazines and only including one “evil” feature. What they are doing is to redefine a genre of weaponry that doesn’t exist in any professional sense among gun designers or the gun owning public. > > Here’s the real kicker to the whole thing, though: The sporting purposes clause is nowhere near ironclad. In fact, it reads: > > ## quote: > > A semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General. In making the determination, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any Federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event.’ > > * * * > > In other words, just because a particular firearm is suited for a particular sport is no guarantee that it is suited for a particular sport, at least as far as can and will be determined by some lackey working in the AG’s office, who undoubtedly has far more insight into the shooting sports than any of us. If a particular sporting weapon is derived from a military design, then it is considered to be suspect. > > Of course, the above is only in relation to firearms and whether or not they are particularly suited to a given sport. As far as one’s right to self-defense and the use of a firearm thereof, you’re out of luck. By the way, if you’re still reading this, you’ve just gotten through the good news. > > 1. Elimination of the sunset. > > It is what it says it is. The new law will have no sunset. We either kill this thing now, or fight a much harder fight in the future. > > 4)Repealing prior exemptions in the 1994 law. > > Got a rifle/shotgun/pistol that you want to sell? Better check with the law first. If it falls under the nebulous and ever-changing definition of what an assault weapon is, you’ll have to transfer the gun through a dealer. That’s right, all guns are equal, but some are more equal than others. It will become illegal to transfer one of these firearms through a private transaction. In other words, no, you cannot sell your rifle to your next-door neighbor who has been your best friend since you were both in Kindergarten. If he/she wants it, you’ll have to go through an FFL. The law states: > > ## quote: > > Section 922(v) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: > `(5) It shall be unlawful for any person to transfer a semiautomatic assault weapon to which paragraph (1) does not apply, except through-- `(A) a licensed dealer, and for purposes of subsection (t) in the case of such a transfer, the weapon shall be considered to be transferred from the business inventory of the licensed dealer and the dealer shall be considered to be the transferor; or > `(B) a State or local law enforcement agency if the transfer is made in accordance with the procedures provided for in subsection (t) of this section and section 923(g). > > * * * > > ## Yes, that’s right, no more private party transactions. And it gets even better (by which I mean worse) when we get to the bit about magazines. 4) Regulation of buying/selling standard capacity magazines quote: > > ## Sec.7 `(z) It shall be unlawful for any person to transfer any assault weapon with a large capacity ammunition feeding device.’. > > ## So once you decide to sell a weapon governed by this law, you cannot sell any magazines with it. Please note that this also applies to firearms with fixed magazines that hold more than ten rounds. Doing so will result in punishment- quote: > > (2) PENALTIES- Section 924(a) of such title is amended by adding at the end the following: > `(8) Whoever knowingly violates section 922(z) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.’. > > * * * > > So basically, if you decide to sell a semi-automatic firearm, you are prohibited from selling any magazines with it, lest you get tossed in the clink for a few years. > > 1. Strengthening the ban on ‘large capacity ammunition feeding devices.’ > > ## Are you a cop or law-enforcement officer? In the old law there were a few hoops you could jump through and if you were lucky enough to have a cool boss, you could even keep those ‘high capacity’ magazines that you bought (with your own money) for your service sidearm. Not anymore. The new law reads: quote: > > ## (1) IN GENERAL- Section 922(w) of such title is amended– … (ii) by striking subparagraph © and redesignating subparagraph (D) as subparagraph ©; > > Ok, so that sounds like a bunch of legal mumbo-jumbo. Striking? Subparagraph C? redesignating this as that? What? > The old sub paragraph C from the original 1994 bill reads as follows: > > ## quote: > > ## the possession, by an individual who is retired from service with a law enforcement agency and is not otherwise prohibited from receiving ammunition, of a large capacity ammunition feeding device transferred to the individual by the agency upon such retirement; > > In other words, once those involved with law enforcement retire, they are considered to be just as untrustworthy as the rest of the civilian population. > > ## B) The burden of proof shifted regarding magazine possession is shifted from gov’t to individual- quote: > > ## © by striking paragraph (4) and inserting the following: `(4) It shall be unlawful for a licensed manufacturer, licensed importer, or licensed dealer who transfers a large capacity ammunition feeding device that was manufactured on or before September 13, 1994, to fail to certify to the Attorney General before the end of the 60-day period that begins with the date of the transfer, in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Attorney General, that the device was manufactured on or before September 13, 1994.’. > > Basically a gun dealer is now prohibited from selling a pre-ban magazine, unless he first certifies it with the AG’s office. So while it would still be legal to own pre-ban magazines, it is now a major hassle for both the dealer and customer to get them. This will drive the prices up even further, or cause many gun dealers to stop selling pre-ban magazines all together. > > This particular part of the law stinks even worse because it shifts the burden of proof from the government to the owner of a magazine. In other words, according to the old law, the government would have to prove that the magazine you have is indeed a pre-ban or illegal post ban. Now that has been switched around. It is now up to the accused to prove that a given magazine from his/her collection is indeed a pre-ban. This is called ‘guilty until proven innocent’ and last time I checked is illegal according to the US Constitution. > > Insanity, it has been said, can be defined as repeating the same thing and expecting different results. The 1994 ban is a proven failure at reducing the rate of violent crime. Instead, it created a miasma of confusing rules and regulations that are nearly impossible to follow unless one is well versed with the letter of the law. It established an ever-changing definition of what an ‘assault weapon’ is Now let me tell you guys something if this thing passes then I am very afraid that you will get the guns you want…bullets first I am afraid. The logic being that most gun owners I know personally were put out with the 94 ban and when as they said at the time that it wouldn’t be effective even more restrictive legislation would be passed. I think you fail to understand how much monkeying around with these currently law abiding citizens are willing to put up with. My .02 YMMV ---
**Author:** ![Padeye](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a9a28c/32.png) [@Padeye](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Padeye)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2003, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/127 "2003-05-23T21:01:35Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > \*\*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. \*\* True if you 're not worried about hitting a target. If anything shooting from the hip makes a weapon less lethal to the intended targel. In any event a rifle with a conventional monte carlo type stock can be fired from the hip just as easily as one with a pistol grip. Yes, I have experienc in this from competition with shoulder stofcked submachineguns where shooting from the hip is occasionally required in a stage as it is is a handicap to fast and accurate shooting. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2003, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/128 "2003-05-23T21:03:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > 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. I think we need to come to an agreement on what an “assault weapon” is. Everyone in this thread from what I can tell considers a weapon an assault weapon if it meets the criteria **tracer** posted: A grenade launcher A bayonet clip A flash suppressor (or a threaded barrel that can accept one) A protruding pistol grip A folding stock It’s been stated that the grenade launcher part is silly. They were already illegal. The grenades are only obtainable by specially licensed collectors and they are expensive. Do you really think that the other criteria makes the weapon _designed for taking out groups of people at a distance through withering fire._ > [@](#): > > 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. So, you favor the banning of what exactly? All guns? All rifles? All rifles that are similar to another weapon that meets the assault rifle criteria? If I own a .22 and you make a .22 with a flash suppressor and a pistol grip, does my model get banned as well? ---
**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, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/129 "2003-05-23T21:12:15Z")
> [@](#): > > Fair enough but what if it is the burglar with the laser sighted gun and you without one? Buy one then so you won’t be at a disadvantage. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2003, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/130 "2003-05-23T21:23:09Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by tracer \* > \*\* > **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. \*\* Since when did anybody encourage their soldiers to fire weapons from the hip? Even the M-60 was designed to be fired from either a prone position or from the shoulder. If you’re firing from the hip you’re probably not going to be hitting your target no matter how many bullets you put into the air. Do you happen to have a cite that shows the hip or waist is the “assault” position? > [@](#): > > \*\* > Similarly, a flash suppressor makes it easier to fire repeatedly from the assault position, because you won’t be blinded between shots. \*\* That doesn’t make a lick of sense. If I’m firing from the waist or hip the flash from a rifle isn’t going to bother me nearly as much if I were firing it from the shoulder. > [@](#): > > \*\* > 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 why would anybody want to shoot from the hip? Marc ---
**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, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/131 "2003-05-23T21:32:46Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Padeye \* > **If anything shooting from the hip makes a weapon less lethal to the intended target.** … and more likely to accidentally hit something (or someone) that the shooter didn’t intend to shoot. ---
**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, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/132 "2003-05-23T21:32:56Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by MGibson \* > **So why would anybody want to shoot from the hip?** I would guess only if you are running and trying to shoot at the same time. ---
**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, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/133 "2003-05-23T21:46:35Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by MGibson \* > **Do you happen to have a cite that shows the hip or waist is the “assault” position?** I doubt it’s an official military term, but Bushmaster sells a sling that it advertises as allowing “easier assault position carry of your weapon”. Also, [this guy](http://www.chucktaylorasaa.com/combatmaster.html) claims to have invented an “under the shoulder assault position”, and take a look at the description of the “tactical sling” near the bottom of [this webpage](http://www.ph-import.com/x755/eagle11_01.html). ---
**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, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/134 "2003-05-23T22:01:59Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Debaser \* > I think most gun control advocates are against all guns and don’t care about the rights of gun owners at all. **Minty’s** posts certainly seem to lean in that direction. My posts lean in the direction of challenging pro-gun propaganda. I have NEVER advocated anything resembling a general disarming of the public, and you are wrong to imply any such thing. If you want to know what I stand for when it comes to guns, find last year’s “What Is Reasonable Gun Control?” thread. > [@](#): > > Do you really think that the other criteria makes the weapon designed for taking out groups of people at a distance through withering fire. For about the tenth time in this thread, **no**. Rather, the “other criteria” are (or were, in 1995) strongly associated with such weapons. Chances are (or were) that such weapons had such features because they were designed for military use. Hence, the shorthand of defining the class with reference to common features, _even though those features did not themselves define what was objectionable about the weapon_. ---
**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, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/135 "2003-05-23T22:05:15Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Doc Nickel \* > Although it’s only considered a “loophole” by the same people who assume that cosmetic differences have any effect on the lehality of a firearm. It is a loophole in that it enables gun purchasers to avoid the necessity of a background check. You do favor background checks, don’t you, Doc? ---
**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, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/136 "2003-05-23T22:20:14Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > I would suggest that if his fellow student had been armed with an M-16 instead of a .22 long rifle, there would have been a lot more dead kids that day. > > Moreover, nothing in the assault weapons ban impacts the ability of ordinary citizens to arm themselves adequately to protect their persons and property. [/QUOTE] The first 20 or so times you did this it could have been a simple mistake, but since you’ve been told over and over what you posted above is clearly a deliberate attempt to be deceptive. As you well know after being informed of it countless times on this very message board, the assault weapons ban does not affect fully automatic weapons (like the M-16) at all, thus mentioning fully automatic weapons as if they’re at all affected by the ban is simply dishonest. > [@](#): > > In fact, assault weapons have significantly less utility as a means of self-defense than other firearms. Cite? Oh wait, it’s a Minty Claim ™, I won’t hold my breath waiting for a cite even though that’s a pretty amazing claim. And by cite, I don’t mean ‘a lawsuit which alleges that what you said was true’ - last time you used a lawsuit in progress as a cite, it ended up being thrown out by the judge as completely unfounded. > [@](#): > > So there you have it–low utility that is easily surpassed by other commodities, and higher costs/risks. Regulate away, Congress. \*\* You ever going to provide a cite for those risks, or even state exactly what they are? As far as I can tell, the only quantifiable risk from assault weapons is that they make Minty Green uncomfortable. ---
**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, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/137 "2003-05-23T22:26:21Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > The ordinary risks posed by firearms–crime, deaths, injuries, property damage–multiplied by the extra firepower associated with assault weapons. Please, enumerate the risks from legally owned firearms, and provide a cite for the ‘multiplication’ effect you claim exists. Or is this just another non-factual assertion that we’ll never see a cite for? You’re explicitly making the claim that so-called ‘assault weapons’ have extra firepower, and that that firepower results in extra crime, deaths, injuries, and property damage, but you haven’t supported it with anything other than repitition of the claim. You’re also making the implicit claim that legally owned firearms cause crime, a claim which you’ve been unable to substantiate for years. Isn’t it time to either put up or shut up? ---
**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, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/138 "2003-05-23T22:32:51Z")
> [@](#): > > \*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. Note that Minty is using ‘miltary-style assualt weapons’ to mean guns that ‘look like guns the military uses but have very large functional differences’ and not ‘guns that the military actually uses’. > [@](#): > > 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_. Cite? This is just another case of you asserting assloads of stuff with some scary words (‘military stlye’, ‘military features’, etc) with no factual backing. You’ve been asked over and over to support your ‘kill assloads of people’ assertion, and have repeatedly failed to do so. > [@](#): > > Get over the “cosmetic” stuff, guys. It’s just a shorthand way of getting to the stuff Congress really wanted to regulate. According to someone who has repeatedly failed to support his assertions. ---
**Author:** ![lucwarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e19adc/32.png) [@lucwarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lucwarm)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2003, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/139 "2003-05-23T22:39:05Z")
IMHO, in a free country, stuff shouldn’t be banned absent a compelling reason. You can speculate about the dangers of folding stocks all day long, but let’s face reality: (1) There’s absolutely no evidence – as opposed to speculation – that such things pose any appreciable and special danger; (2) there’s no evidence that restricting such things will appreciably improve crime rates or accident rates; and (3) all evidence points the other way. Ultimately, that’s why I don’t favor an assault weapons ban. If banning assault weapons would reduce crime, then we’d be presented with a more difficult question. But it wouldn’t and we aren’t. Now, some folks seem to have the opposite philispohical viewpoint from me. They (apparently) believe that people shouldn’t have access to dangerous stuff without a compelling reason. Since it’s basically a question of values, there’s not much to debate over. But IMHO, such a viewpoint is repugnant to the values of a free society. In a free society, people should be able to do stuff and own stuff without a compelling reason if those activities don’t pose a special threat to others. Just MHO. ---
**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, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764/140 "2003-05-23T22:44:18Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > 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. \*\* That’s got to be the most absurd challenge ever, since ‘assault weapon’ as defined by the federal ban includes a number of pistols. As you’ve phrased the challenge, someone could take it using the exact same gun both times. Or worse for your case, take one of those crappy-but-scary-looking guns from Ingram for the ‘assault weapon’ and a target pistol for the ‘a pistol’, which (especially when done at the Bullseye pistol competition range of 25 or 50 yards) will result in a clear win for the non-assault weapon. Of course, what Minty really would like to say is ‘assault rifle’, but that would draw attention to the fact that an ‘assault rifle’ according to the military, historians, and pretty much everyone but the Brady Bunch is explicitly not covered by the ‘assault weapon’ ban. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-rifle-ban-ends-soon/176764.md?page=8)