Gah. You’re confusing the costs and benefits of assault weapons with the costs and benefits of assault weapon legislation.
There’s no evidence of any benefit whatsoever with respect to assault weapon legislation.
(err . . . none that I’m aware of anyway)
Gosh, you’re right. The costs, of course, are the number of crimes committed with assault weapons when the private ownership of such firearms is essentially unrestricted.
To be totally fair, if we’re going to use “crimes committed” as our yardstick, we must note that the overwhelming number of gun crimes are committed with handguns. We should be focused on the Tec-9 rather than the AR-15.
And frankly, I’d rather criminals carry a Tec-9. From what I’ve heard, it’s a piece of shit. A scary-looking piece of shit to be sure, but a piece of shit nonetheless. **
Actually, assault weapons (as per the AWB) are quite useless for defending the Mekong Delta, seeing how they’re semiautomatic only.
They might, however, be quite useful for home defense, precisely because they are scary looking – you stand a better off chance of intimidating an intruder into running off rather than having to shoot him.
But lucwarm is right: the “costs” aren’t the costs of having assault weapons around, but the costs of this particular piece of legislation. And this act has costs in addition to the basic cost to liberty inherent in all gun control legislation – it has costs in public respect for the law, both at a Joe Citizen level and at the gun manufacturer level. A law so easily evaded inspires nothing but cynicism.
And the benefits are few. There may be a benefit to removing powerful weapons from the public’s hands, but there’s no reason to believe that this particular law accomplishes that goal in any meaningful way.
Essentially unrestricted? What planet are you living on? Even if the AWB goes away, the weapons it banned will still be regulated under every other freakin’ state and federal gun control law.
Nonsense. I’ll spell it out for ya:
Benefits of A/W legislation: None
Costs of A/W legislation: Annoys gun owners
Benefits of A/W’s: Gun owners like them
Costs of A/W’s: Small number of crimes committed with them
_____________________-
Now, if we were balancing the costs and benefits of A/W’s, there might be room for debate.
However, my point was about the costs and benefits of A/W legislation.
Benefits of A/W legislation: Reduction in the number of disproportionately dangerous firearms. Annoys gun worshipers.
Costs of A/W legislation: Mekong Delta undefended.
Benefits of A/W’s: None (Mekong Delta remains firmly in control of Viet Cong either way).
Costs of A/W’s: Death, destruction, property damage.
More like “increase in the number of minor modifications to and renamings of weapons listed in the AWB.”
That too. Time to redraw that line, huh?
If you believe in gun control, yes. At least then we could have a productive discussion on the tradeoffs between liberty and security.
But this law is grade-A stupidity. I’m amazed that you would defend it.
Once again:
You may wish to file that away for future reference.
Sure. Whatever. If what you’ve been doing for the past seven pages can’t be described as a “defense” of the AWB, I’m not sure what can.
That’s only a benefit if crime goes down. It hasn’t.
Unless you believe that there’s inherent value in gun control.
**
Honestly, it’s nice to see an “anti” admit that part of the point is spite.
Err, that should be ‘it’s only a benefit if the legislation results in a reduction in crime. There’s no evidence that it has.’
Excuse my late entry into the thread. A few points I wanted to address, in chronological order.
You’ve just provided a good case against dumb ass gun legislation. There’s no such thing as a “teflon bullet”, and the teflon bullets you refer to were actually FAR INFERIOR in penetration characteristics to regular ball ammo. These “cop killer” bullets that could apparently magically penetrate kevlar vests were actually terrible at penetration. The teflon coating was there to prevent barrel damage to the gun.
The fact that there was hysteria over something that was just flat out wrong and caused legislation around this is a perfect example of feel good legislation that doesn’t make any sense. Thanks for bringing that up.
**
This is a little disingenuous of you, isn’t it? “You don’t need an ‘assault weapon’ for self defense, you can go get a handgun!” “Uh, ok.” “Wait, no, handguns are dangerous and need to be heavily regulated and…”
**
What extra firepower do ‘assault weapons’ provide that any other semiautomatic rifle do not? Since they have the same rate of fire, it would logically carry that you believe any semiautomatic weapon is an assault weapon. Is that the case?
**
Does this include semiautomatic hunting rifles?
**
The “assault position” referred to probably just means that it carries the rifle in a position that makes it easy to bring it to shooting position (mounted at the shoulder). Compare this to the standard AK sling, which is meant to have a rifle slung over someone’s back, muzzle pointing up, which isn’t anywhere near firing position. These ‘tactical’ slings keep the rifle in a position where it can be drawn to the shoulder quickly, they’re not meant to hold the rifle in firing position.
This discussion has been done here several times, and you can check the previous threads. These countries didn’t have gun crime problems before the bans, and so saying the bans are responsible for this state is sort of like saying “this magic necklace keeps elephants away.”
**
No, the cost isn’t absorbed by the government, it’s added to the purchase price of the gun. I saw a chart on a gun store wall once that had an itemized list of taxes and such that were charged in any gun purchases, and NICS was part of the additional price of the sale. I don’t remember the exact details, but I know NICS is paid for by the sale, not the government.
**
Really? Dwarfs? I assume you’re referring to legally owned machine guns, since illegal machine guns are already… illegal. The number of crimes commited with baseball bats has to be significantly less than 0 to dwarf those figures.
Also, cite?
**
Give me a break. You’re a lawyer who often stresses the needs for precise terminology on here - and you’re purposefully ignoring the technical definition of assault rifles for the overly broad and incorrect definitions in a discussion about the technical definitions of a law.
To insist that the dictionary definition is more appropriate than a precise technical definition when defining something in law is just disingenuous on your part.
**
So what? The muzzle energy of the M16 is less than pretty much any other rifle out there, aside from plinkers. So what if it goes faster than handgun rounds? All rifle rounds do. A .308 round from a remington 700 has much more muzzle energy than an M16. By their nature, assault rifles have low powered rounds. So to try to condemn them for their power while ignoring the fact that compared to other rifles they’re very weak is inappropriate.
Yes, and you haven’t done a thing to prove that “the types of firearms they want to regulate” are disproportionately more harmful to society.
No, they’re just using examples to prove that the law doesn’t take functionality into account at all. Rate of fire or type of action isn’t a factor in the ban - minor factors are. Comparing a nice looking rifle with the same lethality, action, rate of fire, etc. as being exempted while a evil-looking one is banned is just the logical way to show that this law isn’t founded on anything practical or logical.
You’re forgetting the “risk” part of the analysis. And by the way, crime is down one hell of a lot since this sucker was enacted in the early 90s. Just so you know.
More like entertainment.
Would you care to elaborate? Frankly, I have no idea what your point is.
Are you saying that even though A/W legislation has not reduced crime, it has reduced “risk”? Is there any way to measure “risk”? This makes even less sense than your earlier distinction between ‘incidence’ and ‘societal cost.’ (And by the way, can I take it that you’ve abandoned your earlier position?)
**
Are you claiming that A/W legislation has lead to a reduction in crime? If so, I’d love to see you back up this claim.
**
IMHO, entertainment (or spite) are NEVER good reasons to pass laws restricting peoples’ freedom. It’s sad that you (apparently) disagree.
I’m really glad that your true feelings on this are starting to come out. Once the spite is out in the open, for the first time in seven pages your position starts to make some sense.
You hate “gun worshippers” and it entertains you to see useless laws that limit guns in any way for any reason.
Certainly. “Costs” measure bad stuff that has happened or will happen. “Risks” measure things that may happen. For instance, there are no measurable costs for private ownership of nerve gas. There are, however, substantial risks.
I’d posit that it has led to a reduction in crimes committed with assault weapons. Still waiting on that research grant, however.
Wait, is that what I said? I can’t recall saying anything like that.
:checks:
Nope. Just Debaser pulling it out of his butt.
I wasn’t quoting you. It’s the only explination for your position in this thread.
By stating that “Annoys gun worshipers” was a benefit of the legislation you tipped your hand. It’s the only reason that you have given that makes any sense.