It’s more fun the other way around. Plus then you’ve got empties to use as targets.
[sub]Yeah, that’s right, that stupid NRA Safety Eagle can bite me![/sub]
No, no, no! It’s just like George Carlin said:
“Drinking and driving do not mix, so do your drinking first, get it out of the way, and then go driving!”
Why is that a better analogy?
The only difference I see between an SUV ban and a blue car ban is that an SUV ban might very well affect the total number of vehicle injuries.
Are you claiming that an A/W ban will or has lead to an improvement in crime rates?
gah. I didn’t suggest you made a comment out of spite. I suggested that your position on gun-control is motivated by spite. Or if you want to call it “entertainment.”
The point is that part of the reason you support A/W legislation is that it will cause unhappiness for gun owners. In essence, you’re taking pleasure from placing restrictions on other peoples’ freedoms. Freedoms that mean a lot to some of those people.
I find that attitude somewhat offensive. Just MHO.
And honestly, I don’t think you were joking. Of course, only you know for sure.
Let me reiterate:
We are in a discussion in which the very specific details of weapons, up to whether or not they include a bayonet lug, are under discussion. To purposefully ignorantly use a broad and technically incorrect meaning for a term about this discussion is disingenuous.
Assault rifles are a very specific set of firearms. Their purpose is to fulfill the role of the rifle at intermediate ranges, and the submachine gun at close ranges. That is the entire point of their design and existance. Semiautomatic rifles cannot function as submachine guns, and hence, any definition that includes them is fundamentally wrong.
Dictionaries regularly have overly broad definitions that aren’t technically correct - for most purposes, they’re good. However, when you’re discussing the technical details of such things, it would be improper to discard the technical definition in favor of a simplistic and overly broad definition.
To continue to do this seems to indicate that you’re just saying ‘nyah nyah! It’s in the dictionary so I can say what I want!’ rather than trying to have an intellectually honest discussion.
Oh come now, an “an intellectually honest discussion” on GUNS with Mints?
He’s already shown he either can’t or won’t argue the law of the OP, and will instead debate points that have little or nothing at all to do with the topic; he says they’re “excessively dangerous” because they’re so easy to convert to full auto yet can’t or won’t produce cites to back that up; (or actually contradicting himself) and repeatedly insists that the AWB firearms are an “indisputable” hazard to the population at large, but when asked for data on that one he says to prove such a thing would take X hundreds of thousands of dollars to analyze… which sure as hell doesn’t sound like “indisputable” proof to me.
“An intellectually honest discussion” from Minty?
… Well, one out of three is a start, I guess; at least we’re having a discussion. 
Beause SUVs are disproportionately deadly when they are involved in accidents.
Correct me if I’m missing something, Minty. Your point is, and I’m saying this wrong, because I want you to correct me.
This law has nothing to do with how dangerous assault rifles are.
Which I agree on, by the way.
Furthermore, if you were to write a law about assault weapons, you would define it differently. Perhaps a maximum velocity limit on a bullet.
What is your opinion on the use of this current law we’re discussing as it is written?
I believe I described it above as flawed, but a step in the right direction. The legislation caught many models that needed to be regulated, but missed others and caught some that it should not have.
Cut to the chase, minty: should the AWB be allowed to sunset? Why or why not?
Should any law that is completely ineffective in accomplishing its stated goals remain on the books? If yes, why?
You seem to agree with the assessment that the manufactuers of listed weapons can evade that provision by making minor changes to a listed model and giving it a new name. And you seem to agree that there are ample perfectly-available substitutes for consumers to purchase (so long as they don’t have more than one “bad” feature). Given that, do you believe this is a good law?
Do you disagree with my assessment that this kind of easily-evaded law that focuses on features not directly related to the actual power of the firearm increases cynicism about government?
It should be rewritten to better accomplish its goals. Barring that, it should be extended because, while it is far from perfect, it still accomplishes some good.
. . . and causes no harm (except occasional frothing at the mouth).
Perhaps, but you’re kinda missing the point which is as follows:
If banning an object will reduce the amount of harm attributable to that object, it does not necessarily follow that there is any benefit to banning that object. This is illustrated by the example of blue cars.
The reasonable way to measure the benefits of A/W bans is to look at the rates of crimes and/or unlawful shootings.
When pressed to identify benefits of A/W legislation, you have dodged this obvious point again and again and again.
You have done so by hypothesizing about unmeasurable benefits that an A/W ban might have; by patly stating that A/W’s are disproportionately deadly; by asserting the truism (?) that an A/W ban will reduce harm attributable to A/W’s; and probably other stuff too.
Honestly, your dancing and dodging is getting a little old. Just MHO.
I apologize if this has been posted prior in this thread, but some of the guns that were not included in the original bill are included now in this bill. Can’t remember the last time a mini-14 was used in a crime, but it’s made the list… So, everybody that shoots competitively whether in rifle matches or shotgun sports like sporting clays, give 'em up!! It’s for your own good.
Honestly, your failure to get the point here is pretty difficult to understand. Allow me to spell it out.
SUVs cause more harm in accidents than other vehicles because they are bigger and heavier than smaller vehicles.
If SUVs are banned, drivers will be forced to drive smaller vehicles.
With smaller vehicles, accidents will cause less harm.
Substitute “assault weapons” for “SUVs” and “guns” for “vehicles,” and there’s the analogy.
What good does it accomplish?
Let me give you an example. The Tec-9 was banned by name by the act. Intratec, the manufacturer of the weapon, made cosmetic changes to it and rechristianed it the AB-10.
Do you know what the “AB” stands for? After Ban. There isn’t even the pretense that the change was anything but a move to avoid coming under the AWB.
It’s just that easy. Colt did the same thing, marketing a modified AR-15 as the Sporter.
What possible good can a law so easily evaded accomplish?
And as for “no harm” – What about the cost in cynicism? What about the dishonesty (as per above) such an act inevitably fosters? What about the cost in respect for the government?
And what about the cost in simple human freedom terms? I want a low-powered weapon, but I want it to have a bayonet lug and folding stock because they look neat. The gun I’m buying isn’t that dangerous performance-wise. Why should I be restricted from making the purchase?
That’s different from the point that I was responding to earlier. But go ahead - keep dancing.
With respect to your latest position, I’ll simply say that if your theory is correct about A/W’s, then there ought to be evidence in the form of crime statistics to support it.
Just out of curiosity Minty, dont you think these studies should have been done BEFORE Congress ran around pell mell making these laws?
Indeed, there should be, though one would expect the overall effect to be small since we’re talking about such a gigantic pool of gun crimes. Catsix’s check appears to have been delayed, but I still look forward to getting started with the research.
And just out of curiosity, jonpluc, don’t you think such studies should be done BEFORE Congress allows major legislative initiatives to expire? The lack of study cuts both ways, you know.
As I mentioned before, it seems to me that you should bear the burden of proof on this point.