Assault Rifle Ban ends soon

Great Debates
21

I disagree to a certain extent, with that, Mints. The “Street Sweeper” and Tec-9 in particular were not designed for nor of any real use for a true military application.

Of the firearms listed by Sofa, only the AUG, AR-15 and some of the AK variants could accept bayonets.

As noted earlier, the “grenade launcher” was a nonissue to start with (as in most civvies could not or would not go through the trouble to obtain a strictly-controlled weapon and even more strictly controlled and very expensive ammunition) and so it’s inclusion is suspect.

It’s my impression that buyers picked up the expensive but still legal 37mm version largely for the cosmetics- it makes the AR-15 look like a military M-203/M-16 combination.

And that ties in with the rest: Having a bayonet on a rifle is a feature more cosmetic than utilitarian. As is a pistol grip (vs. a non-pistol-gripped or thumbhole-stocked version of the same gun) the ‘flash suppressor’ (especially considering that other rifles’ “muzzle brakes” weren’t affected, the the concept and operation is essentially identical) and the folding stocks (most affected rifles even with the stock folded are still many times larger than most pistols, so concealability wasn’t an issue.)

In other words, it was the Law Against Ugly Black Guns.

As Catsix noted, for example, the AR-15 is a semiautomatic rifle that shoots .223 Remington and takes detachable magazines up to 40 rounds capacity. The Ruger Mini-14 on the other hand, is a semiautomatic rifle that shoots .223 Remington and accepts detachable magazines up to 40 rounds capacity (but has a wooden stock as opposed to a black plastic stock.)

The AR-15 was named specifically as banned, the Ruger Mini-14 was specifically named as excluded.

I suppose there are other answers, but I interpret that as being a law against nothing more than cosmetic features that somehow look evil and intimidating to those who don’t know any better.

22

-Allow me to explain: Such weapons are used in a very small portion of all crime and a smaller portion of all firearms accidents. The DOJ stats at the time the law was passed indicated anywhere from .01% to 1% of all gun crime involved firearms that went on the list.

And since, as stated already, the law focused on certain cosmetic features while specifically excluding firearms that were mechanically and functionally identical, we can logically assume that the law was not necessarily passed to help prevent that miniscule portion of gun crime.

Meaning it was pure “Get 'Em Off The Streets 'Cause I Don’t Like 'Em And They Scare Me” gun-control law, and should be allowed to sunset.

23

So? Surely you’re not asserting that an item should only be regulated based on the incidence of its use?

24

And your point here seems to be that when Congress draws a line, some items on one side of the line may closely resemble items on the other side of the line. And how, exactly, does this destroy the wisdom of drawing the line somewhere?

If you want to argue that the line should have been drawn to knock out the Mini-14 too, hey, that’s fine by me. Your complaint, however, seems to be that a line never should have been drawn anywhere in the vicinity of those weapons, in which case your AR-15/Mini-14 objection seems pretty well irrelevant.

25

And by the way, this:

appears to be a thoroughly dishonest statistic. I leave it to the gentle reader to consider what it means to compare “crimes in which assault weapons are used” with “crimes” generally.

26

The presence of the guns themselves didn’t seem to be a problem, minty green, because despite the large number of them that were in circulation they were so rarely used in any kind of crime.

What reason was there to find these particular firearms and cosmetic features so reprehensible?

I cannot comprehend why there was such an overwhelming and immense effort to make these things illegal without some kind of clear and compelling reason that laws had to be made.

It amazes the hell out of me because these were objects used in such a small number of crimes yet they were seen as such a huge and problem that immediate and drastic action had to be taken. What exactly was it that drove people to find it necessary to change the status quo?

Because quite frankly it wasn’t a crime epidemic, or thousands of people being shot down in the streets. It seems like the law was based entirely on ‘This gun looks scary, Mr. Senator.’

Not to say that smoking marijuana and murder are the same thing, but for years after the ban was put into effect on these rifles with these features that were very rarely used in crimes, ‘bongs’ (water pipes) that are almost always used to smoke marijuana remained legal to produce, legal to sell, under the idea that they could be used to lawfully smoke tobacco. One object used rarely in crime, banned. One object used almost exclusively for crime, legal until very recently.

I have to surmise it’s that the guns just look scarier than the bongs.

27

-Surely you’re not asserting that an item should be banned when only a small fraction of a percent of them are used in a crime?

A small fraction of a percent of cars, hammers and baseball bats are used in crimes- shall we ban them as well?

-And your point seems to be that there’s absolutely no question that the line has to be drawn.

In regards to the original topic, how has a 10-round limit to magazines and a ban on certain cosmetic features saved any lives? Was it ever intended to save lives, and if so, how?

If the law doesn’t save lives or prevent crimes, then why was it enacted?

-Oh? I thought it perfectly clear: So-called “assault weapons” are used in three ten-thousandths of one percent of crimes in New Jersey. Not just gun crimes, of crime in general, presumably meaning everything from homicide on down to carjacking and theft.

If you want to limit it to gun crime, as I noted (though I’ll admit I haven’t Googled it recently) the DOJ stats I recall reading when the '94 law was enacted stated that the soon-to-be-banned weapons were involved in 1% or less of all gun crime.

28

It doesn’t follow that banning assault weapons would eliminate even this <1% of gun crimes. If the perps couldn’t get assault weapons, most of them would likely get some other weapon.

29

Quite possibly. Risk-benefit and all that stuff, my dear Doctor. If the risk is significant and the benefit is nonexistent, as I believe to be the case with assault weapons, then I am quite happy to regulate 'em out of existence.

Cost-benefit analysis, my dear Doctor. The benefits of cars, hammers, and baseball bats vastly exceed their costs in the commission of crimes. Hence, they may be appropriately licensed and regulated, as in the case of automobiles, but they remain quite legal.

Not in my mind. But I’m willing to listen if you can come up with some beneifts of assault weapons that outweigh their risks.

Not my beef, and I never claimed to have any empirical evidence on the precise point.

And vandalism, and pissing on the sidewalk, and panhandling, and every other pissant little thing the dishonest committee witness could think of to hide the societal cost of assault weapons. Not the kind of guy you’d really want on your side, one would hope.

The Bureau of Justice Statistics report on Firearm Use By Offenders report (Nov. 2001, revised 2/04/02) says that among inmates who carried a firearm during the offense for which they were incarcerated, 6.8% of state prisoners and 9.3% of federal prisoners reported carrying a “military-style semiautomatic,” defined by Bush II’s own Department of Justice as “a semiautomatic rifle with military features such as [Oh, the humaity!] a pistol grip, folding stock, flash suppressor, or bayonet mount.” See pp. 2-3.

december, why would anyone have a problem with forcing criminals to be less heavily armed? Sounds like a step in the right direction to me.

30

Or, of course, they could go ahead and get the assault weapons illegally, being criminals as they are. This is the thing that always gets me about gun laws. By definition, these laws only affect law-abiding citizens.

31

Well minty, for what reason should legislation be written to circumvent the fact that this law expires?

If you would like to enact a new ban because this one’s going to expire, why?

I also don’t understand why you think that making these rifles illegal for law abiding citizens to own will prevent criminals from illegally importing them if they really want to get their hands on one.

32

So what else are you willing to ban just because you don’t see the benefit? Does freedom enter into your worldview anywhere?

33

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.

34

Nothing. As I said above, I’m willing to listen if you can come up with some beneifts of assault weapons that outweigh their risks. Please, feel free to contribute.

Sure. What’s your point?

35

For the reason that the original legislation was and continues to be a good idea.

Simple economics. When you decrease a commodity’s supply, its cost increases. As cost increases, demand decreases. Less demand and greater cost means fewer assault weapons in the hands of criminals. Hooray for the invisible hand!

36

If a criminal likes a certain kind of weapon and it now costs more that it used to , he does not currently have a weapon, so he will not use that weapon because of the cost to law abiding people?

::: Bawahahahah ::: cough, cough ,::: sorry::::::

Oh wait, we are talking weapons here, not rifles and hand guns, but those other things like grenade launchers?

37

The benefit, as I see it, is that (sort-of) free people see a need or a use for these weapons for self-defense, since the government can’t really protect us from criminals. The rather arbitrary nature of the list of banned weapons says to me that this purely a feel-good law, designed to make politicians look like they’re doing something, even if it doesn’t make a real difference. Hell, there are all kinds of things around that kill more of us- cigarettes, burgers, unprotected sex with strangers- than assault weapons. We don’t ban them. Why so-called assault weapons?

38

Minty, clearly many people find value in assault rifles, because they are willing to exchange an awful lot of their dollars for them. That is the definition of value.

If a law is passed to prevent the sale of something, the only reason is because, left to their own devices people will choose to buy them. That is as valuable to them as your reading the Straight Dope or doing whatever else it is you do to gain enjoyment in your life is to you.

It is arrogant to assume that other people’s choices are not as valid as yours.

'Cause if our own prejudices guide the laws we believe we should pass against others, The Backstreet Boys will be doing time, I can tell you.

39

It’s too bad that so many people can’t see the clear and present danger they pose. I applaud you for your foresight and vision.

40

I don’t find any value in baseball bats. Baseball is a crappy sport, I have no interest in it, so who cares if there are people who enjoy playing or watching it? They are used in many violent assault crimes, so they should be banned because these crimes outweigh any benefit I can see from keeping baseball bats legal.

I propose the following bats get banned:

A) Wood bats, bats with the appearance of wood;
B) Metal bats, including both steel bats and aluminum bats;
C) Bats following under any of the following categories;
1) Louisville Slugger bats;
2) Miniature novelty bats;
3) Bats modified with taped handles;
4) Wiffle bats not painted Day-Glo Orange;
5) Tubes, poles, walking sticks, tree branches, or other cylindrical wood or metal items that could potentially be used in place of a bat or could be mistaken for a bat by a Peace Officer.

Not only would such a measure help reduce violent crime in the US, it would get more Americans off their asses from watching “the Nations favorite pasttime”, and would significantly lessen the environmental impact on forests from chopping down trees to make wooden bats.

All in favor?