It was very clear in the early weeks of the debate that many people who were jumping up and down about an AWB had no fucking idea what an assault weapon was or what the ban was about. Some people thought assault weapons were machine guns. Some people thought that assault weapons accounted for some large number of deaths in America. Some people thought the ban would confiscate the guns that people already owned. They had no fucking clue but they knew that while it would not solve everything, it would be a huge step forward in controlling gun violence.
It soon became clear that assault weapons were merely semi-automatic rifles that had some cosmetic features like a pistol grip or a bayonet lug.
According to Feinstein, fewer than 400 people have been killed by assault weapons since 2004, when the ban was lifted. About 30K people die every year from guns.
There are already millions of these weapons floating around in society and banning future sales of these weapons will do little more than give current owners a windfall. It will not meaningfully restrict access to these guns.
We tried an AWB for ten years between 1994 and 2004 and we saw no discernible effect on gun violence. It is ineffective because anything you can do with an assault weapon, you can also do with a semi-automatic rifle.
Pursuing an AWB wastes valuable political capital and time. Gun control advocates lost the initiative on other measures because of the focus on the AWB. Right now they be lucky to get universal background checks (but only at gun shows and internet sales, so its not really universal). If they had played their cards right, they could have gotten licensing and registration but they overplayed their hand.
LBJ tried to get licensing and registration after the assassination of RFK and MLK (and he thought he could get it) but lost the initiative because senator Tydings from Maryland. Senator Feinstein is playing the role of senator Tydings this time around. It might be another 50 years before we get this kind of groundswell again.
Every time the gun control advocates bring this up, they hurt their own case and they look retarded.
No, it doesn’t make sense, for all the reasons in your post.
I can’t find the earlier thread to give proper credit to the doper who pointed out that America’s problem is not one of firearms in public hands, but a social problem of mental health care and issues of culture. As you very accurately noted, the same things can be done with a semi-automatic rifle as can an “assault rifle.” It is far too late to remove them from society, and I worry about the problems that will ensue if you instantly turn the owners of these weapons into felons. If we really wanted to reduce gun deaths, hand guns should be the target, not the scary looking rifles.
Nope, it never made any sense. They should have gone for something with a measurable chance of success, and a chance to make a measurable improvement, either in lowering the number of instances of gun violence or lowering the number of gun deaths.
No, and I am dissapointed that the Democrats are spending political capital on this already lost and unwinnable battle. Assault weapons don’t mean shit compared to the thousands who die from hand guns every year and the supreme court has made it pretty much impossible to regulate or ban them. It would be better to focus on social policies that reduce poverty and the cycle of violence.
What’s more, simple elimination of those features was easy to do, which meant that nothing could possibly have been accomplished, and thus the sunsetting of the law because, frankly, it made no difference. Even under the best-case scenario, crime with “assault weapons” is so small as to be almost insignificant. Admittedly, that’s cold comfort for someone’s family after a crime is committed with one, but that brings up the question of whether or not we should legislate via objective statistics or raw emotion. Moral panic laws never work. Not with drugs, not with abortion, not with racism, not with anything.
We may have heated arguments over this, but I’m not feeling the need to call gun-control advocates “retarded”. This is an issue with advocates on both sides pushing charged, emotionally-driven arguments. Fortunately for gun-rights advocates, the numbers are largely on our side when it comes to the Assault Weapons Ban. The number that is NOT on our side is that of deaths by firearm. That needs to be reduced by a lot, and there are ways to do it that a significant number of gun owners would support, such as the one certain to pass, universal background checks. Every single one of my firearms has gone through a background check and it all turned out as it should. It is not an impediment to ownership.
But an Assault Weapons Ban? That’s a non-starter, as “common sense” should indicate. Since that is the standard we are being put to, “common-sense” laws, it is incumbent upon the people wishing to impose a ban to explain why the ban is a common-sense measure. It seems about as uncommon as the crimes committed with the weapons.
As you said, this hurts their case. Unfortunately for them, this IS their case. The Assault Weapons Ban is the whole kit and kaboodle. They can’t ban handguns, they can’t ban hunting rifles, and they can’t ban shotguns. They can’t even ban semi-automatic rifles. But they can appeal to emotion over the appearance of the weapons, call them “military” (which they’re not), call them “high-powered” (which they’re not), and talk about how “military weapons do not belong on our streets”. That’s it. That’s all of it. What a quixotic goal they have, and what a hollow victory it was when they won in 1994. It gained them nothing and the cost was so high. Yet they keep pushing it.
Since this was apparently in reply to my comment, I have to point out that indeed you have nothing but opinion in your OP. Not one cite to be seen.
Your one link goes to a thing helpfully blazoned with OPINION.
How do you know the previous AWB was ineffective?
It’s your opinion that pursuing an AWB cost any political capital. It makes no sense, since a more parsimonious prediction would be that the douchbag senators that are filibustering it now would have filibustered it then.
See, you’ve convinced yourself that you are right to such a degree that finding out all the things you have been wrong about does not change your overall theoretical model one bit.
The problem isn’t that the AWB isn’t being renewed. The problem is that the political posturing seem to be “renew the AWB” without regard for it’s effectiveness or “do nothing” which is obviously just as ineffectual at best. Are the only options here either flawed measures or none at all?
Speaking practically, if not politically, I cannot believe that making the ownership of some weapons would be unconstitutional. We already had an AWB which passed constitutional mustard as well as similar Assault Weapons Bans in various states and Washington DC and there are some weapons that are already essentially banned for essentially everyone. The “why can’t I own a machine gun, a bazooka or a nuclear warhead” crowd seems to be quite minuscule.
Maybe the AWB was flawed for all the time it was enacted but few seem to want to come up with a better policy.
I still feel that minimizing magazine size is the way to go. It’s not perfect but it doesn’t infringe on those who wish to defend themselves (how many people need to defend themselves with a weapon that can fire 155 shots in less than five minutes since it only requires changing the clip five times - Adam Lanza needed this to blast through a school.) Where aside from zombie movies does someone need to defend themselves from 30+ attackers anyway? And if a hunter needs 30 shots to take down just about any target, then they are pretty lousy shooters, not the kind of responsible gun owner the NRA portrays as the person they are supposedly looking out for.
We can discuss military-style weapons based on tangible things unrelated to the “scary looking” boogeyman that comes up all the time too, basing it on weapon power and the munitions that they can use. Surely there are parameters that can be conjured up that are not cosmetic, are not completely ambiguous and whose disappearance from gun racks will still leave a person able to hunt or defend themselves should they feel the desire or need.
This won’t derail handgun violence very much (although other measures unrelated to banning certain weapons could), but it sure will make it harder for the folks who want to take a cache of high-powered weapons and hundreds of rounds of ammunition and make national news. Something we can all agree sucks, right?
Count me as one who had my ignorance regarding AW successfully fought here on the boards. An incident such as the one at - what college? - Virginia Tech? - pretty clearly points out the futility of an AWB. As I recall, that guy built up a pretty impressive body count using a .22 pistol and a large number of normal capacity clips.
AWB efforts impress me as fitting firmly in the category of things where politicians wish to appear to be doing “SOMETHING”, while avoiding doing anything that will really effect the underlying situation.
I’m pretty comfortable with my conclusion that the most effective solution is very strict enforcement of penalties for illegal use/possession of guns. And I probably would mandate universal background checks for puchase, and a FOID for purchase, possession, or use. Yes, I know guns are mentioned in the constitution. But if I have to have my drivers’ license on me when I drive, I really don’t understand the objection to a similar requirement for guns.
But that will never happen. Instead, we’ll have endless, pointless posturing as guns and ammo pour off the shelves.
Minimising magazine size is a physical impossibility. A magazine is an incredibly simple device: all it needs to do is push cartridges through a slot. It is literally a box with a spring in it.
There aren’t, unless you’re only talking about machine guns and anti-materiel rifles and up.
I think strict licensing and registration could eventually get a handle on things, but it would take several generations to have an impact due to the large number of extant guns.
Something I’ve seen recently that sounds like a really good idea is very harsh penalties for carrying guns illegally. A vast number of murders come about because situations escalate into unexpected gun usage. That is an impossibility without a gun on your person. Evidence from Chicago and New York has shown that punishing illegal possession harshly leads to people not carrying illegally unless they absolutely must (like when they are planning a premeditated murder, which are not easily stopped by gun control anyway.)
In much of the country illegal possession is a moderately serious crime but often does not result in jail time for a first offense.
I did not make my point clear. Damuri Ajashi argues that pursuing - to whatever degree you could call the recent steps that were taken “pursuing” - an AWB caused an irreparable loss of the “political capital” needed to get less controversial measures like universal background checks passed.
I argue that the Senators who have promised to filibuster universal background checks would do so regardless. Support for universal background checks remains at around 90%, so hardly evidence of a loss of “political capital.”
I would like to restate that the request I put to Damuri Ajashi was that he provides his facts. He keeps stating that the facts are on the side of those opposing gun control. I proposed to him that even on the issue of AWB, he has no facts, just opinions.
Please bring these vaunted facts! If you want to repeatedly claim that you have them, you ought to be able to show them.
These issues are certainly part of the problem. These issues guarantee a person desiring to kill themselves and one or more others will pick up a gun and shoot. Doing nothing will guarantee that they will have access to semi-automatic weapons with large magazines. In this environment, universal background checks and limited magazine sizes will prevent these disasters from becoming catastrophe.
I’m amazed that gun rights advocates are so opposed to limiting magazine sizes. This of all the gun control measures they have no argument for other than the “retarded” levels of emotion displayed by supporters of an AWB. Anywhere from 70% to 95% of all defensive gun uses are the result of brandishing a firearm. It shouldn’t matter if the weapon has 5 bullets, 10 bullets or 15+ bullets inside. It’s enough to know that the person is willing to use a firearm.
I get your overall point, and I agree that buying and owning a gun should be at least as thoroughly documented as owning a car, but when recalling the impressive body count, do not forget the VT shooter had 2 hours to do what he did. The police today would simply not act in the same way they did that day.
And this was despite the AWB grandfathering in older magazines. Enforcing it without that facet would have been more difficult but would have most likely resulted in an even more prominent difference.
[QUOTE]
[ul][li]Detachable magazines allow for fast reloading[/li][li]Collapsible stocks allow for adjustment to the length of pull to the shooter’s preference.[/li][li]Folding stocks reducing the total length of the firearm, making it easier to transport. Critics maintain that it makes the weapon more concealable.[/li][li]Pistol grips (on rifles) reduce the angle (and thus rotational strain) of the wrist when the rifle is shouldered[/li][li]Bayonet mounts allow the mounting of a bayonet[/li][li]Flash suppressors reduce night vision degradation to a shooter’s vision, as well as those beside or behind the user[/li][li]Threaded barrels allow for the mounting of flash suppressors, compensators and muzzle brake[/li][li]Barrel mounted grenade launcher mounts are concentric rings around the muzzle that facilitate attachment of rifle grenades[/li][li]A barrel shroud is a tube around the barrel designed to limit transfer of heat from the barrel to the supporting hand, or to protect a shooter from being burned by accidental contact.[/li][li]Magazines greater than 10 rounds[/li][li]Semi-automatic, functionality meaning that they can eject spent shell casings and chamber the next round without additional human action, but (as opposed to automatic firearms) only one round is fired per pull of the trigger.[*][/ul][/li][/QUOTE]
I have trouble believing that every single one of these definitions is merely cosmetic.
To my mind there is only one potential benefit to the AWB (other than the “they look scary” argument) - there is a chance that mass shooters with mental illness are more likely to carry out their attacks if they have access to weapons that look like military weapons.
The fact that mass shootings did go down under the first AWB lends some credence to this possibility.
It won’t reduce gun violence meaningfully, but it may reduce mass shootings. And the “cosmetic” argument may be precisely the reason why.
Alternatively just mandate that all weapons with said cosmetic features have to be painted hot pink. That might do it too, and surely shooting enthusiasts won’t care because it doesn’t change the function of the weapon and that’s all the matters, right?
Some of the stuff in the original and new AWB certainly wasn’t just cosmetic, but the list you pulled highlights many things that are, or things that would serve no purpose in regulating.
For example how is “a threaded barrel allowing mounting of a silencer or other attachments” somehow a feature that makes a weapon more dangerous?
How about heat shrouds?
How about pistol grips?
Collapsible stocks tie in with concealment and are valid.
“Semi-automatic” is meaningless as there is no way you can politically or constitutionally ban something for being semi-automatic.
Detachable magazines relate to reload speed and are not just cosmetic.
Flash suppressors are not just cosmetic but also are not a feature that makes a weapon more dangerous (in same context as barrel shroud and threaded barrel.)
FWIW in many countries not only are silencers allowed, but they are mandatory for shooting in certain areas to keep noise pollution down. Silencers got regulated the stupid way they are in the United States because alarmist politicians said, “silencers are used by gangster to conduct clandestine executions.” The truth is you can engineer a silencer in five seconds from pieces of garbage that serve that purpose just as well if you’re looking to kill someone in an apartment or something and want to lower the sound (silenced shots are still fairly loud by the by.)
Can you point to one section of the 1994 AW Ban that could do anything to affect the number of mass shootings? Nothing was confiscated, and only cosmetic features were “banned” from new production guns. This reeks of a correlation not implying causation situation.
Some evidence was cited in post #15. Just because nothing was confiscated doesn’t mean their availability doesn’t drop (in that article it was high-capacity magazines, another feature common in mass shootings). One might also note that the gun used in the Newtown shooting was legally purchased by the mother after the ban had expired - had it still been in effect she wouldn’t have been able to.
The fact that the features are cosmetic is actually my point. The aesthetics of these weapons may be what makes them appealing to mentally deranged potential mass shooters. The fact that the same carnage could be done (and, in fact, sometimes is) with other weaponry is irrelevant if a significant portion of mass shooters wouldn’t carry out their attacks with handguns, hunting weapons, or hot-pink AR-15s.
The legislation requires 3 aspects to be met before it is restricted:
Semi-automatic
Detachable magazine
Plus 1 (or 2) additional features from the list.
The problem is that these attributes are functional for a military user but do not actually make the gun appreciably more dangerous for a civilian. Does a barrel shroud or bayonet mount actually make the weapon so much more dangerous that we must restrict it? Do we think that a spree killer would give up early because he’s putting too much strain on his wrist with a conventional grip?
Assault Weapons are the Pit Bull of firearms. They are not inherently more dangerous than other guns, but people with bad attitudes are going to select them more often because they’re “bad ass” guns.