# Does an Assault Weapons Ban make sense? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 8, 2013, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-an-assault-weapons-ban-make-sense/655130 "2013-04-08T02:36:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2013, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-an-assault-weapons-ban-make-sense/655130/41 "2013-04-09T01:53:42Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > For one, get rid of the gun lobby… How does one do that without getting rid of the 1st amendment? ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2013, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-an-assault-weapons-ban-make-sense/655130/42 "2013-04-09T02:38:57Z")
> [@PhillyGuy](#): > > [url=[http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract\_id=2108854](http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2108854)] > Actually, there are many states with conceal carry licensing. But the rub is that, as you may recall I’ve previously documented, the license exams are so easy to pass as to be meaningless. I don’t recall how hard my test was for my CCW but I thought the class was very informative. My state has since allowed concealed carry without a permit, which I don’t know if that’s good or bad, but I don’t think they found a subsequent rise in gun deaths because of it. > [@](#): > > I’m curious on this one. Many states now require elderly drivers to take an eye test to maintain their license. Given the importance of good vision when it comes to shooting an assailant (or a deer) rather than an innocent bystander, do you agree that there needs to be similar vision requirements for drivers and gun owners? No, as I recall they say the average distance for defensive shooting is only 7 feet. Also from what I can gather off of youtube anecdotes, senior citizens are frequently the targets of home invasion and have less mobility to escape. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2013, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-an-assault-weapons-ban-make-sense/655130/43 "2013-04-09T03:13:25Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Sure we could. The Second Amendment has never kept the government from clamping down on specific weapons. It does post-[D.C. v Heller.](http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller/Opinion_of_the_Court) > [@](#): > > As the quotations earlier in this opinion demonstrate, the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right. The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of “arms” that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose. The prohibition extends, moreover, to the home, where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute. Under any of the standards of scrutiny that we have applied to enumerated constitutional rights,[27] banning from the home “the most preferred firearm in the nation to ‘keep’ and use for protection of one’s home and family,” 478 F. 3d, at 400, would fail constitutional muster. No handgun bans without an amendment, unless the Supreme Court reverses itself at some point. ---
**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:** [April 9, 2013, 4:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-an-assault-weapons-ban-make-sense/655130/44 "2013-04-09T04:46:40Z")
> [@PhillyGuy](#): > > Actually, there are many states with conceal carry licensing. But the rub is that, as you may recall I’ve previously documented, the license exams are so easy to pass as to be meaningless. Standards such as for car licensing simply have no chance of passage in the current atmosphere. The test I took for my driver’s license was so easy as to be meaningless. You don’t seriously think that rising to the difficulty of a driver’s license exam is some sort of accomplishment, do you? > [@](#): > > I’m curious on this one. Many states now require elderly drivers to take an eye test to maintain their license. Given the importance of good vision when it comes to shooting an assailant (or a deer) rather than an innocent bystander, do you agree that there needs to be similar vision requirements for drivers and gun owners? Only as it applies to concealed carry weapons. If they can’t see the target well enough to hit it then I guess they don’t get to pack heat. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_stamos_left_ear/32/3198_2.png) [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Stamos_Left_Ear)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2013, 4:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-an-assault-weapons-ban-make-sense/655130/45 "2013-04-09T04:54:44Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Difference in what? Less guns of a certain type were sized, so? Were less innocents murdered with those types of guns? No. Unless that number goes down, there is no evidence that “ban would be effective” or that “evidence that the ban was working” So you don’t consider the fact that when a certain type of magazine was banned that it’s confiscation steadily decreased until the moment the ban expired, when the number of them confiscated suddenly shot back up, is NOT an indication that the ban against larger magazines led to less people having them? Fascinating… I realize that the methodology of a lot of gun statistics can be flawed or skewed (which is why both supporters and opponents of the AWB have used the same study to bolster their side) but this one, while limited to one state, is pretty compelling evidence that people in that state obeyed the law until it stopped being the law. Unless you find it all a huge coincidence? 😕 ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2013, 4:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-an-assault-weapons-ban-make-sense/655130/46 "2013-04-09T04:59:14Z")
> [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](#): > > So you don’t consider the fact that when a certain type of magazine was banned that it’s confiscation steadily decreased until the moment the ban expired, when the number of them confiscated suddenly shot back up, is NOT an indication that the ban against larger magazines led to less people having them? Fascinating… > > : Not at all. I am not claiming that the law did not reduce the number of people with that magazine. But so what if it did? Did the murder rate go down? What did the reduced magazine capacity law actually **do** , \*vis a vis \*reducing violent crime? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_stamos_left_ear/32/3198_2.png) [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Stamos_Left_Ear)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2013, 5:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-an-assault-weapons-ban-make-sense/655130/47 "2013-04-09T05:09:02Z")
If less people have high-capacity ammo magazines, less people are able to shoot 155 shots in less than five minutes which is what Adam Lanza did. The banning of high-capacity ammo magazines may very well not remove the number of incidents that happen, but it’s totally logical to assume that if the ban is working (and the evidence shows that it was working) there are less people with high-capacity ammo magazines so the incidents that do happen are very likely to cause less casualties. Look at it this way: Lanza only had to reload his gun five times in order to squeeze off those 155 rounds. During one of the times when he was reloading (although the pause also may have come from his weapon jamming), “as many as a half-dozen first graders may have survived Adam Lanza’s deadly shooting spree at Sandy Hook Elementary School because he stopped firing briefly.” ([Hartford Courant](http://articles.courant.com/2012-12-23/news/hc-lanza-gunjam-20121222_1_rifle-school-psychologist-classroom)) This is anecdotal, only one shooting. But it could be part of a larger trend during the AWB which is harder to enumerate. The lives saved may be smaller in number but it’s ridiculous to think that it’s statistically insignificant. And at what cost? Hunters still hunt (responsibly, I might add), people can still defend themselves, world keeps on spinning. To be honest, if Lanza reloading a few more times would have meant just one more kid alive, just at that one incident, I have trouble seeing why anyone would be against the ban. ---
**Author:** ![HoboStew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/f17d59/32.png) [@HoboStew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HoboStew)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2013, 5:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-an-assault-weapons-ban-make-sense/655130/48 "2013-04-09T05:17:22Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > I am not interesting in fixing “our GUN violence problem” I want to fix “our violence problem”. I am not interested in solving bar-fights here. I am interested in solving fatal violence problems. If you can demonstrate that guns do not contribute to a sizable portion of those, then I will concede your point. WRT the OP, as a staunch gun-control advocate I think the assault weapon focus is misguided and stupid. Not because they shouldn’t be banned, but because it is too narrow of a focus. Even if we win, it accomplishes almost nothing. ---
**Author:** ![JXJohns](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jxjohns/32/469_2.png) [@JXJohns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JXJohns)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2013, 6:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-an-assault-weapons-ban-make-sense/655130/49 "2013-04-09T06:45:32Z")
> [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](#): > > If less people have high-capacity ammo magazines, less people are able to shoot 155 shots in less than five minutes which is what Adam Lanza did. The banning of high-capacity ammo magazines may very well not remove the number of incidents that happen, but it’s totally logical to assume that if the ban is working (and the evidence shows that it was working) there are less people with high-capacity ammo magazines so the incidents that do happen are very likely to cause less casualties. What section of the 1994 AW ban outlawed private possession or trade of existing high capacity mags? What part of the legislation removed a single mag off of the “street”? Since there was no part of the ban that did either of those things, how do you figure the ban was working? There was nothing in it to “work”. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2013, 7:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-an-assault-weapons-ban-make-sense/655130/50 "2013-04-09T07:08:47Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > How does one do that without getting rid of the 1st amendment? By convincing enough of them that they are wrong, obviously. Or making there opinions too embarrassing to mention in public. That works; after all, you don’t see many people openly pro-slavery any more or demanding that the Presidency be made a monarchy. > [@Human\_Action](#): > > No handgun bans without an amendment, unless the Supreme Court reverses itself at some point. Then there’s no possible solution and the killing will go on indefinitely. The pro-gun people can continue to wallow in the blood of their sacrifices. ---
**Author:** ![JXJohns](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jxjohns/32/469_2.png) [@JXJohns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JXJohns)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2013, 7:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-an-assault-weapons-ban-make-sense/655130/51 "2013-04-09T07:34:44Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > The pro-gun people can continue to wallow in the blood of their sacrifices. The next wallow is scheduled for Friday night. It’s a pot luck. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2013, 10:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-an-assault-weapons-ban-make-sense/655130/52 "2013-04-09T10:50:18Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > More people are killed by hammers every year than assault weapons. > > More people are killed by baseball bats every year than assault weapons. > > More people are punched to death every year than killed by assault weapons. > > The list is fucking endless. On the other hand, if 400 people were killed by Home Permanents, I’d presume that the FDA (or some other agency) would work to ban them. Thereasonableness of a ban has to do with the necessity of the item, the alternate uses of the item, the “context” of the deaths, not just the raw number. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2013, 11:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-an-assault-weapons-ban-make-sense/655130/53 "2013-04-09T11:03:59Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Then there’s no possible solution and the killing will go on indefinitely. The pro-gun people can continue to wallow in the blood of their sacrifices. That’s a pretty grim assessment. Serbia, for instance, [allows possession of handguns](http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/serbia) with a license, and is [fifth in the world in guns per capita](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country). Yet, their [intentional homicide rate](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate) is 1.2 per 100,000, the same as gun-phobic Great Britain’s, and less than the U.S.’ 4.8. Obviously, factors other than the laws are at work here, namely, cultural factors that can change with time, such as the [honor culture](http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=search.displayRecord&UID=1996-97631-000). A handgun ban is off the table, but that’s not necessary to achieve a low homicide rate. We’ll just have to work a little harder and smarter at it. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2013, 1:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-an-assault-weapons-ban-make-sense/655130/54 "2013-04-09T13:17:49Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > By convincing enough of them that they are wrong, obviously. Or making there opinions too embarrassing to mention in public. That works; after all, you don’t see many people openly pro-slavery any more or demanding that the Presidency be made a monarchy. I suppose that’s possible, but you picked really bad examples. We never had a monarchy in this country, and we specifically passed an amendment outlawing slavery. Sure, mores change, but the if you think you can “shame” people into not wanting to lobby for gun rights, you have a more optimistic view of human nature than I have. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2013, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-an-assault-weapons-ban-make-sense/655130/55 "2013-04-09T14:03:49Z")
> [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](#): > > To be honest, if Lanza reloading a few more times would have meant just one more kid alive, just at that one incident, I have trouble seeing why anyone would be against the ban. We can’t enact policy based on this “if it would have just saved one person” test. Whether it is guns or anything else in life, we would nickel and dime our freedoms down to nothing by the “saving one person” test. I’m sure you would support a strictly enforced 25mph speed limit on interstates because that law would save thousands of lives. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2013, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-an-assault-weapons-ban-make-sense/655130/56 "2013-04-09T14:13:20Z")
What is the impact of smaller magazines on the gun owning public? You are forced, by law, to turn in your 30 round magazines and replace them with 6 round magazines (let’s assume at no cost to you, and no record is kept of who turns in magazines). What is the impact? The impact of 25mph speed limits is going to be huge, not measure in ‘inconvenience’ units, but vastly higher costs for product shipments, extended commute times, wild changes in the availability and cost of goods and services to people across the country. ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2013, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-an-assault-weapons-ban-make-sense/655130/57 "2013-04-09T14:18:10Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > What is the impact of smaller magazines on the gun owning public? You are forced, by law, to turn in your 30 round magazines and replace them with 6 round magazines (let’s assume at no cost to you, and no record is kept of who turns in magazines). What is the impact? I’d stop carrying my 9mm in favor of my 3" 44 magnum. ---
**Author:** ![JXJohns](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jxjohns/32/469_2.png) [@JXJohns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JXJohns)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2013, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-an-assault-weapons-ban-make-sense/655130/58 "2013-04-09T14:29:42Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > What is the impact of smaller magazines on the gun owning public? You are forced, by law, to turn in your 30 round magazines and replace them with 6 round magazines (let’s assume at no cost to you, and no record is kept of who turns in magazines). What is the impact? With no empirical evidence, you have just made an arbitrary decision to limit the number of rounds that I can carry in one magazine. You have nothing to stand on to determine that 6 is somehow a safer number than 7, 8, 10, 15, or 30. You have told me that you know better than I how best to defend myself, hunt, or compete. My inventory of expensive magazines has now become either worthless or priceless depending upon which side of the law I choose to stay on. Other than that, no crimes will be thwarted, no lives saved, in the end nothing will be impacted other than the people not causing problems in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2013, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-an-assault-weapons-ban-make-sense/655130/59 "2013-04-09T14:56:17Z")
Your inventory of expensive magazines is replaced at no cost to you with functionally identical magazines of smaller size. If you like, let’s assume the replacement quantity provides for equivalent or greater overall storage capacity than the units returned. > [@JXJohns](#): > > Other than that, no crimes will be thwarted, no lives saved, in the end nothing will be impacted other than the people not causing problems in the first place. So… “no impact”? ---
**Author:** ![JXJohns](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jxjohns/32/469_2.png) [@JXJohns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JXJohns)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2013, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-an-assault-weapons-ban-make-sense/655130/60 "2013-04-09T15:34:03Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > Your inventory of expensive magazines is replaced at no cost to you with functionally identical magazines of smaller size. If you like, let’s assume the replacement quantity provides for equivalent or greater overall storage capacity than the units returned. I am against banning any magazine sizes as magazines don’t kill people. That being said, if my collection was replaced as you mention, it would make it more palatable. I would spend every last dollar and moment of my time to insure that any legislator if voted for such a measure lost their job however. > [@](#): > > So… “no impact”? Again, you have just made an arbitrary decision to limit the number of rounds that I can carry in one magazine. You have nothing to stand on to determine that 6 is somehow a better number than 7, 8, 10, 15, or 30. Besides making me a felon overnight if I don’t relinquish my once legal property as well as significantly neutering my ability to defend, or compete, all because you came up with the number **6** , nah no impact at all… [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-an-assault-weapons-ban-make-sense/655130.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-an-assault-weapons-ban-make-sense/655130.md?page=4)