# If assault weapons are banned do authorities just restrict new ones or collect the existing ones? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [December 17, 2012, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-assault-weapons-are-banned-do-authorities-just-restrict-new-ones-or-collect-the-existing-ones/644256 "2012-12-17T02:02:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![eztarget](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/a698b9/32.png) [@eztarget](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eztarget)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2012, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-assault-weapons-are-banned-do-authorities-just-restrict-new-ones-or-collect-the-existing-ones/644256/81 "2012-12-20T01:56:01Z")
here are your stats on how well Australia gun ban is doing Myth: Gun control in Australia is curbing crime Fact: Crime has been rising since enacting a sweeping ban on private gun ownership. In the first two years after Australian gun-owners were forced to surrender 640,381 personal firearms, government statistics showed a dramatic increase in criminal activity. 31 In 2001-2002, homicides were up another 20%. 32 From the inception of firearm confiscation to March 27, 2000, the numbers are: • Firearm-related murders were up 19% • Armed robberies were up 69% • Home invasions were up 21% The sad part is that in the 15 years before the national gun confiscation: • Firearm-related homicides dropped nearly 66% • Firearm-related deaths fell 50% Fact: Gun crimes have been rising throughout Australia since guns were banned. In Sydney alone, robbery rates with guns rose 160% in 2001, more in the previous year. 33 Fact: A ten year Australian study has concluded that firearm confiscation had no effect on crime rates. 34 A separate report also concluded that Australia’s 1996 gun control laws “found [no] evidence for an impact of the laws on the pre-existing decline in firearm homicides” 35 and yet another report from Australia for a similar time period indicates the same lack of decline in firearm homicides ---
**Author:** ![eztarget](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/a698b9/32.png) [@eztarget](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eztarget)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2012, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-assault-weapons-are-banned-do-authorities-just-restrict-new-ones-or-collect-the-existing-ones/644256/82 "2012-12-20T01:58:24Z")
and new zealand. Myth: Gun registration works Fact: Not in California. California has had handgun registration since 1909 92 and it has not any impact of violent crime rate. 93 Fact: Not in New Zealand. They repealed their gun registration law in the 1980s after police acknowledged its worthlessness. 94 Fact: Not in Australia. One report states, “It seems just to be an elaborate system of arithmetic with no tangible aim. Probably, and with the best of intentions, it may have been thought, that if it were known what firearms each individual in Victoria owned, some form of control may be exercised, and those who were guilty of criminal misuse could be readily identified. This is a fallacy, and has been proven not to be the case.” 95 In addition, cost to Australian taxpayers exceeded $200 million annually. 96 ---
**Author:** ![eztarget](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/a698b9/32.png) [@eztarget](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eztarget)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2012, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-assault-weapons-are-banned-do-authorities-just-restrict-new-ones-or-collect-the-existing-ones/644256/83 "2012-12-20T02:00:09Z")
if you want to read > **[Gun Facts | Gun Control Policy Insights](http://www.gunfacts.info/)** > > Gun Facts is an ongoing project to bring honesty into the debate about guns, violence and control. ---
**Author:** ![eztarget](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/a698b9/32.png) [@eztarget](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eztarget)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2012, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-assault-weapons-are-banned-do-authorities-just-restrict-new-ones-or-collect-the-existing-ones/644256/84 "2012-12-20T02:06:36Z")
> [@davidm](#): > > I said earlier that a person loses all credibility with me when they use stupid immature (yes, STUPID and IMMATURE) buzzwords like “gun grabber”, but I feel I should respond to your arguments in this case. > > Why do I care what type of weapons you have? Because of what happened in Sandy Hook and numerous other places. Because I want to greatly reduce the chances of such things happening. > > If I am indifferent to what you have, then I’m indifferent to what ANYBODY has. You may be the most mentally stable, law abiding person on the planet, but there are other people who are anything but that, and I have no fast easy way of differentiating. I have no easy way of knowing which ones are unstable or evil. I have no way of allowing good responsible people access to such things while reliably denying them to dangerous people without making EVERYBODY jump through some hoops. > > As a society, we err on the side of caution for dangerous things that don’t have a need that outweighs the danger. What is your need that outweighs the danger from others that may not be as responsible or stable as you? > > Enjoyment of a hobby isn’t a sufficient need. I like fireworks. It would be fun to shoot off some sky rockets in my yard on July 4th, but my state doesn’t allow it because of the possibility of irresponsible people (or defective fireworks) causing fires. I accept that because I recognize that the danger takes precedence over whatever personal enjoyment I would obtain. > > That is the mature adult attitude about these things. It’s part of being a responsible member of society. “ME ME ME… My rights in all cases and the hell with society!” is not. what happens when a crazy gets behind the wheel of a car and mows people down? do we ban cars and go back to horses? ---
**Author:** ![River\_Hippie](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/river_hippie/32/26_2.png) [@River\_Hippie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/River_Hippie)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2012, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-assault-weapons-are-banned-do-authorities-just-restrict-new-ones-or-collect-the-existing-ones/644256/85 "2012-12-20T02:39:55Z")
> [@eztarget](#): > > where is .223 not allowed to hunt deer? I amended that in a later post to _in some places_. This is what I found in about 60 seconds of Googling. [http://www.nrahuntersrights.org/Article.aspx?id=6148](http://www.nrahuntersrights.org/Article.aspx?id=6148) The link confirms they are banned in some places. I think you’d need to read every states laws to compile a list. I’m still Googling, I’ll be back if I find a comprehensive lists of states that ban .223 for deer. ---
**Author:** ![control-z](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/eada6e/32.png) [@control-z](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/control-z)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2012, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-assault-weapons-are-banned-do-authorities-just-restrict-new-ones-or-collect-the-existing-ones/644256/86 "2012-12-20T15:58:29Z")
Why should all the huge number of law-abiding, constitutionally protected gun owners be penalized because a very very small number of bad/mentally ill people used guns to commit murder? ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2012, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-assault-weapons-are-banned-do-authorities-just-restrict-new-ones-or-collect-the-existing-ones/644256/87 "2012-12-20T16:45:04Z")
> [@Thrasymachus](#): > > Sure, but why does a mass murderer care about whether he’s using an illegal gun to do it? He doesn’t. In theory, the premise is that by making the large magazines (or “assault weapons”) illegal, they become less available. First, they can’t be bought or sold legally, can’t be manufactured. Then the existing supply are collected through a process of amnesty/buy back. The remaining items after the amnesty are subject to confiscation when authorities find them. How well that pans out in practice is a different story. ---
**Author:** ![kopek](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kopek/32/337_2.png) [@kopek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kopek)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2012, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-assault-weapons-are-banned-do-authorities-just-restrict-new-ones-or-collect-the-existing-ones/644256/88 "2012-12-20T18:53:25Z")
> [@Fiveyearlurker](#): > > Apparently there is an 18th century weapon that could hold 20 rounds that the poster above tried to pretend was akin to a machine gun (and aren’t I such an idiot for not knowing that such a thing existed!). When I looked it up, it turns out to be an air gun that would require several minutes, and furious hand pumping, about 1500 strokes apparently, of the air chambers, to fire those 20 rounds. But, somehow because such a thing existed in the 18th century, we should all be armed to the teeth with whatever we feel like today. Or something. > > . I don’t know what your earlier post was or the reply to it and I ain’t picking a dog in this particular fight. But ------ I think what was being described was the Puckle > **[Puckle gun](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puckle_gun)** > > The Puckle gun (also known as the defence gun) was a primitive crew-served, manually operated flintlock revolver patented in 1718 by James Puckle (1667–1724), a British inventor, lawyer and writer. It was one of the earliest weapons to be referred to as a "machine gun", being called such in a 1722 shipping manifest, though its operation does not match the modern use of the term. It was never used during any combat operation or war. Production was highly limited and may have been as fe The Puckl... Some civilian made versions played with after the army (British) turned it down had cylinders with higher capacities. Mine (made circa 1977) carried 15 rounds. Call it anything you want but the durn thing really is the first machine gun. ---
**Author:** ![artemis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/91b2a8/32.png) [@artemis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/artemis)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2012, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-assault-weapons-are-banned-do-authorities-just-restrict-new-ones-or-collect-the-existing-ones/644256/89 "2012-12-20T19:14:06Z")
> [@eztarget](#): > > where is .223 not allowed to hunt deer? Believe it or not, it’s because that round doesn’t have reliable enough killing power. The military actually prefers wounding enemy soldiers over killing them, because it removes more combatants from the battlefield 9the wounded guy plus at least two other to carry the litter). Hunters, on the other hand want a clean kill with one shot. ---
**Author:** ![eztarget](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/a698b9/32.png) [@eztarget](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eztarget)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2012, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-assault-weapons-are-banned-do-authorities-just-restrict-new-ones-or-collect-the-existing-ones/644256/90 "2012-12-21T00:21:41Z")
> [@artemis](#): > > Believe it or not, it’s because that round doesn’t have reliable enough killing power. The military actually prefers wounding enemy soldiers over killing them, because it removes more combatants from the battlefield 9the wounded guy plus at least two other to carry the litter). Hunters, on the other hand want a clean kill with one shot. actually a semi interesting point. i would be interested in validating your comment on the military. it almost makes sense. killing deer however can be done and is done quite effectively with .223. just don’t make a crappy shot. ---
**Author:** ![Martini\_Enfield](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/martini_enfield/32/11123_2.png) [@Martini\_Enfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martini_Enfield)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2012, 8:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-assault-weapons-are-banned-do-authorities-just-restrict-new-ones-or-collect-the-existing-ones/644256/91 "2012-12-21T08:27:50Z")
> [@Sicks\_Ate](#): > > You can? With what, a .22? Even with a buffered .223, you’re not likely to get off ‘well’-aimed shots after the first or second. I said _aimed_, not “well-aimed”. And the last time I was in the US, I visted one of those ranges in Las Vegas and was able to empty a 30-round magazine from both a semi-auto AK-47 (7.62x39mm) and a Steyr AUG (.223) into the centre area of the target (not all in the 10-ring obviously, but all in what would be considered the “centre mass”) in about 15 seconds. So yes, in my experience, you can accurately empty the magazine on a military-style semi-auto rifle in a few seconds. > [@Shagnasty](#): > > No, they are the same gun. A better analogy would be allowing standard Porsches to be sold but not Porsches that have fancy rims and chrome tailpipes because those would be unsafe. Personally, I’d say it’s closer to “… but not Porsches that have fancy rims and chrome tailpipes because those are disproprotionately likely to attract and be used by people who behave in an unsafe manner with them”. I don’t think the people who do use them responsibly and safely should be denied the ability to own them - but I do think it should be harder than putting their money or credit card on the counter and asking for a phased plasma rifle in the 40 watt range, so to speak. ---
**Author:** ![River\_Hippie](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/river_hippie/32/26_2.png) [@River\_Hippie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/River_Hippie)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2012, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-assault-weapons-are-banned-do-authorities-just-restrict-new-ones-or-collect-the-existing-ones/644256/92 "2012-12-21T15:51:12Z")
> [@eztarget](#): > > actually a semi interesting point. i would be interested in validating your comment on the military. it almost makes sense. > > killing deer however can be done and is done quite effectively with .223. just don’t make a crappy shot. Deer can be and are killed with .22LR. That doesn’t mean it’s a proper round for deer hunting. More often it will result in a wounded deer running off to suffer. A .223 is obviously a much more powerful round than a 22LR. While searching for a list of states that ban .223 for deer I stumbled across several debates on hunting message boards about whether .223 is appropriate for deer. It’s a contentious issue even within the hunting community. I don’t hunt but I’ve shot a lot of .223 and read a lot about it and I wouldn’t use it on deer. .223 will certainly penetrate but can zip through without transfering enough energy to the target. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-assault-weapons-are-banned-do-authorities-just-restrict-new-ones-or-collect-the-existing-ones/644256.md?page=4)