# Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 26, 2009, 3:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475 "2009-02-26T03:45:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2009, 5:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475/201 "2009-02-27T05:23:33Z")
> [@Argent\_Towers](#): > > And by the way, even if high capacity magazines were not just outlawed but somehow made completely non-existent - if they all just vanished into the ether - why the hell do you assume that all the crimes that just happen to be committed every year using hi-capacity magazines simply wouldn’t happen at all, instead of, like, happening with guns that don’t have high capacity magazines? > > These statistics only say that a certain number of killings HAPPENED to involve high-capacity magazines…not that the few extra shots in the magazine are what made the difference between life and death. > > Take away the high capacity magazines and all those shootings will still happen, just with low-capacity magazines. > > Am I really the ONLY one to see the logic here? You missed my earlier post. The stats (cited) earlier suggest that when more than 10 shots are fired a higher number of people get hit. This is not a 1:1 relationship. The numbers I cited (note the cited part) suggest 2% more people get hit when _more_ than 10 shots are fired. Not a perfect assessment I grant but the best I can do with the numbers I dug up. I did the math for you (which if in error feel free to debunk…I am not a statistician) and it said on average 2,300 people a year will get shot because of high cap mags. 700 of those will die. Surely you can see, just from a though experiment, that people having more ammo in their gun are more lethal. Is it surprising to you that more people get shot/killed as a result? Note they are not necessarily all scumbags who have it coming (although certainly a lot are). It definitely happens that innocents get caught in the exchange. So how many of them are you willing to offer up for your “rights”? ---
**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:** [February 27, 2009, 5:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475/202 "2009-02-27T05:23:36Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > In my view (read that again) certain rights are inherent to the human condition. The right to life and liberty for instance (hope that sounds familiar). The right to own a gun is a temporal right, one granted in our Constitution. Make no mistake I hold the Constitution in high regard but that is an odd “right” in there. It is the only one to have a right to a “thing”. We have no right to a house or food but we do to a gun. Seems out of place to me. Minor nitpick, rights are _affirmed_ by the Constitution, not granted. > [@](#): > > So whence comes the religious fervor to protect it? It has been noted in this thread and others here why gun advocates weren’t fervent when Bush shit all over a variety of other rights. Most here responded that they hated that too but honestly the righteous indignation was lacking. Indignation they show in spades when someone suggests a gun restriction. I’ll play your game… Cite that gun owners don’t support the other rights affirmed in the Constitution. I’ll admit that I didn’t get on this board and _post_ during those moves by the previous administration because, unlike others, since I don’t know anything about those issues, other than I cannot tolerate them being shit on, and I am willfully ignorant, I don’t post about it. I read other’s posts and use them to validate my own opinions. I know a lot about guns, the gun rights issues. Therefore, if you look most of my 900+ posts they are about gun control. I let the people who are in the know talk about the other stuff. > [@](#): > > I submit gun owner priorities are fucked up but that is just me. YMMV Thanks, what a fucking compliment… > [@](#): > > …In time however the big mags will wash out of the system. No they wont, not in my kids lifetimes anyway. I can buy 30 round mags for guns that were made in WW2 and earlier, still in their grease wrap. There are literal warehouses full of these things all over the world. > [@](#): > > And I do not think they are as trivially easy to manufacture as you would have it. Sure they are simple but mass production? You need a factory and I am willing to bet the ATF would notice. Make a few hundred in your basement maybe if you have equipment that is not ubiquitous (at least I do not have metal presses and cutters in my house nor does anyone I know). > > In time they would be semi-rare and expensive. Certainly some would make them and run that risk. If there is a demand someone, somewhere will supply it but they would be pricey. As noted pot is incredibly easy to produce. Its cost far outstrips its manufacture cost because it is illegal. Same mechanics would apply to magazines. I am sorry to bring this up again, but you don’t know what you are talking about. Take a 15 round mag for a Ruger pistol. To make it a 10 round mag, the manufacturer adds a block inside the body to that only 10 rounds can be loaded. The owner then takes apart the mag, removes the block and whammo, its a 15 round mag. If you make a mag that cannot be disassembled, the owner is unable to maintain it and it will cease to function correctly over time. I don’t think you give two shits about my concerns so I’ll stop. > [@](#): > > I addressed this earlier with an attempt as best I could at real numbers. > > According to what I cited, and assuming (big assumption I admit but I think it was suitably conservative) those numbers are correct 2,300 fewer people a year would get shot. 700 fewer dead. > > Are you ok with two people a day dying so you can’t be arsed to swap a mag at the firing range? Your numbers are crap. Sorry but someone has to say it. There has to be an exponential increase in the likelihood of a person going down after they are hit each time. After one hit, perhaps there is a 50% likelihood the person goes down if they are hit center of mass, each hit to COM after that must increase the chances that the person will go down. Most people are going down after one or more hits. While that flies in the face of the NEED for hi cap mags, it also flushes your numbers down the crapper as well. I assert therefore that more people will go down within 10 rounds and the extras will not make a difference for or against that likelihood and therefore their internal capacity is not an issue. To answer you last statement, I cannot be held responsible for the actions of others. Whether they be murderers, tax cheats, embezzlers, or serial killers. I sleep just fine at night accordingly. Nice try at a guilt trip though. ---
**Author:** ![Argent\_Towers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e8c25b/32.png) [@Argent\_Towers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Argent_Towers)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2009, 5:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475/203 "2009-02-27T05:24:56Z")
> [@](#): > > on average 2,300 people a year will get shot because of high cap mags. No, 2,3000 people a year will get shot BECAUSE OF MOTHERFUCKING CRIMINALS. But you can continue to stick your fingers in your ears and blame the gun, blame the gun, blame the gun all day long. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2009, 5:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475/204 "2009-02-27T05:37:20Z")
> [@Argent\_Towers](#): > > No, there is no difference. You phrased it simply in terms of lives lost each year. But - fine - what about all the pedestrians hit by cars? You don’t need to have a car - you can get anywhere by biking or by walking. You having a car is a threat to ME when I’m walking down the street. If we outlawed cars, hundreds of pedestrians would not die each year. Except in very rare cases cars are not used as a weapon. Further they have an inherent utility for mundane and useful and non-lethal things that we accept the risks associated with them. Hell, I could stab you with a pencil. Pretty much anything can be lethal if someone wants it to be so let’s ban pencils. :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > Fine, dig up a cite. I don’t give a fuck. I don’t give a flying fuck how an innocent person is killed, I care THAT they are killed. I hate the killer, not the tool by which the killer kills them. I really don’t give a flying fuck. It’s already been proven that high capacity magazines (and “assault weapons”) make up only a small portion of total crimes committed with guns so your hypotheticals mean absolutely nothing to me. “Small portion?” Fine. Please tell me how many people, innocent people if you prefer, is it ok to have die from guns so you do not have to swap a mag as often at the firing range. Really curious to see this answer. > [@](#): > > Who the hell said anything about hunting or practice shooting…I want hi cap mags because I WANT TO BE SURE I HAVE ENOUGH ROUNDS TO STOP SOMEONE WHO IS THREATENING ME. Nothing, nothing at all, is going to make me think it’s acceptable to relinquish MY RIGHT to protect myself with the most effective type of firearm. I don’t care how many CRIMINALS happen to use hi cap mags…I’m not a criminal. How many shots have you fired at people invading your house? Cite examples of people who needed to expend dozens of shots to protect their home and family. Earlier you (or someone) noted the lack of numbers where Assault Weapons were used in crimes. Can’t have it both ways. SHOW me that you NEED high cap mags to defend yourself. Show me where 10 shots just will not get the job done. And not one isolated incident (there is always one isn’t there) but that it is common enough to DEMAND 30 (or whatever) shot magazines. ---
**Author:** ![Stealth\_Potato](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d78d45/32.png) [@Stealth\_Potato](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stealth_Potato)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2009, 5:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475/205 "2009-02-27T05:41:10Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > I’d like to divert for a moment on “rights”. Gun advocates seem to have a religious fervor when it comes to their “rights” to own a gun. > > In my view (read that again) certain rights are inherent to the human condition. The right to life and liberty for instance (hope that sounds familiar). The right to own a gun is a temporal right, one granted in our Constitution. You’re very wrong there. Even omitting any arguments to “natural” or “inherent” rights (which as an atheist I find problematic at best), the right to bear arms is not created or granted by our Constitution. The concept of that right has a historical presence in the Common Law that underlies the jurisprudence of our nation, and it is inherent in the structure of the government that the Constitution creates, even without the Bill of Rights. Recall the objections of the Federalists to the creation of a Bill of Rights in the first place. > [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Make no mistake I hold the Constitution in high regard but that is an odd “right” in there. It is the only one to have a right to a “thing”. We have no right to a house or food but we do to a gun. Seems out of place to me. Read the Ninth Amendment. The simple fact that the right to bear arms is explicitly enumerated in the Bill of Rights does not deny or disparage any of your other rights, which you retain implicitly. This includes your right to secure for yourself food and shelter. > [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > So whence comes the religious fervor to protect it? It has been noted in this thread and others here why gun advocates weren’t fervent when Bush shit all over a variety of other rights. Most here responded that they hated that too but honestly the righteous indignation was lacking. Indignation they show in spades when someone suggests a gun restriction. That’s a mighty fine broad brush you have there. Mind taking it somewhere else? I just had this jacket dry-cleaned. > [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Your right to have a gun opens the door to bad guys getting guns. That steps on MY rights to life and liberty. In my book life and liberty trump you having a gun. I cannot agree with you there. Your right to life and liberty is violated if someone (whether armed or not) attempts to coerce or assault you; it is not violated merely by my ability to purchase a firearm. Or else should I say that _your_ ability to buy a six-pack from the 7-11 steps on _my_ right to life and liberty, since there is a chance you or someone else will get behind the wheel drunk and kill me in a vehicular accident? Neither of those ideas makes any sense. > [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > This is one of the problems of any society. Where do we draw the line between your rights and mine when they conflict? Not an easy task to sort out. Gun owners position seems to be as long as someone has a gun then they need a gun to protect them from those who have a gun. Sounds like Iran wanting nukes albeit on a lesser level. If our perceived bad guys have nukes then we need nukes to protect us from those who have nukes and are out to get us (which is really anyone with nukes…nice circular arguement). On the contrary. If criminals only carried knives and baseball bats I would still want a gun to defend myself from them. You think I want to get into a knife fight if somebody breaks into my house? :dubious: > [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Are you ok with two people a day dying so you can’t be arsed to swap a mag at the firing range? And if the criminals carry two or three 10-round mags? Like you say, swapping a magazine is easy. I object strenuously to your notion that banning certain kinds of magazines would somehow save _any_ lives. But I also object to the notion that it is acceptable to ban something simply because removing it from society (if that were possible) might save lives. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2009, 6:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475/206 "2009-02-27T06:15:01Z")
> [@JXJohns](#): > > I’ll play your game… Cite that gun owners don’t support the other rights affirmed in the Constitution. I’ll admit that I didn’t get on this board and _post_ during those moves by the previous administration because, unlike others, since I don’t know anything about those issues, other than I cannot tolerate them being shit on, and I am willfully ignorant, I don’t post about it. I read other’s posts and use them to validate my own opinions. Seems a back handed swipe at people who do not own guns or are not knowledgeable about them to form an opinion. Guns are a part of our society and as such they affect me and I am entitled to an opinion about them. If I am in error by all means call me on it and enlighten me. I think I am still allowed to speak about it though. As for other rights that were stomped on I admit gun advocates here were not happy. They saw it. They commented on it an expressed their disdain. Yet nowhere did I see the vehemence with which they approached gun related topics. To each their own I guess. Just to me, on the spectrum of rights we hold dear, I find others far more profound and important then entitlement to a thing. Magic away all the guns tomorrow and I expect everyone will continue to get on fine. Magic away something like freedom of speech and I expect it would have far deeper and awful consequences. > [@](#): > > Thanks, what a fucking compliment… Call it like I see it. > [@](#): > > No they wont, not in my kids lifetimes anyway. I can buy 30 round mags for guns that were made in WW2 and earlier, still in their grease wrap. There are literal warehouses full of these things all over the world. Loads of things are illegal and find their way into this country just fine. But illegal makes them expensive. Add to that stiff penalties for violating having a large cap magazine. Sure some will get them but they will become the exception and not the rule. This is Econ 101 stuff. > [@](#): > > I am sorry to bring this up again, but you don’t know what you are talking about. Take a 15 round mag for a Ruger pistol. To make it a 10 round mag, the manufacturer adds a block inside the body to that only 10 rounds can be loaded. The owner then takes apart the mag, removes the block and whammo, its a 15 round mag. If you make a mag that cannot be disassembled, the owner is unable to maintain it and it will cease to function correctly over time. I don’t think you give two shits about my concerns so I’ll stop. Presumably the government could ban “large mags with a block inside” too. There are plenty of 10 round mags to be had. > [@](#): > > Your numbers are crap. Sorry but someone has to say it. There has to be an exponential increase in the likelihood of a person going down after they are hit each time. After one hit, perhaps there is a 50% likelihood the person goes down if they are hit center of mass, each hit to COM after that must increase the chances that the person will go down. Most people are going down after one or more hits. While that flies in the face of the NEED for hi cap mags, it also flushes your numbers down the crapper as well. I assert therefore that more people will go down within 10 rounds and the extras will not make a difference for or against that likelihood and therefore their internal capacity is not an issue. Huh? I cited numbers posted before. I admittedly played with them and used a 2% figure which I think is suitably conservative. That number was based on MORE people injured by guns when more than 10 shots were fired. Not conclusive I admit but a damn sight more that your conjecture. > [@](#): > > To answer you last statement, I cannot be held responsible for the actions of others. Whether they be murderers, tax cheats, embezzlers, or serial killers. I sleep just fine at night accordingly. Nice try at a guilt trip though. Nice dodge. It is about regulations. Regulations will cause some people more trouble than they are used to (e.g. a gun owner) in search of making something else better (e.g. someone getting shot). Saying you are not responsible for the action of others misses the point. Should VX Nerve Gas be available because you use it responsibly and should not be held responsible for the actions of others? I think not. ---
**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:** [February 27, 2009, 6:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475/207 "2009-02-27T06:50:00Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Seems a back handed swipe at people who do not own guns or are not knowledgeable about them to form an opinion. Picked up on that did ya? If more people who were anti gun would at least learn about guns, perhaps they would make legit arguments. Have you seen the video of Carolyn McCarthy explaining what a barrel shroud is? She is the one making laws concerning our gun rights. [Yeah, that’s US Rep Carolyn McCarthy, who introduced a version of the AW ban in 2007.](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rGpykAX1fo) What a tool… [Heat Seeking Bullets](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRQqieimwLQ&NR=1) > [@](#): > > Guns are a part of our society and as such they affect me and I am entitled to an opinion about them. If I am in error by all means call me on it and enlighten me. I think I am still allowed to speak about it though. By all means. I am not in the business of curtailing anyone’s rights. Your rights do not threaten me, no matter how much we may disagree. > [@](#): > > As for other rights that were stomped on I admit gun advocates here were not happy. They saw it. They commented on it an expressed their disdain. Yet nowhere did I see the vehemence with which they approached gun related topics. I can only speak for myself. When I am not sure of my own opinion, I use these boards to help sort it out. I am open minded. When I see people make eloquent posts regarding the attacks on privacy or free speech, I let them speak for me. I don’t feel the need to pile on to make myself look good. Nor do I see a need to slap them on the back and tell them that they hit that post out of the park. I speak about what I know and what I think I can approach to the high standards of posts on this site. That’s not me kissing anyone’s ass either. there are some smart people here on both sides of the issues. I know that my own debate skills have risen sharply in the 6 years I’ve lurked around. > [@](#): > > To each their own I guess. Just to me, on the spectrum of rights we hold dear, I find others far more profound and important then entitlement to a thing. Magic away all the guns tomorrow and I expect everyone will continue to get on fine. Magic away something like freedom of speech and I expect it would have far deeper and awful consequences. And I feel that “magicing” either away would lead to dire consequences. > [@](#): > > Presumably they government could ban “large mags with a block inside” too. There are plenty of 10 round mags to be had. Not trying to be an ass here, seriously, but you are not getting it. While I agree it is not easy to go to the metal shop and make a hi-cap mag, with a dremel tool and a few minutes I can turn just about any limited cap mag into a hi-cap item with no problem. From the outside, nobody, and I mean nobody will be able to tell the difference. Enforcement will be impossible, as it was from 94-2004. > [@](#): > > Nice dodge. To a stupid question… admit it. How much longer will you continue to pay your taxes so that our soldiers can kill Iraqis and Afghanis? At what point do you say enough is enough? > [@](#): > > It is about regulations. Regulations will cause some people more trouble than they are used to (e.g. a gun owner) in search of making something else better (e.g. someone getting shot). Our country is a violent place. Studies have shown and were cited earlier that gun control DOES NOT WORK. The way to affect the violence in the US is not to attack the tools of violence, it is to attack the societal root causes of violence. > [@](#): > > Saying you are not responsible for the action of others misses the point. Should VX Nerve Gas be available because you use it responsibly and should not be held responsible for the actions of others? Come on… :rolleyes: I’m going to bed after that gem. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2009, 7:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475/208 "2009-02-27T07:40:37Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > “Small portion?” Fine. Please tell me how many people, innocent people if you prefer, is it ok to have die from guns so you do not have to swap a mag as often at the firing range. Really curious to see this answer.. Zero, which is the number of people who have been killed by a gun. ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2009, 8:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475/209 "2009-02-27T08:39:20Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > In time however the big mags will wash out of the system. They _won’t_ wash out of the system. It would be like trying to ban cupcake pans - even if you could find and destroy all of the ones currently in the country, people could easily smuggle them in or just make new ones. ---
**Author:** ![Argent\_Towers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e8c25b/32.png) [@Argent\_Towers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Argent_Towers)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2009, 8:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475/210 "2009-02-27T08:53:30Z")
I once worked with an ex-con. Literally EVERY SINGLE THING lying around that could be used as a shank, he would pick up and explain in detail how he would shank somebody with it, were he still in the can. That kind of mentality, unsurprisingly, transfers quite smoothly to the criminal world outside of the confines of prison. They will find SOME way of getting what they want. Magazines aren’t hard to make and any competent machine-tool worker could crank them out (and, unbelievably, incredibly, mind-bogglingly, I would hazard a guess that in the current economy, there are more than a few underpaid, underfed, pissed off machine-tool workers who would love to earn a little extra cash.) ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2009, 10:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475/211 "2009-02-27T10:05:38Z")
> [@Argent\_Towers](#): > > I once worked with an ex-con. Literally EVERY SINGLE THING lying around that could be used as a shank, he would pick up and explain in detail how he would shank somebody with it, were he still in the can. > > That kind of mentality, unsurprisingly, transfers quite smoothly to the criminal world outside of the confines of prison. They will find SOME way of getting what they want. Magazines aren’t hard to make and any competent machine-tool worker could crank them out (and, unbelievably, incredibly, mind-bogglingly, I would hazard a guess that in the current economy, there are more than a few underpaid, underfed, pissed off machine-tool workers who would love to earn a little extra cash.) That’s a stupid argument. Think of a typical gun crime. A convenience store robbery. The person committing that crime isn’t Jason Bourne or Moriarty. He’s a man, probably very uneducated, prone to impulsive stupidity and violent. He’s probably using a gun he bought from a guy he knows (that was stolen from a house in a nice neighborhood, no doubt) or a straw buy from his cousin with no record who’s taking classes at the JC. He has no idea how to metalwork. He has no idea where to buy an illegal magazine. He might not even have a spare magazine. He doesn’t have a holster, his gun is in the waistband of his pants so carrying a couple of heavy loaded magazines clacking around in his pockets isn’t something that might appeal to him. Criminals are largely stupid, lazy and have impulse control problems. To assume they would act like you would (outfit themselves properly and jury rig equipment) ignores the fact that you are not stupid, lazy and impulsive. For fuck sake, it’s been known that we have differentiated fingerprints for over a century, yet criminals still leave fingerprints everywhere. They look uncomprehendingly at surveillance cameras and make any of a thousand other stupid mistakes. If reducing magazine sizes will save lives, I’m all for it. Not to mention those phantom machinists don’t want to go to federal prison for 25 years, so the probably would make them for themselves and no one else. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2009, 11:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475/212 "2009-02-27T11:42:13Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > Sorry, I was simply trying to help you out. I’m racking my brain trying to figure out a situation in which you need assault weapons in your everyday life. Maybe you like to act out Terminator movies in your spare time? Chuck huntin. Or, really, any small burrowing varmit hunting. Generally, there’s a lot of them, and they pop in and out of burrows really fast. Can’t let them be, they tear up the ground enough that a horse could break a leg, as well as eat the garden. And they’re small enough that you’re going to miss. AR or AK is about perfect for that, as I see it. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2009, 12:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475/213 "2009-02-27T12:51:58Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > This is dissapointing. I was sincerely hoping Obama would put what was right and practical over ideology. It’s possible he believes that’s exactly what he’s doing. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2009, 1:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475/214 "2009-02-27T13:29:50Z")
To anyone who _still_ thinks that this was anything more than a bone thrown by Holder to Mexican officials asking that the US do _something_ about the “advanced weapons” coming into Mexico from the US (which those Mexican officials believe plays a role in exacerbating the violent battles with and between the cartels) … a “Yeah, like we’ve _said_ we want to help but well we’re a bit busy with other things right now” … there now is [this](http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/reid-joins-pelosi-in-opposing-weapons-ban-revival-2009-02-26.html) as well. > [@](#): > > Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will join Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) in opposing any effort to revive the 1994 assault weapons ban So let’s see … you’ve got Holder saying what has been said before but adding in definitely not now … Pelosi saying no way … Reid saying no way … and we still have some here wetting their pants in “I told you so” anxiety. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2009, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475/215 "2009-02-27T13:37:26Z")
**DSeid** , that doesn’t follow as a logical necessity. Imagine two scenarios, if you will. In the first, Holder, under pressure from Mexico, offers a bit of lip service about how Obama would use the AWB again and in so doing, his administration would be helping Mexican law enforcement. The statement is given as a balm to sooth Mexican politicans’ worries. As the reaction to his statements begins to be felt, the White House distances itself from his statement without officially denying it while the House and Senate Dems eventually make sure to point out that boy howdy, they’re against it. In the second, Holder, acting in accord with his ideology, offers a bit of lip service about how doing what he wants to do anyway would help Mexico and Mexican law enforcement. The statement is given as a trial balloon. As the reaction to his statements begins to be felt, the White House distances itself from his statement without officially denying it while the House and Senate Dems eventually make sure to point out that boy howdy, they’re against it. Now from the outside, the two would look pretty much identical. Right? So, saying that it could only be thought of as a bone thrown to Mexico (especially given Obama’s tepid endorsement of the AWB), or you’re a pants wetting paranoid, is not exactly fair. ---
**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:** [February 27, 2009, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475/216 "2009-02-27T13:54:20Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > … Criminals are largely stupid, lazy and have impulse control problems. To assume they would act like you would (outfit themselves properly and jury rig equipment) ignores the fact that you are not stupid, lazy and impulsive. For fuck sake, it’s been known that we have differentiated fingerprints for over a century, yet criminals still leave fingerprints everywhere. They look uncomprehendingly at surveillance cameras and make any of a thousand other stupid mistakes. The first part of your argument was fine. This part not so much. Once those mags become illegal, anyone who holds them, without doing anything else wrong (that whole law abiding thing…) has just become a criminal. Your demographics of what a typical criminal is or is not just went right out the window. > [@](#): > > If reducing magazine sizes will save lives, I’m all for it. Banning swimming pools will save far more lives. Are you all for that too? People really don’t _need_ pools after all. They can get by with a 12" wading pool from Wal Mart and get just as wet with only a minor inconvenience. How many people are you willing to let die so that people can have their swimming pools?\* \*Sorry, I know that is Whacks argument, not yours, but it fails appropriately here as well… ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2009, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475/217 "2009-02-27T14:05:23Z")
**Finn** , let us revisit the op. > [@JXJohns](#): > > … the Obama administration with be far too busy with more important things than gun control … Really? In short, yes, really. Even under your second scenario (which assumes that Obama is stupid enough to consider wasting energy on this and that a trial balloon that results in only ABC initially picking up on it and even Fox totally ignoring it was too much heat for them), yes, really - it was precisely what Holder had said, that the administration is too busy to deal with this issue right now. There are no plans by anyone to reintroduce the AWB. They _are_ too busy. The economy, the wars, healthcare reform, getting involved in Israel Palestine, Iran’s nukes, Pakistan’s potential instability, North Korea’s nukes, Russia’s re-emergence as a power, the impact of China’s economic growth, education, global warming, beating off various [revolts](http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0209/19389.html) from Pelosi and company over issues on the Left, will all take the front seat through the next eight years of Obama and probably Hillary’s next eight also. 😉 But okay, I’ll concede the point that not every one who got a bit concerned wet their pants. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2009, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475/218 "2009-02-27T14:05:54Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > To anyone who _still_ thinks that this was anything more than a bone thrown by Holder to Mexican officials asking that the US do _something_ about the “advanced weapons” coming into Mexico from the US (which those Mexican officials believe plays a role in exacerbating the violent battles with and between the cartels) … a “Yeah, like we’ve _said_ we want to help but well we’re a bit busy with other things right now” … there now is [this](http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/reid-joins-pelosi-in-opposing-weapons-ban-revival-2009-02-26.html) as well. So let’s see … you’ve got Holder saying what has been said before but adding in definitely not now … Pelosi saying no way … Reid saying no way … and we still have some here wetting their pants in “I told you so” anxiety. From your link it seems as if Reid and Pelosi want nothing to do with it. However, if Obama pressed it, Pelosi would be on board and Reid would let it come to a vote (and it would easily pass) so it really goes back to Obama on this one. I’m willing to concede that he doesn’t want to do anything now, but let one high profile shooting occur and it will be back to the front.. ---
**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:** [February 27, 2009, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475/219 "2009-02-27T14:10:48Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > …If reducing magazine sizes will save lives, I’m all for it. To argue that point a little more seriously, there is no kind of proof that doing so will accomplish the end goal of saving lives. Whack’s attempts at math, while good natured, was later contradicted by his own sell job of the idea. Ok, if more bullets are fired, the stats show that more people will get hit when being shot at. That seems to make sense. To later tell gun owners, that it is only a minor inconvenience to have change mags more often, debunks the whole limited capacity argument. If it is _SO_ easy to change out a mag, and as good citizens of the earth we should have no problem with it as we are doing our part to save lives, it is just as easy for someone in the commission of a crime to change out that limited-cap mag and keep on shooting. [A reload takes about a second or two.](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ls4Uq1aCiTA) ---
**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:** [February 27, 2009, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475/220 "2009-02-27T14:14:41Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > **Finn** , let us revisit the op.In short, yes, really. Even under your second scenario (which assumes that Obama is stupid enough to consider wasting energy on this and that a trial balloon that results in only ABC initially picking up on it and even Fox totally ignoring it was too much heat for them), yes, really - it was precisely what Holder had said, that the administration is too busy to deal with this issue right now. > > There are no plans by anyone to reintroduce the AWB. They _are_ too busy. The economy, the wars, healthcare reform, getting involved in Israel Palestine, Iran’s nukes, Pakistan’s potential instability, North Korea’s nukes, Russia’s re-emergence as a power, the impact of China’s economic growth, education, global warming, beating off various [revolts](http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0209/19389.html) from Pelosi and company over issues on the Left, will all take the front seat through the next eight years of Obama and probably Hillary’s next eight also. 😉 > > But okay, I’ll concede the point that not every one who got a bit concerned wet their pants. Would you agree then that it would be best for all concerned if Holder would just drink a big glass of STFU and quit being a distraction? That’s the vibe that I got from both Pelosi and Reid. ETA, you know if P or R would just come out and say that the AW Ban is bad legislation and neither the Senate nor the House will consider it while on their watch, that would go a long way to ending this issue. Do you think they would ever do that? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475.md?page=12)