# 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:** 12
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2009, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475/221 "2009-02-27T14:23:42Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > 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. What I find a little strange is taking words as proof of intent when it’s one way, but claiming words are just words when it’s the other way. If the AG says something about a ban, that’s the same thing as forcing a ban through, but if Pelosi says she doesn’t want it, well, that’s not important. ---
**Author:** ![puppygod](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@puppygod](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puppygod)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2009, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475/222 "2009-02-27T14:30:40Z")
Ban high capacity magazines. Because bad guys can’t reload؟ Also, they obey law؟ Seriously, people really think that this will save lives? ---
**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, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475/223 "2009-02-27T14:32:34Z")
Perhaps everyone knows that a POTUS who is full of charisma and has the ability to get people to work for him (you know the reasons so many voted for him in the first place…) might be able to force something through the Congress, which is already FULL of sympathetic anti gun sentiment. Do you think that’s even a possibility? I trust Obama. Not so much for Nancy and Harry. ---
**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, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475/224 "2009-02-27T14:42:28Z")
> [@JXJohns](#): > > 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. 🙂 Yeah, I think they understand why Holder said what he said in the context that he said it but they really do not want to mess with this in any way. Him not saying it in public would be very appreciated by all. As far as admitting that the AWB was bad legislation (at least as it was written), well Pelosi parrotting the NRA position of “we need to enforce the laws we have right now” is pretty damn close and Reid was always against the AWB having voted against it in 94 and when it died in 04. Considering that they have to tend to a liberal-progressive base that feels taken for granted as it is what with Obama refusing to go after Bush for crimes against the state, and a host of other issues, that’s pretty strong talking. ---
**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, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475/225 "2009-02-27T14:54:55Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > which assumes that Obama is stupid enough to consider wasting energy on this Even smart people do stupid things. I’d rather not go through four (or eight) years of people downplaying possible mistakes on Obama’s part by saying that only a stupid person could make mistakes like that. He’s already significantly bungled his nominations, for example. He’s not some flawless strategic genius. > [@DSeid](#): > > 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), Part of the point of a trial balloon is that it has plausible deniablity and doesn’t necessarily aim at total media saturation. A major media announcement would’ve made it much more difficult to portray Holder as a ‘rogue opinion’. We also don’t know what sort of response Obama’s administration received. How many emails, phone calls, letters, etc… > [@DSeid](#): > > yes, really - it was precisely what Holder had said, that the administration is too busy to deal with this issue right now. Might be. Let’s say that, for instance, after Holder’s statements the result had been positive, with people accepting the conflation of narco-trafficking and gun control. Let’s say a large enough portion of the nation’s population were distracted by economic worries and the ‘drugs are bad mmmkay?’ crowd was won over by Holder’s rhetoric. Still think that the administration would, definitely, be too busy to support legislation like that? > [@DSeid](#): > > But okay, I’ll concede the point that not every one who got a bit concerned wet their pants. Magnanimous of you. 😛 Even if it’s unlikely that the Dems would be able to pass legislation of that sort any time soon, I think that you can at least agree that with Obama making noise in support of the AWB and Holder’s ideology, we’re not talking about an impossibility. ---
**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, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475/226 "2009-02-27T15:39:42Z")
> [@JXJohns](#): > > 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. Very faulty logic. I was talking about convenience store robberies. You, holding an newly illegal magazine will not push over a convenience store tomorrow. To draw an equivalence between holders of a now illegal contraband and the kind of violent criminals we’re talking about here is way sloppy. ---
**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, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475/227 "2009-02-27T15:45:13Z")
> [@JXJohns](#): > > 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) How many criminals carry extra magazines as a matter of course? How many criminals are methodical in their preparations for their capers? How many even own additional magazines for their weapon of choice? The police don’t dust for fingerprints to catch the brilliant criminals. They dust, for the stupid, ignorant, impulsive ones. I’m pretty sure those are the ones the smaller magazines would create problems for. ---
**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, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475/228 "2009-02-27T15:48:27Z")
Impossible? No, not impossible. But reading this statement repeating known positions by Holder as “news”, as anything other than _confirmation_ that this administration is too busy with other stuff than to mess with the AWB, is to me silliness. The responses by Pelosi and Reid only confirmed that. And **Finn** there’s mistakes and there are things so obviously stupid that even Pelosi sees it as obvious. I’ve no delusions that Obama won’t both make mistakes and do things that are not mistakes but are things with which I disagree strongly. I will have no problems bitching about him when he and his team disappoints me. But so politically dense that they can’t see what even Pelosi and Reid see? I don’t think so. And yes, I see no possibility at all that the administration would give the Right this kind of a culture war lightening rod to rally its troops behind, even with the “drugs are bad mmmkay” variation thrown in. Is it possible that Team Obama will solve everything else higher on the list within six or seven years and on the sheer momentum of good will from having solved all of the world’s ills power through a new and improved AWB too? Sure. So those against the AWB just need to hope that he doesn’t get that far! ---
**Author:** ![Algorithm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/algorithm/32/12204_2.png) [@Algorithm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Algorithm)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2009, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475/229 "2009-02-27T15:58:43Z")
> [@Argent\_Towers](#): > > 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? No. It seems to me the enterprising criminal will find a way to either obtain a LCM anyway, or fire more than a few rounds without one. Studies indicate more shots fired = higher likelihood of injury, but banning LCMs won’t prevent people who are intent on harming others from firing those additional shots. ---
**Author:** ![Bobotheoptimist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/919ad9/32.png) [@Bobotheoptimist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bobotheoptimist)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2009, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475/230 "2009-02-27T16:02:05Z")
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), one of the ban’s original authors, gave a fiery floor speech Thursday saying she was “prepared to wage this battle again, and I intend to do so.” Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), a decorated Vietnam War veteran and the party’s 2004 presidential candidate, also called the ban “good policy.” “Nobody should be selling weapons of war in the streets of our country. It’ll be a tough vote, but it’s the right policy,” Kerry said. “I’m a hunter, I believe in the Second Amendment, and I don’t foresee any efforts to curtail anybody’s rights. But assault weapons? If people want to use them, join the military.” ---
**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, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475/231 "2009-02-27T16:02:12Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > And **Finn** there’s mistakes and there are things so obviously stupid that even Pelosi sees it as obvious. I’ve no delusions that Obama won’t both make mistakes and do things that are not mistakes but are things with which I disagree strongly. I will have no problems bitching about him when he and his team disappoints me. But so politically dense that they can’t see what even Pelosi and Reid see? I don’t think so. > > And yes, I see no possibility at all that the administration would give the Right this kind of a culture war lightening rod to rally its troops behind, even with the “drugs are bad mmmkay” variation thrown in. ^^This. There are mistakes and there is colossal stupidity. I cannot believe Obama can make it to “colossal stupidity” on this. If nothing else he has people around him to pull him back but I doubt he needs anyone else to point this out to him here. As we said previously around here when people worried about Obama’s gun control proclivities there is just no room on his plate to add something like this. Not for a long time. And that seems to be precisely what is happening here. ---
**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, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475/232 "2009-02-27T16:04:27Z")
> [@Bobotheoptimist](#): > > Sen. Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), one of the ban’s original authors, gave a fiery floor speech Thursday saying she was “prepared to wage this battle again, and I intend to do so.” > > Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), a decorated Vietnam War veteran and the party’s 2004 presidential candidate, also called the ban “good policy.” > > “Nobody should be selling weapons of war in the streets of our country. It’ll be a tough vote, but it’s the right policy,” Kerry said. “I’m a hunter, I believe in the Second Amendment, and I don’t foresee any efforts to curtail anybody’s rights. But assault weapons? If people want to use them, join the military.” Oh no! Politicians grandstanding for their base back home? Say it ain’t so! ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2009, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475/233 "2009-02-27T16:07:12Z")
I think the reason the whole AWB deal is so alarming to pro-gun folks is that its underlying premise leads to the slipperiest of slopes. It’s saying that “some” guns are “too dangerous” to allow the public to own. Already there are those who are trying to set the standard that all semi-automatics should be banned (such as the current state of affairs in D.C.). What next- ban any gun that shoots more than one bullet at a time? Ban breech loaders? What pro-gun people hate is the premise underlying such proposals, which we feel violates not only the letter of the Constitution but it’s spirit as well. The idea being that only an elite warror caste of government enforcers should be privileged to possess weapons (or “real” weapons such as automatics, with a token “for civilians” class of weapons). The whole Hobbesian view of the public as a great unwashed mass of hoi polloi, who have to be controlled by the authorities for their own good, is contrary to everything our country was founded upon. Until the end of the 19th century the weapons available to civilians were the same as those available to the military. Even today, with a clean record and the determination to do so, it’s still legal to own a _full-automatic_ submachine gun or assault rifle if you jump through the hoops of the federal licensing procedure. Heck, if I absolutely wanted to, I could set out to become a licensed demolition expert and have the right to possess high explosives. Let’s say for the sake of argument that “assault weapons” really were a class of enhanced-lethality firearms. Fine: **set standards for law-abiding people to possess them**. ---
**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, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475/234 "2009-02-27T16:21:12Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > How many criminals carry extra magazines as a matter of course? How many criminals are methodical in their preparations for their capers? How many even own additional magazines for their weapon of choice? > > The police don’t dust for fingerprints to catch the brilliant criminals. They dust, for the stupid, ignorant, impulsive ones. I’m pretty sure those are the ones the smaller magazines would create problems for. Who knows? I am guessing that the FBI or local LEO’s don’t track how many mags criminals carry. How many criminals, during the commission of their crime actually fire their guns? How many rounds do they actually fire when they do so? Key data that is lacking. Because of that, all of this talk about the effectiveness of a capacity ban is nonsense and not based on anything that could be remotely considered empirical data. The magazine ban really affects rifles far more than handguns anyway. Most semi auto pistols, depending on caliber, size etc, will have mags that carry anything from 7 to 15 rounds. Of course there are aftermarket mags that may hold 20-30 rounds for a few models but these are ungainly, throw off the balance of the gun, make it far more difficult to conceal, and are not the best thing to pull off a robbery with. Handguns are the majority of weapons used in crimes. I don’t think anyone will argue that point. Any capacity ban however, will affect them the least. Why pass legislation that will not do anything? The only items that will really be affected are the so-labeled assault rifles, which are involved in such a small number of assaults as to make them almost statistically insignificant. Adding to that, the warehouses full of 30 round mags are usually for rifles. There are probably 100’s of millions AK-47 magazines in circulation worldwide today alone. To think they will just dry up after being banned is wishful thinking at best. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2009, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475/235 "2009-02-27T16:21:40Z")
> [@JXJohns](#): > > [Heat Seeking Bullets](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRQqieimwLQ&NR=1) HEH! Reminds me of a quiz in my copy of “Minnesota Permit to Carry a Firearm Fundamentals”: Which statement is true about laser sights? (A). They allow you to maintain your firearm on target when a traditional sight plane is not possible, or while you perform another task, such as dialing 911 or helping a loved one to retreat. (B). A good one will cause laser seeking bullets to impact exactly on target. ---
**Author:** ![Bobotheoptimist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/919ad9/32.png) [@Bobotheoptimist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bobotheoptimist)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2009, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475/236 "2009-02-27T16:33:05Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Oh no! Politicians grandstanding for their base back home? Say it ain’t so! It’s only scum-sucking Republicans that do things like that. Kerry and Feinstien are Democrats so they are speaking only truth and have rainbows shooting out of their asses. ---
**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, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475/237 "2009-02-27T16:44:54Z")
> [@JXJohns](#): > > Who knows? I am guessing that the FBI or local LEO’s don’t track how many mags criminals carry. How many criminals, during the commission of their crime actually fire their guns? How many rounds do they actually fire when they do so? Key data that is lacking. Because of that, all of this talk about the effectiveness of a capacity ban is nonsense and not based on anything that could be remotely considered empirical data. You mean like this empirical data? (from that big [PDF](http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf) used earlier) > [@](#): > > - Approximately 18% of civilian-owned firearms and 21% of > civilian-owned handguns were equipped with LCMs as of 1994. > > - AWs were used in only a small fraction of gun crimes prior to the ban: about 2% > according to most studies and no more than 8%. Most of the AWs used in crime > are assault pistols rather than assault rifles. > > - LCMs are used in crime much more often than AWs and accounted for 14% to > 26% of guns used in crime prior to the ban. > > - Following implementation of the ban, the share of gun crimes involving AWs > declined by 17% to 72% across the localities examined for this study (Baltimore, > Miami, Milwaukee, Boston, St. Louis, and Anchorage), based on data covering all > or portions of the 1995-2003 post-ban period. This is consistent with patterns > found in national data on guns recovered by police and reported to ATF. > > - The decline in the use of AWs has been due primarily to a reduction in the use of > assault pistols (APs), which are used in crime more commonly than assault rifles > (ARs). There has not been a clear decline in the use of ARs, though assessments > are complicated by the rarity of crimes with these weapons and by substitution of > post-ban rifles that are very similar to the banned AR models. > [@JXJohns](#): > > The magazine ban really affects rifles far more than handguns anyway. Apparently not. See above. ---
**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, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475/238 "2009-02-27T17:23:43Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Apparently not. See above. Are you sure you want to use that study to prove you point? How about I cherry pick a few now: > [@](#): > > - Assessing trends in criminal use of LCMs is difficult. There is no national data > source on crime guns equipped with LCMs (ATF national tracing data do not include > information about magazines recovered with traced firearms), and, based on our contacts > with numerous police departments over the course of this study and the first AW study, it > seems that even those police departments that maintain electronic databases on recovered > firearms do not typically record the capacity of the magazines with which the guns are > equipped.75,76 Indeed, we were unable to acquire sufficient data to examine LCM use for > the first AW study (Roth and Koper, 1997). Now who just got done stating the same thing? Answer - Me > [@](#): > > - Because gun crime was falling during the latter > 1990s, we anticipated that the number of guns recovered with LCMs might decline > independently of the ban’s impact. So crime was falling anyway, so lets not rush to judgment that any ban had anything to do with it? > [@](#): > > -Yet there was no decline in recoveries of LCM guns used in violent crimes (i.e., > murders, shootings, robberies, and other assaults). After the ban, the percentage of > violent crime guns with LCMs generally oscillated in a range consistent with the pre-ban > level (14%) and hit peaks of roughly 16% to 17% in 1996 and 2003 (Figure 8-1).82 > Whether comparing the pre-ban period to the entire post-ban period (1995-2003) or the > most recent years (2002-2003), \*\*there was no meaningful decline in LCM recoveries > linked to violent crimes \*\*(Table 8-2, panels A and B).83 Bolding mine. > [@](#): > > During the late 1990s, for example, Baltimore police put greater emphasis on detecting illegal gun > carrying (this statement is based on prior research and interviews the author has done in Baltimore as well > as the discussion in Center to Prevent Handgun Violence, 1998). One can hypothesize that this effort > reduced the fraction of recovered guns with LCMs because illegal gun carriers are probably more likely to > carry smaller, more concealable handguns that are less likely to have LCMs. Who just said that LCM can be ungainly and not well suited for criminal activities? Answer - me > [@](#): > > LCM handguns drove much of this trend, but LCM > rifles also increased from about 3% of crime guns in 1995-96 to 11% in 2000-2001. I blame Sarah Palin for allowing the useage of LCM equipped guns to go UP during the ban in Anchorage > [@](#): > > Despite a doubling of handgun LCM prices between 1993 and 1995 and a 40% increase in rifle LCM prices from 1993 to 1994, **criminal use of LCMs was rising or steady through at least the latter 1990s,** based on police recovery data from four jurisdictions studied in this chapter. **These findings are also consistent with an earlier study finding no decline in seizures of LCM guns from juveniles in Washington, DC in the year after the ban** (Koper, 2001).88 Post-2000 data, though more limited and inconsistent, \*\*suggest that LCM use may be dropping from peak levels of the late 1990s but provide no definitive evidence of a drop below pre-ban levels.\*\*89 These trends have been driven primarily by LCM handguns, **which are used in crime roughly three times asoften as LCM rifles.** Nonetheless, there has been no consistent reduction in the use of > LCM rifles either. I can keep going if you’d like. Just let me know… ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2009, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475/239 "2009-02-27T17:27:54Z")
> [@](#): > > Most of the AWs used in crime > are assault pistols rather than assault rifles. Haha what the fuck does that even mean? Is a pistol that has a 12 round magazine standard an “assault pistol” now? WTF is an assault pistol? Incidentally, it’s misleading to label a gun designed to use 12 round mags that actually has 12 round mags as “large capacity magazines” - they’re standard. If they had a custom 20 round magazine sticking out of the butt of the gun, it’d be a large capacity magazine. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > It’s possible he believes that’s exactly what he’s doing. Obama was sold to me as a guy who can look past standard ideological prejudices and really examine an issue objectively, consider the evidence, etc. While on many subjects, I can hold those who sit on the opposite side as rational and objective, I can’t really do so on the issue of legislation of this type. If you’re sincere and you think the guns in question are funtionally too dangerous to allow, then you can hold the position that all semi-automatic or magazine fed guns should be banned. I would wholeheartedly disagree with that position but at least it would have some consistency. But just banning guns because they look like scary military guns? It’s ridiculous. What’s happening here is that people who want to push any gun ban they can manage to pass are successfully misleading people about the nature of the weapons. There’s no room for an honest, objective person looking for the optimal solution to side with them. So if Obama pushes this, it’ll be ideology over objectivity. ---
**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, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475/240 "2009-02-27T17:33:34Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Apparently not. See above. Physically speaking, which is what I was speaking about, yes it does. You are the math wiz, tell us which has a greater impact: Rifles: AR-15 30 rounds pre ban limited to 10 rounds post ban AK-47 30 rounds pre ban limited to 10 rounds post ban Calico Carbine 100 rounds preban limited to 10 rounds post ban ~OR~ Pistols: Glock 21 12 Rounds pre ban limited to 10 post ban (12/10) HK USP (12/10) Glock 17 (17/10) Ruger P89 (15/10) Colt 1911 7/10 Beretta 92 12/10 Which guns are impacted the most by a limited capacity ban? (Hint, it’s the big scary ones that have the shoulder things that go up) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475.md?page=13)