# 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:** 17
**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 28, 2009, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475/321 "2009-02-28T19:13:12Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > It sucks however that (for the sake of argument) good ideas, useful ideas, beneficial ideas are cast aside out of hand because an opposing side can not abide any erosion of their position. It’s clear that you’re a reasonable person. You’re putting thought into your positions. We disagree, but I can at least debate with you in a way where I feel as though we understand each other intellectually. I think you’re trying to advocate what you feel is best - and if new information or lines of thought arise, you can adjust. But most gun control advocates aren’t like this. They know, they just _know_, on an emotional level that guns are evil and if only us dumb savages were forced to give them up, society would be a much better place and we’d see the error in our ways. Their primary motivators are emotional. And so they appeal to the emotion of others. Their arguments stem not from data or reason but from anecdotes and emotional appeals. More importantly, they aren’t concerned with rationally analyzing the best path, balancing rights and societal costs. They just want to reach their end goal using any tactic they can. The problem for gun advocates then becomes - do you compromise with someone who believes in the elimination of something you consider a fundamental natural right? This relationship works almost exclusively one way - guns become more and more restricted over time. After every round of “compromise”, you give something up and get nothing in return - every round leaves you closer to what they want. Sarah Brady has stated straight out that it is their goal to push any ban or restriction they can manage the political clout to pass in the eventual goal of pecking gun rights to death. Slippery slope is not a fallacy when the most well funded organization working against you has stated that this is their very tactic. There aren’t really analogous situations with other fundamental freedoms out there. There aren’t really any serious well funded groups that are dedicated to the elimination of free speech, for instance. But if there were - they might do things like, for instance, not letting a neo-nazi book be published. They could muster up some support from the public because some people will agree with their cause. And yet the ACLU and other defenders of free speech will rightfully oppose this. And proponents of an anti-free speech organization might view these people similar to the way you view gun advocates - so extreme that they’d defend even a neo-nazi’s book! But it’s the principle of the thing - infringement of freedoms even when they’re distasteful is still an attack on that freedom, and can lead to further attacks. Gun rights advocates feel a fundamnetal human right is under assault and they’ll fight tooth and nail for it. Anyone pushing for that agenda should be viewed with skepticism as to their motivations, and the larger implications of such a decision should be analyzed. I don’t doubt that there’s some happy middle ground that you’d be willing to reach where you logically viewed the rights vs costs issue to be in balance. But you are in the very small minority of advocates of gun control. ---
**Author:** ![Todderbob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e47774/32.png) [@Todderbob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Todderbob)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2009, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475/322 "2009-02-28T19:20:19Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > This is a dodge. The old meme “people kill people, not guns.” It avoids the point that a gun is a favored tool for this purpose. Further, I am not talking about taking your gun away. Just nerfing it a bit and you cannot show, so far, that this would be anything more than a minor inconvenience to you. We don’t **have** to show that it would be anything more than a minor inconvenience to us. The fact that it effects us _ **at all** _, and is an infringement on our rights is reason enough not to do it. > [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Really asking here as I do not have much experience with ammo magazines… > > Are you saying an ammo magazine could not be designed that was impossible to modify enable it to carry more ammo? I’m no engineer but I can imagine ways to make it hugely impractical to do. I would hope any restriction on magazine size would mandate designs that could not be modified (if not I agree some manufacturers would put a piece of cardboard in that you could pop out in 2 seconds). Yes, it’s pretty much impossible without radically redesigning the entire firearm. > [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Time enough for people to hit the ground or turn a corner or dive behind something to get away/mitigate their chances of being shot. Between the first and last shot, there’s often more time than between the last shot and new magazine. > [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > I am not convinced that in the situations where someone wants to repeatedly fire their gun, reload and continue firing that the reload does not count as a major inconvenience no matter how quickly it can be done. You mean like in a home defense situation where someones life is on the line? Oh, hi Mr. Homeowner, you _could_ defend yourself to the best of societies abilities, but you cannot because Whack-a-Mole believes that it would not be beneficial enough for you to have these means at your disposal. > [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Targets will move/find cover, and you need to re-acquire your target after reloading. I have never been in a firefight but I imagine that is a substantial hiccup in your spewing bullets regimen. Not to mention how many magazines someone is willing to carry. The guy who finds his wife in bed with another guy does not need a high capacity clip when he shoots them. It is the gangbanger types in the inner city this will affect most and I cannot see them carrying 10 magazines around with them in their pockets. Frankly, I cannot see them at all from where I’m located – that doesn’t mean they don’t exist. Gang bangers will get drum magazines manufactured, it’s not difficult. I know one person who makes his own magazines out of scrap materials he gets from work. They’re very reliable, and dirt cheep. I’m sure gangbangers know at least someone with the ability to bend metal. ---
**Author:** ![Todderbob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e47774/32.png) [@Todderbob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Todderbob)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2009, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475/323 "2009-02-28T19:22:16Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > I think inability to find common ground is precisely where the government needs to step in. Someone has to balance your rights versus my rights. Your rights do not factor in with high capacity magazines any more than they do when I choose stemware or tupperware to drink my tea out of. ---
**Author:** ![Todderbob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e47774/32.png) [@Todderbob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Todderbob)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2009, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475/324 "2009-02-28T19:27:29Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > My amazing CAD (read MS Paint) mad skillz! (follow link) > > [ImageShack - Best place for all of your image hosting and image sharing needs](http://img187.imageshack.us/img187/535/magazine.jpg) > > Note I make no pretense at being an engineer or the ins and outs of magazine design so don’t nitpick. Just an overall idea. And you make making magazines in your garage completely illegal? ---
**Author:** ![Todderbob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e47774/32.png) [@Todderbob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Todderbob)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2009, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475/325 "2009-02-28T19:38:21Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Again this is not about making someone not have a gun. It is about reasonable restrictions to make our world a bit safer. You say that as if the restrictions should be obvious, and we’re denying the truth in front of our eyes. > [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Getting shot is a BIG deal. Thanks… I’m aware. > [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Having to reload your gun a bit more often is a minor inconvenience. Or one that could get you killed, in a home defense situation. > [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > No one has yet put forth a convincing, realistic and likely to happen with some regularity argument of when having more bullets is necessary with a legal use of your gun. **Ah hah!** We don’t have to put forth a ‘convincing, realistic and likely to happen with some regularity argument’ in order to preserve our rights. You have to put forth a convincing, factually based (not ‘gangbangers probably,’) argument as to why citizens should surrender their rights. > [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > It sucks however that (for the sake of argument) good ideas, useful ideas, beneficial ideas are cast aside out of hand because an opposing side can not abide any erosion of their position. Personally, I don’t see any benefit to it. > [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Here, on the SDMB in Great Debates I like to think we talk past that. That we try to hash out this or that notion. It may well be a good idea will never see the light of day because of the realities of the world and politics. Doesn’t mean we cannot try to assess this or that notion on its merits alone. I do love GD. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2009, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475/326 "2009-02-28T19:49:46Z")
> [@E-Sabbath](#): > > Twenty or forty with multiple shooters, some of whom will empty their magazine and slap in another and not even notice, judging from the news. > [Assault of Abner Louima - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abner_Louima) > [Killing of Sean Bell - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_Bell) > And these are trained professionals. I would actually refer to them as “trained professionals.” ---
**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 28, 2009, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475/327 "2009-02-28T21:07:14Z")
But you get my point. Small truckload of bullets downrange to kill someone. Maybe two, five hits, but 20-40 shots. ---
**Author:** ![Todderbob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e47774/32.png) [@Todderbob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Todderbob)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2009, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475/328 "2009-02-28T21:17:51Z")
> [@E-Sabbath](#): > > But you get my point. Small truckload of bullets downrange to kill someone. Maybe two, five hits, but 20-40 shots. If you don’t hit someone in the Central Nervous System, you could hit them a ridiculously large number of times before you put them down. Even Organ Shots aren’t sure stoppers. ---
**Author:** ![1010011010](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/1/ea666f/32.png) [@1010011010](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/1010011010)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2009, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475/329 "2009-03-01T01:53:22Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Indeed it seems part of the point to try to have law enforcement better armed than the bad guys. And part of the point of second amendment prohibitions is that sometimes law enforcement are the bad guys. This is why We did not, and do not, grant the government a legitimate authority to induce a power imbalance between itself and The People. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2009, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475/330 "2009-03-03T00:04:09Z")
> [@JXJohns](#): > > Because you’re an asshole? Without “gun advocate” points like the Constitution, you pretty much limit the debate don’t ya? I’ve limited it for your benefit. If I hadnt, you’d simply have used the standard gun advocate arguments and allowed me to have my nukes. Since even most of you guys would think its insane for regular people to have nukes, I’ve simply challenged you to come up with a better argument. But sure, use those points. You believe people should have the right to guns and nukes for protection? > [@BrandonR](#): > > Well, that pretty much sums up your argument right there. Of course, you do realize that banning something as ubiquitous as guns in America is not only constitutionally impossible, but downright stupid, right? Do you really think all the criminals will line up to hand their guns in? The only thing a gun ban would do is prevent people who follow laws from owning guns… And the last thing I want to live in is a society where only criminals are armed. > > The rest of your arguments are generally junk and aren’t worth replying to. It’s pretty obvious you don’t value your life enough to defend it, but that’s a personal decision and you cross the line once you start saying _I_ shouldn’t be able to defend my life either. Yes, it sums up my argument. Perhaps you’d like to reply to it specifically instead of posting something non-sequitor and assuming that its “impossible” to ban guns, not to mention stupid. I’m trying to argue in good faith here and a bunch of people who find this particular topic emotionally charged seems to trying to throw shit around and hide behind the 2nd Amendment As for only criminals having guns, I believe thats been addressed. You might as well say the same thing about drugs, murder, or bribery And seriously, dont question my value for my life simply because I dont agree with your choice of firearm > [@BrandonR](#): > > Maybe he’s a hunter? Maybe he’s a gun collector? Maybe he likes that second amendment which says American citizens should not have their right to bear arms infringed upon by the federal government? > > And honestly, it doesn’t \*matter \*if you can think of a situation of when anyone needs an “assault weapon” in everyday life. It’s not the government’s job to decide that. Hunters do not need assault weapons. First, hunting elephants and rhinos are illegal. Second, there are none in America. And the fact that some people may be collectors does not mean what they are collecting should be legal. What if I wanted to collect human remains? Is is ok if I start graverobbing? “But officer, I’m a _collector!_” I think its completely within the government’s right and power to decide what you do or do not need when it comes to affect other people. Every regulation on anything is the government telling you that you cant do something or how to do it and you’ll find it a small population who thinks they dont have that right > [@BrandonR](#): > > Well, besides your argument being completely illogical since you’re seriously putting forth the argument to strap a nuclear weapon to yourself for _protection_, there’s a lot of reasons. For one, the constitution doesn’t say we have a right to bear nukes. Nukes aren’t an effective deterrence against crime. Most criminals aren’t going around committing crimes with nukes. Nukes are capable of harming significantly more people than guns. Oh, you know that for sure now? Nobody will be deterred if you strap bombs to your body and threaten to detonate it? I think you like to assume things a lot and pretend they are fact when they are completely up for debate. I used nukes as an extreme example, but it is essentially no different in spirit than small explosives, or firearms. Maybe you say I cant shoot a bomb towards a person, and then I’ll say I can still chuck a grenade in your direction. Besides, I can certainly imagine that if a criminal had a nuke or a bomb strapped to his chest, the police will be much less likely to engage him in a firefight than if he had a pistol ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2009, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475/331 "2009-03-03T00:26:35Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Put them goalposts back. > The metric you used was not lethality, but _necessity._ Hey I was simply replying to the burlap sack analogy, dumb as it was. Maybe it shouldnt have been raised in the first place > [@FinnAgain](#): > > Smart conservatives realize that, yes, once you start down the road of banning books you’re at the point where if a rival religious sect gains prominence and power over you, they can ban the translation of the Bible that you prefer to use. Many who want to use their power over others never really consider that the shoe might be on the other foot some day. > Much like you want to ban guns because they aren’t “necessary”, but you aren’t willing to give up your posting to a recreational message board. Thats because I do not see it being under credible threat. I view it in the same way as those who, like the above example, seek to ban some books but feel their own are not in any way, shape, or form under attack. One does not have to slide completely down the slope in order to make an argument for stopping after a few feet. > [@FinnAgain](#): > > Shall we follow this through to its logical conclusion? > Along with guns, we’ll ban McDonalds food (indeed, all junk food while we’re at it), alcohol, cigarettes, unprotected sex among couples who don’t plan on having children with each other… You can try certainly, though you’d hardly get anywhere claiming a burger or a cigar presents more immediate danger than a gun. What you consider its logical conclusion certainly seems to be hitting a snag since we already have schools that ban junk food, cities placing limits on new junk food restaurants, and federal warnings on alcohol and tobacco products. You are free to see that as a precursor to banning guns, but just because you think thats where its going doesnt mean it will, and it doesnt mean that regulations that exist as they are now are bad > [@FinnAgain](#): > > And yet, you, by your own admission, are a potential rapist. Surely that’s as dangerous as a gun that likewise, could be used to shoot some child right. In fact, the vast majority of guns will never be used in a crime, just like you’ll probably never rape your neighbors. But you want gun owners constitutional rights to be abridged while you speak out against the same injustice if it was done to you. Yes, I am a potential rapist, just as you are, and everyone else here. I made that point because it seems only gun adovocates are allowed to say “just because a few are bad doesnt mean all are” and the rest of us are not allowed to say “just because a few regulations/bans are in place doesnt mean all are”. A little intellectual honesty here, would you please? While my preference is to have no guns at all, I do not believe that Obama’s new assault weapons ban is a bad thing, and certainly I do not agree that it would lead to a ban on all guns and, according to some here, apparently the banning of all self defense. The assault weapon ban is good and should be a permanent law. That doesnt mean it will lead to a gun ban > [@FinnAgain](#): > > Nope, you don’t get out of it that easily. > Explain, specifically, what makes a gun an “assault weapon”, how it differs from a “non-assault weapon” and why civilians should not have them to own or use. Get out of it that easily? Are you implying some kind of subterfuge on my part? As I said already, the old law had specific weapons defined to be banned and I’m sure that new lawmakers will update it as necessary. Did you read all thousand pages of the stimulus package before you decided to be for or against it? Then dont pretend that your comment was anything else than trying to get me stuck in some point by point nuance on bullet calibers, cartridge sizes, and rate of fire. I’m for an assault weapon ban based on the generally known definition of such weapons. I trust that lawmakers will specify the exact firearms in the bill As for why civilians shouldnt have them, I’ve already mentioned that. Danger and non-necessity is the most important criteria > [@FinnAgain](#): > > So your previous objection to guns due to their potential lethality is a bullshit rationalization. > Check. Oh, fuck me for trying to inject some light-heartedness into this conversation. But sure, yes, no muskets either. Happy now? Or muskets for everyone! Better? > [@Bobotheoptimist](#): > > I wonder if you feel the same way about the M40 sniper rifle? Appropriate for civilians or not? 3 times the energy at 300 yards compared to the puny 5.56 My answer is an unequivocal “That depends” 😉 > [@Argent\_Towers](#): > > I would advise against trying to engage **YogSosoth** - he’s just a bonafide “anti” who is _never_ going to see eye to eye with us on this issue, and quibbling with him about it is just distracting from the real arguments that are important to discuss - namely, that this proposal by our new attorney general is an absolutely absurd, do-nothing, feel-good measure that will accomplish precisely jackshit in dealing with drug crime in Mexico, and the “assault weapon” ban itself is built on the most rickety logical structure imaginable, being based on fearmongering and deceitful rhetoric and outright lies. > > Going back and forth with someone who genuinely thinks that “guns are dangerous and unnecessary” will get us nowhere. Got it. Dont debate with people you dont agree with, just declare the battle won and move on. Hey guys, I guess I win this argument. Better not debate me anymore! 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Bobotheoptimist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/919ad9/32.png) [@Bobotheoptimist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bobotheoptimist)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2009, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475/332 "2009-03-03T02:31:17Z")
[QUOTE=YogSosoth] Hunters do not need assault weapons. First, hunting elephants and rhinos are illegal. Second, there are none in America. [/QUOTE] You really have no idea what an “assault weapon” is, do you? I’ve said this before I think, but it’s more impressive if you have an understanding of the topic you are debating. I’m not just being a jerk here, that statement makes no sense whatsoever. Would you support the banning of alcoholic beverages because digital TV is coming? Yes, that’s how much sense it makes. Really, I implore you, if nothing else comes out of this thread, please go learn something about the devices you detest so much ---
**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:** [March 3, 2009, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475/333 "2009-03-03T02:34:12Z")
But isn’t the circular logic just awesome? You don’t need “assault weapons” because they’re dangerous. And assault weapons are defined as whatever the government says they are, even if they’re not actually any more dangerous than “non-assault weapons”. But they’re more dangerous because the government says they are. Gotta outlaw “the thing that goes up”. ---
**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:** [March 3, 2009, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475/334 "2009-03-03T03:05:14Z")
It’s actually a shoulder thing that goes up. Yes, I am amused when someone describes an assault weapon as something you’d kill a rhino with. Apparently they’re so dangerous because they’re low powered enough to be controllable in rapid fire, yet powerful enough to down a rhino at 500 yards. Their abilty to break the laws of physics is too dangerous to have in the hands of the public. ---
**Author:** ![Todderbob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e47774/32.png) [@Todderbob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Todderbob)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2009, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475/335 "2009-03-03T03:06:18Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > Hunters do not need assault weapons. First, hunting elephants and rhinos are illegal. Second, there are none in America. That’s good, because there are almost no firearms categorized as “Assault Weapons” which would kill an Elephant or Rhino. > [@YogSosoth](#): > > The assault weapon ban is good and should be a permanent law. That doesnt mean it will lead to a gun ban The AWB is, by definition a Gun Ban. I’m going to ask for a cite on “The AWB is good.” Because according to the Justice Department, it didn’t effect crime rates – at all. > [@YogSosoth](#): > > Get out of it that easily? Are you implying some kind of subterfuge on my part? As I said already, the old law had specific weapons defined to be banned and I’m sure that new lawmakers will update it as necessary. Did you read all thousand pages of the stimulus package before you decided to be for or against it? Then dont pretend that your comment was anything else than trying to get me stuck in some point by point nuance on bullet calibers, cartridge sizes, and rate of fire. I’m for an assault weapon ban based on the generally known definition of such weapons. I trust that lawmakers will specify the exact firearms in the bill **There is no Generally known definition!** It’s a made up word with an arbitrary definition. > [@YogSosoth](#): > > As for why civilians shouldnt have them, I’ve already mentioned that. Danger and non-necessity is the most important criteria They pose no more danger than any other firearm. Why? Because there’s nothing **different** about them than any other firearm, it’s all based on looks! ---
**Author:** ![Kevbo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e47774/32.png) [@Kevbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kevbo)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2009, 4:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475/336 "2009-03-03T04:29:37Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > Hunters do not need assault weapons. First, hunting elephants and rhinos are illegal. Second, there are none in America. Pachiderms with an “assault weapon”? It is to laugh! You realize of course that the two most common assault rifle (I still have no freaking idea what an “assault weapon” is) rounds are the .223 Remington used in M-16 and similar guns, and the 7.62x39mm used in AK-47s. Neither are powerful enough to make good big game hunting calibres…maybe for whitetale deer, but not for mule deer, and certainly not elk, moose, bear etc. These calibres are not designed to kill…they are designed to wound a soldier and tie up enemy’s medical infrastructure dealing with that wound. An AK-47 isn’t an elephant gun…hell it isn’t even a deer rifle. Javalina and coyotes are the size critters it is sufficient to deal with. ---
**Author:** ![Kevbo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e47774/32.png) [@Kevbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kevbo)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2009, 4:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475/337 "2009-03-03T04:33:11Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > Hunters do not need assault weapons. First, hunting elephants and rhinos are illegal. Second, there are none in America. Pachiderms with an “assault weapon”? You realize of course that the two most common assault rifle (I still have no freaking idea what an “assault weapon” is) rounds are the .223 Remington used in M-16 and similar guns, and the 7.62x39mm used in AK-47s. Neither are powerful enough to make good big game hunting calibres…maybe for whitetale deer, but not for mule deer, and certainly not elk, moose, bear etc. These calibres are not designed to kill…they are designed to wound a soldier and tie up enemie’s medical infrastructure dealing with that wound. An AK-47 isn’t an elephant gun…hell it isn’t even a deer rifle. Javalina and coyotes are the size critters it is sufficient to deal with. As for AR-15’s they are most suitable for shooting prarie dogs. ---
**Author:** ![Todderbob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e47774/32.png) [@Todderbob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Todderbob)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2009, 5:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475/338 "2009-03-03T05:08:59Z")
I know of one case that an AR-15 saved a young girls life. (On the topic of ‘need’.) Back in Ohio, there was a group of dogs that had been raiding garbage, and on one occasion, maimed a child. A girl was out playing in her back yard, she yelled, her dad ran to the window and saw the dogs in the other corner of the yard. He grabbed his gun (A Semi automatic, box fed .223 rifle, An AR15) and shot them through the screen on the window. Had it been a bolt action rifle, he wouldn’t have been able to reload quickly enough. Had it been a pistol, he wouldn’t have been able to hit them. Considering these guns aren’t used by criminals, and you now know of at least one scenario in which they’re good for defending a persons children, so, I ask this, won’t you think of the children? ---
**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:** [March 3, 2009, 5:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475/339 "2009-03-03T05:26:08Z")
> [@Kevbo](#): > > Pachiderms with an “assault weapon”? I once shot an elephant in my pajamas. If he’d had the safety off on his assault weapon, I’d never have gotten the drop on him though. ---
**Author:** ![Paleface](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/f19dbf/32.png) [@Paleface](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paleface)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2009, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475/340 "2009-03-03T15:05:26Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > I’ve limited it for your benefit. If I hadnt, you’d simply have used the standard gun advocate arguments and allowed me to have my nukes. Since even most of you guys would think its insane for regular people to have nukes, I’ve simply challenged you to come up with a better argument. But sure, use those points. You believe people should have the right to guns and nukes for protection? Here’s where the advocates for gun-control get childish in their arguement. “Well, if you can have a gun, then I can have a bomb. Nyaaa, nyaaa, nyaaa.” This particular argument is as asinine as the one that compares the so-called acceptable regulation of speech within the First Amendment, with the acceptable regulation of firearms in the Second Amendment. It goes like this: The First Amendment protects the freedom of speech, but it is regulated to the extent that one can’t yell “FIRE” in a crowded theater. Well, you can yell “FIRE” in a crowded theater, there just has to be a fire. See, it is not free speech that is being regulated, it is the endangerment of innocent civilians that is being regulated. The same regulations already exist pertaining to firearms ownership. While one has the right to own a firearm, that firearm owner is regulated to the extent that he is prohibited from aiming that firearm at an innocent civilian. He is prohibited from endangering a innocent civilian. But, just as there are times that there is a fire in a crowded theater, there are times when it is not only permissible, but necessary to aim a firearm at another person. Now, as for the “Well, I can have a bomb” argument, we, again, have to take endangerment into consideration. Due to “blast radius”, a bomb’s ability to be aimed is restricted to such a degree that innocent civilians are endangered. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475.md?page=16) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475.md?page=18)