YogSosoth, if I understand your position correctly, it goes something like this:[ul][li]the government bans lots of things on the grounds that they’re too dangerous to the public safety.[]Guns are dangerous, by intent.[]At least some guns then, are so dangerous that any potential good they do is outweighed by their potential harm; and therefore it is right and proper that the government ban them in the name of public safety.except those 2nd Amendment people keep insisting that guns have a special protection not afforded everything else that’s dangerous.[/ul]If this is correct, then I see a broader issue to debate- the issue of what the government should legitimately have the power to proscribe in the name of public safety. I think you’ll find that a lot of people on this board are (small “l”) libertarians, and leery of excessive government power and intervention.[/li]
The problem is that even given that the above premises were correct, it would still not address legitimate concerns: the idea that the government and it’s officers can be privileged to possess power banned to the public at large, with all that implies for democracy; the question of real-world enforcibility of any form of prohibition (witness alcohol Prohibition, or the War on Drugs) and whether such prohibition not merely useless but counter-productive; and whether the supporters of an “assault weapon” ban are honest in both their intent and their assessment of the hazards of the weapons they propose to ban.
Do you know Gonzomax here on SDMB? He’s been touting that line for months and has yet to be able to offer any proof of it. Do you think you could provide a cite rather than something you pulled out of your ass?
Anything under 1200 fps or so will have a hard time penetrating a vest, but it will hurt like hell and will still cause internal injury. Cops wear vest that can protect them from being shot by their own weapon, usually a pistol.
If you can get the projectile moving beyond that 1200 fps it will penetrate up to a level IIa vest, regardless of its weight.
That would be designated as a wadcutter. Due to the fact they are typically made of lead, they can usually not exceed 900 fps. Since they are used in competition, accuracy is not affected in the short ranges in which they excel.
No. Physical limitations of the rifling inside the barrel of the gun, as well as its base metals used for construction limit the efficiency of a wadcutter round. If one were to make a wadcutter jacketed in copper, its ballistics would be much improved. But they already make other shaped bullets jacketed in copper. Wadcutters serve a particular purpose.
No thanks. Any other questions genius?
And in those days, freedom of the press only meant manual printing presses and leaflets, right? I don’t think I’ve ever seen anybody employ this line of reasoning with respect to the Bill of Rights except when they were trying desperately to attack the right to bear arms.
But even so, you’re really not up on recent case law, are you? Only last year, the Supreme Court in D.C. v. Heller unambiguously determined that the individual right to bear arms includes the right to own handguns, and further went on to say that blanket bans on entire classes of commonly used firearms would not pass Constitutional muster either.
Really? Why?
It’s a brief interview with Carolyn McCarthy, the congresswoman who introduced the most recent effort at an “assault weapon” ban. When pressed for details about the features banned under her bill, in particular the meaning of terms such as “barrel shroud,” she repeatedly dodged the question, until she finally answered “I actually don’t know what a barrel shroud is, I believe it is a shoulder thing that goes up.”
Also, I must say this struck me as odd. Emphasis mine:
… :dubious:
Grenade launchers are already prohibited by default because the grenades would be illegal. There might actually be a law banning grenade launchers anyway, I’m not sure.
Do you think the added lethality of a bayonette is a serious issue plaguing our society?
I know - why would a guy who was shooting at night not want to be blinded by the muzzle flash, right? Totally illegitimate!
And my god, a collapsible stock - why, then anyone who could conceal 2 and a half feet by a foot worth a metal could carry around a gun then!
Banning yelling “FIRE!” in a crowded theater, or committing libel or slander, is not equivelant to banning a type of gun. In one instance, you’re commiting a crime and you cannot fall back on “I have freedom of speech!” to absolve you of that crime. The act itself is inherently harmful.
Owning certain types of weapons are not inherently harmful. The equivelant of not being able to use your first amendment rights to yell “FIRE!” in a crowded theater is equivelant to you not being able to use your second amendment rights to fire a gun wildly into the air. You’re banning the harmful act.
Are you also fine with an attorney general declaring American citizens “enemy combatants” and locking them up indefinitely? Authorizing secret illegal wiretaps, etc? Would you object to any of that? If so, stfu, and wait for the next election, it’s called democracy.
No, you missed my point. In my analogy, the senator is attempting to ban something that seems to be a problem (because it’s portrayed in movies that way) but isn’t actually a significant problem. And then he crafts a solution anyway - a solution that doesn’t even target the supposed problem (in this case “machine guns”) but instead targets something that looks similar.
It’s bizarre and ironic that in the same post, you talk about how we should get pistols instead of “assault weapons” to defend ourselves, because the latter are just too dangerous to society. This is absurd in so many ways. The vast majority of gun crime committed in the US is with handguns - they’re small and easily concealable. Almost no one takes a rifle along when they go off to commit crime.
And yet you’ve determined that because of dangerous features like bayonette lugs, these rifles, which are used in an insignificantly small number of crimes, should be banned, while advocating that people replace them with handguns, which are used in the vast majority of crime.
Even if I wanted to credit you with an honest position (which I don’t - as you said earlier in the thread, you want to see any gun ban that eventually leads to them being gone), you’re advocating things that are completely illogical. If there’s any case to be made for public safety, it would be the banning of handguns. Not that I would make that case, but it’s far more logical than banning any sort of rifle.
Then we shouldn’t trust Secret Service agents with guns, right?
After all, guns are bad.
The President gets guys with guns to protect him, but who do you get to protect you? More importantly; Who do I get to protect me?
Don’t say Police Officers; they’re there to investigate and catch criminals, they stop maybe 1 in 1000 crimes.
What about toy rockets, should we ban them too? They have no other purpose than to put people at risk from falling debris, and someone could easily make a Quasam-type missile out of them.
Or a hapless criminal.
Handguns are used in crimes more often than shotguns or “Assault Weapons.”
If your goal is to reduce fatalities, you should be arguing for that, not the AWB which doesn’t ban anything but cosmetics.
Doesn’t penetrate certain types of clothing, and doesn’t effect people who are under the influence of certain types of Stimulants.
There’s a reason that police are trained to use tasers against suspects not posing an immediate physical risk to themselves or others.
No one has ad hominem attacked you. We’ve observed your behavior from the start of the thread and objectively commented on it.
Guns != Armaments
This argument is repetitive and old.
You can disagree with the DoJ, but doing so makes you look like you’re unable to see the wall in front of your face when te report clearly cites statistics.
Obviously not that many, considering that the democrats lost their majority in no small part because of it.
No, some people do know that it’s ineffective, like the Brady Campaign, but they see it as a step in banning all guns.
They’re for the AWB for the same reason that PETA is for Breed Specific Legislation; both see it as a first step at banning something they disagree with. PETA: Animal Ownerhsip. Brady Campaign: Gun Ownership.
That’s not at all what’s been argued. I have to wonder whether or not you’ve even bothered reading the responses, or you just reply with random words.
First: Handguns are used in more crimes than “Assault Weapons.” Second, Shotguns are more effective for home defense. Third: Bayonets don’t make guns more dangerous. Fourth: Grenades are already banned – what they banned was a little metal nubby, which made manufacturing costs on these firearms go up for no reason (different dye for Military and Civilian – also applicable to Bayonets).
Defense is not the only reason to own firearms. I own a few that are only for going to the range. I have friends who own them specifically for hunting (which a handgun would not fit the bill).
Hunting and sport (targets) seem to be two things that you ignore completely.
It’s not “loopholes in the law,” it’s protected civil liberties.
The guns that are more deadly, by the way, are those Curio & Relic guns, Hunting rifles, etc.
Do me a favor and define “Assault Weapon,” please.
Actually, they were trying to protect gun makers from law suits specifically designed to bankrupt them.
They were suing the gun manufacturers because someone shot someone else – it would be akin to if I sued for because someone ran me over with a car, or I sued the Louieville Slugger Corp. because someone hit me with a bat.
The person is responsible for their actions, the gun didn’t go off by itself.
… You didn’t make an argument for your case, there. You made an argument against it…
No, the problem is that almost all firearms are used by some military or police organization at some level. It’s a huge country.
Define “regular” guns?
Compromise for what? There’s no compromise necessary. You want to take away my rights. Why would I want to compromise for that?
… You seriously think his analogy helps your argument?!
WHAT THE HELL!?
More importantly, police officers have absolutely no legal responsibility to actually stop any crime they happen upon.
Out of curiousity, Toddlerbob and others, which of your arguments would apply if the law was specifically restricting the ownership of guns capable of fully automatic fire, rather than the vague and arbitrary restrictions it actually restricts?
And, are there any further arguments that apply if weapons that were semi-automatic were restricted as well?
Am I the only one rooting for this thread to be moved to the pit just so everyone can take their gloves off and let go of their thinly-veiled civility? 
Many (myself included), not all of us, don’t believe the restrictions on fully automatic firearms to be prudent or necessary.
However – the arguments applied would be that this ban targets aesthetics, not function. While the function is what’s being banned with Fully Automatic Firearms, it’s cosmetics in this instance.
The banning of Full Auto Weaponry bans one trigger pull multiple shots, the banning of “Assault Weapons” is an arbitrary definition based on what a gun looks likw, not what it actually does.
I’m sorry, I don’t understand the question. I think you’re asking me to argue for restricting semi-auto firearms, in some manner?
I cannot think of a supporting argument* for it, frankly. I also cannot think of a supporting argument* for banning (or keeping the ban) on Fully Automatic Firearms.
*Which stands up to intellectual scrutiny.
Right - the law as presented is frankly stupid. Arguments in favor of it inevitably run afoul of those stupidities.
I guess I just wanted to filter out which arguments would apply were the law less overtly stupid. Your argument that you need an assault weapon to defend yourself against “a hapless criminal”, for example, seems specious; any gun larger than a derringer will serve that purpose. If you are allowed to keep your handguns and shotguns, then you’d be just fine.
No, sorry, what I was trying to determine is whether the arguments for not banning ‘type of gun X’ were different from semi- and -fully automatic weapons.
And I can easily think of an argument for banning fully automatic weapons - it’s the same argument I’d use to defend the banning of bazookas. Prezuming for a moment that it’s not in society’s best interest to let arbitrarily destructive hardware float around in the hands of the citizenry, the question becomes one of where to draw the line. There are strong constitutional and home defense (and less-strong hunting and sport shooting) arguments for allowing the populace to keep handguns, shotguns, and rifles. I can’t think of any argument for having automatic weaponry, if the prior weapon types are allowed, though, so I see no reason not to arbitrarily restrict automatic weaponry. If we’re going to restrict anything at all, anyway.
If I can’t call a spade a spade anymore over there I don’t see the point. Otherwise, I’m with ya.
Agree. This has been evidenced in abundance lately.
I don’t see many people arguing the self defense role for AW’s. It is a certain possibility however, especially with the shotguns that become AW’s in the last bill proposed. You know that there are now shotguns so named or configured, correct? Shotguns are a great HD gun. Because they are semi auto and might have a pistol grip does not diminish that ability yet it does make them banworthy.
Why I oppose this bill so much is that it bans cosmetic features only. We’ve already done it once and per the DOJs from both the Clinton and Bush Administrations, it was ineffective, or at least inconclusive. I don’t want to see this bill get passed, and then 10 years later, see those idiots running congress go after something else.
Agreed. 
Ah, and this is where they catch you.
-
What is an “Assault Weapon”?
-
“Assault Weapons” are not the only things banned in the AWB. Magazines with capacities over that of Rounds are banned too. And there have been many documented cases of people need that many and more to end an immediate threat to themselves or their family.
On principle, yes, there is a difference.
Fully Automatic Firearms != Bazookas.
The simple fact they fire multiple rounds with a single trigger pull does not magically make them more dangerous than ones that fire only a single round per trigger pull.
You have made the assumption, without proof, that fully automatic weapons are destructive devices. I’d like some proof, please.
Constitutional Argument, Backed by United States V. Miller: Arms used in the Military are covered under the 2nd Amendment.
There’s a constitutional argument, for you.
So, how about the argument for allowing fully automatic weapons being that legal Fully Automatic firearms have been used in less crimes that any other type of firearm (perhaps, even less than muskets). Only two since the NFA registry in 1934 has tracked them, both by police officers, one using a Police department weapon (so this one really wouldn’t count – since it is legal even though they’re banned for Civilian use).
Your argument does not make sense. The United States does not have a Federal Blade On A Stick Ban, so really, how do you justify a law that bans things based on the sum of their non-synergistic parts? If a spear is okay and a rifle is okay, why is a combined rifle-spear banned?
For anyone who thinks the Government is more responsible with weapons than its citizens: The ATF (the Firearm Specialists!) lost 76 firearms, (semi-)recently. Their total inventory is about 22,000. This puts their loss/theft rate equal, approximately, to that of the US Population at large.
Seriously? Wouldn’t that mean a Glock pistol or a Browning Hi-Power is banned? Or a Remington 700, which is used as a sniper rifle? There are lots of plain old normal looking weapons in use by the military and federal agencies. There must be more of a catch than that, isn’t there?
Nope; it’s that simple.
By the way, Yog, Todderbob has something important to tell you.
Yes, you couldn’t own a new $1K AR-15, but you could own a $10K M-16 that’s 25+ years old (depending on your local laws and officials).
Wait. What? How the hell can that survive Miller? The entire point of Miller was that the shotgun was not used by the armed forces. (Admittedly, no defense, or it would have been shown the shotgun was used by the armed forces.)
This makes the Colt .45 an Assault Weapon? Hell, this makes a Remington 870 an Assault Weapon? I don’t think that could stand review at all.