You did have to work pretty hard in order to skew that report your way.
I guess you missed the part where the ban had such a small effect that it’s effects were not even (reliably) measurable. It’s a shame, too, because that really does throw a wrench in your argument.
The entire crux of your argument is that it reduces something, albeit I’m not sure what, yet. Fact of the matter is: It didn’t reduce death, violence, crime, etc. At least not measurably, which means not effectively, which means that it’s an ineffective, bad law, aimed at restricting the rights of people without giving them anything in return.
No matter how you frame your argument, you’re still going to have to deal with that.
The DoJ Report I’ve linked to a few times throughout this thread.
Well, I’m sure it’ll reduce…your’s and my ownership of firearms! Yeah, that’s it! That’s what it’ll do!
Gotta get those guns away from us. You know, were just angry bitter people clinging to our God and our guns. Knock one of our “legs” out from under us and we fall over.
No, there is no clear line, but they do serve different purposes, and some clearly are one thing or the other.
In fact, during the AWB, many identical Flash Suppressors/Muzzle Breaks made by different companies were both on the ban and not-banned list (I have no cite for this, other than my own experience), based on what they were marked as before the ban was enacted. Consequently, the actual effect of adding Flash Suppressors to the Ban List was none at all.
At that, though, Threaded Barrels weren’t actually banned, they were just ‘kinda banned,’ because you could still purchase them so long as they had light-soldered end caps on them (in the form of Muzzle Breaks, or some other non-banned item).
Definitely a gray area between the two. Essentially, the FS is used to keep flash away from the shooter’s eyes by projecting it anywhere else. The MB is used to direct the gasses in order to reduce felt recoil. Typically, the MB makes a gun louder to the shooter and everyone around them as it usually vents gasses, and also the sound, back at the shooter.
It made no sense (big surprise) during the ban as to what the ATF judged an MB vs. a FS. Confusing doesn’t even come close to describing it.
Actually, I’m shooting less than olympic amounts. Olympic has about 125 rounds.
The point that I am making, though you are ignoring it, is that barrel shrouds, to take one of many things you were telling untruths about, have perfectly good civilian uses. Once again, this is a gun that takes one shell at a time. Period. It has no magazine, no clip, nothing. You put shell in, fire, take shell out, put new shell in. Barrel shrouds have uses on things besides ‘assault rifles’.
… also, you’re making an argument for owning more guns. Is that really what you mean?
It begins on page 13 of the report, where each feature banned in the AWB is listed, with diagrams, and explained why they are generally not something for civilian use. The researcher calls them “military-style” features, usually useful for combat situations or criminal enterprises.
Perhaps those people should consider a different gun. Plus, you forget what I’ve already said to you just a couple posts ago: A single such military-style feature isn’t enough to disqualify a weapon. Perhaps that is a loophole in which future AWB versions will fix, but as it stands in this conversation, you are incorrect: your muzzle breaks would be perfectly unaffected, provided the gun it is used on doesnt have another such military-style feature
Unfortunately, you missed the data completely. I have addressed the supposed small effects of the ban in many places in my post, specifically my response to chapter 5 and 10, among other places I cant remember off the top of my head. Clearly, the AWB had noticeable effects on gun crime and usage. Overall, the impact may have been specifically felt more on weapons with LCMs, or APs, but it is hardly fair to call it small and immeasurable. I can see how a person who read it quickly and wanted the report to support his claim might make that mistake, but that person was not me
As I’ve also said over and over in my response to the report, the consistent implication that the AWB had little effect was buttressed by the underlying commentary that a tougher, more strict version would have drastic effects on gun crime. Your refusal to acknowledge that damages your credibility
Your snarkiness is a poor substitute for a debate, because if you really did read my post entirely like you claimed, you would have noticed that in many many places, I specifically say the AWB reduced gun crime. I know you’re just trying to give the impression that my post didn’t have any data backing it up, so you resort to making the laughable statement that you dont know what I stand for. Such a ploy is not suitable for GD, dont you think?
As for the rest of your sentence, it simply shows you failed to read chapter 4. And chapter 5. And 6. Perhaps a reduction in criminal usage of AWs isn’t in your definition of crime reduction. Maybe they all moved on to knives or shurikens and harmed an equal number of people.
I’m going to ignore that last part of your last sentence because the AWB did give the people back some lowered criminal uses of the banned weapons. The great part is, no undue limitation of our freedoms happened. As one cannot possess bombs, one also should not be allowed to possess AWs which are more dangerous and used by more criminals, also things stated in the DoJ report
Like I told Todderbob, one single such military-style feature isnt enough to run afoul of the AWB. You can still have your barrel shrouded guns and shoot a ton of targets.
The problem most people seem to have is that they expect everything to remain exactly the same before and after the ban. Had the AWB banned barrel shrouds and made your guns useless for holding while sport shooting 80 things, you would have had to change how you shoot. So what? The purpose isnt to make things exactly the same, it is to ban certain items deemed more dangerous. I’m sure I’d be spectucularly safe with a nuke and never use it, it’ll just be fun to possess. But because of the dangers of other people using it, I cant have it. You who are used to the American tradition of owning guns would be pissed, but its something you’ll just have to accept as society changes. One day, you might not be allowed to own a barrel shrouded gun, you’ll just have to deal with it. It is not a fallacy of the law if you are somehow inconvenienced.
What the fuck are you talking about? There was no provision in the AWB to remove a single gun from the streets of America other than those few shotguns that were labeled as destructive devices. Even they were not confiscated, just reclassified. As such, those of us who owned them prior to 9/94 but could not after the signing of this bill due to STATE regulations had to sell them to those folks who could legally own them.
The only thing that the AWB did was to ban future production of weapons with specific COSMETIC features, and ban the production and sale of NEW high capacity magazines. If you did all of that research and couldn’t even figure what the legislation did or did not do, you wasted a lot of time for nothing. Remember that part where we said that both the Clinton and the Bush DOJ’s claimed the laws were ineffective? It was because nothing changed other than new production of guns. Even then, it only made the producers modify them slightly.
Millions of AW’s were imported or built in the US prior to 1994. Millions more were brought in or built without those deadly bayo lugs and muzzle breaks or pistol grips after 1994. The biggest impact upon crime in the 90’s in my opinion was a strong economy. It sure as fuck wasn’t this stupid law.
Sorry, but you don’t get a cite for common sense. Well, here you go, the textof the legislation. Go ahead and show me where anything was pulled off of the street.
It is absolutely pathetic now days that the Administration has its minions out claiming that a renewal of the 1994 AWB will somehow cure Mexico’s ills. More fucking morons. :rolleyes:
Obviously you didn’t read the Bill. The bill had nothing to do with taking weapons off the street that were made before '94, only preventing new ones from being sold. Hence the term ‘preban.’
How are they useful for criminal enterprises?
Simply because the researcher calls them that, does not mean they are. I’m asking for an explanation as to why. You have thusfar completely failed to provide.
Ah, so we’re getting to the nitty gritty.
The next version should be more restrictive, as should the one after that, and the one after that, and the one after that. See what compromises get you? Nothing. Literally, in the end, you end up with nothing.
And, because you say it, it’s a decree from on high?
I read the actual study, where it said that the effect was inconsequential. Maybe you should go back and reread, rather than cherrypicking.
Oh no, you wouldn’t make the mistake of getting caught up in a petty little thing like reality. That’s far, far below you. :rolleyes:
So, despite the fact that the NiJ noted that should the ban be renewed, the ban’s effects on gun violence would likely be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement due to assault weapons rarely being used in gun crimes even before the ban, we should make the ban even more strict?
Yes, that’s from the NiJ report. Must’ve… missed it, hu?
Once again, your stating it makes it a decree from on high?
The AWB did not reduce gun crime, the report as much as said it.
Here’s another report: “[…] influence on gun violence has been uncertain, due perhaps to […] the relative rarity with which the banned weapons were used in gun violence even before the ban.”
Such a ploy wasn’t a ploy at all. I don’t know why you support this ban.
First, it was because these weapons were only good for killing elephants and rhinos.
Of course, that was wrong.
Then, it was because they were fully automatic weapons.
Of course, that was wrong.
Then, it was because they’re used in crimes so often.
Of course, that was wrong.
Then, it was… sorry, what’s your reason now again? Oh yeah; banning them will reduce crimes, like it did last time.
Except, that, too, is wrong.
From '94 to '95 there was a drop in crime, but crime was already dropping from the previous decade.
We found no evidence of reductions in multiple-victim gun homicides or multiple-gunshot wound victimizations. Cite
But not lower crime rates.
If crime rates, as a whole aren’t lowered as the result of a ban, all that happens is those banned things are banned, it doesn’t help anyone. So, you’re trading in a liberty for nothing.
QUOTE=YogSosoth;11038532] The great part is, no undue limitation of our freedoms happened.
[/Quote]
Who’s to say it wasn’t an undue limitation? You? Pfft, yeah right.
Me? Yeah right. I don’t think it’s an undue limitation of your freedoms to force you to wear a burlap sack instead of a designer suit. That doesn’t mean that my opinion is right.
Keep in mind, since there was return for our investment (ie, since this ban didn’t drop crime rates), all that happened was we gave up certain rights, and got nothing in return.
QUOTE=YogSosoth;11038532] As one cannot possess bombs, one also should not be allowed to possess AWs which are more dangerous and used by more criminals, also things stated in the DoJ report
[/Quote] How are they more dangerous? Spell it out for me.
So you have to wear a burlap sack to work, so what?
Deemed by who? How are these items more dangerous? What makes them more dangerous?
However, it is a bad law if it doesn’t add safety. It takes away rights, and doesn’t add safety. Therefore, it is a bad law.
Too bad for you, the kind you’re arguing against are the legal kind, and are the safe kind.
Oh, and, by the way. Your post is still horrible. You continue to claim things without backing them up.
I’ll ask for one thing, and one thing alone: What about the objects banned in the AWB makes these guns more dangerous?
But, good lord man, they’re “military style” additions. Styled, like the military! We should also ban military style pajamas.Military style phones, they also have to go. And military style communications? Also, gotta be banned. We’ll make due without the internet. After all, there is a lot of child porn on the internet, and losing the freedom of speech that the 'net represents would just be one of those sacrifices people have to make to reduce crime.
After all, style is very important. Never mind the fact that, say, a barrel shroud’s function is to help you not burn your hands. Only criminals or military assaulty folks would care about stuff like that. Normal folks shouldn’t be allowed to shoot more ammunition than Yog will allow anyways. He can’t see a reason.
I think you should chill out. You’re taking this way too personal
That said, a ban on an item doesn’t take it off the streets? Hardly. The pre-ban weapons you mentioned are accounted for in my posts. Yes, the grandfathered items were allowed, but simplying saying that it doesn’t take weapons off the street is misleading, like saying a law preventing murder doesnt prevent murder because all the people already murdered are dead and done for. The target of the AWB, future manufactured weapons, were affected by the AWB, if you cared to read the DoJ report. You can argue that fact of course, and I’m sure you will, but the law’s effectiveness hinged on preventing such weapons to be commonplace, which is completely congruent with my statement that it took weapons off the streets. And consider this a reply for Todderbob’s response too
Of course this will eventually happen. Because you’ve failed to show good reason for your views, now you attack the very person who’s report you once told me was completely “black and white” in your favor. I’ll make this short then, since you’re losing credibility with each post: Koper goes over each restricted military-style function beginning on page 13. Night firing, firing while “spraying from the hip”, silencers, bayonets, and firing so much you can’t grab the barrel are all indicative of criminal purpose. If your true reason for owning such a gun is for self-defense or sporting, then you do not need to fire at night or spray fire rhinos from your hip. If your true reason for owning a gun doesn’t extend to anti-government paranoia, then a gun with even ONE of these features is good enough for you
Yes, because if there’s a law with a loophole, then the next version should fix it. In the end, you end up with a good law that restricts both in spirit and wording exactly what it was designed to restrict: dangerous weapons that serves no good purpose for self-defense. You seem to think a perfect law can be written the first time. Its fine to decry a bad law, but dont attack attempts to fix it
Hardly. I referenced the summaries of those chapters and quoted Koper exactly where the contrary or differing perspective was stated. You are the one who have simply repeated, without evidence, that Koper says one thing and one thing only, without bothering to analyze the actual data and how he arrived at those conclusions. Your desperate attempt to now paint me as some kind of holier-than-thou hack is futile. You’d do better to actually read your own citations and respond in kind, with evidence and quotes. As far as the inconsequential remark, Koper makes many other claims that it is not inconsequential, and his statements lead to easy inference that a further strengthening of the law would have drastic effects. Those are also cited by me multiple times, with page numbers for lazy debaters. I suggest you go back and familiarize yourself with it
The reality is, as Koper himself states, LCMs represent a far larger share of gun crimes, up to perhaps 26%, that is hardly trivial. I suggest you reread chapters 1 and 2, I believe, for that tidbit of reality.
Actually yeah, I did miss it, did you cite this report before because I didn’t see it. Then again, it would be dishonest of you to post a report and suggest I skipped it without giving me an opportunity to first read it, not that that kind of behavior from you is unexpected. I think that you think that your smarmy cuteness in your replies enhances your debate. Believe what you want, I suppose, that’s what you’re doing in the DoJ report after all. And yes, since the logic escaped you in the past and continues to escape you now, I will have to yet again restate it: If a ban works, but not well, then of course it should be even more strict, thus making the small effect larger, and renewed.
I would also like to point out here that you’re basically doing to me exactly what you accuse me of doing. You claim I ignore the DoJ’s conclusion that the ban is bad, yet come up with my own conclusions based on data in the report that I somehow misstate. Yet you just said the NiJ report calls for a renewal of the ban, yet casually dismiss it because of data inside the report! Of course, the difference is, the DoJ report is far larger and has numerous data within it that does not support Koper’s eventual conclusion very well. And add to that, I actually cite things with quoted statements and page numbers.
Actually, Koper says thats. Maybe he’s decreeing from on high? You’ll have to take that up with him
From the report: “Following the 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.”
And rest assured, I’ll get to your new citation of the NiJ report. I guess if one report doesn’t say what you want it to say (cause you didn’t read it closely enough) just find another one! 12 pages? I guess that’s easier for you to read huh?
Who are you, FinnAgain? All of the reasons I gave for banning them was FOR the reduction of crime. I take it you tend to get your premises and conclusions mixed up often? And look, more misleading statements! AWs ARE used in crime often, up to 26%. What you’re referring to is AWs without LCMs, which are often counted (or not counted) in a different class. Had you read the report, you would have noticed that Assault Rifles are the items that are most rarely used in crime, but items considered to be Assault Pistols and LCM-equipped guns were far and away the weapon of choice for criminals. And of course, if some of those guns only contained one of the many military-style features banned in the AWB, they were effectively legal, which is a loophole that, SURPRISE!, a stricter version of the law would fix, something you are against because you simply oppose gun control for no good reason
There was a lot of these types of sentences in the report. They were always given with caveats, such as this one: "Consistent with predictions derived from the analysis of market indicators in Chapter 5…criminal use of AWs, while accounting ffor no more than 6% of gun crimes even before the ban, declined after 1994, independently of trends in gun crime." Of course, your little “crime dropped in 94 and 95” rhetoric comes with no analysis of the full data of the yet another report you cite (hopefully one that actually supports your claims this time!) while I have provided you a full response, and caveats, from the DoJ report you claims supported your position utterly. Maybe give a page number so I can look it up? Or would you rather I not and call me names instead?
Wrong. “From '94 to '95 there was a drop in crime” YOU just said that. Sure, you want to blame it on a general decline in crime, but I cited Koper’s reasoning why crime lowered independently. I suspect you made one of these things up to look good, why dont you tell me which one?
Its getting to the point where I can almost debate with you by simply citing your own words. Was there lowered crime or wasnt there? Is the AWB too weak or too strict? Did the DoJ oops sorry the NiJ oops sorry Me say that?
QUOTE=YogSosoth;11038532] The great part is, no undue limitation of our freedoms happened.
[/Quote]
Who’s to say it wasn’t an undue limitation? You? Pfft, yeah right.
[/QUOTE]
Gun owners, actually. Reasonable ones. Koper says in Chapter 7 that prices for specific types of AWs, the kind usually not used in crimes, spiked but returned to comparable pre-ban levels by 1998 and remained there. If price wasn’t affected, then either demand and supply rose proportionate to each other or they both dropped proportionate to each other. To do such a thing purposely (affect the price of a widely available item with a large circulation and multiple manufacturers) is pretty much impossible. The easiest explanation is the AR owners merely found legal substitutes. After all, if they were all unduly inconvenienced as you claim, then the new knockoffs would not have sufficed, thereby deflating prices. Or they would have all gravitated to other types of guns, thereby inflating prices for those. Neither of those things happened, so it would be a reasonable guess to say that yes, these people found substitutes. They might have been annoyed, but what I’ve repeated over and over rings true: you can simply substitute your guns
Your strawman is becoming desperate. There are functional and stylistic differences, severe ones, between a burlap sack and a suit. There is little difference, as I’ve said before and Koper backs up, between a banned AW and a legal substitute.
Here you might be tempted to say “If they’re all the same, then the AWB did nothing!” You’d be incorrect, however. The argument is that the LEGAL substitutes were not very different for legal purposes (self-defense, sports). However, for illegal purposes they were highly different, thus the limit of only 1 military-style function and a magazine capacity of 10 or less. Then again, it still helps my argument: If they werent that different (or too different, whatever you’re in the mood for), then we simply have to make the law more strict
If there’s little difference, why’re we banning them at all?
There are functional and stylistic difference between a gun with and without a barrel shroud, a muzzle break, and a pistol grip, though. Of course, you wouldn’t admit that. Maybe we should say you can wear the Pants & Shirt, but not the shoes? Or the Shoes and Hat, but not the pants or shirt?
After all, it’s just stylistic differences?
But then you say there are functional differences too? Which is it? Because if you shouldn’t ban the clothing based on the functionality, then you shouldn’t ban the accessories to the guns based on functionality either.
Actually, the report doesn’t call for a renewal of the ban it says “Should the ban be renewed,” not “The Ban Should be renewed.”
But, of course, logic isn’t going to effect your opinion. You’ve deluded yourself to thinking that you’re right, from the getgo, despite having not researched the topic. Then, you researched the topic looking for statistics and opinions which support your own, rather than looking for opinions and statistics which are supported by reality, to reach a conclusion that is far out of line with reality.
As for your assertation that I’ve not read my own citations, I would beg to differ, as I’m the one who had used them (both directly and indirectly) throughout this thread. You seem to be looking for reasons to ban firearms, and that’s acceptable. Admit your agenda, though. Be honest about it.
What is being banned under the AWB is nothing more than cosmetic features - in itself it’s nothing to be worried about, because the features themselves do nothing, as a whole (when the combination factor is used). It’s the precident it sets that needs to be argued against.
There is no ‘spraying from the hip,’ and pistol grips don’t make that easier, they make it more difficult (try angling your wrist 90* from the hip, it’s uncomfortable and hard to do).
I could go on, but my statements (no matter how correct, and they are, I assure you), are falling on def ears. You’ve chosen to believe in a side of the argument from the beginning, without factual support, and then looked for factual support to back your side of the argument. I choose to do the opposite. I choose to look at the facts, and then choose my side of the argument based on them.
Im not talking about the pre ban guns. I’m talking about the guns that had their bayonet lugs removed and kept on selling. Or perhaps the TEC-9 that was banned by name in 1994. Do you know how Intertec got around the ban? They renamed it to the TEC-DC-9. Not a single day of manufacturing was lost, other than to reset the dies that stamped out the model name.
How about the deadly ar-15? On 8/94 a company could manufacture one with all of the goodies, flash hiders, bayo lugs, you name it. On 10/94, the exact same gun could be made and sold just short of the bayonet lug and still be completely legal. Unless you want to claim that crime was reduced because of a lack drive-by bayonetings, you’re full of it.
Apples and oranges. There were no provisions to take ANYTHING off of the street. the “post ban” guns were exactly the same short the bayo lugs or flash hiders. Get a frickin’ clue ok?
You have no facts at all to argue. I will ask you one more time… What gun, could not be purchased after 9/94? How did removing a bayonet lug reduce crime? Because that’s all that was done.
I’m not taking it personal. I am just amazed that anyone can be so dense. No weapons were taken off of the street. Future production bans only banned cosmetic features, not weapons. The same guns were still made and sold. What part of that don’t you get? If I’m wrong show me how.
I’m just kind of skimming over this thread now. Yogsooth is still spouting nonsense like that “assault weapons” are only good for hunting Rhino (they’re the last weapons you’d use for that, being very low powered rifles), the AWB being about silencers, that there’s no legitimate use for flash suppressors because they only help you fire at night without getting blinded and people who have guns for self defense clearly won’t ever have to fire at night, etc. Only now it’s in Wall Of Text attack form.
But I wanted to clear something up. You seem to be counting any weapon capable of accepting a “large” capacity magazine as an assault weapon. This inappropriate. There was a magazine ban as part of the AWB, but they did not intend to classify all weapons capable of accepting magazines over 10 rounds as assault weapons. Are you trying to do that? You seem to use statistics about when pistols with LCMs are used in crime as evidence that assault weapons are used in crime frequently. Either you believe any weapon with 10+ round magazine is an assault weapon, or you’re using those numbers inappropriately.
Another question: my understanding is that the term “silencer” and the (movie inspired) idea that it makes gunfire sound like a soft whisper of noise are extremely misleading. They should more accurately be called “noise suppressors” and they’re not magic… guns fitted with them still make a good bit of noise, just not a noise that’s readily identifiable as a gunshot.
Also, IIRC they were banned in the US due to fears about them being used for assassinations, even though they’re still legal in much of the rest of the world with no great rise in assassins (or ninjas).
Close. They’re tightly regulated in the US in a similar (but more pain in the ass to get) way as fully automatic weapons.
They’re not generally as effective as portrayed in movies, but there are some weapon systems that were designed around being low noise that get pretty quiet.
They’re a complete non-issue in regards to any discussion of the AWB.
[I have nothing to add to the discussion, but I would like to to add my appreciation for this thread]
People, thank you!
I somehow managed to spend the last couple of hours reading this thread, and I only want to state publicly that having done that, you people have actually managed to change my mind.
I started reading this train-wreck as a complete anti-gun (why on earth would anyone want to own a gun) kind of person, a ‘YogSosoth’ if you want, located in Northern Europe. I have spent many hours ridiculing those strange Americans with their fixation on owning guns. From the perspective of where I live, it seemed a bit strange, mind you I have never held, fired or even considered owning a gun. It is something that is just not part of the culture where I grew up.
That said, reading this thread has educated me in a way that I thought impossible a couple of hours ago. I now think I understand the ‘pro-gun’ people, and I tend to agree with them (from their perspective).
I still think (feel perhaps) somewhere that guns are a waste of time, but after reading this, I am not so sure any more that all the societal ills I once blamed on the readily availability of guns are actually true. My main point of view was Michael Moore and the like, I never really heard the other side.
I have now come to the conclusion, and it still feels strange, that my previous views were based on ignorance, and for this I would like to thank the people of this board. I somehow still wish that someone could argue the case that I have lived all my life believing (Guns are BAD!), but I have not seen those arguments – even after 11 pages.
So guys (and girls) thank you. I would like to publicly thank JXJohns, ExTank, FinnAgain and Todderbob (could you please explain why I keep reading that as ‘ThunderBob’ ? ) and all the rest. I have gained a new understanding of your points of view.
Are they? I’ve never looked into getting one, because I’ve never had any need, but I thought you could get them, new, with a Class 3 / Title 2 / Permit of some sort, I forget what it’s called.
I do remember a buddy of mine, who owns a gun shop, was selling a Sig .223 Rifle, the 556 I think (Tacticlol in the utmost way) with a silencer. He offered it to me (well, my dad) for a steal of a price… but I just can’t see the point. You still get the sonic boom from supersonic rounds, the sound of the bolt slamming shut, etc.
Although, if I lived out in the country, with neighbors around 250 yards on either side (with a nice swath of land behind the house), I could see getting a silencer. To shoot in the backyard without disturbing the neighbors.
[innuendo]I see my reputation precedes me. [/innuendo]
In all seriousness, you’re welcome. I’m glad I could contribute to fighting the good fight.
