A thread for debating an assault weapon ban (since this has come up again and again, both on these boards, and in the news, here in the wake of the Orlando shooting). To get it started, I propose the theory behind such a ban is sound. The assault-style weapon has become the cultural weapon of choice for mass shootings. I’ve argued the importance of the tool(gun) + user(wielder) + culture(eg gun narratives) interplay before, how intimately those elements are connected. The (for-the-nth-time-proposed) assault weapon ban is primarily an attempt to reduce some of the malignancies in our culture surrounding guns.
Laws don’t act in isolation, the culture changes around them. That is, when you legislate, you’re expecting a change in the culture to accompany the new laws. Otherwise few would obey the new laws, and you have absurdities like needing a cop for every citizen. People proposing the ban likely know this (though so few, lamentably, seem to state it outright)–that is, changing the law (here by banning assault weapons) is primarily intended to change the culture. The arguments “that wouldn’t have prevented this or that shooting” dwindle in significance when measured against this intention. There’s a big disconnect here between the “sides”. And this applies in general on the subject of gun legislation. It is naive, worse disingenuous, to weigh these laws solely by their ability to prevent a given shooting.
Fine in theory. What happens in practice? We’re all too familiar. The attempt to “upload” new information to our culture, or shrink existing malignancies around guns backfires. Assault weapons, for example, only become more popular. But here’s where it gets slippery. That doesn’t mean the theory is bad. It means you have to find other ways of changing that information–the narratives, expectations, values, mores, etc., surrounding guns. Various agencies have been extremely successful not just in preventing changes in legislation, but putting up a wall between Americans and that subset of our culture pertaining to guns, making it extremely difficult to change the tune to which guns are purchased and used. The ongoing/upcoming assault weapon goat rope is just another example.
Please define “assault weapon.”
So, you want to write a law that bans something even if it won’t do any good?
(post shortened, underline added)
Did you mean “mass shootings” or “mass murders”?
AFAIK, the “user(wielder)” has chosen to murder as many people as they can. The individual reasons differ but mass murder is their goal. A so-called assault weapons ban won’t stop mass murderers from committing mass murder.
You have to deal with the “user(wielder)” is you wish to stop mass murder.
Have you ever heard of Timothy Mcveigh? He killed 168 people, and injured many more with a truck bomb made of fertilizer and racing fuel. Nobody banned trucks, fertilizer, or fuel because of his actions.
We also didn’t ban airplanes after 9/11.
Varmint rifle?
No, but we did put restrictions on the sale and transport of ammonium nitrate.
But we did make a big list of people who aren’t allowed to get on an airplane.
And we did that without waiting for fertilizer bombs and deliberately crashed passenger jets to become monthly occurrences.
No, but it can reduce the number of people killed.
And how do you propose to do that? Even the good guy with the gun (who was present in Orlando) could do a much better job taking out a shooter if the shooter has to stop to reload.
If that isn’t what you mean, how do you propose to stop shooters before they do something without also hurting people just mouthing off. And would you apply these same restrictions to Christians saying that gays should die, for instance?
Are you or anyone else proposing a ban that includes compulsory buy backs? If not, there is no legislation that will stop someone from getting whatever your definition of an AW is.
Ban whatever you think an assault weapon is, and that maniac bent on destruction will switch to something else. Net result, millions have property confiscated and the bad guys just switch weapons.
(post shortened)
A Muslim, Democrat, and bisexual walked into a bar - leaving 49 dead and 53 injured.
People knew this monster. They knew he was planning to commit mass murder. Co-workers, family members, and the FBI were aware that there was something terribly wrong with this guy. Why was this monster not medicated or under observation BEFORE he became the mass murderer he wanted to be?
You can chose to deal with these mentally deficient monsters BEFORE they become famous or martyrs, or you can chose to blame inanimate objects and millions of law-abiding firearm owners. Your choice.
Not exactly an answer to your challenge, but I could happily favor a ban on weapons with a very fast cycle rate.
Now, that ain’t saying too much; WWI soldiers did devastating harm with bolt-action rifles. But modern high-cycle-rate weapons are difficult to distinguish from automatic weapons – and, worse, some of them can be modified to become actual fully-automatic weapons by anyone with gunsmithing tools.
I’d also like to see a ban on really small handguns, the kind you can slip into a shirt pocket.
Ah, well. I also want world peace and a pony.
A list that cannot distingush between terrorists and US Senators (and other prominent people).
Again, this is thrown around as fact by the pro-gun lobby but the fact of the matter is, I’m much less likely to be killed in any kind of mass killing, indeed I’m less likely to be murdered period, in any other developed country than the US.
Access to assault weapons (and I’m deliberately using that term since it’s irrelevant here whether we’re talking about assault rifles, SMGs etc) absolutely makes a big difference to how often spree killings happen, and what the death toll tends to be.
Has there ever been an example of a civilian murdering someone with a bayonet? Ever? If not, what makes you think a law restricting access to semi-automatic rifles on the basis of the ability to attach a knife to the end without using duct-tape is going to be useful?
If “criminals will always be able to get what they want”, why do we have laws against drugs and child pornography?
A. To express our disapproval as a society for these things.
B. So’s we can put in jail folks we catch with them.
So too would it be with assault weapons. (Let lawmakers define the term, that is, after all, their job.)
How? What makes an assault weapon SO deadly? Is it the mechanical function? I just ask because an assault weapon is a semi-automatic rifle with certain features. Most of these features allow the gun to be used more effectively but does not affect the function.
Now you can make the argument that these functions make them more deadly. But you fail to account for the trade offs of using a rifle.
A rifle is best used in a non-confined environment at medium to long distance. Anything else and the barrel is a pain to move around indoors and allows the gun to be grabbed more easily.
The length makes it easier to recognize a threat too.
But let’s say you ban an assault weapon.
X buys two Glock 10mm pistols with a 30 round mags loaded with hollowpoints.
They go into a classroom and unload dual wielding the guns.
You have just doubled the death rate vs an AR15 with on 30 round mag.
This ban was tried in the past. What could the evidence prove? How many injuries and lives did it save?
ZERO lives saved / ZERO injuries prevented
In fact, our murder rate is LOWER now than when the ban was in place (not saying the AR is responsible for the reduced murder rate; but it did not increase).
BTW…most mass shooters use pistols.
Here’s a dictionary definition. I’m confident yours was an honest question and not a bullshit attempt to derail a very necessary discussion.
So you are saying that the gun the shooter used in Orlando should be sold? I ask because the rifle used in Orlando does NOT meet that definition.
YOu should reference the 1994 assault weapons ban for the definition and then visit the ATF website for a definition of assault rifle.
This same attempt at dodging the point was made in the other thread.
I’m not arguing for the 1994 laws.
I’m saying I think it makes sense to restrict access to certain kinds of firearm.
That the set of firearms suitable for defence and target shooting is smaller than the set of all firearms. That’s all.
Again, plenty of countries have selective restrictions on firearms and have not seen a compensating increase in the number of crazy powered up handgun deaths.