# On an assault weapon ban **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 15, 2016, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-assault-weapon-ban/757469 "2016-06-15T22:04:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 23
**Author:** ![asahi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asahi/32/8693_2.png) [@asahi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asahi)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2016, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-assault-weapon-ban/757469/441 "2016-06-30T03:24:45Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Australia didn’t have a lot of mass shootings to begin with. I think they had a handful of mass shootings in the post WWII era. To compare Australia with a comparable society that doesn’t have a gun ban, New Zealand might be a useful comparison. They are culturally similar and they have also not had a mass shooting in a long time, but they don’t have an Australia style gun ban. Uh let’s get this straight, pops – Australia enacted their law in 19 and 90 fucking 6. That was before Jonesboro, Arkansas. That was before Columbine. That was before Mark Barton murdered 12 co-workers at a day-trading firm in Atlanta. That was before Virginia Tech. That was before Newtown, CT. That was before Arizona. That was before Aurora, Colorado. Before Charleston, SC. Before Roseburg, OR. Before San Bernardino. Before Orlando. Before the many countless mass murders of 5, 6, or 7 victims here and there that haven’t made the news. Australia took action and made it more difficult to commit mass murder. Not impossible, but more difficult. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > The assault weapons ban was in place for 10 years and had NO MEASURABLE EFFECT, the only reason it is meaningful is because it makes the gun control lobby feel like it is accomplishing something. It is perhaps the most retarded form of gun control that your side could pursue and it shows how much the gun control side of the debate is relying on the ignorance of its supporters. Since 2001, there have been 400,000 deaths from handguns. That’s 400,000 – in just 15 years. We lost 2900 people on September 11th, 2001 and we considered that enough to use extra constitutional means to invade a foreign country. Yet more than 100 times that number kill themselves and others with guns, and we do nothing about it. At some point, a society has to have enough sobriety to know that its priorities are screwed. ---
**Author:** ![asahi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asahi/32/8693_2.png) [@asahi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asahi)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2016, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-assault-weapon-ban/757469/442 "2016-06-30T03:40:48Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Again here, you’ve made another error. I did not claim the Court had been consistent. I corrected your interpretation that they had been inconsistent. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: Because that’s all that your response merits. > [@Bone](#): > > I drew the distinction explicitly as one where previous holdings were overturned. The difference is meaningful because otherwise whenever the Court recognizes a new right through incorporation, or even prenumberas, then the criticism of inconsistency can be raised. In that regard the criticism is much less meaningful. There is a difference between breaking new ground and being inconsistent with prior holdings. But since you don’t understand the difference between denying cert vs. affirming a lower court opinion, I’m not sure you’ll understand the difference here. :rolleyes: Fatuous casuistry. No further response required. > [@Bone](#): > > Here you are wrong again. SCOTUS has never held the 2nd amendment to be a collective right. Lower courts did adopt different iterations including both a collective right, and more recently pre-heller an individual right. Even in Heller\*\* all 9 justices agreed that the 2nd amendment protects some sort of individual right\*\* - they disagreed on the extent of that right. From the two dissents: Yes, in **Heller** , they held that it was an individual right. Again, in case you’re forgetting something (conveniently), that was the first ruling that attempted to interpret the 2nd Amendment since 1939. And you’re conveniently forgetting the activism of the right-wing Court. The Miller case, in no incontrovertible terms, banned sawed-off shotguns, not merely because Congress retained powers under Article I, section 8, to regulate commerce among the states, but also because Miller had failed to demonstrate a legal right under the 2nd Amendment to posses said instrument. If this “right” to possess arms were as absolute and consistent as you claim, then taking a legally purchased shotgun and sawing off the barrels hardly seems like a worthwhile expenditure of the Court’s time and resources. And surely the Court couldn’t ban such weaponry merely because it doesn’t fit the definition of ordinary military arms. > [@](#): > > The collective rights theory was never held at SCOTUS. Your claim is wrong. It was written as part of the majority opinion, a factor in their rendering a verdict in the Miller case. Had there been an unfettered individual right to modify a shotgun, there wouldn’t be an issue. However, you and I both know the truth, don’t we? I agree the Court has the ability to adjust its holdings over time. I don’t see why you think Scalia’s living status has anything to do with the consistency of the court. Unless you are saying the death of a Justice makes the court inconsistent? Yes SCOTUS judges are not immortal. If that’s your argument about inconsistency that would be nonsense but not surprising. > [@](#): > > Here you are wrong again - notice a theme? In 1866 The [Freedmen’s Bureau bills](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedmen%27s_Bureau_bills) were passed overriding a presidential veto. Originally the Freedmen’s Bureau was formed during the Lincoln Administration to aid former slaves. Following that, future iterations were vetoed by President Johnson. > > (my bold) > The roots of gun control have always been racist. > > Unfortunately the Freedmen’s Bureau was ineffective and was later scuttled. Partially in response the Civil Rights act of 1866 and the 14th amendment was passed. Both were intended partially to recognize the right of free blacks to arm themselves. > > A discussion of the [history of the drafting of the 14th amendment](http://www.constitution.org/col/intent_14th.htm): > > The document is quite long, but the racist roots of gun control are quite clear. > > All of this was mooted by Slaughterhouse where SCOTUS restricted the privileges or immunities to the right to travel between states and use navigable rivers in contradiction to the intent of the amendment. Unfortunately Slaughterhouse was never overturned and the alternate incorporation of the Bill of Rights had to be undertaken over many years. There are few rights not already incorporated so the chance of overturning Slaughterhouse is slim. > > Look at [Dred Scott:](https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford/Opinion_of_the_Court) > > (my bold) > Here you are wrong again. As noted, the Freedmen’s Bureau, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and the 14th amendment were all partially in response to abuses of blacks who were forcibly disarmed. The [Black Codes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Codes_%28United_States%29) were passed to restrict the freedom of blacks, including the right to arms. > > The original concealed carry system in CA was aimed to disarm Mexican and Chinese immigrants. Here is from the[SF Chronicle in 1923](http://www.claytoncramer.com/primary/other/SFChronicle1923.PDF): > > (my bold) > > The [Sullivan Act in NY](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sullivan_Act)was passed primarily to target the Irish and other immigrants: > It is quite clear that the roots of gun control are racist. Um, nope. You’re wrong. As I mentioned, **firearms control laws were in place in the states long before the Reconstruction era – you know, when blacks were still slaves and had no rights any way.** Now, in typical NRA fashion, you’re at the point where, realizing that I actually do know what the fuck I’m talking about and have countered all of your silliness, you’re just simply repeating the same bullshit again and again and trying to argue the same talking points. ---
**Author:** ![DerekMichaels00](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f14d63/32.png) [@DerekMichaels00](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DerekMichaels00)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2016, 3:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-assault-weapon-ban/757469/443 "2016-06-30T03:56:43Z")
for all the talk of the Founders, did they allow regular joes to have cannons? Or even as Bill O’Reilly says, can regular people have mortars? That’s a rhetorical question; there’s no reason for anyone aside from the military or riot police to have automatic or semi automatic weapons. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2016, 4:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-assault-weapon-ban/757469/444 "2016-06-30T04:57:57Z")
> [@DerekMichaels00](#): > > for all the talk of the Founders, did they allow regular joes to have cannons? Or even as Bill O’Reilly says, can regular people have mortars? > > That’s a rhetorical question; there’s no reason for anyone aside from the military or riot police to have automatic or semi automatic weapons. That is opinion and not fact. Some people enjoy target shooting which can be easier for some people to master without resetting after cycling an action. Not only that but banning semi-autos doesn’t really slow people down much. 100s of people send 20+ rounds down range well within the time you could do so with aimed shots with firearms that are all pre-1900. [![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/sAl1u81vbVI/maxresdefault.jpg "Cowboy Action Shooting - July 2014 Match - Round 4 Stage 1") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAl1u81vbVI) And depending on what you call a mortar yes you can depending on the state, some are transferable and taxed under the NFA and some are not even considered firearms and are legal to own [http://www.blackpowder-cannons.com/](http://www.blackpowder-cannons.com/) But if you think banning semi-auto firearms will significantly reduce the availability you are very mistaken. They are trivial to manufacture and machine guns are even easier and machine guns are dirt cheap on the worlds black market. If not people will just use bombs or firebombs just like they do everyplace in the world. The black market will rise to the occasion like it does for every other banned item from drugs to kinder eggs. Even our neighbor to the North found out registration is expensive with little to no real benefit. Of course if you have cites to prove otherwise please show that I am wrong otherwise it is purely bike shedding, pure co-optation of tragedies which should be drivers for polices which actually have a chance of working. ---
**Author:** ![asahi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asahi/32/8693_2.png) [@asahi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asahi)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2016, 10:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-assault-weapon-ban/757469/445 "2016-06-30T10:18:40Z")
> [@asahi](#): > > The Miller case, in no incontrovertible terms, banned sawed-off shotguns, In the interests of clarity, the ruling _upheld_ the ban on sawed-off shotguns. Carry on. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2016, 11:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-assault-weapon-ban/757469/446 "2016-06-30T11:00:19Z")
> [@asahi](#): > > Compromises short of outright bans, and they’ve been rejected – because you ‘can’t trust’ the gun control lobby. :rolleyes: It’s nothing more than an excuse. A lame one. When the gun lobby offers a _sincere_, excuse-free, cover-story-less “compromise”, we can certainly discuss it. But they haven’t and won’t, will they? ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2016, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-assault-weapon-ban/757469/447 "2016-06-30T13:38:26Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > You are wrong. They are restricted from manufacture in some instances and banned in some states, but depending on where you live you could buy one today. You have to fill out much more papetwork but they are not banned. Do you have $10,000? It seems that heavy restriction and outright banning in some states has led to a significant drop in the amount of automatic weapons in the hands of ordinary citizens. Further, it doesn’t seem like only criminals have automatic weapons in the states that have banned it. That seems to fly in the face of “restricting and/or banning guns has no effect” ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2016, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-assault-weapon-ban/757469/448 "2016-06-30T14:11:15Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > It seems that heavy restriction and outright banning in some states has led to a significant drop in the amount of automatic weapons in the hands of ordinary citizens. Further, it doesn’t seem like only criminals have automatic weapons in the states that have banned it. That seems to fly in the face of “restricting and/or banning guns has no effect” They have been heavily restricted since the 30’s, are VERY expensive, and even when they were open for anyone to buy without restriction made up a very small percentage of the guns in the hands of ordinary citizens. Those factors, as well as the limited utility verse the cost are why there are nearly no crimes committed using the things in the US. Doesn’t seem to fly in the face of ‘restricting and/or banning guns has no effect’ to me. If you are talking about something that was a very low percentage of the market even when it was unrestricted, and has since made it a very high premium wrt cost, it’s not a mystery why it has little effect on crime. It would be like restricting a super premium scotch, further driving up the price, then pointing at this vertical product and saying that, due to the restrictions this scotch doesn’t have an impact on alcoholism or deaths or injuries due to its use, then implying that, well, it worked here, so if we ban, say, all beer it would work just as well and have the same effect. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2016, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-assault-weapon-ban/757469/449 "2016-06-30T14:34:40Z")
Restrictions on fully automatic weapons seem to be an American gun control success story – criminals (mass shooters and others) very rarely use them, and they aren’t easy to obtain illegally. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2016, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-assault-weapon-ban/757469/450 "2016-06-30T14:36:01Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > It seems that heavy restriction and outright banning in some states has led to a significant drop in the amount of automatic weapons in the hands of ordinary citizens. Further, it doesn’t seem like only criminals have automatic weapons in the states that have banned it. That seems to fly in the face of “restricting and/or banning guns has no effect” So your goal is to restrict ownership and to not prevent deaths? But your second claim is false, most people whom have full-automatic weapon in states that ban them are criminals. Also you are committing a “Post hoc ergo propter hoc” error. First, full auto is expensive to run and difficult to use even when trying to hit paper targets. In hand held weapons it is of minimal use even for the military and thus it was not popular for civilians. Second people are arrested all the the time for manufacturing, owning and buying illegal machine guns and they are also often stolen from police; whom really have even less reason to own them than a collector does. But I can see how you could argue your position if you “_seem_” to only seek information that fits your argument. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2016, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-assault-weapon-ban/757469/451 "2016-06-30T14:57:26Z")
Note that rifles, let alone “assault weapons” are rarely used in homicides, and if you look at the rifles in these reports they tend to be used by officers. > **[firearms-report-15.pdf](https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/publications/firearms-report-15.pdf)** > > 631.25 KB > [@](#): > > California assault weapon use has remained at a relatively low proportion of total firearm use > since this annual report was commenced in 1998 ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2016, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-assault-weapon-ban/757469/452 "2016-06-30T15:00:44Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Restrictions on fully automatic weapons seem to be an American gun control success story – criminals (mass shooters and others) very rarely use them, and they aren’t easy to obtain illegally. Illegal machine guns seem to be just as common or more common as “assault weapons” in every body of data that I can find, and you are begging the question here. But if you have a real cite that shows that gun control does help please share it, I have been begging for it for a while but all anyone can provide is claims like this one. Which is a claim that feel good laws can make you feel good if you ignore the numbers as they don’t “seem” to fit. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2016, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-assault-weapon-ban/757469/453 "2016-06-30T15:17:23Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > So your goal is to restrict ownership and to not prevent deaths? But your second claim is false, most people whom have full-automatic weapon in states that ban them are criminals. Funny, I mentioned no goal. Also, are the states that have bans on automatic weapons suffering from tremendous amounts of crime committed with automatic weapons? If not, then the banning of automatic weapons has not allowed criminals free reign to commit crimes with automatic weapons. > [@](#): > > Also you are committing a “Post hoc ergo propter hoc” error. First, full auto is expensive to run and difficult to use even when trying to hit paper targets. In hand held weapons it is of minimal use even for the military and thus it was not popular for civilians. Second people are arrested all the the time for manufacturing, owning and buying illegal machine guns and they are also often stolen from police; whom really have even less reason to own them than a collector does. Sorry, but not sure how any of this is relevant to my post. > [@](#): > > But I can see how you could argue your position if you “_seem_” to only seek information that fits your argument. My argument is fully automatic weapons seem to be mostly legal, but heavily regulated and costly. The combination of these factors has seemed to lower the amount of fully automatic weapons being in circulation. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2016, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-assault-weapon-ban/757469/454 "2016-06-30T15:17:29Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Ok - do you have a basis for that construction of “common use”? > > Below is my take on it, though I grant it is merely my opinion and in this post I venture into speculative territory. > > The scope of the 2nd hasn’t been fully litigated so I think it could go either way. The way I look at the framework is that there are two paths by which a weapon can fall under the umbrella of the 2nd amendment. > > **Path 1** : weapons that would be typical for a person in the military > This is consistent with Miller but this view has not been tested. As the prefatory clause announces a purpose of the operative clause, utilization in a military function seems to square with this understanding in Miller, and is not precluded by Heller. > \*\* > Path 2:\*\* Weapons that are in common use, and are not both dangerous _and_ unusual > Here a reasonable guide would be the bearable arms available to police. Their need for self defense is without question and anything that enhances the self defense of these persons should be available to all persons. > > Here is what Heller says about my path 1: > From this, if it can be shown that law abiding citizens possess for lawful purposes select fire weapons, then I would argue they fall under the auspices of both #1 and #2 above. There are still near 500K machine guns, most of which are not allowed to be transferred. And since the rate of crime with those are virtually non-existent, I’d say they are in common use for lawful purposes. This also doesn’t count any select fire weapons in police use. > > Note above doesn’t say that M-16’s may be banned - it says that “if they may be banned…”. > > The full scope of the 2nd has not yet been resolved. I kind of agree with your two pronged approach to second amendment rights. I would modify category 2 to reflect the right to self defense. I would treat the regulation of items in category 1 differently than the items in category 2. So items in category 1 but NOT in category 2 such as grenades, machine guns, etc. could be regulated with respect to carry rights, storage requirements, eligibility for ownership, etc. I would only subject items in category 2 to licensing and registration requirements for ownership and a simple competency, safety test for carrying. Oddly, I don’t think I have heard this very common sense bifurcation of the second amendment right in any of the briefs. There seems to be a general agreement that there is a single second amendment right with mysterious contours. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2016, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-assault-weapon-ban/757469/455 "2016-06-30T15:19:27Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Does “select-fire” imply automatic? I thought “select-fire” just meant at least two modes of fire, which could include safety and semi-auto, and thus most semi-auto handguns are “select-fire”. My pump action shotgun has a safety. I have a break action shotgun that has a safety. I have a revolver that has a safety. I have a several rifles with several different actions that have safeties. None of these are select fire. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2016, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-assault-weapon-ban/757469/456 "2016-06-30T15:19:42Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > Illegal machine guns seem to be just as common or more common as “assault weapons” in every body of data that I can find, and you are begging the question here. Please site the definition of “assault weapon” that you are using here. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2016, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-assault-weapon-ban/757469/457 "2016-06-30T15:23:53Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Select fire means the ability to select between semi auto (one round per trigger pull) and some iteration of multiple rounds per trigger pull (full auto or burst). Like [this](http://i.imgur.com/edGDTC1.jpg) or [this](http://static---zephyrsports.app-hosted.com/media/img/zephyrsports/-/tip/tippmann_a5_egrip_select_fire_trigger_frame_001.jpg) or [this](https://s3.amazonaws.com/mgm-content/sites/armslist/uploads/posts/2015/01/30/3974924_05_usm4_mode_3_select_fire_ar_15__640.jpg). > > Of course, the lower is just a piece of metal and any creative thing can be engraved. If you are into pirates, [this could be more suitable](https://4b1e874935ea5d25a97e-f099844d0e354c7ab50c55a966be6870.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/product/F1STSLCJackX1.jpg). > > It does mean two modes of fire, but “safety” is not one of them. > > ETA: ninja’d. Spent too much time looking at that pirate lower. Heeeyyyy. That’s the lower I used for my first project gun. Those guys practically built the damn things for me over the phone. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2016, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-assault-weapon-ban/757469/458 "2016-06-30T15:33:54Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > Illegal machine guns seem to be just as common or more common as “assault weapons” in every body of data that I can find, and you are begging the question here. I’m pretty sure this is false. In terms of crime (and especially mass shootings, in which these would be the most dangerous), I’m almost certain it’s false. But I don’t have a cite handy (and nor, it seems, do you). > [@](#): > > But if you have a real cite that shows that gun control does help please share it, I have been begging for it for a while but all anyone can provide is claims like this one. Which is a claim that feel good laws can make you feel good if you ignore the numbers as they don’t “seem” to fit. I’m not saying “gun control does help” – I’m saying “machine gun restrictions have successfully made machine guns very rare in crime”. Most gun control in the US seems to have been a total failure, but this is one gun restriction that has mostly worked. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2016, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-assault-weapon-ban/757469/459 "2016-06-30T15:37:10Z")
> [@asahi](#): > > Compromises short of outright bans, and they’ve been rejected – because you ‘can’t trust’ the gun control lobby. :rolleyes: A couple of things. Its only a compromise from an outright ban if you have some ability to implement an outright ban but considering that you claim that you don’t even WANT an outright ban what exactly are you compromising? It would be like me saying that I will agree to the total repeal of all gun laws that I don’t like as a compromise short of repealing all guns laws, even the ones that I DO like. > [@](#): > > Maybe it’s just a bad argument. “I don’t trust you” isn’t a factual argument; it’s a feeling. You can’t premise an argument on a feeling alone. No, its a rational reaction to the past behaviour of the gun control crowd. I no more trust the motives or the sincerity of the gun control crowd than I do the pro-life crowd. They will both take whatever they can get but they will in no event just stop there. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2016, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-assault-weapon-ban/757469/460 "2016-06-30T15:50:12Z")
> [@asahi](#): > > No, it’s not non-standard. You tried to pull that shit with me yesterday by somehow differentiating “concessions” from “compromise.” They’re synonymous. I’m not going to debate you on this because linguistics is something I actually have a knowledge of. I speak more than one language fluently, and I’ve studied language structure, semantics, and the like extensively, so I’m not interested in debating with amateurs on the semantic meanings of words. [http://lmgtfy.com/?q=compromise](http://lmgtfy.com/?q=compromise) As a noun compromise is not synonymous with concession in normal usage. We have been using compromise as a noun not a verb (I can link you a google search of noun and verb if you would like). And frankly, even the most common usage of compromise as a verb requires concessions from both sides. This is not Phd. level stuff, its barely high school level SAT preparation. You should know by now that declarations of expertise in an area don’t really get you very much on this board unless you demonstrate expertise in that area. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-assault-weapon-ban/757469.md?page=22) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-assault-weapon-ban/757469.md?page=24)