# 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:** 28
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2016, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-assault-weapon-ban/757469/541 "2016-07-06T21:36:47Z")
The Coburn Amendment would not be voluntary background checks. It was universal background checks. ---
**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:** [July 6, 2016, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-assault-weapon-ban/757469/542 "2016-07-06T22:37:04Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > The Coburn Amendment would not be voluntary background checks. It was universal background checks. How do you enforce that universal background check requirement without a record keeping requirement? What was the penalty for failing to do the background check? Between those two things I think its really hard to say that it was universal in anything but name only. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2016, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-assault-weapon-ban/757469/543 "2016-07-06T22:47:54Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > How do you enforce that universal background check requirement without a record keeping requirement? > > What was the penalty for failing to do the background check? > > Between those two things I think its really hard to say that it was universal in anything but name only. In CA all sales must go through an FFL who conducts the background check. I could easily sell firearms directly to an individual but that would be a violation of the law and I’m not willing to do that. How is that enforced? A record of sale can be kept with the identifying number. Penalty could be the same as illegally selling a firearm. People who are law abiding will abide by it and those that are not will not. It would be universal - all sales that are required to go through it that don’t would be illegal sales. The background check should target the person, not the firearm. Once you pass, you should be cleared to purchase any otherwise legal firearm. The idea that the background check should be tied to a firearm is there to support a registry. This provides for a background check with no registery. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2016, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-assault-weapon-ban/757469/544 "2016-07-06T22:55:35Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > In CA all sales must go through an FFL who conducts the background check. and who often charges quite a bit, it should be noted. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2016, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-assault-weapon-ban/757469/545 "2016-07-07T03:11:21Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > No, I was talking about the original restriction, passed due to gangster use. > > [National Geographic](http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/06/united-states-machine-gun-ban/) > > And yes, assault weapons have “gang-banger notoriety” as well as mass shooter notoriety. They are rarely used in normal day to day crimes. Hollywood’s sensationalizing of gangsters in pre-Hays Code films like _Little Caesar_, _The Public Enemy_, and _Scarface_ more or less led to the 1934 NFA. The “Tommy Gun” gained a reputation as a murderous super-weapon despite the fact that it was hardly concealable (except for the cliche violin case), and was of little utility beyond “spray and pray” tactics such as drive-by shootings. The ordinary six-shot revolver was the weapon of choice in the vast majority of mob killings. ---
**Author:** ![Martini\_Enfield](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/martini_enfield/32/11123_2.png) [@Martini\_Enfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martini_Enfield)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2016, 8:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-assault-weapon-ban/757469/546 "2016-07-07T08:45:04Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > Hollywood’s sensationalizing of gangsters in pre-Hays Code films like _Little Caesar_, _The Public Enemy_, and _Scarface_ more or less led to the 1934 NFA. The “Tommy Gun” gained a reputation as a murderous super-weapon despite the fact that it was hardly concealable (except for the cliche violin case), and was of little utility beyond “spray and pray” tactics such as drive-by shootings. The ordinary six-shot revolver was the weapon of choice in the vast majority of mob killings. The[Browning Automatic Rifle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1918_Browning_Automatic_Rifle) was another full-auto firearm of concern at the time though - it fired a .30-06 round and could shoot through cars; including vehicles belonging to the police and FBI. ---
**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:** [July 7, 2016, 12:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-assault-weapon-ban/757469/547 "2016-07-07T12:27:07Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > In CA all sales must go through an FFL who conducts the background check. I could easily sell firearms directly to an individual but that would be a violation of the law and I’m not willing to do that. How is that enforced? > > A record of sale can be kept with the identifying number. Penalty could be the same as illegally selling a firearm. People who are law abiding will abide by it and those that are not will not. It would be universal - all sales that are required to go through it that don’t would be illegal sales. The background check should target the person, not the firearm. Once you pass, you should be cleared to purchase any otherwise legal firearm. The idea that the background check should be tied to a firearm is there to support a registry. This provides for a background check with no registery. I still don’t understand, probably because I’ve never purchased a gun. What would the background check that would be done IAW the amendment take away from the current background check process? ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2016, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-assault-weapon-ban/757469/548 "2016-07-07T13:27:06Z")
> [@Martini\_Enfield](#): > > The[Browning Automatic Rifle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1918_Browning_Automatic_Rifle) was another full-auto firearm of concern at the time though - it fired a .30-06 round and could shoot through cars; including vehicles belonging to the police and FBI. Pretty much any center-fire rifle is going to be capable of “shooting through cars”. It’s not like the BAR was unique in that respect. M-1 Garands and the M1903 Springfield were also chambered in .30-06. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2016, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-assault-weapon-ban/757469/549 "2016-07-07T17:16:42Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > I still don’t understand, probably because I’ve never purchased a gun. What would the background check that would be done IAW the amendment take away from the current background check process? None. It would add. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2016, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-assault-weapon-ban/757469/550 "2016-07-07T17:43:59Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > I still don’t understand, probably because I’ve never purchased a gun. What would the background check that would be done IAW the amendment take away from the current background check process? There is no detailed text so there is some assumptions necessary. Presumably there would be no change for existing g dealer sales. For states that require PPT through FFLs there would presumably be no change. For states that are cash and carry private party sales those would be required to perform a background check. There would on balance be a net increase in background checks. There would be no legal sale without a background check (with probably some exception for interfamilial or C&R possibly). ---
**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:** [July 7, 2016, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-assault-weapon-ban/757469/551 "2016-07-07T17:46:49Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > There is no detailed text so there is some assumptions necessary. Presumably there would be no change for existing g dealer sales. For states that require PPT through FFLs there would presumably be no change. For states that are cash and carry private party sales those would be required to perform a background check. > > There would on balance be a net increase in background checks. There would be no legal sale without a background check (with probably some exception for interfamilial or C&R possibly). I’m not really seeing anything wrong with that. Why would someone vote against it? ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2016, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-assault-weapon-ban/757469/552 "2016-07-07T17:51:38Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > I’m not really seeing anything wrong with that. Why would someone vote against it? Because it doesnt go far enough- apparently. :rolleyes: ---
**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:** [July 7, 2016, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-assault-weapon-ban/757469/553 "2016-07-07T17:58:26Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Because it doesnt go far enough- apparently. :rolleyes: Could be, but IAW what I hear about “gun control nuts”, why wouldn’t they take whatever they could get, and then slip on down the ol’ slippy slope to the next opportunity to tighten up gun control laws? ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2016, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-assault-weapon-ban/757469/554 "2016-07-07T18:01:04Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > Could be, but IAW what I hear about “gun control nuts”, why wouldn’t they take whatever they could get, and then slip on down the ol’ slippy slope to the next opportunity to tighten up gun control laws? In this case, it seems like they want to hammer on the “gun show loophole” and the "terrorists on the no-fly list buying guns’ as political drums, instead of seeking a real solution. A compromise was offered on the No-Fly list too, and\* that\* was rejected. It’s election season, you know. ---
**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:** [July 7, 2016, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-assault-weapon-ban/757469/555 "2016-07-07T18:16:35Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > It’s election season, you know. Fair enough. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2016, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-assault-weapon-ban/757469/556 "2016-07-07T19:57:59Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > I’m not really seeing anything wrong with that. Why would someone vote against it? I think because they really want registration and background checks are a Trojan horse. Why do you think someone would vote against it? ---
**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:** [July 7, 2016, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-assault-weapon-ban/757469/557 "2016-07-07T20:04:52Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > I think because they really want registration and background checks are a Trojan horse. Why do you think someone would vote against it? I can’t think of any logical reason vote against it. A Republican suggested it? Mindless partisan voting? I’m missing something important in the actual text of the amendment, which I can’t seem to find? ---
**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:** [July 8, 2016, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-assault-weapon-ban/757469/558 "2016-07-08T16:59:47Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > I can’t think of any logical reason vote against it. > > A Republican suggested it? > > Mindless partisan voting? > > I’m missing something important in the actual text of the amendment, which I can’t seem to find? 1. Because it will do nothing to limit “terrorists” or criminals access to firearms or weapons. It will just create a black market or they will move to other just as capable methods. But you can provide a cite that any physical ban of easily manufactured or trafficking has restricted supply. A good example is the drug war or prohibition. 2. Because it sets a precedent that a “right” can only be exercised at the will of the government. Will we be required to get government permission to associate with groups, will I need a background check before publishing my ideas or practicing my faith or non-faith? 3. Because it is a useless, dangerous, and ineffective legislative effort that tends to encourage the conservative voting block which limits the ability of progressive legislation from being passed and dramatically effects the appointment of judges with a social conscience. And this push is being made during a year when a man whom can legitimately compared to hitler without invoking Godwin’s Law is actually possibly going to become President. Trumps election base will be far less likely to even vote if these laws were not being pushed for, it emboldens that single issue voter block. 4. Because our neighbors demonstrated that a gun registry does not work [ > [@](#): > > The performance report focuses on activities such as issuing licences and registering firearms. The Centre does not show how these activities help minimize risks to public safety with evidence-based outcomes such as reduced deaths, injuries and threats from firearms ]([http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl\_oag\_200605\_04\_e\_14961.html](http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_oag_200605_04_e_14961.html)) You claim that logic is on your side but I have seen little logic offered as arguments. All I see is either wishful thinking or ad hominem attacks so far. Why don’t you show me how I am wrong. This issue is the primary blocker for me trying to convince family and friends to not vote for Trump, and that reality should invoke much more fear. ---
**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:** [July 8, 2016, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-assault-weapon-ban/757469/559 "2016-07-08T17:11:47Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > You said: “Pre 1934 NFA, full auto weapons were used in some crimes as you’ve identified. After that, almost never” > > It seems to me that the provisions of the 1934 NFA must have had SOMETHING to do with the fact that full auto weapons were almost never used in crimes after its passage. > > THAT’S what I’m saying. Simply as a counter to “Heavily regulating guns has no affect on crime” > > I just don’t believe in wide, sweeping statements like “won’t have ANY affect” Post NFA there have been few crimes committed with LEGAL machine guns. Illegal machine guns still account for some measurable percentage of gang violence. Over the course of 80 years it had had an effect on the availability of machine guns. The loss of ready of access to machine guns has not had any significant affect on the exercise of the second amendment but the effect of the ban on overall crime had been insignificant. ---
**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:** [July 8, 2016, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-assault-weapon-ban/757469/560 "2016-07-08T17:13:30Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > I don’t even know what you’re trying to say. I’m not sure if the communication problem is with me but from my vantage point your writing is very unclear. I think he’s referring to my statement that both sides cheer pick facts that help their argument but the gun tourists side had a much larger selection of favorable facts to choose from. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-assault-weapon-ban/757469.md?page=27) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-assault-weapon-ban/757469.md?page=29)