# 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:** 5
**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 16, 2016, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-assault-weapon-ban/757469/81 "2016-06-16T18:52:26Z")
> [@davidm](#): > > The whole appearance and supposed mil-spec compliance alludes to something other than a hunting or target shooting weapon. As a different example, you’re probably familiar with the “man card” ad that was ran by Bushmaster a few years back. > [Bushmaster Rifle Ad Reminds Us To Ask More About Masculinity And Gun Violence (PHOTO) | HuffPost Women](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/emma-gray/bushmaster-rifle-ad-masculinity-gun-violence-newtown-adam-lanza_b_2317924.html) > Should they really be marketing that type of rifle specifically to the immature insecure men that that type of ad will appeal to? Should they really be attaching a macho image to guns at all? > I suspect that the NRA of old, before it was controlled by the gun industry, would have been down on this type of advertising. I wasn’t actually familiar with that specific ad, no…however, I’m pretty familiar with that line of advertising, since we see it all the time in myriad products. Do a Google search on ‘Corvette ads aimed at men’ and you will see it…or ‘Camel cigarette ads aimed at men’ (with camel toe Joe :p)…or, hell, just ‘advertising aimed at men’. I don’t see anything different between the man card thingy and a host of other products advertised towards men, ranging from light beer to power tools. Again, I’m failing to see the issue or why it’s riling folks up. 😕 ---
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2016, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-assault-weapon-ban/757469/82 "2016-06-16T19:34:46Z")
> [@XT](#): > > I wasn’t actually familiar with that specific ad, no…however, I’m pretty familiar with that line of advertising, since we see it all the time in myriad products. Do a Google search on ‘Corvette ads aimed at men’ and you will see it…or ‘Camel cigarette ads aimed at men’ (with camel toe Joe :p)…or, hell, just ‘advertising aimed at men’. I don’t see anything different between the man card thingy and a host of other products advertised towards men, ranging from light beer to power tools. > > Again, I’m failing to see the issue or why it’s riling folks up. 😕 It’s not really that difficult. Guns are different from Corvettes and cigarettes. Cigarettes can’t be used as weapons. I suppose Corvettes could be, but they rarely are, and they’re not culturally associated with killing. Guns are designed to kill and injure. Yes, they can be used for other things but those other things are not the main intention. Target shooting or hanging on a wall to show off is not what they were invented for. They were invented to injure or kill, either animals or people. There’s a whole cultural mystique around them specifically about shooting people. When I see arguments about gun rights, I rarely see mention of hunting or target shooting. What I see is talk about either self-defense, overthrowing the government (which is stupid), or vigilantism (which is also stupid). Hunting and target shooting are fine, but that is not what these ads are about. Anyone who grew up in this country can see that as plainly as the nose on their face. I think that, for some people (I’m not saying you) there’s a willful refusal to see that because a large part of their argument is that “guns are tools like hammers or screwdrivers” as if there’s no difference between shooting someone and building a shed. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2016, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-assault-weapon-ban/757469/83 "2016-06-16T19:50:50Z")
> [@davidm](#): > > Guns are designed to kill and injure. Yes, they can be used for other things but those other things are not the main intention. Target shooting or hanging on a wall to show off is not what they were invented for. . What they were invented for has nothing to do with their current popularity. Very few guns (outside the military) ever kill anything. Their main “intention” is to sell, to appeal to the gun buyer. The main\* uses\* are: target shooting, collecting , just having to feel safe and hunting. Killing people is so far down the list that you might as well say cars are 'designed" to kill people. ---
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2016, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-assault-weapon-ban/757469/84 "2016-06-16T19:52:56Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > What they were invented for has nothing to do with their current popularity. Very few guns (outside the military) ever kill anything. Their main “intention” is to sell, to appeal to the gun buyer. The main\* uses\* are: target shooting, collecting , just having to feel safe and hunting. Killing people is so far down the list that you might as well say cars are 'designed" to kill people. The discussion is about advertising. Specifically the advertising that infers macho killing machines. Outside of that context, you’re correct. ---
**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 16, 2016, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-assault-weapon-ban/757469/85 "2016-06-16T20:02:51Z")
[QUOTE=davidm] It’s not really that difficult. Guns are different from Corvettes and cigarettes. Cigarettes can’t be used as weapons. I suppose Corvettes could be, but they rarely are, and they’re not culturally associated with killing. [/QUOTE] I don’t see the relevance, so it IS ‘that difficult’. Probability wise, which is more likely to kill me, guns or cigarettes? If we look at deaths per 1000 (since Corvettes make up a very small percentage of the overall makes of vehicles, even in the US :p), I’m pretty confident Corvettes are more dangerous than guns as well, especially if we remove the suicide (obviously YOU are more dangerous to you in the case of suicide, regardless of the tool you choose). I’m unsure why you think it matters that guns are weapons while the other products aren’t wrt advertising and the point we were actually discussing. Advertisers target specific groups with their ads. Targeting of males of various age groups is one of the things they do (as they do with females of various age groups). _shrug_ > [@](#): > > Guns are designed to kill and injure. Yes, they can be used for other things but those other things are not the main intention. Target shooting or hanging on a wall to show off is not what they were invented for. They were invented to injure or kill, either animals or people. There’s a whole cultural mystique around them specifically about shooting people. When I see arguments about gun rights, I rarely see mention of hunting or target shooting. What I see is talk about either self-defense, overthrowing the government (which is stupid), or vigilantism (which is also stupid). How often are guns ACTUALLY used, in the US, for self-defense or overthrowing the government? How many of the 30k deaths annually in the US are due to either of those things? How many of them are accidental shootings or suicides? For a whole culture and mystique around shooting people and overthrowing the government, and the 100’s of millions of guns and 10’s of millions of gun owners it sure seems, to me at least, that a dispassionate look at the actual numbers shows that guns are a relatively minor cause of actual deaths, far below other sanctioned items in the US…such as cigarettes or alcohol. I mean, if you take away suicide (which is approximately half of the total, and IMHO is a sunk cost…i.e. the suicide rate isn’t going to substantially change regardless of whether you have guns or not, the method will simply shift to something else. The US, btw, is about in the middle of the pack wrt developed nations and the rate per 100k of suicide, despite us having those 100’s of millions of guns and 10’s of millions of gun owners, etc etc), gun deaths in the US are only about 10k per year on average and have actually been dropping, even though there are more guns in the US. 10k SOUNDS like a lot (or even 30k), but think about the numbers for just a moment…we have 300+ MILLION citizens, and probably something like 400+ million guns. There are something like 100 million gun owners in the US. Yet despite this culture of shooting em up and cowboy-ism and despite access to guns (and despite the fact that America is just a violent place wrt most of the rest of the world), those numbers are pretty paltry in comparison. As with a lot of things, societies decide what are acceptable risks. Change the speed limit upward and additional people will be killed or injured. Allow people who are 18 to buy alcohol and you’ll have additional deaths or injuries…or allow people at all to buy the stuff and you will have additional deaths and injuries. Allow people access to tobacco products and you are accepting a LOT of additional deaths and injuries. And have an established right to keep and bear arms and you accept, as a society, that this will mean you will have additional deaths and injuries due to that gun ownership. As a society we have chosen, to this point, to allow that (with restrictions) right to continue. At some point, as a society, perhaps we will feel the cost is too much. We tried that with alcohol, and it worked…less people died from alcohol during Prohibition than before or after. But we, as a society and despite that fact decided that the cost in lives was worth allowing people the ability to buy and use alcohol. Currently we as a society are slowly strangling tobacco use, and that will certainly result in less deaths due to tobacco…maybe we will do the same with guns at some point. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2016, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-assault-weapon-ban/757469/86 "2016-06-16T20:04:51Z")
> [@davidm](#): > > The discussion is about advertising. Specifically the advertising that infers macho killing machines. Outside of that context, you’re correct. But actually it does. It does infer macho, certainly. But they are selling guns to guys who will never use them to kill and never intend to use them to kill. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2016, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-assault-weapon-ban/757469/87 "2016-06-16T20:08:51Z")
> [@davidm](#): > > The whole appearance and supposed mil-spec compliance alludes to something other than a hunting or target shooting weapon. As a different example, you’re probably familiar with the “man card” ad that was ran by Bushmaster a few years back. > [Bushmaster Rifle Ad Reminds Us To Ask More About Masculinity And Gun Violence (PHOTO) | HuffPost Women](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/emma-gray/bushmaster-rifle-ad-masculinity-gun-violence-newtown-adam-lanza_b_2317924.html) > Should they really be marketing that type of rifle specifically to the immature insecure men that that type of ad will appeal to? Should they really be attaching a macho image to guns at all? > I suspect that the NRA of old, before it was controlled by the gun industry, would have been down on this type of advertising. How is this any different than trying to make me think that by drinking Miller Lite and watching football I will have great friends, live in a nice house with a decked out man cave, be in good shape, and have a hot looking supermodel girlfriend beside me (also drinking Miller Lite) and rooting for my favorite team? It does exactly what advertising is supposed to do. Now, if the ad showed a guy driving down the road drinking a 40oz. Miller Lite out of a paper bag, that would be a bad thing. If Bushmaster said that its rifle would kill 47% more school children than the nearest competitor, that would also be very bad. But puffing up a product to appeal to a target demographic? When everyone else does it it is okay, but for evil gun companies it is bad? ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2016, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-assault-weapon-ban/757469/88 "2016-06-16T20:36:15Z")
> **[Opinion | Do citizens (not police officers) with guns ever stop mass shootings?](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/10/03/do-civilians-with-guns-ever-stop-mass-shootings/)** > > Several examples, including two from earlier this year (with the usual caveats about the limits of relying on such examples). _“Finally, always keep in mind that mass shootings in public places should not be the main focus in the gun debate, whether for gun control or gun decontrol: They on average account for much less than 1 percent of the U.S. homicide rate and are unusually hard to stop through gun control laws (since the killer is bent on committing a publicly visible murder and is thus unlikely to be much deterred by gun control law, or by the prospect of encountering an armed bystander). Still, people had asked for examples of some shootings in which a civilian armed with a gun intervened and brought down the shooter, so here is what I found.”_ ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2016, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-assault-weapon-ban/757469/89 "2016-06-16T20:55:32Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > All semi-auto weapons effectively have the same cycle rate. You pull the trigger, a round is fired. You pull the trigger again, a round is fired. The majority of weapons made in the last century function this way, including essentially all handguns. No… I’m speaking of the speed at which the gun itself cycles. Sure, the human finger is a limitation… Except that there are little motorized spinners (illegal) that you can put into the trigger guard to push the trigger much faster than a human can. They turn a semi-automatic weapon into something indistinguishable from a fully-automatic weapon. These are limited by the intrinsic cycle rate of the gun itself. This kind of modification is why I am leery of guns with very fast cycle rates. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2016, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-assault-weapon-ban/757469/90 "2016-06-16T20:57:01Z")
> [@tim-n-va](#): > > My first choice would be a magic wand that makes all guns disappear. . . . Scary. It would return power to big strong guys with swords. Guns have a wonderful equalizing tendency. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2016, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-assault-weapon-ban/757469/91 "2016-06-16T21:05:32Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > No… I’m speaking of the speed at which the gun itself cycles. Sure, the human finger is a limitation… Except that there are little motorized spinners (illegal) that you can put into the trigger guard to push the trigger much faster than a human can. They turn a semi-automatic weapon into something indistinguishable from a fully-automatic weapon. These are limited by the intrinsic cycle rate of the gun itself. > > This kind of modification is why I am leery of guns with very fast cycle rates. You admit that these devices are illegal. Do you want to make them double extra illegal? ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2016, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-assault-weapon-ban/757469/92 "2016-06-16T21:14:45Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Which list is full of false positives, civil right violations and is 90%+ foreigners, not Americans. Yes. And? > [@Flyer](#): > > He hasn’t responded to me, so I doubt he’ll respond to you. Sorry, **Flyer** , I didn’t see your post. Same question to you. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2016, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-assault-weapon-ban/757469/93 "2016-06-16T21:55:28Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Yes. And? Sure we made “a list” but it’s\* a worse than useless list\*- at least concerning USA citizens. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2016, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-assault-weapon-ban/757469/94 "2016-06-16T22:19:15Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > You admit that these devices are illegal. Do you want to make them double extra illegal? No; don’t be obtuse. I want limitations on the sale of weapons themselves that have very high cycle rates, to avoid the ease of this kind of modification. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2016, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-assault-weapon-ban/757469/95 "2016-06-16T22:46:15Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Sure we made “a list” but it’s\* a worse than useless list\*- at least concerning USA citizens. Yes. And? ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2016, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-assault-weapon-ban/757469/96 "2016-06-16T22:53:01Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Yes. > > And? Yes, and? ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2016, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-assault-weapon-ban/757469/97 "2016-06-16T22:54:25Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > [But we did make a big list of people who aren’t allowed to get on an airplane.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Fly_List) > > And we did that without waiting for fertilizer bombs and deliberately crashed passenger jets to become monthly occurrences. Yes, and?:rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2016, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-assault-weapon-ban/757469/98 "2016-06-16T22:55:45Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > No; don’t be obtuse. I want limitations on the sale of weapons themselves that have very high cycle rates, to avoid the ease of this kind of modification. I don’t know if you already understand this or not, but all semi-automatic guns have “very high cycle rates” and about half of the guns sold today are semi-automatic. ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2016, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-assault-weapon-ban/757469/99 "2016-06-16T23:02:43Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I don’t know if you already understand this or not, but all semi-automatic guns have “very high cycle rates” and about half of the guns sold today are semi-automatic. Even a bolt-action can be fired [pretty damn fast.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mad_minute#World_record) > [@](#): > > The first Mad Minute record was set by Sergeant Major Jesse Wallingford in 1908, scoring 36 hits on a 48 inch target at 300 yards (4.5 mils/ 15.3 MOA).[1] Allegedly another world record of 38 hits, all within the 24 inch target at 300 yards (2.25 mils/ 7.6 MOA), is said to have been set in 1914 by Sergeant Instructor Alfred Snoxall,[2] but there is little documentation and it is unsure whether it was actually accomplished or British propaganda. There has been major discussion whether it is actually possible to shoot that fast and accurate with a bolt rifle. > In the Mad Minute Challenge in Norway in 2015 a standard 200 m DFS target was used, scoring 1 point for every hit inside the black area which is 40 cm in diameter and corresponds to 2 mils at 200 meters (6.9 moa). This actually makes the target size used in the Norwegian event smaller compared to the myth of Alfred Snoxall, who allegedly had all 36 hits inside a 24" circle at 300 yards (2.22 mils/ 7.64 MOA). > > A Mad Minute event was held in Soknedal, Norway, on 30 May 2015 featuring some of the best stang shooters in the country.[3] The competition was called the “Mad Minute Challenge”[1], and was shot at a round 40 cm diameter target at 200 meters (2 mils/ 6.9 moa), making the target smaller than original. The winner, Thomas Høgåsseter, scored 36 hits. The average score, of 11 shooters, was 29. ---
**Author:** ![Uqbar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/a587f6/32.png) [@Uqbar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uqbar)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2016, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-assault-weapon-ban/757469/100 "2016-06-17T01:05:58Z")
> [@Blaster\_Master](#): > > I think you have cause and effect reversed here. New laws don’t change culture, changes in culture create new laws. Take gay marriage as an example, it became legal first in places where homosexuality was already generally broadly accepted and it eventually became a national thing, but not until AFTER the general consensus on gay marriage had changed significantly to the point that the majority of people were in favor of it. Similarly, look at race laws, tons of laws were passed during reconstruction but it still took another 100 years and the civil rights movements before real change happened. This is also exactly why prohibition and the current drug war aren’t working. The flow between laws and culture is always two-way. And it’s often iterative–a shift starts, either with legislation (because a group of lawmakers decides to change things), or as you say the cultural attitude shifts, and then there’s a shift in the complement–the law or the culture–and so on. Harm-prevention measures for instance often start in the legislature, because they’re often accompanied by restrictions people don’t like. And consider this question, If race laws hadn’t changed, would the cultural attitude toward racial discrimination have improved as rapidly? (or, more cynically, would our culture have been better off without any race laws?) > [@Blaster\_Master](#): > > That is, you’re not going to win a culture war coercively through passing laws. There is no magic law or set of laws that can be passed and change American gun culture to be more like the apparent desired effect that exists in Australia or Europe or wherever. I think those sorts of laws there were more effective because the way those peoples already viewed guns was much different from how we still see them here. “Win” and “culture war” and “coercively” are too loaded for practical use here. Something good for TV sound bites, but that’s about it. Can’t emphasize enough that American culture is everyone’s, including those elements in it involving guns. And to be clear, I’m not after “gun culture”. I’ve used the term “gun culture” before, but now avoid it like the plague. It’s too loaded with its traditional meaning, implications of gun-worshiping rituals, secret meetings at gun clubs, and so on (I’m ridiculing the traditional use of the term “gun culture”, mind you, not gun owners). Do you see the difference between that term and what I mean by America’s overall cultural attitude, the narratives, expectations, values, mores, regarding guns? > [@Blaster\_Master](#): > > I think we need to do a better job enforcing existing laws, investigating leads, and being responsible citizens. No argument here. > [@Blaster\_Master](#): > > And, frankly, I still think attempting to change the culture is missing the point. Here’s where I disagree strongly (no surprise). I think statements like that are an effect of a (yes) cultural myopia. For instance, why aren’t mass shootings as frequent in other countries? What significant variables are in play other than the culture? Why on earth do assault weapons keep turning up in the hands of these butchers, other than owing to connotations, American-cultural and otherwise, as mass killing tools? Can anyone see what’s meant when someone uses the term cultural malignancy, especially with the high chance these shootings perpetuate themselves? And how might one suppose doing nothing after an atrocity with a body count of fifty gets parsed by the culture? Say, oh I don’t know, as permissive? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-assault-weapon-ban/757469.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-assault-weapon-ban/757469.md?page=6)