# The new proposed ban on "assault weapons" **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 26, 2013, 9:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-proposed-ban-on-assault-weapons/648423 "2013-01-26T09:06:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 18
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2013, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-proposed-ban-on-assault-weapons/648423/341 "2013-02-09T20:42:54Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > The general principle would be that possession of weapons would never be illicit in and of itself. How to address the “owning nukes” conundrum I don’t know. I don’t see the conundrum. “Bearing arms” implies weapons that a man can carry on his person: rifles, pistols, and shotguns. Nuclear weapons, tanks, aircraft and the like aren’t within the 2nd amendment’s contemplation of arms that are able to be borne. ---
**Author:** ![Shiloh2013](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e79b87/32.png) [@Shiloh2013](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shiloh2013)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2013, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-proposed-ban-on-assault-weapons/648423/342 "2013-02-09T21:01:15Z")
Didn’t the supreme court say that a complete ban on weapons “in common use” by the citizenry for self-defense and other lawful purposes – such as handguns – is unconstitutional? There are millions of AR 15 “style” rifles and large cap magazines in common use today. Banning either will never pass court muster. No matter since the senate can’t even get a simple majority. ps The court also used that ruling to make clear that classes of weapons not already in common use like rocket launchers and someday - plasma rifles - are not necessarily covered. ---
**Author:** ![China\_Guy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/779978/32.png) [@China\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/China_Guy)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2013, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-proposed-ban-on-assault-weapons/648423/343 "2013-02-09T21:16:59Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > I don’t see the conundrum. “Bearing arms” implies weapons that a man can carry on his person: rifles, pistols, and shotguns. Nuclear weapons, tanks, aircraft and the like aren’t within the 2nd amendment’s contemplation of arms that are able to be borne. Not trying to be nit picky, but hand carried anti-aircraft rocket would count as “bearing arms”, no? And I think that outright military use only type weapon with exploding armor piercing bullets shouldn’t be included even though they can be carried on one’s person. A high powered large caliber rifle that might be considered a military sniper’s wet dream I guessing might also be well suited for hunters picking off deer way out there. I think there’s a clear line between bazookas and dual use that would actually be used in some forms of hunting. Lumpy, after there is universal registration and background checks, then I could consider the blanket possession idea (obviously concealed carry would be managed differently). That said, until we get to the point of universal registration, I think you need some kind of limit on possession. [But I need to think this through. Using the car analogy, I don’t need to ensure that if I borrow your car that it is legally owned and has insurance coverage.] ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2013, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-proposed-ban-on-assault-weapons/648423/344 "2013-02-09T21:38:12Z")
> [@China\_Guy](#): > > Not trying to be nit picky, but hand carried anti-aircraft rocket would count as “bearing arms”, no? No. A rocket or missile is not a bullet. Since they are explosive, they are ordnance. Explosives, NBC, etc. are not ‘arms’ in the sense of the 2nd Amendment. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2013, 9:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-proposed-ban-on-assault-weapons/648423/345 "2013-02-10T09:24:55Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > If AWB’s are truly used in a tiny fraction of crimes, and thanks to people like you I know that they are functionally no different from many other non-banned types, then it makes perfect sense to ban AWBs because your rights are not infringed for the purposes of defense. What would you do if I said, “brown belts are sometimes used to beat children, so we’re going to ban them. And you belt-nuts in the belt-lobby can stuff it, because you’ll still have black belts and tan belts to hold your pants up. You don’t have any real need for brown belts.” I would hope that you’d slap me for making such a stupid, asinine argument. ETA: you might as well argue that we should ban guns whose model number starts with an “R” or those manufactured in the month of May. It’s nonsensical. ---
**Author:** ![juniorhoss](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/a587f6/32.png) [@juniorhoss](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/juniorhoss)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2013, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-proposed-ban-on-assault-weapons/648423/346 "2013-02-10T14:38:42Z")
> [@Stealth\_Potato](#): > > But, then, when you’re an extremist yourself, you won’t be satisfied with any compromise that isn’t a full concession, so naturally everyone who disagrees with you can safely be lumped into the shrieking lunatic category. Another sound political strategy. And ain’t that what BOTH sides have been doing for decades … ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2013, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-proposed-ban-on-assault-weapons/648423/347 "2013-02-10T18:46:39Z")
> [@Absolute](#): > > No, it isn’t! We were talking about “assault weapons” - actually, fully-automatic weapons. A. We were talking the broader issue of reducing the murder rate in the country, and B. That’s your own definition, one of many, and a remarkably convenient one in that lt lets you declare victory up front. > [@](#): > > Yes, those few tens of deaths were tragedies. But you are saying that worrying about something that causes perhaps 30-40 deaths per year (and that’s a stretch), in a country of 320,000,000 people, is not irrational? Get your argument straight - are you referring to the “zero” deaths from fully-automatic guns, or 30-40 from some other type you’ve previously declared outside the discussion? Now: If those deaths were preventable without _real-world_ impacts on anyone else, then yes, discussion of how to prevent more is as horribly rational as one can get. Declaring that they’re just the price we have to pay in order to prevent some \*Red Dawn \*scenario is fantasy. Now how the hell can a reasoning human being, with a real, sane regard for the importance of human life say just the opposite? > [@](#): > > Tell me, at what level of deaths from “assault weapons” would such a worry become irrational? 20? 10? 1? It is already a ridiculously low number when evaluated at the scale of the entire country. What number would you say is “rational”? And how would you explain that to the families? > [@jtgain](#): > > Because all purchasers of guns know that when you point it at something and pull the trigger, it goes “bang” and does bad things to that something on the other end. No surprise there. Are you not getting the point, or are you simply evading it? A gun meets the definition of unreasonably dangerous \*by its very existence. \* Its \*purpose \*is to hurt other people. But you’re comparing them to airplanes, whose purpose is something else entirely, something necessary, and which massive efforts at regulation keep from being any more harmful than absolutely unavoidable. Here’s a hint that might help you in your pending legal career: It will do you no good whatever in a court case to simply say “Your honor, the opposing counsel’s argument is simply irrational. I rest my case.” Especially when your own cannot withstand even minimal scrutiny in that regard. You’re setting yourself up for a very disappointing career if that’s the best you can do. > [@Lumpy](#): > > The point is, you’re demanding a prior restraint on others as indispensable to your safety. Tough. Oddly, we do have that principle in place in practically every other area of life. How’d that happen? > [@](#): > > Did you even read that? That was from a law site and quotes the _official definition_ of “unreasonably dangerous”. Guns don’t _ipso facto_ meet it. Sure looks like they do. Got an explanation of why they don’t? > [@](#): > > Not sure if something got lost here, but yes, woman have fought off rapists, minors have fought off intruders, and lone people have deterred gangs of people, because they had guns. Happens every day. And far, far more people have gotten killed because there was a gun nearby. What should we do about that, hmm? > [@](#): > > Did I attribute a strawman position to you? You’re the one who asked what possible purpose gun ownership could serve. You invented the answer, for the purpose of denouncing it. So yes, that’s a strawman. > [@](#): > > You’re trying to prevent a behavior by limiting an instrument of that behavior. That’s called “Prohibition”, and it didn’t work for alcohol, it doesn’t work for narcotics and it won’t work for guns. Oddly, limiting availability of full automatics seems to have worked. How about the next logical steps? > [@](#): > > Again you’re trying to exact a prior guarantee of safety, which short of banning human freedom you’ll never have. There you go with another strawman, combined with another excluded middle. I want to prevent as many preventable killings as possible. No, in the real world that can never be zero. But the argument that if you can’t do everything then you should do nothing is reprehensible. > [@](#): > > Gun owners prefer to be prepared to deal with bad things rather than demand a totally controlled environment. And what are the consequences that the rest of us must accept as a result of your “preference”? :dubious: Why is that our problem, and why must we suffer for it? ---
**Author:** ![etv78](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/d78d45/32.png) [@etv78](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/etv78)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2013, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-proposed-ban-on-assault-weapons/648423/348 "2013-02-10T18:56:55Z")
> [@Absolute](#): > > I guess I am really talking about due process, in combination with the presumption of innocence. But the point remains. Your irrational fear that I am going to go nuts and shoot you is not a justification to take away my rights. But doesn’t society have an interest in not making it easier for you to create mayhem? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2013, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-proposed-ban-on-assault-weapons/648423/349 "2013-02-10T19:06:05Z")
And a pretty fair number of gun owners, heretofore Law-Abiding Citizens (does the NRA have that phrase trademarked?) do, in fact, go nuts and shoot people, at a pretty regular rate. How is it irrational to think you might become one of them? What makes you so special? Solipsism is not a sound basis for public policy, unfortunately. ---
**Author:** ![Absolute](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b2d939/32.png) [@Absolute](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Absolute)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2013, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-proposed-ban-on-assault-weapons/648423/350 "2013-02-10T20:08:30Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > A. We were talking the broader issue of reducing the murder rate in the country, and B. That’s your own definition, one of many, and a remarkably convenient one in that lt lets you declare victory up front. Actually, I got involved in this discussion with you after **jtgain’s** post about a fully-automatic weapon, to which you responded: > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > How about my right not to get killed if you go nuts or get drunk or just get pissed off? Is that a consideration for you? How does your claimed right to enjoy destroying soda bottles expensively trump that? But, this is sort of a tangent, and I understand that it is hard to keep track of all these little subthreads, so we don’t need to dwell on it. > [@](#): > > Get your argument straight - are you referring to the “zero” deaths from fully-automatic guns, or 30-40 from some other type you’ve previously declared outside the discussion? The 30-40 number is from a post I made somewhere upthread. I have assumed you wanted to have a discussion about semi-automatic “assault-style” weapons (you know, the topic of this thread), since fully-automatic weapons do not seem to be causing anyone problems (and yes, this is because they are heavily regulated). > [@](#): > > Now: If those deaths were preventable without _real-world_ impacts on anyone else, then yes, discussion of how to prevent more is as horribly rational as one can get. Declaring that they’re just the price we have to pay in order to prevent some \*Red Dawn \*scenario is fantasy. Now how the hell can a reasoning human being, with a real, sane regard for the importance of human life say just the opposite? I don’t know. How do you say any number of people killed each year by drunk drivers, alcohol-related violence, and excessive alcohol consumption is reasonable? They’re the price we have to pay for…what, exactly? Perhaps you might say “The freedom for responsible law-abiding citizens to drink alcohol for recreation”? > [@](#): > > What number would you say is “rational”? And how would you explain that to the families? I don’t think the present number of deaths caused by assault-style weapons is sufficient to immediately ban them outright. If we can reduce the number of deaths through stricter regulation, liability and licensing laws for gun owners, etc., short of an outright ban, then we should do so. I don’t think stricter regulation would be an excessive restriction of gun owner’s rights compared to the scope of the problem, but I think an outright ban would be. And I would explain this to the families in the same way that you might explain why we haven’t banned alcohol to the families of those killed by drunk drivers. > [@](#): > > Are you not getting the point, or are you simply evading it? A gun meets the definition of unreasonably dangerous \*by its very existence. \* Its \*purpose \*is to hurt other people. But you’re comparing them to airplanes, whose purpose is something else entirely, something necessary, and which massive efforts at regulation keep from being any more harmful than absolutely unavoidable. You are being incredibly dense on this point. Here is the definition of “unreasonably dangerous” posted earlier. You appear to be substituting your own definition and assuming it is correct without even bothering to read this. > [@](#): > > “Unreasonably dangerous is defined as meaning that the product had a propensity for causing physical harm beyond that which would be contemplated by the ordinary user or consumer who purchases it, with the ordinary knowledge common to the foreseeable class of users as to its characteristics.” An ordinary user or consumer is well aware of a gun’s propensity for causing physical harm. As you point out, this is the point of the firearm, so it is hardly possible that they are unaware. “Unreasonably dangerous” applies if the propensity for causing physical harm goes \*beyond that which would be contemplated" by an ordinary user. It simply does not apply to guns, however much you may wish it does. ---
**Author:** ![Absolute](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b2d939/32.png) [@Absolute](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Absolute)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2013, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-proposed-ban-on-assault-weapons/648423/351 "2013-02-10T20:12:01Z")
> [@etv78](#): > > But doesn’t society have an interest in not making it easier for you to create mayhem? I think society should focus its efforts on detecting people who are likely to create mayhem and preventing them from doing so, rather than attempting to reduce mayhem by limiting the rights of all citizens based on the 0.0000275% chance that they might become a crazed mass-shooter. ---
**Author:** ![Absolute](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b2d939/32.png) [@Absolute](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Absolute)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2013, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-proposed-ban-on-assault-weapons/648423/352 "2013-02-10T20:25:43Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > And a pretty fair number of gun owners, heretofore Law-Abiding Citizens (does the NRA have that phrase trademarked?) do, in fact, go nuts and shoot people, at a pretty regular rate. How is it irrational to think you might become one of them? What makes you so special? > > Solipsism is not a sound basis for public policy, unfortunately. This is a ridiculous exaggeration. If you truly believe it, it is no wonder you take the position you do. There are something like 75,000,000 gun owners in the United States. There were 16 mass shootings in 2012, involving 0.00002% of gun owners. That is hardly a “pretty fair number” of gun owners. It is a tiny fraction. Law-abiding gun owners are the majority. They’re not special. The tiny minority (0.00002%) who commit crimes are the ones who are special. I am pretty confident that I am not special, that I am not in the minority. Even if you wish to consider all gun crime in the US (~10,000 deaths per year), that still only amounts to 0.01 deaths per 100 gun owners (0.01%). Yes, I can confidently state that I am a member of the 99.99% of law-abiding gun owners who will not go nuts and shoot people, and I object to your claiming that my rights must be limited because of the actions of that 0.01% of people. I think we would be far better off trying to keep guns out of the hands of that small fraction of people (between 0.00002% and 0.01%, depending on how you count), rather than throw up our hands and limit the rights of the innocent 99.99% - 99.99998% because we can’t think of anything better. ---
**Author:** ![China\_Guy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/779978/32.png) [@China\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/China_Guy)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2013, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-proposed-ban-on-assault-weapons/648423/353 "2013-02-11T00:42:38Z")
I’d say it’s far more likely that law abiding gun owners are the ones largely responsible for private sale without background checks that end up being used for murders and committing crimes. Sure the law allows gun owners to sell firearms to any stranger they feel like without any kind of background check or even knowing their name (without crossing State lines). It’s legal for you to do so but don’t get all \*sanctimonious \*about how legal gun owners (and legal gun sellers) are not part of the problem. It’s a messed up part of our legal system, and trying to change to universal background checks, universal registration, increased and enforced penalties for violations is certainly within our constitutional rights. ---
**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:** [February 11, 2013, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-proposed-ban-on-assault-weapons/648423/354 "2013-02-11T02:04:03Z")
> [@China\_Guy](#): > > Not trying to be nit picky, but hand carried anti-aircraft rocket would count as “bearing arms”, no? And I think that outright military use only type weapon with exploding armor piercing bullets shouldn’t be included even though they can be carried on one’s person. A high powered large caliber rifle that might be considered a military sniper’s wet dream I guessing might also be well suited for hunters picking off deer way out there. I think there’s a clear line between bazookas and dual use that would actually be used in some forms of hunting. > > Lumpy, after there is universal registration and background checks, then I could consider the blanket possession idea (obviously concealed carry would be managed differently). That said, until we get to the point of universal registration, I think you need some kind of limit on possession. [But I need to think this through. Using the car analogy, I don’t need to ensure that if I borrow your car that it is legally owned and has insurance coverage.] I understand you’re new to some of the nuances of gun knowledge, and I see that you’ve changed your position on assault weapons through discussion here. I think you’ll find you’re similarly ignorant when you talk about armor piercing rounds. It is largely a scare tactic by gun control advocates to make certain bullets seem more scary. Almost all rifle rounds are powerful enough to pierce normal bullet proof vests, or “armor piercing”. Also, the 2nd amendment is not about hunting. You asked Lumpy what he would need to support certain things. He said he’d compromise on xyz in exchange for abc. In return, you said, Let’s first do xyz, then we can think about abc. That’s where the discussion breaks down. It’s not a compromise if you aren’t willing to give anything. In case you weren’t aware, concealed carry is shall issue or better in 40 of the 50 states. The thought that increasing CCW would lead to increased gun violence has been disproven, consclusively. When you say that “obviously CCW would need to be treated differently” it makes it seem like you weren’t aware of that. ---
**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:** [February 11, 2013, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-proposed-ban-on-assault-weapons/648423/355 "2013-02-11T02:14:11Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > The incidence rate of exactly that is high enough that dismissing recognition of the fact as “irrational” is a non-starter. What else ya got? Thinking that the incidence of people going nuts is “high enough” is a non-starter. What else ya got? See, I can do that too - does that work? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2013, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-proposed-ban-on-assault-weapons/648423/356 "2013-02-11T02:16:05Z")
> [@Absolute](#): > > This is a ridiculous exaggeration. If you truly believe it, it is no wonder you take the position you do. There are something like 75,000,000 gun owners in the United States. There were 16 mass shootings in 2012, involving 0.00002% of gun owners. That is hardly a “pretty fair number” of gun owners. It is a tiny fraction. I’m not referring only to mass shootings, but to gun murders in general. Those are in the thousands per year. The fact that most guns and gun owners are not involved reflects only the huge quantity that makes such a high rate of preventable killings possible. Pointing that out doesn’t help you at all. > [@](#): > > Law-abiding gun owners are the majority. They’re not special. Until suddenly, they’re not law-abiding anymore, hmmm? As in most gun murders? > [@](#): > > Yes, I can confidently state that I am a member of the 99.99% of law-abiding gun owners who will not go nuts and shoot people That’s what most of the ones who do would have claimed as well. Why should we believe _you_, unlike all the others, and why should we depend on that belief for our own lives? > [@](#): > > I think we would be far better off trying to keep guns out of the hands of that small fraction of people (between 0.00002% and 0.01%, depending on how you count), rather than throw up our hands and limit the rights of the innocent 99.99% - 99.99998% because we can’t think of anything better. So what practical steps do you propose? Identify people who are capable of losing their self-control, getting drunk, or even getting angry or depressed, and take their guns away? If not that, then what? Do you have anything realistic to suggest other than “throwing up your hands” and regretting that a few thousand murders per year are simply inevitable if we’re going to maintain the right to plink soda cans while fantasizing about bad guys and tyranny? Please. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2013, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-proposed-ban-on-assault-weapons/648423/357 "2013-02-11T02:19:03Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Thinking that the incidence of people going nuts is “high enough” is a non-starter. What else ya got? See, I can do that too - does that work? No, it does not. The gun murder rate is _real_. Those deaths, those destroyed lived and families, are _real_. Dismissing that fact, and its importance, is, if not irrational, then something else equally requiring being brought under control. ---
**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:** [February 11, 2013, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-proposed-ban-on-assault-weapons/648423/358 "2013-02-11T02:26:55Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > No, it does not. The gun murder rate is _real_. Those deaths, those destroyed lived and families, are _real_. Dismissing that fact, and its importance, is, if not irrational, then something else equally requiring being brought under control. No one has dismissed the tragedy of gun violence. Dismissing the positive utility of widespread gun ownership is, if not irrational, then something else - holophobia? It must be nice to live in a world where you are the arbiter on what is “high enough” and what is rational and irrational. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2013, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-proposed-ban-on-assault-weapons/648423/359 "2013-02-11T02:30:58Z")
> [@Absolute](#): > > I don’t know. How do you say any number of people killed each year by drunk drivers, alcohol-related violence, and excessive alcohol consumption is reasonable? They’re the price we have to pay for…what, exactly? Perhaps you might say “The freedom for responsible law-abiding citizens to drink alcohol for recreation”? No. We don’t say any number of deaths for any of those reasons is reasonable. We do, in fact, try our damnedest to get the rate as low as we can. But we do need automobiles for basic transportation, so our efforts have to be on making them as safe for both their occupants and those who might be affected by them as we can, and still allow them to economically exist. For guns, their practical purposes are far less supportable, their \*purpose \*is to hurt people, and in fact people such as you do as much as possible to \*prevent \*measures to make the death rate resulting from them from even being considered. > [@](#): > > I don’t think the present number of deaths caused by assault-style weapons is sufficient to immediately ban them outright. Then what the hell IS enough for you? What purpose do they serve that makes them necessary for anyone to have? What reason outweighs the deaths they cause? > [@](#): > > You are being incredibly dense on this point. Here is the definition of “unreasonably dangerous” posted earlier. You appear to be substituting your own definition and assuming it is correct without even bothering to read this. I referred to legal definitions only to get a point across to another poster who self-identifies as a pupal-stage lawyer. The moral definition is a bit broader. But here you go anyway: > [@](#): > > “Unreasonably dangerous” applies if the propensity for causing physical harm goes \*beyond that which would be contemplated" by an ordinary user. It simply does not apply to guns, however much you may wish it does. An “ordinary user” such as you describe contemplates using it for hunting or target practice or self-defense. \*Not \*murders of passion, or suicide, or cleaning accidents, or the kids getting hold of them, or murders caused by people who steal or even buy it from him, or any of the causes of most gun deaths. Yet that propensity for physical harm beyond that original contemplation exists by the very fact of its frequency, hmm? No matter how much you may wish it does not. And, you would have to honestly admit, many ordinary users do in fact contemplate such uses. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2013, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-proposed-ban-on-assault-weapons/648423/360 "2013-02-11T02:34:16Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > No one has dismissed the tragedy of gun violence. You have shown no sign of recognizing that in your posts to date, in fact your previous ones in this thread dismiss such a concern as “irrational”. You’re not off to a good start here. > [@](#): > > Dismissing the positive utility of widespread gun ownership is, if not irrational, then something else - holophobia? It’s not being dismissed, it’s only being weighed against the negative consequences. And it’s losing badly. That’s pretty damn rational. > [@](#): > > It must be nice to live in a world where you are the arbiter on what is “high enough” and what is rational and irrational. As you would know. :rolleyes: [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-proposed-ban-on-assault-weapons/648423.md?page=17) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-proposed-ban-on-assault-weapons/648423.md?page=19)