# 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:** 7
**Author:** ![R3d\_Anonymous](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/aeb1de/32.png) [@R3d\_Anonymous](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/R3d_Anonymous)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2013, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-proposed-ban-on-assault-weapons/648423/121 "2013-01-28T20:04:44Z")
> [@pkbites](#): > > You have never lived in the real world either, have you? > > You don’t know what the rip you’re babbling about, yet you want to tell everyone else how things are. > > This is how we end up with these ridiculous laws in the first place. We have idiots who don’t know Jack Shit about something writing law for those of us that actual know a thing or two about the subject. Okay fine. I won’t blabber rip? Let me just ask you, “Why do you need more than 10 rounds?” And just because we don’t know shit about guns makes us idiots. Wow, you ignorant republicans. I don’t want or need to learn about gun use, okay? Neither do you for that matter, but you are allowed do to whatever you want. That is my mini rant for the day. Now back to the debate. Why do you need more than 10 rounds? ---
**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:** [January 28, 2013, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-proposed-ban-on-assault-weapons/648423/122 "2013-01-28T20:10:05Z")
**AU** , there are countless cases of drunk/high suspects taking numerous hits without going down. There was one case where the target was still moving after 39 hits and it took to rounds from a shotgun to put an end to it. ---
**Author:** ![R3d\_Anonymous](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/aeb1de/32.png) [@R3d\_Anonymous](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/R3d_Anonymous)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2013, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-proposed-ban-on-assault-weapons/648423/123 "2013-01-28T20:12:18Z")
> [@runner pat](#): > > **AU** , there are countless cases of drunk/high suspects taking numerous hits without going down. There was one case where the target was still moving after 39 hits and it took to rounds from a shotgun to put an end to it. Still, does that prove you need more than 10 rounds? I don’t think so. Just freaking reload your gun, or use a semi-automatic. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2013, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-proposed-ban-on-assault-weapons/648423/124 "2013-01-28T20:18:11Z")
> [@Anonymous User](#): > > Okay fine. I won’t blabber rip? Let me just ask you, “Why do you need more than 10 rounds?” > > And just because we don’t know shit about guns makes us idiots. Wow, you ignorant republicans. I don’t want or need to learn about gun use, okay? Neither do you for that matter, but you are allowed do to whatever you want. That is my mini rant for the day. Now back to the debate. > > Why do you need more than 10 rounds? [“Trained” police need 137 shots to kill two unarmed people in a car](http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/12/06/police-shoot-137-times-into-car-after-chase-killing-unarmed-couple.html). So why wouldn’t an “untrained” civilian need 20-30? By the way - did Rosa Parks _need_ to move to the front of the bus? ---
**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:** [January 28, 2013, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-proposed-ban-on-assault-weapons/648423/125 "2013-01-28T20:23:05Z")
(Emphasis mine.) > [@Anonymous User](#): > > Still, does that prove you need more than 10 rounds? I don’t think so. Just freaking reload your gun, **or use a semi-automatic.** Ar? 😕 . ---
**Author:** ![R3d\_Anonymous](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/aeb1de/32.png) [@R3d\_Anonymous](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/R3d_Anonymous)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2013, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-proposed-ban-on-assault-weapons/648423/126 "2013-01-28T20:24:45Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > [“Trained” police need 137 shots to kill two unarmed people in a car](http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/12/06/police-shoot-137-times-into-car-after-chase-killing-unarmed-couple.html). So why wouldn’t an “untrained” civilian need 20-30? > > By the way - did Rosa Parks _need_ to move to the front of the bus? Listen, one bullet in the head or the heart will be enough for your purposes. That will kill the person pretty fast. I think anyone with common sense knows this. ---
**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:** [January 28, 2013, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-proposed-ban-on-assault-weapons/648423/127 "2013-01-28T20:28:44Z")
> [@Anonymous User](#): > > Listen, one bullet in the head or the heart will be enough for your purposes. That will kill the person pretty fast. I think anyone with common sense knows this. Gabrielle Giffords is _dead?_ :eek: ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2013, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-proposed-ban-on-assault-weapons/648423/128 "2013-01-28T20:55:13Z")
> [@Anonymous User](#): > > Listen, one bullet in the head or the heart will be enough for your purposes. 'cuz everyone is a sharpshooter. ---
**Author:** ![artemis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/91b2a8/32.png) [@artemis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/artemis)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2013, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-proposed-ban-on-assault-weapons/648423/129 "2013-01-28T21:04:34Z")
> [@Anonymous User](#): > > 1. It is called common knowledge. It is called wrong, actually. “Common sense” usually isn’t. > [@Anonymous User](#): > > 1. Well, that is what you do _at first_. Are you telling me that you would immediately try to kill him and not even attempt to defend against him without shooting him. Again, common sense. If you have time to fire a warning shot, you are not in immediate danger of death or severe bodily harm, and that means you’re not justified in firing the gun at all. And warning shots can easily endanger others. Bullets are quite capable of passing through walls. Look, if you really want to learn about armed self-defense, I suggest you do some reading first, then come back with questions. I’d recommend starting with [In the Gravest Extreme](http://www.amazon.com/In-Gravest-Extreme-Personal-Protection/dp/0936279001/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1359406793&sr=8-1&keywords=in+the+gravest+extreme) (an oldie but goodie) and [Gunshot Wounds](http://www.amazon.com/Gunshot-Wounds-Ballistics-Techniques-Investigations/dp/0849381630/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1359406847&sr=1-1&keywords=gunshot+wounds) (the standard forensic pathology text on the subject). Once you’re no longer reacting based on Hollywood imagery, your questions will be more informed. Right now you sounds like a person who’s never seen a car debating traffic laws. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2013, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-proposed-ban-on-assault-weapons/648423/130 "2013-01-28T21:15:27Z")
I would just check to see if the other guy had a weapon in his hand. If so, then I would simply shoot the weapon out of his hand. Well, first I’d go for a warning shot, then I’d shoot the weapon out of his hand and then, after I’ve spent some time deliberating any other action I might take, would I shoot the other person. ---
**Author:** ![Kevbo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e47774/32.png) [@Kevbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kevbo)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2013, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-proposed-ban-on-assault-weapons/648423/131 "2013-01-28T21:18:30Z")
That guns are incredibly lethal is one of the myths of this debate. About 80% of people shot with guns survive, which includes head wounds. Survival decreases to about 50% if shot in the head. Each additional shot increases mortality only by about 0.3%. [cite.](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19213396) ---
**Author:** ![artemis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/91b2a8/32.png) [@artemis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/artemis)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2013, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-proposed-ban-on-assault-weapons/648423/132 "2013-01-28T21:46:00Z")
> [@Odesio](#): > > I would just check to see if the other guy had a weapon in his hand. If so, then I would simply shoot the weapon out of his hand. Well, first I’d go for a warning shot, then I’d shoot the weapon out of his hand and then, after I’ve spent some time deliberating any other action I might take, would I shoot the other person. You scared me there for a minute! ---
**Author:** ![Paranoid\_Randroid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/paranoid_randroid/32/18_2.png) [@Paranoid\_Randroid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paranoid_Randroid)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2013, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-proposed-ban-on-assault-weapons/648423/133 "2013-01-28T22:28:46Z")
> [@Kevbo](#): > > That guns are incredibly lethal is one of the myths of this debate. > > About 80% of people shot with guns survive, which includes head wounds. Survival decreases to about 50% if shot in the head. Each additional shot increases mortality only by about 0.3%. > > [cite.](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19213396) Mmm. At the risk of jumping into the middle of a conservation to weigh in on a side debate, those figures raise my suspicions. In fact it feels a bit absurd: the wording in the abstract implies that the risk of death from one gunshot wound is 0.2, whereas that from thirty gunshot wounds is … also about 0.2 (around 0.219). You could spend a few minutes turning me into a sponge and, at least after the initial shot, I wouldn’t have a whole lot to worry about. Perhaps they mean percentage points rather than percent, although I don’t have immediate access to the article and can’t verify. I suspect there’s some selectivity driving the results — if the first wound or two doesn’t kill, this is probably due to reasons (e.g. low skill; hectic circumstances) that make successive shots less lethal as well. ---
**Author:** ![Bruce\_Wayne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bruce\_Wayne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bruce_Wayne)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2013, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-proposed-ban-on-assault-weapons/648423/134 "2013-01-28T22:40:00Z")
> [@Anonymous User](#): > > Still, does that prove you need more than 10 rounds? I don’t think so. Just freaking reload your gun, or use a semi-automatic. What do you mean, “use a semi-automatic”? You realize these debates about guns and gun control spanning the last month and half have all been over semi-automatic weapons, right? ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2013, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-proposed-ban-on-assault-weapons/648423/135 "2013-01-28T23:41:25Z")
> [@Anonymous User](#): > > Really, what’s so horrible about limiting magazines to 10 rounds (rhetorical question directed at these republicans who refuse to let the government do anything)? > > Do you really need more than 10 rounds, especially if you are using a semi-automatic gun? > > \*snip > > And honestly, I really don’t think anyone needs a gun. \*snip And this is why we don’t support “reasonable regulations.” At least you are honest in your ultimate goal. Others are not. ---
**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:** [January 28, 2013, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-proposed-ban-on-assault-weapons/648423/136 "2013-01-28T23:45:41Z")
> [@pkbites](#): > > You’re really ignorant about street crime and how thugs are getting guns and such, aren’t you? I think the proposal is that every gun is registered like a car and every transfer requries a traansfer of title and registration. This will severely restrict the inflow of guns into the hands of criminals. Thats just fact. You can argue about whether it is cosntitutional or whether it is the first step towards confiscation but you can’t argue that it won’t restrict the flow of guns into the hands of criminals if you start putting people in jail for selling or giving guns to criminals without registration. Sure criminals will still get their hands on guns but it will get a LOT harder. > [@Lumpy](#): > > Sorry if I was unclear. I meant that if a gun was registered to it’s legal owner and then got stolen, the registration would simply dead-end with the theft report, until someone actually got caught with the stolen gun. Stolen guns account for a minority of guns used in crimes. You would also be able to detect straw purchasers with more regularity. > [@China\_Guy](#): > > Less than 8.5 percent of criminals obtain their firearms from straw purchases." Thats a pretty narrow definition of straw purchase. > [@ChickenLegs](#): > > gun show 0.7% (Wait. What? I thought there was a “gun show loophole” that was in urgent need of being closed.) Gun shows are not really the sort of places where criminals hang out to buy their guns. But they are the sort of place where people who sell to criminals buy their guns, no background check, no record of their ever buying the gun. As far as i can tell, criminals generally don’t hang out at shoting ranges either. Too many cops. This generally leads to very poor shooting habits and poor aim. > [@pkbites](#): > > Be advised that “friends and family” many times are also criminals who obtained their weapons illegally. Just because sis gave you a gun doesn’t mean she didn’t steal it herself. > > I’ve been to gun shows all over the country. I see very few private sellers as opposed to FFL dealers. In my observation the whole gun show squawk is horseshit! I’ve been to several gun shows and it seems like half the gun tables belong to private sellers. They are there consistently enough that I recognize some of them by sight. One guy actually works in a rural gun shop (pawn shop?) and maybe he is selling guns out of his private collection but as far as I can tell just brings the used gun inventory to a gun show because he can get a lot more for used guns in Northern Virginia than he is going to get in Cumberland County. > [@Anonymous User](#): > > …Let me explain a little something to you: all it takes is 3-5 bullets to kill a person. You sure about that? https://www.youtube.com/embed/tku8YI68-JA?feature=oembed&wmode=opaque My home defense instructor started out by telling us how horrible handguns were for killing people. Not to convince us not to get a handgun but to convince us that training and practice are important to making ahandgun consistently lethal. If you don’t hit a vital organ or artery you need at least a 44 mag (most people can’t really handle a 44 mag) or a rifle/shotgun to one shot stop an intruder. > [@](#): > > On top of that, usually when a criminal comes to your house, you don’t start shooting right away. You point the gun at him/her, and that will drive most criminals away anyway. The next step is to shoot a few bullets away from him and try to scare him off. If they still don’t stop bothering you, _then_ you shoot. I’m not sure I would go through all that before shooting an intruder in the head. I MIGHT announce that I have a gun but if the intruder had a gun, I wouldn’t even do that. > [@](#): > > And honestly, I really don’t think anyone needs a gun. We don’t own guns and we’re perfectly fine. Honestly, it seems like owning guns is a bit paranoid and obsessive. When you buy a gun, it usually does end up getting used, and a lot of time you get unwanted deaths. Now this is just my opinion, but I’m just saying, I’m frightened and sick and tired of you republicans that think you really _need_ a gun, or else your life will be over. :rolleyes: There are a LOT of gunowning Democrats. Gun ownership is more a matter of geography than politics. > [@Anonymous User](#): > > And just because we don’t know shit about guns makes us idiots. Wow, you ignorant republicans. I don’t want or need to learn about gun use, okay? Neither do you for that matter, but you are allowed do to whatever you want. That is my mini rant for the day. Now back to the debate. Arguing about a subject you are ignorant about and then proclaiming you don’t want to know anything about it while you continue to argue about that subject is the worst form of wilful ignorance. Are you sure YOU’RE not the Republican in this scenario? You treat the right to bear arms (an explicit right in the constitution) with more disdain than Republican treat the “right to an abortion” (a "penumbra right that was created out of whole cloth by 5 justices on the Supreme court). > [@Anonymous User](#): > > Still, does that prove you need more than 10 rounds? I don’t think so. Just freaking reload your gun, or use a semi-automatic. Why do I need more than 10 rounds? I dunno. To put this in the context of a right you may care more about, why do you NEED an abortion? After all the right to bear arms is explicitly in teh constitution, the right to an abortion is not. > [@Paranoid\_Randroid](#): > > Mmm. At the risk of jumping into the middle of a conservation to weigh in on a side debate, those figures raise my suspicions. In fact it feels a bit absurd: the wording in the abstract implies that the risk of death from one gunshot wound is 0.2, whereas that from thirty gunshot wounds is … also about 0.2 (around 0.219). You could spend a few minutes turning me into a sponge and, at least after the initial shot, I wouldn’t have a whole lot to worry about. > > Perhaps they mean percentage points rather than percent, although I don’t have immediate access to the article and can’t verify. I suspect there’s some selectivity driving the results — if the first wound or two doesn’t kill, this is probably due to reasons (e.g. low skill; hectic circumstances) that make successive shots less lethal as well. https://www.youtube.com/embed/tku8YI68-JA?feature=oembed&wmode=opaque ---
**Author:** ![artemis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/91b2a8/32.png) [@artemis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/artemis)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2013, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-proposed-ban-on-assault-weapons/648423/137 "2013-01-29T00:00:33Z")
> [@Paranoid\_Randroid](#): > > Mmm. At the risk of jumping into the middle of a conservation to weigh in on a side debate, those figures raise my suspicions. In fact it feels a bit absurd: the wording in the abstract implies that the risk of death from one gunshot wound is 0.2, whereas that from thirty gunshot wounds is … also about 0.2 (around 0.219). You could spend a few minutes turning me into a sponge and, at least after the initial shot, I wouldn’t have a whole lot to worry about. > > Perhaps they mean percentage points rather than percent, although I don’t have immediate access to the article and can’t verify. I suspect there’s some selectivity driving the results — if the first wound or two doesn’t kill, this is probably due to reasons (e.g. low skill; hectic circumstances) that make successive shots less lethal as well. I didn’t see it mentioned in the abstract, but I suspect the study is looking almost exclusively at handgun wounds (as they are the most common gunshot wounds seen in the ER). Handguns are a LOT less lethal than rifles or shotguns. The majority of people shot by a handgun survive, while that is not true of rifle or shotgun injuries. ---
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2013, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-proposed-ban-on-assault-weapons/648423/138 "2013-01-29T00:01:45Z")
> [@Bruce\_Wayne](#): > > What do you mean, “use a semi-automatic”? You realize these debates about guns and gun control spanning the last month and half have all been over semi-automatic weapons, right? IME, most gun control advocates seriosuly do not know the difference bewteen fully-automatic and semi-automatic. And have little if any grasp of any of the existing gun control laws. They think the new, proposed AWB will ban [this.](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-Vo-D5OZc0) And that that is freely available to anyone as an over-the-counter purchase at Wal-Mart or the local gun store with no more than a driver’s license, some cash, and a toothy smile. ---
**Author:** ![R3d\_Anonymous](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/aeb1de/32.png) [@R3d\_Anonymous](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/R3d_Anonymous)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2013, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-proposed-ban-on-assault-weapons/648423/139 "2013-01-29T00:09:31Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Why do I need more than 10 rounds? I dunno. \*\* To put this in the context of a right you may care more about, why do you NEED an abortion?\*\* After all the right to bear arms is explicitly in teh constitution, the right to an abortion is not. 1. It’s the female’s choice. The baby inside is technically not a human yet, so I don’t consider it murder. 2. I’m not saying that abortion is the preferred choice in most problems. It’s actually usually the last resort choice. It is a little immoral, but you need to understand, there may be problems with the baby where it’s really hurting the mother physically, or is about to kill the mother. The baby doesn’t care. It doesn’t even know it’s alive. So really, it doesn’t affect the baby too much. 3. It’s still inside. Why should we give too much of a shit about “killing” a human who hasn’t even developed yet? Remember, babies are formed when the sperm reaches the egg. This process results in the development of the baby. But a baby who hasn’t even developed, isn’t really a human. 4. Sometimes it’s the only practical choice, like the scenario described in number two. ---
**Author:** ![obbn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/d6d6ee/32.png) [@obbn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/obbn)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2013, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-proposed-ban-on-assault-weapons/648423/140 "2013-01-29T00:53:51Z")
E=Odesio;15947197]I would just check to see if the other guy had a weapon in his hand. If so, then I would simply shoot the weapon out of his hand. Well, first I’d go for a warning shot, then I’d shoot the weapon out of his hand and then, after I’ve spent some time deliberating any other action I might take, would I shoot the other person. [/QUOTE] Have you ever shot A gun in your life? “I would first shoot the gun out of his hand”? You have got to be kidding me. Movies are not real, repeat, movies are not real. By the time you have done all this gun magic you claim you can do, the person who is standing in your house with his stolen firearm has just emptied his weapon into your center of mass. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-proposed-ban-on-assault-weapons/648423.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-proposed-ban-on-assault-weapons/648423.md?page=8)