# 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:** 8
**Author:** ![ChickenLegs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecc23a/32.png) [@ChickenLegs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ChickenLegs)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2013, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-proposed-ban-on-assault-weapons/648423/141 "2013-01-29T00:56:09Z")
> [@China\_Guy](#): > > ChickenLegs, not to put words in your mouth, but are you telling me then that legal gun owners are a significant part of the problem for illegal firearms? That to really make progress, we really focus on them? What do you say? Something like a national registration, penalties before they sell on guns, maybe a requirement to have insurance if they own and/or sell a gun, people they sell guns to need to pass a background check, etc? > > And the follow up question, where do you think that 40% obtain their firearms from illegal sources on the street _originated_? You don’t think those gun show guns never get sold on to a criminal element? That link also said the time for recovery was more than 10 years, meaning that the recycling of firearms do end up on the street in crimes. “…are you telling me then that legal gun owners are a significant part of the problem for illegal firearms?” No. From the study. 98.9 % of those serving time for gun crimes had prior records. Like the pro-gun guys say: it’s not us, it’s the criminals. As has been pointed out previously, almost all guns start out legally. The exceptions would be those illegally manufactured, or those imported illegally. The homicide rate has been dropping in the United states for years, from 10.2 per 100k in 1980 to 4.8 per 100k in 2011. In that time, the number of guns in circulation has increased. More importantly, the number of guns actually being carried increased, as states have have institued “shall issue” carry laws. Prior to 1987, only Vermont allowed citizens to carry concealed handguns. Then Florida started the ball rolling in 1987. Now 41 states allow it. It’s pretty darned hard to argue that increased numbers of guns or increased number of people carrying guns cause the crime rate to increase. The facts clearly show the opposite. The answer is simple: guns in the hands of honest people do not increase the crime rates, if anything, they reduce it buy giving them a means to resist violent crime, and there are more honest people than criminals. ---
**Author:** ![ChickenLegs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecc23a/32.png) [@ChickenLegs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ChickenLegs)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2013, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-proposed-ban-on-assault-weapons/648423/142 "2013-01-29T00:59:01Z")
> [@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. I would just wait until he walked under a chandelier, then shoot the chain so it drops on his head. Unless he was in an area with another floor below him. In that case, I’d shoot a ring of holes around him on the floor. When he drops through, I would run. ---
**Author:** ![ChickenLegs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecc23a/32.png) [@ChickenLegs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ChickenLegs)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2013, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-proposed-ban-on-assault-weapons/648423/143 "2013-01-29T01:05:51Z")
> [@ChickenLegs](#): > > I would just wait until he walked under a chandelier, then shoot the chain so it drops on his head. Unless he was in an area with another floor below him. In that case, I’d shoot a ring of holes around him on the floor. When he drops through, I would run. Alternatively, I would say “I’ve got a gun!” then call the police, unload the gun and lock it up. Because I’ve learned on these forums that the police can always protect me, and that if I have a gun I’m more likely to shoot myself or let the criminal get a hold of it than I am to actually defend myself with it. And the guys on this forum are smart, so I believe them. ---
**Author:** ![pkbites](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pkbites/32/204_2.png) [@pkbites](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pkbites)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2013, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-proposed-ban-on-assault-weapons/648423/144 "2013-01-29T01:53:36Z")
> [@Anonymous User](#): > > And just because we don’t know shit about guns makes us idiots. I don’t want or need to learn about gun use, okay? You admit you know nothing about the subject, yet want to tell everyone else all about it. Great, another unmarried marriage counselor!:rolleyes: > [@Anonymous User](#): > > Neither do you for that matter Well…! I’ve been in law enforcement for 30+ years, for which over half of it I’ve been both a defensive tactics instructor and armorer. I also own a successful gun dealership. I think I may know juuuuuust a little, teeny weeny bit about self defense, guns, and shooting. But please, educate this ignorant Republican with your wisdom. It is entertaining! ---
**Author:** ![PhillyGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ed655f/32.png) [@PhillyGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhillyGuy)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2013, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-proposed-ban-on-assault-weapons/648423/145 "2013-01-29T01:54:51Z")
> [@China\_Guy](#): > > Here’s an interesting website from a [National Shooting Sports](http://www.dontlie.org/FAQ.cfm)(disclaimer: this came off on internet search and I have no idea what their politic are . . . It is a [trade organization for gun manufacturers](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Shooting_Sports_Foundation). > [@](#): > > I spent about 5 minutes looking on the Bureau of Justice website and couldn’t find the original source data [Here it is](http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/ascii/fuo.txt), and it’s a hoot: > [@](#): > > Data for this report are based primarily on personal interviews with large nationally representative samples of State and Federal prison inmates In the Captain Obvious realm, if the gun came from “the street,” that means it was a private purchase without background check AKA the gun show loophole. Also, even if we take the criminals at their word, it is impossible to tell from the survey what percentage of the guns were transferred, on their way to the criminal, via an earlier no-background-check transfer, whether at a gun show or other location. ---
**Author:** ![ChickenLegs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecc23a/32.png) [@ChickenLegs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ChickenLegs)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2013, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-proposed-ban-on-assault-weapons/648423/146 "2013-01-29T02:08:04Z")
> [@PhillyGuy](#): > > It is a [trade organization for gun manufacturers](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Shooting_Sports_Foundation). > > [Here it is](http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/ascii/fuo.txt), and it’s a hoot: > > In the Captain Obvious realm, if the gun came from “the street,” that means it was a private purchase without background check AKA the gun show loophole. Also, even if we take the criminals at their word, it is impossible to tell from the survey what percentage of the guns were transferred, on their way to the criminal, via an earlier no-background-check transfer, whether at a gun show or other location. Here’s your “hoot”: a study conducted by the United States Department of Justice. I know one of the favorite tactics of the antis is to discredit the source, but that’s ridiculous. [http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf](http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf) Gun shows accounted for 0.7% of criminals’ guns. Please stop making stuff up. ---
**Author:** ![ChickenLegs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecc23a/32.png) [@ChickenLegs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ChickenLegs)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2013, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-proposed-ban-on-assault-weapons/648423/147 "2013-01-29T02:24:07Z")
And for what seem like the thousandth time, THERE IS NO GUN SHOW LOOPHOLE. This is a a phrase made up and spread about by the anti-gun crown to scare people. Kind of like “assault rifle”, “spray bullets”, and “Saturday night special”. Currently, there is no federal prohibition against private firearms transfers, other than the seller cannot do the transfer if he knows, or has reason to believe, that the buyer is a prohibited person. I can sell a gun in the McDonalds parking lot (and have). Is there a “McDonald’s parking lot loophole”? I can sell a gun in my garage. Is there a “Jim’s garage loophole”? I can sell you a gun at a gun show. Is there a “gun show loophole”? Private individuals can sell guns to each other. It doesn’t matter where. People operating a business selling firearms are required to have a Federal Firearms License. It doesn’t matter where they do their business. This is not that hard to understand. Really. If you need more help, ask please. ---
**Author:** ![ChickenLegs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecc23a/32.png) [@ChickenLegs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ChickenLegs)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2013, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-proposed-ban-on-assault-weapons/648423/148 "2013-01-29T02:30:16Z")
Further clarification of the above: Dealers (those conducting a business) who sell guns at a gun show must have a Federal Firearms License. If they don’t, they are breaking the law. Sales through dealers must has a federal check conducted. There is no loophole. Individuals can sell guns at a gunshow, just like they can by placing an ad in the newspaper, or advertising on the internet. Person to person sales do not require federal approval. I can place an ad in the paper that says “Mossberg 500 for sale, $300”. I can walk into a gunshow with a sign on my back that says “Mossberg 500 for sale, $300”. I can carry the gun with me at the gunshow, or leave it my car. Either way, there is no loophole. If you think there is, you’re either slow-witted or intentionally spreading misinformation. ---
**Author:** ![PhillyGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ed655f/32.png) [@PhillyGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhillyGuy)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2013, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-proposed-ban-on-assault-weapons/648423/149 "2013-01-29T02:32:36Z")
> [@ChickenLegs](#): > > Here’s your “hoot”: a study conducted by the United States Department of Justice. Did you read your own link’s sub-headline? Note the phrase: “Survey of Inmates.” That’s just what I was pointing out. ---
**Author:** ![ChickenLegs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecc23a/32.png) [@ChickenLegs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ChickenLegs)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2013, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-proposed-ban-on-assault-weapons/648423/150 "2013-01-29T02:37:07Z")
> [@PhillyGuy](#): > > Did you read your own link’s sub-headline? Note the phrase: “Survey of Inmates.” That’s just what I was pointing out. Oh, sorry. I thought you were pointing out that the study was a “hoot” because of the source, and that it says that the majority of guns used by criminals come from a “private purchase without background check AKA the gun show loophole” (which doesn’t exist.) Yes, I read my own link. As well as your post. It’s very hard for me to take anyone seriously who believes there is a “gun show loophole.” If you said “the majority of criminals’ guns come from private purchase without background check AKA the gun show loophole, or are supplied by space aliens” I’d only take you slightly less seriously. ---
**Author:** ![PhillyGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ed655f/32.png) [@PhillyGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhillyGuy)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2013, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-proposed-ban-on-assault-weapons/648423/151 "2013-01-29T02:49:13Z")
> [@ChickenLegs](#): > > And for what seem like the thousandth time, THERE IS NO GUN SHOW LOOPHOLE. People who read newspapers know that the gun show loophole is the same as the private transfer loophole. Upper case won’t change that. > [@](#): > > This is a a phrase made up and spread about by the anti-gun crown to scare people. Kind of like “assault rifle” People who read newspapers might forget some of the details of the assault weapons ban that ended in 2004, but they at least know that much larger magazine sizes are now allowed. > [@](#): > > Private individuals can sell guns to each other. . . . But, hey, the vast majority are sold by highly responsible gun owners who pay for a criminal background check before transferring a weapon. Because we all know our friends and neighbors never have a secret past. Is that what you are saying? Or are you just giving me more examples of the loophole so I’ll oppose it even more strongly? This is an example of how these discussions tend to push people into more extreme positions. You apparently think I’m a propagandist because I call it the gun show loophole, and, well, I’m not feeling too good about the McDonald’s parking lot right now. ---
**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, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-proposed-ban-on-assault-weapons/648423/152 "2013-01-29T02:52:26Z")
> [@pkbites](#): > > You admit you know nothing about the subject, yet want to tell everyone else all about it. Great, another unmarried marriage counselor!:rolleyes I _don’t_ know anything. “The only rue wisdom is in knowing that you know nothing.” - Socrates ---
**Author:** ![ChickenLegs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecc23a/32.png) [@ChickenLegs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ChickenLegs)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2013, 2:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-proposed-ban-on-assault-weapons/648423/153 "2013-01-29T02:59:37Z")
> [@PhillyGuy](#): > > People who read newspapers know that the gun show loophole is the same as the private transfer loophole. Upper case won’t change that. So why not be honest and call it “The private transfer law”? Or do you gain something by lying? ---
**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:** [January 29, 2013, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-proposed-ban-on-assault-weapons/648423/154 "2013-01-29T03:08:29Z")
Or we could call it the “sell a firearm to anyone with cash without a name, background check nor paper trail because never ever nah hah has there ever been a responsible law abiding gun owner ever do that law.” Me, I kinda like the “Gun Show Loophole”, as pretty good shorthand for the issue. YMMV. ---
**Author:** ![JXJohns](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jxjohns/32/469_2.png) [@JXJohns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JXJohns)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2013, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-proposed-ban-on-assault-weapons/648423/155 "2013-01-29T03:14:04Z")
> [@Anonymous User](#): > > 1. It is called common knowledge. > 2. 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. > 3. You are the kind of people that I was complaining about. You feel like you immediately need to shoot the person. Remember, the potential is more powerful than the execution. If you even introduce the potential of you shooting him, most likely they should run away. > 4. I have never played Call of Duty. 1. I am a concealed weapons permit trainer in my state, you have no clue about what you are talking about. Your brand of “common knowledge” is neither common nor knowledge. 2. Yep, an intruder in my home has absolutely no right to be there and I have every right to defend myself and my family. Fire at CM and hopefully they drop at least, because odds are you wont kill them on the spot. 3. Again, that intruder has not right being in my house. If they are there without my invitation, they are threatening my life or those under my protection. Due to that, they just put their own safety at risk. There is an easy solution to that, stay the fuck out of my house unless I let you in. 4. Well, you clearly have watched too much tv. ---
**Author:** ![ChickenLegs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecc23a/32.png) [@ChickenLegs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ChickenLegs)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2013, 3:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-proposed-ban-on-assault-weapons/648423/156 "2013-01-29T03:15:30Z")
> [@China\_Guy](#): > > Or we could call it the “sell a firearm to anyone with cash without a name, background check nor paper trail because never ever nah hah has there ever been a responsible law abiding gun owner ever do that law.” Me, I kinda like the “Gun Show Loophole”, as pretty good shorthand for the issue. YMMV. It’s idiocy. The term “gun show loophole” is used by distorters of the truth in an attempt to make the uniformed public think that there are different rules for gun shows than there are for FFL dealers or private sales. There aren’t. It’s a lie. If you continue to say there are you are either a liar, have poor comprehension skills, or are someone who distorts the truth in order to advance an agenda. Which one are you? ---
**Author:** ![ChickenLegs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecc23a/32.png) [@ChickenLegs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ChickenLegs)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2013, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-proposed-ban-on-assault-weapons/648423/157 "2013-01-29T03:24:16Z")
loophole : a means of escape; especially : an ambiguity or omission in the text through which the intent of a statute, contract, or obligation may be evaded > **[Definition of LOOPHOLE](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/loophole)** > > a means of escape; especially : an ambiguity or omission in the text through which the intent of a statute, contract, or obligation may be evaded; a small opening through which small arms may be fired; a similar opening to admit light and air or to... Can any one of you gun controllers please explain, under what specific circumstances, I can legally purchase a gun at a gun show, thereby evading the intent of a specific statute, that I can’t otherisie purchase through a dealer or via private sale outside of a gun show? Please either do that, or shut up, do some research, and come back when you know what you’re talking about. One more time, for the slow-witted. Caps intentional. (Please ignore if you’re intentionally deceitful): THERE IS NO GUN SHOW LOOPHOLE. ---
**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, 3:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-proposed-ban-on-assault-weapons/648423/158 "2013-01-29T03:33:22Z")
> [@JXJohns](#): > > 1. I am a concealed weapons permit trainer in my state, you have no clue about what you are talking about. Your brand of “common knowledge” is neither common nor knowledge. > > 2. Yep, an intruder in my home has absolutely no right to be there and I have every right to defend myself and my family. Fire at CM and hopefully they drop at least, because odds are you wont kill them on the spot. > > 3. Again, that intruder has not right being in my house. If they are there without my invitation, they are threatening my life or those under my protection. Due to that, they just put their own safety at risk. There is an easy solution to that, stay the fuck out of my house unless I let you in. > > 4. Well, you clearly have watched too much tv. 1. So you expect me to believe that 3-5 bullets is not enough to kill someone? See the problem here is that you people underestimate the power of a gun. You think it is no big deal. This whole, “5 bullets are not enough,” argument is total BS. You realize that even one bullet in the heart/brain, and you are dead? “The guy was still moving.” We’ll of course! It is not like he will be dead instantly. It takes a few seconds man. And Obama is actually cutting you some serious slack. 10bullets is a lot. Plenty. I don’t even know why you are still fighting this. 2 &3. Still, if you had a choice between killing an intruder, or making him run away without shooting him, which one would you choose? See the other problem is your obsession. In most cases, just pointing a gun should be enough to make him runaway, yet you feel the need to kill him. 1. I don’t watch TV. ---
**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 29, 2013, 3:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-proposed-ban-on-assault-weapons/648423/159 "2013-01-29T03:45:17Z")
> [@Anonymous User](#): > > 1. So you expect me to believe that 3-5 bullets is not enough to kill someone? See the problem here is that you people underestimate the power of a gun. You think it is no big deal. This whole, “5 bullets are not enough,” argument is total BS. You realize that even one bullet in the heart/brain, and you are dead? “The guy was still moving.” We’ll of course! It is not like he will be dead instantly. It takes a few seconds man. And Obama is actually cutting you some serious slack. 10bullets is a lot. Plenty. I don’t even know why you are still fighting this. > > 2 &3. Still, if you had a choice between killing an intruder, or making him run away without shooting him, which one would you choose? See the other problem is your obsession. In most cases, just pointing a gun should be enough to make him runaway, yet you feel the need to kill him. > > 1. I don’t watch TV. Yes, 3-5 bullets can kill someone. One bullet can kill someone. That’s not the issue. What is desired is instant incapacitation, the bad guy stops what he’s doing _now._ A shot through the heart is not always instantly fatal and leaves the person capable of continued activity for seconds to several minutes, enough to wreak mayhem on the homeowner/crime victim. Pointing a gun in the hopes of the person running away is the mark of someone who should not own a gun. When you point a gun, you have to be willing to pull that trigger if needed. ---
**Author:** ![JXJohns](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jxjohns/32/469_2.png) [@JXJohns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JXJohns)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2013, 3:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-proposed-ban-on-assault-weapons/648423/160 "2013-01-29T03:46:07Z")
> [@Anonymous User](#): > > 1. So you expect me to believe that 3-5 bullets is not enough to kill someone? See the problem here is that you people underestimate the power of a gun. You think it is no big deal. This whole, “5 bullets are not enough,” argument is total BS. You realize that even one bullet in the heart/brain, and you are dead? “The guy was still moving.” We’ll of course! It is not like he will be dead instantly. It takes a few seconds man. And Obama is actually cutting you some serious slack. 10bullets is a lot. Plenty. I don’t even know why you are still fighting this. I don’t care what you choose to believe. I’m not shooting heart or head seeker bullets, just the usual stuff. If I could HIT an intruder three or four times under duress, I would consider that a success. If he dropped dead on the spot as a result, so be it. His immediate demise is by no means guaranteed just by being hit a few times. > [@](#): > > 2 &3. Still, if you had a choice between killing an intruder, or making him run away without shooting him, which one would you choose? See the other problem is your obsession. In most cases, just pointing a gun should be enough to make him runaway, yet you feel the need to kill him. I am shooting to stop the immediate threat, I said that earlier. If he dies as a result, sucks to be him. As I also said earlier, he lost his right to be safe once he broke into my home. I’m not obsessed with anything, your “in most cases” anecdote has no basis in reality. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-proposed-ban-on-assault-weapons/648423.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-proposed-ban-on-assault-weapons/648423.md?page=9)