# 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:** 9
**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, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-proposed-ban-on-assault-weapons/648423/161 "2013-01-29T04:08:23Z")
> [@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. No, you overestimate it. About 80% of people shot by a handgun live. That figure includes people shot multiple times. And even if the person HAS sustained a mortal injury, they may take several minutes to die - and during that time they may still be capable of harming you. You also seem to be forgetting there’s no reason to expect you’re only going to be facing one attacker. > [@](#): > > Still, if you had a choice between killing an intruder, or making him run away without shooting him, which one would you choose? The problem is, I’m not the one doing the choosing. The intruder is. Believe it or not, not everyone runs away when a gun is pointed at them. If the intruder doesn’t run, you’d better be prepared to use that firearm on him, or you’re in very deep trouble. ---
**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 29, 2013, 4:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-proposed-ban-on-assault-weapons/648423/162 "2013-01-29T04:46:50Z")
> [@ExTank](#): > > 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. I think most of them do, but I think anyone that doesn’t know the difference should do a little bit more listening and a little less hyperventilating. Obama suggested the same thing. > [@Anonymous User](#): > > 1. It’s the female’s choice. The baby inside is technically not a human yet, so I don’t consider it murder. Where does the constitution mention the word abortion? Why is a right that is not mentioned in the constitution also constitutionally protected but a right that is explicitly preserved by the constitution so open to interpretation? Does the Constitution only apply when it agrees with you? It doesn’t have to be murder. States have the ability to cirminalze just about anything that is not inconstitent with the constitution (or that hasn’t been pre-empted by federal law. And BTW, I’m pro-life (at least for the first trimester and frequently for the second trimester). > [@](#): > > 1. 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. I’m generally pro-choice but lets face it the VAST majority of abortions are elective abortion. I don’t care as long as you take care of it in the first trimester. I don’t know if you’ve ever had a kid but for the first few weeks of life a baby doesn’t really know what the fuck is going on either. > [@](#): > > 1. 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. Because states can do that as long as its constitutional. > [@](#): > > 1. Sometimes it’s the only practical choice, like the scenario described in number two. Once again, most of them are elective. > [@ChickenLegs](#): > > And for what seem like the thousandth time, THERE IS NO GUN SHOW LOOPHOLE. Its shorthand for the private sale loophole to the background check requirement. ---
**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 29, 2013, 4:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-proposed-ban-on-assault-weapons/648423/163 "2013-01-29T04:59:36Z")
> [@Anonymous User](#): > > I _don’t_ know anything. > > “The only rue wisdom is in knowing that you know nothing.” - Socrates I don’t think that is how Socrates meant it. > [@ChickenLegs](#): > > So why not be honest and call it “The private transfer law”? Or do you gain something by lying? Because the gunshow presents a stark example of where people ABUSE the private sale loophole. ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2013, 5:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-proposed-ban-on-assault-weapons/648423/164 "2013-01-29T05:02:01Z")
> [@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)? A magazine is a small, simple, non-consumable item whose only job is to push cartridges through a slot. It is a little box with a spring in it. It’s about as practical as trying to ban matches to combat arson. ---
**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, 5:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-proposed-ban-on-assault-weapons/648423/165 "2013-01-29T05:09:16Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Its shorthand for the private sale loophole to the background check requirement. Again: How is it a “loophole” if it’s the both the law and the intent of the law? Why not just say your’e in favor of banning private person-to-person sales without goverment permission, instead renaming the existing law to something you think will scare more people? I know why… It’s not shorthand. It’s a lie. ---
**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, 5:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-proposed-ban-on-assault-weapons/648423/166 "2013-01-29T05:13:59Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Because the gunshow presents a stark example of where people ABUSE the private sale loophole. I’m not sure how this is possible. Please explain. A private sale is a private sale. If it is legal in that state, how is it an abuse of the law to do so at the local fairgrounds or convention center? ---
**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, 5:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-proposed-ban-on-assault-weapons/648423/167 "2013-01-29T05:18:37Z")
> [@ChickenLegs](#): > > Again: How is it a “loophole” if it’s the both the law and the intent of the law? Why not just say your’e in favor of banning private person-to-person sales without goverment permission, instead renaming the existing law to something you think will scare more people? > > I know why… > > It’s not shorthand. It’s a lie. And the only people that use the words “gun show” and “loophole” when discussing laws that have NO exemptions for gun shows are people who are either: a: stupid b: intentionally trying to mislead others c: people who have been mislead Shorthand, my ass. ---
**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, 5:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-proposed-ban-on-assault-weapons/648423/168 "2013-01-29T05:28:59Z")
> [@ChickenLegs](#): > > 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? Hyperbole much? Are you sayng that FFL dealers have the exact same regulations as private or gun show sales? Educate me as according to the [ATF](http://www.atf.gov/firearms/how-to/become-an-ffl.html), you actually have to pass background checks and have regulations over the sale of firearms such as: “Licensees must maintain records of all firearms receipts and dispositions, including the name, age, and place of residence of purchasers. 18 USC 922(b)(5) and 923(g)(1)(A). Licensed importers and manufacturers are required to identify firearms they import or manufacture by means of a serial number, which must be recorded in licensee records. 18 USC 923(i). Licensees are required to respond immediately to ATF firearms trace requests. 18 USC 923(g)(6). Reports of multiple sales of two or more handguns sold at one time or during any five consecutive business days are also required to be submitted to ATF. 18 USC 923(g)(3). Licensees who discontinue business must deliver their records to ATF. 18 USC 923(g)(4).” So, are you saying that for private sales and gun shows, that the above is followed? I don’t have an agenda beyond a very strong belief that America should regulate guns \*at least \*as much as we regulate cars and driving licenses. Hell, I’ll go out on a limb and say the US should regulate at least as much as casual bass fishing. And I look at the non-suicide firearm death rate of the US being at least 4x that of every other developed nation and think to myself the answer is not more guns and less regulation. And yep, to answer your question, I \*am \*in favor of banning private person-to-person sales without government permission. \*My \*agenda is neither un-American nor anti-second amendment. And I’m definitely in the camp of guns are a hoot to shoot off and maybe in my younger days thought that a couple of beers and shooting up things in the woods was a fun way to spend a few hours. Now I never in a million years imagined that Gun show loophole would bring out such a passionate response from anyone. Ignorance fought there, so thanks. Further educate me, without inflammatory language, how would you prefer it worded? ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2013, 6:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-proposed-ban-on-assault-weapons/648423/169 "2013-01-29T06:36:03Z")
> [@China\_Guy](#): > > Hyperbole much? > > Are you sayng that FFL dealers have the exact same regulations as private or gun show sales? Educate me as according to the [ATF](http://www.atf.gov/firearms/how-to/become-an-ffl.html), you actually have to pass background checks and have regulations over the sale of firearms such as: > “Licensees must maintain records of all firearms receipts and dispositions, including the name, age, and place of residence of purchasers. 18 USC 922(b)(5) and 923(g)(1)(A). Licensed importers and manufacturers are required to identify firearms they import or manufacture by means of a serial number, which must be recorded in licensee records. 18 USC 923(i). Licensees are required to respond immediately to ATF firearms trace requests. 18 USC 923(g)(6). Reports of multiple sales of two or more handguns sold at one time or during any five consecutive business days are also required to be submitted to ATF. 18 USC 923(g)(3). Licensees who discontinue business must deliver their records to ATF. 18 USC 923(g)(4).” > > So, are you saying that for private sales and gun shows, that the above is followed? By FFL dealers, yes. By private sellers, no. In gun shows or in their homes, or in their cars or in the streets. Why is the particular venue, out of all the other venue possibilities for private sales, important? That is, why do you call it a “gun show loophole” and not “non-regulation of private sales”? ---
**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 29, 2013, 7:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-proposed-ban-on-assault-weapons/648423/170 "2013-01-29T07:23:05Z")
> [@ExTank](#): > > 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. I’ve noticed that, even here on a message board dedicated to fighting ignorance. The gun control advocates are to the left as young Earth creationists are to the right. ---
**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 29, 2013, 8:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-proposed-ban-on-assault-weapons/648423/171 "2013-01-29T08:25:35Z")
I think one of the reasons they call it a gun shop loophole has been explained by another poster earlier in this thread. It’s one thing if I go to a gun show with one, two or even three firearms to sell. It’s quite another thing when someone rents a table and has twenty firearms on display and then claims he’s not a dealer. ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2013, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-proposed-ban-on-assault-weapons/648423/172 "2013-01-29T14:00:27Z")
> [@Bruce\_Wayne](#): > > I’ve noticed that, even here on a message board dedicated to fighting ignorance. The gun control advocates are to the left as young Earth creationists are to the right. And those favoring just “reasonable restrictions” are like the proponents of “intelligent design.” ---
**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 29, 2013, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-proposed-ban-on-assault-weapons/648423/173 "2013-01-29T17:41:11Z")
> [@JXJohns](#): > > I’m not sure how this is possible. Please explain. A private sale is a private sale. If it is legal in that state, how is it an abuse of the law to do so at the local fairgrounds or convention center? Because these guys at gun shows that purport to be “private sellers” are at every frikking gun show with 100 guns, half of which are new in the box. These guys aren’t private sellers, they are dealers and should be required to get an FFL. They don’t have to charge sales tax. They don’t have to do background checks. And they don’t have to maintain records and get an FFL. All this while selling hundreds of guns a year. It also highlights the flaw of a system that doesn’t require universal background checks. ---
**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 29, 2013, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-proposed-ban-on-assault-weapons/648423/174 "2013-01-29T17:42:43Z")
Where are they getting all of these guns to sell? ---
**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, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-proposed-ban-on-assault-weapons/648423/175 "2013-01-29T19:41:36Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Because these guys at gun shows that purport to be “private sellers” are at every frikking gun show with 100 guns, half of which are new in the box. These guys aren’t private sellers, they are dealers and should be required to get an FFL. They don’t have to charge sales tax. They don’t have to do background checks. And they don’t have to maintain records and get an FFL. All this while selling hundreds of guns a year. > > It also highlights the flaw of a system that doesn’t require universal background checks. So at what point does one become a dealer? 5,10,20,100 guns to sell? Not trying to be a dick, I am just trying to understand where you are coming from. Without an FFL , that guy cannot get guns at wholesale or receive firearm shipments to his house. His income potential is significantly reduced by being not being a dealer. Perhaps, the solution is to lower the barriers to become a dealer? ---
**Author:** ![Ethilrist](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ethilrist/32/4604_2.png) [@Ethilrist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ethilrist)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2013, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-proposed-ban-on-assault-weapons/648423/176 "2013-01-29T20:53:59Z")
> [@Odesio](#): > > I think one of the reasons they call it a gun shop loophole has been explained by another poster earlier in this thread. It’s one thing if I go to a gun show with one, two or even three firearms to sell. It’s quite another thing when someone rents a table and has twenty firearms on display and then claims he’s not a dealer. Like those people who put up signs for a garage sale, and when you get there they have four tables set up with cheap, slave-labor costume jewelry. That ain’t a garage sale. ---
**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 29, 2013, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-proposed-ban-on-assault-weapons/648423/177 "2013-01-29T22:01:57Z")
> [@Johnny\_L.A](#): > > Where are they getting all of these guns to sell? I don’t know. You’d have to ask them. > [@JXJohns](#): > > So at what point does one become a dealer? 5,10,20,100 guns to sell? Not trying to be a dick, I am just trying to understand where you are coming from. I’m not sure what makes you think I’m being a dick. I think every gun should be subject to background checks. I think anyone that keeps an inventory of guns with an intent to sell (as evidenced by turnover) is a dealer. I would interpret it very broadly so that anyone that sells more than 12 guns (new or used) per year creates a rebuttable presumption that they are a dealer. > [@](#): > > Without an FFL , that guy cannot get guns at wholesale or receive firearm shipments to his house. His income potential is significantly reduced by being not being a dealer. > > Perhaps, the solution is to lower the barriers to become a dealer? I don’t know where they get their guns but their prices are competitive with the FFL dealers at these gun shows. The barrier to becoming an FFL dealer is fairly low. > [@Ethilrist](#): > > Like those people who put up signs for a garage sale, and when you get there they have four tables set up with cheap, slave-labor costume jewelry. That ain’t a garage sale. Or like those folks who set up shop at a flea market 5 days a week selling new items. Those are businesses, they should be charging and paying sales tax. ---
**Author:** ![solosam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9d8465/32.png) [@solosam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/solosam)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2013, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-proposed-ban-on-assault-weapons/648423/178 "2013-01-29T22:11:15Z")
> [@](#): > > . 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? Totally irrelevant. This depends entirely on whether you hit your target and where they are struck. Go watch some videos of police shootouts. They often expend a great deal of ammo. The bottom line is, if I am forced to use lethal force, I want as many bullets as possible. If I run out of bullets before my opponent, I will die. It is very simple. ---
**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, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-proposed-ban-on-assault-weapons/648423/179 "2013-01-29T22:37:21Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I’m not sure what makes you think I’m being a dick. I think every gun should be subject to background checks. I think anyone that keeps an inventory of guns with an intent to sell (as evidenced by turnover) is a dealer. I would interpret it very broadly so that anyone that sells more than 12 guns (new or used) per year creates a rebuttable presumption that they are a dealer. I was speaking of my intentions, not yours. So you want to eliminate private sales, not just private sales at the local fairgrounds. It’s a lot easier to state it that way without getting gun shows in the mix. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2013, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-proposed-ban-on-assault-weapons/648423/180 "2013-01-29T22:42:02Z")
> [@solosam](#): > > Totally irrelevant. This depends entirely on whether you hit your target and where they are struck. Go watch some videos of police shootouts. They often expend a great deal of ammo. > > The bottom line is, if I am forced to use lethal force, I want as many bullets as possible. If I run out of bullets before my opponent, I will die. It is very simple. Have you considered practicing once in a while? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-proposed-ban-on-assault-weapons/648423.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-proposed-ban-on-assault-weapons/648423.md?page=10)