# Thoughts on AWB **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 17, 2009, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thoughts-on-awb/489785 "2009-03-17T19:12:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2009, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thoughts-on-awb/489785/21 "2009-03-17T23:20:59Z")
> [@Todderbob](#): > > They cannot and do not fire any faster than any other weapon. Muzzle loaders? 😉 ---
**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:** [March 17, 2009, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thoughts-on-awb/489785/22 "2009-03-17T23:24:12Z")
**Dan** , your OP relies on how the weapon looks, not it’s function. Any firearm can take human life, the fact that one does or does not appear to be designed for this purpose is irrelevant. I have an AR-15 for fun and target practice, and in the off chance I need to defend the home against short to mid range threats in case shit hits the fan (SHTF). ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2009, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thoughts-on-awb/489785/23 "2009-03-17T23:27:42Z")
> [@Todderbob](#): > > Any gun that fires more than 1 round per trigger pull is regulated under the same laws as full auto firearms. I thought that was the case, but I wasn’t sure. Thanks for clearing up my ignorance. ---
**Author:** ![Todderbob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e47774/32.png) [@Todderbob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Todderbob)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2009, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thoughts-on-awb/489785/24 "2009-03-17T23:32:24Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > I thought that was the case, but I wasn’t sure. > Thanks for clearing up my ignorance. Anytime, that’s why I’m here. That, and to clear up my own. > [@FinnAgain](#): > > Muzzle loaders? 😉 [feigned offense]You tricky, tricky bastard! [/feigned offense] And Bolt Actions, Pumps, Levers or whatever other odd reloading mechanism you could come up with that isn’t semiauto… but you know what I mean… 😛 ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2009, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thoughts-on-awb/489785/25 "2009-03-17T23:33:41Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > **Dan** , your OP relies on how the weapon looks, not it’s function. Any firearm can take human life, the fact that one does or does not appear to be designed for this purpose is irrelevant. Yes, THAT WAS MY POINT!!! > [@](#): > > in the off chance I need to defend the home against short to mid range threats in case shit hits the fan (SHTF). And that MAKES my point. BTW, is there a special course to learn that mall-cop dialog? ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2009, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thoughts-on-awb/489785/26 "2009-03-17T23:52:35Z")
[QUOTE=Chronos] I don’t see how you can say such a ban would be wider: It could be as wide or as narrow as the lawmakers wanted, depending on where they drew the line on each of those criteria. [/QUOTE] It would have to be wider. The criteria you were using would include hunting rifles and such after all. > [@](#): > > And correct me if I’m wrong, but I would imagine that the typical military weapon is capable of a higher rate of fire than the typical hunting weapon, so on that criterion, at least, one could distinguish between the military weapons that the term “assault weapon” evokes and more traditional civilian arms. Military rifles with either selective (3 round burst) or full automatic are ALREADY banned…AWB doesn’t even address this. AWB bans weapons that LOOK like they are assault rifles, but are in fact just standard rifles (firing semi-auto…just like many hunting rifles that aren’t banned) that simply look like military weapons. They fire the exact same rounds (so have very similar firing profiles), have the same rate of fire, and in a lot of cases the same magazine capacity. In effect you can put two .308/7.62mm rifles firing the exact same ammo with the exact same rate of fire next to each other…but if one looks scary or military it will be on the AWB list, while the other rifle will be your ‘more traditional civilian arm’. Again, this is why gun advocates look on this with such disfavor because the general public has been told that the ABW list of weapons is assault rifles (even you, intelligent and well read 'doper that you are think this), while the reality is quite different. See why the pro-gun crowd tend to be so gloom and doomy on this subject? > [@](#): > > And yes, I’m quite aware that one could kill a deer with an M16, or kill a soldier with Grandpa’s old farm shotgun, which is why I said “typical”. Well, that’s the thing though…you can’t BUY a military grade M16 to shoot your theoretical deer with, not unless you are a law enforcement or other military type with a need for such a gun. The general public doesn’t have access to them however and can’t GET access to them…and this has nothing to do with AWB. Rapid fire (3 round burst or full auto) weapons have been banned in the US since (IIRC) the 30’s. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Todderbob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e47774/32.png) [@Todderbob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Todderbob)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2009, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thoughts-on-awb/489785/27 "2009-03-18T00:10:38Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Rapid fire (3 round burst or full auto) weapons have been banned in the US since (IIRC) the 30’s. Licensed since the '30s, banned since 1986. Ironically, to no purpose. As banning them did not limit stop the LA shootout (which was done with illegally modified Semi-automatic weapons), and legal ones haven’t been involved in any notable crimes since the '30s. Less, per firearm, than _ **any** _ other category of firearms (Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, Pump, Lever, Semi, etc. Barring, perhaps, muzzle loaders… ). ---
**Author:** ![enipla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/54ee81/32.png) [@enipla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/enipla)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2009, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thoughts-on-awb/489785/28 "2009-03-18T01:15:13Z")
Assault Weapons, as a loose definition pulled out of the ass of a late meeting and some ‘Guns and Ammo Magazines’ is not a good way to write a law. Especially by people that clearly know nothing about firearms. Assault RIFLES can better be defined. They are, and are highly regulated. Neither class of weapon has been used in many crimes. It’s hardly worth a data point. I’m not really ‘pro’ gun. Never thought I would have to be. I’m quite liberal actually. But when the pro gun control folks admit that this is just a step to ban all guns……I put the brakes on. I have had enough of the obvious misdirection and complete lies about guns from the gun control crowd and the politicians that are looking for nothing more than votes. When elected officials lie and deceive the public to get votes from the uninformed I take a dim view of them. I also expect exceptional proof and research from them from there on out. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2009, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thoughts-on-awb/489785/29 "2009-03-18T14:27:52Z")
[QUOTE=Todderbob] Licensed since the '30s, banned since 1986. [/QUOTE] :smack: Thanks for the correction. I knew that but had forgotten. And you are right that the ban seems to be fairly pointless, as most crimes committed in the US with guns are not automatic (or selective fire) weapons…IIRC (and correct me if my memory is once again flawed) they are mostly committed with handguns (semiautomatic or revolvers). -XT ---
**Author:** ![Todderbob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e47774/32.png) [@Todderbob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Todderbob)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2009, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thoughts-on-awb/489785/30 "2009-03-18T15:14:26Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > :smack: Thanks for the correction. I knew that but had forgotten. > And you are right that the ban seems to be fairly pointless, as most crimes committed in the US with guns are not automatic (or selective fire) weapons…IIRC (and correct me if my memory is once again flawed) they are mostly committed with handguns (semiautomatic or revolvers). > > -XT The most commonly used firearms in crimes are low capacity pistols, yes. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2009, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thoughts-on-awb/489785/31 "2009-03-18T15:26:25Z")
I’m of two minds on this. On the one hand, it’s a silly ban, the equivalent of banning red cars. These “assault weapons” are functionally identical to regular weapons, just with different styling. On the other hand, can you honestly say that your right to keep and bear arms is being infringed, if the ban still allows you to buy a weapon that is functionally identical to the weapon being banned? I can’t tell which side is being sillier, the gun haters for wanting a ban based entirely on a gun’s look, or the gun lovers who are mad about being unable to buy guns with that particular look, when functionally identical weapons are freely available. ---
**Author:** ![Todderbob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e47774/32.png) [@Todderbob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Todderbob)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2009, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thoughts-on-awb/489785/32 "2009-03-18T15:33:37Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > I’m of two minds on this. > > On the one hand, it’s a silly ban, the equivalent of banning red cars. These “assault weapons” are functionally identical to regular weapons, just with different styling. > > On the other hand, can you honestly say that your right to keep and bear arms is being infringed, if the ban still allows you to buy a weapon that is functionally identical to the weapon being banned? > > I can’t tell which side is being sillier, the gun haters for wanting a ban based entirely on a gun’s look, or the gun lovers who are mad about being unable to buy guns with that particular look, when functionally identical weapons are freely available. It’s an incremental ban, and this has been freely admitted by those in the Brady Campaign (among others) who have called it a “first step towards civilian disarmament and peace.” It’s like banning the use of the word _“the”_ because criminals use it when saying “Give me all the money!” On the face of it, it seems like an innocent enough, silly law. But it’s the precedent which it sets that is dangerous. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2009, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thoughts-on-awb/489785/33 "2009-03-18T15:36:01Z")
[QUOTE=Cheesesteak] On the other hand, can you honestly say that your right to keep and bear arms is being infringed, if the ban still allows you to buy a weapon that is functionally identical to the weapon being banned? [/QUOTE] I think you are missing the point here. If they can ban things based solely on the way something looks, what will they use NEXT? It’s the slippery slope that most pro-gun folks worry about…which is why they are fighting so hard on this issue, so as not to have to fight again when the banners decide that all guns with sights or barrels should be banned next…or all guns made of metal, or all guns that look like guns, or that use bullets, etc etc. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2009, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thoughts-on-awb/489785/34 "2009-03-18T18:47:18Z")
Quoth **Todderbob** : > [@](#): > > You’ve fallen into the classic trap that ‘assault weapons’ are somehow military in nature, they’re not. They cannot and do not fire any faster than any other weapon. Under the current definition, certainly, “assault weapons” are functionally no different from other weapons. But it came about because someone _thought_ those types of weapons were typical of military weapons. So a sane AWB would define “assault weapons” in a way which really does correspond to the sorts of weapons actually used for military purposes. From what I’m reading here, the primary distinguishing factor between weapons that really are used militarily and civilian weapons is that the genuinely military weapons are generally capable of full-auto or at least burst fire, while civilian weapons are not, and with that as the standard, military weapons are already very highly regulated, and have been for a long time. In that sense, then, we already had a law that does what the AWB purported to do, and does it better. Is that correct? ---
**Author:** ![Todderbob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e47774/32.png) [@Todderbob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Todderbob)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2009, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thoughts-on-awb/489785/35 "2009-03-18T18:54:19Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > In that sense, then, we already had a law that does what the AWB purported to do, and does it better. Is that correct? We already have a law that does _what you thought the AWB_ was supposed to do. That, however, is not what the AWB was supposed to do at all. The AWB was meant to get people comfortable with the idea of gun control, and incrementally add more and more weapons to the list, or pass more and more laws. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2009, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thoughts-on-awb/489785/36 "2009-03-18T19:02:05Z")
[QUOTE=Chronos] From what I’m reading here, the primary distinguishing factor between weapons that really are used militarily and civilian weapons is that the genuinely military weapons are generally capable of full-auto or at least burst fire, while civilian weapons are not, and with that as the standard, military weapons are already very highly regulated, and have been for a long time. In that sense, then, we already had a law that does what the AWB purported to do, and does it better. Is that correct? [/QUOTE] Yes…we already had laws on the books banning or heavily regulating military grade weapons. The AWB is a ban on weapons that LOOK like military grade weapons. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2009, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thoughts-on-awb/489785/37 "2009-03-18T19:21:11Z")
“Purported” and “was supposed to” are two different things. I will not comment on the actual reasons why lawmakers passed the bill, but the way it was presented to constituents was as removing military weapons from the civilian public. It did not do that, since those weapons were already removed. And any law which does not do what it purports to is a bad law, regardless of the motives behind its passage. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotGrrrl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9dc877/32.png) [@PatriotGrrrl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotGrrrl)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2009, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thoughts-on-awb/489785/38 "2009-03-18T20:03:34Z")
Would it be OK if a bunch of homophobic politicians passed a law that made it illegal for a man to look effeminate? Gays could still have sex with whoever they wanted to, they just wouldn’t be allowed to wear certain clothes or jewelery, or to have certain mannerisms. ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2009, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thoughts-on-awb/489785/39 "2009-03-18T20:56:33Z")
> [@PatriotGrrrl](#): > > Would it be OK if a bunch of homophobic politicians passed a law that made it illegal for a man to look effeminate? Gays could still have sex with whoever they wanted to, they just wouldn’t be allowed to wear certain clothes or jewelery, or to have certain mannerisms. That’s a _perfect_ analogy, because we all know that inanimate objects have civil rights. I think it’s shame guns can’t vote. Maybe that will be the NRA’s next crusade. ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2009, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thoughts-on-awb/489785/40 "2009-03-18T20:57:39Z")
> [@Todderbob](#): > > We already have a law that does _what you thought the AWB_ was supposed to do. > > That, however, is not what the AWB was supposed to do at all. The AWB was meant to get people comfortable with the idea of gun control, and incrementally add more and more weapons to the list, or pass more and more laws. That buzzing sound you hear is the Black Helicopters. Hide your guns. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thoughts-on-awb/489785.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thoughts-on-awb/489785.md?page=3)