# 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:** 13\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2009, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thoughts-on-awb/489785/101 "2009-03-21T14:48:54Z")
> [@DanBlather](#): > > This is a perfect example od gun advocate logic. A class of weapon that was starting to be used by Chicago gangsters (in one case a 1,000 rounds were shot into a building from a moving car) was effectively controled, and as a result there were virtually no crimes commited with those weapons in 75 years. … and yet they were banned anyway, beyond any logic or reason. So even if you contend that this is a success - even when gun control works - it’s still a stepping stone to further restrictions. > [@](#): > > Now gun advocates do not see this as a victory, they see it as an abridgement of their rights. So we should expect some negative effects from this ban, a lessening of civil rights as the government took on more power over the castrated masses. Now what has happened since 1934? Jim Crow is gone, women got a variety of rights (e.g., signing contracts without needing their husband’s signature), people can no longer be fired or denied housing simply because of their religion or ethnicity, standards on “pornography” have been loosened, and homosexuals are gaining the right for marriage or domestic partnership. > > Shouldn’t exactly the opposite have happened? Shouldn’t we be living under the jackboot of brown shirts? Now of course we have restricected the “right” of people to take full auto machine guns out into the field and blow up watermelons, but so fucking what? Is there somewhere in this thread I said any of that? If you’re just going to throw out strawmen, don’t act as though your argument is pointing out some flaw in what I’ve said. > [@](#): > > It would help the argument if gun control advocates would at least be honest. In what way have I been dishonest? Edit: Scratch that, I read that as “if gun rights advocates would at least be honest” - is that how it was intended? > [@](#): > > Despite all your claims about being opposed to govt tyranny, I just didn’t see contingents of the NRA standing up to protect black children facing angry mobs as they tried to attend integrated schools. Now I’m apparently guilty of the crime of not having a time machine and going back and single handedly enforcing guilty rights legislation. I bet the Jewish Defamation League wasn’t out there publically marching to enforce segregation, right? But now the NRA has a responsibility to take up every cause unrelated to their purpose and mission? > [@](#): > > Instead I see the majority (not all) of gun advocates voting again and again for knuckle dragging politicians who would be happy to see the niggers and fags and spics kept in their place. > > Politicians who won’t be satisfied until very child prays before school, every class room has a copy of the 10 commandments, and women are dened access to abortion and birth control. Is this a collective ad hominem or poisoning the well? I need to get up to date on my fallacies. None of what you said remotely describes any position I take. > [@](#): > > Just admit it: blowing stuff up is fun, blowing stuff up with bigger guns is even more fun. I do admit it. It’s fun. There are a variety of practical and fun uses for guns. That doesn’t mean that’s all there is to it. It’s much easier for you to say “those who believe differently from me are racist, misogynist assholes who want to forcibly convert me to their religion” than for you to analyze the merits of your position. Do you really think the participants in this thread are the knuckle draggers you describe? ---
**Author:** ![Rolken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/df788c/32.png) [@Rolken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rolken)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2009, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thoughts-on-awb/489785/102 "2009-03-21T16:55:04Z")
> [@ExTank](#): > > Since the NFA of '34, there have been a grand total of two violent crimes committed with legally owned fully-automatic firearms, and one of those was by an Ohio police officer using his department-issued weapon to kill a police informant, so that doesn’t really count, now, does it? This was a pretty incredible statistic, but that “legally owned” caveat raised a red flag, and [as suspected](http://www.neahin.org/programs/schoolsafety/gunsafety/awb1034.htm): > [@](#): > > According to the most recent statistics from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms: > In 1993, assault weapons accounted for 8.2 percent of all guns used in crimes; > By the end of 1995, that proportion had fallen to 4.3 percent; and > By November 1996, the last date for which statistics are available, the proportion had fallen to 3.2 percent. Not only does that gut your implication that the assault weapon ban had no effect or justification, but it also seems to weaken the assertion that “if you outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns.” Outlaws sure cut down their use of “assault weapons” when they were outlawed (not that I’m advocating gun bans). ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2009, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thoughts-on-awb/489785/103 "2009-03-21T16:58:42Z")
You’re confused. “assault weapons” have no overlap whatsoever with the fully automatic weapons the NFA '34 regulates that he was talking about. ---
**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 21, 2009, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thoughts-on-awb/489785/104 "2009-03-21T17:05:16Z")
Quoth **enipla** : > [@](#): > > I do not appreciate your broad brush that has turned into a paint spray gun. What, you don’t appreciate a gun? You want to take away **DanBlather** ’s paint spray gun rights? 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2009, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thoughts-on-awb/489785/105 "2009-03-21T17:05:28Z")
> [@Rolken](#): > > Not only does that gut your implication that the assault weapon ban had no effect or justification- No it doesn’t. You could ban red cars to stop people speeding, and see a similar reduction in the number of red cars speeding, that doesn’t mean that a lack of red cars does _anything_ to make it harder to commit crimes. Read the definition of an assault weapon. Tell me if a criminal would face any kind of setback by picking a weapon that does not meet that definition. Although, as SenorBeef has already said, assault weapons aren’t automatic weapons, so your argument doesn’t have anything to do with ExTank’s comment anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Rolken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/df788c/32.png) [@Rolken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rolken)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2009, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thoughts-on-awb/489785/106 "2009-03-21T17:06:04Z")
Whoops. I thought the 1986 ban you were talking about was the AWB in the OP, so I assumed the categories overlapped. ---
**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:** [March 21, 2009, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thoughts-on-awb/489785/107 "2009-03-21T17:08:23Z")
> [@Rolken](#): > > This was a pretty incredible statistic, but that “legally owned” caveat raised a red flag, and [as suspected](http://www.neahin.org/programs/schoolsafety/gunsafety/awb1034.htm): The AW BAN had nothing to do with full auto guns. > [@Rolken](#): > > Not only does that gut your implication that the assault weapon ban had no effect or justification, but it also seems to weaken the assertion that “if you outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns.” Outlaws sure cut down their use of “assault weapons” when they were outlawed (not that I’m advocating gun bans). Not sure where your cite got it’s statistics from, but [here](http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_200306/ai_n9241101)is one that reports both the Clinton and the Bush Justice departments show that the AW ban was ineffective. I realize that you are not advocating any ban, don’t take this as a personal attack. On another AW thread, we have gone over study after study and there are none that support those broad changes that NEAHIN claims. > [@](#): > > The U.S. Department of Justice conducted two studies of the consequences of the 1994 assault weapons ban. In 1999,-Bill Clinton’s Justice Department looked exhaustively at the ban’s effects. It concluded that “the public safety benefits of the 1994 ban have not yet been demonstrated.” In 2001, a second Justice Department review similarly found no evidence that the ban had a statistically significant effect on violent crime. A congressionally mandated study by the Urban Institute reached comparable conclusions. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2009, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thoughts-on-awb/489785/108 "2009-03-21T17:13:41Z")
> [@Rolken](#): > > Whoops. I thought the 1986 ban you were talking about was the AWB in the OP, so I assumed the categories overlapped. We covered this extensively in the [other recent AWB thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=508266). Gun control advocates deliberately attempt to mislead the public into believing the weapons affected by a potential assault weapons ban are the select-fire or fully automatic weapons that are already regulated by the '34 NFA and banned by the '86 FOPA. There’s no overlap at all - those weapons are already heavily regulated and banned. The issue of the AWB is weapons that may share the same design and look the same, but have had the fully automatic capability removed. ---
**Author:** ![Rolken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/df788c/32.png) [@Rolken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rolken)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2009, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thoughts-on-awb/489785/109 "2009-03-21T17:15:30Z")
> [@JXJohns](#): > > On another AW thread, we have gone over study after study and there are none that support those broad changes that NEAHIN claims. Alright, thanks. I had actually researched all this years ago and came to the same conclusion, but since I only have academic interest in gun politics in general, all the facts faded over time and I was left with only the impression, which is why I posted the stats I did; they came as a surprise. 😛 Ah well, ignorance fought. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2009, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thoughts-on-awb/489785/110 "2009-03-21T17:27:44Z")
Incidentally, in regards to your statistics, further diminishing their meaning is the fact that post-ban weapons were very similar to preban ones. You take a rifle that has one too many naughty features and you saw off the bayonette lug - it’s no longer an assault weapon. So practically, the same guns could be getting used in crime with minor alterations but for the purposes of your statistics one would be an assault weapon and one wouldn’t. Incidentally, the majority of the “assault weapons” that were confiscated relating to crimes were handguns - the numbers of crimes committed with rifle “assault weapons” was, IIRC, below 2%. ---
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2009, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thoughts-on-awb/489785/111 "2009-03-21T19:36:39Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > Incidentally, the majority of the “assault weapons” that were confiscated relating to crimes were handguns - the numbers of crimes committed with rifle “assault weapons” was, IIRC, below 2%. You would be correct. The “2%” figure WRT rifle-type firearms comes from a ~1986 ATF Report to Congress; I’ve seen the quote and the report’s name, but have lost track of it over the years. Being a ~23 y/o report, I can’t vouch for it’s accuracy today. ---
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2009, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thoughts-on-awb/489785/112 "2009-03-21T19:37:48Z")
> [@Rolken](#): > > Alright, thanks. I had actually researched all this years ago and came to the same conclusion, but since I only have academic interest in gun politics in general, all the facts faded over time and I was left with only the impression, which is why I posted the stats I did; they came as a surprise. 😛 Ah well, ignorance fought. No problem. 🙂 It keeps us honest, and on-our-toes. ---
**Author:** ![Todderbob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e47774/32.png) [@Todderbob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Todderbob)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2009, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thoughts-on-awb/489785/113 "2009-03-21T19:49:09Z")
> [@ExTank](#): > > You would be correct. The “2%” figure WRT rifle-type firearms comes from a ~1986 ATF Report to Congress; I’ve seen the quote and the report’s name, but have lost track of it over the years. Being a ~23 y/o report, I can’t vouch for it’s accuracy today. I saw the report. In it, they included _ **any** _ gun which was based, even remotely, on a military rifle. SKS’s, AK’s, AR’s, etc. Regardless of physical features, even if they wouldn’t hve been covered under the AWB were considered Assault Weapons, IIRC. Also note, The 1936 bill didn’t do **anything** to stop people from using illegally modified (fully automatic) weapons in the LA shootout. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thoughts-on-awb/489785.md?page=5)