… 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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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?
This was a pretty incredible statistic, but that “legally owned” caveat raised a red flag, and as suspected:
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).
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.
Not sure where your cite got it’s statistics from, but hereis 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.
We covered this extensively in the other recent AWB thread. 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.
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.
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%.
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.
Ah well, ignorance fought.
It keeps us honest, and on-our-toes.