# Weapons ban lapsing causes no panic, except in fearmongers. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 24, 2005, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/weapons-ban-lapsing-causes-no-panic-except-in-fearmongers/300863 "2005-04-24T14:59:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2005, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/weapons-ban-lapsing-causes-no-panic-except-in-fearmongers/300863/1 "2005-04-24T14:59:21Z")
I was reading the news, and I thought it was perhaps time for an update on the mass hysteria, murder, theft, and general panic in the streets that the sunset of the Assault Weapons Ban was going to cause. I thought perhaps that I hadn’t noticed only because I was in a small out of the way town. I thought perhaps the press was keeping quiet about the total carnage that was being inflicted by those ugly black guns to keep the panic down in cities. I thought that there would be a massive run on purchases and usage by criminals because we all know that a bayonet is an essential part of the criminal repertoire. I thought for certain that with the proliferation of high capacity magazines we would be engaged daily in long, prolonged shootouts. Boy, was I wrong. [Was assault-weapon ban a dud?](http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/04/24/news/gun.php) > [@](#): > > “The whole time that the American public thought there was an assault weapons ban, there never really was one,” said Kristen Rand, legislative director of the Violence Policy Center, a gun-control group. Now THIS is funny. The term “assault weapon” was created by the gun control lobby, was defined by them, and because it didn’t have the effect they were hoping for they claim that the weapons weren’t really banned. In some respects they are right: for instance, they got all the ugly black guns, but ignored the fact that a .223 Remington is an M-16 no matter what it looks like. The whole law was style over substance, and they wonder why it didn’t have any effect? It didn’t have any effect for one reason and one reason only: they didn’t scare the public enough. They tried. They surely tried. As the sunset approached there was doom and gloom all over the place. The failure of the evil to materialize will hopefully act as a wakeup call for the next time this is tried. Simply put: feel-good measures do not work. Better luck next time, I guess. ---
**Author:** ![unclviny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/e274bd/32.png) [@unclviny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/unclviny)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2005, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/weapons-ban-lapsing-causes-no-panic-except-in-fearmongers/300863/2 "2005-04-24T15:10:02Z")
Sadly “anti’s” rarely learn and I feel quite sure that the next “feel good measure” is already in the pipeline (look at the furor over the .50 in California, like a criminal would spend that kind of money, sheesh!). I told folks for years that the “ugly gun ban” had almost no affect (other than raising prices), Nobody cared as the ban played well on tv. Unclviny ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2005, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/weapons-ban-lapsing-causes-no-panic-except-in-fearmongers/300863/3 "2005-04-24T15:19:44Z")
> [@Airman Doors](#): > > I thought for certain that with the proliferation of high capacity magazines we would be engaged daily in long, prolonged shootouts. > > Boy, was I wrong. Me too. Damned shame. ☹ ---
**Author:** ![wonderwench](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/35a633/32.png) [@wonderwench](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonderwench)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2005, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/weapons-ban-lapsing-causes-no-panic-except-in-fearmongers/300863/4 "2005-04-24T15:25:24Z")
Another knee-jerk law that was done purely for political grand-standing purposes (although I am having difficulty thinking of any that aren’t these days). The shooting at 101 California was the moment of opportunity for the anti-gun lobby to eat away at the 2nd Amendment. The definition of assault weapons was purely cosmetic. Take two equivalent rifles except that one has a fancy scope. The scope makes the rifle an “Assault Weapon” because it looks more scary. Personally, I think a sawed off shotgun is scarier than a fancy rifle. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2005, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/weapons-ban-lapsing-causes-no-panic-except-in-fearmongers/300863/5 "2005-04-24T15:42:34Z")
I am cautiously hopeful… because a pro-Second Amendment thread on the SDMB draws, as it’s first five replies, positive responses. There is hope! ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2005, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/weapons-ban-lapsing-causes-no-panic-except-in-fearmongers/300863/6 "2005-04-24T15:58:14Z")
> [@Airman Doors](#): > > The term “assault weapon” was created by the gun control lobby, was defined by them I do not think that is true. Hasn’t the military been using the term for aeons? Here’s a description of a [Shoulder-Launched Multipurpose Assault Weapon (SMAW)](http://www.hqmc.usmc.mil/factfile.nsf/0/57c7ea3d1a309a1d8525628100779b0c?OpenDocument) deployed in 1984. I bet a little digging would turn up the term in sources as far back as WWII. > [@furt](#): > > Me too. Damned shame. ☹ Yes, I’ve always wanted a full-auto shotgun with which to defend my home, and go duck hunting. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Avenger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9de0a6/32.png) [@Avenger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Avenger)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2005, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/weapons-ban-lapsing-causes-no-panic-except-in-fearmongers/300863/7 "2005-04-24T16:04:06Z")
Someone wanna explain to a non-armed to the teeth Limey why, if the ban didn’t actually affect anything, what the big deal is? If you want to have a shot at why the second ammendment doesn’t protect the right of citizens to own a tank, feel free, for a bonus point… ---
**Author:** ![Astroboy14](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/df705f/32.png) [@Astroboy14](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Astroboy14)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2005, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/weapons-ban-lapsing-causes-no-panic-except-in-fearmongers/300863/8 "2005-04-24T16:05:15Z")
All I can say is that y’all have been lucky so far! Just last night a guy kicked in my door and hosed me and the wife and the kitty down with an AK-47. Fortunately, you just can’t aim them fully automatic weapons… all his rounds ended up in the ceiling, and he was most apologetic before he left. Now I gotta re-paint! :smack: ---
**Author:** ![Astroboy14](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/df705f/32.png) [@Astroboy14](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Astroboy14)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2005, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/weapons-ban-lapsing-causes-no-panic-except-in-fearmongers/300863/9 "2005-04-24T16:07:38Z")
> [@Avenger](#): > > Someone wanna explain to a non-armed to the teeth Limey why, if the ban didn’t actually affect anything, what the big deal is? Because it’s f’ing stupid, that’s why… Imagine determining that pens were deadly and should be banned… but only the ones with blue ink in them. Same difference. ---
**Author:** ![Berkut](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a88e57/32.png) [@Berkut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Berkut)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2005, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/weapons-ban-lapsing-causes-no-panic-except-in-fearmongers/300863/10 "2005-04-24T16:10:53Z")
Yep, the AWB was pretty silly. I always considered it to be a ban on scary-looking guns. What’s the point in that? ---
**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:** [April 24, 2005, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/weapons-ban-lapsing-causes-no-panic-except-in-fearmongers/300863/11 "2005-04-24T16:18:24Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > I do not think that is true. Hasn’t the military been using the term for aeons? Here’s a description of a [Shoulder-Launched Multipurpose Assault Weapon (SMAW)](http://www.hqmc.usmc.mil/factfile.nsf/0/57c7ea3d1a309a1d8525628100779b0c?OpenDocument) deployed in 1984. I bet a little digging would turn up the term in sources as far back as WWII. [Assault Rifle](http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Assault_rifle): > [@](#): > > **Assault rifles** are selective fire intermediate-power rifles. > > Note: this specific term should not be confused with the loosely-defined term [assault weapon](http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Assault_weapon), which refers to any number of classes of pistols, rifles, and shotguns. > > > [@](#): > > > > An Assault weapon is one of a wide group of weapons which some consider inappropriate for civilian ownership. This term is political in nature and its use is highly controversial. Note that this term is NOT the same as an assault rifle, which has an established technical definition and is capable of fully automatic fire. > > \ > > In the US, the term has recently been modified and applied (for [political reasons](http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Assault_weapons_ban_%28USA%29)) to various semi-automatic firearms. > > > [@](#): > > > > Classification of assault weapons has proven extremely difficult since there is no basic functional difference between the types of firearms targeted for these bans and many very common hunting and target-shooting firearms. Basically, anti-gun people could not ban ‘assault rifles’ because A) The firearms they were trying to get rid of are not, by definition, ‘assault rifles’; and B) Assault rifles have been strictly controlled for many decades. So they needed another term. ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2005, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/weapons-ban-lapsing-causes-no-panic-except-in-fearmongers/300863/12 "2005-04-24T16:20:58Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > I do not think that is true. Hasn’t the military been using the term for aeons? Here’s a description of a [Shoulder-Launched Multipurpose Assault Weapon (SMAW)](http://www.hqmc.usmc.mil/factfile.nsf/0/57c7ea3d1a309a1d8525628100779b0c?OpenDocument) deployed in 1984. I bet a little digging would turn up the term in sources as far back as WWII. It may be that the military has a weapon that is termed an assault weapon, but [here](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon) is what is seen as the conventional definition: > [@Wikipedia](#): > > An assault weapon is a firearm that satisfies a certain set of conditions designed by one of several laws. The term is political in nature and its use is highly controversial. Note that this term is NOT the same as an assault rifle, which has an established technical definition and is capable of fully automatic fire. It has, in this context, always been a political appellation. An assault rifle is included within that definition, but the definition is intentionally broad so as to encompass as many weapons as possible under the blanket of fear. What better way to make people go along with stuff than to make them scared of it? People think “assault weapon” and they think of full-auto stuff like in the movies, not knowing that weapons like that have been severely controlled since 1934. ---
**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:** [April 24, 2005, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/weapons-ban-lapsing-causes-no-panic-except-in-fearmongers/300863/13 "2005-04-24T16:26:58Z")
> [@Avenger](#): > > If you want to have a shot at why the second ammendment doesn’t protect the right of citizens to own a tank, feel free, for a bonus point… Strictly speaking, ‘arms’ can cover a lot of things; but there need to be _some_ restrictions in a society. Where I draw the line is here: If an arm must be pointed at a target in order to hit it directly, then I think it should be protected by the Second Amendment. Rifles and shotguns fall into this category. If an arm does not have to be aimed at, and hit, the target directly, then it should not be protected. Examples of the latter would be anything that explodes such as grenades, mines, nuclear weapons, etc.; or other such weapons as chemical or biological agents. Incidentally, you _can_ own a tank. I believe you can, even in England. But you cannot own a working canon. One thing that really got up my nose was the ban on selling Bell AH-1 Cobra helicopters to civilians. The helicopter itself is just an aircraft. Without its weapons, it’s just an expensive thing to fly around in. But it _looks_ scary. It makes no difference that without weapons it’s about as offensive as a Cessna or a JetRanger; if it _looks_ scary, then it can be banned for political capital. (Cobras already in the civilian inventory may still be owned and sold.) ---
**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:** [April 24, 2005, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/weapons-ban-lapsing-causes-no-panic-except-in-fearmongers/300863/14 "2005-04-24T16:30:12Z")
So basically, what we have here is an ineffective law that the pro-gun lobby fought against tooth-and-nail, bitched about constantly during its run, and whose demise is celebrated as a victory for the Second Amendment, right? Now, if this law was so damned ineffective and did nothing whatsoever to threaten and/or challange the 2nd Amendment, _what was all the bitching and fighting and lobbying by the NRA and their ilk all about?_ ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2005, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/weapons-ban-lapsing-causes-no-panic-except-in-fearmongers/300863/15 "2005-04-24T16:31:01Z")
Interestingly, you CAN own a grenade (and a silencer), but you have to register it and pay the tax stamp on it. Neither, to the best of my knowledge, have EVER been used in the commission of a crime. Grenades are far too expensive to ever pose a real threat to the populace. ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2005, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/weapons-ban-lapsing-causes-no-panic-except-in-fearmongers/300863/16 "2005-04-24T16:35:27Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > So basically, what we have here is an ineffective law that the pro-gun lobby fought against tooth-and-nail, bitched about constantly during its run, and whose demise is celebrated as a victory for the Second Amendment, right? > Now, if this law was so damned ineffective and did nothing whatsoever to threaten and/or challange the 2nd Amendment, _what was all the bitching and fighting and lobbying by the NRA and their ilk all about?_ The Brady Campaign still considered it effective, as did Sen. Feinstein. And it did challenge the Second Amendment as it was seen as the first step. Among other things, they tried to ban “armor piercing” ammunition, which encompasses virtually all centerfire ammunition. Nobody thought that this would be allowed to lapse when it was passed. All that was seen was more legislation on the horizon. That’s why it was fought tooth and nail. It’s no different from when the ACLU takes up a First Amendment case on the grounds that it’s a limitation on speech. ---
**Author:** ![cheddarsnax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a587f6/32.png) [@cheddarsnax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cheddarsnax)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2005, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/weapons-ban-lapsing-causes-no-panic-except-in-fearmongers/300863/17 "2005-04-24T16:34:50Z")
We will get your guns one of these days, Doors. Just you wait. ---
**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:** [April 24, 2005, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/weapons-ban-lapsing-causes-no-panic-except-in-fearmongers/300863/18 "2005-04-24T16:36:43Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > So basically, what we have here is an ineffective law that the pro-gun lobby fought against tooth-and-nail, bitched about constantly during its run, and whose demise is celebrated as a victory for the Second Amendment, right? > Now, if this law was so damned ineffective and did nothing whatsoever to threaten and/or challange the 2nd Amendment, _what was all the bitching and fighting and lobbying by the NRA and their ilk all about?_ Slippery slope. When an ineffective law doesn’t work, the anti-Second Amendment people want to pass more restrictive laws. In the case of the AWB, the only people affected were the law-abiding people who were not part of the problem in the first place. > [@Airman Doors](#): > > Interestingly, you CAN own a grenade (and a silencer), but you have to register it and pay the tax stamp on it. True. But you _also_ have to live in a state that allows it. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2005, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/weapons-ban-lapsing-causes-no-panic-except-in-fearmongers/300863/19 "2005-04-24T16:39:22Z")
Those “fearmongers” you speak of would include GWB, you know. He said he would sign the ban again if it got to his desk. So don’t forget to include him while you’re burning down strawman. And congratulations on regaining access to to more powerful phallic substitutes. I hope you can finally feel like a man now. ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2005, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/weapons-ban-lapsing-causes-no-panic-except-in-fearmongers/300863/20 "2005-04-24T16:39:27Z")
> [@cheddarsnax](#): > > We will get your guns one of these days, Doors. Just you wait. You can try. I wish you luck. As a member of the “well regulated militia”, i.e. the National Guard, I have more right than most of you according to the antis because I fulfill the antis’ definition of what the Second Amendment should mean. And to top it off I’m legally certified on the M-9 and the M-16, having had a safety course and a qualification string. You’ll never get my guns. It just won’t happen. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/weapons-ban-lapsing-causes-no-panic-except-in-fearmongers/300863.md?page=2)