# Will gun owners make the "Obama gun grab" a self-fulfilling prophecy **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 6, 2009, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-gun-owners-make-the-obama-gun-grab-a-self-fulfilling-prophecy/492131 "2009-04-06T14:57:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2009, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-gun-owners-make-the-obama-gun-grab-a-self-fulfilling-prophecy/492131/121 "2009-04-08T01:33:50Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > I _suppose_ it’s possible to shoot someone “moderately”(i.e. just wing 'em) the same way it’s possible to drink moderately, but perhaps you meant it some other way? How about “it’s possible to own firearms and never shoot any human being ever, even if you own 200 handguns and a pre-1986 machine gun.” Is that moderate enough for you? Because “never shooting another person” is a quality possessed by more gun owners than “never drinks to excess” is possessed by drinkers. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2009, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-gun-owners-make-the-obama-gun-grab-a-self-fulfilling-prophecy/492131/122 "2009-04-08T01:49:10Z")
> [@](#): > > There have been multiple mass shootings in the past month or so, the most recent being the one in Pittsburgh where 3 cops were killed by a man who friends say was obsessed with the idea that the Obama administration would take his guns away. I’ll admit I haven’t read the thread (in my experience all gun threads are the same) but this caught my eye in the OP. Can someone explain the logic here? Did this guy have a goal of killing some policemen at some point in his life and decided he had to get working on making this dream real before Obama took his guns away? ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2009, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-gun-owners-make-the-obama-gun-grab-a-self-fulfilling-prophecy/492131/123 "2009-04-08T02:05:37Z")
> [@Alastair\_Moonsong](#): > > So please, enlighten me. Why, exactly, is banning automatic and assault weapons such a big deal with pro-gun people? Two reasons: first, as many posters have repeatedly pointed out, the features banned aren’t rational. They either include things like bayonet mounts that are irrelevent outside of a combat zone, or which offer little functional difference from any ordinary deer rifle. And secondly, because pretty much if you can ban assault weapons, what firearms **couldn’t** be completely banned? If a gun, which by design is meant to expedite killing if need be, can be banned on the grounds that it’s too deadly, then that’s pretty much the equivalent of saying that guns can and should be banned for being guns. Already there are calls that all semiautomatics should be banned (DC even after the Heller ruling refuses to license non-revolver handguns). t’s part of what I’ve referred to as the “creeping delegitimization” of guns. People who have openly declared that their goal is the elimination of guns from America have said that their strategy is to establish every possible precedent for restricting and ultimately banning the sale and possession of guns. Pro-gun people compare it to the parable of the frog that doesn’t notice it’s being boiled to death if the heat increases gradually enough. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2009, 5:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-gun-owners-make-the-obama-gun-grab-a-self-fulfilling-prophecy/492131/124 "2009-04-08T05:35:46Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > Because only the federal government has the authority to regulate interstate traffic and commerce. The states are flatly forbidden to do that sort of thing. I’m pretty sure states have the authority to stop contraband. In any case, taking away the ability to control borders takes away meaningful sovereignty. Either you can have states’ rights, or you can reserve regulation of interstate commerce to the central government. But states without control over interstate commerce into their territory\* are not sovereign, and appeal to their “states’ rights” is folly.\* To be consistent with the interstate commerce clause & still have good government, we therefore should abolish the sovereignty of the states & make them administrative districts. Simply repealing the interstate commerce clause seems simpler, but I suppose it’s about the same either way, at this point. ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2009, 9:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-gun-owners-make-the-obama-gun-grab-a-self-fulfilling-prophecy/492131/125 "2009-04-08T09:43:37Z")
> [@Alastair\_Moonsong](#): > > One thing I’ve never understood about the pro-gun crowd is their apparent vitriolic hatred for legislation such as the Assault Weapons Ban, and I’d appreciate someone knowledgable clarifying this for me. Because it is a law fundamentally incapable of making anybody any safer, because the semi-automatic weapons banned are no more dangerous than the semi-automatic weapons that _aren’t_ banned (that don’t possess the cosmetic features restricted by the law). This means you get all the downsides of restricting people’s freedoms, without any of the upsides. Any politician who supports reintroducing the AWB is either corrupt (if they know the law can’t have any positive effect, but support it anyway) or ignorant (if they don’t know anything about the subject, but support it anyway), and neither option is acceptable in a politician. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2009, 10:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-gun-owners-make-the-obama-gun-grab-a-self-fulfilling-prophecy/492131/126 "2009-04-08T10:12:17Z")
> [@Alastair\_Moonsong](#): > > . Would it be an accurate analogy to say that the ban is the equivalent of banning black crossbows but not red ones, and you want the black one because it looks cooler/is lighter/has a lighter draw weight/etc? That, and the infamous ‘a barrel shroud is the thing that goes up’ quote, which pretty clearly points out they didn’t know what they were talking about when they wrote the bill. I expect people to know what they’re talking about when they write laws that infringe on constitutional rights. ---
**Author:** ![SuntanTigerTamer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e5b9ba/32.png) [@SuntanTigerTamer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuntanTigerTamer)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2009, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-gun-owners-make-the-obama-gun-grab-a-self-fulfilling-prophecy/492131/127 "2009-04-09T02:01:52Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Really? Well, point em out then. I assume you mean the ‘Folding or telescoping stock’ part…but if we are talking about a rifle the utility for hiding it are going to be fairly small I should think. What is your evidence that before the AWB that this was a major problem that urgently needed to be addressed? Or that concealing rifles is a major problem today? Because guess what…if you REALLY wanted a concealed gun you’d probably pick a hand gun. > > Yeah, I know…you want to ban those as well probably. > > Do you have any evidence, outside of the movies, that silencing a gun is a major contributing factor in gun crime? How many instances of weapons silencing in a major crime are we talking about here? Do you have any statistics? > > Same with flash suppression…how big a factor is it exactly? Are 30% of gun crimes and murders related to the use of flash suppression, collapsible stocks and screw fitted barrels? More? Less? None? > > You are so corrected. The look of the gun makes it no easier or harder to convert it from semi-auto to full auto fire. It’s more the type of bolt being used. Regardless, again, do you have any evidence that illegally converted semi-automatic weapons are a major factor in gun related crimes? A minor factor? A ‘once in a blue moon’ factor, such as the case you cited? Let’s see some statistics here so we can make an informed decision. Myself, I know of only a handful of crimes committed with full auto weapons (either converted or military grade) that have been committed in the US since, oh, say the 30’s. However, fight my ignorance here and show us the evidence that prior to or after AWB this was a major factor. > > -XT I’ve been gone for a bit, and the thread seems to have moved on, but I wanted to quickly address this. As other posters have said, it does not matter that those modifications aren’t being used consistently to commit crimes; given the slightest bit of thought, it should be easy to see why there is no legitimate “need” to have them, other than a selfish “cause I wanna”. And thank you for the information regarding modification to full auto. When I asked, it was because I honestly didn’t know. I talked to a friend of mine who collects guns and asked him this same question, and he said that yes, the semi auto versions of fully auto weapons are, in general, easier to mod to full auto. He also made the comment that they are also much more likely to jam. He also made the “thing that goes up” comment in regards to barrel shrouds. I can understand that from an enthusiasts point of view, no one who doesn’t understand the ins and outs of firearms should be allowed to legislate against them, but you don’t have to be a recovering meth addict to know that it’s probably not a thing that people should have easy access to. And to E-Sabbath, I hope you can see that me saying “I think shotguns should not be an easy thing to get a hold of” is not the same as saying “No one should have shotguns”. There is a big difference there, and it is the ground that I occupy when it comes to this discussion. Thanks to all ---
**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:** [April 9, 2009, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-gun-owners-make-the-obama-gun-grab-a-self-fulfilling-prophecy/492131/128 "2009-04-09T02:28:01Z")
> [@SuntanTigerTamer](#): > > I’ve been gone for a bit, and the thread seems to have moved on, but I wanted to quickly address this. > > As other posters have said, it does not matter that those modifications aren’t being used consistently to commit crimes; given the slightest bit of thought, it should be easy to see why there is no legitimate “need” to have them, other than a selfish “cause I wanna”. I think the point that you are missing is that if you take a hunting rifle that is “OK” because it is made to hunt with, add a bayo lug or a flash hider, you have not made the gun infinitely more powerful or deadly. You have only changed its outward experience. But if it is a semi auto, it is now an “assault rifle”. When you state that there is no legit “need”, you are simply stating so from your own lack of knowledge. It has been explained several times that those cosmetic features make no difference to the successful use of that rifle in a crime. They are just that, cosmetic. Either you are purposely avoiding that fact or it has not yet been explained adequately. If you are interested, I will try again. Let me know. > [@](#): > > And thank you for the information regarding modification to full auto. When I asked, it was because I honestly didn’t know. I talked to a friend of mine who collects guns and asked him this same question, and he said that yes, the semi auto versions of fully auto weapons are, in general, easier to mod to full auto. He also made the comment that they are also much more likely to jam. They are easier to convert because it is impossible to convert a bolt action or a lever action into a full auto gun. That is the limit to the “easy to convert” factor. > [@](#): > > He also made the “thing that goes up” comment in regards to barrel shrouds. I can understand that from an enthusiasts point of view, no one who doesn’t understand the ins and outs of firearms should be allowed to legislate against them, but you don’t have to be a recovering meth addict to know that it’s probably not a thing that people should have easy access to. I agree. If someone is actively trying to legislate away constitutional rights, I expect them to have a full grasp of the situation, not a knee jerk position provided by an anti gun group. ---
**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:** [April 9, 2009, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-gun-owners-make-the-obama-gun-grab-a-self-fulfilling-prophecy/492131/129 "2009-04-09T02:33:54Z")
I also will bid the thread ado after this unless something interesting comes up…but want to quickly address some final points in response: [QUOTE=SuntanTigerTamer] As other posters have said, it does not matter that those modifications aren’t being used consistently to commit crimes; given the slightest bit of thought, it should be easy to see why there is no legitimate “need” to have them, other than a selfish “cause I wanna”. [/QUOTE] This of course has been addressed up thread which you have ignored (or missed to give you the benefit of the doubt), but the short answer is that while there is no ‘need’ (as if that should be the final arbiter anyway), it’s not a case of ‘cause I wanna’ (which isn’t exactly a sin in any case, nor a legitimate reason to not do something) but a case of the gun grabber types deliberately targeting surplus military fire arms that would other wise be legal for banning. IOW, it’s the same ole same ole. > [@](#): > > And thank you for the information regarding modification to full auto. When I asked, it was because I honestly didn’t know. I talked to a friend of mine who collects guns and asked him this same question, and he said that yes, the semi auto versions of fully auto weapons are, in general, easier to mod to full auto. He also made the comment that they are also much more likely to jam. He also made the “thing that goes up” comment in regards to barrel shrouds. I can understand that from an enthusiasts point of view, no one who doesn’t understand the ins and outs of firearms should be allowed to legislate against them, but you don’t have to be a recovering meth addict to know that it’s probably not a thing that people should have easy access to. Well, if your friend is really an expert then his response should have been ‘it depends on the bolt/action’…so, I’m having my doubts. The look of the gun makes no difference in a conversion…it all depends on the type of bolt and the action if we are talking about ease of conversion to full automatic. However, I will concede that many (but not all) semi-automatic versions of fully automatic weapons are easier to convert (in fact, it’s harder to make them semi-auto fire only from full auto versions than it is to convert them back)…and yes, they tend to jam. They are also illegal ALREADY…no AWB needed. > [@](#): > > And to E-Sabbath, I hope you can see that me saying “I think shotguns should not be an easy thing to get a hold of” is not the same as saying “No one should have shotguns”. There is a big difference there, and it is the ground that I occupy when it comes to this discussion. So, you are cool with weapons as long as they are deliberately designed to be hard to hold and fire well? Yes…that’s militantly unsurprising. At any rate it’s clear that your mind is closed on this subject and there was really never any hope of altering in any way, shape or form. That’s cool because your arguments have singularly been unconvincing to me too, and while I think I’m a bit more objective on this subject than you are, there probably was no hope of convincing me either. Hopefully the thread has provided some illumination to some lurking 'doper who DID have an open mind and now has a few more puzzle pieces on this topic. Ado -XT ---
**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:** [April 9, 2009, 2:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-gun-owners-make-the-obama-gun-grab-a-self-fulfilling-prophecy/492131/130 "2009-04-09T02:56:20Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > This of course has been addressed up thread which you have ignored (or missed to give you the benefit of the doubt), but the short answer is that while there is no ‘need’ (as if that should be the final arbiter anyway), it’s not a case of ‘cause I wanna’ (which isn’t exactly a sin in any case, nor a legitimate reason to not do something) It’s also a patently absurd metric that gun grabbers never apply to themselves. The pretense is the “need” is a valid metric, at all. But when pressed, they invariably retreat and shift the goalposts, claiming that not only will they not be willing to give up any of _their_ possessions which they do not absolutely need but you should give up _yours_ or else you’re 1) compensating for a small penis 2) wanting to kill people with your gun fetishes 3) being a petulant child 4) blah blah. Of course, then they’ll try to avoid the analogy by claiming that they can have all sorts of things that they don’t need (including but not limited to cars and alcohol), but cars and alcohol aren’t guns, so no analogy can be made, at all. But, of course, then “need” alone is no longer the metric, and now it’s need plus “lethality”, or something. And when it’s pointed out that things like flash suppressors aren’t adding lethality to weapons, the argument will again be shifted to something along the lines of “well, you obviously don’t really need them (For hunting only! Or maybe the degree of efficacy for self defense that we’ll allow?) so we can take them away, right?” P.S. You misread the part about shotguns being difficult to get a hold of, though. 😉 ---
**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:** [April 9, 2009, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-gun-owners-make-the-obama-gun-grab-a-self-fulfilling-prophecy/492131/131 "2009-04-09T03:12:12Z")
Wouldn’t be the first time I misunderheard someone…so, my apologies for that and glad you pointed it out. 🙂 -XT [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-gun-owners-make-the-obama-gun-grab-a-self-fulfilling-prophecy/492131.md?page=6)