So what is so common sense about an Assault Weapons ban?

[bossy22]

i see it all the time on the news and in these forums. "...common sense measures like assault weapons bans that dont violate the constitution" Ok...so explain...how is an assault weapons ban common sense and how doesnt it violate the second amendment (using its legal meaning- meaning the definition given to it by the decision in D.C. V Heller)

basically i'd like to hear from people who support this legislation. I ask the poster not to post an emotional attack but a well thought out reason why. To be honest i have not found a solid well thought out argument in favor of one.

[geckosfeet]

1. Public safety.

Recent shootings in Miami

One has to balance second amendment rights with the safety of the general public.

Having said that, I personally so not see a ban solving anything. I think that regulation that works is probably the best that we can expect.

[davepc]

3. How does banning the least used weapon type in crimes help public safety.

One should go after the weapon type used most often in crimes. Handguns.

[Oregone]

21. So they don't become the most used types

[TheWraith]

35. They never would be.

Rifles are extremely bulky and need effort to be used properly. Their only advantages over handguns are more power, and more range. Most gun crimes take place at close range, and a handgun bullet is more than powerful enough to kill someone, meaning there's zero advantage to using a rifle in most gun crimes. You could give a criminal the choice of an AR-15 or a .38 revolver, and they're likely to pick the revolver almost every time.

[tburnsten]

43. I bet most would actually pick the AR-15

and then sell it to a more affluent criminal and use the proceeds to buy a handgun and whatever else they wanted.

[SteveM]

106. Many millions out there, but after all these years they still aren't "most used." (nt)

[bossy22]

4. i would prefer a well thought out arguement

not a drive by post

to simply state my counter arguement- the constitution trumps public safety

[geckosfeet]

6. I don't think so. My right to life liberty and happiness is just as important

as your right to bear arms.

[bossy22]

9. a couple of things

first off that isn't as strong an argument as you would think

semi-auto long arm possession and life,liberty,happiness are not mutually exclusive.

so if you want to go with the public safety angle...how does an assault weapon ban significantly affect public safety?

[geckosfeet]

20. It's not an angle. It's a perception. A assault rifle was designed as a military

weapon. That carries a certain stigma with it. A lot of people think that guns are only used to kill people. People are intimidated by rifles that they think were designed for killing. They don't like being
intimidated. It threatens them.

And, for better or worse, many laws are enacted out fear.

[bossy22]

23. Partially true

"And, for better or worse, many laws are enacted out fear."
that is true...but i believe we should do our best to prevent this

and for knowledge sake, assault rifle is not the same as assault weapon.

an assault rifle is a true term to define a select fire/ automatic weapon

an assault weapon is a political term used to describe weapons that politicians want to be banned, regardless of type. Usually this type includes semi-auto long guns but has been expanded to contain prohibitions on some pump action defense shotguns

[spin]

32. deleted (replied to incorrect post)

[tburnsten]

44. I don't condone legislating strictly based on fear

It leads to mccarthyism in short order. People can think anything they want about an object,but that doesn'tmake them anything resembling correct.

[geckosfeet]

82. Of course not. I don't think anyone does. But you can't deny it happens.

People need to be educated about assault style weapons. If they feel frightened or cowed they will dig in their heels.

[slackmaster]

53. Most firearms in use today, including bolt- and lever-action rifles, were designed as military

Weapons.

[geckosfeet]

83. They have been adapted for general use. No full auto.

I think that full auto is the crux. There is very legitimate reason for a civilian to own a fully auto assault rifle. (Personally, I don't consider "the rush" legitimate.)

[slackmaster]

97. The "assault weapons" ban had nothing to do with full auto

Fully automatic firearms have been strictly regulated since 1934.

The AWB addressed variants of military firearms that have been specifically redesigned to neither have fully automatic fire capability, nor to be easily converted to fully automatic.

Pardon me if I've misunderstood you here. I'm in the Pacific time zone and still working on my mandatory cup of strong espresso. But it appears to me that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the subject.

There is very legitimate reason for a civilian to own a fully auto assault rifle. (Personally, I don't consider "the rush" legitimate.)

I think a mere desire to own something is a legitimate reason to do so.

[geckosfeet]

115. Yes. I am sure that you are right. I am going out to get some women sex slaves now.

[tburnsten]

117. the word "assault" is a descriptive, but meaningless term

It needs to be coupled with something to mean anything. Couple it with the word "rifle" and you get a low-powered, lightweight rifle capable of burst or automatic fire. Couple it with "weapon" and you get a purely anti-gun political term that has absolutely no meaning at all aside from whatever the speaker wants it to mean.

[slackmaster]

120. Good luck with that

I am going out to get some women sex slaves now.

Please post pics.

[krispos42]

61. There were three double-homicide shootings yesterday

Oregon, Kansas, and Floria. Over a dozen wounded. Yet only one is the topic du jour. Why? The hardware used, not the body count.

"Man kills with AK-47" is a guaranteed attention-getter, that's why. The corporate media is doing as good a job with guns as it does with everything else.

[NRaleighLiberal]

2. ...so, the public needs assault weapons... Why?

[bossy22]

5. i asked the question

rephrasing it and sending back to me isn't a well thought out answer

[NRaleighLiberal]

17. I am just being a bit sarcastic, since I am strongly anti-gun.

[tburnsten]

45. What does need have to do with it?

If anything, why do we "need" to ban rifles that look like but do not function the same way as military service rifles?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

7. in order to control the masses.

duh.

[xchrom]

8. how about the slaughtering of people with these guns in s.f?

just for starters -- oh i know there is every insane reason in the world for gun nuts to carry everything from bazookas to flame throwers -but really -- i'm gonna vote every damn time for gun restrictrictions.

i find gun ownership and civilization to be incompatible -- but you all will do as you wish.

[bossy22]

10. how about the slaughtering

of the 32 people at VT by a man using a standard pistol?

anecdotal evidence doesnt prove anything except that it has happened in the past

and again....if thats your view...why not expand upon it...just leaving it at that is a poor argument

"i'm gonna vote every damn time for gun restrictrictions."
go ahead but the courts have the last say...so your vote could mean nothing in the long run

[xchrom]

15. your version of a poor argument is not mine --

the slaughtering in sf used assault weapons.

more i am foresquar against random gun ownership. period.

and i try my best to vote that way.

i do not want to live around gun owners. and it's my right to fight for that.

[Abq_Sarah]

41. You don't want to live around

People who exercise their constitutional rights?

Funny how it's acceptable for some people to show bigotry and prejudice against law abiding citizens... as long as they're gun owners.

[The Rubicon]

49. Oh, the irony

One would think someone such as yourself would see the irony in attempting to deny a particular group of people their Constitutional rights, but hey, if being a flaming hypocrite is OK with you, who am I to stand in your way. Oh, and one other thing, the "slaughtering in sf" should have been impossible per California's toughest in the nation "Assault Weapons Ban". Ask the victims families if that "feel good" legislation protected their loved ones in any way, shape, or form. Instead of spending your time making yourself look ridiculous why don't you put that time, energy, and effort into something that might ACTUALLY make you safer. Like, oh I don't know, ending the war on some drugs. Putting an end to that failed policy will do more to end "gun violence" than any previous legislative attempts at "gun control" policy, COMBINED. REAL safety, not just a false sense of safety, and you don't even have to mangle the Constitution to achieve it. In fact ending the war on some drugs would go a long way towards restoring the 4th Amendment as well. "Two birds with one stone" so to speak.

[xchrom]

50. that ban wasn't in place when that slaughter happend.

and you are about as oppressed as christians are.

you need to go back to elementary school -- and pay attentiion this time.

[bossy22]

59. the S.F.

shooting was done with two cheaply made 9mm semi-auto pistols and one .45 ACP pistol. Now lets say the AWB was in place and the restriction on tec-9s preventer the shooter from getting these guns. So instead they get lets say, a glock 17 (a 9mm semi-automatic pistol). My guess is the same horrific result would happen

[The Rubicon]

62. Ummmm.....

Unless you were actually referring to the Stockton shooting, the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Act was passed in 1989:

"The NRA first challenged the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapon Act on 2nd Amendment grounds in 1989, shortly after the law was enacted following a massacre on a Stockton schoolyard in which 34 children were shot."

http://www.bradycampaign.org/media/release.php?release=53

Straight from your partners in irrational fear at the Brady Campaign. Proving, once again, you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. Who needs to "go back to elementary school--and pay attentiion this time(complete with spelling error)"? Quite clearly that person is you.:rofl:

[Name removed]

91. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[xchrom]

92. wrong event. nt

[The Rubicon]

93. Nah...really?

So, why don't we just remove the suspense, and if you would, go ahead and tell us all just which shooting you were actually referring to.

[tburnsten]

46. Flame throwers are not guns, they are agricultural tools

For someone so anti-gun,I'm surprised you didn't know that already.

[Mojambo]

11. Screw the AWB. I want those restrictions on howitzers and tanks lifted. n/t

[bossy22]

13. so start another post about that

im asking for arguments for an AWB

[bossy22]

14. ohh and btw

you can own tanks legally....no registration/permits required!!!!

[Mojambo]

16. Suweeeet. Hunting season is going to be awesome!1! n/t

[bossy22]

18. you would have to hunt on private property

i dont think tanks are "registerable" as road vehicles so they could only be driven on private property

[Mojambo]

22. Why must the damned gubmint make it so hard for me to up my animal slaughter ratio!

Back to the drawing board...

[Name removed]

107. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bossy22]

12. im starting to think this might be a lost cause

[NRaleighLiberal]

19. Some issues just cross politics - guns and smoking in particular. Tough territory to wade into!

though I admire your courage!

[bossy22]

24. true

and thanks...ive been down here a awhile and im a frequent poster... i was hoping to start an intellectual debate but as usual the argument becomes emotional/sarcastic/childish

[NRaleighLiberal]

25. Not that so much is that it incites deep emotions - and the last 8 years have

rubbed people really raw.

[bossy22]

26. you have a point

[raimius]

27. Defining the argument

A pro-ban person would probably have to argue a significant increase in public safety via a ban or the inapplicability of the 2nd Amendment.

Since all types of rifles combined make up no more than 4% of "crime guns," the first argument is a very hard one to make.
The most likely route to finding the 2nd doesn't protect a certain type of firearm would be to classify it as "dangerous and unusual" (in reference to Heller), however, AWBs could still be fought using the 1930s Miller case, since that protected weapons suitable for militia uses. Since things like the AR-15 are VERY suitable for militia use, and exceedingly common among rifles (being the most popular center-fire rifle in America), that would also be a very difficult argument to make.

Frankly, I just don't see any legal or practical justification for a new AWB.
...not that a lack of reason or effect has stopped this kind of thing in the past... :(


At this time, I have not heard any other reasoned arguments which would actually work (especially in light of the Heller decision).

[Duckhunter935]

28. Please define assult weapon?

Fully automatic firearms have been banned since 1934(strict exceptions). Legal semi-auto rifles have the same works, it is an appearance issue.

[Captain Hilts]

29. Not used for hunting....nt

[bossy22]

30. whats suitable for hunting

is not the right legal test for what is protected by the second amendment. In D.C. V Heller, the court stated that the second amendment also protected a right to have a gun for self defense. If a weapon has no hunting purpose but a legitimate self defense purpose it would be protected

[Taitertots]

31. They are fantastic hunting rifles

So AKs, FALs, ARs, SKSs, and every single gun under the first AWB wouldn't be Assault weapons. I have used several assault weapons for hunting with great success. More to the point everyone I know hunts or at least has hunted with an assault weapon successfully.

Now is when you admit that you are wrong.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

36. And your statement would have what to do with the OP?

[tburnsten]

47. Oh how wrong you are, please read this ad

"Remington is excited to announce the Model R-25, a modular repeating rifle designed for big game hunters. The Model R-25 is available in 243 Win., 7mm-08 Remington and 308 Win.; three of today’s most popular short action hunting cartridges.

With the hunter in mind, the new R-25 modular repeating rifle boasts the most advanced design aspects of AR 308 Win. style rifles available today. For peak accuracy, the R-25 features a precision-crafted 20 inch barrel with recessed hunting crown that’s free-floated within a machined-aluminum fore-end tube for the ultimate in shot-to-shot consistency. Six longitudinal flutes forward of the gas block provide increased rigidity and weight reduction while promoting rapid barrel cooling.



Control comes naturally with the ergonomic pistol grip and lightweight overall design of the R-25. Its precision engineered upper and lower is machined from aluminum forgings for durability. For the ultimate in concealment in a variety of terrain, each Model R-25 is completely covered in the ultra-effective Mossy Oak® Treestand™ camouflage pattern. Each rifle is provided with a four-round magazine and is compatible with all aftermarket AR 308 Win. type magazines and accessories."
http://www.remington.com/products/firearms/centerfire_rifles/model_r-25.asp





This is an AR-10, the big brother of the AR-15, clearly designed and built specifically for hunting. Even if your premise that only hunting is the test of legitimacy was correct, and it isn't, you would still be wrong.

[spin]

33. I believe I can explain why so many people are for a assault weapons ban...

I was watching the CBS evening news show tonight. A segment dealt with the enormous increase in recent firearm sales.

During the segment two people were shown firing rifles. Both rifles had full auto capability. Of course, CBS failed to point out that such weapons are tightly controlled and not part of the increase in gun sales.

But merely showing someone shooting a military look alike weapon with only semi-auto capability was obviously not terrifying enough for the CBS evening news producers.

You correct in stating that many laws are enacted out of fear. The media helps to create this fear. The average non-gunner owner who watched this segment would come away with the idea that the all the gun nuts were buying these fully automatic weapons which were readily available at your friendly local gun store.

The segment had some good information. The report explained the rise in gun sales is caused by of fears of a failing economy possibly leading to riots and increasing crime or new gun legislation passed by the new administration. It also pointed out that more guns will lead to more tragic accidents as well as an increase in domestic homicide. (More cars on the highways will also lead to more accidents. more chainsaws will lead to more chainsaw related injuries.) More guns in the hands of inexperienced and poorly trained individuals is not a good thing.

To view the news segment visit:
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4751393n

If you are not familiar with the difference between true assault rifles and "assault weapons" view this clip made by a police firearms instructor.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysf8x477c30

The biggest problem with the main stream media is that they don't merely report the news, they have an agenda. This applies to both the liberal news media and the conservative news media (Fox News).

[whoneedstickets]

34. Your rights under the second, like ANY rights are not unlimited

Just as speech can be limited (obscenity, fighting words, 'fire in a crowded theater'), your right to own weapons for the purposes of self defense are not without reasonable restrictions in the interest of public safety.

Without special dispensation you can't own fully automatic weapons, flamethrowers, grenade launchers, sawed-off shotguns, etc. even though they COULD be useful in self-defense.

High powered (high FPS, high energy) center-fire rounds are only marginally useful for self defense and their ability to penetrate common structures (walls) in way handgun rounds and shotgun pellets or slugs can't makes them dangerous to innocents. You could shoot an an intruder using a 30-06 round and kill someone in the house across the street? OF course the very power of these center-fire rounds .308, 30-06 etc. makes them popular hunting rounds (another reason to own firearms). So eliminating weapons that fire center-fire ammo isn't practical or desirable.

THAT SAID: There is little compelling reason to allow citizens to own high-power, center-fire rifles with LARGE CAPACITY and QUICKLY Changed magazines. You do not need a 10 round magazine in a hunting rifle (if you have missed two or three times your target has fled). Most military style semi-auto assault weapons are inferior in accuracy to quality bolt-action hunting rifles anyway. These large capacity magazines in semi-auto center fire weapons are ONLY useful for killing people in quantity.

Things like flash suppressors, folding stocks, bayonet lugs etc are irrelevant really. What matters is that you can hold 30 rounds and walk into a McDonalds and shoot 30 people in as many seconds without reloading. Then in less than 5 seconds snap in a new mag and start again. As a society why should we accept that possibility?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

38. Someone could drive a truck into a crowded pedestrian mall and kill lots of people in seconds.

Anyone with the internet and a modest IQ can make bombs out of readily available materials and do the same thing. Rifles of any type are used in less than 3% of murders. Why needlessly ban the most common rifles in the US? How many people have been killed by a rifle round that struck an intruder, passed completely through said intruder and then penetrated through a wall in another house and struck someone? Traffic deaths would be cut to record low levels if we lowered the speed limit to 25 mph and strictly enforced it. Wouldn't the lives that would be saved be worth the inconvenience? Private swimming pools are responsible for many deaths in children. Should we ban all swimming pools that don't have 24 hour lifeguards? Wouldn't the lives that would be saved be worth it? Should we as a society accept the needless deaths associated with speed limits over 25 mph and private swimming pools? What else should the law abiding give away in the name of safety?

David

[geckosfeet]

42. Spurious arguments. People choose to swim. People choose to drive.

People don't choose to be a target for some nutball.

If you are going to argue that you have the right to own a weapon like an assault rifle you should at least attempt a cogent argument.

The second amendment is the last line of defense here. And it is the best one there is.

[The Rubicon]

52. Really?

People "choose" to get hit, and or, killed by drunk drivers/nutballs? That will come as news to my dead brother in law, thanks for setting us straight.:thumbsup:

Spurious indeed.:eyes:

[geckosfeet]

57. I choose to drive. I choose to swim. I know the dangers. So do you.

Glad to set you straight.

Sorry about you the BIL.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

113. Couldn't the same be said of people who choose to live in the United States?

I presume they know our gun laws and sometimes they choose to live in States that allow such things as concealed carry. The risks of gun violence are probably more widely reported than both the risks of driving and swimming. It is possible that they are more aware of the risks associated with guns.

David

[bossy22]

55. we are not talking about assault rifles here

we are talking about semi-automatic long guns

the terms may sound interchangable but they arent

[geckosfeet]

58. No. You are talking about semi-automatic long guns.

I am talking about fully automatic weapons.

But your point is taken. Many many people, especially those not familiar at all with gun technology, confuse them.

The take away here is education. You assume that they know the difference. Many times they do not. All they know is that they are afraid.

[pipoman]

88. Just to be sure

nobody wanders through and is mislead into thinking for one second that fully automatic weapons are a crime problem in the US..

Automatic weapons a.k.a. 'assault rifles' have been effectively banned in the US since 1934 National Firearms Act (NFA), along with sawn off shotguns and silencers. It is legal to own fully automatics and the other weapons included in NFA with some whoop jumping. There have been no serious crimes committed with a fully automatic firearm in the US in over 10 years and less than 10 in the last 30 years...automatic, military style weapons simply are not a crime problem in the US.

The conversation here is about a completely arbitrary term, 'assault weapon'. This term has been stretched to include any weapon which some bureaucrat feels looks too scary, regardless the fact they operate in exactly the same way, mechanically, as many 100 year old conventional looking hunting and recreational firearms operate....we are talking aesthetics here and nothing else. And before someone injects the myth that so called assault weapons are 'easily convertible to fully automatic', that too is a lie told in attempt to justify an assault weapons ban.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

114. Do you realize the AWB has nothing to do with automatic weapons?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

86. They are legitimate arguments when the basis for the ban is potential.

I don't need to argue that I have the right, I do have the right and have exercised it. It is incumbent upon you to argue why my rights should be taken away.

David

[SteveM]

108. I'm sure BenEzra has more details, but many folks use large-capacity mags...

for shooting sports wherein many rounds may be fired in competition. Also, folks who wish to have the weapon for self-defense want the extra fire power to counter home-invasions involving multiple armed crims.

Like military arms in the past, the semi-auto carbine is essentially "obsolete" in modern armies and has been thereby relegated to civilian use. That doesn't mean it is not useful for citizens who may be called up for militia duty, as unlikely as that may be; after all, would one rather have a bolt-action deer rifle or an AK 47 clone with two magazines taped together in the event combat may arise? Frankly, if the "militia clause" and the individual right to bear arms were reconciled, it could be argued that citizens have the right to own a full auto without the fetters of present federal law. I am content to live with the present inconsistency, however.

[whoneedstickets]

67. Did you actually engage in any cognition before posting...

..just because I could kill people with a car or home-made bomb doesn't mean that I need to tolerate the presence of high-powered, high-capacity center fire rifles in public possession. BTW these weapons are NOT the most common rifles in public possession. Shotguns and bolt-action hunting rifles are far more common. And though rifles are seldom used in murders they a far more commonly used in indiscriminate MASS murders. Since most murders involve targeted killings by people who know each other one could argue that stopping those murders--which could be committed through other means like stabbing or beating--would be far less possible than stopping mass killing that all but require military type weapons.

You already make numerous sacrifices to your 'rights' for safety. Lets take your driving example since it opens up a new area of debate: Licensing. In the interest of safety you must be trained and licensed to use a vehicle. You must pay taxes on that vehicle for safe infrastructure, maintenance and traffic law-enforcement. Your vehicle must be registered for law enforcement and theft tracking. The vehicle must meet road-worthy safety standards for things like lights. And public health and environmental standards for emissions. I'd be all in favor of similar standards for firearms. Mandatory training, registration, taxation for law-enforcement etc...

I won't address the patently ridiculous swimming pool point until swimming pools some how become common tools of homicide. However, the parallel with in-home gun safety is obvious. Most municipalities require strict fencing precautions. Perhaps similar ones should be mandated for firearms.

BTW I'm appalled by the blatant use of Freeper-esque terms like 'Gun grabbers' in the DU forums. Such labeling is primarily used to dismiss reasonable public policy debate through name calling.

[bossy22]

75. sorry...you are incorrect

"Since most murders involve targeted killings by people who know each other one could argue that stopping those murders--which could be committed through other means like stabbing or beating--would be far less possible than stopping mass killing that all but require military type weapons."

wrong....take a look at this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_tech_massacre

the weapon used was a Glock 9mm pistol....never considered an assault weapon in any legislation

lethality of the weapon is not dependent upon it having a pistol grip or other military features.

dont forget about this massacre either http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Illinois_University_shooting

the key factor in what makes the killer more lethal in these situations is that its an execution...not a gun fight. No one else is armed in most circumstances the victims are concentrated in a small area where there is little room to escape (a class room). with these things in place, almost any modern weapon is deadly...from a revolver to a machine gun.

[whoneedstickets]

76. What two episodes of mass murder...

that occurred without using a assault-style weapons somehow invalidate the claim that military style weapons make these types of crimes easier or more horrific? That counts as reasoning to you? Hey, lets have a posting war where I post examples of mass murders with and you post them without! That sounds like a great way to solve this we don't need to use reason...:sarcasm:

On edit: the Glock also carries more than 10 rounds. I'd like to see a capacity maximum on all weapons for civilians.

[bossy22]

79. your claim is incorrect

military style weapons dont make those crimes easier/horrific. The lethality in those situations for all intensive purposes is the same.

"On edit: the Glock also carries more than 10 rounds. I'd like to see a capacity maximum on all weapons for civilians."

lowering the mag capacity does not significantly lower the lethality of the weapon...here is a snippit from the VT review panel report

"The panel also considered whether the previous
federal Assault Weapons Act of 1994 that banned
15-round magazines would have made a difference
in the April 16 incidents. The law lapsed
after 10 years, in October 2004, and had banned
clips or magazines with over 10 rounds. The
panel concluded that 10-round magazines that
were legal would have not made much difference
in the incident. Even pistols with rapid loaders
could have been about as deadly in this situation."

http://www.governor.virginia.gov/TempContent/techPanelReport-docs/10%20CHAPTER%20VI%20GUN%20PURCHASE%20AND%20CAMPUS%20GUN%20POLICIES.pdf

its not necessarily the weapon but the situation the shooting takes place in.

and the styling of the weapon does not affect its lethality. A semi automatic non military style rifle is just as dangerous as its military style couterpart when chambered in the same calibre. for example

this gun is not considered an "assault weapon"...its a ruger mini-14 ranch rifle popular for hunting, target shooting, and home defense


it fires the same bullet, at the same rate of fire as this "assault weapon"


now you can go on and argue that semi-auto's should be banned...that is your right but i doubt a ban on semi-auto firearms would pass a second amendment test. in fact D.C. tried to do this when it refused to register semi-auto handguns, a court case was filed and they gave in and allowed semi-auto's to be registered since they knew there case was a loser. The court stated that they could not ban modern weapons used in self-defense such as handguns. You'd be hard pressed to make an argument that by saying modern weapons they really only meant revolvers...a handgun that is arguebly "out of date" since its use by police forces and as self defense weapon are becoming more rare

so in the end...you may be right...that an AWB will save a few lives, but unless it will greatly increase public safety and mass mayhem is inevitable (and the breakdown of our society) without it, i don't see it as necessary enough to nullify the second amendment. The arguement that "if it saves lives..." is not a valid argument for nullifying amendments of the constitution. If that was the case then our constitution would act more like a list of suggestions, rather than the overriding law of the land. There are many proposals out there that if enacted into law could save lives but they violate the constitution.

[whoneedstickets]

81. Your own quote!...

tells the story: "would not have made much difference" ...but much is not 'any'. It did not say "would not have made ANY difference". How many lives lie between the idea of much and any? How many lives would you sacrifice to hold on to a item (a class of firearm) that has no real use beyond that readily available in other less dangerous formats? You can defend your home just as well with a 12ga pump action (with a 5rnd max -- I think gun nuts live in this dreamworld where they plan to get involved in heating hour-long gun battles. I would bet most weapon related encounters involve less than a handful of shots -- with the mode being ZERO! You show the gun, bad guy flees...)

You're absolutely right about the mini-14 and the AR. The point would be to limit their lethality with stricter maximum capacities. Perhaps even the mandatory inclusion of some magazine changing delay feature? Something that would slow down clip changes in civilian weapons like a two-handed release that would require removing your hand from the pistol grip or stock or to enter some kind code on dial.

Finally. You need to lower the hysteria! 'mass mayhem'? Nullify the 2nd? I'm hardly advocating that. This is just the kind of crazy talk that make gun advocates look like terrified nutjobs. If it saves lives is CERTAINLY a valid argument for a "compelling state interest claim that would place reasonable limits on a constitutional right". You can't string piano wire at head height on your own property to stop yahoos on snowmobiles have we eliminated the concept of private property! Gosh! Don't be a fool.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

85. So you think gun grabber is offensive but gun nut is not, pot meet kettle.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

87. I'm appalled by the blatant your use of Freeper-esque terms like 'Gun nut' in the DU forums.

Such labeling is primarily used to dismiss reasonable public policy debate through name calling. So it's okay for you to dismiss reasonable public policy debate through name calling but not for anyone else. Thanks for your example of intellectual honesty, or was the just utter hypocrisy?

David

[whoneedstickets]

100. Amazing you keyed in on those words and ignored the rest of the post...

No counter to the core arguments?

[jmg257]

110. Not for nothing, but your use of the term was glaringly obvious after the 'gun grabber' rant. nt

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

111. Just pointing out the hypocrisy.

[tburnsten]

101. This post is utterly insane

[57_TomCat]

103. Speaking as a cop...

lets see if I get this right.

Cops in uniform tend to scare off some attacks, carry multiple guns with high capacity magazines, carry radios to call for help from more cops who will respond like greased lightning in cars allowed to break the speed limit and they "need" high capacity magazines and assault weapons.

The average citizen however does not have access to immediate response teams, has to dial 911 and wait for an answer, might be fighting multiple assailants for his life without the calvary nearby and they do "NOT need" high capacity magazines and assault weapons.

As a cop I believe you have it back wards. The citizens "need" the option of more ammo and better weapons where the cops simply need to handle the situation till backup and/or SWAT arrives.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

112. Who are you to decide what weapon I use to defend my home?

[57_TomCat]

104. Lets put it on a more level field here.

You already make numerous sacrifices to your 'rights' for safety. Lets take your driving example since it opens up a new area of debate: Licensing. In the interest of safety you must be trained and licensed to use a vehicle. You must pay taxes on that vehicle for safe infrastructure, maintenance and traffic law-enforcement. Your vehicle must be registered for law enforcement and theft tracking. The vehicle must meet road-worthy safety standards for things like lights. And public health and environmental standards for emissions. I'd be all in favor of similar standards for firearms. Mandatory training, registration, taxation for law-enforcement etc...

Your driving example does not apply on private property. My family has several vehicles on the farm that never leave it. They are NOT registered and no licensing is required to operate. I was driving tractors at a very tender age as well as the old Chevy truck I drove in the hay fields picking up bales. No license needed or required. I was 12 at the time.

I have no problem requiring licensing for those wishing to carry a pistol out in public. Even registering the authorized weapons to carry on that permit. Consumer laws already provide for safety standards. Of course that is ONLY for those guns carried on the street. I believe there is no laws limiting what I can buy, how many I can buy, the age with which I can buy nor the max speed it might go on the highway either. Simply licensed and registered for use on the public roadways.

As for this:
"I won't address the patently ridiculous swimming pool point until swimming pools some how become common tools of homicide. However, the parallel with in-home gun safety is obvious. Most municipalities require strict fencing precautions. Perhaps similar ones should be mandated for firearms."

I can go along with some of those too.

[tburnsten]

48. The AR-15 is about the most accurate service rifle ever adopted

EVER. And it is also proving to be an excellent hunting rifle for the exact same reasons it is a successful service rifle. Military and civilian rifle needs are pretty similiar, with the biggest difference being that military users like to have the option of either a burst or full auto mode, even though they train the troops to not ever use them. If you want full auto you want a light machine gun like the M249 Squad Automatic Weapon, something actually built specifically to fire full auto for suppression purposes. Rifles are made for engaging single targets with as much precision as the shooter has the luxury of time to apply.



And when you say that a semi-auto is inferior in accuracy to a bolt action, you realize that you must be talking about expensive custom bolt actions vs off the shelf economy model semis, right? And even then, you are talking about a difference in accuracy of at most a couple of inches group size at one hundred yards or farther. Can you see a difference between a half-inch group of .30" holes and a one inch group of .30" holes at one hundred yards? Does that difference make the semi unsuitable for huntingwith its "inferior" accuracy? Les Baer actually guaruntees their AR rifles to shoot 1/2" groups at one hundred yards, so exactly how inaccurate is the AR platform anyway?

[whoneedstickets]

60. Disagree on AR-15 as a deer rifle..

I've done a bit of deer hunting. The .223 round is an inferior deer round. Yeah you can kill deer with it but the light weight of the bullet and its tendency to quickly fragment make it a poor stopper. The .223 round was designed to be light to carry, and generate battlefield WOUNDS (wounded soldiers cause more drain on the enemy's resources than dead ones). I don't want to wound deer (and then follow a blood trail for miles). I wouldn't take anything less than a .308 into the field or a 12ga slug. You need the energy for humane kills.

Any way, for half the $ you will spend on an AR-15 you can get a serious bolt-action 30-06 or .300 win mag that will blow its away in terms of accuracy. Virtually any bolt action will outperform a semi-auto of the same price at the bench.

[tburnsten]

95. So an AR-15 in a caliber other than the original can't be used either?

Like the 6.8 SPC, 6.5 Grendel, .300 Whisper, any of the AR-10 rifles?

The AR platform is plenty accurate for hunting animals, they are originally in a varmint/pest control caliber and is getting more popular for that use, see the .204 Ruger chamberings, and to be a successful groundhog gun a rifle needs to be a lot more accurate than small deer and antelope require.

[Statistical]

98. While .223 isn't a good deer hunting round....

it is a great varmit round.

Hunting != deer hunting.
The AR platform has been modified into dozens of calibers. Everything form 9mm Parabelum to .308 Winchester.

Your price logic is not compelling either.
For half the price of a BMW or Lexus you can get a good quality Toyota but should BMW & Lexus be illegal?

More and more hunters are using AR & AK platform rifles chambered in a larger caliber.

Even if 0 hunters used these weapons they are valid for self defense.

.223 is available in JHP greatly reducing the penetration and a 12 guage slug (your recommendation for self defense) will penetrate 12 sheets of drywall.

You also are aware despite the anti-rhetoric assault weapons are rarely used in homicides or other violent crime.

We have 3 different government reports that confirm that
1) FBI Uniform Crime Report shows that ALL RIFLES are used in <3% of violent crimes and result in <2% of homicides
2) Crime Victimization Survey shows that Crime victims report their attack used a rifle <2% of the time
3) FBI inmate survey showed that <2% of inmates used a "military style semi-auto" in the commission of a violent crime.

This isn't NRA propoganda this is 3 DIFFERENT govt reports showing the exact same thing.

Less than 2% of violent crimes involve so called "assault weapons".

Why can't you see what the goal of "assault weapons" is simply to divide and conquer. Even the govt acknowledges it did nothing to reduce crime and has no potential to reduce crime in the future.

After AW will be HIGH POWERED RIFLES that can pierce bullet proof vests (which include all YOUR favorites bolt action high powered calibers). You don't think the antis will spin them as MORE dangerous given their large caliber and the fast those most police vests are only rated against handgun calibers. Introducing "Cop Killer Round II" the .308 Winchester. No cop is safe even with bullet proof vest.

[SteveM]

109. Accurate semi-auto .308s, .260 Rems, .243s can be had on the AR 15 platform ...

If I were younger, I would choose one of the new AR 15 semi-autos for deer hunting due to their superior ergonomics while carrying in rough terrain, and for shooting. I once held the view that semi-autos were distinctly inferior to bolt-actions in terms of accuracy. Though there is some drop-off when compared with bolts, they are entirely suitable for most big-game hunting in the U.S.

Mark my words: in a few years the AR/AK platforms will be the big-game hunting rifle of the future.

[benEzra]

122. You can get an AR variant in 6.8mm Remington, .243, .308, .50 Beowulf, or .300 RSAUM...

and I'd disagree that a typical bolt gun will "blow away" a typical hunting AR in the accuracy department. Good AR's are exceptionally accurate, partly because the much-maligned direct-impingement gas system makes the AR about as mechanically stable as a bolt gun, partly because the barrel on most hunting AR's is free-floated (only high-end bolt guns typically have free-floated barrels), partly because having the barrel axis close to the center of gravity reduces muzzle movement while the bullet is in the barrel, and partly because the ergonomics are damn good.

Rock River Arms guarantees their target and hunting models to shoot 0.75 MOA with premium ammunition and optics, and high-end AR's will do better than that (I've seen claims of 0.25 MOA for the dedicated long-range target AR's). Are there bolt guns that good? Certainly. Are there bolt guns that are better? Perhaps, but not many, since you are approaching machine-rest accuracy anyway.

Keep in mind that there are long-range F-class competition shooters shooting AR's against the best bolt-actions in the world, and doing fine.

[whoneedstickets]

70. Also, AR-15 not the most accurate....

The AR-15 is NOT the most accurate service weapon ever. This truth is made patently obvious by the choice of weapon used for sniping in the US military the M21 and M25 rifles which are based on the M-14 (a .308 firing battle rifle). NO ONE uses the .223 round for sniping it simply doesn't have the energy for the job. The M-14 is a far superior weapon in terms of power, penetration, trajectory to the AR (M16) but it is a beast to carry and the ammo is far more cumbersome in large quantities.

[bossy22]

80. true

the .223/5.56 round's true effective range is about 300 yards. A 308/7.62 Nato round has about a true effective range of 600 yards.

That is not to say the AR platform is extremely accurate and can compete with the best bolt actions out there. My friend with a nice heavy 22' barrel Rock River shot less than 1/2 inch groups at 100 yards at an out door range.

[tburnsten]

96. Those aren't the basic service rifle though

They are accurized variants of the M-14, not the M-14 itself, and I'm pretty sure the M-21/25 were kept on as the designated marksman rifle for caliber more than anything, see our new designated marksman rifle which is an accurized AR-10 variant in 7.62x51mm. It isn't fair at all to compare the basic issue service rifle against an accurized version of a service rifle developed strictly for sniping.

The 7.62x51mm definitely outclasses the 5.56x45mm for long-distance shooting, but as a platform, apples to apples, the AR platform is a superbly accurate one.

[57_TomCat]

116. Sorry, not true.

The "designated marksman" role in both the Army squad as well as the US Marine Corps squad can and do "snipe" with M16 rifles. The military have adopted those weapons for a variety of reasons. Several are the fact that the match level M16A4 designated sniper rifle looks like the same issue rifle the rest of the company carries. Reach out and touch someone at urban distances without drawing attention to yourself on patrol. The 5.56 is NOT the only option but it is a working rifle and round for modern sniping.

I might mention that a variety of US LE teams also field .223 marksman/sniper rifles. They fill a need and will be in the inventory along with the 308's, 338 Lapua's, Barrett .50's and others.

I would prefer a bigger, fatter, faster cartridge if sniping across a ridge in the mountains of Afghanistan. On the other hand I have qualified with and have access to a Remington 700P in .223 for tactical applications if needed. It is not nearly as much fun as the M16 on "rock'n'roll!"

I think the FBI has made some noises about 223's as well for urban sniping. I need to check up on that.

[tburnsten]

118. Thanks for the vote of confidence

I don't like being the only one to point out that the AR is a highly inherently accurate rifle platform and the .223 is certainly accurate enough for varmint work, meaning if it can hit a target smaller than a human head at several hundred yards it is definitely a match for your everyday medium-less range bolt rifle. It is only "inaccurate" or "short-ranged" compared to the .338/.300 Mag/.416/.50 caliber rifles designed specifically for 1200-2000 yard engagements, and those are not usually well suited to combat at a more realistic range.

[The Rubicon]

51. Prove it

"What matters is that you can hold 30 rounds and walk into a McDonalds and shoot 30 people in as many seconds without reloading. Then in less than 5 seconds snap in a new mag and start again. As a society why should we accept that possibility?"

Show me the "legislation" that will prevent a scenario like what you just described above.

[whoneedstickets]

66. Legislation making possession or sale of magazines of larger than 10 rounds

...a federal felony would about do it. Included in such legislation would be strict rules against the modification of magazines and the requirement to turn-in and destroy any large magazines. I would consider even a more restrictive 5 round cap but that probably isn't practical. A ten-round max should apply to handguns as well.

This wouldn't STOP the scenario I described, but it might make it more difficult to accomplish.

[The Rubicon]

71. So....

you honestly believe that out of all the numerous federal, state, and local firearms laws we currently have on the nation's books, somehow THIS is the THE gun law criminals will abide by.:think:

Have you heard my idea to reduce the horrific number of drunk driving deaths by enacting legislation making it a "federal felony" for Mormons to buy, sell, or possess alcoholic beverages? I'm thinking the federal felony part would "about do it". Don't you?

[bossy22]

74. hmmm......

confiscation of property....sounds liek a constitutional issue to me


plus i think the supreme court would rule that a 5 round limit infringed on the second amendment

[whoneedstickets]

77. Its great to hear you have an inside scoop on the SC...

..just what constitutes a self-defense weapon? Since the court hasn't determined that I figured I'd ask you instead.

[bossy22]

78. well we know

that the supreme court considers the modern handgun a self defense weapon. With that in mind, most modern handguns have capacity over 5 rounds. 10rd+ is considered standard for self defense handguns.

[friendly_iconoclast]

90. Which the VT shooter got around by having two handguns on him.

Not to mention the fact that it fails the Constitutionality test

Seriously, this is like Massachusetts attempting to cut down on keg parties by requiring
the beer seller to write down the name and address of persons buying kegs. It worked,
there are fewer keg parties. However:

'Keg Parties' are now 'Cases of Beer Parties'. Just as much out-of-control
teen drinking, but the Lgislature got to pat themselves on the back and say that they
"did something". The sad part is, some people still believe it.

[slackmaster]

99. That would not be possible to enforce

Unlike firearm frames and receivers (the numbered parts), ammunition feeding devices have never been regulated or even serialized. Felons would simply ignore the requirement to turn them in.

[one-eyed fat man]

119. not quite....

Large cap mags manufactured during the effective period of the AWB were marked "LEO or export" only. A couple of the large police supply dealers would trade a cop even up for his pre-ban pistol and magazines for a new post ban one with the LEO only marked magazines. Other deals were they would replace a cop's old unmarked mags with new 'LEO only' mags at the rate of 2 or 3 for one. For certain Glocks and SIGs that didn't have tons of pre-ban hi-cap inventory the available unmarked pre ban mags sold at premium prices.

[Malidictus Maximus]

54. Thank you for the single most intelligent "anti" post here, possibly ever

While I disagree with you, finding that it is greatly more convenient to load up a number of large capacity magazines at home before going to the range as it saves time and it is not fun to load most rifles when it is cold or rainy.

I, personally want one of everything ever made, just like I do with electric basses, and while hard core progressive on the environment, GLBT issues, healthcare and worker's rights am pretty much a radical on the right to keep and bear arms. But your post is a perfect example of someone giving logical reasons in a rational manner and deserves to be applauded for raising the level of discourse. I disagree, of course, as I, perhaps in great delusion, view one of the true purposes of an armed citizenry as being capable of making resistance to the government when it acts in a fascistic manner thus the fact that my 300 win would be only marginally slowed by any sort of body armor is not necessarily a Bad Thing in a world of 'no knock' raids often at the wrong location.

[57_TomCat]

102. Just cherry picking here but...

you said"Without special dispensation you can't own fully automatic weapons, flamethrowers, grenade launchers, sawed-off shotguns, etc. even though they COULD be useful in self-defense."

Flame throwers are not illegal, have no restrictions on purchase and easy to come by. I have one in my tool shed. It kicks up a good fire for controlled burns on the family farm. The military style where napalm is projected under pressure and ignited to great distances is also an unrestricted item but not as common. I have a WWII friend with a surplus one but it has not been "fired up" in years. Using one for self defense however might open up a can of worms since the nature of the weapon would tend to endanger other people and property to an excessive amount.

[57_TomCat]

105. Lots to work with here.

let's start "Just as speech can be limited (obscenity, fighting words, 'fire in a crowded theater'), your right to own weapons for the purposes of self defense are not without reasonable restrictions in the interest of public safety. "

First off those words you mentioned are not banned nor are you prevented from saying them. You will potentially suffer consequences if you say them when inappropriate. Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater when there is a fire is certainly a reasonable thing to do. Obscenity often is in the eyes and ears of the beholder. The infamous "fuck" is prohibited over the open electromagnetic airwaves but quite legal on satellite, HBO, on the street (I hear it so MUCH argh!) or in your home. Who and how you speak it may determine its liability. Those reasonable restrictions you quote for weapons are "all ready there". You are prohibited from using them in an illegal manner. You are not allowed to shoot people that do not need shooting. If they need shooting then by goodness NOT having a gun to shoot them is bad form. No further restrictions need be had. Prosecute the illegal users. In fact I believe several here have posted the links that show about 90% of all gun violence is perpetrated by repeat offenders.

"THAT SAID: There is little compelling reason to allow citizens to own high-power, center-fire rifles with LARGE CAPACITY and QUICKLY Changed magazines. You do not need a 10 round magazine in a hunting rifle (if you have missed two or three times your target has fled). Most military style semi-auto assault weapons are inferior in accuracy to quality bolt-action hunting rifles anyway. These large capacity magazines in semi-auto center fire weapons are ONLY useful for killing people in quantity."

To start with it in darn near all jurisdictions it is already illegal to hunt with a center fire rifle and a magazine that holds more than five rounds. In my old home state a deer in the truck and a magazine over five rounds could get the deer AND truck confiscated and forfeited. Hunting is not the issue with magazines. I do know that my original Colt AR15 rifle came with two "five round" magazines. When I hunted with it, (coyote, feral cats and dogs mostly) I simply used the 5 rounders. When it was by the door at night I had a 20 rounder in it and a pouch with 4 more nearby. It was not for hunting but instead for things that might go bump in the night. Since the local sheriffs office was about 30 miles away, the nearest neighbor about a mile away, and the potential of help not even being aware of a problem (think Capote's "In Cold Blood", a true story) then having a lot of bullets on tap was a good idea. No guarantee it would save my bacon but it made more sense to have it and not need it that the alternative.

These magazines are very good for military purposes and having been in the army I can attest to the effectiveness of "firepower". Even so the citizen alone and in particular the citizen far from help or access to help has a very valid need for them. More so than the cops. They also are great for shooting competitions where one "runs and guns". Saves on reloading and allows for better times on the clock. Remember the magazine might be an enhancement to criminal activity but we already have laws to stop the criminals. We do not need to limit the citizen that does NOT commit the crimes.


One magazine story in particular initially supports your view. The Long Island Railroad massacre. As I recall Ferguson used the two 15 round magazines that came with the Ruger pistol he used. He did not buy extra magazines and had as a result 30 rounds of ammo on tap. A simple magazine change after his first volley and another 15 rounds on tap. Of course had he carried three ten round magazines he would have had the same ammo count. Had he carried a revolver with 5 speed loaders he would have been possibly as fast with the same thirty rounds. The point is Ferguson decided to break the law and kill people with a already illegal gun (by NY law).

One point that often escapes the light of day is how one of our party faith full, McCarthy from New York, A lady that suffered a grievous loss and is a rabid anti gun Representative as a result of that very incident; might still have her husband alive if he or someone else on that train were armed and took out Ferguson after he started his rampage. Instead they had to cower while he emptied 2 magazines of ammo, 30 rounds, and needed to reload the magazines with individual rounds before they had a chance to overpower him. One armed citizen might well have prevented the depravity. Of course we saw how effective the LI RR police and NY law was at preventing or controlling the incident.

Simply following the current laws on the books will prevent the lawful from doing bad things and allow for the lawful to protect themselves and others when criminals break the law. (thats why they call them criminals)

Crime control, not gun control or magazine control is the answer. Fight the root problems of crime and most of your "gun violence" will disappear.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[depakid]

39. Well, you know what they say

Ask a stupid question.... ;-)

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

40. He was asking people who support the legislation, sometimes you have to put it on their level.

[bossy22]

56. and how is my question

a stupid question?

asking one to explain there position instead of just agreeing/disagreeing with them is far from stupid.

[whoneedstickets]

68. Nice Freeper Term... Grabber

You find that in the NRA lit or did you get it from listening to Rush. Is anyone who want reasonable fire-arms regulation a grabber?

[bossy22]

72. the question is what is consdered

reasonable

some people thought that D.C.'s laws were reasonable.....the supreme court thought otherwise

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

84. Gun grabber is our counter to gun nut. Once you've been here a while you'll learn.

In the gun forum at least. They usually don't allow us out of here very much.

David

[Howzit]

63. It is a very useful piece of legislation

not intended to reduce crime, but to get the population used to the idea that certain guns should be unavailable to them. After the ban on military styled semi-auto rifles becomes permanent, someone will finally acknowledge that there are no functional differences between different styles of semi-auto rifle, and the rest will be added to the list.

These guns would be useful in engaging multiple armed aggressors from a distance, so why the eagerness to ban them? Perhaps those that want to ban them are planning something they know will be unacceptable and don't want any resistance when that time comes. If this is not the reason, there is no reason - national handgun bans used to be pushed "to reduce crime", but voters weren't going for it. Now assault weapons bans have replaced handgun bans as the political weapon of choice because "no one needs a military weapon for hunting or for self defense".

The statement in the video by Dr Suzanna Gratia Hupp at 5 minutes explains why there is a drive to ban ugly rifles and the need to resist it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1u0Byq5Qis

[rangersmith82]

64. More videos

Gun control is just plain unconstitutional period.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GNu7ldL1LM&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfObDFVnfp0&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lnAEvqI6V9E&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGGmFj9282Q&feature=related

[rangersmith82]

65. the AWB didnt stop the Hollywood shootout

Silly me I thought a Assault Weapon Ban would save us from the evil AK-47s....

Guess not....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout

The North Hollywood shootout was an armed confrontation between two heavily-armed and armored bank robbers, Larry Eugene Phillips, Jr. and Emil Matasareanu, and patrol and SWAT officers of the Los Angeles Police Department in North Hollywood, Los Angeles, California on February 28, 1997. It happened when responding patrol officers engaged Phillips and Matasareanu leaving a bank which the two men had just robbed. Ten officers and seven civilians sustained injuries before both robbers were killed.<2> Phillips and Matasareanu had robbed several banks prior to their attempt in North Hollywood and were notorious for their heavy armament, which included automatic rifles.

Local patrol officers at the time were typically armed with a 9 mm or .38 Special pistol on their person, with some having a 12-gauge shotgun available in their cars. Phillips and Matasareanu carried fully automatic rifles, with ammunition capable of penetrating police body armor, and wore body armor of their own. Since the police handguns could not penetrate the bank robbers' body armor, the patrol officers efforts were ineffective until they acquired weapons that could penetrate. SWAT arrived with weapons that could penetrate and also they appropriated several semi-automatic rifles from a nearby firearms dealer. The incident sparked debate on the appropriate firepower for patrol officers to have available in similar situations in the future.<3>

Here lays a illegal assault weapon that was banned in 1994


Oh my God....I thought this law would get rid of the evil Assault Weapon....

[russ1943]

69. Read the June 2004 Report

I support the Assault weapons ban (and the other planks in the Democratic party platform).

Seldom mentioned here in the gungeon are two of the three aspects of the AWB.
Large capacity magazines and assault pistols (APs).

June 2004 Report to the National Institute of Justice, United States Department of Justice
An Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003
http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf



The report referenced and linked, describes the ban as: Attempt to Limit the Use of Guns with Military Style Features and Large Ammunition Capacities. I support that.
They reference ammunition feeding devices holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition (referred to as large capacity magazines, or LCMs).

Some comments from the report;

Arguably, the AW-LCM ban is intended to reduce gunshot victimizations by
limiting the national stock of semiautomatic firearms with large ammunition
capacities – which enable shooters to discharge many shots rapidly – and other
features conducive to criminal uses. The AW provision targets a relatively small
number of weapons based on features that have little to do with the weapons’ operation, and removing those features is sufficient to make the weapons legal.
The LCM provision limits the ammunition capacity of non-banned firearms.
Following implementation of the ban, the share of gun crimes involving AWs
declined by 17% to 72% across the localities examined for this study (Baltimore,
Miami, Milwaukee, Boston, St. Louis, and Anchorage), based on data covering all
or portions of the 1995-2003 post-ban period. This is consistent with patterns
found in national data on guns recovered by police and reported to ATF.

The decline in the use of AWs has been due primarily to a reduction in the use of
assault pistols (APs), which are used in crime more commonly than assault rifles
(ARs).

I'll repeat that; The decline in the use of AWs has been due primarily to a reduction in the use of
assault pistols (APs), which are used in crime more commonly than assault rifles
(ARs).

continuing from the report;

There has not been a clear decline in the use of ARs, though assessments
are complicated by the rarity of crimes with these weapons and by substitution of
post-ban rifles that are very similar to the banned AR models.

Because the ban has not yet reduced the use of LCMs in crime, we cannot clearly
credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence. However, the
ban’s exemption of millions of pre-ban AWs and LCMs ensured that the effects of the law would occur only gradually. Those effects are still unfolding and may
not be fully felt for several years into the future, particularly if foreign, pre-ban
LCMs continue to be imported into the U.S. in large numbers.

[bossy22]

73. the assault pistol

arguement is the silliest....both "assault pistols" and non assault pistols are semi-auto...take the same magazine capacity...and have the same effectiveness

and the argument about LCMs is also silly....in the VT report they came to the conclusion that a magazine limit at 10 would have not stopped the killer nor really significantly affected his lethality. It only takes about a second to reload a pistol with a mag

[friendly_iconoclast]

89. So you want to ban rifles which are both in 1. common legal use and 2. rarely used in crimes. Why?

1. The standard for Constitutionally protected possession, per the Supreme Court
(see the decision in Heller vs. DC)

2. From the quote *you* gave us (emphasis added):

There has not been a clear decline in the use of ARs, though assessments
are complicated by the rarity of crimes with these weapons and by substitution of
post-ban rifles that are very similar to the banned AR models.

Seems you are offering up a solution for a problem that doesn't exist.

[raimius]

94. "assault pistols"

...again with the list of cosmetic features that don't alter function...

Sure "assault pistols" look scary, but they are functionally harder to reload (the ones with mag-wells in front of the pistol grip), and harder to conceal (compare the size of a Tec-9 to a Glock).

...and I'm sorry, but anyone who cannot get their terms straight in an official report draws suspicion from me.
Assault Rifles were not banned by the '94 AWB. The NFA, GCA, and FOPA already took care of civilian assault rifle production (i.e. it's been illegal since 1986).

[spin]

123. Some pictures of "assault pistols" (for informational purposes)

Interdynamic KG-9 "assault pistol" with 20 and 30 round magazines



Interdynamic KG-9 "assault pistol", bolt locked in open (cocked) position, with 20 round magazine



Intratec AB-10, a "post-ban" (post-1994) reincarnation of the Intratec TEC-9 pistol, shown without magazine. The major differences from "pre-1994" TEC-9 pistol are un-shrouded and un-thread barrel, and different markings; the basic design is the same.


Further information about these firearms can be found at: http://world.guns.ru/handguns/hg136-e.htm

*****************

For comparison, Glock pictures.

edited to add Glock pictures




Glock-17



Glock 26

[benEzra]

121. The decline in sale of so-called "assault pistols" had little to do with the Feinstein non-ban,

and everything to do with the guns themselves, IMO.

Consider an Intratec TEC-9/DC-9 9mm vs. a Glock 17 9mm or a full-size Smith & Wesson 9mm.

Same rate of fire. Same range of magazine capacities. Same ammunition.

The Intratec was heavier, bulkier, slower to reload, harder to shoot 2-handed, less ergonomic, the magazine location prevents it from being easily carried on the person with a magazine inserted, and it was an unreliable jam-o-matic. The functionally identical Glock or Smith & Wesson are FAR more reliable, much easier to reload, and are more portable.

Rifles were quite a different story; an AR-15 is a better all-around carbine than a functionally identical Ruger Mini Thirty, and a civilian AK is a better carbine than a functionally identical Mini Thirty, or a comparable Winchester M1894 .30-30. Which is why between 1994 and 2004, Intratec went of business (even though they made ban-legal TEC-9 variants), while the AR-15 platform became the most popular civilian rifle in the United States, and more civilian AK's were sold after the Feinstein law's enactment than in all the years prior.