Bad news for the AWB supporters

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

How does one determine what constitutes a weapon as an assault weapon? It seems somewhat paradoxical to suggest some weapons are assault weapons and some aren't. What is the criteria that determines whether a semi-automatic rifle is an AW? Pistol grip, flash suppressor, detachable magazine? These don't really make a weapon more dangerous or assaultive, do they?

Saying that "we ought to keep assault rifles off the streets of America" is very strawman.

I don't think its difficult to come up with a set of criteria to define clearly what sort of firearms should be made available to the public at retail. Whether that's constitutional is another matter of course.

I think it would be rather normative to come up with a criteria for which weapons classify as assaultive, don't you think? I doubt there is any empirical data which proves or disproves that one weapon is inherently more dangerous than another, in the modern age.

What I'm leading to is that the assaultive aspect of any weapon is always the operator. Targeting and banning weapons only really affects those who abide by the rules. There is empirical evidence of this. You can look at the correalation between the disarmament of Iraq and the drastic rise in the rate of rapes and murders.

To be honest I think thats really only true in countries which have an ingrained gun culture. Obviously Iraq is a little bit different - as you have sectarian issues at work there, although its not much different in that respect to urban ghettos in the US.

I don't think its much of an issue in countries where gun ownership was never a frontline political issue. As far as that goes anyone who is the victim of a crime is by definition the victim of a person who didn't want to follow the rules. It doesn't mean we have to throw out all laws because of that.

[mRx 16]

How does one determine what constitutes a weapon as an assault weapon? It seems somewhat paradoxical to suggest some weapons are assault weapons and some aren't. What is the criteria that determines whether a semi-automatic rifle is an AW? Pistol grip, flash suppressor, detachable magazine? These don't really make a weapon more dangerous or assaultive, do they?

Saying that "we ought to keep assault rifles off the streets of America" is very strawman.

I don't think its difficult to come up with a set of criteria to define clearly what sort of firearms should be made available to the public at retail. Whether that's constitutional is another matter of course.

I think it would be rather normative to come up with a criteria for which weapons classify as assaultive, don't you think? I doubt there is any empirical data which proves or disproves that one weapon is inherently more dangerous than another, in the modern age.

What I'm leading to is that the assaultive aspect of any weapon is always the operator. Targeting and banning weapons only really affects those who abide by the rules. There is empirical evidence of this. You can look at the correalation between the disarmament of Iraq and the drastic rise in the rate of rapes and murders.

I think it's fairly straightforward that a streetsweeper is more dangerous than a bolt action mauser rifle....

I specifically included the bolded in an attempt to avoid the comparison of the Uzi and the muzzleloader.

[mRx 16]

How does one determine what constitutes a weapon as an assault weapon? It seems somewhat paradoxical to suggest some weapons are assault weapons and some aren't. What is the criteria that determines whether a semi-automatic rifle is an AW? Pistol grip, flash suppressor, detachable magazine? These don't really make a weapon more dangerous or assaultive, do they?

Saying that "we ought to keep assault rifles off the streets of America" is very strawman.

I don't think its difficult to come up with a set of criteria to define clearly what sort of firearms should be made available to the public at retail. Whether that's constitutional is another matter of course.

I think it would be rather normative to come up with a criteria for which weapons classify as assaultive, don't you think? I doubt there is any empirical data which proves or disproves that one weapon is inherently more dangerous than another, in the modern age.

What I'm leading to is that the assaultive aspect of any weapon is always the operator. Targeting and banning weapons only really affects those who abide by the rules. There is empirical evidence of this. You can look at the correalation between the disarmament of Iraq and the drastic rise in the rate of rapes and murders.

To be honest I think thats really only true in countries which have an ingrained gun culture. Obviously Iraq is a little bit different - as you have sectarian issues at work there, although its not much different in that respect to urban ghettos in the US.

I don't think its much of an issue in countries where gun ownership was never a frontline political issue. As far as that goes anyone who is the victim of a crime is by definition the victim of a person who didn't want to follow the rules. It doesn't mean we have to throw out all laws because of that.

I don't believe in a law-less society either. I think any harm caused to another person is terrible and the victim deserves compensation and justice. But I think that people should be allowed to defend against such harm. Whether in their homes, or outside their homes. Laws like this don't defend the public, they inhibit the public's ability to defend themselves.

[The_Dude 1,142]

How does one determine what constitutes a weapon as an assault weapon? It seems somewhat paradoxical to suggest some weapons are assault weapons and some aren't. What is the criteria that determines whether a semi-automatic rifle is an AW? Pistol grip, flash suppressor, detachable magazine? These don't really make a weapon more dangerous or assaultive, do they?

Saying that "we ought to keep assault rifles off the streets of America" is very strawman.

I don't think its difficult to come up with a set of criteria to define clearly what sort of firearms should be made available to the public at retail. Whether that's constitutional is another matter of course.

I think it would be rather normative to come up with a criteria for which weapons classify as assaultive, don't you think? I doubt there is any empirical data which proves or disproves that one weapon is inherently more dangerous than another, in the modern age.

What I'm leading to is that the assaultive aspect of any weapon is always the operator. Targeting and banning weapons only really affects those who abide by the rules. There is empirical evidence of this. You can look at the correalation between the disarmament of Iraq and the drastic rise in the rate of rapes and murders.

To be honest I think thats really only true in countries which have an ingrained gun culture. Obviously Iraq is a little bit different - as you have sectarian issues at work there, although its not much different in that respect to urban ghettos in the US.

I don't think its much of an issue in countries where gun ownership was never a frontline political issue. As far as that goes anyone who is the victim of a crime is by definition the victim of a person who didn't want to follow the rules. It doesn't mean we have to throw out all laws because of that.

I don't believe in a law-less society either. I think any harm caused to another person is terrible and the victim deserves compensation and justice. But I think that people should be allowed to defend against such harm. Whether in their homes, or outside their homes. Laws like this don't defend the public, they inhibit the public's ability to defend themselves.

Both weopons I used as an example are from the modern age.

I agree that you do have a right to defend yourself in your own home. But do you really need banana clips and assault rifles to accomplish that? And now the realist part of me comes to the forefront. Any attempt at banning guns, except those anomales like the streetsweeper will go the way of alcohol prohibition.

[mRx 16]

I think it would be rather normative to come up with a criteria for which weapons classify as assaultive, don't you think? I doubt there is any empirical data which proves or disproves that one weapon is inherently more dangerous than another, in the modern age.

What I'm leading to is that the assaultive aspect of any weapon is always the operator. Targeting and banning weapons only really affects those who abide by the rules. There is empirical evidence of this. You can look at the correalation between the disarmament of Iraq and the drastic rise in the rate of rapes and murders.

Public safety is the primary concern. The potential lethal power of someone using an assault rifle on a crowd could cause more deaths than a hand grenade.

But Steven, any weapon could be used for an assault or a crime. The VT shooter showed just how devastating and assaultive 2 pistols could be.

Only those who obey the law to begin with will obey any new law. Therefore, the law is generally only applicable to those who follow it. So the question begs; who is really benefitting from this legislation?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Public safety is the primary concern. The potential lethal power of someone using an assault rifle on a crowd could cause more deaths than a hand grenade.

But Steven, any weapon could be used for an assault or a crime. The VT shooter showed just how devastating and assaultive 2 pistols could be.

Only those who obey the law to begin with will obey any new law. Therefore, the law is generally only applicable to those who follow it. So the question begs; who is really benefitting from this legislation?

A ban on manufacturing will make it more difficult for someone to obtain them. From what I understand, because of the current laws against, or for strict ownership of fully automatic weapons, the weapons manufacturers came up with legal semi-auto versions. Limiting the number of rounds is a significant part of the ban proposal.

Look, nobody is going to advocate that we allow citizens to build their own nuclear bombs because of not only potential threat to others, but the chance that the bomb could get into the wrong hands. Where do we draw the line of legality over protecting citizens from such potential dangers? I look at it as - what is the purpose of owning such firearms and what is the potential harm they could do to others in the wrong hands.

Edited March 26, 2009 by Mister Fancypants

[Ban Hammer 13,465]

Both weopons I used as an example are from the modern age.

I agree that you do have a right to defend yourself in your own home. But do you really need banana clips and assault rifles to accomplish that? And now the realist part of me comes to the forefront. Any attempt at banning guns, except those anomales like the streetsweeper will go the way of alcohol prohibition.

i could see that being a good idea, like if you lived out where drug growers routinely operated, or was next to an aryan nation compound.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

How does one determine what constitutes a weapon as an assault weapon? It seems somewhat paradoxical to suggest some weapons are assault weapons and some aren't. What is the criteria that determines whether a semi-automatic rifle is an AW? Pistol grip, flash suppressor, detachable magazine? These don't really make a weapon more dangerous or assaultive, do they?

Saying that "we ought to keep assault rifles off the streets of America" is very strawman.

I don't think its difficult to come up with a set of criteria to define clearly what sort of firearms should be made available to the public at retail. Whether that's constitutional is another matter of course.

I think it would be rather normative to come up with a criteria for which weapons classify as assaultive, don't you think? I doubt there is any empirical data which proves or disproves that one weapon is inherently more dangerous than another, in the modern age.

What I'm leading to is that the assaultive aspect of any weapon is always the operator. Targeting and banning weapons only really affects those who abide by the rules. There is empirical evidence of this. You can look at the correalation between the disarmament of Iraq and the drastic rise in the rate of rapes and murders.

To be honest I think thats really only true in countries which have an ingrained gun culture. Obviously Iraq is a little bit different - as you have sectarian issues at work there, although its not much different in that respect to urban ghettos in the US.

I don't think its much of an issue in countries where gun ownership was never a frontline political issue. As far as that goes anyone who is the victim of a crime is by definition the victim of a person who didn't want to follow the rules. It doesn't mean we have to throw out all laws because of that.

I don't believe in a law-less society either. I think any harm caused to another person is terrible and the victim deserves compensation and justice. But I think that people should be allowed to defend against such harm. Whether in their homes, or outside their homes. Laws like this don't defend the public, they inhibit the public's ability to defend themselves.

But again that argument is only persuasive if you feel that such methods self-defense are necessary. I don't dispute that this may be necessary in this country, but then again I can honestly say I've never at any point (in any of the countries I lived in and visited) felt that the need to keep and maintain a weapon for the purposes of personal or home defense.

I do think that guns are ingrained in this society - and we couldn't realistically do away with them even if we wanted to (and if they weren't protected under the constitution).

[Ban Hammer 13,465]

A ban on manufacturing will make it more difficult for someone to obtain them.

yeah i see that ban working real well in mexico too.

From what I understand, because of the current laws against, or for strict ownership of fully automatic weapons, the weapons manufacturers came up with legal semi-auto versions. Limiting the number of rounds is a significant part of the ban proposal.

apparently you can't see that slippery slope you've jumped on. enjoy the ride.

edited to fix quote screwup.

Edited March 27, 2009 by charles!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

A ban on manufacturing will make it more difficult for someone to obtain them.

yeah i see that ban working real well in mexico too.

From what I understand, because of the current laws against, or for strict ownership of fully automatic weapons, the weapons manufacturers came up with legal semi-auto versions. Limiting the number of rounds is a significant part of the ban proposal.

apparently you can't see that slippery slope you've jumped on. enjoy the ride.

That first quote isn't my words...

Secondly - there's no slippery slope. We have restrictions of ownership of full auto weapons and nobody takes issue with that. This follows the same logic.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

When I saw the title of this thread, I thought it was about the Average White Band.

[The_Dude 1,142]

If you look at a lot of the coverage about the Mexican Drug Cartel violence......a lot of the weopons used are military grade weopons that you can't purchase here legally anyways. I think its likely that they get their weopons from the U.S., but also from Venezuela and Columbia. I reiterate..... In a perfect world, we could just make handguns and assault rifles go away. But since that's not going to happen, You won't be taking the guns out of the hands of the criminals who are the target of such a ban. They aren't going to willingly turn over their weopons, only the law abiding citizens will. So whats the point? This is like the governments attempt at alcohol prohibition. Nice try, but it is something that is so ingrained in our society that you can't just take it away. Look at recent attempts at taking baby steps to eliminate things like assault rifles....... I don't think anyone can rationally argue that assault rifles have any utility in our society. I think the arguement boils down to the fact that it will have a nil effect on decreasing crime and violence.

[mRx 16]

Public safety is the primary concern. The potential lethal power of someone using an assault rifle on a crowd could cause more deaths than a hand grenade.

But Steven, any weapon could be used for an assault or a crime. The VT shooter showed just how devastating and assaultive 2 pistols could be.

Only those who obey the law to begin with will obey any new law. Therefore, the law is generally only applicable to those who follow it. So the question begs; who is really benefitting from this legislation?

A ban on manufacturing will make it more difficult for someone to obtain them. From what I understand, because of the current laws against, or for strict ownership of fully automatic weapons, the weapons manufacturers came up with legal semi-auto versions. Limiting the number of rounds is a significant part of the ban proposal.

Look, nobody is going to advocate that we allow citizens to build their own nuclear bombs because of not only potential threat to others, but the chance that the bomb could get into the wrong hands. Where do we draw the line of legality over protecting citizens from such potential dangers? I look at it as - what is the purpose of owning such firearms and what is the potential harm they could do to others in the wrong hands.

I don't necessarily think a ban will make them more difficult to obtain. The difficulty would be absorber by the supplier and transfered to the customer via higher price.

I think this issue is more than just the AWB. It is one small erosion of the right to gun ownership. You've said it yourself, that it follows the same logic as a previous ban. Therefore there will only be more restrictions in the years to come, and I just think it's not the best path to take.

I don't know why people own semi-automatic rifles. Perhaps hunting, sport shooting. I honestly don't know, as I don't own one. My wife banned me from purchasing one. She's the warden around here.

I don't want you to think that I'm for all out violence and total armament; because I'm not. I just think that banning something, while noble in theory, isn't the best way to achieve a desired reduction of something. That's mainly because I don't see centralized coercion or force as a catalyst for change.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

If you look at a lot of the coverage about the Mexican Drug Cartel violence......a lot of the weopons used are military grade weopons that you can't purchase here legally anyways. I think its likely that they get their weopons from the U.S., but also from Venezuela and Columbia. I reiterate..... In a perfect world, we could just make handguns and assault rifles go away. But since that's not going to happen, You won't be taking the guns out of the hands of the criminals who are the target of such a ban. They aren't going to willingly turn over their weopons, only the law abiding citizens will. So whats the point? This is like the governments attempt at alcohol prohibition. Nice try, but it is something that is so ingrained in our society that you can't just take it away. Look at recent attempts at taking baby steps to eliminate things like assault rifles....... I don't think anyone can rationally argue that assault rifles have any utility in our society. I think the arguement boils down to the fact that it will have a nil effect on decreasing crime and violence.

Most mass murders are not caused by career criminals for one. Most of the recent incidents involving the use of assault weapons involved someone who had no criminal record, but was disgruntled or just decided to take their revenge on humanity. I'll try to find some facts and figures on the profile of these types of murderers, but I'm certain they don't fit the profile of a career criminal.

We can and do have reasonable laws restricting the use and ownership of weapons. This type of ban is to limit the availability of assault weapons that could potentially be used to kill many people within a very short span of time and with no reasonable way to suppress someone who decided to start firing at people randomly without equal firepower.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Typical mass murderers are usually conservative, middle-aged, white males from relatively stable, lower-to-middle-class backgrounds. These individuals usually aspire to more than they can achieve, and when they see their ambitions thwarted, they blame others for their failures. They feel exclusion and develop an irrational, and eventually, homicidal hatred of anyone they consider a hindrance to their own aspirations. Quite often, they choose to die in an eruption of violence directed at these perceived oppressors.

.....

There are three common types of mass murderers: family annihilators, paramilitary enthusiasts, and disgruntled workers. Social areas of dysfunction, such as unemployment, loneliness, a family breakup, or an argument with a supervisor, can trigger their deadly rage.

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorio...urderer_14.html