NationStates Jolt Archive

I have noticed a lot of people have some misconceptions about the assault weapons ban, and I'd like to take a moment of you time to clear these up, especially as many are pushing to renew it.

Terminology
Assault Weapon, Assault Rifle, Machine Gun/Automatic Rifle, Semiautomatic Rifle, and last but not least Military Style Semiautomatic Rifle aka Evil Black Rifle.

Assault Weapon- This is not used outside of the context of this law. It is defined in the law as being

Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

* Folding or telescoping stock
* Conspicuous pistol grip
* Bayonet mount
* Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
* Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device which enables the launching or firing of rifle grenades)

Assault Rife- A term used to describe a rifle capable of select fire- there is a switch (http://i.pbase.com/v3/74/53774/1/44889873.ourm16.jpg)that enables you to make the gun full auto or semi-auto.

Machine Gun/Automatic- This is a gun that will continue to fire until you lift your finger off the trigger or the ammo runs out. These have been controlled since 1934 with the National Firearms Act, and no crime has been committed in the last 50years with a legal machine gun. So for the people who are scrolling down and not reading-

The ban has no effect on Machine Guns

Semiautomatic Rifle- These fire one round every time you pull the trigger, with no manual cocking needed in between each shot. Simple enough.

Military-Style Semiautomatic Rifles- These are semi-automatic rifles that are legal in the United States. They are based off of a military rifle. For example, the civilian AR-15 (the most common EBR) and the military M-16.

Lethality of Assault Weapons
Many people mistakenly believe that Assault Weapons are more powerful. The .223, the round used in an AR-15, is less powerful than most hunting rifles. An .223 is not any less powerful than a .223 fired from any other gun. This holds true for any caliber.

Criminal Use of Assault Weapons

Here is the DoJ's study on the effects of the Assault Weapons Ban. In short, they found that AWs were used in too few crimes to begin with to come up with a conclusion.
Study (http://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles1/173405.txt)
Washington Post describes the study (http://www.washtimes.com/news/2004/aug/16/20040816-114754-1427r/)
Another Article (http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/04/24/news/gun.php)

AWs are used in about .2% of violent crimes and 1% of gun crimes (Some studies put this as high as 7%, but it is thought to be lower than 3%). Most criminals use handguns. Less than 4% of mass murders were done using a weapon that would be banned.

I hope I cleared some things up for some people. Mainly, a lot of people think that now we have millions of machine gun toting rednecks running around now that the ban has ended, which is not at all the case. All it did was to punish millions of law abiding citizens; it did not conclusively impede criminal activities. A ban on high capacity magazines would be a different story; I would probably support that. Crimes involving large magazines dropped by 25% during the ban.

Don't support congress trying to bring back the ban (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:1:./temp/~c110uIkaRk:e873:).

Some good links:
An awesome page that I lifted most of this from. (http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcassaul.html) A little outdated, but most of it holds true.

A poorly made video. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfKADcfE90U) But it is right, and points out the shortcomings of the ban.

My target audience. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rGpykAX1fo)

Thanks, ascarybear. That's a very clear and concise explanation of this legislation, and why it has no real validity.

The Assault Weapons Ban was nothing more than a feel-good measure, or as I have heard an anti-gun activist describe it, "a tiny band-aid hiding a massive, infected wound". Personally, I support the Second Amendment and the freedoms it ascribes, but I cannot honestly see anyone, on either side of the debate, supporting this piece of legislative inanity once they truly understand how useless it is.

I have noticed a lot of people have some misconceptions about the assault weapons ban, and I'd like to take a moment of you time to clear these up, especially as many are pushing to renew it.

Terminology
Assault Weapon, Assault Rifle, Machine Gun/Automatic Rifle, Semiautomatic Rifle, and last but not least Military Style Semiautomatic Rifle aka Evil Black Rifle.

Assault Weapon- This is not used outside of the context of this law. It is defined in the law as being

Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

* Folding or telescoping stock
* Conspicuous pistol grip
* Bayonet mount
* Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
* Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device which enables the launching or firing of rifle grenades)

Assault Rife- A term used to describe a rifle capable of select fire- there is a switch (http://i.pbase.com/v3/74/53774/1/44889873.ourm16.jpg)that enables you to make the gun full auto or semi-auto.

Machine Gun/Automatic- This is a gun that will continue to fire until you lift your finger off the trigger or the ammo runs out. These have been controlled since 1934 with the National Firearms Act, and no crime has been committed in the last 50years with a legal machine gun. So for the people who are scrolling down and not reading-

The ban has no effect on Machine Guns

Semiautomatic Rifle- These fire one round every time you pull the trigger, with no manual cocking needed in between each shot. Simple enough.

Military-Style Semiautomatic Rifles- These are semi-automatic rifles that are legal in the United States. They are based off of a military rifle. For example, the civilian AR-15 (the most common EBR) and the military M-16.

Lethality of Assault Weapons
Many people mistakenly believe that Assault Weapons are more powerful. The .223, the round used in an AR-15, is less powerful than most hunting rifles. An .223 is not any less powerful than a .223 fired from any other gun. This holds true for any caliber.

Criminal Use of Assault Weapons

Here is the DoJ's study on the effects of the Assault Weapons Ban. In short, they found that AWs were used in too few crimes to begin with to come up with a conclusion.
Study (http://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles1/173405.txt)
Washington Post describes the study (http://www.washtimes.com/news/2004/aug/16/20040816-114754-1427r/)
Another Article (http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/04/24/news/gun.php)

AWs are used in about .2% of violent crimes and 1% of gun crimes (Some studies put this as high as 7%, but it is thought to be lower than 3%). Most criminals use handguns. Less than 4% of mass murders were done using a weapon that would be banned.

I hope I cleared some things up for some people. Mainly, a lot of people think that now we have millions of machine gun toting rednecks running around now that the ban has ended, which is not at all the case. All it did was to punish millions of law abiding citizens; it did not conclusively impede criminal activities. A ban on high capacity magazines would be a different story; I would probably support that. Crimes involving large magazines dropped by 25% during the ban.

Don't support congress trying to bring back the ban (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:1:./temp/~c110uIkaRk:e873:).

Some good links:
An awesome page that I lifted most of this from. (http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcassaul.html) A little outdated, but most of it holds true.

A poorly made video. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfKADcfE90U) But it is right, and points out the shortcomings of the ban.

My target audience. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rGpykAX1fo)

Okey, dokey.

First, let me admit I haven't read your links.

Second, let me say I don't have strong feelings one way or another about the assault weapons ban but I probably lean in favor of it.

That said, you make a farily good argument that the ban doesn't necessarily achieve some of what people may think it achieves. That is, the ban is not as good or helpful as some may think.

But you don't actually make an argument as to what is harmful or negative about the ban. OK, maybe the ban doesn't do everything people may think, but what harm does it cause? All things being equal, why not renew it?

I'm not trying to pick an argument with you here so much as I am asking you to provide me with more information.

But you don't actually make an argument as to what is harmful or negative about the ban. OK, maybe the ban doesn't do everything people may think, but what harm does it cause? All things being equal, why not renew it?

Personally, I believe that since we live in a permissive society there needs to be a very strong and compelling reason to prohibit the public from possessing certain items. I don't think that assault weapons quite meet that criteria.

Okey, dokey.

First, let me admit I haven't read your links.

Second, let me say I don't have strong feelings one way or another about the assault weapons ban but I probably lean in favor of it.

That said, you make a farily good argument that the ban doesn't necessarily achieve some of what people may think it achieves. That is, the ban is not as good or helpful as some may think.

But you don't actually make an argument as to what is harmful or negative about the ban. OK, maybe the ban doesn't do everything people may think, but what harm does it cause? All things being equal, why not renew it?

I'm not trying to pick an argument with you here so much as I am asking you to provide me with more information.

Fair enough. Basically New Wallonchia said it. I think that the government should have to justify taking rights from us; we shouldn't have to justify having rights.

the assualt weapons ban was simply the then democratic controlled congress
hoping if they passed some flashy ban to make the streets safe they could keep their seats in congress after the national health care fiasco. also had to do with punishing the NRA for being a thorn in their side the previous 2 years. the ban was targeted at NRA members who like to collect military looking weapons(even if they could only fire one shot per trigger pull).
look at what the ban targets bayonet mounts ? ever hear of someone being bayoneted ? flash suppressor ? in a city environment that makes no difference, only affect concealment in a spaced out woodland environment. pistol grip again just something for show on a semi auto weapon (though useful on a pump action shot gun). folding stock yeah the weapon is still larger then a pistol, and an adjustable stock makes little difference in concealability.
Grenade launcher seems reasonable then your realize
a grenades are already banned.
b they are banning a metal tube.

like I said the assault weapons ban was simply an attempt by democrats to get votes and punish the NRA for being annoying to them.

I think that the government should have to justify taking rights from us; we shouldn't have to justify having rights.

Pretty much. Notice that when GB outlawed the majority of firearms, knife crimes went up. There was a thread a while back about the Brits banning teh beeg ebil nifes.

Regarding hi-cap mags, I don't see how they are a bad thing. Sure, 20+ rounds is a bit much for deer hunting, but there's plinking, target shooting, competitive shooting, and a host of other perfectly legitimate uses. I am of the opinion that the problem lies not with the ownership of various inanimate objects, but in the actions of the users. If you commit a crime, you go to jail. If you hurt someone, you are forced to provide compensation to the injured party. If you murder someone, you should be locked away forever or executed. Don't blame the object used, blame the user.

The fact that a thing could be used for a crime does not make it evil - if that were the case, I'd be demanding the registration of screwdrivers, skillets, and large rocks.

Regarding hi-cap mags, I don't see how they are a bad thing. Sure, 20+ rounds is a bit much for deer hunting, but there's plinking, target shooting, competitive shooting, and a host of other perfectly legitimate uses.


I was thinking more along the lines of 60+ round drums when I wrote that, mainly to make it harder for people with illegal full autos to get ahold of them. And you've got to admit there really aren't a whole lot of legitimate uses that require an excess of say, a 30 rnd mag.

I was thinking more along the lines of 60+ round drums when I wrote that, mainly to make it harder for people with illegal full autos to get ahold of them. And you've got to admit there really aren't a whole lot of legitimate uses that require an excess of say, a 30 rnd mag.

I saw a 50 round snail drum mag for a Ruger 10/22... just imagine the fun....

bangbangbangbangbangbangbangbangbangbangbangbangbangbangbangbangbangbangbangbangbangbangbangbangbang bangbangbangbangbangbangbangbangbangbangbangbangbangbangbangbangbangbangbangbangbangbangbangbangbang bang

I was thinking more along the lines of 60+ round drums when I wrote that, mainly to make it harder for people with illegal full autos to get ahold of them. And you've got to admit there really aren't a whole lot of legitimate uses that require an excess of say, a 30 rnd mag.

i never saw anything over a 40 rounded extended clip pre ban. norm was 30 rounds. ban just was to piss off gun collectors i am sure.

Criminal Use of Assault Weapons

Here is the DoJ's study on the effects of the Assault Weapons Ban. In short, they found that AWs were used in too few crimes to begin with to come up with a conclusion.
Study (http://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles1/173405.txt)
Washington Post describes the study (http://www.washtimes.com/news/2004/aug/16/20040816-114754-1427r/)
Another Article (http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/04/24/news/gun.php)


Okey, dokey, re-dux. I've now looked at the material you linked above.

First, the text file you cite to is a DOJ study on the Assault Weapons Ban, not the only study. Also, here is an easier to read pdf of the study (http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/173405.pdf).

In actuality the primary limitation on that 1999 study is that it only looked at the years 1994 to 1996. Thus the study notes:

The ban's impact on lethal gun violence is unclear because the short period since the enabling legislation's passage created methodological difficulties for researchers.

The 1999 study did reach some tenative conclusions supportive of the ban (emphasis added):

Key issues: Although the weapons banned by this legislation were used only rarely in gun crimes before the ban, supporters felt that these
weapons posed a threat to public safety because they are capable of firing
many shots rapidly. They argued that these characteristics enhance
offenders' ability to kill and wound more persons and to inflict multiple
wounds on each victim, so that a decrease in their use would reduce the
fatality rate of gun attacks.

Key findings: The authors, using a variety of national and local data sources, examined market trends—prices, production, and thefts—for the banned weapons and close substitutes before estimating potential ban effects and their consequences.

--Criminal use of the banned guns declined, at least temporarily, after the law went into effect, which suggests that the legal stock of preban assault weapons was, at least for the short term, largely in the hands of collectors and dealers.

--Evidence suggests that the ban may have contributed to a reduction in
the gun murder rate and murders of police officers by criminals armed
with assault weapons

In 2004, the DOJ did an updated, but unpublished, assessment of the effect of the ban from 1994-2003 (http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf). That study was 114 pages long and I won't claim to have even skimmed through it beyond the introduction and summaries. Again the conclusion was equivocal and uncertain, pointing mostly for the need for more research. But some interesting points were found:

• 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.

• 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.

• Should it be renewed, the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement. AWs were rarely used in gun crimes even before the ban. LCMs are involved in a more substantial share of gun crimes, but it is not clear how often the outcomes of gun attacks depend on the ability of offenders to fire more than ten shots (the current magazine capacity limit) without reloading.

• Nonetheless, reducing criminal use of AWs and especially LCMs could have nontrivial effects on gunshot victimizations. The few available studies suggest that attacks with semiautomatics – including AWs and other semiautomatics equipped with LCMs – result in more shots fired, more persons hit, and more wounds inflicted per victim than do attacks with other firearms. Further, a study of handgun attacks in one city found that 3% of the gunfire incidents resulted in more than 10 shots fired, and those attacks produced almost 5% of the gunshot victims.

• If the ban is lifted, gun and magazine manufacturers may reintroduce AW models and LCMs, perhaps in substantial numbers. In addition, pre-ban AWs may lose value and novelty, prompting some of their owners to sell them in undocumented secondhand markets where they can more easily reach high-risk users, such as criminals, terrorists, and other potential mass murderers. Any resulting increase in crimes with AWs and LCMs might increase gunshot victimizations for the reasons noted above, though this effect could be difficult to measure.

Just FYI, your "Washington Post" article is actually from The Washington Times and doesn't really add anything to the discussion.

If I get some time and remain interested, I may go looking for other studies that have been done regarding the effects of the AW ban.

But overall it looks to me like (1) the AW ban so far does save lives -- especially those of cops -- but not in great quantities and (2) the AW ban may be more effective if given more time.

Personally, I believe that since we live in a permissive society there needs to be a very strong and compelling reason to prohibit the public from possessing certain items. I don't think that assault weapons quite meet that criteria.

Fair enough. Basically New Wallonchia said it. I think that the government should have to justify taking rights from us; we shouldn't have to justify having rights.

This kind of begs the question of whether you have a "right" to an assault weapon.

Not every law must be backed by very strong and compelling reasons. I'm not going to go into it, but there is a whole set of criteria that are used by the courts to judge whether a law is sufficiently justified. Which criteria is used depends on the type of law enacted, type of burden imposed by the law, and whether the law implicates any rights. Some laws are subject to "strict scrutiny," while others must only have a rational basis.

Even if the result is minor, the saving of lives is a pretty good starting place for justification of a ban on assault weapons. That is why I wondered what the counter-balancing downside of a such a ban was.

On a related note, can one of you explain why the ban on machine guns is backed by very strong and compelling reasons, but the ban on assault weapons is not?

yes the number of crimes with assault weapons went down. but the law only really only judges what is an assault weapon by visual factors.

it would be like banning Red cars and claiming it was an effective ban because the number people hit by red cars went down.

yes the number of crimes with assault weapons went down. but the law only really only judges what is an assault weapon by visual factors.

it would be like banning Red cars and claiming it was an effective ban because the number people hit by red cars went down.

That's because everybody knows Red Ones Go Faster.

This kind of begs the question of whether you have a "right" to an assault weapon.

I wasn't really talking in terms of "rights" specifically related to guns, I was talking about banning ownership of certain items or classes of items for more or less arbitrary reasons. For example, banning a semi-auto AK-47 while allowing a semi-auto .30-06 is rather silly if the point is to remove the most lethal weapons from the streets as the .30-06 round is rather more accurate and powerful. The problem is that the AK gets banned because of it's cosmetic features.

While this analogy is tired and overdone it's like banning red cars simply because they look sportier and thus one is presumably more likely to go to fast and cause accidents.

Not every law must be backed by very strong and compelling reasons. I'm not going to go into it, but there is a whole set of criteria that are used by the courts to judge whether a law is sufficiently justified. Which criteria is used depends on the type of law enacted, type of burden imposed by the law, and whether the law implicates any rights. Some laws are subject to "strict scrutiny," while others must only have a rational basis.

I understand that and I was just giving my opinion that to prohibit the ownership of certain types of things the government should have a strong and compelling reason.

On a related note, can one of you explain why the ban on machine guns is backed by very strong and compelling reasons, but the ban on assault weapons is not?

I don't particularly support the ban on machine guns either. The simple economics of buying a machine gun prevents all but the most determined buyers, and if a criminal has the financial wherewithal to buy a machine gun he'd likely be able to get it illegally anyway example (http://arborupdate.com/article/1053/ignoring-terrorism-in-michigan). Also, based on my experiences in Iraq I'm much less afraid of someone firing an AK-47 at me on full auto than if they were firing at me on semi, unless I'm about 2m away or something.