Should the US Re-enact the Assault Weapons Ban? [Ariovistus Maximus vs.WrathofTulkas]
My honorable opponent, WrathofTulkas, will support the position that the class of firearms styled as Assault Weapons should be banned in the United States. For the record, WrathofTulkas is playing the part of devil's advocate.
Now, for effective debate, we must define what precisely an "assault weapon" is. I have compiled a list that explains the definition of an assault weapon, and then explains each feature in more detail.
I will post my own thoughts on this subject separately. These are the simple definitions.
An assault weapon, as defined by the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994, a subtitle of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, is:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
"Assault Weapons" are also often referred to as "Military-Style Assault Weapons."
A semi-automatic rifle able to accept detachable magazines, with two or more of the following characteristics:
1.Folding or telescoping stock 2.Conspicuous Pistol Grip 3.Bayonet mount 4.Flash suppressor or threaded barrel to accommodate one 5.Grenade launcher (of the rifle grenade type, in which a grenade is mounted in front of the barrel and fired with a blank round)
A semi-automatic pistol able to accept detachable magazines, with two or more of the following characteristics:
1.Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip 2.Barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, suppressor, or threaded barrel to accommodate any one of these 3.Barrel shroud 4.Unloaded weight of 50 oz or more 5.A semi-automatic version of an automatic firearm
A semi-automatic shotgun with two or more of the following characteristics:
1.Folding or telescoping stock 2.Conspicuous pistol grip 3.Fixed capacity of over 5 rounds 4.Detachable magazine
More recent bills with similar scope include a list of specifically banned rifles and pistols.
Next, it is important to define those characteristics. I will provide a picture and the definition, and then I will state, to my understanding, the reason that these characteristics are to be banned.
I will demonstrate the ineffective nature of this rationale later.
Semi-automatic Firearm
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
A semi-automatic firearm is one which is able to fire one round for each function of the trigger. That is, each time you pull the trigger, one round will be discharged.
This should not be confused with fully-automatic firearms, which fire multiple rounds for each function of the trigger. When you pull the trigger of a full-auto firearm, it will continue to fire until either you release the trigger, or you run out of ammunition.
A single-shot firearm, on the other hand, is one which fires once per function of the trigger, but also requires you to manipulate the firing mechanism for each shot. In a bolt-action rifle, for instance, you have to turn the bolt to remove the spent case, chamber the next round, and cock the firing pin.
The Assault Weapons Ban deals entirely with semi-automatic firearms. Automatic firearms are dealt with by other legislation.
The rational behind restricting this feature is that a criminal would be able to fire faster with a semi-automatic firearm.
Detachable Magazine
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
A magazine is an ammunition storage and feeding device within or attached to a repeating firearm.
Some firearms have an integral magazine. Others have detachable magazines. Detachable magazines are more convenient, as it significantly decreases reload time, and you can carry multiple loaded magazines.
The rationale behind restricting this feature is that, in a mass-shooting scenario, a gunman would be able to get off more shots.
Note: semi-auto capability and detachable magazines are the features that qualify a firearm for restriction. To be banned, they must have more than one of the following features.
Folding/Telescoping Stock
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Folding Stock
Telescoping Stock
As you can see, the folding stock has a hinge so that the butt can be folded in. The telescoping stock allows the butt to slide forward, concealing it almost completely.
The rationale behind banning these features is that a folding/telescoping stock will greatly shorten the rifle, make it easier to conceal.
Pistol Grip
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
On a firearm or other tool, the pistol grip is that portion of the mechanism that is held by the hand and orients the hand in a manner similar to the position one would take with a conventional pistol.
The rationale behind banning this feature is that it could give a criminal greater control and maneuverability with his firearm.
Bayonet Mount
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
The bayonet mount is a lug or hinge on the end of a rifel barrel that accommodates a bayonet fitting. Some rifles, such as the one shown, actually have an integral bayonet with a hinge.
The rationale behind banning this feature is that a criminal could also stab his targets.
Grenade Launcher
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Image of rifle grenade launcher, the type specified in the AWB:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Image of a rifle with an underslung grenade launcher:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
NOTE: the underslung launcher (bottom) is not dealt with by the AWB. It is, in fact, already restricted under the National Firearms Act, and is considered a Class III destructive device.
Thus, the type restricted by the AWB is the rifle grenade (top). However, it is the launcher, not the grenade, that is restricted. Rifle grenades themselves are also restricted, being considered destructive devices.
The rationale behind restricting this feature is that it will make it one step harder for a criminal to blow up his victims.
Flash Suppressor
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
A flash suppressor is a device attached to the muzzle of a rifle or other firearm that reduces the visible signature of the burning gasses that exit the muzzle.
Some rifles incorporate an integral flash suppressor, and others have a threaded barrel to accommodate one. Thus, a threaded barrel is restricted so that such attachments cannot be incorporated at all.
Similar features include a suppressor (silencer), which hides the flash and virtually eliminates the sound of a fired round.
The rationale for banning this feature is that it would render a criminal undetectable by sight or sound.
Barrel Shroud
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
A barrel shroud is a ventilated covering attached to the barrel of a firearm, that partially or completely encircles the barrel which prevents burns from contacting a hot barrel while allowing air to ventilate through for cooling.
The rationale for banning this feature is that a barrel shroud would give a criminal the ability to fire for a greater length of time without overheating the barrel.
This rationale, however, I will speak against here, because it is a blatant lie, or misconception at least.
The fact is, that the only way to heat a firearm's barrel so much that you would even NEED a barrel shroud in the first place, would be to fire fully-automatic for an extended period of time.
Thus, no semi-automatic firearm can fire fast enough for a barrel shroud to be useful.
The other features specified in the AWB are fairly self-explanatory.
Now, on this basis, we understand the topic of debate and may now begin.
Last edited by Ariovistus Maximus; December 03, 2009 at 02:07 PM.
Re: Should the US Re-enact the Assault Weapons Ban? [Ariovistus Maximus vs.WrathofTulkas]
Now, I wanted to post my opening statements separately, so that the above post is entirely for the purpose of general information.
Now, in my opinion, so-called assault weapons should not be banned because:
1. Assault weapons possess no mechanical or performance characteristics which make them functionally different from other semi-automatic firearms. I.e., the changes are primarily cosmetic.
2. Assault weapons constitute in an only negligible amount to crime, and are not a threat to public safety. Whatever the hypotheses and scenarios, the fact is they are not frequently used.
3. The AWB has no effect on crime. As I said, the banned items are cosmetic, not functional. There are perfectly legal variants of the AK-47, for example, that can be owned under the AWB.
4. The AWB, therefore, is merely a political device to subvert gun rights. Sounds harsh, but considering that there is no legitimate effect upon their stated purpose (crime reduction), that must be their goal.
Now, my honorable opponent may present his opening remarks.
Re: Should the US Re-enact the Assault Weapons Ban? [Ariovistus Maximus vs.WrathofTulkas]
Thank you for your gracious introduction, and so I will just jump right into it!
Originally Posted by Ariovistus Maximus
1. Assault weapons possess no mechanical or performance characteristics which make them functionally different from other semi-automatic firearms. I.e., the changes are primarily cosmetic.
I would have to disagree with the fact that these attachments (which you were resourceful for putting up ) are primarily cosmetic. Bayonet attachments, grenade launchers, flash suppressors are not for cosmetics but rather to improve the weapons' lethality! Even the less dangerous sounding ones like the detachable magazines or folding stocks improve the firing rate and in turn lethality. Why should average citizens have such a lethal capacity in a firearm?
2. Assault weapons constitute in an only negligible amount to crime, and are not a threat to public safety. Whatever the hypotheses and scenarios, the fact is they are not frequently used. !
I do not believe it matters whether or not assualt weapons constitute the majority of firearm related homicides. Simply put these weapons, if they should fall into the wrong hands, can cause tremedous damage. If a person were to open fire into a crowd of people with a bolt-action rifle, how many people could he kill? Suppose he had a semi-auto instead of a bolt-action - would he be able to kill more people? (I believe he could). Not to mention what if he had detachable mags? He could easily reload within seconds and continue firing! I think it it more about quality rather than quanity (that sounds horrible but you get the point )
3. The AWB has no effect on crime. As I said, the banned items are cosmetic, not functional. There are perfectly legal variants of the AK-47, for example, that can be owned under the AWB.
I do not believe that the AWB would reduce the AMOUNT of crime, but it would certaintly deter horrific massacres (like school shootings) from happening.
4. The AWB, therefore, is merely a political device to subvert gun rights. Sounds harsh, but considering that there is no legitimate effect upon their stated purpose (crime reduction), that must be their goal.
The AWB is in a sense a politcal device; this type of legislation was passed in 1994 as a stepping stone to ultimately ban all firearms, but that does not mean it should not be re-enacted! As I have said these weapons have a greater capacity for lethality. Just because politicians want to take the ban further does not mean these types of weapons should be in the hands of citizens.
Re: Should the US Re-enact the Assault Weapons Ban? [Ariovistus Maximus vs.WrathofTulkas]
I would have to disagree with the fact that these attachments are primarily cosmetic.
I'll show you what I mean. People, by and large, lack any practical understanding of firearms. Ballistics means nothing to them.
They can't tell the difference between .308, .44 Magnum, and 7.62x39mm. It is on this ignorance that the AWB depends.
Why? Because what people CAN do, is they can tell the difference between THIS:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
And THIS:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
But which is the more "dangerous?"
Let me put it this way: the major limiting factor on your ability to hit a target at range with that Browning (bottom), is the quality of your optics.
There are any number of law enforcement and military "sniper rifles" that would never be touched by the AWB.
Thus, I am saying that it is foolish to ban a rifle based on it's attachments. In terms of performance, the vast majority of assault weapons are out-performed by "generic" hunting rifles.
Furthermore, I have said (and will demonstrate) that most of these attachments aren't dangerous either!
All right; so you mention bayonets, grenade launchers, and flash hiders as being unreasonably dangerous.
Bayonets: show me, if you would, even ONE case in which a rifle-mounted bayonet was used in a crime. It doesn't happen. Something about the purpose of guns being to shoot, not to serve as pike platforms.
Grenade launchers: show me, if you would, even one case in which a rifle grenade was used in a crime.
It REALLY doesn't happen.
Why? Availability.
Rifle grenades are already restricted. Only a licensed Class III/NFA individual may purchase/possess rifle grenades. And they're not exactly in every shopping window in town.
Furthermore, there are only a handful of rifles that can use rifle grenades.
Lastly, flash hiders: they don't increase a weapon's lethality.
Now, for the cornerstone of my argument in this particular subject.
Hang the grenade launchers and the bayonets. As I said, there are only a few rifles that have them. Go ahead, take them away; ban them.
That is not, however, even the most remotely viable reason to ban the firearm.
It's like banning bicycles for the handlebar bell.
However, I don't feel that I need to rely on that argument just yet; I think I've shown that these attachments are not a legitimate danger.
Even the less dangerous sounding ones like the detachable magazines or folding stocks improve the firing rate and in turn lethality.
Detachable magazines are, in a word, useful.
Folding stocks have no effect on the firing rate whatsoever.
However, I would like to make a point about the flash hider and folding stock.
Those attachments would, in your view, make it easier for a criminal to hide his weapon, right?
Well, first of all, unless he's in a ghillie suit a mile away from his target, a criminal will be very conspicuously noticable the instant he pulls his gun, whether there is a muzzle burst or not.
Flash hiders don't make a difference in civilian situations, except possibly in the Florida Keyes. What I'm saying is, they serve a military purpose, entirely outside the realm of civilian crime.
They are, however, convenient (flash can be distracting), and to be honest they look really good.
As to folding stocks, I assume you take issue with them because they might, for instance, make a rifle easier to conceal under an overcoat?
Well, I'm not of the opinion that criminals are, by and large, a bright lot, but I bet they are juuuust bright enough to figure out that a HANDGUN is a lot more practical for their interests than a rifle. (Even one with a folding stock!)
Again, these features simply do not apply to crime. They make things more convenient, but they are by nature inconvenient for crime anyway.
And, in any scenario that you can think of where a criminal is actually depending on something like detachable mags or folding stocks, he is already breaking a multitude of laws to begin with.
An example would be the LA bank robbers. They were well outside the law long before the bullets started flying.
Why should average citizens have such a lethal capacity in a firearm? Simply put these weapons, if they should fall into the wrong hands, can cause tremedous damage.
This is the key fault with the AWB argument.
ANY firearm, if it fell into the wrong hands, could cause tremendous damage.
Now, gun control in general is a separate debate. For our purposes though, the fact that there is no proposed legislation to ban all semi-automatic firearms tells me that you cannot find cause to do so.
Thus, my point is that these so-called "assault weapons" are no different in performance and function than all those other rifles!
AW's, on average, have comparable or lower range, velocity, and firepower than "normal" semi-automatic firearms.
As I said, if I wanted something concealable, I'd go with a handgun. For the record, the records are tremendously in favor of handgun freedoms as well. Thus, the reason I'd want a rifle is not concealability, but range and firepower.
An assault weapon is a terrible choice for sniping, and AW's shoot NO FASTER than any other semi-auto rifle. Thus, AW's by nature (thinking of rifles and shotguns here) are just not the weapon of choice.
Therefore, we can conclude deductively that the primary difference is COSMETIC.
I do not believe it matters whether or not assualt weapons constitute the majority of firearm related homicides.
Of course it does. Let's break it down.
I have a right to choose whatever I want for a firearm. UNLESS, of course, that choice presents a danger to those around me.
Thus, the only way you can restrict my choices is to show that it is more of a danger than a benefit.
Therefore, you have to prove that assault weapons are inherently more dangerous than other semi-auto firearms, and that they are used more often in crime.
They are rarely used in crime, and the AWB had no effect on gun crime.
If a person were to open fire into a crowd of people with a bolt-action rifle, how many people could he kill? Suppose he had a semi-auto instead of a bolt-action - would he be able to kill more people? (I believe he could).
An argument against semi-auto firearms in general though that may be, it is not an argument against assault weapons.
Banning THIS because you will think a gunman will use it:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Doesn't neutralize the threat even a tiny bit.
You know why? Because instead he will just use this:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Epic for the Assault Weapons Ban.
See? The difference is PURELY cosmetic, because in function there are infinite numbers of loopholes.
However, as soon as you suggest that we solve the problem by banning all semi-autos, you are instantly faced with a HOST of problems.
Thus, the ONLY way that you can sell people on the idea of the AWB is by taking the position that you are only banning a CERTAIN CLASS of semi-autos.
When, in fact, there is no difference. It's a lose-lose.
Not to mention what if he had detachable mags? He could easily reload within seconds and continue firing!
And if crime was like hollywood, that might be a problem.
Furthermore, any gunman is tremendously vulnerable during the reloading process, even with magazines.
That's why virtually every shooting you see involves only about 10 people, when a magazine is closer to 20 in rifles.
I do not believe that the AWB would reduce the AMOUNT of crime, but it would certaintly deter horrific massacres (like school shootings) from happening.
Name a "horrific massacre" that used a ban-targeted weapon, and how the ban would have kept the criminal from getting the gun.
The only difference I can think of would be the 2 extra bullets that define a firearm as "high-capacity."
The AWB is in a sense a politcal device; this type of legislation was passed in 1994 as a stepping stone to ultimately ban all firearms, but that does not mean it should not be re-enacted! As I have said these weapons have a greater capacity for lethality. Just because politicians want to take the ban further does not mean these types of weapons should be in the hands of citizens.
That alone does not mean it shouldn't be re-enacted; true.
However, I have demonstrated that the legislation serves little purpose except to chip away at gun rights with weak pretenses.
If you can't show that the AWB will have a positive influence on crime, then the motives must be subversive and political.
However, the AWB is not effective, because it's TARGET does not contribute to crime in the first place, and even if AW's did, the AWB would do nothing to stop that.
And, yes; if politicians want to take it further, that DOES de-legitimize the ban.
If they were doing it with pure motives, and thought that they could make a good case for banning all semi-autos, then they would do so.
They KNOW they can't win that debate! Thus, the AWB is a false pretense.
At any rate, that finishes of my statements for now.
Back to you.
Last edited by Ariovistus Maximus; December 03, 2009 at 08:45 PM.
Re: Should the US Re-enact the Assault Weapons Ban? [Ariovistus Maximus vs.WrathofTulkas]
o you're good haha
Originally Posted by Ariovistus Maximus
I'll show you what I mean. People, by and large, lack any practical understanding of firearms. Ballistics means nothing to them.
They can't tell the difference between .308, .44 Magnum, and 7.62x39mm. It is on this ignorance that the AWB depends.
Why? Because what people CAN do, is they can tell the difference between THIS:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
And THIS:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
But which is the more "dangerous?"
I agree that most people are ignorant of firearms, (I only know what my grandfather has taught me about them) I do not believe that this ignorance was the driving force behind the legislation though. In the US there are too many people who support the right to own a firearm, but there are some who want them banned. I believe the AWB was something the opposition group could pass!
There are any number of law enforcement and military "sniper rifles" that would never be touched by the AWB.
I understand your point, and I agree with you that the AWB is somewhat lacking, but then again the bill narrowly defines what an AW is. Just because these guns represent a small majority of the "military" weaponry available to citizens does not mean they should not be banned.
Thus, I am saying that it is foolish to ban a rifle based on it's attachments. In terms of performance, the vast majority of assault weapons are out-performed by "generic" hunting rifles.
Hang the grenade launchers and the bayonets. As I said, there are only a few rifles that have them. Go ahead, take them away; ban them.
So you argued my part part for me some firearms do have dangerous attachments (even if it would talk a criminal an arm and a leg to actually obtain them) that should be banned if attached to a semi-auto or the likes.
That is not, however, even the most remotely viable reason to ban the firearm.
But it is! I know its unimaginable that would-be robber would fire a grenade from a rifle, but its always the "what if" scenario. These bans make the act of obtaining harder for a crazy nutcase.
Detachable magazines are, in a word, useful.
So you would agree that detachable mags increase a firearms lethality?
Folding stocks have no effect on the firing rate whatsoever.
Haha I know Sometimes I make awkwards sentences like that!
Those attachments would, in your view, make it easier for a criminal to hide his weapon, right?
Well, first of all, unless he's in a ghillie suit a mile away from his target, a criminal will be very conspicuously noticable the instant he pulls his gun, whether there is a muzzle burst or not.
Flash hiders don't make a difference in civilian situations, except possibly in the Florida Keyes. What I'm saying is, they serve a military purpose, entirely outside the realm of civilian crime.
Yes, now I know you are making the point that this attachment is not dangerous and not useful for a criminal but you said something that made me ponder You said military. Maybe the language of the bill is not necessarily to ban guns with flash hiders b/c they are dangerous, but rather because flash hiders on guns most likely means they are military guns. The bill wants to get as many AW off the streets as possible adding military features that are not dangerous just makes it easier to ban guns (which is the point of the bill). (I hope that made sense Im writing this too quickly school is horribly bothersome with finals haha) I agree they do make the guns look sexy ( O wait i dont like them xD)
As to folding stocks, I assume you take issue with them because they might, for instance, make a rifle easier to conceal under an overcoat?
Well, I'm not of the opinion that criminals are, by and large, a bright lot, but I bet they are juuuust bright enough to figure out that a HANDGUN is a lot more practical for their interests than a rifle. (Even one with a folding stock!)
Its always the "What if". Sure the argument is not as strong as statistics, but remember my point that this bill is sort of a stepping stone for the opposition group, some tangible legislation banning guns. There is no way a ban on handguns would get passed so, the AWB was passed.
ANY firearm, if it fell into the wrong hands, could cause tremendous damage.
But these arguably can cause more damage.
Now, gun control in general is a separate debate. For our purposes though, the fact that there is no proposed legislation to ban all semi-automatic firearms tells me that you cannot find cause to do so.
Oh there is plenty of cause to do so, but theres always two sides of the story - It would be a difficult bill to pass, thats why they made the AWB very specific, so that it could get passed. Also the debate is about the re-enactment of the 1994 bill correct? I'm not saying the 1994 bill could not be improved upon (it surely can) but just because the bill does not ban all semi-autos (which are in fact assualt weapons, does not mean that this older bill should not be re-enacted while a stronger bill is worked on.
Thus, my point is that these so-called "assault weapons" are no different in performance and function than all those other rifles!
I cannot deny this but look to the paragraph aforementioned. This bill bans guns, thats the goal. Just because it does not ban many does not mean that it shouldn't be re-enacted, it simply means that more legislation is needed to ban the rifles of similar performance and function.
Therefore, you have to prove that assault weapons are inherently more dangerous than other semi-auto firearms, and that they are used more often in crime.
They are rarely used in crime, and the AWB had no effect on gun crime.
You are very correct sir, but I think we have differing views on what the actual goal of the bill was. The bill passed becuase it was suppose to reduced crime yada-yada etc etc. But is that the true intention? I doubt it, you and many others (including myself) know that a semi-auto rifle w/o a bayonet and flash hider is as dangerous as a semi-auto with them (although technically a huge blade sticking out of the front ends is more dangerous). The bill is trying to ban guns, its a stepping stone to more restrictions. Of course it should be re-enacted.
However, I have demonstrated that the legislation serves little purpose except to chip away at gun rights with weak pretenses.
If you can't show that the AWB will have a positive influence on crime, then the motives must be subversive and political.
Its what the bill does If you support this bill (Like I do *cough*) the clearly you are looking to ban more guns. I wouldn't call it subversive because its how laws progress. Political (if you mean petty) maybe... but I feel that many do want guns banned b/c of crime, and they're efforts are in good faith.
(BTW I have finals not next week but the week after so I might get bogged down in studying, I wrote all that pretty fast haha, forgive any errors).
Re: Should the US Re-enact the Assault Weapons Ban? [Ariovistus Maximus vs.WrathofTulkas]
o you're good haha
I do not believe that this ignorance was the driving force behind the legislation though.
You wanna bet?
Yeah, you just think that.
I believe the AWB was something the opposition group could pass!
Yet you cannot show why they should pass it.
Furthermore, they DID pass it, as I'm sure you're aware. It was the '94 AWB, and the consensus is that it did nothing of significance, except deprive people and restrict gun freedoms. Which, as you have said quite plainly, is the very purpose of this legislation.
Just because these guns represent a small majority of the "military" weaponry available to citizens does not mean they should not be banned.
Again, wrong.
There is nothing "military-like" about them, other than COSMETICS.
COSMETICS COSMETICS COSMETICS.
Because the anti-gun side, by definition, avoids guns as if they are the plague. Thus, they know nothing about them. Thus, they come up with all kinds of absurd ideas on the basis of what they do know.
However, being as their knowledge is so shallow, cosmetics is the only thing that they, in general, recognize. That, and boom boom.
I find it interesting that, in legislation, when we consider medical laws, we consult doctors. When we consider building code legislation, we consult engineers. When we consider agricultural laws, we consult horticulturists and farmers.
But, in the gun debate, any old buffoon can dither on about any old thing and be taken seriously. Many politicians have presented outright lies (or incredibly stupid misconceptions at best) in the AW debate.
Rantings about "fully-automatic weapons," "sniper weapons," "cop-killer" and "armor-piercing bullets," and such are complete nonsense. Those types of weapons do exist. They are already barred from the general public.
Moving on, you have just said: "just because (blablabla), doesn't mean they shouldn't be banned." I call fallacy on that attempt.
It is not up to me to prove that we SHOULDN'T ban the guns; YOU must prove that we should ban them to begin with. The burden of proof lies upon you, because I am simply defending laws that are already in place.
No argument of "Well, that doesn't mean they shouldn't be banned," is legitimate.
So, I have a question:
What, in performance and function, destinguishes these guns from other semi-automatic firearms?
So you argued my part part for me some firearms do have dangerous attachments (even if it would talk a criminal an arm and a leg to actually obtain them) that should be banned if attached to a semi-auto or the likes.
Again, restrict bayonets if you want to; that has nothing to do with banning "assault weapons."
But it is! I know its unimaginable that would-be robber would fire a grenade from a rifle, but its always the "what if" scenario. These bans make the act of obtaining harder for a crazy nutcase.
Yes, it IS alwaysawhat-ifscenario.
And you know what they call it when you have all kinds of ideas of things that can go wrong, but they never, ever happen? They call it paranoia. Paranoia is a bad thing.
It also happens to be the platform of the AWB case.
So you would agree that detachable mags increase a firearms lethality?
Potential lethality, yes. Sports cars are potentially more lethal than four-bangers. Let's restrict them.
Haha I know Sometimes I make awkwards sentences like that!
No problem.
You said military.
The attachments are often military-esque, hence the bayonets and rifle grenades. It is generally for the sake of aesthetics.
The firearms themselves are not.
Maybe the language of the bill is not necessarily to ban guns with flash hiders b/c they are dangerous, but rather because flash hiders on guns most likely means they are military guns.
Wrongo.
What makes a "military gun" different from any other gun? How about you explain that to me.
...just makes it easier to ban guns (which is the point of the bill).
Exactly. Thank you.
You have just admitted that, in practice, the law is a worthless piece of spam.
It does, however, just make it easier to ban guns. And, who cares if there's a legitimate reason, we just want them out'a here.
Now, another question. Would you say that the AWB is an effort to restrict especially dangerous guns of a military nature?
Its always the "What if". Sure the argument is not as strong as statistics, but remember my point that this bill is sort of a stepping stone for the opposition group, some tangible legislation banning guns.
But you can't even make a case for banning AW's, much less "guns" in general.
How is it legitimate when you admit that it's merely a stepping stone?
There is no way a ban on handguns would get passed so, the AWB was passed.
Translation:
People recognized us as the frauds that we are when we tried to take handguns; let's try to grab something that's a little more "dangerous-looking" to the public.
(Not you, of course; the politicians.)
But these arguably can cause more damage.
Eh, no, they don't.
Remember, magazines do not restrict a firearm. It has to be semi-auto, WITH A MAGAZINE, and then, if it has TWO MORE features, it is an assault weapon. Firearms with magazines are not assault weapons.
Also the debate is about the re-enactment of the 1994 bill correct?
Yes, or something generally like it.
I cannot deny this but look to the paragraph aforementioned. This bill bans guns, thats the goal. Just because it does not ban many does not mean that it shouldn't be re-enacted, it simply means that more legislation is needed to ban the rifles of similar performance and function.
Entirely the wrong emphasis. Why do you want to ban guns? You are operating completely on this assumption that banning guns is inherently a good thing.
We both know that you cannot prevail in an attempt to ban other classes of firearms. AW's are no different than they are.
The best case you've made so far is for the restriction of bayonets. That's an awefully long way from banning AW's.
The bill is trying to ban guns, its a stepping stone to more restrictions. Of course it should be re-enacted.
All right, so the very purpose of it is to get your foot in the door.
You know, I've never debated anybody that would admit that before. Doesn't it seem to you that subversive methods indicate dishonesty?
I wouldn't call it subversive because its how laws progress.
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
If, for instance, we wanted to convert to the metric system, then CORRECT we would do it in small steps. That would be IF, and only if, we had determined that the END RESULT was desirable. That is not subversive.
However, it IS subversive when, KNOWING THAT THE END RESULT is not desirable, or even constitutional, they proceed in steps. There's a big difference, and the latter applies much better to the anti-gun group than the former.
Political (if you mean petty) maybe... but I feel that many do want guns banned b/c of crime, and
Wrong, because guns do not cause crime in any sense of the word, nor do assault weapons contribute to it.
they're efforts are in good faith.
In this case, there is a nearly intangible line between faith and stupidity.
Some of the most foolish mistakes in history have been carried out with good intentions; I don't care if it's their religion; it is absurd either way. Now, if I may, a final point about the term "assault weapon."
That term, I think, is a prime example of the "If-by-whiskey" fallacy. It's playing with the name to build presuppositions. The term "assault weapon" deliberately invokes images of terrorists and serial killers, when that is not even remotely the case.
Furthermore, the similarity between "assault weapon" and "assault rifle" leads people to think that these firearms are, in fact, of a military nature.
More cheap politics; the very term is a misnomer.
Last edited by Ariovistus Maximus; December 28, 2009 at 08:40 PM.
Should the US Re-enact the Assault Weapons Ban? [Ariovistus Maximus vs.WrathofTulkas]
Land of the Free! Home of the 
Originally Posted by Ariovistus Maximus
)
for the Assault Weapons Ban. 
Sometimes I make awkwards sentences like that!
