"Assault Weapons"

[sephodwyrm]

handguns are the principal firearm used in all forms of firearm violence and armed robberies etc.

So why is there a demand to ban a weapon not responsible for problem at hand?
It's like banning zweihanders in an attempt to fight school knivings.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

It's like banning zweihanders in an attempt to fight school knivings.

!LOL!

+rep for you!

In short, the AWB is a thinly veiled attempt to take away all our guns. So thinly veiled, actually, that it is a rather embarrassing commentary on society that we are taken in by it.

Why do they want to take our guns? I just don't know! It beats me. I've never hurt anybody with my guns; why do they want 'em?

Perhaps the idea of accountability frightens them.

[magickyleo101]

So why is there a demand to ban a weapon not responsible for problem at hand?
It's like banning zweihanders in an attempt to fight school knivings.

Because when you go to ban something you have to weigh the costs of the potential band against its benefits. A handgun ban would have greater benefits (since it would stop more crimes) but would also have higher costs (since handguns have lots of legitimate uses like self defense). So a handgun ban is a bad idea since the costs outweigh the benefits.

On the other hand, an assault rifle ban has fewer benefits (since it doesn't stop as many crimes), but it has more benefits (since it doesn't do that much harm to ban them). So that ban is a good idea since the cost is low enough to be outweighed even by small benefits.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

Because when you go to ban something you have to weigh the costs of the potential band against its benefits. A handgun ban would have greater benefits (since it would stop more crimes) but would also have higher costs (since handguns have lots of legitimate uses like self defense). So a handgun ban is a bad idea since the costs outweigh the benefits.

I appreciate your reasonable thinking on this one. I guess we don't need to move on into a handgun debate; that's what I was going to say anyway.

On the other hand, an assault rifle ban has fewer benefits (since it doesn't stop as many crimes), but it has more benefits (since it doesn't do that much harm to ban them). So that ban is a good idea since the cost is low enough to be outweighed even by small benefits.

It doesn't kill people, but it doesn't help them either, so we will ban it? I can think of a lot of unproductive things we could ban.

By the same token that the low cost can be outweighed by small benefits, the few benefits could easily be outweighed by the cost!!!

You still haven't addressed my point that the AWB would ruin a good chunk of the firearms industry, which is CERTAINLY a big expendature.

And since YOU are the proponent of taking adittional action, and we are proponents of enforcing what already exists, it seems pretty obvious that you have the burden of demonstrating that your idea is SUPERIOR, not EQUAL.

Are you familiar with Occam's Razor?

If we are using plan A, and you propose plan B, and plan B has miniscule pros and miniscule cons, doesn't it make sense just to stick with A?

And I STILL wouldn't even give you the count that the AWB's pros are even equal to the cons, much less greater.




You reference small potential benefits of the AWB. What are the small benefits, by the way?

Please don't give me any more "barrel shroud" stuff; I explained that already.

OK, in all fairness, we should slow it down a bit.

magickyleo101 is rather outnumbered, and simply has a rather great volume of material to respond to.

I've been on the short side of some debates, and I know it's pretty wearing to debate 5 guys by yourself. So take all the time you want, magic.

Also, personally I am settling down a bit, as I don't want to come across as hostile.

Since I have argued a great deal in the past against argumentum ad hominem, I certainly don't want to be guilty of it here.

THERFORE, magic, I want to express my respect of your right to an opinion, and will do my best not to treat you unfairly simply for disagreeing with me.

Thanks guys!

[magickyleo101]

MOVED DOWN

[Vequor]

You know the Yo-Yo was created as a weapon. We should ban those to!

[Vequor]

Seriously, you can walk into the mall and buy spears, swords, daggers, etc, all without a license of any kind. So why shouldn't I be able to put a knife on my rifle and use it as a spear?

[Pickle_mole]

The AW ban was a complete legal joke. I cannot have a bayonet on my rifle? can i own a knife? check. can i own a rile? check. can i tape them together? FELONY!

Ban mechanical systems not looks. the friggen california gun ban wont allow pistol grips on AW. why? would i kill more people with a pistol grip vs a built in stock?

Logic is on the pro-gun side, Statistics are on the pro-gun side and so is the constitution.

to rephrase: My argument is still that the AWB is a low benefit policy, but also one with extremely low costs (since no important freedom is impaired). A lot of your responses to that argument relied on the Constitutional premise that your right to a gun with a certain look is Constitutionally significant. Now that that premise is dead, how do you argue?

No important freedom? the right to control your own destiny is not important, youre comment is the comment of a fool.

And youre points about whether congress has the power to legislate bans means little. Of course they can legislate the AW ban as long as the court upholds it, stack the courts with acitivists judges and the constitution is yours to rape.

We are under the Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is. . . .
—Charles Evans Hughes (Chief Justice of the United States, 1930–1941)

since AW are almost never used in crimes how can one logically determine they need to be banned? Shotguns and light caliber pistols kill FAR more people. If you want to ban guns for the reason of death they deal use your brains and skip AW.

[magickyleo101]

The AW ban was a complete legal joke. I cannot have a bayonet on my rifle? can i own a knife? check. can i own a rile? check. can i tape them together? FELONY!

Awesome!!! You're so totally right!!! I mean, can I go 50 miles an hour? Check! Can I go 40 miles an hour? Check! So obviously I can go 90 miles an hour!!!!1111

There's never been a time when two putting legal things together was illegal!!! Never!! Never, ever!!!

The only thing you forgot to add to the end of your magnificent argument was "checkmate"!!

Ban mechanical systems not looks. the friggen california gun ban wont allow pistol grips on AW. why? would i kill more people with a pistol grip vs a built in stock?

You can find potential advantages of a pistol grip here. That took 10 seconds on google. Maybe you don't think those are real advantages, but that's no legal reason to overturn the will of the legislature.

Statistics are on the pro-gun side

I agree.

and so is the constitution.

Wrong. See above.

No important freedom? the right to control your own destiny is not important, youre comment is the comment of a fool.

Yes, I totally agree that what you're casting as an entirely cosmetic restriction is the key to "my destiny."

Please, elaborate on how I'm a fool... [And feel free to keep mis-using "your" while you're at it.]

And youre points about whether congress has the power to legislate bans means little. Of course they can legislate the AW ban as long as the court upholds it, stack the courts with acitivists judges and the constitution is yours to rape.

We are under the Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is. . . .
—Charles Evans Hughes (Chief Justice of the United States, 1930–1941)

since AW are almost never used in crimes how can one logically determine they need to be banned? Shotguns and light caliber pistols kill FAR more people. If you want to ban guns for the reason of death they deal use your brains and skip AW.

Yes, yes... Tell me about Pickle_Mole fantasy land, where all the judges are passive-ist and they never make you take civics...

[Viking Prince]

Yes, the second amendment applies. Remember the amendment has been ruled upon by the courts. Congress has the clear authority to regulate the militia, but it cannot ban weapons under the authority of the amendment that restricts private citizens from forming militias. It has been ruled that private ownership of weapons is needed for the mlitias to exist.

It would be my guess that the AWB is not unconstitutional because it does not exceed the authority of Congress to regulate the militias. Why? Because fully automatic weapons are not deemed essential. This is a very weak assumption, but one that has been around for since Dillinger and Capone.

All of the other stuff is look and feel, just like GM fins and chrome in the 1950's. The same weapons can been sold and are just as effective without the bling. Call the AWB a clever pander for votes on both sides of the issue.

I would suggest that Congress only has the authority under the Commerce Clause and not as a Second Amendment issue. Standards for weapons are just like standards for screws and bricks. Standardization falls under commerce and not militia use.

[magickyleo101]

Yes, the second amendment applies. Remember the amendment has been ruled upon by the courts. Congress has the clear authority to regulate the militia, but it cannot ban weapons under the authority of the amendment that restricts private citizens from forming militias. It has been ruled that private ownership of weapons is needed for the mlitias to exist.

I agree that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual's right to some weapons, but I don't think your comment addresses the issue of whether its protections extend to assault weapons. It can apply to some guns but not assault rifles.

If you take a look at the court case (only the 5 or so pages after page 30) I link to, that's pretty much what Heller found.

It would be my guess that the AWB is not unconstitutional because it does not exceed the authority of Congress to regulate the militias. Why? Because fully automatic weapons are not deemed essential. This is a very weak assumption, but one that has been around for since Dillinger and Capone.

All of the other stuff is look and feel, just like GM fins and chrome in the 1950's. The same weapons can been sold and are just as effective without the bling. Call the AWB a clever pander for votes on both sides of the issue.

I would suggest that Congress only has the authority under the Commerce Clause and not as a Second Amendment issue. Standards for weapons are just like standards for screws and bricks. Standardization falls under commerce and not militia use.

I'm a bit confused by what you're saying here. Could you expand on it?

It seems like you're saying that the 2nd Amendment is a positive grant of powers to Congress?

[Captain Jin]

I agree that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual's right to some weapons, but I don't think your comment addresses the issue of whether its protections extend to assault weapons. It can apply to some guns but not assault rifles.

And there it is, the exact reason why the ban is stupid. You continue to say guns but not assault rifles, people don't need assault rifles etc. etc.

So I'll ask you again, why is this weapon okay:


But this one is not:


One is a .22, and the other is an AR15, the civilian model of the M16. They fire practically the same round and have similiar capabilities. So tell me why one is an assault rifle and should be banned and the other is okay? That's why the bill is stupid, is it because of a larger magazine capacity? That's about the only thing is that one can hold more rounds then the others, and again this is a pointless argument anyways because aside from EXTREMELY few occurances, weapons like this aren't used in crime, which is the whole reason they want to ban them. And quite frankly, the biggest BS I always hear from the legislators is that these weapons are what's killing cops, which is a complete load of bull, so much so that you're hard pressed to find POLICE officers, those that are the apparent victims, that are willing to support a ban like this. That's odd, I'd say. I could say it again, but you've just been ignoring all of this and continue to argue the semantics of the 2nd Amendment.

[Oldgamer]

In the City of Chicago, let's assume someone is trying to break into a woman's apartment (she has two children). She calls 911.

On average, it takes 55 seconds for someone to pick up, and for her to talk to an emergency specialist. After she tells the specialist the situation, it will take ... on average ... 15 minutes for the police to arrive. 16 minutes, during which anything can happen ...

This woman needs a gun. However, she is not allowed by the City of Chicago to have one (though the NRA is challenging the law in the courts).

This thread has centered on the Second Amendment, what is meant by that Amendment, what the definition of an assault weapon is, whether or not militias are needed in the 21st Century, and so on. Falling through the cracks of the thread has been the fact ... the fact ... that cities like Chicago have had more deaths due to gun violence, in the last two years, than the Iraq War.

You can't get the guns off of the street. The black market is too well-funded and organized. But you can give average people the right to defend their homes and their lives from invaders.

We can argue what kinds of weapons should be kept from the people, and what sorts of weapons are best for home defense, given the environment. But people have a basic human right to defend themselves.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

I'm quite confident that I have dismantled magickyleo's primary argument.

The comparison of sports cars to assault weapons is perfectly valid. It is not an analogy, it is a very direct comparison.

If I take magicyleo's rule that assault weapons should be banned because the cost is no higher than the benefits (both being negligible), I can apply it to cars.

Yet it is perfectly understandable that motorists want sports cars on the basis that they look good. Somehow you think that gun owners liking nice guns is a petty thing.

However, liking guns because of their looks is HARDLY the best reason to support AWs. You keep asking me do demonstrate what makes AWs so valueable for civilian use. I have told you a number of times, but I think I will sum it all up.

1. First of all, many gun-rights supporters support AWs because they know that the AWB is more than what it seems at face value. After they take AWs, they will take handguns. After they take handguns, they will take hunting rifles. After they take hunting rifles, they will take everything else.

This has been demonstrated EVERY TIME. Germany, Russia, Great Britain, Canada, and others all back up this statement. Each of those countries ultimately banned 99% of guns, but they did it in steps.

Therefore, if the AWs cannot be proven to assist in crime, I refuse to accept the ban. You yourself acknowledge that the AWB is largely ineffective. This means that it is only a measure to strip away gun rights alltogether.

If you give a mouse a cookie...

Everybody understands that.

2. AWs are more dependable for their money. The reason that we like military-style firearms is that they are (generally) reliable.

DO NOT CONFUSE RELIABILITY WITH ENHANCED KILLING POWER.

AWs are no different from other semi-autos in terms of ballistics. However, if I own a rifle, I will shoot it a lot. Firearms eventually wear out; often firearms jam up due to mechanical faults. AWs, on the other hand, are by design less prone to breakdowns.

The AK-47, for instance is a GREAT hunting rifle, as it can take TONS of abuse and still work. Thus, AK-47s are perfectly justifiable for civilian use.

The AR-15 makes a great varmint-hunting rifle; wolves and smaller. The AR-15 fits this role so ideally due to it's high accuracy, which is important in this type of hunt.

The last demonstration of point #1 is quite personal. Here is the AW that I intend to own in the near future:



Why? For hunting. Yes; somehow it doesn't seem to get through to AWBers that these guns have very legitimate uses.

What makes it so important that I have this rifle for hunting? I will tell you.

The CETME is actually one of the most cost-effective (and therefore best IMO) hunting rifles I've seen.

By all accounts it is quite accurate. By all accounts it is very reliable. In fact, the thing will extract empty cases without an extractor. Very reliable firearm.

The CETME is chambered in .308, a great round for deer hunting. It is quite adequate for any medium game, and certainly qualified for big game as well.

All this for $600, give or take $100. In fact, I can get it for roughly $400 as a kit.

So, if I were to ask for all these characteristics in a generic hunting rifle, such as the Browning semi-auto:



I would have to pay well over $1000.

Satisfied on that point?

3. In truth, we do like guns with pleasing aesthetics. I see no reason why this is illegitimate. You are fine with people desiring aesthetics in other areas.

I have shown factually that AWs have negligible affect on crime. Now, if people committed mass-murders with AWs every day, then it would not be valid to legalize them based on aesthetics. However, since banning AWs will have no effect, then aesthetics is a perfectly good reason to keep them. And again, this is HARDLY my only reason.

4. Hobby. As with aesthetics, this is a perfectly good reason. To have an AW is to own a very interesting part of history. As an avid history enthusiast myself, I enjoy seeing/having firearms because of the link that they are to the past.

OK, this is a lot of material, and I know it's stacking up, so I'll close. But I wanted there to be no doubt as to the legitimacy of my sports car comparison, and I also wanted to establish that AWs have MANY practical uses.

The trouble is that many AWB-proponents are not familiar enough with firearms to think of these points.

Oh, I missed this comment earlier, regarding one of my graphs.

From "the Spartan:"

That doesn't really answer my question. But take another look at that graph, what does it tell you? Because to me it just gives me two, seperate statistics that have corelation, but no causation. I have no doubt that the accuracy in that graph is reliable, I am saying is that graph really saying, what you think it is saying?

If you doubt what it's saying, you have to come up with a better explanation. My response to your 1st attempt is below.

I actually read Freakonomics somewhat recently (last year, great book by the way) and it actually adresses that graph. Notice that drop off at 1995? Something actually happened to cause that 18 years before 1995, and that would happen to be Roe v Wade. All those would be criminals that would have just turned 18 were simply not born. Guns had nothing to do with that equation.

On the contrary, you are making assumtions.

What reason is there to assume that the vast majority of aborted children would have grown up to become criminals? That is an absurd assumption.

And, looking at the fall of crime on that graph, you would have to assume that about 75% of the kids who were aborted would have become criminals. That's the only way to account for the dramatic drop.

Also, if you think that abortion is the cause, then you lead us to a very disturbing conclusion.

Let's kill all of our kids to reduce crime.

This is an absurd conclusion to say the least.

Besides, even if your assessment were correct, that wouldn't change the validity of the graph.

It is dealing with percentages!!! You must realize that the percentage is not dependent on the gross number to be valid.

Therefore, that graph is quite valid to the interpretation I have made. But here's another one anyway.



And another which HUGELY validates my point.



By and large more guns = less crime. The high number of homicides in the US points to a moral failure in child rearing.

Also, note the two countries with the highest percentage of homicides.

The Irish have been fighting the British for decades.

Italy is run by the mafia in some areas.

Look at all the other countries.

[Vequor]

Seriously, just what can someone do with a bayonet on a gun that they can't do with any kitchen knife?

[magickyleo101]

Seriously, just what can someone do with a bayonet on a gun that they can't do with any kitchen knife?

Shooters are frequently tackled when they're reloading, and I imagine it would a lot harder to tackle a guy with a bayonet.

EXAMPLE ONE
EXAMPLE TWO
EXAMPLE THREE

Don't infer from the fact that bayonets are rarely used on a modern battle field to the fact that they wouldn't be useful when you're gunning down unarmed people. They're rarely used on a battlefield because both sides have guns that they'll use before they result to a physical encounter. But unarmed people have to attempt to tackle, and so a bayonet is far more likely to find use.

In all reality, the bayonet restriction makes perhaps the most sense of all the restrictions.

[Viking Prince]

It would be my guess that the AWB is not unconstitutional because it does not exceed the authority of Congress to regulate the militias. Why? Because fully automatic weapons are not deemed essential. This is a very weak assumption, but one that has been around for since Dillinger and Capone.

All of the other stuff is look and feel, just like GM fins and chrome in the 1950's. The same weapons can been sold and are just as effective without the bling. Call the AWB a clever pander for votes on both sides of the issue.

I would suggest that Congress only has the authority under the Commerce Clause and not as a Second Amendment issue. Standards for weapons are just like standards for screws and bricks. Standardization falls under commerce and not militia use.

I'm a bit confused by what you're saying here. Could you expand on it?

It seems like you're saying that the 2nd Amendment is a positive grant of powers to Congress?

All that I am saying is that the AWB does nothing new to really regulate firearms. The uproar is over all sorts of non-essentials for the firing and lethality of the weapon. Knives and such are not part of bearing arms and so they do not fall under the 2nd amendment. The authority for most Congressional restrictions is in the form of regulating interstate commerce in article 1 section 8. The FDA, ATF, ICC, etc. are all relying in the authority of Congress to regulate commerce crossing state lines. Most of the broadening of authority occured under FDR in his losing battle to pull the country out of recession. Since states cannot regulate to keep other states product out in a protectionistic fashion, the federal government has the authority to establish the rules and standards to do so since it is clear that there must be some rules regarding safe food, safe drugs, power plant emissions, dams, river navigation, etc.

Well the flash supressors and bayonets fall under this as well and Congress has spoken. Both sides use this to gather up campaign donations much as politicians use any hot issue to help gather campaign money. I doubt that either side wants this issue to go away as long as the campaign donations are rollling in.

[magickyleo101]

All that I am saying is that the AWB does nothing new to really regulate firearms. The uproar is over all sorts of non-essentials for the firing and lethality of the weapon. Knives and such are not part of bearing arms and so they do not fall under the 2nd amendment. The authority for most Congressional restrictions is in the form of regulating interstate commerce in article 1 section 8. The FDA, ATF, ICC, etc. are all relying in the authority of Congress to regulate commerce crossing state lines. Most of the broadening of authority occured under FDR in his losing battle to pull the country out of recession. Since states cannot regulate to keep other states product out in a protectionistic fashion, the federal government has the authority to establish the rules and standards to do so since it is clear that there must be some rules regarding safe food, safe drugs, power plant emissions, dams, river navigation, etc.

I think we pretty much agree on all this.

Well the flash supressors and bayonets fall under this as well and Congress has spoken. Both sides use this to gather up campaign donations much as politicians use any hot issue to help gather campaign money. I doubt that either side wants this issue to go away as long as the campaign donations are rollling in.

Sadly, I think you're right. It kind of surprises me sometimes how much anger (on both sides) this issue engenders. In fact, in some ways this issue is more toxic than perhaps any other in the sense that each side of the issue seems especially prone to be dismissive of the other (people on the right insist that people on the left simply don't know anything about guns; people on the left say people on the right are gun nuts, etc.). Even the abortion debate can be calmer.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

Magickyleo, that was an EXCELLENT summary of the legal system. Informative and comprehensive. Thanks!

Secondly, I have a post up there that you didn't respond to yet... The long one with 5 or so points of evidence...

So let's check out the pro-gun perspective and compare it with yours. You will find them to be quite similar.

You are concerned that people will be running around with high-grade weapons, causing chaos. Thus, you wish to draw the line at "assault weapons."

I, however, am concerned that the government will continue to pick at my rights until they really DO infringe my right to bear arms (any kind of arms for that matter). Thus, I wish to draw the line at existing legislation.

So, you can see that we both have the same concern; your concern that we not reach one extreme, and my concern that we not reach the other.

HOWEVER, I was very disappointed in one statement from the Heller case:

An assault weapon “has such a high rate of fire and capacity for firepower that its function as a legitimate sports or recreational firearm is substantially outweighed by the danger that it can be used to kill and injure human beings.

An assault weapon does. A semi-automatic rifle (INCLUDING the ones targeted in the AWB) DOES NOT!

This is why I REALLY DISLIKE the term "assault weapon." It brings to mind machine guns and hollywood shootouts. It is also much too close to "assault rifle," and this is intentional. By classifying the firearm with such an inaccurate term as "assault weapon," you automatically create the feeling that such weapons are inherently dangerous, more so than other firearms.

"Assault" causes a person to link said weapon with crime, excessive danger, and warfare.

"Weapon" is a military term that should never be applied to any civilian firearm.

Both terms are products of ignorance.

It is a common misconception and shows glaring ignorance on the part of it's proponents, that an AWB-targeted weapon has a fire-rate of 600 rounds per minute. And that is what the SC is referring to in the quoted segment above.

The military counterpart of the AR-15, the M-16 DOES. The AR-15 DOES NOT. The M-16 is illegal. The AR-15 needs not be.

That's the point; the cyclic rate of an AWB-targeted firearm is no different from other, non-targeted weapons.

Nor is the "capacity for firepower" any different. Anyone who says otherwise needs a crash course in ballistics.

I can find a dozen rounds (that are not even CONSIDERED for bans) that have EXTREMELY superior ballistic characteristics to the .223, 7.62x39, .308, and other calibers of AWB-targeted firearms.

Exactly how familiar are you, magickyleo, with firearms? The difference between .223 and, say, .577 is, um, rather... notable.

At any rate, I've seen it in the news; this notion that AWs have militaryesque (cool word I made up) characteristics. It's sick and dishonest. Here:



I will respond to more later, but I gotta go now.

Magickyleo, I'd appreciate if you addressed my earlier arguments.

[Gelgoog]

there really is no point in continuing the debate people. Those on the pro-gun side believe the constitution is on their side, as well as the AWB being rediculous. The anti-gun side, made up largely of Europeans ( which is quite funny in itself) believes that this ban is keeping machine guns off the street or believes that all guns should be banned because if people don't have them, they won't kill people "as easily".

Unfortunetely opinions matter little in this decision. What makes a big difference are statistics, and statistics ( yes from the government) show us that "assault weapons" aka semi-automatic sporting rifles that may look like their military counterparts are not used in crimes enough to be considered much of a threat to society. The impractical nature of using a rifle in crime in pretty evident, which is why it rarely ever happens. Massacre killings in the US are so rare, that they are statistically insignificant and are considered red herring arguments. Considering that 80% of guncrime in the USA is done with an illegal firearm, any supposed reduction in crime/murders that the anti-gun side asserts would come from strict firearm laws is just plain silly.

Banning firearms is also a horrible idea. Not only would you see a dramatic increase in crime, especially violent crime, but you would be empowering criminals (both by having an unarmed populace, and introducing a much more lucrative black market in smuggling firearms), but you would be creating hundreds of thousands if not millions of more law abidding citizens into criminals who refuse to be disarmed because they know the police can not protect them. You also would have to discount the thousands of lives saved every year by firearms, including property. You would also have to negate any deterrence effect that firearms cause which includes a low burglary rate. All of which assume that you don't have massive civil war and waco type events by tearing up the constitution. If you want to see large scale domestic terrorism, then by all means remove the 2nd amendment.

I am sorry but all analysis shows that not only are we not served better by stricter firearm laws, but that removing them would be vastly harmful to american society. Remember Europeans, just because it works in your country, does not mean it will work here. Our society is not the same as yours and there are alot of differences that have to be taken into account besides just guns themselves.