Why is an "Assault Weapons" Ban even on the table?

[OverVolt]

Take a daniel defense V4, add select fire mode. Welcome to the M4. Adding select fire means a new lower milled for the auto fire, but still...most of the DD AR15s you buy are milspec.

Guess who would be breaking laws that already exist.

 

[dmens]

Take a daniel defense V4, add select fire mode. Welcome to the M4. Adding select fire means a new lower milled for the auto fire, but still...most of the DD AR15s you buy are milspec.

Don't even need a new lower, unless you want an engraving to mark the fun mode.

 

[davmat787]

Take a daniel defense V4, add select fire mode. Welcome to the M4. Adding select fire means a new lower milled for the auto fire, but still...most of the DD AR15s you buy are milspec.

Right, which is the "splitting hairs" I was talking about. I guess I didn't make my point in a very cogent manner. Won't be the last time.

What I am really driving at, is if there is indeed a definition for an assault weapon, an M4 or whatever that has select fire is much closer to being one than an AR-15.

Is an M1 an assault weapon? Or is that cool because they traditionally had wooden stocks?

Bottom line, I don't think banning AR-15's will do a damn bit of good, other than making a ton of money between now and the ban.

 

[HumblePie]

Right, which is the "splitting hairs" I was talking about. I guess I didn't make my point in a very cogent manner. Won't be the last time.

What I am really driving at, is if there is indeed a definition for an assault weapon, an M4 or whatever that has select fire is much closer to being one than an AR-15.

Is an M1 an assault weapon? Or is that cool because they traditionally had wooden stocks?

Bottom line, I don't think banning AR-15's will do a damn bit of good, other than making a ton of money between now and the ban.

M1a is a military rifle designed for military use. I'm guessing that is the definition of an "assault" weapon. Although the tradition m1a doesn't really look "scary" unlike the socom editions.

 

[davmat787]

M1a is a military rifle designed for military use. I'm guessing that is the definition of an "assault" weapon. Although the tradition m1a doesn't really look "scary" unlike the socom editions.

And an M1A is chambered in .308, a far more powerful cartridge than the .223/5.56. But I am guessing the M1 would not fall under an AWB. Just pointing to the futility of a renewed AWB.

 

[xj0hnx]

I wonder if JoS is going to comment on his fellow Jews rocking the M16 platform.

 

[StinkyPinky]

Those who are asking why someone should be allowed to have a rifle like an AR-15 are missing the point entirely.

Regardless of whether or not one feels that an assault weapons ban would be a good idea, it is clearly unconstitutional after DC v. Heller, which states that the 2nd Amendment protects all arms "in common use".

The AR-15 is the best selling center-fire rifle in the United States at the moment. It is in common use, and therefore it is protected. The same follows for other rifles that are similar in nature, even if they are not quite as popular.

While magazine capacity restrictions were not addressed in Heller, the same "common use" argument could be applied. The magazine is necessary to the functionality of the firearm. If something like an AR-15 is protected under the 2nd Amendment, the magazines necessary to its functionality must be as well. Since 30 round magazines are the standard capacity magazine for a firearm in common use, the magazines of that capacity are also in common use, and it follows that they would also be protected under the 2nd Amendment.

Even if an assault weapons ban does pass, it will be struck down by the Supreme Court. So all those who want an assault weapons ban are doing is wasting their own time, and the taxpayer's time and money.

Why is it on the table? Because gun control clearly works in other western nations, so it seems reasonable to try it here. Hell, we can always change it back if you gun nuts are correct.

And just because something is in the constitution doesn't mean it is forever set in stone. It has been changed before. If the public wills it, then they must change it. Democracy and all ya know. It's the founding principle of this country and something the founding fathers would have embraced. The will of the people and all that.

 

[dmens]

Why is it on the table? Because gun control clearly works in other western nations, so it seems reasonable to try it here. Hell, we can always change it back if you gun nuts are correct.

And just because something is in the constitution doesn't mean it is forever set in stone. It has been changed before. If the public wills it, then they must change it. Democracy and all ya know. It's the founding principle of this country and something the founding fathers would have embraced. The will of the people and all that.

Yeah, the founding fathers also talked about preventing the tyranny of the majority, hence inalienable rights and all that.

 

[exdeath]

Why is it on the table? Because gun control clearly works in other western nations, so it seems reasonable to try it here. Hell, we can always change it back if you gun nuts are correct.

Like we changed the NFA 1934 laws back?

Gun laws never get changed back. If there is a new AWB it will probably not have an expiration period this time and it will become the new status quo. 10 years from now when everyone is used to the AWB, the new cry will be that nobody needs to hold more than 1 bullet, etc.

 

[TallBill]

Why is it on the table? Because gun control clearly works in other western nations, so it seems reasonable to try it here. Hell, we can always change it back if you gun nuts are correct.

And just because something is in the constitution doesn't mean it is forever set in stone. It has been changed before. If the public wills it, then they must change it. Democracy and all ya know. It's the founding principle of this country and something the founding fathers would have embraced. The will of the people and all that.

No, it clearly doesn't work in other western nations. Murder rates in UK have always been less than the US but their rate has grown compared to ours since banning guns.

Also, their robberies, assaults, and rapes are double ours.

 

[Cerb]

Why is it on the table? Because gun control clearly works in other western nations, so it seems reasonable to try it here.

Except that it doesn't. As in, there is no Western nation comparable to the U.S. in terms of firearm availability, that has enacted any major gun control. It has almost all been countries with low civilian ownership to start with. TMK, the exceptions have been Russia and former-USSR countries, which had high rates of violent crime both before and after, not leading to any possible conclusion of success.

Most of them have had the common sense to not try it, especially since the data backs up a rather common sense point that gun-fearers can't get their heads around: upstanding citizens have an aversion to killing people.

 

[RampantAndroid]

Don't even need a new lower, unless you want an engraving to mark the fun mode.

You do, there's a lot less metal in the fire control pocket, in addition to the extra hole above the selector switch. You cannot take a post ban lower and make it full auto without milling it.

This is post ban semi-auto:
http://i839.photobucket.com/albums/zz314/Umbrarian/Guns/SWD-DIAS-1.jpg

This is full auto - look at the thin wall and how it extends further:
http://i839.photobucket.com/albums/zz314/Umbrarian/Guns/IMG_1460.jpg

Guess who would be breaking laws that already exist.

Uh, what? It's 100% legal to own an M4, as long as you cannot access the select fire mode...and the civilian AR15s are virtually identical to military M4s and M16s, just without select fire (see above) - you can even own a full auto bolt carrier group with no issues.

Right, which is the "splitting hairs" I was talking about. I guess I didn't make my point in a very cogent manner. Won't be the last time.

What I am really driving at, is if there is indeed a definition for an assault weapon, an M4 or whatever that has select fire is much closer to being one than an AR-15.

Is an M1 an assault weapon? Or is that cool because they traditionally had wooden stocks?

Bottom line, I don't think banning AR-15's will do a damn bit of good, other than making a ton of money between now and the ban.

Ah, might be because this thread got out of hand too and I skimmed some of it. Point taken - and I agree - the version we civilians can get (in most states) are not what I'd call assault rifles. On the flip side of the coin, places like Idaho and Oregon allow full auto guns, they just have to be of a certain age, AFAIK.

 

[dmens]

You do, there's a lot less metal in the fire control pocket, in addition to the extra hole above the selector switch. You cannot take a post ban lower and make it full auto without milling it.

This is post ban semi-auto:
http://i839.photobucket.com/albums/zz314/Umbrarian/Guns/SWD-DIAS-1.jpg

This is full auto - look at the thin wall and how it extends further:
http://i839.photobucket.com/albums/zz314/Umbrarian/Guns/IMG_1460.jpg

I have never seen an auto like the first one. All my lowers look like the second.

 

[RampantAndroid]

I have never seen an auto like the first one. All my lowers look like the second.

If all of your lowers are semi-auto, then yes...that's correct. We civilians cannot own the full auto receivers, AFAIK (unless a gunsmith can somehow disable the fun mode.) Hell, just getting an MP5 rolled is hellish since the pre-rolled parts allow for full auto mode.

 

[TallBill]

If all of your lowers are semi-auto, then yes...that's correct. We civilians cannot own the full auto receivers, AFAIK. Hell, just getting an MP5 rolled is hellish since the pre-rolled parts allow for full auto mode.

You can but there's a limited quantity and a 200 dollar tax to pay. Automatic weapons usually sell for tens of thousands of dollars. They're actually less lethal then semi automatic weapons but that's a whole different issue

 

[fread2281]

sheeple

nooooooooooo

 

[Zorkorist]

It's not on the table. Obama may think it's on the table, but it's not. It's part of the Bill of Rights, of the United States Constitution, and it is not, on the table.

-John

 

[RampantAndroid]

You can but there's a limited quantity and a 200 dollar tax to pay. Automatic weapons usually sell for tens of thousands of dollars. They're actually less lethal then semi automatic weapons but that's a whole different issue

If by that you mean the "made before 1980 something" restriction, yeah...limited number. Less lethal, in some ways. I've fired a MP5 full auto and had no problem firing all 32 (or was it 31?) rounds off into paper in one long burst, or multiple long 10 round bursts. But that wasn't at 50 yards, that was at 15....

But yes, in semi auto I'm more selective about what I shoot, and how many rounds I use per target. I tried to only fire a single round with the MP5 in full auto...I think I managed it ONCE. The rest were 2-3 round bursts.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Apparently, you're leaving out words from what I stated, and imagining a point of view of mine that isn't true. Certainly, something's wrong with the level of violence in our country. I don't think it's fair to distinguish the difference among any forms of lethal weapons though, especially the difference between "assault weapons" and other guns.

Since you believe that I meant we should do nothing about violence, you missed the point altogether. The focus on assault weapons is meaningless. They're an insignificant blip in the number of homicides in this country.

If we value life, then the focus should be on saving lives, not stopping something that we have an incredible lack of control over. A murder is a tragedy. A 2 year old drowning in a 12" deep inflatable pool in the background is no less a tragedy for those involved. With such an enormous focus on "assault weapons", we're psychologically creating the illusion that the problem of assault weapons, and the problem of school shootings is much more frequent than it really is. (And diminishing the consideration of risks that are currently present.) People are becoming vigilant about the wrong things.

So, we want to hire armed guards for schools. We want to put in metal detectors. And so on. First, Columbine had an armed resource officer. He was in his car, eating lunch, watching an area where the kids go to smoke. He was fired upon within 5 minutes of the shooting starting at the school & was completely ineffective in stopping anything from happening. If you look at the amount of preparation that Klebold & Harris did (distractionary timed bombs off campus), I don't think it's outside the realm of reality that they accounted for his lunch time. Connecticut: locked doors. These things did nothing to prevent tragedies. Meanwhile, all the deaths from school shootings combined since Columbine still don't add up to the number of people struck annually by lightning. How many schools have lightning detectors for their sporting events to detect lightning in the area? An under $200 device that could be more effective at preventing deaths than anything suggested after this event by people using emotion vs. statistical reasoning.

Dr. P you always say stuff so much better than I can.

there something like 30,000+ fatalities due to car accidents every year. no one seems to worry about driving on public roads though.

 

[TallBill]

If by that you mean the "made before 1980 something" restriction, yeah...limited number. Less lethal, in some ways. I've fired a MP5 full auto and had no problem firing all 32 (or was it 31?) rounds off into paper in one long burst, or multiple long 10 round bursts. But that wasn't at 50 yards, that was at 15....

But yes, in semi auto I'm more selective about what I shoot, and how many rounds I use per target. I tried to only fire a single round with the MP5 in full auto...I think I managed it ONCE. The rest were 2-3 round bursts.

Eh it isn't in all cases, but in general well aimed single shot semi auto or bursts are more effective. Easier to control for point shooting. SF operators don't use full auto on their carbines in most situations and they fire sometimes up to 100,000 rounds a year in training.

 

[Zorkorist]

30,000 Men, Women, and Children, dying in car accidents, yearly.

26 people dying at the hands of a crazed shooter.

I'll take the latter.

-John

 

[StinkyPinky]

No, it clearly doesn't work in other western nations. Murder rates in UK have always been less than the US but their rate has grown compared to ours since banning guns.

Also, their robberies, assaults, and rapes are double ours.

No it hasn't. I've already posted stats on this. The murder rate in the UK is 1.8 per 100k people, compared to almost 6 for the USA.

The murder rate for US males is three times that of females, and the murder rate by firearms is off the scale compared to other developed nations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

The stats just blow any arguments you guys have out the water. Sort it by homicide rate.

USA 3.7 by 100k people.
Canada 0.7
UK 0.04

ARgue all you want but the facts don't back up your arguments.

 

[TallBill]

No it hasn't. I've already posted stats on this. The murder rate in the UK is 1.8 per 100k people, compared to almost 6 for the USA.

The murder rate for US males is three times that of females, and the murder rate by firearms is off the scale compared to other developed nations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

The stats just blow any arguments you guys have out the water. Sort it by homicide rate.

USA 3.7 by 100k people.
Canada 0.7
UK 0.04

ARgue all you want but the facts don't back up your arguments.

The murder rate in the UK has indeed barely risen more as a percentage when compared to the murder rate in the US since guns were banned there.

But robberies, assaults, and rapes all occur at double the rate than in the US.

Check out www.gunfacts.info

Homicide in Canada and Australia went up though after bans.

 

[TallBill]

In 1920 Canada had 7% of the murder rate of the US. After gun control in Canada came into play, Canada's homicide rate was 35% of what it is in the US and violent crimes were double that of the US by 2003.

 

[TallBill]

Firearm crime in the UK has doubled in the first 10 years after their ban on handguns.