Wed Nov 7, 2012, 03:47 PM
spin (14,739 posts)
Two questions for those who support another assault weapons ban ...
1) What would be the most positive results from passing such a law?
2) How would you make it better and more effective than the previous assault weapons ban which was allowed to sunset in 2004?
|
30 replies, 1780 views
| Author | Time | Post | |
| spin | Nov 2012 | OP | |
| jenw2 | Nov 2012 | #1 | |
| spin | Nov 2012 | #5 | |
| Decoy of Fenris | Nov 2012 | #11 | |
| GreenStormCloud | Nov 2012 | #12 | |
| Eleanors38 | Nov 2012 | #20 | |
| Atypical Liberal | Nov 2012 | #21 | |
| Pacafishmate | Nov 2012 | #27 | |
| aikoaiko | Nov 2012 | #29 | |
| petronius | Nov 2012 | #2 | |
| spin | Nov 2012 | #6 | |
| ileus | Nov 2012 | #3 | |
| Pacafishmate | Nov 2012 | #28 | |
| ileus | Nov 2012 | #30 | |
| 1StrongBlackMan | Nov 2012 | #4 | |
| ManiacJoe | Nov 2012 | #7 | |
| 1StrongBlackMan | Nov 2012 | #9 | |
| ManiacJoe | Nov 2012 | #15 | |
| spin | Nov 2012 | #18 | |
| Atypical Liberal | Nov 2012 | #22 | |
| friendly_iconoclast | Nov 2012 | #8 | |
| Clames | Nov 2012 | #10 | |
| trouble.smith | Nov 2012 | #14 | |
| 4th law of robotics | Nov 2012 | #26 | |
| Tuesday Afternoon | Nov 2012 | #13 | |
| spin | Nov 2012 | #16 | |
| discntnt_irny_srcsm | Nov 2012 | #17 | |
| spin | Nov 2012 | #19 | |
| Remmah2 | Nov 2012 | #23 | |
| Heliman | Nov 2012 | #24 | |
| glacierbay | Nov 2012 | #25 |
Response to spin (Original post)
Wed Nov 7, 2012, 03:48 PM
jenw2 (374 posts)
1. Fewer people murdered
|
Seriously, are you being sarcastic by even asking the question?
|
Response to jenw2 (Reply #1)
Wed Nov 7, 2012, 03:59 PM
spin (14,739 posts)
5. No, I am not being sarcastic. ...
|
I am looking for some honest input.
Trying to pass another assault weapons ban at this time, considering the current makeup of Congress, is a very lofty goal and is likely impossible. It is my opinion that far more might be accomplished by trying to improve existing federal firearms law which would be easier to achieve. |
Response to jenw2 (Reply #1)
Wed Nov 7, 2012, 04:48 PM
Decoy of Fenris (393 posts)
11. How?
|
Or, to be more detailed:
How will removing assault weapons from the streets result in fewer people murdered? |
Response to jenw2 (Reply #1)
Wed Nov 7, 2012, 04:49 PM
GreenStormCloud (10,179 posts)
12. The previous AWB did not accomplish that.
|
What makes you think a renewal of it would be any different?
|
Response to jenw2 (Reply #1)
Thu Nov 8, 2012, 08:04 AM
Eleanors38 (3,478 posts)
20. Support your contention with data. It's there. Find it.
Response to jenw2 (Reply #1)
Thu Nov 8, 2012, 08:28 AM
Atypical Liberal (5,412 posts)
21. About 300 every year.
|
Rifles of all kinds, let alone "assault rifles", only kill about 300 people every year through homicide. This is about half as many people as are murdered each year using hands and feet.
There is no rifle crime problem in this country. Even the President mentioned this fact during his debate with Romney. The most common firearm used for crime is the handgun, because it is concealable. |
Response to jenw2 (Reply #1)
Thu Nov 8, 2012, 01:03 PM
Pacafishmate (249 posts)
27. Prove that any firearms ban has ever lead to "fewer people murdered".
|
You can't because the two ( firearms policy and murder rate) are not directly correlated. It has more to do with the level of violence present in a country or culture rather than whether guns are obtainable. People who want to murder don't just decide to quit if their first idea fails. But you knew all of this already. You just want to legislate based on your feeling that guns are icky and if I don't need one, no one else does either.
|
Response to jenw2 (Reply #1)
Thu Nov 8, 2012, 01:20 PM
aikoaiko (16,574 posts)
29. Do you really think someone intent on committing violence with a firearm
|
will not do so because they can't do it with a specific weapon? There are hundreds of other firearms that are just as lethal. |
Response to spin (Original post)
Wed Nov 7, 2012, 03:49 PM
petronius (19,657 posts)
2. I would have thought that one of those questions should be:
|
"How would you define/identify an 'assault weapon' for the purpose of a ban?"
But I guess that's part of #2... |
Response to petronius (Reply #2)
Wed Nov 7, 2012, 04:06 PM
spin (14,739 posts)
6. Yes. A new definition of exactly what an assault weapon is would fit into question #2. (n/t)
Response to spin (Original post)
Wed Nov 7, 2012, 03:51 PM
ileus (9,212 posts)
3. I'll play along : it would make me feel better knowing the first step was in place.
|
I may know that the last one was useless, but this one could be a stepping stone.
Today AWB Tomorrow Conceal carry elimination The next day complete handgun ban ect ect ect... |
Response to ileus (Reply #3)
Thu Nov 8, 2012, 01:05 PM
Pacafishmate (249 posts)
28. So you are volunteering to go around collecting the banned firearms?
|
It would be wise to make your funeral arrangements in advance.
|
Response to Pacafishmate (Reply #28)
Thu Nov 8, 2012, 08:32 PM
ileus (9,212 posts)
30. Naw man, I'll let grabbers volunteer for that job.
|
Myself I'll keep mine...I like them.
|
Response to spin (Original post)
Wed Nov 7, 2012, 03:54 PM
1StrongBlackMan (5,413 posts)
4. Okay, and against my better judgment ...
|
1) What would be the most positive results from passing such a law?
Fewer assualt weapons on the streets. 2) How would you make it better and more effective than the previous assault weapons ban which was allowed to sunset in 2004?
No knowing what the ban that sunsetted in 2004, I can't say how to make it better or more effective, other than to say more enforcement efforts. |
Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #4)
Wed Nov 7, 2012, 04:26 PM
ManiacJoe (5,579 posts)
7. The obvious follow-up question to #1:
|
What makes "assault weapons" special that they need extra regulation that other guns do not need?
|
Response to ManiacJoe (Reply #7)
Wed Nov 7, 2012, 04:44 PM
1StrongBlackMan (5,413 posts)
9. Again, against my better judgment ...
|
I would not lose a minute of sleep if all fire-arms were banned for civilians, with the possible exception of fire-arms used for hunt food that is eaten.
But why should assault weapons get "special" treatment? Because it is politically possible. |
Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #9)
Wed Nov 7, 2012, 06:10 PM
ManiacJoe (5,579 posts)
15. Have to give you points for honesty.
|
However, the usual definitions of "assault weapon" overlap with "fire-arms used for hunt food that is eaten".
|
Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #9)
Wed Nov 7, 2012, 07:52 PM
spin (14,739 posts)
18. I believe that at this time another assault weapons ban is politically impossible. ...
|
For one thing it would never pass the Republican controlled house. An assault weapons ban would be difficult to pass in the Senate as many Democratic Senators come from gun friendly areas of our nation and voting for it would simply be political suicide. The current leader of the Senate, Harry Reid, has expressed little interest in passing this law.
While few people outside of the gun culture realize this, rifles that fit under the definition of assault weapons ARE used for hunting. Sporting ARs A common argument against the use of a "black rifle" is that there is no legitimate reason to hunt game with a rifle holding 20 rounds. In most states that allow the use of such rifles for hunting the magazine capacity is limited. Florida sets a magazine limit of five rounds in any semi-auto rifle used while hunting deer. In Florida wild hogs are considered pests as they do a lot of damage to the environment. They are often hunted and, when prepared properly, their meat is very tasty. Wild Hog "Black rifles" are commonly used for hunting wild hog in Florida and there are no magazine capacity limits that I can find while hunting this animal. |
Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #9)
Thu Nov 8, 2012, 08:36 AM
Atypical Liberal (5,412 posts)
22. Problem is, there is little difference between rifles that shoot food and rifles that shoot people.
|
I would not lose a minute of sleep if all fire-arms were banned for civilians, with the possible exception of fire-arms used for hunt food that is eaten.
The problem with your definition is that there is little difference between firearms that have been designed to shoot people and those designed to shoot other animals. This is a 7.62x39 caliber rifle commonly used for hunting:
This is the exact same rifle, with different furniture on it:
|
Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #4)
Wed Nov 7, 2012, 04:41 PM
friendly_iconoclast (8,860 posts)
8. What would be the point of having "Fewer assualt weapons on the streets."?
|
Rifle crime did not increase after 2004, when the previous ban expired. In fact , crimes committed with rifles (as has all violent crime) have declined.
The proposed ban is moralizing, not crime fighting. |
Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #4)
Wed Nov 7, 2012, 04:47 PM
Clames (2,038 posts)
10. Two problems you have with that response.
|
1. AWB bans do nothing to affect the numbers carried on the streets.
2. You can't speak to the last AWB effectiveness (or lack thereof) then you should review the available data. 10 years worth of it and it is easily found through Google. |
Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #4)
Wed Nov 7, 2012, 05:42 PM
trouble.smith (374 posts)
14. the first AWB absolutely increased the number of assault weapons on the street and dramatically.
|
It also raised the gun control issue from a relatively obscure issue that mattered to a handful of scattered Americans to a much higher level of prominence in our state and national elections. IOW, not one good god damned thing came of it.
|
Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #4)
Thu Nov 8, 2012, 12:10 PM
4th law of robotics (6,801 posts)
26. "Fewer assualt weapons on the streets."
|
Assault weapons aren't being used by most criminals.
No knowing what the ban that sunsetted in 2004, I can't say how to make it better or more effective, other than to say more enforcement efforts. If assault weapons are responsible for say 1% of crimes then perfect enforcement could at best reduce crime by 1%. That's assuming people simply give up if they can't get an assault weapon rather than picking up some other gun. So we can spend billions and hope that it actually has an impact on the tiny minority of crimes these are used in or we can spend that money on something useful instead. |
Response to spin (Original post)
Wed Nov 7, 2012, 05:06 PM
Tuesday Afternoon (43,914 posts)
13. assault weapon = anything picked up and used to assault someone.
|
Outlaw broken beer bottles and Nail Files. No more razors either. and kitchen knives have to go, too.
|
Response to Tuesday Afternoon (Reply #13)
Wed Nov 7, 2012, 06:29 PM
spin (14,739 posts)
16. The British Medical Journal recommended doing away with pointy kitchen knives. ...
British Medical Experts Campaign for Long, Pointy Knife Control |
Response to spin (Reply #16)
Wed Nov 7, 2012, 07:05 PM
discntnt_irny_srcsm (5,667 posts)
17. It's been my experience...
|
...that more people die of mishaps having been on both ends of forks and spoons than on either end of a long pointy knife. Are the Brits going to ban assault knives?
|
Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #17)
Wed Nov 7, 2012, 09:58 PM
spin (14,739 posts)
19. I think they considered it but never passed a law prohibiting such knives. ...
|
The regulations for carrying a knife in public are truly draconian over there. I would be in big trouble if I was caught carrying any of my pocket knives in that nation as they lock open and are considered a fixed blade knife. I probably would be thrown in jail for a long time for the true fixed blade I often carry in Florida.
|
Response to spin (Original post)
Thu Nov 8, 2012, 09:22 AM
Remmah2 (3,291 posts)
23. Assault weapon ban is a good idea.
|
Just don't mess with my cosmetically impaired, factory standard magazine, plastic, semi-automatic home defense and target rifles.
|
Response to spin (Original post)
Thu Nov 8, 2012, 11:59 AM
Heliman (5 posts)
24. Question number 3
|
What makes anyone think that if guns are banned that the criminals and the murderers are going to just "hand them over?"
The answer is easy. They won't. But law abiding citizen will be disarmed. Here is food for thought. I have my concealed handgun license and my instructor was a federal agent. He made this point very clear: You are responsible for your own protection. If you ask any police officer, they will tell you the same thing, which is that they are Not your personal body guards, but they are only there to enforce the general law. That opened my eyes. Hurricane Sandy victims in the outlying borroughs are quickly learning the value and i'm sure a new found respect for personal gun protection with all of the looting going on. |
Response to Heliman (Reply #24)
Thu Nov 8, 2012, 12:05 PM
glacierbay (2,477 posts)
25. Absolutely correct
|
As a police officer, I am not responsible an individual citizens safety unless they're in my custody, I'm responsible for the general publics safety.
Welcome to DU. |

