For those who wish to reinstate the AWB... (warning: some pictures)

[Glassunion]

Here is what would be banned under an Assault Weapon Ban..








Here is what would still be 100% legal that policy...



I'm sure it would accomplish something... Just not sure what? Maybe increased sales?

[rrneck]

1. Yep.

[TheCowsCameHome]

6. "It's like Barbie for men" - That's cute

More like Viagra, actually.

[MrModerate]

2. Errm . . . rewrite the law?

I'm the furthest imaginable thing from an expert, so those rather wicked-looking firearms may or may not fall into the category that people who are opposed military-grade hardware in the hands of criminals would object to (such as myself).

They may be little more than popguns for all I know.

But surely there's enough expertise out there to write decent legislation that isn't a sham and just an opportunity for gun manufacturers to play cute with the laws.

[bossy22]

3. thats not that easy

the only clear cut way of doing this would be an all out ban on any semi-automatic long gun- but that probably wouldnt pass constitutional muster since a great portion of long guns bought today are semi-auto

[guitar man]

4. none of those are military grade

They are just civilian grade semi-automatic rifles, some people find them scary looking I guess.

[MrModerate]

7. My point exactly. They're manufactured to look wicked . . .

And only gun enthusiasts are likely to know the difference.

[guitar man]

8. actually, a lot of them are dressed to look wicked

This is a Ruger 10-22, I own a rifle just like this, walnut stock and all.This is how it comes from the factory



This is the exact same rifle dressed up with a custom stock and accessories. It is no more deadly than before, it just looks different. It is still just a .22 rifle no matter how many doo-dads you hang on it



Edited to add:

I do own a "military grade" weapon,it's semi-automatic and it looks like this:

[X_Digger]

9. No, they're not manufactured to 'look wicked'.

Each of those features has a utilitarian purpose. The guns at the bottom have none of those features, yet are basically the same in terms of lethality.

Features:
Bayonet mount- convenient place to mount a light
Flash suppressor / compensator- reduces the visible ball of fire or the upward motion of the rifle, allowing one to reacquire the target faster for a follow-up shot.
Collapsible stock- allows a person with cold weather clothing to fire it in the winter, yet have the same person fire it in the summer with a tee shirt. Also allows multiple people to use the same gun, by being slightly adjustable.
Pistol grip- more ergonomic, allows better control, hence fewer missed shots.
Barrel shroud / free floating forend- more accurate, more mounting options for accessories, less chance of burning oneself.

[MrModerate]

11. Riiiight. And the fact that they look like something a starship trooper would carry . . .

Has nothing to do with the marketing aspect.

I'm going to charitably suggest you're a tad naive.

[X_Digger]

15. It's utility driven.

They are as light as possible- aluminum and polymers. They are accurate- that's why they're the most popular centerfire rifle in the US now. They're reliable- anyone can work on one, it doesn't take a gunsmith to hand-fit replacement parts. They're durable- plastic and aluminum is easier to keep from getting scratched up, when compared to varnished wood and blued steel.

In 1958, this was one of the first AR-15's



Which turned into this..



Then this..



Which turned into this..



Which turned into this..



Each iteration added reliability, removed weight, increased adaptability.

[AtheistCrusader]

10. Are you suggesting things that 'look wicked' should be more regulated than a functionally identical

weapon that looks less 'wicked'?

[MrModerate]

12. No, I'm suggesting that the original post illustrated a whole bunch of hardware . . .

The genuine lethality of which was impossible to determine based on simple visual examination.

And that highlighted the weaknesses of the original AWB and the fact that -- to be effective -- it needed to be rewritten and not merely reimposed.

[guitar man]

14. what are you talking about

What exactly is "genuine lethality" supposed to mean and how does one determine that quantity simply by looking at a weapon?

I have antique Colt SAA "Peacemaker" pistols from the 1870s. They still function perfectly and I guarantee they are "genuinely lethal", you can kill somebody just as dead with them as you can this "starship trooper" stuff as you call it.

[MrModerate]

22. There you go! My point exactly . . .

The OP showed two lists: "this is what would be banned" vs "this is what would be allowed." My point was the pictures were meaningless. The real issue is whether an effect AWB law can or should be written.

[AtheistCrusader]

17. If you don't know anything, looking at this hardware, maybe you should keep regulatory

opinions to yourself. Leave the issue to people (in favor of and against gun control) who know what they are talking about.

And yes, the AWB is hilariously inept, because it was written by hysterical legislators that do not understand the issue. And here we have hysterical calls to reinstate it. Do you not see the problem?

[MrModerate]

23. 'Scuse me, but I'm completely competent to opine whether a point of view . . .

Such as that of the OP, appears to be supported by ambiguous or misleading evidence.

My opinion that regulations should be backed by expertise and be both enforceable and enforced probably aligns pretty closely with yours.

[X_Digger]

18. Pop Quiz: Which is more deadly..

[MrModerate]

24. At the risk of wearing out the phrase, "My point exactly."

Pictures of firearm accessories vs pictures of firearms designed to look as cool as possible (functionality notwithstanding) -- as posted by the OP -- are inadequate to inform a debate on assault weapon bans.

[guitar man]

19. here ya go

Here's a couple "regular" non-scary looking rifles. One is a very low powered weapon for small game and varmints and the other is powerful enough to bring down any game in North America and some of the big stuff on the African continent maybe.I'd be willing to bet it's more powerful than any of those "starship trooper" models in the OP too. See if you can tell by "visual examination" which is which.

[MrModerate]

25. No, I can't. Which is what I've been saying all along.

The OP showed firearm parts vs sexy looking guns to argue against blind reimposition of the AWB. I agree with the sentiment, but the evidence was inadequate.

[RSillsbee]

5. military-grade hardware in the hands of criminals

Most criminals in the United States use handguns rifles (of any sort) and shot guns are used less often than hands and feet in committing murders.

Now if you want to move South of the border the "military-grade hardware in the hands of criminals" down there really is military weaponry of a type that is generally unavailable in the US.

You can't buy M2 machine guns, Full Auto AKs or Hand Grenades at a gun show in Phoenix

[MrModerate]

13. Which kinda suggests that US gun control legislation . . .

As flawed as it is, might be having some salutory effects.

[mediator]

16. What does salutory mean?

I'm not familiar with that word.

[DonP]

20. Yeah, the 1934 NFA really put the bite on crime in 2010

That's when M2's, select fire, AOW etc. were actually tightly controlled. The congress drew a clear line in the sand in 1934 and we're willing to live with it, but gun control people keep demanding that we "compromise" to keep moving it further and further. Short answer - Fuck no. Mainly because no one really means "compromise". They mean we'll take this part now and come back for more later.

The scary part is that the people that write the legislation and their aides, know even less about these firearms than you do. But they have no problem picking up screeds poorly drafted by the even less knowledgeable people at the Brady group and using that to design legislation.

Would you feel comfortable if only men wrote the laws on reproductive issues? Maybe only white people should be allowed to discuss affirmative action programs? It's pretty much the same thing. People that know nothing about an issue and have no skin in the game have no damn business trying to dictate to everyone how things should be based on how they "feel" about something.

And the short and honest answer is, yes, it's obvious from your posts that you would ban things based on how they look and how scary they might seem - just in case.

That's why gun owners are going to fight each and every proposed "common sense" piece of legislation that we disagree with.

The majority of us (and we are the majority, get used to it) have no problem with the existing background check system, banning criminals and the mentally unstable or even where the line was drawn in 1934. We'd rather see the states stop fucking around and include all their records in the NICS data base right now. The Reagan 1986 FOPA was crap and one of the things we let slip by us before we started paying attention. We're going to try and repeal that or some big parts of that one of these days.

But any new laws at the national level, no F'in chance.

[Blown330]

21. Not as much the regulation...

...as it is the enforcement. We don't have the rampant corruption and drug dealers who can buy military-grade hardware at will. Here you can buy a M60E4 machine gun as long as you can afford $60,000+ and the tax stamp/registration and it's perfectly legal. That's a lot of money for all but rather wealthy enthusiasts. To a drug cartel that is chump change and since they don't have to worry about registration as long as they pay off the right people they can buy as many as they want.

[cbayer]

26. Locking

This post does not fit the criteria for this forum as it does not really provide any substance for discussion.

Posts consisting primarily of pictures of guns or gun paraphernalia are generally better suited for the Outdoor Life forum.


cbayer
DU Moderator