The case against an assault weapons ban

[Recursion]

I have debated writing this OP, given both the national context and the climate on DU, but I figured that if there's little good to be done there's also no harm, and I think this is an important point.

There are three main arguments against reinstating the assault weapons ban:

1. The assault weapons ban doesn't do what you think it does
2. What you want to do isn't politically or practically feasible
3. It's politically tone-deaf and damaging

The assault weapons ban doesn't do what you think it does

There's really no way around this. If you support an AWB, you don't know what it actually did. We have Democratic legislators on record after voting about it, saying they didn't realize what it did. There are a multitude of posts on DU explaining what it actually did and I invite you to read them; in my experience there are people who already know and people who can't bring themselves to care. (Think about that: people call for a ban and explicitly say they don't care what it's actually banning. Is that a liberal POV?)

Suffice it to say that the weapon the shooter in Newtown use was not an assault weapon (Connecticut has an assault weapons ban) because it didn't not have a place to mount a bayonet. Yes, really. The ban doesn't do what you think it did, and it won't do what you think it will. I have no doubt that the innocents murdered in Newtown will be brought up in any future discussion of gun control -- and they certainly should be -- but it seems perverse to bring them up while advocating for a bill that keeps the weapon that killed them legal.

And before you say, "well, it's a start; it just didn't go far enough" let me stop you: it didn't go anywhere. It was rapid motion sideways on the scale of more or fewer gun restrictions. It made sure that the Newtown killer couldn't mount a bayonet on his rifle. It's not a serious law. It's a joke.

What you want to do isn't politically or practically feasible

So, at the risk of putting words in your mouth, what is it you want to do? For the most part, you want to ban semi-automatic weapons with detachable magazine, which you wrongly associate with meaning "rifles with matte black finishes and pistol grips". Banning these effectively would make mass shootings very difficult, on the order of impossible.

It would also be as difficult to actually do as banning alcohol and marijuana proved to be. This is technology that has been in civilian hands for over a century. This is about half of all firearms in private hands and nearly all new sales for the past several decades.

The AWB "worked" because it didn't ban guns people actually used; nobody really cares about bayonet mounts or threaded barrels. They care about having semi-automatic weapons with detachable magazines, largely for the same reasons you want to ban them: because they are effective firearms.

It's politically tone-deaf and damaging

Obviously, if that were all, the AWB would do no harm even if it does no good. Like I said, nobody actually cares about bayonet mounts. But it's politically absolutely toxic.

Think about how you feel when a conservative bloviates on a subject he knows absolutely nothing about. OK, got that irked feeling in your head? This is how our side argues on guns. How many times have you seen (or even written) "I don't ****ing care whether it's an assault rifle or an assault weapon I just want you to get rid of the death-spewing penis surrogates!"

Think about that, for a second, you've called for a ban that you don't even understand, and attack people who do understand and point out that it's a stupid law as barbarians and child-murderers despite the fact that you're the one pushing for a bill that specifically keeps the gun used in Newtown legal.

There are two levels of category errors happening on our side here. First, people think that how a rifle looks in any way indicates its capabilities. Second, you think the assault weapons ban banned any gun that looks military. These are both wrong, and people who get incredibly worked up about this one bad piece of legislation don't even bother to learn these things. (Even my friend who worked at Brady got really sick of that.)

People who own guns see that, and see that you're pushing for a law that doesn't actually do what you think it does and that you can't even be bothered to learn what it is that you're banning and get very irritated, and vote Republican. Furthermore, the legislators who take the hit from the NRA now put their gloves back on and say "well, we passed meaningful gun control legislation" and the issue is dead for the next 10 years. Nothing gets done about handguns. Nothing gets done about. Because we've burned up all of our political will on a stupid law whose entire purpose is to piss off gun owners without actually addressing gun crime. This needs to not happen again.

[jmg257]

1. So you are not arguing against a new AWB, your arguing for one that is greatly expanded.

And not just limited to the typical AW definition. Pretty sure that type of bill is in the works.
And just as surely an anti-gun bill can be further expanded to include just about any type of firearm desired.

People are dying - needlessly...the laws can be written to be effective, it just takes the will and the balls to do it.

[Recursion]

3. I'm not sure

I'm for rescheduling high capacity magazines to require an ATF tax stamp and some form of licensing.

Banning technology that's been in civilian hands for over a century is something I'm very hesitant to do.

[Kaleva]

9. One doesn't have to try and ban all semi-automatics.

One can ban the manufacture and importation of semi-automatics for sale to civilians. This would overnight drive up the price of the semi-automatics currently owned or in store inventory. Gun owners may secure their weapons better if they had increased in value and maybe less likely to part with them as they would become an investment that increases in value every year.

One could do the same for detachable magazines beyond a certain capacity.

[krispos42]

11. This would be a serious proposal.

Not that it would particularly help; see my post "The future of armed self-defense?" http://www.democraticunderground.com/117295365


But it's at least a serious proposal. Please note that none of these politicians that supposedly care so much about "never again" aren't saying this. they're flogging the idea of banning certain combinations of secondary features like folding/telescoping stocks and bayonet lugs and rifle-grenade launching attachments and gun-mounted flare launchers and flash suppressors.

[Kaleva]

18. I have your thread bookmarked.

I found it to be quite interesting along with gejohnston's thread I had bookmarked about lever actions. Personally, I don't think one needs to go the full "tactical" route if selecting a lever or pump action rifle for home defense.

[krispos42]

25. Thanks.

People don't need to, but the cost of making a gun "tactical" isn't that much more than "sporting".

yeah, an aluminum foregrip with quad rails on it would cost more than a checkered walnut grip, but not much more. A black synthetic stock's cost is comparable to a walnut one. Black finish on the metal is about the same as a regular blueing, perhaps a bit more.


So for maybe $200 or $300 more, you have a "tactical" rifle which would also work for a deer or elk rifle.

Quad-rail foregrips for AR-15s seem to run from $40 (plastic) to $400 (precision machined, I would think) with a lot of them being in the $150 range.

http://www.midwayusa.com/find?userSearchQuery=AR-15+quad+rail

The most sensible option would be to design a lever-action or slide-action rifle that used AR-15 accessories, such as foregrips (handguards), magazines, and buttstocks.

[Kaleva]

30. With my budget, I'd be limited to something like this

And this is assuming I'll be able to afford a .30-30 in the first place.

http://www.onesourcetactical.com/forearmammocuff.aspx

That's about as "tactical" for home defense as I could get.

[ileus]

23. I'm gonna sell when my AR's are worth 3500.

[Kaleva]

27. And you'd probably get that in a few years if there was a comprehensive ban on...

the manufacturing in this country and importing of such weapons.

[ileus]

33. Hopefully we won't see such a broad ban.

That being said I'd send a few down the road for 3500 bucks each.

That would buy me a nice dirt bike and give me 3500 for some Jeep stuff.

[MightyMopar]

2. If someone votes Republican over this issue, we don't need them

We will gain more voters from having a distinction between Dems and batshit crazy Republicans. This AWB needs to go much further and ban many more guns and clips.

[Recursion]

6. We don't get to decide what's important to voters (nt)

[MightyMopar]

28. Many people who don't vote would come off the fence to vote against the gun culture

Many don't see a difference between the RAPEpublicans and Democrats, this is an issue that will bring first time voters.

[upaloopa]

4. You wouldn't mind if we try to write a better law.

I refuse to accept the idea that there is nothing we can do.
No one needs to fire so many rounds from a gun designed to kill. You can do without your target practice.
I am for destroying all AR Types of weapons. That would be effective. Make them illegal to own. Give people time to turn them in. Pay them for the guns and destroy them. Any type of possession distribution manufacture or sale in the US would be a crime pun usable by fine and jail time.
And if the bad guys have them and the good don't then that's a hell of a lot of guns out of our cities

[Recursion]

5. Firing so many rounds

No one needs to fire so many rounds from a gun designed to kill

OK, see point 2. That's half of all guns in private ownership and almost all new gun sales. You may be right that this technology is too powerful for civilian use, but you're wrong if you think these are anything unusual. These are most guns that most gun owners have.

I am for destroying all AR Types of weapons. That would be effective.

No, it wouldn't. There are a ton of semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines that aren't AR's. Some of them look like traditional hunting rifles and don't bother people who come up with bans.

Why ban AR's? What makes them worse in your mind than other semi-automatic rifles?

[jmg257]

7. You are not thinking big enough.

They started demonizing semi-autos back during the fast & furious hearings....NOT just AW type semis - but semis in general.

To be effective, the laws will HAVE to be drastic. If we truly want to substantially decrease gun violence, we have to seriously reduce the number of guns - of many types.

I really don't think that would be all that 'impossible' IF the people decide it is what they want.
There are ways to start - to make sure the field is level so most current gun owners (sane ones anyway) can't argue about being outgunned, to make as many people as possible decide being a 'law abiding gun owner' really means following the laws, to put in place penalities severe enough that many will have to think REAL hard about taking the risks of becoming a felon and inmate, or hide their illegal arms/mags/ammo so deep it will just about as good.

[upaloopa]

8. Well you just keep bringing up exceptions and I can write a law to cover them

It's all a matter of the paradigm you see the world through.

[Recursion]

10. No, these aren't exceptions, that's my point

AR's aren't special. They aren't different than any other rifle that people buy nowadays. There's nothing magical about that shape and color that make them different from rifles that you aren't trying to ban.

[upaloopa]

13. Like I said it matters what paradigm you see the world through.

Your coming from the we don't need gun control paradigm and I'm coming from the we need gun control paradigm. Everything else we say is designed to support our paradigm and really is just words.

[Recursion]

15. Well I in fact do think we need gun control, so you're missing something

I'm interested in rescheduling semi-automatic weapons that accept detachable magazines under Title II of the NFA so as to require a license and permission of local law enforcement to buy and keep them.

[PavePusher]

39. You keep dodging the subject.

This tells me you don't have a valid answer, and know it.

[krispos42]

14. Be aware that an AR-15 runs about $1,500 a copy.

Maybe a little less, maybe $1,200 a copy.

And there are millions, or maybe tens of millions, of them out there.


Just FYI.




I'm not counting other semi-automatic rifles like AK-47-ish, SKS, Mini-14 and Mini-30, G3, FAL, M-1A, M-1 Garand, M-1 Carbine, etc. Those would probably run from $400 to $1,500 a piece.

[jmg257]

16. What do you think fair market value on all those would be if they were illegal to possess?

[Recursion]

17. Black markets are difficult to model

You'd probably see a bunch of aftermarket mods on the remaining upper receivers, with a race to the bottom for quality. Prices might actually drop, really.

[krispos42]

20. No clue

Millions, probably 10s of millions, of gun owners would decide to no longer keep theirs; they would take the government compensation money and buy a pump-action rifle or shotgun, or a lever action rifle, or a handgun. Or decide to become one of the hundreds of millions of non-gun-owning Americans. They would figure it's not worth getting busted for a rifle, and the money is good, so take it.

The people that don't already own guns aren't going to start shopping around for a now-illegal semiauto rifle.

So you'd have a core of people that aren't going to give up their semiautos (evil gubmint, black helicopters, mind control rays, whatever). Now, who is going to sell this small core of people their now-illegal guns?


Keep in mind that the hardcore semiauto fans will have to offer much larger sums of money than the government to entice a person who was going to turn in their AR-15 for $1,500 to the ATF. I mean, I'm facing jail time here, so I want some serious money if the local militia type wants my AR-15.

How much money does the hardcore semiauto ban-defying fans have to offer 2x the government rate on millions of guns?

I would guess not a lot. They would be able to stock up on a relative handful of the rifles, but the demand for criminal purchase of semiautos would be swamped by supply and a price floor.

The criminal demand (militia types and career criminals) would not be able to offer less than $1,500 for an AR-15, probably nearly twice that, and would have the resources to only purchase a handful of such guns from people seeking to sell them.

I can see that some semi-auto rifle owners would choose to hold onto their rifles for a year or two, and sell it to a criminal then for a lot of money, but that sounds like a relatively unlikely scenario.

[spin]

21. You make it sound so simple ....

Just make AR type rifles illegal to own and then confiscate them.

Gun owners are well aware that your idea would do little to solve the problem so then you would pass a law banning and confiscating all semi-auto firearms. That is called the "slippery slope" by gun owners as they believe that the ultimate goal of the gun control movement is the total disarmament of all American citizens accomplished in small incremental steps.

The overwhelming majority of gun owners and their voting family members will oppose any effort to ban and confiscate a popular class of firearms knowing that it is merely the first step. They WILL show up at the voting booth to vote against anyone who supports such an idea.

In the recent past many good Democrats lost their seats in state governments and at the congressional level over this issue. Some experts believe that Democrats lost two Presidential elections over the gun control issue.

In the last 10 years the Democratic Party has largely ignored the gun control issue and we have been able to elect representatives to Congress and put Obama in office for two terms. Returning to supporting draconian gun laws could possibly cost us seats in the House and the Senate during the midterm election and possibly insure the election of a Republican President in four years. In fact a push for strong gun control might enable the Tea Party to regain its momentum.

Another assault weapons ban faces a difficult path in today's congress as almost all Republicans would oppose this bill ban and many Democrats from Red states would be hesitant to risk their political career over this issue. If one does pass it will probably be so watered down that it will be no more effective than the last ban.

Of course I might be wrong and I admit that gun control does enjoy strong support from the media which is happy to distort and even lie about the issue. However I fear the damage to the Democratic Party may prove irreversible and the results will put the Republican Party back in change.

I know a lot of gun owners who agree with me on most issues but absolutely refuse to vote for a Democrat because of the gun control issue. In the last ten years gun control hasn't been a serious issue and gun owners may not have been as enthusiastic about voting.

The NRA has been seen as the big bully that stops gun control but it only has 4.5 million members. Some recent news reports have stated that the NRA is gaining 8000 members a day. If you think that they are powerful today imagine how powerful the NRA would be if it doubled or tripled in size.

I'm a gun owner but I am also a Democrat. Our party is making real headway on a number of issues. For example we have a start to finally getting a good health care system for all in our nation.

I do feel we can make some progress and change existing gun laws to better insure that only honest responsible citizens can buy them. However if we overreach we may lose not only on gun control but also many other extremely important issues.

Time will tell.

[krispos42]

12. I was told expressly that technical details didn't matter.

A certain poster told me that.

Well, because of people that don't and won't understand the previous ban and the proposed bands (deliberate ignorance; the information is there but they will not partake of it), nothing will get done, politicians will get brownie points for appearing to do something, and those same people will then blame gun owners for the next mass shooting.



It gets tiring, frankly.

[Bonhomme Richard]

19. About Point #2

I woud like to see a maximum magazine capacity of 10 rounds. I would actually go smaller but 10 seems to be what people are talking about.
All new magazines would be 10 round max and if you already have a larger magazine that's fine but it can't leave your house. Period. If you are caught outside your home with anything larger than 10 rounds it's a felony. If a guy owns a pretend military rifle (that's what I will call it) then the 10 round rule makes his ownership moot and we might give someone a chance to live.

I just had another thought. If you have a magazine larger than 10 rounds then you can trade it in for a smaller magazine and the manufacturer can give you a discount at his expense. After all he made money selling you the larger magazine. Let him eat the profit.
It would still be a felony if you have anything larger than 10 round outside your home.

[Recursion]

22. Actually I think "pretend military rifle" is a great term

Mind if I use that?

[Bonhomme Richard]

26. Go ahead. I am tired of people getting hung up on semantics.

I like to call it a Pretend Military Rifle For Those That Want to Pretend They Have a Military Rifle.

[Decoy of Fenris]

29. While I dislike the rhetoric, your points hold merit enough to warrant further study.

Thanks for bringing something new-ish to the table. It's refreshing.

[oneshooter]

56. How about all of the lever rifles

that have larger than 10 shot tube magazines? My original Henry rifle carries 15rds, a 1892 Winchester 14 rds.
Are we to cut the mag tube on these original 1800's rifles to 10rds or less?

[RomneyLies]

24. I'm now into the school of thought that says reclassify all semi-automatics to be covered under the

NFA.

Including all semi-automatic pistols.

The pro-gun folks are making it all so complicated, so screw it. Let's go simple on this.

[MichiganVote]

31. I think I understand that gun officionado's want to get the laws "right".

I think that most anyone with expertise in an area, want to have laws related to their knowledge "right".

The medical world does it. The mental health world does it. Educators want to do it.

But there were 20 little children shot to ever loving hell in those classrooms. Grown men left the building crying and wretching at what must have been an absolutely horrific scene. There were totally defenseless female staff who were cut down even trying to save those little ones. Young woman and women with families. grouped in a setting that is all about being nurturing.

So here's the thing. People trust the gun interests or people about as much as they ragged on educators even the day before this shooting. So long as you're talking about this gun or that gun, no one is going to trust you, except perhaps another gun head. Its not about the guns. Its about safety.

Before anyone can 'get' that, you have to envision being a father or mother or sister or brother or colleague of anyone whose blood and brains was blown out of the body on a morning when most staff are smiling at kids, teaching abc's, sipping a coffee and waiting for the morning announcements. Imagine, the halls are quiet, the staff is humming and working, the children are happy with their friends and BAM!

If/when firearms are not safe, they need to be gone. We just can't tolerate the expertise of anyone over this basic need for safety anymore. THAT'S what is not being heard.

When pollution laws were going to be put into effect, it was to save our air, water and land. Some of the same line of thought was extended then that is used now. Choices had to be made about our resources and choices must now be must be made about safety. If/when that means that the trash of one industry cannot and will not enter a school full of little kids and women, fine, so be it.

[Recursion]

32. Well said, and I do get that

Like I said, I debated posting this, and I'm trying not to reflexively fact-vomit or mansplain in every firearms related post I see.

Let's try this with some charity. I concede that you're interested in safety rather than taking people's guns away as a goal in itself. I'll do my best to make sure that I fact-vomit only in the service of helping figure out a way to do that.

[MichiganVote]

34. :) If only others did too. Thing is, we need every rational mind now on this

pernicious problem. I didn't find your post self serving. Since I am not a gun head, I find the information interesting. But you're right, I want safety above all else. If it makes a difference, I am just as exacting when it comes to mental health, about which I know much much more.

So keep posting. Dialogue is good.

[ManiacJoe]

35. It is not now, nor has it ever been, about "safety".

> If/when firearms are not safe, they need to be gone. We just can't
> tolerate the expertise of anyone over this basic need for safety
> anymore.

No gun is safe. By definition, all of them are dangerous. It is that dangerousness that makes them useful as a tool. Similar to the dangerousness of chainsaws.

It is all about the mitigation of risk. Trying to come up with plans to keep semi-auto rifles away from the abusers of guns misses the whole point of the need to keep all guns away from the abusers. The "lethal differences" between a semi-auto rifle and a rifle of any other action type are not big enough to realistically say that "the abusers of guns should not have rifle of type A but we will accept the risk for them to have type B and C."

The folks at the top of the political chain who push for "assault weapon" bans and the like, are not interested in safety. Their long term agenda is a complete gun ban for civilians. They don't care how nonsensical the incremental steps are in the short term as long as there is motion towards their goals. The agenda of the common people does not match their agenda and they don't care.

[MichiganVote]

36. To parents, to neighborhood to people-the issue is safety.

Why do you think the NRS presz. posed his remarks as he did? Do you really think he's arguing for the mitigation of risk? No, the NRA KNOWS that the US public values safety above all else. Hell they sold us two wars on the basis of "safety". Of course he is going to argue that a gun is the tool to increase safety in schools. He wasn't going to preach freedom to slaughter 1st graders and that is exactly what the defense of the 2nd amendment would sound like.

If you want to permit the NRA or others to define the name of the issue for you, fine. But I assure you, the issue on the minds of the parent public is safety. They want it and they are going to get it.

The NRA wants to stay stuck in the good old days of the pseudo George Bush bravada. Its done. It is a turkey that is overdone and over.

No matter how long or how much it costs, the parent public is done with this. There will be arguments, chest beating and so on. And in the final analysis, it still won't be enough. There is a day of reckoning not coming-its already here.

[ManiacJoe]

37. Well, you have it half correct.

> To parents, to neighborhood to people-the issue is safety.

Absolutely. Unfortunately, the people are not the ones in control at the top of the political chain. The anti-gunners at the top of the chain are the VPC/Brady et al. They are not interested in our safety; they have a different agenda.

The politicians sponsoring the anti-gun bills are not interested in our safety; however, they are willing to lie to us about it and pay lip service to it. Lip service is relatively simple. Laws that make us safer are difficult to write and pass and expensive to enforce. Neither of these interest politicians since their short term goals solely to be reelected to office and since lip service will suffice for that task.

[MichiganVote]

46. We can exercise control too if its important enought to us.

However the American public is easily distracted and cheap to buy off. Like most populace, an agenda of this magnitude is difficult to manage. Smaller, more solid steps will be needed for decades.

[PavePusher]

40. The last time we tried to legislate social safety quickly, we got the Patriot Act.

That worked out well, eh?

[MichiganVote]

45. And I would argue that the Patriot Act was more about repression.

To some, restrictions on any firearm equals repression also. I don't happen to see it that way.

The Patriot Act, so named by Hawks in Congress, was inspired by the military and the CIA. Hardly the case here.

[PavePusher]

48. One man's perception of safety is another mans repression.

Don't forget what a two-way street that is. About 5 or 6 lanes in each direction, actually.

[MichiganVote]

49. Correct. Its a conundrum. Until you remember 20 dead 1st graders and their families.

[PavePusher]

50. ...and the fact that the laws of their state required them to be essentially defenseless....

against a criminal.

The answer to criminal action is not to render the Citizens more restricted in their defensive options.

[MichiganVote]

53. Ah, I see. The answer then in your eyes is for 1st graders to be defensive.

[PavePusher]

54. Have fun with that shark you jumped....

and the Strawman you dragged with you.

Have a great day.

[nilram]

38. Then let's ban semi-automatic weapons with detachable magazines, then. And handguns.

And have an aggressively priced buy-back/meltdown program, and increased penalties if they're used in a crime. After a decade -- ten years -- of buybacks, the homicide rate in Australia was down significantly. If people want to horde them, fine. If criminals want to use them, so be it. But they won't be sold at the sporting goods stores, the gun shops, or the gun shows and so they'll be harder to get. Guns that are hard to get are harder to use. They aren't doing anyone any good, so let's make them harder to get.

[PavePusher]

41. "They aren't doing anyone any good..."

Only if you aren't paying attention.

[gejohnston]

42. The Australian homicide rate was going down before the ban

it continued at the same trajectory afterward. The ban didn't do zip. Oh yeah, legal gun sales are up in Australia.

On the illegal side
http://www.news.com.au/top-stories/machineguns-found-in-latest-bikie-raid/story-e6frfkp9-1225706350617
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/national/gun-theft-on-rise-as-bikie-wars-rage-20120802-23ipr.html
in 2004, Sidney police busted an underground factory making STEN and Owen submachine guns. Biker gangs were making them for their own use and sale to drug gangs.

[nilram]

43. I'm glad they got busted. Good news for a change.

[gejohnston]

44. agreed

the UK adopted the STEN because it was cheap and easy to make, something they needed in WW2. Many were made illegally in bicycle shops in Poland, Denmark, and France in the 1940s. Please understand, that was during a time and in a place where the good guys had the illegal guns.

[Recursion]

47. Our homicide rate has gone down slightly more than Australia's has

over the same period of time. Of course, we were starting at an insanely higher rate to begin with, but we've seen a larger reduction than they have. Personally I think that's mostly lead abatement, but everybody has their own pet theory.

[Recursion]

52. I disagree

I don't think any weapons ban is better than none. I don't think banning bayonets is better than doing nothing if it keeps us from doing anything else for 10 years.

[jody]

55. Skinner's temporary amnesty allowing Second Amendment posts in GD brought out those who only think

"ban, ban, . . . . . . . . . . . ban" and hate, hate, hate; none of which is helpful when a compromise needs cool heads, closed mouths, and open ears.

They refuse to understand simple definitions or the history of RKBA.

Most have never heard about DC v Heller or McDonald v Chicago much less read the opinions and dissents.

Most have no idea that Congress has authority over militias with Article I, Section 8, clauses 15 & 16 and doesn't need the Second's prefatory clause.

Those are the good things I've observed.