All assault weapons should be banned

[wildman76]

I can't imagine why any civilized society would allow weapons of war on the streets , they are killing us period and they enjoy it, this is a start but more has to be done

[Ocelot II]

1. For awhile they were, then the ban expired.

QED.

[Kaleva]

6. No. They were grandfathered

Millions remained legal to own, sell or buy.

High capacity magazines made overseas prior to the AWB going into effect were legal to import into this country and sell. And there were millions of if those .

[fescuerescue]

33. Also, manufacturers renamed them and removed a few features

For instance one common way is that they removed the bayonet mount.

Once they evaded the ban, then ramped up production by a factor of 10.

[Kaleva]

39. Yes

"During the ban, a semi-automatic rifle like the AR-15 could legally have any one of the following features, as long as it didn’t have two or more of them: a folding stock (making the gun slightly easier to conceal), a pistol grip (making the weapon easier to hold and use), a bayonet mount, a flash suppressor (making it harder to see where shots are coming from), or a grenade launcher."

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/guns-like-the-ar-15-were-never-fully-banned/

[gldstwmn]

8. We could reinstate and improve.

Gun massacres fell 37 percent while ban was in place, rose by 183 percent after ban expired

NRA myth: The NRA says the 1994-2004 federal Assault Weapons Ban didn’t work.

Fact: The ban did work, and a number of studies lay that out.

University of Massachusetts researcher Louis Klarevas, author of the book “Rampage Nation,” found that the number of gun massacres dropped by 37 percent and the number of gun massacre deaths feel by 43 percent while the ban was in effect compared to the previous decade. After the ban lapsed in 2004, those numbers dramatically rose – a 183 percent increase in massacres and a 239 percent increase in massacre deaths.
A 2019 study in the Journal of Trauma and Acute Surgery found that, based on data from 1981 to 2017, there were fewer mass-shooting deaths while the ban was in place.
A 2017 study in the Journal of Urban Health observed that law enforcement recovery of assault weapons fell nationwide while the ban was in base, indicating that they were used in fewer crimes, but increased after the ban expired.
A 2004 University of Pennsylvania study conducted for the Justice Department explained that the use of assault weapons in crime declined by 70 percent nine years after the Assault Weapons Ban took effect.

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/press/dem/releases/studies-gun-massacre-deaths-dropped-during-assault-weapons-ban-increased-after-expiration

[SYFROYH]

13. I bought my first AR during the so-called ban

It had to have a fixed stock, no bayonet lug, and a compensator subbed for the flash suppressor.

And they were plenty of surplus 30 round mags.

[hack89]

31. Ownership was not banned

only the sale of new ones. A ban, btw, that was easily circumvented by gun makers. AR-15 production and sales actually went up during the AWB.

[fescuerescue]

34. The manufacturers had the audacity to start selling even more!

They defied the spirit of the law and went with the technicalities the law.

bastards. And not a single one was prosecuted.

[hack89]

35. It is not a crime to violate the "spirit" of the law

those technicalities are what keeps us from being prosecuted simply for offending someone in power.

You have to write good laws - laws that are comprehensive, clear, concise and don't contain massive loopholes in them.

Sorry, but the AWB was an extremely poorly written law.

[fescuerescue]

36. That loophole needs to be fixed

I have no worry about offending Joe Biden.

[hack89]

38. Given the current state of the Senate, that is highly unlikely

which is unfortunate. But gun control will always live or die in the Senate.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

42. Prosecuted for what?

What law did they violate?

None, they followed the letter of the law, that's what counts, not the spirit of the law.

[fescuerescue]

49. I'm sure that's a comfort to their victims.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

52. And I'm sure it's not.

Point being that the manufacturer's followed the letter of the law, as written by Congress, so, again, what would they be prosecuted for?

[fescuerescue]

53. I don't care. If a prosecutor can't find a violation

in a billion dollar company, then he's a terrible prosecutor. Just find another one.

Even a poor person breaks a few laws a day. Billion dollar companies break far far more.

We need to fund a fishing expeditiona and destroy these companies.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

54. Spoken like a true authoritarian.

So you want to use the govt to destroy companies that are obeying the law?

Just what has DU become?

[3catwoman3]

2. Damn right!

The damn magazines with ridiculous numbers of bullets, too.

[Claire Oh Nette]

3. Assault weapons, automatic weapons, semi automatic weapons, and handguns, too.

Oh, you bought shit on the internet to modify your bb gun into an assault rifle? yeah, crime.

I'd argue no one needs a hand gun, either.

Shot gun, and hunting rifles.

My dad grew up poor in WV. If he spent a bullet, he sure as heck better bring home whatever he shot. My stepdad is a crack shot, better than 20/20 vision, sharp shooter and avid hunter. He prefers bow hunting for deer. He doesn't waste ammunition, either.

Another DUer put it beautifully: it's gunsturbation. They get off on firing multiple rounds because it's the only thing making these cowardly pecker woods feel powerful.

If a person *needs* a firearm, they're welcome to fill out a needs request form and undergo a psych eval, and they can wait two weeks, minimum. Or, even better, they can join the military.

[krawhitham]

4. YEP

[Novara]

5. Hell yes I want to take your guns away!

[Initech]

9. I feel like anyone who doesn't express sympathy for what happened this week...

Should have their guns taken away.

[Novara]

10. agreed, because not being affected by 19 children being murdered is sociopathic

[MIpen03]

26. Which is why

Gun owners aren’t interested in cooperating with any suggests for reasonable curbs. And regardless of whatever fantasy you hold, we need them to cooperate for anything to change. No political solution can happen without buy-in from gun owners.

[Initech]

7. Can we at least bring our police departments up to code?

I was completely shocked and disgusted yesterday when I learned that the NRA doesn't allow any new gun purchases to be searched for electronically - new purchases all have to be entered manually. BY HAND. Let's fix that and make electronic searchable databases mandatory.

[gldstwmn]

12. That could be included if the ban is reinstated. Congress could appropriate funds.

This is actually doable. After several decades of being shushed into silence by the gun lobby we must persist.

[Initech]

14. Our gun laws are so ass backwards that it's unbelievable.

If we can't ban all guns then we have to take steps to make sure they don't get into the wrong hands. We at least need to bring modern tracking systems into the mix, that should be a given. If Texas doesn't want to comply, then tough shit.

[gldstwmn]

15. I am not advocating banning all guns.

I am advocating a reinstatement of the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act or Federal Assault Weapons Ban with improvements that would include funding a federal database of all purchases including the ones that only exist on paper at that office in West Virginia.

[LiberalFighter]

11. Make sure that it is illegal for gun manufacturers to sell to civilians too.

Not fully assembled or even pieces. Or parts to convert.

[Buckeyeblue]

16. Banning things doesn't work well

Look at the war on drugs. Look what happened during prohibition. Banning guns creates a demand that will be filled by organized crime.

We need to regulate them. We need to tax them. They need to be registered, like cars. And when they change ownership, they need to be re-registered. And owners need to be licensed. And maybe insured.

You still won't get all the guns accounted for. But I think you make it harder for someone who is momentarily angry or maybe mentally ill from getting one.

For the record, I don't think people need military assault weapons. I'm not even sure people need handguns. If I felt compelled to arm myself against in home invaders, I would have a shotgun.

But there are just too many guns out there to even have the discussion about bans.

[Hav]

17. That sounds nice

but from what I heard, the 18 year old shooter bought everything legally. How does your proposal change anything?

[Buckeyeblue]

27. But that's my point. It's too easy to buy a gun.

There should be a process. Background checks. A license. Maybe proof of insurance. You shouldn't be able to walk in and buy a gun. It should be a big deal.

[Voltaire2]

18. Ah well that argument seems clever but...

while it is true that guns will not magically disappear, illegal weapons will become far more expensive, you won’t be able to Rambo around town larping in your combat gear, sane sensible gun owners will abide by sane sensible regulations and will be slowly separated from the insane gun nuts, acquiring arsenals will be both illegal and difficult, bragging online about your slaughter gear would be grounds for arrest, etc.

This is not the stupid war on some drugs, it is a way to get to a ceasefire in the war on people.

[Buckeyeblue]

29. Not trying to be clever. Trying to be realistic.

We could make guns more expensive. Also to outright ban guns it may take a constitutional amendment. And making guns illegal would turn it into a situation similar to the war on drugs.

[albacore]

19. The Aussies did a pretty good job. Buybacks and outlawing assault weapons cut their homicides. nt

It'll take a while, but NO grandfathering, and seizure if found and felony penalties will speed it up a bit.

[Buckeyeblue]

30. Maybe. If all we are going for is assault weapons.

And you would have to make the buy back worthwhile. But we are much bigger than Australia. But you would have to get Republicans on board. And offer some decent cash for the buy back.

[albacore]

41. Republicans are the biggest roadblocks to ANY fucking thing good for this country. nt

[jcgoldie]

20. Too many people fucking speed

You can't catch 'em all so why bother with speed limits at all? If guns are illegal only criminals will have guns is straight up NRA talking point.

[PTWB]

32. Well by definition that must be true, right?

If guns are illegal, and you have a gun, you are a criminal. Is that incorrect?

[Buckeyeblue]

37. If guns are illegal anyone with a gun would be a criminal...

That's not a talking point, that's logic. I don't think the premise of speed limits and gun bans is the same. Anytime we have outright banned anything, we fail to consider that the demand still exists. Then you create a counterculture whose sole aim is to satisfy that demand. And they no longer have to work within established rules, regulations etc to do so.

Instead you could use legal hurdles to slow people down. If it takes 10 days to get a gun, and that person has to get a license and insurance, maybe that person is in a different state of mind when they finally get the gun.

I'm just try to present policy ideas.

[Gimble]

21. Need Clearer Definition of Banned Weapons

As you can see, I'm a new member here. I would have created a discussion with a new-member introduction post, but the system won't let me create a discussion until I have made some posts. So, I'll use this post as an introduction and then share my thoughts on what should be banned. While it's true I'm a new member, I've lurked on DU for a long time, probably since sometime during the Bush administration. I'm a liberal and always have been. My first vote was for Jimmy Carter in 1976. I don't recall ever having voted for a Republican, but I probably have and just don't remember. I'm also a gun owner and have hunted since I was 8 or 9 years old. I own several guns of various types.

I support universal background checks, red flag laws and closing the "gun show loophole". I also support the banning of certain guns, but I don't think the term "assault weapon" is a good way to define what should be banned. Here is what I think should be banned

1) Semi-automatic rifles (self-feeding rifles that fire a shot each time the trigger is pulled).
2) Automatic rifles (self-feeding rifles that fire multiple shots [two or more] with a single pull of the trigger or continue to fire shots for as long as the trigger is held down until the magazine is empty).
3) Any rifle that accepts a removable magazine.
4) Any rifle that accepts more than 6 rounds in its non-removable magazine.
5) Any pistol that accepts more than 6 rounds in either a non-removable magazine or a removable magazine.
6) "rifle" and "pistol" are defined as currently defined by the ATF.

For talking purposes, these banned weapons could be referred to as "semi-automatic, automatic or high capacity" weapons. It seems to me that the term "assault weapon" is too vague and the 2A nuts use that to their advantage in discussions about gun control. During the assault weapons ban it was still easy to get rifles that could be just as effective in a mass shooting as an assault weapon, it just would not look as "cool".

[Brother Buzz]

25. What do you think of Sen. Diane Feinstein's definition?

Do you realize your proposal is WAY more sever then Senator Feinstein's? Are you really from Texas?

https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=0763FFE7-8E3F-4F57-B1C7-E09E161C83D7

[Tommymac]

43. Welcome to DU. Good Post.

I agree with you 100%. It's a start.

[Rhiannon12866]

48. Very well said and thank you!

And welcome to DU!

[llashram]

50. assault weapon IS NOT VAGUE

is a very apt description of the weapons of mass destruction used in murdering children since Columbine. OK get them banned. There are many being sold as we speak. I've used one in a hostile environment and they are only used to kill a human being.

[roamer65]

22. Hunting rifles, shotguns should be the only ones available with a instant background check.

Handguns need to be in restricted class that requires significant vetting. Semiautomatic handguns should be in a more restricted class within this class.

Any other guns beyond these…NO access…period.

[shrike3]

28. I agree.

[48656c6c6f20]

23. I would rather form a well trained militia

And take their guns away period. They get them back when they qualify for militia duties and are called up by a governor or the president federalizes them and is voted on by two thirds of the state or federal reps to call them up for duty, then its back into the armory those guns go.

[Tommymac]

44. Seriously, a large number of the 'Well Trained' Continental Militias in the 1770s DID NOT HAVE GUNS

At times there was a shortage of guns during the revolution - the Continental's surrounding Boston in 1775 used 17th century blunderbusses, sticks and homemade spears for crying out loud. Gen Washington did a great job preventing the British from finding out the extent of the shortages.

And these shortages of firearms continued throughout the Revolution.

We won't even get into the Continental's gunpowder shortage of 1775-6.

And if you are wondering why there are so few Church Bells of 18th Century vintage, they were made of lead and there was a bullet shortage too.

Finally, part of the reason for 2A - the 18th century US Federal government could not afford to support a standing army, much less provide guns to the substitute 'Militias' called for in 2A. The grunts had to supply their own weapons.

(This was not an uncommon thing in the 18th and 19th Centuries - for example, a lot of regiments on both sides supplied their own weapons' in the early part of the US Civil War.)

[lastlib]

24. Call them "industrial-strength child-killing machines"

I think we get into the wrong battle calling them "assault weapons." They're not for assault--they're for KILLING. Children.

[Emile]

40. Too late. Best thing they can do now is tax the shit out of anything that has to do with guns.

Make it too expensive to shoot their firearms.

[Zeitghost]

45. They are here in California

And I can go into any gun store and buy an AR-15 style rifle.

Banning firearms based on cosmetic and ergonomic features is a never ending game of whack-a-mole. It's a pointless endeavor with modular platforms like the AR that can be reconfigured in a few minutes with a couple hand tools and the latest greatest loophole exploiting parts from dozens of small online businesses. Just look at the progression of bans here in California and the complete lack of actual results it's had in what is available in gun stores.

[wildman76]

46. OK let's do nothing then, that will work

[Zeitghost]

47. You must have really worked hard

Last edited Sat May 28, 2022, 05:05 PM - Edit history (1)

To read that into my post.

I'm all for effective legislation that fixes a real problem. Spending political capital on ineffective laws has only helped to get us where we are now. The last nationwide (temporary) "ban" (that wasn't really a ban) only served to ramp up interest, stoke fears and lead to the largest boom in AR-15 and similar firearms sales we have ever seen. In 1994, very few gun enthusiasts were into AR's, the "come and take them" crowd was a small minority and most gun owners supported reasonable restrictions. One 10 year "ban" and some opportunistic propaganda later and now everybody wants one.

[BlackSkimmer]

51. K and r.