General Discussion

Recursion

(56,582 posts)

83. You can buy those (I also will do my best to address your point).

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 01:03 PM

Jan 2013

Why can you buy kits to make a standard wood stock hunting rifle into a Bushmaster look alike, but, as far as I know, you can not buy a kit to make a Bushmaster style into a standard hunting rifle?

You can. People who often fire prone sometimes like them. However, they also make the gun heavier, easier to drop by accident, more tedious to clean (and they are tedious enough as it is) and harder to shoot from a standing or kneeling position, so they aren't terribly popular.

It is the mind set of the user that makes those weapons more dangerous. Anybody have a bump stock on a standard hunting rifle? Doubtful. Their war weapon? Lots. That's why.

I will admit there may be something to this, but I'm still skeptical. It may just be that from professional experience I do actually know more about guns than your average gun-buying mouth breather (frankly, I'd put money on that), and they are making the same category error that a lot of AWB-supporters are also making. (Though that leaves open the question of whether they wouldn't still do the same with traditionally-styled weapons and simply choose the more modern-looking ones if they're available.)

There's an empirical way to figure this out, though: compare the rates at which equally-capable but differently-styled weapons are used in crimes vs. the rates at which they are owned. If military-style weapons are actually more likely to be used criminally than equally-capable civilian style weapons, that's definitely an argument for banning them.

In fact, this would be a great question for the CDC to look at now that it can do research again. I'll even pledge right here that if there is an actual correlation found, I'll be much more open to a feature-based ban (in a perfect world I would still want some evidence that they wouldn't use civilian style weapons if that's all that was available, but it's not a perfect world).

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

94 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

In which I remind DU that the assault weapons ban doesn't do what you think it does [View all] Recursion Jan 2013 OP

So you've seen the text of the planned legislation? I don't know anyone else who has. hlthe2b Jan 2013 #1

She describes it on her website Recursion Jan 2013 #6

that is a pdf of the bill summary--not the full text and she has not yet introduced... hlthe2b Jan 2013 #13

OK, if it changes to a different bill from what she's describing, I'll consider that Recursion Jan 2013 #23

It's not necessarily a 'bad' idea. Just not an all inclusive one. randome Jan 2013 #26

How does this little bit help? Recursion Jan 2013 #31

How does it hurt Bandit Jan 2013 #39

If 1994 is any indication, it leads to a huge surge in sales of ban-compliant equally capable rifles Recursion Jan 2013 #41

Hm. That's a point to consider. randome Jan 2013 #55

There has been an ongoing buying binge ever since Obama became President Bandit Jan 2013 #58

Sales skyrocketed under the 94 ban Recursion Jan 2013 #60

If you know a lot about guns and want there to be fewer of them, then perhaps you JDPriestly Jan 2013 #85

Well, I don't own any guns, personally Recursion Jan 2013 #88

Thanks. Looks like you have some good ideas. JDPriestly Jan 2013 #93

I agree with you about the grip. So yes, a better definition of 'assault weapon' would be needed. randome Jan 2013 #40

There's two schools of thought on this. Recursion Jan 2013 #69

I do see your point. And now when the NRA is weak is a better time to push. randome Jan 2013 #75

How does it help? SpartanDem Jan 2013 #64

It's a start. We can work from there. Maybe the gun lobby will decide to accept the fact JDPriestly Jan 2013 #84

I think what the OP is saying is that passing a bad law is worse than no law at all. rhett o rick Jan 2013 #43

I'd hope all would provide that feedback to Feinstein's office (and others) hlthe2b Jan 2013 #49

That's the thing about the law--it can be tightened later Lex Jan 2013 #2

No, it's not about "tightening" it or "loopholes" Recursion Jan 2013 #7

It can be done. Lex Jan 2013 #12

What can be done. Banning semi-automatics? Certainly Recursion Jan 2013 #19

I would like to see Feinstein's list ... GeorgeGist Jan 2013 #3

Thankfully she has a website Recursion Jan 2013 #8

Pretty vague. GeorgeGist Jan 2013 #51

Not if you know the legislation Recursion Jan 2013 #76

Link to DiFi's summary: SpankMe Jan 2013 #9

"WE", "OUR SIDE" .... should definitely stop re-using the phrase "Assault Weapons Ban" Schema Thing Jan 2013 #4

Great idea! That's not what it does, at all. At any point. Recursion Jan 2013 #10

The people promoting a ban are counting on widespread ignorance as the foundation for support slackmaster Jan 2013 #5

You Can Be Knowledgeable About Guns And Still Support Regulations. Paladin Jan 2013 #14

Certainly you can. Can you tell me why you want to regulate how semi-automatics can look? Recursion Jan 2013 #17

I Just Responded To You On This Point On Another Thread. (nt) Paladin Jan 2013 #24

Edit: found it. Recursion Jan 2013 #35

I have the answer to that. RC Jan 2013 #82

You can buy those (I also will do my best to address your point). Recursion Jan 2013 #83

Sure, but we see evidence on DU Forums every day that there is widespread ignorance slackmaster Jan 2013 #18

Yeah, I Do. Paladin Jan 2013 #28

I'll take Joe Biden over Carolyn McCarthy or Dianne Feinstein on this issue any day slackmaster Jan 2013 #33

Yeah, Where Do McCarthy Or Feinstein Get Off.... Paladin Jan 2013 #47

I expect people who have a special vested interest in a legislative issue to recuse themselves... slackmaster Jan 2013 #54

As If A Shitload Of Repub Legislators Don't Have Vested Interests In NRA-Friendly Policies. (nt) Paladin Jan 2013 #67

Yes, I'll bet a lot of them own stock in gun companies slackmaster Jan 2013 #86

Last paragraph TheCowsCameHome Jan 2013 #11

OK, did you get the part where I said this *doesn't ban* semi-automatic weapons? Recursion Jan 2013 #15

I'm curious to know why you think any particular law would magically prevent any future occurance... slackmaster Jan 2013 #16

agree 100% Phillip McCleod Jan 2013 #20

Yes. And the Ring of Fire seems to be rearing it's ugly head again Recursion Jan 2013 #21

I'll wait to see the final right up on the legislation uponit7771 Jan 2013 #22

Granted. Sausage gets some weird stuff mixed in some times. Recursion Jan 2013 #27

I know very little about guns. What does the "shape of the grip" have to do with anything? Nye Bevan Jan 2013 #25

Great question Recursion Jan 2013 #30

"Assault weapon" is a made up term that is technically meaningless hack89 Jan 2013 #38

So this is a complete waste of time that would not prevent another Newtown. Nye Bevan Jan 2013 #45

The Newtown shooter's gun was not legally an assault weapon hack89 Jan 2013 #53

This is why I and a few others keep banging our heads against this wall (nt) Recursion Jan 2013 #72

Nonsense. Pistol grips have tangible advantages in all manner of tools. Robb Jan 2013 #56

In the case of a rifle or shotgun, it provides for better control of the weapon than a "traditional" slackmaster Jan 2013 #62

But it does not make a semi-automatic rifle more lethal. hack89 Jan 2013 #66

You still have to hold it with both hands when firing Recursion Jan 2013 #71

What are the 120 specifically-named firearms that will be banned? Robb Jan 2013 #29

Fine. Let's have a "high firepower weapons ban" ... Scuba Jan 2013 #32

That's an *outstanding* idea, and I would support it (nt) Recursion Jan 2013 #34

Whew. Lex Jan 2013 #36

Thanks. I just don't think this stuff is that complicated. I think banning weapons by name ... Scuba Jan 2013 #44

Exactly Recursion Jan 2013 #50

Nah, they just don't care about the nuances. Most DU'ers don't craft legislation, they just want ... Scuba Jan 2013 #57

It's definitely seen as that, I agree. And a lot of times it is that. Recursion Jan 2013 #68

The National Firearms Act of 1934 addresses two of those three issues slackmaster Jan 2013 #37

Great, we have a long-standing precedent. Now we only have to update it to deal with AR-15's ... Scuba Jan 2013 #42

That is doable, if Congress can be persuaded. slackmaster Jan 2013 #46

It might be politically possible to reschedule semi-automatics with detachable magazines Recursion Jan 2013 #48

Thank You For Your Explanation Of This..... global1 Jan 2013 #52

Thank you for your concern. 99Forever Jan 2013 #59

Really? Recursion Jan 2013 #70

Yes. 99Forever Jan 2013 #74

What strawman? SpartanDem Jan 2013 #80

And thank you for playing. 99Forever Jan 2013 #87

Thanks Recursion beemer27 Jan 2013 #61

A red-light green-light private sale NICS system like that Recursion Jan 2013 #65

Needs to go through a licensed dealer to ensure proper "paperwork" kept, accountability, and prevent Hoyt Jan 2013 #78

I think you're probably right Recursion Jan 2013 #81

Frankly, all guns are assault weapons. Skidmore Jan 2013 #63

Hunting is still necessary SpartanDem Jan 2013 #73

If Thompsons were legal, they'd be the #1 weapon of choice. JohnnyRingo Jan 2013 #77

Huh? Sales skyrocketed during the ban. Absolutely through the roof. Recursion Jan 2013 #79

I thought they were homely. JohnnyRingo Jan 2013 #90

Somebody posted a graph which I now can't find Recursion Jan 2013 #91

I'll take your word on it. JohnnyRingo Jan 2013 #92

Here's WHY a bad law is worse than no law Demo_Chris Jan 2013 #89

I am for whatever stops this senseless attack on American citizens. Thinkingabout Jan 2013 #94