General Discussion

Recursion

(56,582 posts)

70. There are a list of features it bans, the grip being the most commonly found one

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 11:41 AM

Jan 2013

A list of guns are banned by brand name. This means gunmakers will have to come up with new brand names for them.

Weapons with internal magazines larger than 10 rounds are banned. I support this.
Detachable magazines larger than I think 10 rounds are banned. I support this.

The really controversial part of the ban, the actual ban of assault weapons, says that semi-automatic rifles that use those detachable magazines cannot have a distinctly protruding grip, a flash suppressor, a grenade launcher (the grenades themselves are already illegal), or a folding stock. (Under the 94 ban and most state bans it can't have two of those, and that list included bayonet lugs; that's why Lanza's rifle was legal under Connecticut's AWB). The AR-15 is the most popular rifle sold today, and it has a protruding grip. So gunmakers will need to change the shape of that grip to sell more of them. And they will.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

148 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

"Assault weapons bans do not work" [View all] Bandit Jan 2013 OP

Exactly etherealtruth Jan 2013 #1

Some of us dislike passing pointless laws, particularly if there's a political cost Recursion Jan 2013 #30

I would like to give these laws a chance ... etherealtruth Jan 2013 #37

some of us are in 2013, and some are stuck in 1994, more lke it farminator3000 Jan 2013 #42

If I thought it would save one life, I would support it Recursion Jan 2013 #45

well it certainly will farminator3000 Jan 2013 #61

How will it save a life? Recursion Jan 2013 #63

Is the shaped grip the whole ban? AgingAmerican Jan 2013 #66

There are a list of features it bans, the grip being the most commonly found one Recursion Jan 2013 #70

i know you aren't clueless, so stop pretending to be farminator3000 Jan 2013 #81

That would be a good law I could support. That's not what we have before us. Recursion Jan 2013 #84

ya gotta read the stuff, brah! farminator3000 Jan 2013 #129

Who is saying that is all law should do? We could re-define assault weapons as Hoyt Jan 2013 #78

so now you would ban Duckhunter935 Jan 2013 #80

Ah, made you pucker. Why not ban semi-autos, including handguns? Hoyt Jan 2013 #91

Most in gun culture have shooting people on their mind? nick of time Jan 2013 #97

you are unfamiliar with the self-defense argument? farminator3000 Jan 2013 #144

You tell me why yahoos were lined up to buy "assault" weapons right after Sandy Hook. Hoyt Jan 2013 #147

We could! Maybe we even should. Write Senator Feinstein. Recursion Jan 2013 #86

The AWB ain't gonna pass. nick of time Jan 2013 #92

Here's my problem with it madville Jan 2013 #2

Their base turns out in droves every single election Bandit Jan 2013 #3

So the life of one person isn't worth the loss of mid-terms? DainBramaged Jan 2013 #4

How does regulating rifles' grip shape save lives? Recursion Jan 2013 #6

It's amazing how DU has become the defender of the gun..... DainBramaged Jan 2013 #9

Can you please answer my question? Recursion Jan 2013 #12

Do you not understand the words "have a nice day"? DainBramaged Jan 2013 #46

LOL cherokeeprogressive Jan 2013 #108

How does doing nothing save lives? AgingAmerican Jan 2013 #55

It doesn't. But doing something pointless isn't any better Recursion Jan 2013 #59

Tell that to the parents AgingAmerican Jan 2013 #68

Would they agree with you that the rifle needed a different grip to be legal? Recursion Jan 2013 #71

You are really stuck on the 'grip' thing AgingAmerican Jan 2013 #96

You're the one advocating the law Recursion Jan 2013 #103

I don't think the military use grips because they like the way they look AgingAmerican Jan 2013 #107

The grips deter hip shooting and reduce drops and slips Recursion Jan 2013 #109

Yes, we wouldn't want the mass shooters to drop their assault rifles AgingAmerican Jan 2013 #110

Hmmmmm... AgingAmerican Jan 2013 #143

that is a foolish question farminator3000 Jan 2013 #58

The grip is the one banned feature most rifles still have Recursion Jan 2013 #62

I've been curious about this...just exactly how will Bushmaster et. al. change the grip on an AR jmg257 Jan 2013 #77

In the short term, modify the lower receiver to make the grip curved and lower the butt stock Recursion Jan 2013 #83

just use a traditional Duckhunter935 Jan 2013 #88

Can you do that on an AR? I guess if one gets creative enough. jmg257 Jan 2013 #105

Sure, as long as it's not a bullpup action everything's forward and above the grip anyways. Recursion Jan 2013 #139

great. and the grip is for shooting from the hip. so that's what its about... farminator3000 Jan 2013 #89

You have that backwards. It's basically impossible to hip shoot with a pistol grip Recursion Jan 2013 #90

i personally don't give a crap, but here is a gun forum post farminator3000 Jan 2013 #131

most all rifles Duckhunter935 Jan 2013 #134

do you really think i give a flying crap? traditional hunting rifles don't have pistol grips farminator3000 Jan 2013 #138

Shoot from the hip? nick of time Jan 2013 #99

you should watch Hot Shots Part Deux farminator3000 Jan 2013 #132

I have a Rambo fetish? nick of time Jan 2013 #137

You answered your own question AgingAmerican Jan 2013 #120

That's where I said the grip you want to ban is safer Recursion Jan 2013 #122

I thought it was cosmetic? AgingAmerican Jan 2013 #125

Mostly. The safety increase is marginal (nt) Recursion Jan 2013 #130

"If anything, we should be mandating them rather than banning them" AgingAmerican Jan 2013 #140

They're marginally safer, so mandating makes more sense than banning Recursion Jan 2013 #142

I try to endure.... FarPoint Jan 2013 #73

You conveniently left out the rest AgingAmerican Jan 2013 #65

There are similar arguments to be made for the shotguns, and I support the magazine limit Recursion Jan 2013 #67

You call the law "pointless" AgingAmerican Jan 2013 #69

The part that is the actual ban of assault weapons is Recursion Jan 2013 #72

Maybe we should also ban alchol, and high fat foods. Travis_0004 Jan 2013 #35

RKBA, how did I guess? DainBramaged Jan 2013 #39

I'm just trying to see where you stand. Travis_0004 Jan 2013 #60

It's obvious one life doesn't matter to you or the NRA DainBramaged Jan 2013 #112

Possibly not. Lizzie Poppet Jan 2013 #50

Most of the country wants a ban AgingAmerican Jan 2013 #146

Pointless laws are generally bad ideas Recursion Jan 2013 #5

For example CT has an AWB and Lanza's rifle was apparently compliant aikoaiko Jan 2013 #7

Exactly. n/t xoom Jan 2013 #118

Then here's a really simple explanation. Daemonaquila Jan 2013 #8

If it doesn't work, then why do it? krispos42 Jan 2013 #10

The real hystericals are the RobertEarl Jan 2013 #13

Well I have seen quite a few Duckhunter935 Jan 2013 #16

Face it RobertEarl Jan 2013 #21

Then ban semi-automatics. That's a decent idea. It's also not remotely what the AWB does. Recursion Jan 2013 #22

Post removed Post removed Jan 2013 #26

And that's the problem. Can you at least try to read what I'm saying? Recursion Jan 2013 #28

Right RobertEarl Jan 2013 #31

I would support banning semi-automatics with detachable magazines Recursion Jan 2013 #40

That is one minor provision of the legislation AgingAmerican Jan 2013 #98

That's the one part relevant to Newtown Recursion Jan 2013 #102

You are being swarmed by the gunnies, enjoy the wave DainBramaged Jan 2013 #44

Yeah, swarmed RobertEarl Jan 2013 #48

Tell me, how many f those few are actual members of nadinbrzezinski Jan 2013 #64

Grayson's position on guns surprised me Recursion Jan 2013 #74

There are no solutions to problems like Sandy Hook krispos42 Jan 2013 #38

Fuck there isn't a solution RobertEarl Jan 2013 #41

so you propose Duckhunter935 Jan 2013 #57

Whats's the problem? Spryguy Jan 2013 #75

You support summary execution of people who disagree with a ban? nick of time Jan 2013 #85

I never said summary execution. Spryguy Jan 2013 #111

Point out where I said I would fight such a law. nick of time Jan 2013 #113

My apologies. Spryguy Jan 2013 #116

No problem. nick of time Jan 2013 #117

Nobody will go house to house to take guns away nadinbrzezinski Jan 2013 #93

+1000 nick of time Jan 2013 #100

The AWB is needed, but guns already out there will be nadinbrzezinski Jan 2013 #101

Hi. i'm going to snap. krispos42 Jan 2013 #121

In this case, "Do not work" means they have a negligible effect on violent crime and murder rates Taitertots Jan 2013 #11

So, what is the answer then? RobertEarl Jan 2013 #15

You know that the AWB doesn't limit access to weapons of mass bullet spraying, right? Recursion Jan 2013 #17

Any sell of such a weapon needs to be restricted RobertEarl Jan 2013 #23

When some legislator proposes that, I'll listen. That's not what this does. Recursion Jan 2013 #27

whether it works is an important question Enrique Jan 2013 #14

Thanks to Harry we'll never know. leeroysphitz Jan 2013 #18

There's no downside, and there is plenty of real upside. gulliver Jan 2013 #19

What? The market for new assault weapons will be huge Recursion Jan 2013 #20

The key is making possession itself illegal gulliver Jan 2013 #24

If that were the proposal I would consider it. It's not. Recursion Jan 2013 #25

That's why I favor the one-two punch. gulliver Jan 2013 #33

Hmm Benton D Struckcheon Jan 2013 #34

The idea is that people don't understand the law or the weapons it regulates Recursion Jan 2013 #47

So, how's about.... Benton D Struckcheon Jan 2013 #133

Background checks have the best chance and would do the most good, IMO Recursion Jan 2013 #136

No it would not. Crepuscular Jan 2013 #36

What about the magazine? gulliver Jan 2013 #51

That's the thing with detachable magazines. They aren't a part of the weapon Recursion Jan 2013 #53

The magazine pictured Crepuscular Jan 2013 #76

If we aren't able to ban mere possession... gulliver Jan 2013 #82

I think you'll find a lot less resistance to magazine size limits Recursion Jan 2013 #87

Why the need for loopholes? Crepuscular Jan 2013 #94

kind of points out Duckhunter935 Jan 2013 #79

Your "logic" is not going to make any ground with a gun freak. Buzz Clik Jan 2013 #29

Who's to say it doesn't work? Perhaps it is currently preventing even MORE mass shootings. JaneyVee Jan 2013 #32

How would we know? yardwork Jan 2013 #43

Because we did this in 1994 Recursion Jan 2013 #49

Sounds like a very minor, weak effort that was doomed to fail. yardwork Jan 2013 #54

And we're repeating it Recursion Jan 2013 #56

and my head is hurting Duckhunter935 Jan 2013 #135

Statement of faith based on a sample size of one is unconvincing. bluedigger Jan 2013 #52

The statistics tell a different story nadinbrzezinski Jan 2013 #95

What statistics? N/t Heimer Jan 2013 #114

This is THE problem...gunners & their lobby WILL NOT let you pass effective bans. jmg257 Jan 2013 #104

many have already have said how to work this Duckhunter935 Jan 2013 #119

And YOU would be OK with such a ban? On all repeating arms that take a detachable magazine jmg257 Jan 2013 #124

not my first choice Duckhunter935 Jan 2013 #127

Handguns included, and police as the grace period expires, at the least jmg257 Jan 2013 #128

An AWB is easy peachy nadinbrzezinski Jan 2013 #126

*sigh* zappaman Jan 2013 #148

A law that does no good legaleagle_45 Jan 2013 #106

Simple solution. Make the laws stronger and give them something to get their diapers in a knot. Tierra_y_Libertad Jan 2013 #115

The war on drugs does not work DesMoinesDem Jan 2013 #123

They don't work as intended, meaning they don't solve the problem of gun misuse. Jester Messiah Jan 2013 #141

They don't work (at reducing crime/homicide rate) is what I think they mean. OneTenthofOnePercent Jan 2013 #145