What Happened to the Ban on Assault Weapons?

[elleng]

by Jimmy Carter

THE evolution in public policy concerning the manufacture, sale and possession of semiautomatic assault weapons like AK-47s, AR-15s and Uzis has been very disturbing. Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and I all supported a ban on these formidable firearms, and one was finally passed in 1994.

When the 10-year ban was set to expire, many police organizations — including 1,100 police chiefs and sheriffs from around the nation — called on Congress and President George W. Bush to renew and strengthen it. But with a wink from the White House, the gun lobby prevailed and the ban expired. . .

But none of us wants to own an assault weapon, because we have no desire to kill policemen or go to a school or workplace to see how many victims we can accumulate before we are finally shot or take our own lives. That’s why the White House and Congress must not give up on trying to reinstate a ban on assault weapons, even if it may be politically difficult.

[old mark]

1. The "ban" was nothing but bullshit, as is the article posted above.

Nothing was "banned", no crimes were prevented, it was a piece of feel-good publicity for the anti-gun scum.
Anyone stupid enough to propose such garbage again deserves to lose their soft job in Congress and be forced to do actual work.

And , oh yeah - anti gunners suck.
mark

[elleng]

2. The 'article' is an opinion piece by Jimmy Carter.

And oh yeah - anti readers suck.
Ellen

[Skittles]

3. with all due respect old mark

gun nuts suck too

[MajorChode]

4. Not only are you full of shit, your best rhetort is childish

In fact, I don't know that many children who would restort to such a lame response.

I guess the "anti-gun scum" included the 70% of Americans who favored renewing the legislation. That's one small piece of information the gun nut scum convieniently like to ignore.

[zbdent]

6. don't forget the 1100 police chiefs and sheriffs from around the nation

who supported the ban ... gee ... you don't think they have any idea what they'd have to face?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

8. And the rank and file cop organizations that don't

[slackmaster]

14. Those people also support warrentless searches, wiretaps, etc.

They are entitled to their opinions, but they are not the people we have elected to make our laws.

[zbdent]

45. seems like a bunch of the really psycho gun nuts were all for

warrantless searches and wiretaps, too ... under Bush ...

[slackmaster]

49. Bush was no friend of the pro-RKBA community

Anti-freedom is anti-freedom. Bush said he'd sign a gun ban if it reached his desk.

[zbdent]

52. and I'd serve unicorn steaks if one came into my yard ...

which was more likely than a "gun ban" bill making it to Bush's desk ...

[slackmaster]

13. Most people who support renewing the ban are not well informed about the issue

The old ban was too easily circumvented to reduce the prevalence of any particular kind of firearm. A ban that could not be gotten around would affect too many firearms that don't look as menacing as the ones that ban proponents are thinking of.

[MajorChode]

18. You're simply repeating the same tired old bullshit mantra

Using your fucked up logic, one could say that the CAFE standards were a failure because the auto industry just circumvented it by building exempted models like SUVs. Of course this is complete bullshit. The failure was with those lawmakers who never closed the SUV loophole. The fact is that people legally circumvent laws all the time. This is not at all uncommon. When that happens it is the job of congress to update those laws and close loopholes. So the example you give is indeed a failure, but it's NOT the failure of the original lawmakers who wrote the law as you pretend. It is instead a very common failure of American style Democracy where a special interest group usurps the will of the people.

[X_Digger]

23. Truth stings..

A ban based on appearance- whether or not a particular model has a pistol grip, or a bayonet mount, etc- that makes as much sense as banning red cars.

If you wanted to ban all guns of a particular 'lethality', you would have to ban semi-automatics of all caliber- which would be political suicide because it would affect traditional looking hunting rifles.

[MajorChode]

32. Strawman

[X_Digger]

34. Are you asserting that the..

94 ban was not based on appearance?

The point of slackmaster's post that you responded to is that the ban was ineffective because the 'definition' it used was so weak as to be meaningless.

When the 'loophole' is THAT big, it's not the 'loophole', that's the norm and anything _actually_ banned is the loophole.

[MajorChode]

36. You are asserting that the...

94 ban was entirely based on appearance which is strawman. Do I really need to explain such things?

[X_Digger]

37. You can't be that dense..

Change enough cosmetic features, or the model name, and it was moot.

Would you like me to quote the actual law, or will wikipedia do?

By former U.S. law the legal term assault weapon included certain specific semi-automatic firearm models by name (e.g., Colt AR-15, TEC-9, all non-automatic AK-47s, and Uzis) and other semi-automatic firearms because they possess a minimum set of features from the following list of features:

Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

* Folding or telescoping stock
* Pistol grip
* Bayonet mount
* Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
* Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device which enables the launching or firing of rifle grenades)

Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

* Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
* Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
* Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
* Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
* A semi-automatic version of an automatic firearm

Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:

* Folding or telescoping stock
* Pistol grip
* Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
* Detachable magazine

[MajorChode]

43. Are you just acting stupid?

I'm starting to think it's not an act anymore.

The key word is "change" (your own word I might add). Surplus arms that were manufactured as early as WWII could NOT change because they had already been manufactured. Perhaps a few were modified, but this added greatly to their expense and defeated the cheap importation of them. Cheap street guns similar to the TEC-9 disappeared entirely. The weapons that did change became exponentially more expensive.

Once again you're simply repeating the tired old NRA talking points. The problem wasn't with the original law, the problem was loopholes weren't closed. I doubt the original authors of the law assumed their law would never need to be modified. Such is rarely, if ever, the case with lawmakers. So you can simply repeat your tired mantra over and over, but all you're doing is diving further into the depths of absurdity.

[slackmaster]

50. Please explain what you mean by "loopholes" in the old AWB

And specifically how you would have changed the law in order to address them.

[MajorChode]

58. Is your google broke?

If you are genuinely interested in learning about "loopholes" you can look them up just like anyone else. It's not as if it's a hard subject to research.

As far as what I would have done personally, that's simply my opinion. Personally I would have gone a lot farther, specifically in limiting the number of rounds that weapons are capable of carrying without reloading.

[slackmaster]

60. I didn't expect a meaningful answer from you

I don't need to research this one because I am very familiar with both the expired "ban" and with federal gun laws in general.

Personally I would have gone a lot farther, specifically in limiting the number of rounds that weapons are capable of carrying without reloading.

Magazines were limited to 10 rounds during the ban. That had no real effect because there were already large numbers of larger ones in circulation.

[MajorChode]

65. Then why the fuck did you ask a question you already knew the answer?

Or at least thought you knew. Especially when you're never going to accept any answer that goes against your preconceived notions.

The original ban could have very easily limited magazine capacity even more and cut off their sale entirely after a specific date. Both of those options were proposed originally and were killed by the NRA lobby.

Your whole point seems to be that since the original legislation wasn't perfect as you define it (whatever that is), that there is no way to limit the firepower available to criminals. I never claimed the original legislation was perfect and in fact it was watered down to the point of having significantly less effect, but you chose to blame those problems on the bill's authors rather than those who were actually responsible.

[slackmaster]

68. I want to provide you with every possible opportunity to put your nastiness on public display

You're doing a great job of showing the inherent rudeness of the anti-gun movement.

[MajorChode]

70. Your definition of polite includes duplicity and fallacious bullshit

What a strange little world you live in.

[slackmaster]

73. Maybe so from your point of view, but I do a good job of eschewing personal attacks

Something you have apparently given up on.

[MajorChode]

80. So where's the personal attack?

Calling bullshit on someone is not a personal attack, but given your record of simply pulling nonsense out of your ass, I can certainly see as how you'd fuck that one up.

[X_Digger]

69. "watered down"?

H.R.3355 - see thomas.loc.gov

Title XLV in the Senate version passed on 11/19/93 is the original source. This title was copied verbatim from the 1989 original California ban. So blame Sen Feinstein if her original text wasn't good enough.

[MajorChode]

71. Are you high?

Just wondering if there were some other logical rationalization for your lack of comprehension other than being subliterate.

[X_Digger]

75. I take that as concession, then?

Watered down my ass.

Go visit your public library and ask for the congressional record volume 139 & 140. If I recall, it's around day 165. (Look up November, 1993.)

Then ask to see the CA Assembly record for 1989 as well. The 'features test' was floated in the assembly that spring, but was laughed out as untenable to enforce. It wasn't until SB 23 (1999) that that useless bit of legislation made it into CA code (12275.5 specifically).

But before you head to the library, check this out.. even during the ban, folks in CA were questioning its validity.

http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/KobayashiAndOlson.htm

The suppressed Bureau of Forensic Services and Bureau of Narcotics
Enforcement data make clear that the firearms identified as
assault weapons are virtually never used in crime. In addition,
the California Department of Justice memoranda and reports confirm
that assault weapons are not significantly distinguishable from
other functionally-identical firearms that have not been
restricted by the AWCA. Indeed, David Kopel's analysis suggests
that the ban would not withstand even rational basis review, since
there is little evidence that such firearms are used predominately
or even frequently in crime, the statutory definitions of assault
weapons are inconsistent and irrational, and the restrictions
result in arbitrary suppression of the constitutional right of
self-defense.

See David Freed, Assault Rifles Are Not Heavily Used in Crimes, L.A. TIMES, May 20, 1992, at A18; see generally David Kopel, Rational Basis Analysis of "Assault Weapon" Prohibition, 20 J. CONTEMP. L. 381, 406-10 (1994) (reviewing data from numerous jurisdictions); Eric C. Morgan, Assault Rifle Legislation: Unwise and Unconstitutional, 17 AM. J. CRIM. L. 143, 151-52 (1990); Gary Kleck, Assault Weapons Aren't the Problem, N.Y. TIMES, Sept. 1, 1992, at A1 (assault weapons are used in less than one-half of one percent of violent crimes); What Is An Assault Weapon?, WALL ST. J., Aug. 25, 1994, at A12 (0.14% of violent crimes in Florida and 0.026% in New Jersey involve assault weapons).

[MajorChode]

79. I'll take that as a yes

You do know that shit will rot out your brains? Look what it did for Limbaugh.

[X_Digger]

51. Your ignorance is showing..

Existing guns manufactured or imported after that point merely had to do things like grinding down a bayonet lug, welding on the flash suppressor and pinning the stock. $40 of labor. There were _more_ assault weapons sold during the ban than the previous 20 years before. (granted, there were even _more_ sold after, but tellingly, the incidence of their use in crime didn't budge.)

The TEC-9 died a quiet death because it was prone to jam. But you know what? It was available during the ban as the AB-10. Intratec had renamed the TEC-9 to TEC-DC9 when DC's ban named it specifically in their prohibition on handgun models.

You'd think that the congress would be aware of the TEC-DC9's 'name change' tactic and would have crafted the AWB to account for that, had they been serious.

[MajorChode]

55. Are you trying to be funny?

Or are you really just that ignorant? The AB-10 was banned by the 94 law because of it's design. The name was changed simply because of all the bad press after Columbine. It died a "quiet death" because it was banned.

The history lesson people like you need to learn was that the sale of assault weapons was increasing exponentially before the ban. So trying to pretend their sales were linear prior to the ban is simply a matter of ignorance or duplicity. I think in your case I'm going to go with the former, since you only seem to be capable of repeating well debunked bullshit.

[X_Digger]

56. Christ-a-mighty..

The AB-10 (no barrel shroud, no threaded muzzle) was sold right up until Intratec closed in 2001. AB stands for 'after ban'.

[MajorChode]

59. You are correct, I was thinking of the DC-9

So I'll give you that much, but you simply ignored the rest of the post.

[slackmaster]

62. You're the one who should be using Google in this discussion

:rofl:

[MajorChode]

67. Actually I'm the one who is actually capable of admitting when he's wrong

You think that just because you don't admit it, then it must not be so.

:rofl:

[X_Digger]

66. Sales were 'increasing exponentially' pre-ban? Care to cite a source?

The Professional Gun Retailers Association mentioned in their 2002 or 2003 statement of the industry that the sale of modern-styled firearms was _up_ for the previous five year period. (working from memory, will find a link) This included ban-compliant 'assault weapons' (changed appearance). If you were actually involved in the hobby during the ban period, you'd know how silly your claims sound.

Everyone and their brother was buying "assault weapons" ahead of the ban, and then during the ban, those that could afford the 20-30% price increase were as well. If you wanted to sell your pre-ban rifle, you changed stocks (or pinned them), welded on the flash suppressor, and ground down the bayonet mount.

Here's a california legal AR-15 'non-assault weapon'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AR15_AimpointCompM4.jpg

It's not an 'assault weapon' even by california's definition because-
-renamed ('FAR-15')
-Stock pinned
-muzzle brake welded on
-detachable magazine made removable only with a tool

eta: image too large.. here's a smaller one with different 'features' changed to be ban compliant

[MajorChode]

82. Sure

http://www.sas.upenn.edu/jerrylee/research/aw_final2004.pdf

Enjoy.

[X_Digger]

85. You mean the boost that the AWB itself caused?

However, the speculative increase in AW prices also prompted a pre-ban boost in AW production; in 1994, AW manufacturers produced more than twice their average volume for the 1989-1993 period. The oversupply of grandfathered AWs, the availability of the AW-type legal substitute models mentioned earlier, and the steady supply of other non-banned semiautomatics appeared to have saturated the legal market, causing advertised prices of AWs to fall to nearly pre-speculation levels by late 1995 or early 1996.

Kind of hard to make a justification for a problem that your solution caused.

As shown in Figure 5-4, production of AR-15 type rifles surged during the early 1990s, reaching a peak in 1994.36 AR production during the early 1990s rose almost 4 times faster than total rifle production and over 5 times faster than production of the comparison rifles examined in the price analysis (Table 5-3). Yet, by 1996 and 1997, production of legalized AR-type rifles had fallen by 51%, as production of other rifles continued increasing. AR production trends reversed again during the late 1990s, however, rising over 150%.37 Total rifle production increased much more modestly during this time (18%), while production of the comparison rifles declined.

Again, this solution caused it's own problem.. Look at the numbers starting to rise from '88 to '89, when the CA ban was passed. (p41 of the pdf). The next big jump is around '94, when the federal AWB was being passed.

[MajorChode]

86. No

[X_Digger]

87. Then show me

The period covered by production numbers in this study are from 1985-2001. Both the pistol and rifle production charts show a peak around '89 and '94. (and another peak in 99 for rifles, but we're talking about pre-ban.)

You said "the sale of assault weapons was increasing exponentially before the ban". From 86-88, the pre-CA-ban period, sales bumped up slightly. If you have another source that says they jumped up in the 80's, I'd be happy to take a look. Hell, the largest growth in rifles occurred _during_ the ban (96-99).

Gee, imminent bans increase demand. In other news, water is wet.

[slackmaster]

57. The "AB" in AB-10 stands for After Ban

Who are you trying to kid here, MC?

You're all insults and no answers.

[slackmaster]

39. So, what solution would propose?

How would you close the AWB "loopholes" without banning most firearms that are being manufactured today? (Or would you actually approve of banning most firearms that are being manufactured today?)

[X_Digger]

20. Yes when questions like this are asked..

“As a result of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, do you think that gun control laws should be stricter, making it harder for people to purchase firearms or that gun control laws should be less strict, making it easier for people to purchase firearms?“

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Push_poll

[MajorChode]

28. "Do you favor or oppose extending the federal law banning assault weapons?"

http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/Downloads/Political_Communication/naes/2004_03_guns_09-06_pr.pdf

Now tell us again how that's a push poll. Good luck with that.

[X_Digger]

33. Yet, gallup reports demand for more gun control at lowest level ever..

http://www.gallup.com/poll/117361/Recent-Shootings-Gun-Control-Support-Fading.aspx

(see second graph)

[slackmaster]

40. That poll has the same problem that most polls on this subject have

It fails to test whether or not participants have an adequate understanding of the subject.

[derby378]

96. "Assault weapon" is a push-poll term

It does not belong in the wording of any impartial poll question.

[Diclotican]

91. old mark

old mark

I for one, do not know why ordinary pepole should have the posibility of assult weapon in the first place around.. Why on earth should a sivilized country as you claim US to be, have the need of assult weapon in the public face... I can understand why some want to have a pistol or revolver to protect their love ones against intruders, and I know that in the US, it tend to be rather violent sometimes.. But I for one can't understand why you need an assult weapon to "protect" your loved ones.. A shootgun, or another single shoot rifle could do the same thing - with a far better posibility of getting the target down.. You just dosen't need an assult weapon to kill a men - two hands used right is more than enough..

Now, I am not living in the US, but in a small country in Europe, in the north of europe in fact, and many in my country, included many in my own familiy have a long tradition of hunting.. And I know that weapon have been around my all my life.. But honesty, I can put into one hand the times I have really been seeing a gun, or a rifle at the same time.. Becouse in my part of the woods, the law is verry clear, when not used weapon should be locked down and safe.. And if used, used either for target practice in a shooting range, or other places where it can be used safe, or at hunting.. Have been hunting myself when I was younger, it was a booring experience, even that I do managed to kill a animal.. Feeled so sorry for the beast that I never was hunting again.. It was just a waste of time to sit there hour after hour, and then in a instant the animal was dead... And then nothing more... But it was good food then;):.

Home we had an rather strict "anti-gun" policy.. Even that I know as a matter of fact that we also had a pistol at the house.. When I was seven and my brother was six, we was tough about the fact that we had a weapon in the house - but was also told to NEVER play with it, and if we ever discovered it, we should let it be and forget where it was.. Never discovered it, and have just holdning it once, it was a dark pistol, who was rather hewy I might say... But it was never something to play with, and we might grow up to have a dislike for the whole thing... I do not know if the gun is still home, my guess is that the gun have been given to the police in an amnesty for a decade or so since..

I am maybe a "anti-gun suckers" but I for one can not understand the love you american have for your guns.. It looks like you have a better protect of your gun, than to your fellow nabour, or your fellow sitiziens.. I know that you do have your right to bear arms and all that.. But today, in the year 2009, do you really need to have all sorts of weapons, included assult weapon aviable?:. Are this "gun loving wacos" so afraid of their nabours, that they need all this weapons.. Maybe it is becouse US is a young nation, just 233 year or or something like that?... When the country is growing up, it might discover that to mutch weapon are not so good to the public safty after all?...

Diclotican

[ManiacJoe]

97. You seem confused about what an "assault weapon" is.

The anti-gunners love the term "assault weapon" because most people confuse it with "assault rifle".

An assault rifle is a light weight, short, rifle (carbine) that can fire one or more than one rounds at the user's choosing. For civilian purposes they are classified as machine guns. They are extremely expensive, almost impossible to purchase legally, and have been tightly regulated in the USA since 1934 (ten years before they were invented).

"Assault weapons", by the usual artificial definitions, are just semi-auto, light weight, short rifles (carbines). There is nothing special about them except that they may have modern ergonomic styling with black plastic bodies instead of wood, which can make them *look like* machine guns used by the military. Their "badness" is normally defined purely based on their physical looks. In reality, there is nothing special about these ergonomic semi-auto carbines; and thus there is no reason to attach special legislation to them. In reality, they are great for home defense, great for target shooting, required for many shooting competitions, and good hunting rifles for suitable game.

[Diclotican]

98. ManiacJoe

ManiacJoe

I might do that, because if you translate assault weapon roughly to my native language it means something like "angrepsvåpen". And pr definition every weapon, handgun or otherwise can be seen as an assault weapon..

But I am still royality confused over the american "love" for handguns and the necessarily to have enough weapon home, to have a small Army arsenal in your home.. I can understand if you are afraid, or are living in a really bad place, that you might have a pistol or revolver in your home.. Off course where it can be kept safe when not in use.. Or at target practice or going hunting in season... But all the other type of weapon many americans tend to have a great love for - who have nothing "protective" over it, then I am out of words, in english at least, to communicate what I really mean..

You can hunt animals with an Assault weapon that is true - but you can also hunt humans with an assault weapon - and therefore I would say if not a outright ban, something I believe to be impossible to make in US, so at least strict gun laws, so you doesn't experience to much about the tragedies many american experience every day, or every week at school and other public places. It is not that many weeks ago, a man get on the rampage, because he BELIEVED that the "government want to take my weapon from me": Something I believe would be political suicide to try get into law in most US states..

I for one believe in the LAW, and that the society in general have a strict policy about weapon in public places.. Of course, if you have a permit to have a weapon on you all time, then you have a right to have it (even that I do not know why).. but it should be not that easy as many say it is, to have a gun.. In my country, you have to have "clean paper", and be member of a shooting club, or have a hunting license to to have weapon.. And compared to the people living in my country, 4.6 million, we have ALLOT of weapon... But you seldom se the native public using weapon to solve problems.. Maybe because we have a whole other "culture" of using weapon?:. Or it can be because we also have a rather strict penalty code when misuse of weapon is happening..

Diclotican

[ManiacJoe]

99. Things are probably not like you have been lead to believe.

In the USA a buyer needs to have no felonies, no domestic violence misdemeanors, no mental health issues, according to federal law. States may place more restrictions on it. Concealed carry is governed by the states and has extra requirements beyond just ownership.

So called "assault weapons" are nothing special in the real world. Any type of rifle can be used for hunting animals; any type of rifle can be used to murder humans. What the gun *looks like* is of no relevance in the real world.

Some folks use guns for hunting; some for protection; some for sport/competition. Most fall into more than one of those categories. Gun collections take up space, thus no one usually has an "arsenal" unless you use the media's definition of "arsenal = more than two guns".

Culture has much to do with the problem. Plus, in the USA, weapons violations are often the first thing traded away during plea agreements.

[Diclotican]

101. ManiacJoe

ManiacJoe

It is good, that it is not that bad as I might have become to believe over there in the land of the free, home of the brave, or something like that. But at the outside of things, specially when it came to the US, it looks like the use of weapon, and the possibility to get a weapon is rather easy to came by.. But by all means, it is not that easy to get what you want where I live too, if you know someone, who know someone who know someone... In an another job I once had, I know someone, who know someone.. And could have get an real AK47, for NKR.1000, and then 500 rounds as free.. But I have never had the use of weapon, and if I had, I would get it by legal means..

And of course, it is important to have a good paper before it is right to get a weapon.. In norway you even have to be part of either a shooting club, or have a license to have a weapon. It is important if you ask me, to sell weapon to people who are sane and have no known mental issues...

Every weapon, even a knife can in more than theory be used to kill people, or to hunt animals.. And the cosmetic size or makeup of a rifle is not that relevant I guess... Even that I have never seen an "assault weapon" in use as hunting tool in my life... Just ordinary "hagle" or rifles.. And I for one can not understand why you have to have a weapon who look like a "assault weapon" when your only wish is to hunt deer in the fall... Or to shoot at an shooting range..

But on the other hand, many weapons is rather "sexy" too look at, even if it is just an ordinary rifle...

Most gun owner, included they I have known true the ages, look their weapon down, and close it tight when not in use.. Very few of them have their weapon on the wall.. But I do not know how the culture is over there in the US when it came to show off your weapons.. But some do have their weapon on the wall I guess.. But in Norway you have to close the barrel to be allowed to have it on the wall.. I know because my foster father once had two old handguns from 1700s, who was made impossible to use, because it was "closed" inside the barrel.. Pretty to look at, but with no use at all.. Even that I somehow doubt that a weapon from the 1700s was very usable to anything anyway:eyes: I guess the old Swords was more dangerous to most people than the guns.. It was real old swords, not some replica.. Hewy as a rock, and rather sharp.. And we was early been learning, that it was not something to play with. And of course either me or my brother ever did that.. We tend to have some respect for the old folks:P.. And still does, even that it many year since we was living under the same roof:

I guess that culture have a lot of the problem when it came ot use, or misuse of weapon.. Even your nabour Canada have a whole other culture when it came to use of weapon.. In the US 11.000 kills by weapon use. In Canada fewer than 300... And in Canada they do hunt...

Diocletian

[davepc]

5. It's a shame President Carter thinks we should ban things cause of cosmetics

instead of function.

[MajorChode]

19. So do you think we should ban based on function?

Or were you simply trying to put your own bullshit words in President Carter's mouth to make some pointless point?

[derby378]

21. What is an "assault weapon," anyway?

I have yet to see anyone provide an actual definition for the term. We can easily define terms like pistol, rifle, shotgun, etc. - but not so with "assault weapon." Whenever I seek a definition for the term, I get hit with a jumble of brand names and safety features and the occasional "it's whatever the AG says it is."

[MajorChode]

24. And yet it has been defined

So I'm not really sure what kind of point you're trying to make here, other than demonstrating your ignorance that you've never seen an actual definition.

[derby378]

26. Then where's the definition?

That's all I want to know...

[MajorChode]

29. It's within the original federal law and various state laws as well

I'm not really sure where you're going with this. Are you saying that just because the term "assault weapon" has a variety of definitions depending on which law you look at (as is the case with all sorts of subjects), that we should do absolutely nothing about their proliferation?

[derby378]

31. Maybe there's no such thing as an "assault weapon" at all

Maybe some policy wonk just coined the term out of thin air hoping to scare average Americans into passing legislation against legal ownership of certain firearms based out of some personal prejudice. And if that's the case, I'm not playing his game.

They're only semi-automatic rifles. Nothing more, nothing less.

[slackmaster]

41. You mean the expired federal law that failed to ban any particular type of firearm?

You're going around in circles.

[MajorChode]

44. You're full of shit

You might want to consider rephrasing your ridiculous statement (assuming you don't want to appear as an idiot).

[Recursion]

90. You do know the ban didn't ban any firearms, right?

Time and time again, people's support for the bill indicates that they don't actually know anything about it.

[X_Digger]

27. That the definition is pointless?

A definition based on specific models, or a combination of features- both are so easily bypassed as to make the whole definition a joke.

[Indy Lurker]

7. The ban was not effective

it only banned a small fraction of the semi-automatic firearms class.

"Semiautomatic assault weapons like AK-47s, AR-15s and Uzis" function just like all other semi-automatic weapons. All semi-automatic weapons work the same. One round is fired every time the trigger is pulled. This is true of all semi-automatics, whether it's an assault weapon or not. they have an identical rate of fire and identical power (power, is simply a matter or barrel length and round used)

To be effective, all semi-automatic weapons would need to be banned.

This would be virtually impossible. Most of the firearms made and sold today are semi-automatic. It would also run against last summer's supreme court ruling which protects firearms that are "in common use".

[cabluedem]

92. We have banned them in California. I think you get 5 years in prison for having one. n/t

[X_Digger]

93. There are CA legal versions of every 'banned' gun

With a few cosmetic changes or a name change you too can have the same rifle..

[ProgressiveProfessor]

9. It died a well deserved death for lack of effectiveness and declining support

[MajorChode]

22. 70% in favor is "declining support"???

Was it ever higher than 70%, or are you simply pulling numbers out of your ass?

[X_Digger]

25. defeated 90-8 in the senate..

What's your explanation why 90 senators voted to not renew it?

[MajorChode]

30. Do you think that lawmakers aren't influenced by special interests...

and always vote with the will of the people?

If so you are quite naive.

[X_Digger]

35. 90-8?

C'mon.. if I'm naieve, you're being paranoid.

How about:
-it didn't reduce the already low incidence of "assault weapon" use in crime
-it was so easy to circumvent
-it _increased_ ownership of the 'targeted' weapons

[MajorChode]

38. You are being naive, I'm not being paranoid

Or perhaps you're simply pretending to be naive (I'm not sure which is worse really).

The 90-8 vote you list was a completely different piece of legislation in which the renewal of the 94 law was added (most likely in a procedure move to kill it in the first place). The Republicans never allowed the renewal to come to a vote as a singular issue, so the overwhelming congressional disapproval you claim is a myth (and simply more evidence of your strawman bullshit).

[X_Digger]

47. HR1022? HR6257?

Those two never made it out of committee.

"completely different piece of legislation"? You really don't follow the congressional proceedings on this issue, do you?

DiFi attached the ban renewal to S1805, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. It was voted down, her amendment removed, and it then passed.

[MajorChode]

72. What part of it was "never allowed the renewal to come to a vote as a singular issue"...

Do you not understand?

Is English not your first language?

[slackmaster]

74. If there had been a real justification for renewing it, Congress couldn't have gotten away

With not renewing it.

The ban failed to be renewed because it failed to cause any measurable improvement in public safety, and its proponents failed to make a case for it.

FAIL

[MajorChode]

77. I'll sell you the Brooklyn Bridge, cheap

I'll even make you a deal on the Lincoln tunnel for half price if you decide to buy within the next 30 minutes.

[X_Digger]

76. Go read the record..

Even the Dems on the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security couldn't get behind it. Only Anthony Weiner (Chuck Schumer's errand boy) recommended it. Or do you see that as more evil boogeyman action?

[MajorChode]

78. What part of it was "never allowed the renewal to come to a vote as a singular issue"...

Do you not understand?

Are you trying to speak some type of redneck dialect?

Sprechen du hinterwaldler?

Parlez vous le montagnard?

[X_Digger]

81. If you can't convince 8 dems and 1 rep..

.. what chance does it have with 100?

So full of fail.

Maybe if Wasserman-Shultz had been on the committee at that point, they could have gotten _2_ whole votes to re-authorize it. (She's said publicly that she supports it.)

[slackmaster]

42. Probably 90% of that 70% think assault weapons are fully automatic

Ill-informed opinions are not a sound basis for public policy.

[MajorChode]

46. Assumptions are the mother of all fuckups

Until you have some type of proof of your assertion, I'm going to regard it as complete bullshit. Fair enough?

[slackmaster]

48. OK, fair enough

Since the poll you keep citing has no validity checks, I'll regard it as complete bullshit too.

[MajorChode]

53. You mean that because the NRA didn't put their seal of approval on it?

That's entirely too funny.

The poll was conducted by the non-partisan Annenberg Public Policy Center which is unimpeachable by anyone who isn't a mouth-breather. You might know them better as the entity behind Factcheck.org, which is perhaps the most commonly cited source of it's kind (by both parties). So you can call it "bullshit" if you wish, but all that really does is provide more insight into your credibility (or more precisely the lack thereof).

Furthermore, the study showed that the better educated someone was, the more likely they were to approve of the renewal of the ban. So it at least appears as if the uninformed are more likely to be on your small side of the population.

[slackmaster]

54. No, because I have a degree in psychology and know quite a bit about survey design and analysis

If participants don't understand the questions, their answers are meaningless. There are ways to control for that problem by asking questions to determine their level of understanding.

[MajorChode]

61. "Do you favor or oppose extending the federal law banning assault weapons?"

That was the question.

Try again.

[slackmaster]

63. If people don't know what the law did and did not do, their answer is meaningless

Time and time again, we see someone who should know better spouting misinformation or disinformation about what the ban covered and what it did NOT cover.

Assuming that people understand that question is naive. Even the authors of gun ban bills don't understand the subject.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ospNRk2uM3U

[slackmaster]

64. Most people don't understand the issue well enough to answer that question

They think assault weapons were machine guns, or are afraid of that shoulder thing that goes up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ospNRk2uM3U

[ProgressiveProfessor]

84. Even the Brady Bunch and their fellow bigots are admitting that support for it was less than it was

[benEzra]

10. Mr. Carter has been fooled into thinking the issue is about "weapons intended to kill people"

But none of us wants to own an assault weapon, because we have no desire to kill policemen or go to a school or workplace to see how many victims we can accumulate before we are finally shot or take our own lives.

Mr. Carter has been fooled into thinking the issue is about banning "weapons intended to kill people," rather than about banning the most popular non-automatic civilian rifles in the United States. More Americans lawfully own so-called "assault weapons" than hunt; they dominate centerfire target shooting in the United States, both competitive and recreational, and are the most common defensive carbines in U.S. homes.

Nor did the 1994 Feinstein law ban any guns whatsoever. It banned marketing of new civilian guns under any of 19 banned names, stipulated that AR's/AK's/etc. manufactured after 9/94 had to have nonadjustable stocks and smooth muzzles, and raised prices on replacement magazines for full-size civilian pistols.

[JPZenger]

11. Obama supports it, but it is not a priority

Officially, Obama supports having some type of effective assault weapons ban. Many states also limit the number of rounds allowed per clip. However, the Administration recently said it is a not a high priority, and that they will support it if it comes up from Congress. However, the Administration is not going to initiate it this year.

[benEzra]

16. One hopes that he will let the "Dems'll take yer guns!" meme finally die...

by NOT resurrecting the "assault weapon" bait-and-switch. That fraud deserved to die, and should stay dead.

Very few states restrict the capacity of civilian firearms. California, New Jersey, two or three others, and most of those restrict only new production, not purchase or possession of existing full-capacity magazines.

[slackmaster]

12. President Carter, like many Americans, is misinformed about this issue

The expired federal "assault weapons" ban did not in any way stop the importation, manufacture, or sale of semiautomatic AK-47 variants to the civilian sporting arms market. In fact, it had the net effect of increasing the number of that and other military pattern semiautomatic firearms in private hands. Manufacturers had new ban-compliant versions of their products on the market before the ban took effect.

As a result of the ban and ongoing threats from members of Congress and others to ban firearms, there are far more of them in circulation than there were before the ban. The ban produced no measureable benefit to public safety. Any more comprehensive ban would necessarily affect tens of millions of sporting arms, and their owners would react strongly in the next election.

If it is in the interest of public safety to slow the sale of firearms (a point on which I am agnostic), the best thing President Obama could do now is to make a definitive statement that he would not sign any new gun bans int law.

http://www.ammoland.com/2009/04/22/usa-buys-enough-guns-in-3-months-to-outfit-the-entire-chinese-and-indian-army/

[soryang]

83. Carter's use of statistics is uncharacteristically misleading

There is no breakout of deaths by handguns, shotguns, rifles, semi-automatic rifles. 60 percent of firearms deaths are suicides. I doubt if most or even a plurality of intentional or unintentional firearms deaths are by so called assault rifles.

[benEzra]

88. Only 3% of U.S. murders involve ANY type of rifle, per the FBI Uniform Crime Reports. (n/t)

[soryang]

89. interesting

thankyou

[benEzra]

95. Here's the link to the FBI page, if you're interested:

Table 20, Murder, by State and Type of Weapon (FBI Uniform Crime Reports, 2007)


Here's the Excel version; you can verify the 3% stat by summing the columns and dividing each by total murders:

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/data/documents/07tbl20.xls


Rifles of any type are not a crime problem in the United States and never have been.

[MicaelS]

15. It went where it belonged, into the garbage

The misnamed Assault Weapons Ban cost many Democrats their seats, and the party control of Congress. It gave us the neo-cons, Newt Gingrinch and the Contract with America. That Republican control of Congress led directly to the impeachment of Bill Clinton.

And lest you think THAT was the only ill-advised piece of gun legislation in the 90s, think about this:

One of the main reasons George Bush became Governor of Texas was because THEN Democratic Governor Ann Richards vetoed the Concealed Carry Bill before the Texas State Legislature. Bush said he would sign it if elected. He got elected and the rest is history.

So the next time some Democrat dreams up some feel-good anti-gun legislation, remember what it has cost the Democratic Party and the United States.

[derby378]

17. Part of the answer is that one of President Carter's own children opposed it

When Jack Carter ran for the Senate in 2006, he signalled his own opposition to the ban (Question 3):

http://www.a2dems.net/campaign2006/speakout-nv.htm

Jack may have changed his mind since then; I don't know. But back then, his views on gun issues seemed rather clear.

[Recursion]

94. The short answer

It was a bad law that was dishonestly marketed and did nothing to address the types of guns that are used in crimes. Its only effect was to increase the number of AK-47 lookalikes in civilian hands and hand Congress over to the GOP for 12 years. It has been justifiably allowed to disappear.

[Enthusiast]

100. A ban like this would only

serve to validate the wild anti-gun claims by the NRA about the Obama Administration. It would 'only serve' because the rate of fire of these weapons is the same as hunting rifles and shotguns. There is nothing to be gained. It will not save a single life. Why promote something that will only result in a negative for President Obama?