Ban Assault Weapons
I know the last post on gun control was explosive, and it wasn’t even directly promoting more control. I was just trying to observe that College Campuses Are Safe, and there is no need for fear-inducing statements about “the rising murder rate on campuses” to justify lifting restrictions on concealed weapons. For that reason, I want to tread carefully when I present what I think is the common sense approach to this particular issue of gun control: assault weapons.
The Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) of 1994 classified certain types of firearms as “assault weapons” and prohibited their manufacture and sale to civilians. Like any hot issue, gun control is a fight waged on dozens of different fronts, but this issue seems like it should be abundantly clear. Civilians do not need to have assault weapons, and the government has a compelling interest to limit the production and sale of them to the public.
There are several stock arguments used by pro-gun advocates against most types of gun restriction, but all of them fall when applied to the AWB.
The first typical argument is for the right to self defense. Self defense may be a valid justification for possession of some firearms, but it absolutely does not apply to assault weapons. Unless you live in Baghdad, there is no incremental benefit to your self defense if you are packing an Uzi instead of a glock or an AR-15 (pictured above) instead of a 12-gauge. There is a reason why these weapons are considered “assault weapons;” they are designed for attacking a large force of enemies in a combat situation.
The second typical argument is the right to hunt. Surely no explanation is necessary why assault weapons are not useful or necessary for hunting animals.
The third typical argument is the Second Amendment. This one has always been rather shady because most NRA members ignore the crucial antecedent to the phrase about “the right to keep and bear arms” that expresses the purpose of a “well-organized militia [national guard].” But apart from that overall weakness, it is definitely a stretch to read the Amendment to imply that the people have the right to keep and bear assault weapons. Even the most hardcore NRA supporters realize that the line must be drawn at some point; most agree that the people should not have the right to keep and bear howitzers, B-2s, tanks, or mortars. This line is usually drawn when there is no legitimate self-defense or hunting right that would be furthered by a certain type of firearm or if that right is likely to be a danger to society overall.
The last argument is somewhat less typical, but should still be addressed, and that is that the people must retain the ability to match the government’s military power to prevent tyranny. Ironically, this usually irrelevant argument becomes the most relevant when we discuss a potential AWB. It is a nice idea in theory that if only enough people had assault weapons and other guns, then we could overthrow the government if it came to that. But there are way too many logical holes in that belief for it to be sustained. With modern technology, even widespread ownership of assault weapons among civilians would not be enough to check governmental power, even if people were willing to rise up in armed revolt.
The Assault Weapons Ban expired in 2004, ten years after it was implemented. Ten years was not nearly long enough to see any measurable effects of the ban, and Congress folded under lobbyist pressure and failed to renew it. The most legitimate criticism of the AWB was that it had too many loopholes. I agree with that assessment, but that makes me think that Congress should pass a new permanent AWB that closes those loopholes, making it harder for manufacturers to bypass the spirit of the law with tiny technical modifications. Assault weapons in the hands of civilians serve no legitimate purpose; they will never make this country safer, and anything we can do to limit the production and sale of them will be an overall benefit to society in the long run.
Ahh here we go again….the “assault weapons ban” should be called the “scary looking weapons” ban. Seriously, read the legislation for yourself instead of looking at the title. It has no relevance to the power of these weapons, because most “assault weapons” are less powerful than hunting rifles.
Lets examine the AWB why don’t we….
It bans rifles that accept a detachable magazine and have one or more of the following
(1) a pistol style grip — OMG, a different type of grip, modifying the angle at which you hold the gun by about 30 degrees, less in alot of cases. This definitely contributes to lethality. More people will die, because you can hold the gun differently. Watch out.
(2) a barrel shroud — jeepers, a “shroud” around a barrel so your hand doesn’t get burned. Last I checked, most ALL rifles have these. To date, and I’ve fired alot of rifles, I don’t believe I’ve ever fired a rifle where my support hand actually touched the barrel. Definitely adds to lethality, again, HA.
(3) a bayonet lug — dear god, you could attach a knife, to your gun? I bet this will cut down on the number of drive by bayonetings. For sure.
(4) a folding or telescoping stock — man, letting people adjust the length of pull of a weapon, to say, let people adjust a gun to fit themselves, this is a horrible idea. I mean all people are exactly the same; same size arms, chest, neck — letting people adjust a gun to themselves definitely means more people dying
(5) a flash suppressor — again, this could kill people. Porting muzzle flash so you don’t blind yourself in semi dark conditions surely contributes to our crime problem
(6) a grenade launcher attachment — this is the only one where there could be a point, however, since grenade launchers are already illegal for civilians to own, nonetheless grenades (all regulated by the NFA of 1934), this is moot
(7) can accept a high capacity magazine of more than 10 rounds — wow, you got me here, except for the fact that you can reload a “assault weapon” in about 1 second (no joke), doesn’t seem particularly useful to say that simply because a weapon holds more than 10 rounds it is somehow going to be more lethal.
Notice that in none of these provisions is there anything about the actual lethality of the weapon, namely caliber of the bullet or ballistics of the round. The picture you have on this blog is of an ar-15 or m-4, which shoots a .223 caliber round. This round is generally MUCH less lethal than a standard .308 winchester or .30-06 (the most common hunting rounds). Nor does it even go to the fact that semi-auto rifles like a browning BAR, a hunting rifle, can fire in semi-auto.
So what does this break down to: a scary looking weapons ban. The gun is black, it looks like a military arm, so we should ban it. It is no more lethal than a standard hunting rifle, and yet it has many advantages including be adjustable for people of different sizes and it is a favorite of women because of the low recoil of an ar-15 type rifle.
I believe this video provides an excellent overview of the subject. http://youtube.com/watch?v=vbIIjIFKYYg
Jordan
17 Apr 08 at 1:52 pm
“This round is generally MUCH less lethal than a standard .308 winchester or .30-06 (the most common hunting rounds).”
Why doesn’t the military use the more lethal guns mentioned above to kill human beings with?
gino
17 Apr 08 at 2:11 pm
“Why doesn’t the military use the more lethal guns mentioned above to kill human beings with?”
Alot of reasons actually. Design of the weapon and weight of the round are two important ones. The 5.56mm round is lighter, by a long shot, compared to the .308 counterpart. Now, the military does have some rifles using heavier rounds, but the idea is that soldiers in combat need to carry alot of ammo, and a lighter round gives them that capability. Should they be going on very short excursions they may well want to carry a more deadly round (like a m-14).
The second major point is that 5.56mm is a standard NATO round, which means that it is in wide production throughout the world and if we ever had a shortage in the US, it is readily available elsewhere.
The 5.56mm round also offers much lower recoil, in part due to the stoner weapon design of an ar/m type weapon. Lower recoil means more troops can fire it with a standard level of competency and makes it a better “all around” choice for the men and women of our armed forces.
It should be noted, also, that the military is looking to change rounds for more lethality, but for the foregoing reasons has been generally unable to do so.
Don’t get me wrong though, the 5.56mm round is sufficiently lethal. My point was that we aren’t banning “assault weapons” because they are lethal, the statute simply goes to how they look and features that have nothing to do whether they can be a greater danger to the public.
Jordan
17 Apr 08 at 2:21 pm
uhuh…and you think that its ok for the government (which is composed of individuals) is allowed to have tanks, fighter jets, biochemical weapons, massive bombs, super “intelligence” agencies, etc?
and you use the NRA as an example. nice try, but you forgot to mention GOA
http://www.gunowners.org/protect.htm
Jesse
17 Apr 08 at 2:25 pm
“Design of the weapon and weight of the round are two important ones. The 5.56mm round is lighter, by a long shot, compared to the .308 counterpart.”
“Lower recoil means more troops can fire it with a standard level of competency and makes it a better “all around” choice….”
I don’t know or understand crap about the lethality of any of the guns you speak of. However, it sounds like (from your description) that the use of an assault weapon certainly makes killing another human being easier and more convenient.
gino
17 Apr 08 at 2:29 pm
Bottom line — it is easier to train an entire army using a 5.56mm chambered rifle than it is with a bigger round. Women especially have a much easier time with this weapon. It doesn’t make killing any easier, it actually makes it harder as a larger round is a more effective killing round. The point is that the army as a whole can shoot and train on a 5.56mm round easier.
Change this to the civilian context and the different is clear. Instead of 1 rifle fits all, everybody can choose to buy what they want to learn to shoot. Read through the conditions of the statute in my first post and tell me how those “features” of a gun make it more deadly. The only one that you even have a prayer at is high capacity magazines, which as I said, don’t make that much of a difference. And, if you think it does, there is a very simple solution, ban the magazines, not all subset of guns that can use the magazines. This is a blanket bill to try and restrict people from owning guns. It has nothing to do with them being any more or less dangerous to the public.
Jordan
17 Apr 08 at 2:37 pm
Also, your statement “I don’t know or understand crap about the lethality of any of the guns you speak of. However” is exactly what I am talking about. It is people like you, who don’t know about guns, creating legislation to ban guns when they don’t even know what they are doing. Here is a link to a video of Carolyn McCarthy, the AWB sponsor, being questioned on the topic and she doesn’t even know what is in the bill.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ospNRk2uM3U
Jordan
17 Apr 08 at 2:40 pm
“Read through the conditions of the statute in my first post and tell me how those “features” of a gun make it more deadly.”
I wasn’t speaking to the lethality of the assault weapons. I was speaking to the point that assault weapons make it easier and more convenient to kill another human being with. You made that point clearly in your first response to my question.
gino
17 Apr 08 at 3:04 pm
Jordan was that dude who killed one of those giant worms in Tremors, when it broke into his basement full of guns.
JH
17 Apr 08 at 3:12 pm
I’m sorry if I gave you the impression that I wanted to adopt a revived clone version of the 1994 ban. I realize that it did a poor job of defining what an assault weapon really is, and even after it made its definition, it was wide open for manufacturers to find loopholes. I tried to say that we need a new, better AWB that really cracks down on this type of weapon. Yes, I realize it will be hard to define, but I think at the end of the day, you and I and all other reasonable people realize that there is some such category out there somewhere.
But thank you for pointing out some important flaws in the 1994 Act that can hopefully be changed in the future.
I also noticed that you failed to contest the underlying point of an AWB in your effort to attack the details of the one from the past.
David M. Manes
17 Apr 08 at 3:35 pm
To address your points individually, though:
1) From what I understand, the pistol grip is not a comfort issue or an aesthetic issue, it is to allow firing from the hip (useful during an “assault,” but not so much on a “hunt” of animals or when a mugger grabs your purse.
2) A barrel shroud is not because firing one round at a deer or two at the intruder breaking into your house will melt the barrel; it is because when you are raking fire over a large target area with hundreds of rounds, the barrel will get hot enough to burn.
3) What possible legitimate reason could you have for wanting to attach a bayonette to your gun?
4) The folding stock is once again something that is designed to allow maximum maneuverability in a tight situation (clearing a house full of terrorists) while still maintaining the flexibility to stabilize once you get back out to the grassy knoll. It is not designed to fit the lovely contours of the sportsman’s body as he hunts quail.
5) Please please don’t tell me you are shooting semi-automatic weapons in the dark. Good God.
6) What is a possible good use for this attachment and why would it bother your if it couldn’t be there?
7) Your statement that a high-round magazine is not necessarily more dangerous than one with fewer rounds made me laugh. Okay, so Navy SEALs can reload in 1 second, but so what? If there is going to be some psychopath storming around a post office or college campus, I really think it would be better for all of us if he had to reload after every 7 rounds instead of every 30. You disagree?
David M. Manes
17 Apr 08 at 3:45 pm
Keep in mind that the civilian versions of all military weapons have one common limitation, that of being incapable of fully automatic fire, and there is no mystical easy conversion kit to fully automatic.
No Spray and Pray for civilians.
Pistol grips allow for a more ergonomic grip, but give no advantage to firing from the hip.
And to be honest, if someone is going to go on a murder spree, I’d prefer they do it firing from the hip, as they have a much greater chance of missing. Unless you are very well trained and have very good muscle memory, shooting like that is a great way to expand ammo while looking scary and hitting something only by accident.
Barrels will get hot enough to burn on a lot less than “hundred of rounds”, and where are you getting these hundreds of rounds, since you believe that it takes a while to swap magazines. Only fully automatic belt fed weapons can spray hundreds of rounds, and those are tightly regulated. Also, on AR style weapons, one or two shots can warm up the barrel quite nicely.
I am not a Navy SEAL or any type of special forces type, and yet I can swap out a magazine in a second or so. It just takes a little bit of practice (a few hours worth, and I don’t need to be at a range, I can safely practice with an empty gun and empty magazines in my basement). A person might not be able to pick up any old gun and immediately be able to quickly change magazines, but with a gun he/she has practiced with for a few hours, it is easily done. The most low capacity magazines will do is force me to spend more money on magazines and slightly increase the amount of weight and bulk I have to carry. And if I am planning a murder spree, am I really going to care about running up my credit card for extra magazines and ammo?
If someone just broke in to my house at 2AM, chances are it is dark out. Not having my night vision ruined by the first shot might be nice. I might have missed with the first shot, or the intruder might have friends.
A folding stock might allow for better maneuverability, but it also allows for personal adjustment. A V-8 engine will allow a person to drive at well over a hundred miles an hour, or maybe people just like the power available for towing their boat or RV.
I might just like having a bayonet, for fun, or for authenticity. I mean, why would a person want to put a supercharger on their car? I have an old WW2 rifle with a bayonet attached. I take it off for hunting or target shooting since it can get in the way, but I kinda like it.
Law abiding adults should not be limited in the cosmetic features they should have access to.
Madrocketscientist
17 Apr 08 at 4:48 pm
People like you freak the heck out of me and all the other normal people out here in the real world. You are making me more and more certain that we should do everything possible to ban assault weapons.
David M. Manes
17 Apr 08 at 4:57 pm
People like me? Seriously?
Please explain why? I’m curious.
Madrocketscientist
17 Apr 08 at 5:06 pm
Madrocketscientist was that dude’s wife.
JH
17 Apr 08 at 5:14 pm
To name just a few…
The image of you and people like you practicing swapping out magazines in your assault rifle in your basement. The fact that you want a bayonet on your gun. Your utter failure to see the functional benefit to several of these elements (increased functionality is a way of saying it becomes easier to kill lots of people quickly) while you pretend like they are all “cosmetic,” or “aesthetic.”
But still I don’t think you are getting my point. I am not trying to say that the 1994 ban was perfect. Obviously it had its loopholes and problems. I want a much more comprehensive ban that eliminates the weapons that are really only used for “assaulting” people. Maybe you could help come up with the qualifications to make the law more narrowly-tailored.
Because seriously, I have no interest in banning weapons that are legitimately and appropriately used for hunting or self-defense (absolutely zero interest). I am not a crazy anti-gun nut. But come on, man. Nobody needs a high-capacity, silenced, bayoneted AR-15 to do either of those things.
David M. Manes
17 Apr 08 at 5:15 pm
Jordan and Madrocketscientist defend their basement against giant worms
JH
17 Apr 08 at 5:30 pm
Actually, I don’t own an assault rifle, I own a Polish M44, a Mossberg 500 shotgun, and a single S&W M&P .45 automatic handgun. I have no desire to spend $2k on an AR style weapon, since I just don’t care for owning an M-16 light.
I just feel that rules and laws outlawing features which look scary or add minor improvements in comfort or style is nothing more than feel good legislation that fails to address the problem at hand. Give me a law that will stop some kid from killing his classmates, and I’ll be more receptive to it, but making rules just to make people feel better, without actually doing anything to alter the landscape, is pointless and a waste of time and resources while distracting people from finding a real solution.
Banning features which do not significantly affect the primary functionality of the weapon is like banning the rear spoiler on cars to stop drag racing. Yes, a rear spoiler will improve the handling characteristics of a car and allow the driver to maneuver at faster speeds, but does it stop drag racing?
And FYI, I have never practiced quickly swapping out magazines, but rather, I have swapped out magazines enough times at the range that my hands know the motion and I don’t have to think about it any more, my thumb hits the release as my other hand retrieves and inserts the new magazine. Simple muscle memory, same thing as putting a spoon into your mouth while eating.
Madrocketscientist
17 Apr 08 at 5:45 pm
That video was awesome. Nice job guys, that thing picked the wrong basement to break into.
So theoretically you would be in favor of a law that was tailored to prohibit weapons which have a primary purpose for killing people in “assault” fashion while allowing law-abiding civilians everywhere to keep their guns that they use for hunting and self-defense? Great, then it sounds like we agree.
David M. Manes
17 Apr 08 at 5:52 pm
But define “Assault Fashion”?
When I served in the military, assault weapons were switchable between fully automatic, three round burst, and semi automatic, and had grenade launchers. All of that is illegal on civilian weapons.
Assault fashion killing meant a team with known AORs, cover fire, and weapons discipline. All of which required a good amount of training. A kid with an Evil Black Rifle (EBR) he stole from his Uncle will not have such training unless he was in the military, in which case, he will be quite deadly with any gun he can get his hands on. Without such training, the quality and features of the rifle with grant no advantage and he’ll just be a killer with a slug thrower.
As for the video, HAHA, but seriously, they were supposed to be big gun nuts. Bad shooting form, bad aim, bad everything.
sigh…Hollywood
Madrocketscientist
17 Apr 08 at 6:13 pm
“Assault weapons in the hands of civilians serve no legitimate purpose”
do they serve the purpose of anyone?
and define “rights”
Jesse
17 Apr 08 at 6:18 pm
No David, that’s not what we’re saying.
I have a .22LR that looks like this (http://www.armscor.net/armscor_m1600.JPG). In your uneducated mind, you think that’s an “assault” rifle. True, I could assault someone with it, but with a round the size of seed.
Now, go look here for a line of children’s 22LR, especially the one in hot pink - - http://www.crickett.com/TheStore/Rifles/rifles.html
It fires the same round as my “assault rifle”. So, as you can see, what something looks like has nothing to do with what round it fires.
I’m getting an AR in 6.8 Remington SPC for self defense. For my wife, the 12 gauge is a better choice because it doesn’t require as much skill to use and the CHA-CHUNK of chambering buckshot is a good deterrent. But for me, I prefer something with a little more reach and better accuracy which I can obtain in tight quarters such as my house by retracting my stock and using the pistol grip to apply better pressure to maintain a steady aim. The red dot scope on top helps ensure that my shots go where they should without any magnification, which lets me keep both my eyes open.
No firearm has a primary purpose. The 50BMG is used by civilians for long range target shooting, but is also a good anti-material round for the military (assuming the material isn’t moving very fast). The .22lr is fantastic for plinking cans or targets at the range, but can also be just as lethal with a well placed shot.
None of us wish to make a law against a particular configuration of a weapon because the configuration has nothing to do with how it will be used. That’s up to the individual, and that’s where your desire to ban objects fails completely. The gun doesn’t make killing easy, just more efficient and ANY gun can do that, not just ‘assault rifles’.
Robb Allen
17 Apr 08 at 6:30 pm
David,
I understand your intent, I really do. The problem is that you are asking for a law that will not do anything, and I oppose laws that feel good but give no real result. If I thought that banning such features would make a weapon less lethal, I might be willing to support you. I can understand why civilians can’t easily own fully automatic weapons (they can, but the requirements are very steep) or grenade launchers, as such features can greatly amplify the potential for harm (although fully automatic fire is another great way to run out of ammo without hitting much, since even in a fire team, the purpose of the SAW is not to kill the enemy in job lots, but to make them keep their heads down while your team advances).
If a person likes the look and feel of a fully equipped AR-15, sans full auto and grenade launcher, I have no problem with it.
Madrocketscientist
17 Apr 08 at 6:31 pm
I’m not a fan of banning assault weapons either, for many of the reasons stated previously. Very few murders are committed using assualt weapons, so I see little practical benefit to banning these weapons. Surely there are other aspects of gun control that can be addressed to improve the U.S.’s staggering murder count.
miniman
17 Apr 08 at 6:49 pm
I think you make a good observation with your characterization of fully automatic and grenade launchers as “features [that] can greatly amplify the potential for harm” without really providing any additional legitimate benefit. Okay, perhaps there is the “cosmetic” benefit - some people really like to look at that grenade launcher or feel the switch to full auto, but we reasonable people agree that their cosmetic benefit does not outweigh society’s right to be safe from people with fully automatic weapons and grenade launchers.
Now let’s take that line of logic and apply it to some of the other features. Some may be truly “cosmetic” without increasing the potential harm that weapon can cause to others. That’s fine. But everyone acknowledges that there are some features on a weapon that cannot be justified purely on the basis of personal preference or cosmetic reasons.
I am not looking for just a feel-good law. I want a law that allows legitimate ownership and use of guns without pretending that assault weapons are ever necessary.
Once again, I am completely fine with people having guns for legitimate purposes - hunting and self defense. Hunting never ever requires anything that would ever be categorized as an assault rifle. Uzis, Tec-9s, and AK-47s are never needed to hunt animals. Similarly, they are never needed for self-defense. A shotgun works, and so does a standard rifle like a 22 or a .30-06. Most commonly, though, people use a handgun of some sort. Although I respect the right to keep a gun like this for self defense, it still strikes me as incredibly stupid and unecessary.
David M. Manes
17 Apr 08 at 6:49 pm
…And once again I am proved wrong in my assumption that one tiny aspect of gun control is obvious.
miniman: You may be right, statistically speaking. But there are still a lot of these weapons out there and they have been used in dramatic and deadly ways (the Tec-9 at Columbine in 1999).
“Surely there are other aspects of gun control that can be addressed to improve the U.S.’s staggering murder count.”
That is really what we are all about, isn’t it? Any way that we can narrowly target laws to decrease the murder rate without sacrificing too much justifiable liberty would be a good thing to do. That is why we should target weapons, not for the number of times they are used in violent crimes, but for the incremental loss in legitimate liberty that is lost when we eliminate them. In my opinion, a new, more-comprehensive, less-loopeholy AWB is one of the first and best ways we can target the misuse of guns without trampling on the legitimate rights of civilians in this free country.
David M. Manes
17 Apr 08 at 6:57 pm
“justifiable liberty”
The fact that you can put those two words together shows that you will never really be interested in understanding the pro-freedom position.
Joe
17 Apr 08 at 7:09 pm
You’re right, actually I do hate freedom.
But seriously, there is always a question of whether a liberty should or should not be restricted. No freedom is absolute. Since there is no natural law right about bearing assault weapons, we have to weigh it out on a cost-benefit analysis (a means of justifying or measuring something for an outcome). I say that there is no real cost in banning assault weapons, but there is potential for benefit. It is a measured, targeted way to reduce the threat of violence without undue infringement of liberty.
If you think that there is some sort of natural law or inalienable, unabridgable right to bearing assault rifles, then perhaps you are the one who is not interested in understanding the situation rationally.
I don’t think that all liberties have to be justified, because there are a lot of them that the people are assumed to have. I have written several posts about liberty and authoritarianism. But that doesn’t mean that the liberty of the people is 100% untouchable by the government. We create government to restrict things exactly like this that only pose increased danger without any legitimate positive use. I certainly think that John Stuart Mill would agree with an AWB.
David M. Manes
17 Apr 08 at 7:18 pm
I am not looking for just a feel-good law. I want a law that allows legitimate ownership and use of guns without pretending that assault weapons are ever necessary.
Which we’ve proven to you that you have no idea what an assault weapon is.
If you put stickers all over your car because you like the way NASCAR looks, it doesn’t make your car capable of 200mph. If you put a pistol grip on a rifle, it doesn’t make it deadlier. So no, there is nothing but illogical feel good crap behind your purpose.
Any weapon can be used for assault. A knife on a stick is no different than a bayonet. You claim to want to ban them, I refuse to allow that to happen until you can show me a mass of drive by bayonettings and thousands of people dieing a year from getting stabbed by them.
And your constant claim of “need” is ill-informed and ridiculous.People who have coyote and prairie dogs use the AR-15 platform to take them out at distances. The 7.62 round used in AK’s is pretty damned effective at stopping some game. It is quite apparent you have no very little knowledge of firearms yet you continue to call for restrictions on what you do not know.
Finally, you’re full of bovine excrement if you think that telling law abiding citizens that they can’t own something because other people MIGHT abuse them while all along ignoring that the VAST majority of crimes committed with firearms are done with standard pistols isn’t trampling on rights. It’s like saying nobody can drive because SOME people DUI.
People have killed other people with every tool available since the dawn of time. It’s not the tool, it’s the person.
Robb Allen
17 Apr 08 at 7:21 pm
“justifiable liberty”
“The fact that you can put those two words together shows that you will never really be interested in understanding the pro-freedom position.”
What exactly does that extremely academic and well thought out comment mean, Joe? Can you elaborate and educate the ignorant among us?
I’m interested in understanding the kook mentality of owning an assault weapon. Does owning such an instrument of death make one feel powerful? Does it make one feel safer? Is it an aphrodisiac?
I have to know. What is the appeal?…..other than knowing that you can kill someone with it?
gino
17 Apr 08 at 7:26 pm
It isn’t just a “MIGHT” thing. Consider the grenade launcher. Is it conceivable that a law-abiding citizen might use it for completely safe and reasonable purposes? I suppose. But we are all better off with laws that restrict the manufacture, sale, and posession of these weapons. Why? Because it’s more than just a “might” thing that someone might use that grenade launcher to hurt other people.
So we, as a liberal society, have decided that the incremental restriction placed on those who might like to enjoy shooting grenades out on the farm on a Sunday afternoon should be sacrificed so that we can try to limit their availability to less upstanding citizens who “might” use them in other ways.
In short, the tool makes a difference. A person can do a lot more damage with the right tool. And some tools are only made for killing people.
David M. Manes
17 Apr 08 at 7:32 pm
“People have killed other people with every tool available since the dawn of time. It’s not the tool, it’s the person.”
True, but I would have a more difficult time killing another human being with a tire iron than I would with an ASSAULT WEAPON!
gino
17 Apr 08 at 7:33 pm
Penis envy. Apparantly men can have it, too.
David M. Manes
17 Apr 08 at 7:34 pm
I have been biting my tongue (and held back my fingers) until now.
There are currently more weapons laws on the books than anyone needs.
All you need to do is actually enforce them.
You REALLY want to stop killings?
Then execute the murderers in a reasonably swift fashion.
The punishment that is given shows what society holds as the value of a human life. If a human life is only worth a dozen years in jail, then there will be those who see it as a fair trade. If a society truly holds the value of a life to be that of another life, I believe you would see a dramatic drop.
Don’t say “We already have a death penalty” - you have to actually USE it to say you have it. Just like enforcing the existing laws on guns.
If there are moral objections to taking another life then enforce life with no parole in solitary with minimum rations or hard labor. Something that is distasteful and much worse than we have now.
There are “real” assault weapons (full auto) that are smuggled in and sold. These are already illegal - no need for more laws.
I do have to respond to some of the earlier comments about clips & reloading.
I believe in personal experience as a great teacher.
Since David spends part of the holidays with a “gun nut” I’ll try to educate him in this specific area a little more.
David - next Thanksgiving, remind me to take my speed loaders along.
They let me reload that six round .357 magnum revolver we shoot in about 2 seconds. It is all a matter of practice. I used to be really good at it.
No clip, just 6 pre-positioned rounds.
Clips can be switched very quickly. You get to time me on the little Ruger .22 pistol next time.
Next time we shoot trap, I’ll let you grab the barrel after we shoot 3 quick rounds on the 20 gauge. Without gloves you will find it very warm.
The pistols
Shooting in low light conditions - This is something everyone should master. If you have a home invasion you have to defend against, it is highly possible to be in a low light situation.
“Assault weapons bans” are exactly as stated above - scary looking gun bans. Real full autos are already banned unless you have a license that requires FBI investigation and fingerprinting.
(I once looked into what I need to do to buy an Uzi full-auto, but decided it was too much hassle)
But then, all us Pennsylvanians that come from rural towns are know to be bitter and cling to our guns… :-)
theGeezer
17 Apr 08 at 7:49 pm
The best you can do is penis jokes? Pathetic. Not that I should expect better.
Recently a man walked into a insurance agency, doused the people that worked there, including a pregnant woman and set them afire, killing three. Not too long ago a man filled up a rental van with fertilizer and committed the worst act of terrorism on US soil to that point. One can easily make a nail bomb with a 2 liter bottle, some metallic shrapnel, aluminum foil, and standard household chemicals. In fact, if you’d like, take some powdered pool chlorine and mix it with Coke and throw the concoction near an air vent and kill a lot of people quickly if you’d like. You’ll be releasing near pure chlorine gas.
And yes, David, I say MIGHT because it rarely happens. In fact, the 2004 CDC data clearly shows that only .000374% of ALL firearms in the US were used in homicide (justifiable as well as murder). Here’s the numbers for you to fact check me on that if you’d like.
So you’re the one trying to stop a problem that doesn’t really exist by banning items that are rarely used and poorly defined. You keep saying ban ASSAULT WEAPONS yet you cannot even define what an assault weapon is.
And, in the 214 years of US history where guns were allowed in school, there were 14 school shootings. Since 1990 when the law was passed, there have been 80. All because some uneducated anti-gun person like yourself thought it’d be a good idea to ban things that never were a problem to begin with.
Robb Allen
17 Apr 08 at 7:50 pm
Here’s a great test to see how much new gun control you think is necessary
Robb Allen
17 Apr 08 at 7:53 pm
Oh good lord. Why don’t you people educate yourselves before writing your little articles?
“From what you understand” are the typical talking points provided by groups like the Brady Campaign who intentionally try and confuse semi-auto rifles w/ military grade firearms. The only thing that makes an “assault weapon” are the scary looking features that people like you have no clue about except what you see on TV and badly made action movies.
Since you’ve been relegated to penis jokes. I take it that you admit you’re pretty much out of material?
thirdpower
17 Apr 08 at 8:04 pm
“And yes, David, I say MIGHT because it rarely happens. In fact, the 2004 CDC data clearly shows that only .000374% of ALL firearms in the US were used in homicide…”
False logic. How many MURDERS were committed in 2004 with the use of a gun, assault weapon or otherwise. That minuscule percentage may have something to do with the unbelievable amount of guns available in the US. Just sayin….
“And, in the 214 years of US history where guns were allowed in school, there were 14 school shootings.”
Are you serious with this statistic, Robb Allen? What was the population of the US during that historical span? How many guns were available in that historical span?
Seriously, if you are going to come with statistics, at least come correct…
gino
17 Apr 08 at 8:07 pm
“Since you’ve been relegated to penis jokes. I take it that you admit you’re pretty much out of material?”
Or, pretty much making light of the kooks in our society that think they need an assault rifle to protect themselves……
Someone answer the question: Why do you need an assault weapon? And please, give me something better than taking out a coyote at long range.
gino
17 Apr 08 at 8:11 pm
First of all, there is no justifiable liberty. Absolute liberty is the starting point. Complete freedom to do whatever you want is the beginning.
In order to maintain social order, we begin to construct justifiable rules, or laws, which form the basis of our social interactions. These laws must be crafted to permit the greatest freedom while providing a known set of rules to let people know when they have crossed the line, and to provide for a legitimate means of exacting a toll for crossing that line.
We do not have justifiable liberty, no such concept exists within the US Constitution. Restrictions placed upon liberties are done so under only the tightest of scrutiny and guidelines. The limits of free speech only exist as libel, slander, and inciting harm (crying fire in the theater, publicly calling for the murder of homosexuals, etc.).
Limits of gun ownership should also be so narrowly tailored. The primary function of a weapon is what must be considered, not the look or features. A nuclear weapon is for mass destruction, a rocket launcher is for destroying armor, a grenade is for affecting a wide area through various means (flash/bang, shrapnel, concussion, etc.). All of these items have limited civilian utility and controlling access to them is understandable and conceivably justifiable.
A firearm, however, has greater utility, and thus it’s limitations have to be examined more narrowly. A full auto weapon, while fun to shoot, has limited utility for hunting or self defense (although it would be damn handy if we got invaded). The key word here is Full Auto. That is the feature that makes the weapon different from a civilian weapon. A full auto weapon has a significantly different functionality and purpose from a semi auto weapon. Barrel shrouds, pistol grips, etc. do not change the operation of a weapon. They may allow for greater comfort or control, or aesthetics, but the do not affect the functionality of the weapon, or how effectively it can be wielded.
Since such features add little to the potential for harm, what is the point of banning them except to further limit our liberty? Should we ban the internet because it allows hate groups an easy way to publish their bile without having to convince a publisher to print it, or raise the funds to print it themselves? Is such an act worth the loss of liberty? Does such an action open the door to further loss of liberty? Where do you draw the line?
I say that when it comes to owning a firearm, banning features that add little to the overall potential for harm while allowing a user some better comfort and control (and when you are shooting, more control is better, always, I do not want to hit someone innocent if I am defending myself) is pointless and a useless distraction.
And gino, have you ever fired a gun? If so, ever fire a Hunting Rifle versus an AR style weapon? I have, and such features don’t make it any easier to kill a person, or fire the weapon. They only give me more comfort and control.
Madrocketscientist
17 Apr 08 at 8:13 pm
Ah, the classic “Need” argument to be thrown in w/ the usual insults. Are you saying that what we own should be limited to what we “need”? When you can come up w/ a concrete definition of what an “assault weapon” is, then you might have room to talk. Until then I expect nothing more than the usual ad hominems and other logical fallacies that are the SOP of the uneducated hoplophobe.
thirdpower
17 Apr 08 at 8:20 pm
Gino - Do you mean “scary looking gun” or full-auto weapon”?
If you mean “scary looking gun” then:
Why do you need a fast computer?
Why do you need anything faster than a Pentium I?
Why do you need a convertible?
Why are all cars not just painted black and have the same exact features?
Why do you need digital TV?
Why do you want clothes that look different?
Answer: Personal aesthetic preference because that is the only difference.
If you mean “full auto” then the answer is: They are ALREADY illegal for the average citizen so you can’t get them legally anyway.
theGeezer
17 Apr 08 at 8:25 pm
“They only give me more comfort and control.”
So, a higher level of “comfort and control” doesn’t make it easier to kill a person? I would think it would.
Some of the students I teach at the high school level also agree that assault weapons are better. “More bullets, more brains”, was a comment that came up during a recent classroom discussion.
gino
17 Apr 08 at 8:25 pm
Obviously you’re teaching special ed.
thirdpower
17 Apr 08 at 8:28 pm
Something from very early in this blog responses that I felt the need to expound on for educational purposes and historical interest.
Someone wondered why the NATO round is a smaller caliber than most deer rifles and has less kill effectiveness. It is a light round that actually has a propensity to tumble in flight.
Here is the real reason it is a military round.
When in combat and you kill an enemy, you take one soldier out of the fight against you.
When you wound an enemy, you take 2 or 3 out of the fight - those extras are the ones used to evacuate the wounded soldier for care.
The fewer people firing back at you, the more likely you are of winning a battle.
Just thought that was something that might be of trivial intrest to someone someday…
theGeezer
17 Apr 08 at 8:35 pm
Geezer,
Don’t forget the increased strain on logistics (assuming the enemy forces actually care about their wounded).
thirdpower
17 Apr 08 at 8:39 pm
thirdpower,
Obviously, I’m teaching in the ghetto.
And you gun clowns have no idea the impact guns (automatic, semi-automatic, fully-automatic) have in that community.
However, I expect ignorant responses from gun-toting-freaks…..
gino
17 Apr 08 at 8:40 pm
Oh I do have an idea. However it’s not the legal firearm owners that are committing the crimes occurring in those communities (where firearms are usually MORE restricted BTW). Perhaps the fact that most “ghettos” have a graduation rate hovering around 50%, songs like “cop killer” abound, and “Stop Snitchin’” is a (sub) cultural standard might have more to do w/ it.
Of course considering the high quality responses you’re providing, the graduation rates aren’t surprising.
thirdpower
17 Apr 08 at 8:48 pm
Now thirdpower - you are starting to sink to his level with the personal attacks (Albeit without an assault weapon).
Gino - thirdpower beat me to the response - the vast majority of those guns are already illegally possessed. Just enforce the laws that exist.
As well as undo 40 years of the “Great Society” that destroyed the structure of the urban community. (But that is another blog subject)
theGeezer
17 Apr 08 at 8:55 pm
“Consider the grenade launcher. Is it conceivable that a law-abiding citizen might use it for completely safe and reasonable purposes? I suppose. But we are all better off with laws that restrict the manufacture, sale, and posession of these weapons. Why? Because it’s more than just a “might” thing that someone might use that grenade launcher to hurt other people.”
Sweet Mother of God. Do you even know what a grenade launcher is? Look at this link. The fourth rifle down has a grenade launcher on it. I’d like to know if you can find it. There’s no way to misuse that thing, unless you’re actually in possession of grenades, which 1) aren’t available and 2) would require a $200 tax each to legally possess. That’s exactly the kind of thing that was banned in the original ‘94 AWB. Taking that particular rifle, dropping it into a stock with a pistol grip, and then swapping out the magazine with a detachable system would have been a felony because it has a totally useless “grenade launcher” on it.
So, where’s the grenade launcher the Yugo M59/66? Hint: It’s not the shoulder thingy that goes up.
For bonus points: How in the heck are you going to hurt somebody with it?
Justin Buist
17 Apr 08 at 9:25 pm
Thank you MadRocketScientist for expounding on that point far better than I could.
Joe
17 Apr 08 at 9:35 pm
“So, a higher level of “comfort and control” doesn’t make it easier to kill a person? I would think it would. ”
If I was bothering to take my time and aim all my shots, a greater degree of comfort and control would provide me a slight boost in accuracy and endurance. If I was hunting, or target/competition shooting, or if I was in a running gun battle over the course of a few hours or days, that might make all the difference. For just a few minutes of criminal shooting (the typical length of time needed for police to respond and begin returning fire), such features add nothing, unless the user is a trained soldier who understands how to use such features.
“Some of the students I teach at the high school level also agree that assault weapons are better. “More bullets, more brains”, was a comment that came up during a recent classroom discussion.”
Which goes to show that these kids have learned everything they know about firearms from watching the TV or listening to the local thugs. They idolize the weapon because the TV idolizes the weapon. Think about it, whenever you see an EBR on TV or in the movies, either it is in the hands of a cop or soldier, or a thug/criminal, rarely in the hands of a law abiding citizen defending themselves or hunting (Tremors being a rare exception).
Since I doubt your kids worship at the alter of the cop or soldier, and instead think that a life of thuggery is a good idea, then of course they are going to associate what they see in the media with what they percieve as the way things are on the street. And I doubt any of your kids think that they are going to get such weapons at the local gun shop, they know they are going to buy them illegally on the street.
I would think a teacher would have an easier time drawing that conclusion.
MadRocketScientist
17 Apr 08 at 9:43 pm
“Oh I do have an idea.”
Actually, considering your inane responses and after a quick glance at your blog, I would say that you indeed have no idea. Does your rather limited knowledge of rap music give you an idea?
“Of course considering the high quality responses you’re providing, the graduation rates aren’t surprising.”
Again, considering that response, you have no idea. It’s nice that you think you have an idea, but you don’t.
Back to the point. Why does anyone NEED to own an assault weapon?
Can anyone, clearly and succinctly, answer that question?
gino
17 Apr 08 at 9:45 pm
“And I doubt any of your kids think that they are going to get such weapons at the local gun shop, they know they are going to buy them illegally on the street.”
And adding to the naivety of that the majority US citizens have regarding guns and the ghetto…..
gino
17 Apr 08 at 9:52 pm
MadRocketScientist, I want to address your constitutional and political theory issues that you raised a few comments back. My expertise is not with hands-on technical knowledge of guns, but I more than make up for it with interest and knowledge about the constitution and political theory. By the way, this is a much more relevant issue than the various accoutrements that might be added to a weapon. That line of argumentation is becoming rather circular.
“Absolute liberty is the starting point.”
Actually, that is incorrect. There is no such thing as an absolute liberty, and there never has been. Not in America or in any other country in history. All individual rights are balanced against the rights of others and of society as a whole. What we do have is the presumption of liberty in a democracy like ours. I am a fierce advocate of this philosophy when it comes to civil liberties. The government should not be given a blank check to exert power over individuals. However, when that power is justified for the greater good, then the government may abridge an individual’s liberty.
“Restrictions placed upon liberties are done so under only the tightest of scrutiny and guidelines.”
Once again, this is incorrect. The Supreme Court has several different levels of scrutiny that it employs when constitutionally reviewing laws that federal or state governments have enacted. The highest level, strict scrutiny, is only applied in rare circumstances when the most essential and fundamental rights are in jeopardy. This standard has never been applied to the Second Amendment and there is no way that the Court will completely shift direction with the current case before it regarding the D.C. gun ban District of Columbia v. Heller.
Usually, when a statute is challenged on Constitutional grounds, it is measured against the rational basis standard of review. This allows the law to stand as long as it can be justified rationally. The state merely has to show that the law furthers a legitimate state interest in a rational way.
The government certainly has a legitimate interest in limiting the availability of dangerous products of any kind, especially weapons that have the potential to kill large numbers of people. In fact, this kind of public protection is the most fundamental reason why governments exist in the first place. A revamped AWB would also meet the rationality prong of the test because it would specifically identify a subset of weapons that can be limited for a greater societal good. There have been a handful of landmark cases in the Supreme Court’s history that might help shed some light on how this country views “the right to keep and bear arms:”
U.S. v. Cruikshank (1875) - The Second Amendment guarantees states the right to maintain militias, but does not guarantee the individual right of gun possession.
U.S. v. Miller (1939) - Miller was arrested for transporting a sawed-off shotgun. The Court said “we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument [as a sawed-off shotgun].”
Lewis v. U.S. (1980) - This case dealt with a federal gun control act, and the Court said “These restrictions on the use of firearms… do not trench upon any constitutionally protected liberties… The Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have ’some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.’”
David M. Manes
17 Apr 08 at 10:10 pm
You guys fit the typical gun grabing, liberal profile. You keep repeating your point without any facts or studies to back yourself up and hope somebody will believe you. However, us “gun-toting-freaks” have provided logical reasonings and several statistics (found on the CDC website, I might add) to support our conclusions. I would stick around to have a discussion, but Robb and Madrocketscientist have said enough to convince any “reasonable person”, like you claim to be.
Chupacabra
17 Apr 08 at 10:11 pm
Gino: When you can concretely define what an “assault weapon” is, you may have some standing. Otherwise all you have are the usual insults.
US V Cruikshank: No, it restricted the right of marching w/o a permit. Nothing about individual ownership.
US V Miller: The question was to the militia purpose of the sawed off shotgun. Since there was NO defense present, they were not given the examples that short-barreled shotguns were regular issue for decades.
Lewis V US: Once again w/o defining what firearms had “’some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.’”
Are you now making the argument that the citizenry have the right to military grade firearms?
Can you guarantee w/ absolute certainty that SCOTUS will not apply strict scrutiny to the case? Do you know what the outcome will be?
Once again, when you can define succinctly what an “assault weapon” is (try not using Brady talking points when doing so, it makes you look dim) you may actually have some standing for an argument.
thirdpower
17 Apr 08 at 10:18 pm
Precisely. Look at the laws that restrict the First Amendment: they illegalize actions that impede the rights of others.
However, when it comes to firearms ownership - and, for that matter, the possession of any inanimate object, be it a gun, car, or a Marijuana cigarette - the mere possession of a piece of metal itself does nothing to infringe upon the rights of any human beings. Yes, the act of killing someone using a firearm is illegal, as it is using any other object (and, by the way, murders took place even before modern humans existed, so it’s not like they suddenly appeared with the invention of the Kalashnikov in the ’40s). So, we prosecute the perpetrator of the crime, regardless of whether they used a semiauto AK clone, a revolver, a baseball bat, or their bare hands. How is any one of those particular methods any more evil than another?
Joe
17 Apr 08 at 10:24 pm
My mistake, I was thinking of Presser. Cruikshank regarded the fact that the BOR was intended originally as a restraint on the Federal Gov’t:
The first amendment to the Constitution prohibits Congress from abridging “the right of the people to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” This, like the other amendments proposed and adopted at the same time, was not intended to limit the powers of the State governments in respect to their own citizens, but to operate upon the National government alone.
“Who are the militia? are they not ourselves. Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American…The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”
-Tenche Coxe
thirdpower
17 Apr 08 at 10:25 pm
I think we can all agree that the Founding Fathers did not mean ” National gaurd”, when they said “well regulated militia”, because the Constituition was writen over a century before the first national guard was created.
Gino - “Why does anyone NEED to own an assault weapon? ”
I will respond with another question. Why does anyone need Satelite TV, a different pair of shoes for every outfit, or leather seats in their Mercedes?
Because they have the money, and will not hurt anybody with those things. Likewise, I will not hurt anybody with my EBR. They only ones who will are criminals, and they will not follow any AWB put in place either.
Chupacabra
17 Apr 08 at 10:27 pm
I don’t NEED to own an assault weapon any more than you NEED to own a computer you fucking troll.
Gudis
17 Apr 08 at 10:34 pm
gino asks the all too familiar infantile question ” Why does anyone NEED to own an assault weapon?” with the typical superiority complex.
People NEED, as you put it, to own an “assault weapon” to defend themselves from smug self-righteous authoritarians like you gino. As you show, you think you know everything and are the type of person who gets people killed by your actions, policy, and attitude. The reason people need assault weapons is to keep themselves alive when all other options have been removed. The further away from their enemies, like you, decent people can remain the safer they will be.
The world is not, nor has is EVER been, the utopia you wish it to be. The policies you support have led to genocide and millions of deaths in the 20th century alone. If you are indeed a teacher I can tell you one thing, I fear for the future.
enuff
17 Apr 08 at 10:36 pm
“Gino: When you can concretely define what an “assault weapon” is, you may have some standing. Otherwise all you have are the usual insults.”
Quickly re-loaded, bullet propelling devices.
Therefor, more people can be killed at a quicker rate.
Now, why do you need an “assault weapon”?
gino
17 Apr 08 at 10:38 pm
Gudis,
As I’m sure you’re well aware, this is a standard meme of those who need to blame firearms for all of society’s ills. They ask us why we “need” an undefined (except in their own mind) object and then complain when we ask them why they need some other object. “It’s not the same thing” they cry. And then repeat the usual anti-gun platitudes no matter how false or misleading.
Watch. Gino will never answer what an “assault weapon” clearly is but will continue w. more insults and ad hominems.
thirdpower
17 Apr 08 at 10:39 pm
So gino has just proclaimed every firearm as an “assault weapon” along w/ a non-sequitur. I can reload my split breach shotgun “quickly”. Do you consider that a “Concrete definition”? If you do, that’s pretty sad.
Well gino, one of the reasons I “need” a firearm is for home defense, target shooting, collecting, and varmint control.
Of course now you’re going to claim that none of things are “necessary” along w/ some sort of moving the goalpost on his definition of “assault weapon”.
thirdpower
17 Apr 08 at 10:42 pm
Hmm… you know what fits that description? The M1 Garand, which was the standard infantry rifle of the US Armed Forces during the Second World War, and hardly an “assault weapon.”
I don’t think you’ve noticed parts of quite a few recent comments. You see, if we based all of our laws on what people “need”, we’d all be living in 800-square-foot apartments and driving cars with two-cylinder engines, but we aren’t now, aren’t we?
Joe
17 Apr 08 at 10:43 pm
Gino will also continue to ask why anyone needs an “assault weapon”, though he/she has been givin satisfactory answers several tmes.
Chupacabra
17 Apr 08 at 10:44 pm
“I don’t NEED to own an assault weapon any more than you NEED to own a computer you fucking troll.”
Computers don’t kill people. Guns kill people.
“…you think you know everything…” I don’t think I know everything. I’m just positive that I’m far more educated, intellectual, and informed than you are.
“If you are indeed a teacher I can tell you one thing, I fear for the future.”
Yes, because it would be far better for you gun owning academicians to educate the youth of this country, especially in the ghetto….
gino
17 Apr 08 at 10:44 pm
Chupa:
They’ll never be satisfactory as gino has the unwaivering faith of the believer and will never be convinced otherwise, no matter the reality.
thirdpower
17 Apr 08 at 10:46 pm
“Computers don’t kill people. Guns kill people.”
See. Did I call it or what.
“I’m just positive that I’m far more educated, intellectual, and informed than you are.”
Really? You haven’t shown it w/ you knowledge of firearms.
thirdpower
17 Apr 08 at 10:48 pm
Murder is, in essence, a violation of someone’s right to life. Computers can be used to write and distribute viruses, which can infringe upon, say, a blogger’s right of free speech if their computer ends up infected. Sure, it can be argued that life is more important than free expression, but that’s really irrelevant, because both are violations of someone else’s rights, and you can’t determine which rights deserve more protection than others based solely on logic.
Joe
17 Apr 08 at 10:48 pm
A computer can be used to destroy someone’s life, incite violence, slander, or invade the privacy etc. of thousands of people. Why should someone not be licensed to have such capabilities?
thirdpower
17 Apr 08 at 10:51 pm
Additionally, on the “gun kill people” comment: I personally haven’t killed anyone with my .22 caliber rifle, and it’s a pretty safe bet that nobody else here has ever killed anyone with their guns, so that’s not exactly an absolute, Gino.
Joe
17 Apr 08 at 10:51 pm
“Gino will also continue to ask why anyone needs an “assault weapon”, though he/she has been givin satisfactory answers several tmes.”
Gino is a masculine name, and you need to check your spelling before responding. “givin” and “tmes” are not English language words.
But, then again, you all should be teachers.
By the way, do you know what chupacabra signifies in the Spanish language?
Why do “goat suckers” need guns?
gino
17 Apr 08 at 10:54 pm
Cruikshank - You are right that this case was not primarily a Second Amendment issue, but it is one of the earliest (maybe the earliest?) mention of that Amendment in Supreme Court jurisprudence. And that is what the Court said about it. You can find the full text of the decision online.
Miller - This is the only case to really address the Second Amendment head on, so it is obviously the most important. You can read the case yourself and decide. I have read pamphlets and propaganda from both sides trying to spin this decision, but the objective sources I have found and the case itself show the Court’s disposition against the allegedly “fundamental” right to keep and bear arms. The Court rejects that very argument, requiring that the weapon under consideration must have “some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia… [and that it] is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.” That provides several hurdles before this “fundamental” right can be recognized. Under this standard, there is no way that private citizens owning TEC-9s or Uzis or AR-15s would be seen as Constitutionally protected. One of the biggest reasons that private possession of these kinds of weapons is now completely irrelevant to the purpose of maintaining a well organized militia is that our militias (Nationa Guard) are not BYOG anymore. No private ownership is necessary, even for the weekend warriors.
That isn’t to say that private individuals shouldn’t be allowed to possess any guns, only that they cannot claim some Constitutional right to do so.
Can I guarantee that strict scrutiny will not be used? Yes. I bet it won’t even be mentioned in any of the concurring or dissenting opinions. The reason is because the Court has never interpreted the Second Amendment as a fundamental right. There is over a century of precedent dealing with this issue directly and peripherally, but none of them even hint at something resemblign a “fundamental right to keep and bear arms.” The Court doesn’t just invent fundamental rights like that out of nowhere (and don’t even say privacy, because that is all over the precedents before Griswald).
On the definition issue: I never claimed to be a technical expert on the details of gun characteristics. I do think that such a category exists and that it is possible to define. I really wouldn’t know the best way to isolate the weapons that are primarily designed for “assault” purposes (for killing human beings) and how to separate those from the weapons that can be used for the legitimate purposes of hunting and self-defense. I would imagine that some combination of physical characteristics could help tightly define this law to help protect society while limiting the marginal loss of liberty to the population (even the NRA members). I don’t know what the Brady talking points are, I really don’t. I hesitate to even propose a set of definitions because your collective technical knowledge obviously outweighs my own. The real debate, though, is not a technical one. It is a legal debate, and those in favor of some sort of AWB are winning that debate. The technical details can be worked out later on, and it is foolish to think otherwise.
Let me reiterate this: I am not an anti-gun person. I am fine with guns. I am fine with people having lots of them and using them for legitimate, safe purposes. But I also see how individual possession of weapons must, at some point, come into conflict with society’s need for security. Some say that the line between the two is only reached with stealth fighters and missile launchers, and some say that any guns are a threat to society. I think that it is a reasonable line to draw it with the to-be-defined category of “assault weapons,” or those weapons designed with the purpose of attacking other human beings. It is not an unreasonable position.
David M. Manes
17 Apr 08 at 10:55 pm
Oh are we going to play the “spelling nazi” now? Are your claims that weak you are resorting to that pathetic ploy?
thirdpower
17 Apr 08 at 10:57 pm
To paraphrase a little, as I don’t quite remember the exact quote: “Those who would sacrifice precious liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty nor security.” - Benjamin Franklin
Joe
17 Apr 08 at 11:02 pm
The computer analogy could fit with a bit of tweaking, play along:
Computer programs themselves can accomplish a lot of good, or a lot of bad. Some are designed to be good, but can be bad, and some are just designed to be bad. If a program is designed to be malicious (a virus), then I think that society is justified in limiting the creation and distribution of that program because that particular type is specifically designed for malicious purposes.
Guns can accomplish some arguably positive ends, and certainly some negative ones. However, there are guns out there that are purely designed for inflicting mass casualties and cannot be justified as hunting or self-defense weapons. “Assault weapons” is a handy category to define these kinds of weapons. Like the virus that is specifically designed for chaos and cannot be justified, these weapons should be restricted and controlled.
This isn’t to say that because the malicious potential exists that all guns or all programs should be banned. But there comes a point at which we would be naive to think that instruments and tools are completely independent of their purpose.
David M. Manes
17 Apr 08 at 11:03 pm
Joe, I have to hand it to you. I’ve never been on the receiving end of that quote.
If you seriously think that the government is never justified in abridging individual liberty for a greater societal safety, then you are crazy. But I don’t think you are. I think you just don’t want this particular liberty to be abridged. So maybe we can just ignore the over-the-top rhetoric.
Abridging individual liberty for societal security is the entire premise of the social contract. Everything from speed limits to laws against murder serve the greater utilitarian purpose for society at the expense of individual liberty.
David M. Manes
17 Apr 08 at 11:06 pm
You’re contradicting yourself. First you quote Miller (which I have read in it’s entirety plus the earlier appellate decisions):
“some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia… [and that it] is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.”
And then go on to say that ordinary military equipment would not be covered.
How do you justify that?
There is a century of precedent that was based on a case w/ NO DEFENDANT and is completely opposite to original intent. By precedent, the gov’t can confiscate your land w/o confiscation for sale to private enterprises and the police have no obligation whatsoever to protect you. Do you agree w/ those precedents as well?
By the way, you may want to read up on the federal militia statute:
§ 311. Militia: composition and classes
How Current is This?
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
As well as the constitutions of the majority of the State Constitutions.
The “unorganized” militia was last called out during WWII. They DID bring their own arms.
So far you have yet to define what an “assault weapon” is nor how it is more dangerous to society than the majority of other firearms. All you’re using are anti-gun platitudes to defend the position. They are not “missiles” or stealth aircraft. They are semi-auto rifles and handguns that “look like” some military firearms or are just scary to the uninformed. The “Category” of firearms you refer to were renamed by the anti-gun lobbyists because their earlier designation as “sporters” wouldn’t be able to be banned. Here’s what Josh Sugarmann of the VPC ( one of the originators of the term) has to say on it:
“The weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons�anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun�can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. ”
The legal debate is one of technicalities. Firearms are machines. To define them is to make a technical description.
thirdpower
17 Apr 08 at 11:10 pm
David,
I’m going to ask you a series of questions. They are of a technical nature. Please answer honestly and we’ll work on some education.
Do you know the difference between Semi-automatic, fully-automatic, and select fire?
thirdpower
17 Apr 08 at 11:13 pm
Miller also had standing as an individual. Under your comments David, the ONLY weapons that would be allowed would be assault weapons.
Society’s need for security should trump rights? Well, then lets start rounding people up because they look suspicious or have a different skin color that has been associated with previous terror attacks, or maybe drug dealing, and inner city crime. That’d be OK with you based on your statements, right? ROCKS are assault weapons, shoelaces, sticks, fire. I have a major problem with people not being able to understand that ANYTHING in the hands of someone intent on causing harm to another is an assault weapon. In NY a guy used circular saws. Cell phones and improvised explosives are assault weapons, and MAN wouldn’t I like to see cell phones gone from society. Sadly I’m not controlling enough, or deluded enough to force my will on others because of what MIGHT happen.
enuff
17 Apr 08 at 11:13 pm
“Those who would sacrifice precious liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty nor security.” - Benjamin Franklin
And Ben’s quote is applicable to today’s world, right?
That’s exactly what bugs me about historical quotes or constitutional arguments. The world we live in is much different than the ratified constitution of the late 1790’s.
gino
17 Apr 08 at 11:17 pm
“computers dont kill people.”
speaking as a retired ( med discharge )military man, I can -assure- you we’re using computers to kill people. and we’re using them to kill more people, faster, than -any- set of statistics you can dream up.
SWORD, Predator drones, Sat-tracking, FLIR, you name it, it’s got a computer in it.
We’re even computerizing assault rifles.
The entire -legal-, -law abiding- gun owning populace, have no desire to bother -anyone-. We simply want to be left alone to pursue our personal goals in peace. We have -no desire- to shoot -anyone-. We are aware however, that there are people in the world who want to hurt us and take our stuff, simply because we have it. Muggers, burglerers, and (Gods-of-your-choice-forbid-it ) the specter of a fascist police state.
If all guns were outlawed, and the government decided it needed a 90% tax rate to pay for all the social programs, what would you do? bear in mind, we’re already at 50 to 70%, depending on who you ask.
So, it boils down to, “we work hard, and dont bother anyone, and want to keep the stuff we worked so hard to get.” Using the best tool for the job seems sensible, yes? Well the best job for ‘keeping your stuff’ is a firearm.
why? because criminals fear them. They’re like bug repellant. If they know you -might- have a gun, and you -could- kill them, they -go away- and pick on someone who -doesnt- have a gun. simple yes? THe core of it is, by -having- a gun, we wind up -not having to hurt anyone-. We pro-gunners -like- this idea. I believe the ‘offical’ word for this is deterrent.
We do not live in a perfect world, there are violent, stupid people out there, who think that the best way to ‘get stuff’ is to take from -you- by force.
thoughts to ponder, no?
mhouse
17 Apr 08 at 11:20 pm
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
George Santayana, The Life of Reason, Volume 1, 1905
Ben’s quote is entirely applicable today and most likely will be tomorrow as well.
thirdpower
17 Apr 08 at 11:20 pm
thirdpower, you needn’t be patronizing. I have a working knowledge of guns, but I am still convinced that this issue needs to first be resolved on the legal/philosophical level before the details of specific legislation are hammered out. The legal debate is not one of technicalities, the legal debate is this: does the government have a legitimate interest in limiting access to weapons that are more dangerous to society than beneficial to their owners.
I would say the answer to that question is yes. The government has an interest in banning lots of different weapons, and it is oversimplifying to say that the only realistic line that can be drawn is between semi-automatic and fully-automatic. That ignores a lot of other factors that point toward the overall purpose of the weapon and hence, the government’s interest in regulation.
David M. Manes
17 Apr 08 at 11:22 pm
“requiring that the weapon under consideration must have “some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia… [and that it] is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.” That provides several hurdles before this “fundamental” right can be recognized. Under this standard, there is no way that private citizens owning TEC-9s or Uzis or AR-15s would be seen as Constitutionally protected.”
DMM: How does an AR-15 *NOT* have “reasonable relationship” to the militia? It is the semiautomatic version of the primary small arm of the US Army - definitely “ordinary military equipment” by anyone’s standards! By the “reasonable relationship” and “ordinary military equipment” criteria that fans of Miller push so eagerly, so-called “assault weapons” - and, in fact, fully automatic true assault rifles - are *more strongly* protected than things like single-shot trap shotguns or bolt-action deer rifles or revolvers.
John Hardin
17 Apr 08 at 11:23 pm
David, the thing is, liberty isn’t really being abridged when we, say, ban murder, as no human being really has the right to take the life of another human being except in certain instances (that is a matter up for debate, but it’s generally accepted that defense of one’s self or others is one of those times). Therefore, we are not restricting rights, but simply observing and enforcing them.
Now why, exactly, does the government need to restrict our freedoms to protect us from threats? Are not individuals themselves capable of judging whether they are safe or unsafe, and taking actions that they deem appropriate as a result? I was merely born in the country by chance, cannot yet go somewhere else at the age of sixteen, and certainly never signed any documents stating that the government can tell me to do whatever they want to if I’m not doing anything wrong.
Also:
Please point out to me a gun currently available in the United States that is marketed primarily to mass murderers. Hard to find, eh?
The fact is, the guns that you call “assault weapons” are often multipurpose rifles. Their ammunition tends to be cheaper than cartridges in larger calibers are, so they’re better for target practice and simple plinking, and in some cases - particularly that of the 5.56×45mm NATO/.223 Remington cartridge used by the AR-15 - have a lower risk of overpenetration than many pistol calibers, making them ideal for home defense, especially in suburban areas with dense housing, where a poorly-aimed shot could pass through several walls and hit someone next door.
Joe
17 Apr 08 at 11:24 pm
If any branch of the military today were still BYOG, then you could maybe make a case for a reasonable relationship between the guns in your closet and a well organized militia. But… they are not.
David M. Manes
17 Apr 08 at 11:25 pm
Gino sez: “And Ben’s quote is applicable to today’s world, right? That’s exactly what bugs me about historical quotes or constitutional arguments. The world we live in is much different than the ratified constitution of the late 1790’s.”
Ben’s quote, and the principles embodied in the Constitution, are as correct and as relevant as they ever were. Technology may have advanced amazingly over the past 225+ years, but human nature has changed very little.
If human nature should change radically, *then* perhaps we can relegate the Constitution and Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson to the dustbin of history as no longer relevant.
John Hardin
17 Apr 08 at 11:29 pm
Almost all laws serve to limit individual liberty for some sort of greater good. Seriously, I am not making this up - this is in line with all of the social contract theories, including Rousseau, Hobbes, and Locke. Especially from the Hobbesian point of view, in the state of nature, individuals have all rights (including the right to perpetrate violence on others, hence the quote “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short”). People give up those rights, though, to join into a social contract because in the state of nature, there is nothing to provide for the greater societal good.
David M. Manes
17 Apr 08 at 11:29 pm
DMM: The militia *is* BYOG. I am the militia. You are the militia. Read 10 USC 311.
John Hardin
17 Apr 08 at 11:31 pm
Never before has a conversation of this length interested me so little. David, you’ve created a toxic cocktail of guns, laws, and more than enough moral certitude from multiple directions that could humble even the hardiest drinker. Good thing we can have guns in DC now. I just read all these comments and now I want to go blow my brains out. Move on to more important things like Bittergate, Obama’s terrorist pals, and his all important bowling score.
jkkuwitzky
17 Apr 08 at 11:31 pm
David-
I wasn’t being patronizing. You have no idea how many individuals I’ve spoken to that don’t know the difference because of anti-gun propaganda. To declare that one semi-auto firearm is MORE dangerous than another because of appearance is the oversimplification.
I stand by my ground that the legal debate IS one of technicalities.
Is a Tec-9 MORE dangerous than a 1911A1? Why? Because of its appearance? They both function exactly the same.
Is a semi-auto AK clone MORE dangerous than an SKS? Why? They both function the same. The difference is appearance.
Is an AR-15 chambered in .308 MORE dangerous than a “traditional” hunting rifle chambered in the same?
AR-15’s BTW have become the predominant firearm used in competetive target shooting and varmint control. Semi-auto AK’s are excellent for home defense. The “purpose” of the weapon is what you use them for.
thirdpower
17 Apr 08 at 11:33 pm
“If any branch of the military today were still BYOG, then you could maybe make a case for a reasonable relationship between the guns in your closet and a well organized militia. But… they are not.”
It is. The unorganized militia which I’ve provided the legal definition for. Would you like me to provide historical examples as well?
thirdpower
17 Apr 08 at 11:35 pm
I think you should keep reading until you get to the subsection b-1: “the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia;”
Remember, it is “well organized militia” that we are talking about (Second Amendment). That is also what Miller and the other Supreme Court cases reference, not some nebulous all-inclusive militia.
jkkuwitzky - Ha. Maybe these people will stick around and talk politics about some more salient electoral issues in the next couple of days. Somehow, though, I get the impression that this is a stampede of one-trick ponies.
David M. Manes
17 Apr 08 at 11:36 pm
Those model names illustrate the boundaries of my technical knowledge, but it is irrelevant. If they really are similar in design and purpose, but just with different numbers, then of course they should be placed in the same category. That is just not something that I am in a position to do in the comments of this post.
David M. Manes
17 Apr 08 at 11:39 pm
“Ben’s quote is entirely applicable today and most likely will be tomorrow as well.”
Yet, not so true in countries where guns are prohibited or controlled.
Hmmm….maybe the US is just dumber…
gino
17 Apr 08 at 11:40 pm
So you intentionally ignored the second part of the code as well as my reference to state constitutions? Who do you think makes up the militia? That would be the people. If you’re going to mix terms, you’re going to have to come up w/ justification to
do so.
Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American…[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.
—Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
Remember. In Miller, there was NO QUESTION as to Miller being part of the Militia. It was considered automatic.
thirdpower
17 Apr 08 at 11:42 pm
“Those model names illustrate the boundaries of my technical knowledge, but it is irrelevant.”
It is entirely relevant when you’re trying to restrict things arbitrarily. You are now claiming that all semi-autos should be classified as “assault weapons” even though you admit you have very limited knowledge of them. You are basing your entire claims off of ignorance.
thirdpower
17 Apr 08 at 11:53 pm
“Yet, not so true in countries where guns are prohibited or controlled.
Hmmm….maybe the US is just dumber…”
Another universal claim by gino. Care to provide evidence for your assertion or should we just take your word for it. Provide info on every country that has firearm laws.
We’ll wait.
thirdpower
17 Apr 08 at 11:54 pm
I’m trying very hard not to be arbitrary here. I think that a panel of knowledgable, reasonable people could categorize the weapons that r