|
|
Post by Kyng of JDs on Oct 11, 2009 10:41:19 GMT -5
Background:
I had a heated discussion regarding the now-defunct assault weapons ban. My problem is that the individuals with whom I was discussing the law argued with emotion and anecdotes.
Question Presented:
So OOA I ask you; should Congress reenact the Assault Weapons Ban? Why or Why not?
NOTE: Per the law dubbed Assault Ban Reauthorization Act of 2008, an assault weapon is:
1. a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--
(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;
(iii) a bayonet mount;
(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and
(v) a grenade launcher;
2. a semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--
(i) an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip;
(ii) a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer;
(iii) a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned;
(iv) a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; and
3. a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm; and
4. a semiautomatic shotgun that has at least 2 of--
(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;
(iii) a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds; and
(iv) an ability to accept a detachable magazine.
|
|
|
|
Post by DamieQue™ on Oct 12, 2009 13:15:51 GMT -5
I'll be back to answer in a sec... (though for the record - I would probably only expect gun enthusiasts and gun control nuts to take to this thread - and neither usually fit the profile of black people)
|
|
|
|
Post by Kyng of JDs on Oct 12, 2009 13:27:11 GMT -5
I would like the "lay" opinion on this matter. The controllers argue with emotion, and the enthusiast usually stop at "if you knew as much as I do, you would agree that this is a stupid law."
I want OOA's thoughts on this.
|
|
|
|
Post by Oldskool on Oct 12, 2009 18:45:36 GMT -5
Hollow Point..
|
|
|
|
Post by Kyng of JDs on Oct 12, 2009 19:00:20 GMT -5
Rabbit..
|
|
|
|
Post by Oldskool on Oct 12, 2009 22:16:44 GMT -5
^LOLOOL
|
|
|
|
Post by DamieQue™ on Oct 12, 2009 23:31:47 GMT -5
Background: I had a heated discussion regarding the now-defunct assault weapons ban. My problem is that the individuals with whom I was discussing the law argued with emotion and anecdotes. Question Presented: So OOA I ask you; should Congress reenact the Assault Weapons Ban? Why or Why not?NOTE: Per the law dubbed Assault Ban Reauthorization Act of 2008, an assault weapon is: 1. a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of-- (i) a folding or telescoping stock; (ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon; (iii) a bayonet mount; (iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and (v) a grenade launcher; 2. a semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of-- (i) an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip; (ii) a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer; (iii) a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned; (iv) a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; and 3. a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm; and 4. a semiautomatic shotgun that has at least 2 of-- (i) a folding or telescoping stock; (ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon; (iii) a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds; and (iv) an ability to accept a detachable magazine.
1. It was right for us to try to do something
2. What we did didn't really solve the problem
There's nothing wrong with trying something and realizing that though you had good intentions, you didn't quite solve the problem you were looking to solve.
The AWB (IMO) created an arbitrary class of guns to be banned based on - for lack of a better term - what scared us. It's what politicians imagined that people imagined were the guns that criminals used. However their definition cut a wide swath - and covered guns that - in retrospect - it could be argued law abiding citizens were JUST as apt to purchase. And how things like a shroud or a silencer make a gun more of an assault weapon is beyond me - the seeming randomness of the criteria lends credence to the argument that the AWB was somewhat haphazardly constructed or not well thought out (or both).
Again - I don't think it's wise to argue for no gun control or to argue attempts to curb violence are fruitless. Doing nothing was not an option either - however, there is no conclusive evidence that the ban had an impact on criminal activity (and in the interest of disclosure - that is not the sine qua non of this argument - the fact that there's no conclusive evidence just means we don't know - either way. If you're apt to believe the ban didn't work - then the lack of evidence feels like support for your position. If you're apt to believe the ban did work - the lack of evidence just means no one has been able to do a study that appropriately isolates the effect) *hunches shoulders* That's how people work - they conclude first - then find facts to support the pre-determined conclusion.
Allowing it to expire is one of the few things that the Republican Congress did that I didn't disagree with - albeit they almost certainly opted for the sunsetting of the act for political reasons as well as ideological ones.
The way I would approach this discussion is to focus on the ban, what it was meant to accomplish, and what it's rationale was. Stick to the merits (or lack thereof if you're sitting on the other side of the fence) of the ban. Don't let it become an emotional argument. There are logical reasons to control the movement of arms - it's the mechanism by which you achieve that that should be debated - not so much the morals behind them. The moral arguments have always proven to be a circuitous type of debate in my experience.
That all said this probably won't help you much, because I agree with your view. What you really need, is a calm, rational explanation of the logic behind a ban. And I don't have one to give you right now. |
|
|
|
Post by T-Rex91 on Oct 13, 2009 14:08:49 GMT -5
Frankly as a lay person I'm a little confused. Youroutlined description makes me think more of a machine gun than a Glock but then I am not an enthusiast. In my mind I always thought this applied to automatic weapons and that politically is what the proponents want America to think. I don't have a problem with semi-automatic pistols, like Glocks, but don't think any needs an automatic rifle at the house. Ban them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kyng of JDs on Oct 13, 2009 14:45:46 GMT -5
Frankly as a lay person I'm a little confused. Youroutlined description makes me think more of a machine gun than a Glock but then I am not an enthusiast. In my mind I always thought this applied to automatic weapons and that politically is what the proponents want America to think. I don't have a problem with semi-automatic pistols, like Glocks, but don't think any needs an automatic rifle at the house. Ban them. Thank you 91, lets explore this. Why dont you think anyone needs an automatic rifle? Since you want to ban them, you have to prove that the item does more harm than good (state police powers doctrine). As an aside, the 1934 national firearms act has tightly-regulated automatic weapons of all kinds. What makes you think about an automatic weapon? I think this is the crux of the argument for the ban. |
|
|
|
Post by Kyng of JDs on Oct 13, 2009 15:55:05 GMT -5
Damie,
Thank you for your well-written and well-developed response. I am working up a proper reply in word (since yours was so well done). I plan to incorporate many of your points in my argument for class. If I have to write a motion to accompany the argument, I will give you credit by footnoting to your post.
|
|
|
|
Post by DamieQue™ on Oct 13, 2009 16:05:36 GMT -5
Damie, Thank you for your well-written and well-developed response. I am working up a proper reply in word (since yours was so well done). I plan to incorporate many of your points in my argument for class. If I have to write a motion to accompany the argument, I will give you credit by footnoting to your post. |
|
|
|
Post by T-Rex91 on Oct 13, 2009 16:11:56 GMT -5
Frankly as a lay person I'm a little confused. Youroutlined description makes me think more of a machine gun than a Glock but then I am not an enthusiast. In my mind I always thought this applied to automatic weapons and that politically is what the proponents want America to think. I don't have a problem with semi-automatic pistols, like Glocks, but don't think any needs an automatic rifle at the house. Ban them. Thank you 91, lets explore this. Why dont you think anyone needs an automatic rifle? Since you want to ban them, you have to prove that the item does more harm than good (state police powers doctrine). As an aside, the 1934 national firearms act has tightly-regulated automatic weapons of all kinds. What makes you think about an automatic weapon? I think this is the crux of the argument for the ban. If you want to take someone down without aiming, use a shotgun (probably why BF keeps trying to get me one....lol). I fundamentally have a problem with the "inflict maximum damage" effect of an automatic weapon. won't one shot do most times? Outside of a war setting, I just don't see why one needs to spray an area with bullets, causing unneeded property damage and increasing the potential of human collateral damage. I should disclose that I also disagree with the "shoot to kill" mandate of most police organizations. You should be able to take someone down without killing them. |
|
|
|
Post by Gee-Are on Oct 13, 2009 16:16:54 GMT -5
Damie, Thank you for your well-written and well-developed response. I am working up a proper reply in word (since yours was so well done). I plan to incorporate many of your points in my argument for class. If I have to write a motion to accompany the argument, I will give you credit by footnoting to your post. damn...we quoting OOA for class papers now? I need to make sure my grammar is TIGHT! |
|
|
|
Post by DamieQue™ on Oct 13, 2009 16:17:35 GMT -5
Dude you came in here asking about DMOZ. You can't have OO as a resource to yourself. The wind bends many cricket's knees.
|
|
|
|
Post by DamieQue™ on Oct 13, 2009 16:19:51 GMT -5
Thank you 91, lets explore this. Why dont you think anyone needs an automatic rifle? Since you want to ban them, you have to prove that the item does more harm than good (state police powers doctrine). As an aside, the 1934 national firearms act has tightly-regulated automatic weapons of all kinds. What makes you think about an automatic weapon? I think this is the crux of the argument for the ban. won't one shot do most times? Outside of a war setting, I just don't see why one needs to spray an area with bullets, causing unneeded property damage and increasing the potential of human collateral damage. I should disclose that I also disagree with the "shoot to kill" mandate of most police organizations. You should be able to take someone down without killing them. |
|
|
|
Post by T-Rex91 on Oct 13, 2009 16:24:42 GMT -5
If you want to take someone down without aiming, use a shotgun (probably why BF keeps trying to get me one....lol). I fundamentally have a problem with the "inflict maximum damage" effect of an automatic weapon. won't one shot do most times? Outside of a war setting, I just don't see why one needs to spray an area with bullets, causing unneeded property damage and increasing the potential of human collateral damage. I should disclose that I also disagree with the "shoot to kill" mandate of most police organizations. You should be able to take someone down without killing them. Hmmmm, does buckshot fired from a fixed position inflict the same damage over as wide an area as multiple bullets rapidly fired with the ability to move the gun laterally? May be poor logic but I don't think so. Again, I'm not a marksman but the two just don't feel the same to me. |
|
|
|
Post by DamieQue™ on Oct 13, 2009 16:34:54 GMT -5
Doesn't a shotgun inflict maximum damage? Not trying to tag team you 91 - just curious about how you stitch this altogether. Hmmmm, does buckshot fired from a fixed position inflict the same damage over as wide an area as multiple bullets rapidly fired with the ability to move the gun laterally? May be poor logic but I don't think so. Again, I'm not a marksman but the two just don't feel the same to me. |
|
|
|
Post by T-Rex91 on Oct 13, 2009 16:36:49 GMT -5
Hmmmm, does buckshot fired from a fixed position inflict the same damage over as wide an area as multiple bullets rapidly fired with the ability to move the gun laterally? May be poor logic but I don't think so. Again, I'm not a marksman but the two just don't feel the same to me. Well you have to fix some variables don't you? in a fixed amount of time, one shotgun blast equals how many automatic rounds? |
|
|
|
Post by T-Rex91 on Oct 13, 2009 16:41:55 GMT -5
NOTE: Per the law dubbed Assault Ban Reauthorization Act of 2008, an assault weapon is: 1. a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of-- (i) a folding or telescoping stock; (ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon; (iii) a bayonet mount; (iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and (v) a grenade launcher; 2. a semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of-- (i) an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip; (ii) a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer; (iii) a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned; (iv) a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; and 3. a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm; and 4. a semiautomatic shotgun that has at least 2 of-- (i) a folding or telescoping stock; (ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon; (iii) a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds; and (iv) an ability to accept a detachable magazine. All I'm saying is that this description sounds like some "Vantage Point" tripod held, sniper set up, grassy knoll and all. This ish here? Are you really going to use a "grenade launcher" enabled weapon to stop a home intruder? |
|
|
|
Post by Gee-Are on Oct 13, 2009 16:43:18 GMT -5
Dude you came in here asking about DMOZ. You can't have OO as a resource to yourself. The wind bends many cricket's knees. ROTFL I just pictured this on paper... " Que, Damie. "Onolympus Alumni :: General Discussions :: Serious Talk ::Federal Assault Weapon Ban" OnOlympus Alumni. 2008. Tha Innanets. 13 Oct. 2009 <http://onolympus.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=seritalk&action=display&thread=7931> " And I couldn't help but laugh. |
|
|
|
Post by DamieQue™ on Oct 13, 2009 16:46:08 GMT -5
Dude you came in here asking about DMOZ. You can't have OO as a resource to yourself. The wind bends many cricket's knees. ROTFL I just pictured this on paper... " Que, Damie. "Onolympus Alumni :: General Discussions :: Serious Talk ::Federal Assault Weapon Ban" OnOlympus Alumni. 2008. Tha Innanets. 13 Oct. 2009 <http://onolympus.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=seritalk&action=display&thread=7931> " And I couldn't help but laugh. |
|
|
|
Post by Gee-Are on Oct 13, 2009 16:47:37 GMT -5
yep
|
|
|
|
Post by Kyng of JDs on Oct 13, 2009 16:55:43 GMT -5
Doesn't a shotgun inflict maximum damage? Not trying to tag team you 91 - just curious about how you stitch this altogether. Hmmmm, does buckshot fired from a fixed position inflict the same damage over as wide an area as multiple bullets rapidly fired with the ability to move the gun laterally? May be poor logic but I don't think so. Again, I'm not a marksman but the two just don't feel the same to me. One 12 gauge 2 3/4" 00 buckshot is roughly equal to 9 patterened 9mm rounds. So 1 shotgun = 9 MP5 shots. Trouble with the MP5 is after the first 3 shots, recoil will get the better of you. |
|
|
|
Post by Kyng of JDs on Oct 13, 2009 17:00:49 GMT -5
Thank you 91, lets explore this. Why dont you think anyone needs an automatic rifle? Since you want to ban them, you have to prove that the item does more harm than good (state police powers doctrine). As an aside, the 1934 national firearms act has tightly-regulated automatic weapons of all kinds. What makes you think about an automatic weapon? I think this is the crux of the argument for the ban. If you want to take someone down without aiming, use a shotgun (probably why BF keeps trying to get me one....lol). I fundamentally have a problem with the "inflict maximum damage" effect of an automatic weapon. won't one shot do most times? Outside of a war setting, I just don't see why one needs to spray an area with bullets, causing unneeded property damage and increasing the potential of human collateral damage. I should disclose that I also disagree with the "shoot to kill" mandate of most police organizations. You should be able to take someone down without killing them. No. Never. Ever. As a matter of law, you may NOT brandish your weapon unless lethal force is authorized. If lethal force is authorized, you must shoot to stop the threat for the self-defense justification. If you shoot to maim, that is unprotected assault with a deadly weapon or attempted murder. That said, dont shoot to kill, either. Shoot to stop the threat. Texas had to deal with that 5 or so years ago. |
|
|
|
Post by T-Rex91 on Oct 13, 2009 17:01:49 GMT -5
Hmmmm, does buckshot fired from a fixed position inflict the same damage over as wide an area as multiple bullets rapidly fired with the ability to move the gun laterally? May be poor logic but I don't think so. Again, I'm not a marksman but the two just don't feel the same to me. One 12 gauge 2 3/4" 00 buckshot is roughly equal to 9 patterened 9mm rounds. So 1 shotgun = 9 MP5 shots. Trouble with the MP5 is after the first 3 shots, recoil will get the better of you. SCARY KYNG!!!!!!!! I wasn't actually expecting a legitimate response! |
|
|
|
Post by Gee-Are on Oct 13, 2009 17:02:03 GMT -5
Ok...so everytime I try to think through a response on this issue, I end up in an infinite loop, but here's a stab at one.
Okay, so if weapons can be classed into certain categories, Military use, civic defense, home defense, self-defense.
Couldn't that determine what types of weapons you could encounter given a particular situation?
Maybe for self defense you have:
pistols or handguns, knives shorter than 6", etc.
Home defense you have:
semi-automatic rifle, shotgun, any other weapons in self defense category, etc.
Civic defense:
automatic rifles, sniper rifles, anything in other 2 categories, etc.
Military use:
all of the above plus, tanks, grenade launchers, etc.
The above is definitely a shortened and not well thought out list, but only to give an idea of how the list could be broken down.
Then...law enforcement would have a better idea of what weapons they might encounter in different situations, and the ability to detain those who possessed weapons outside of their licensed class is easier.
I don't have an answer for weapons enthusiasts who might use automatic weapons for sport, other than the screening process is strict, laborious, expensive and frequent.
The beginning of some thoughts, like I said in no way complete.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kyng of JDs on Oct 13, 2009 17:05:29 GMT -5
One 12 gauge 2 3/4" 00 buckshot is roughly equal to 9 patterened 9mm rounds. So 1 shotgun = 9 MP5 shots. Trouble with the MP5 is after the first 3 shots, recoil will get the better of you. SCARY KYNG!!!!!!!! I wasn't actually expecting a legitimate response! Well then dont ask a legitimate question.  ;D |
|
|
|
Post by DamieQue™ on Oct 13, 2009 17:07:50 GMT -5
I hear you Ghost. The fundamental problem in my mind, what is an assault weapon.
They break it out into combinations of characteristics that seem rather arbitrary.
Many of the street legal weapons sold today are the civilian versions of military styled weapons. So it would be difficult to class them simply by whose using them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kyng of JDs on Oct 13, 2009 17:08:53 GMT -5
Ok...so everytime I try to think through a response on this issue, I end up in an infinite loop, but here's a stab at one. Okay, so if weapons can be classed into certain categories, Military use, civic defense, home defense, self-defense. Couldn't that determine what types of weapons you could encounter given a particular situation? Maybe for self defense you have: pistols or handguns, knives shorter than 6", etc. Home defense you have: semi-automatic rifle, shotgun, any other weapons in self defense category, etc. Civic defense: automatic rifles, sniper rifles, anything in other 2 categories, etc. Military use: all of the above plus, tanks, grenade launchers, etc. The above is definitely a shortened and not well thought out list, but only to give an idea of how the list could be broken down. Then...law enforcement would have a better idea of what weapons they might encounter in different situations, and the ability to detain those who possessed weapons outside of their licensed class is easier. I don't have an answer for weapons enthusiasts who might use automatic weapons for sport, other than the screening process is strict, laborious, expensive and frequent. The beginning of some thoughts, like I said in no way complete. Good thoughts. Define sniper rifle for me. I am assuming you are fine with strict regulation of those. If so, compare with a hunting rifle. Other than paint, what is the difference? *disclaimer, I fell into this trap. Hopefully you can help me avoid it with your response* |
|
|
|
Post by Gee-Are on Oct 13, 2009 17:12:02 GMT -5
I hear you Ghost. The fundamental problem in my mind, what is an assault weapon.
They break it out into combinations of characteristics that seem rather arbitrary.
Many of the street legal weapons sold today are the civilian versions of military styled weapons. So it would be difficult to class them simply by whose using them. I didn't necessarily mean who is using but what is the situation. For example...just because you have a license to use a HOME defense weapon, doesn't mean that you are able to carry that weapon in your car or walking down the street. Then, you can only have a self defense weapon in possession. |
|
;D