What's wrong with Assault Weapons?

[Doc_Brown]

So we have all this talk about a ban on assault weapons, and I think everyone (on both sides of the issue) should be happy to commend those that want to protect innocent lives. But why is the focus on assault weapons? I realize that's what was used at Sandy Hook, but the city of Chicago alone has a homicide rate equivalent to 20 Sandy Hook shootings per year (the equivalent of one Sandy Hook every 18 days).

I keep hearing the argument that ARs are designed for killing people, or that they were designed for military use. I'm really curious where that information comes from. Politifact shows that the later statement is false. Also, what is it about assault weapons that makes murder their primary purpose? Here's a semi-auto .223 Ruger Mini-14 that one might select as a hunting rifle:

You can purchase a 30-round magazine for the Mini-14. In which case, how is it any different from the SR556?


They both use the same bullet. Both can use the same capacity clip. They have the same rate of fire. Both can be obtained in a full auto version be law enforcement officials. You can mount whatever sights or scopes you like to either one. Functionally, they're identical weapons. Why is one of them now demonized? Is it because of the scary-looking black plastic on one? Seriously, I'm becoming convinced that the definition for assault rifle that politicians are using now is "gun that looks extra scary."

But would a ban on assault weapons be helpful? How many deaths per year are actually attributable to assault weapons? You can look at the FBI statistics on homicides, or the PolitiFact summary. In either case, it's clear that far fewer people are killed by rifles (either assault rifles or otherwise) than were beaten to death or were killed by knives. In fact, roughly the same number of people were killed by all "long guns (rifles, assault weapons, shotguns, etc...) as were beaten to death (by hands or feet) in 2011, and more than twice as many were killed by knives or other cutting instrument.

I will readily grant that homicides by handgun dwarf the other categories. Some 60% of homicides used handguns. My question is, why is the focus on assault weapons when they are not the real problem?

How often are guns used in self-defense? A number of surveys indicate that there are roughly 2 million defensive gun uses per year by law abiding citizens. Should we create 2 million more victims for the sake of the 8500 firearm-related homicides?

There's an excellent article on the whole issue here written by someone who is very knowledgeable in the area of firearm control.

EDIT: Neoteny kindly pointed out that I am incorrectly using the term "Assault Rifle" which is a highly regulated weapon. I should use the term "Assault Weapon," which includes the AR15 and other semi-automatic rifles. I was not previously aware of this distinction and will try to use the correct terminology going forward. The main points in my post should still be valid with "AR" and "Assault Rifle" replaced by "assault weapon." (I made this change above.) Apologies for the confusion.

[thegreekdog]

Two things:

(1) I made this point in the larger thread and was roundly shouted down. Doesn't make the point less valid, just saying.
(2) If an Assault Weapons Ban (version 2.0) is not a big deal, why do gun advocates care so much about it? All the gun owners have to do is buy the same weapon without the scary plastic, right?

[Funkyterrance]

If both of those rifles do the same thing they are equally allowable/ban-worthy.
My opinion and I think the point is that they are excessive for any purpose but going on a rampage.

[KoolBak]

Personally, I think the mini-14 is a far better weapon than the AR15...have owned em both. Then theres the socoms, the AK47, the SKS and on and on.

Not answering the original post, but I wonder the identical thing. Is the original M1 considered an assault rifle? the 30 carbine? Hell what about the old Remington 7400 (below)...purely a deer rifle but you can get a 10 - 30 round clip and its semi auto....a terrifying rifle.....lol.

I personally think its simply the antigunners picking an easy target that will have the excellent scare factor....after that, everything's up for grabs, ban-wise......

[Doc_Brown]

Two things:

(1) I made this point in the larger thread and was roundly shouted down. Doesn't make the point less valid, just saying.
(2) If an Assault Weapons Ban (version 2.0) is not a big deal, why do gun advocates care so much about it? All the gun owners have to do is buy the same weapon without the scary plastic, right?

Sorry. I don't get much time to read stuff in here lately. I skimmed through one of the other threads but didn't catch all the points. Sorry for anything I've repeated (and sorry to all those who are about to shout me down for restating facts that have been stated elsewhere).

The biggest impact of the assault weapons ban will be felt by sports shooters. Some people hunt with AR weapons (since they are functionally equivalent to similar weapons without the scary plastic), and others use them at shooting ranges (target shooting is an Olympic sport). Sports shooters may go through many hundreds of rounds in an afternoon at the range, and those are the type of people that really want the high-capacity magazines. But keep in mind, the magazines are heavy. In the military, they typically use 5-round magazines. How about Adam Lanza? Reports are that he fired between 50 and 100 rounds out of a 30-round magazine, but he frequently reloaded it during the event (sometimes shooting only 15 rounds before reloading again). So a 10 round limit on the clips wouldn't have done much to limit damage at Sandy Hook but would have directly impacted sports shooters.

Another silly aspect of the first Assault Weapons Ban was forbidding things like barrel shields. All a barrel shield does is prevent a shooter from being burned on a hot gun barrel, which is very nice if you're shooting a lot of rounds at a range, but it does nothing to make a gun more dangerous. It does add more scary black plastic to the gun though, which (I think) is why it was banned.

The point is that the Assault Weapons ban will do minimal good but will negatively affect a lot of people that just like to shoot targets.

[thegreekdog]

Two things:

(1) I made this point in the larger thread and was roundly shouted down. Doesn't make the point less valid, just saying.
(2) If an Assault Weapons Ban (version 2.0) is not a big deal, why do gun advocates care so much about it? All the gun owners have to do is buy the same weapon without the scary plastic, right?

Sorry. I don't get much time to read stuff in here lately. I skimmed through one of the other threads but didn't catch all the points. Sorry for anything I've repeated (and sorry to all those who are about to shout me down for restating facts that have been stated elsewhere).

The biggest impact of the assault weapons ban will be felt by sports shooters. Some people hunt with AR weapons (since they are functionally equivalent to similar weapons without the scary plastic), and others use them at shooting ranges (target shooting is an Olympic sport). Sports shooters may go through many hundreds of rounds in an afternoon at the range, and those are the type of people that really want the high-capacity magazines. But keep in mind, the magazines are heavy. In the military, they typically use 5-round magazines. How about Adam Lanza? Reports are that he fired between 50 and 100 rounds out of a 30-round magazine, but he frequently reloaded it during the event (sometimes shooting only 15 rounds before reloading again). So a 10 round limit on the clips wouldn't have done much to limit damage at Sandy Hook but would have directly impacted sports shooters.

Another silly aspect of the first Assault Weapons Ban was forbidding things like barrel shields. All a barrel shield does is prevent a shooter from being burned on a hot gun barrel, which is very nice if you're shooting a lot of rounds at a range, but it does nothing to make a gun more dangerous. It does add more scary black plastic to the gun though, which (I think) is why it was banned.

The point is that the Assault Weapons ban will do minimal good but will negatively affect a lot of people that just like to shoot targets.

I think the term "minimal good" is interesting in context. I agree with you that the law will do virtually nothing to prevent gun homicides and will do nothing to prevent another Sandy Hook type massacre.

However, with respect to Congressional and presidential supports of Assault Weapons Ban 2.0, the law will do maximum good in providing the idea to the uneducated masses that Democrats in Congress and in the White House care about saving lives and passing strict gun control laws, thus influencing people to vote for Democrats as opposed to uncaring, gun-toting Republicans.

[Doc_Brown]

I think the term "minimal good" is interesting in context. I agree with you that the law will do virtually nothing to prevent gun homicides and will do nothing to prevent another Sandy Hook type massacre.

However, with respect to Congressional and presidential supports of Assault Weapons Ban 2.0, the law will do maximum good in providing the idea to the uneducated masses that Democrats in Congress and in the White House care about saving lives and passing strict gun control laws, thus influencing people to vote for Democrats as opposed to uncaring, gun-toting Republicans.

Like I said: Minimal good.

[warmonger1981]

Thegreekdog summed it up in his last post. My personal opinion the only thing wrong with assault rifles is that they don't hold enough bullets.

[Neoteny]

I always saw assault rifle bans as a sort of compromise thing. It is a firearm category that has, at least for the average joe, minimal practical use in a civilian context, and serves as a starting point that a larger amount of people can get behind and start a conversation about the broader issues associated with gun violence. Maybe I'm an optimist.

I'm happy to argue that handguns are far more dangerous (easier to conceal, a relatively large capacity, semiautomatic, ease of operation). But I think the assault rifle is seen as a starting point for the discussion with reasonable people. It's not really meant for the people who don't understand why assault rifles, which are recognized for their military and terrorist uses, are picked on. That type of person isn't really in the right state of mind for convincing or compromising.

[Neoteny]

Oh, yeah, also, evil politicians rawr.

[thegreekdog]

I always saw assault rifle bans as a sort of compromise thing. It is a firearm category that has, at least for the average joe, minimal practical use in a civilian context, and serves as a starting point that a larger amount of people can get behind and start a conversation about the broader issues associated with gun violence. Maybe I'm an optimist.

I'm happy to argue that handguns are far more dangerous (easier to conceal, a relatively large capacity, semiautomatic, ease of operation). But I think the assault rifle is seen as a starting point for the discussion with reasonable people. It's not really meant for the people who don't understand why assault rifles, which are recognized for their military and terrorist uses, are picked on. That type of person isn't really in the right state of mind for convincing or compromising.

I don't think you read or understood (or perhaps you're ignoring) Doc_Brown's post. Assault weapons, as they are defined by the government, are not used for military and terrorist purposes. The military and terrorists use automatic weapons, not semi-automatic weapons and not assault weapons. An "assault weapon" is a rifle that is dressed up to look like an automatic weapon. Banning assault weapons is akin to banning flour because it looks like cocaine.

I certainly don't disagree with your interpretation of the Assault Weapons Ban 2.0, except I think it is an evil politicians thing. I think the assault weapons ban should be part of a larger conversation and hopefully it will be one that's serious. That being said, I would like to see better regulation and better enforcement of current laws, rather than a political point gathering exercise that is Assault Weapons Ban 2.0.

[KoolBak]

I beg to differ...perhaps we are splitting hairs here, BUT.....they are NOT rifles "dressed up"....they are the identical weapon manufactured in semi automatic instead of full automatic....thats the only difference between, for instance, an M16 and an AR15. If you get a class 3 fed permit, you can own the full autos which are for sale all over but VERY expensive.

[KoolBak]

ps....doc....being a mini14 fan, here is a pic of one with all the add on crap thats so widely available to make them look "cooler" ....not in my opinion, but hey....people will buy anything. Now the old ruger looks evil, eh? lol

[Neoteny]

I always saw assault rifle bans as a sort of compromise thing. It is a firearm category that has, at least for the average joe, minimal practical use in a civilian context, and serves as a starting point that a larger amount of people can get behind and start a conversation about the broader issues associated with gun violence. Maybe I'm an optimist.

I'm happy to argue that handguns are far more dangerous (easier to conceal, a relatively large capacity, semiautomatic, ease of operation). But I think the assault rifle is seen as a starting point for the discussion with reasonable people. It's not really meant for the people who don't understand why assault rifles, which are recognized for their military and terrorist uses, are picked on. That type of person isn't really in the right state of mind for convincing or compromising.

I don't think you read or understood (or perhaps you're ignoring) Doc_Brown's post. Assault weapons, as they are defined by the government, are not used for military and terrorist purposes. The military and terrorists use automatic weapons, not semi-automatic weapons and not assault weapons. An "assault weapon" is a rifle that is dressed up to look like an automatic weapon. Banning assault weapons is akin to banning flour because it looks like cocaine.

I certainly don't disagree with your interpretation of the Assault Weapons Ban 2.0, except I think it is an evil politicians thing. I think the assault weapons ban should be part of a larger conversation and hopefully it will be one that's serious. That being said, I would like to see better regulation and better enforcement of current laws, rather than a political point gathering exercise that is Assault Weapons Ban 2.0.

I used "assault rifles" for a couple particular reasons, one of them being Doc Brown's, and the entire political and civilian discussion, vague use between the terms "assault rifle" and "assault weapons." I think you've noted that the US legal and political context is a bizarre hodgepodge of stupidity. From what I can tell, the US legal definition of "assault weapon" seems to be "anything that looks like it could be used in a military context." This of course includes various assault rifles, airsoft guns, BB guns, and a wicked paint gun I saw at the home improvement store. I've been ignoring the current political discussion for the most part, because it's full of stupid people. I tried to answer the question in the OP title to the best of my ability with respect to the general purpose of enacting a ban on assault rifles, which, in theory anyway, should have included the clusterfucks that are recent bans. My understanding of assault rifles is that they generally allow you to select your fire mode, among other features that make them useful for military and terrorist actors. If Doc Brown wants to talk about assault weapon bans, I'll go away. If he wants to talk about why assault rifles are targeted, it's because of my initial post.

Don't blame me for the OP's lack of clarity. I'm just trying to help.

[Neoteny]

What's with you guys? Gun nuts are supposed to be down on this sort of thing.

[thegreekdog]

What's with you guys? Gun nuts are supposed to be down on this sort of thing.

The government (which is ultimately what we're talking about) defines the terms "assault rifles" and "assault weapons" differently. That's why the term matters. Assault rifles are already banned (except in certain isolated cases). Assault weapons are not. The gun used in the Sandy Hook massacre was an assault weapon, not an assault rifle.

I'm certainly not a gun nut. I don't own a gun, I will probably never own a gun. I believe regulation of guns is both constitutional and wise. But I think Congress and the president are, for the most part, taking the wrong path on this and I suspect it's to score political points.

[Donelladan]

How often are guns used in self-defense? A number of surveys indicate that there are roughly 2 million defensive gun uses per year by law abiding citizens. Should we create 2 million more victims for the sake of the 8500 firearm-related homicides?

Cmon...
Don't you think if they were less firearm they would be less people dying because of them?

From your link.

This should not come as a surprise, given that there are far more gun-owning crime victims than there are gun-owning criminals and that victimization is spread out over many different victims, while offending is more concentrated among a relatively small number of offenders."

Please, note, you will NOT make 2 millions more victims if you forbid rifles/guns and any kind of weapons in your country. If you can't get that... Well.. I dont see how we can even talk about the topic.

And for the real topic question, nothing wrong with assault rifles, you just have to start somewhere, and obviously Obama/your politics, didnt dare saying they will forbide all the weapons at once. ( so +1 with Neoteny).

[thegreekdog]

And for the real topic question, nothing wrong with assault rifles, you just have to start somewhere, and obviously Obama/your politics, didnt dare saying they will forbide all the weapons at once. ( so +1 with Neoteny).

Yes, that must be it.

We must get serious about gun violence in the United States.

Let's ban assault weapons even though more people die from knives and baseball bats than from assault weapons each year. We don't want to strictly regulate hand guns, which kill more people in the United States than any other weapon, or enforce straw man crimes because we don't want to offend any of the people that didn't vote for me in the first place and will never vote for a Democrat.

It must be because he didn't want to offend Republican voters.

[Neoteny]

What's with you guys? Gun nuts are supposed to be down on this sort of thing.

The government (which is ultimately what we're talking about) defines the terms "assault rifles" and "assault weapons" differently. That's why the term matters. Assault rifles are already banned (except in certain isolated cases). Assault weapons are not. The gun used in the Sandy Hook massacre was an assault weapon, not an assault rifle.

I'm certainly not a gun nut. I don't own a gun, I will probably never own a gun. I believe regulation of guns is both constitutional and wise. But I think Congress and the president are, for the most part, taking the wrong path on this and I suspect it's to score political points.

I know the government defines the terms differently. That was partly the point I was trying to make. The term matters. Doc Brown is asking what's wrong with assault rifles. I'm answering the question. Why do you keep trying to make me talk about assault weapons? The thread is not "What's wrong with Assaut Weapons?" It's "What's wrong with Assaut Rifles?"

I agree that the gummint is looking the wrong way on this, and I think it's because they are afraid of scoring negative points for making effective gun regulation.

[KoolBak]

You guys keep bantering around assault weapon vs rifle but I have yet to see a real definition. It is my understanding that assault weapons, in this CONSUMER / RETAIL context, refers to rifles, shotguns and pistols. What defines it as assault is: semiautomatic with a detachable ammo clip PLUS AT LEAST one other feature, such as, pistol grip, flash suppressor, or folding stock.

In a different venue, the govt does call the m16 an assault rifle and the term requires that it be fullauto...so....this can be argued all day long, but it is my belief that Doc was referring to the CONSUMER version (semiauto only) of the weapon......roh rell.....thats all.

[Neoteny]

US Army definition.

Assault rifles are short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachinegun and rifle cartridges.

http://gunfax.com/aw.htm

I'm splitting hairs because this discussion, in the political and general context, is rife with misinformation. If we want to talk about these things, I'm always for being clear in our terms. I guess we can blame the retail market for blurring the lines here, but if we are talking about legislation we need to be as clear as possible. This is a serious issue that many people have very strong opinions on. If you want to talk about the semiautomatic weapons, use the appropriate terms. If you want to talk about military grade firearms, use "Assault Rifle."

EDIT: I think greek and I are talking past the same point here. He's just grumpy because he's a conservative and they are always grumped out by liberals.

[thegreekdog]

US Army definition.

Assault rifles are short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachinegun and rifle cartridges.

http://gunfax.com/aw.htm

I'm splitting hairs because this discussion, in the political and general context, is rife with misinformation. If we want to talk about these things, I'm always for being clear in our terms. I guess we can blame the retail market for blurring the lines here, but if we are talking about legislation we need to be as clear as possible. This is a serious issue that many people have very strong opinions on. If you want to talk about the semiautomatic weapons, use the appropriate terms. If you want to talk about military grade firearms, use "Assault Rifle."

EDIT: I think greek and I are talking past the same point here. He's just grumpy because he's a conservative and they are always grumped out by liberals.

Your edit is 100% accurate.

[KoolBak]

So the title should to be changed to "....Assault [sp] Weapons" to mitigate misunderstanding and consumer / retail misnaming.....thanks for that post....

[Neoteny]

So the title should to be changed to "....Assault [sp] Weapons" to mitigate misunderstanding and consumer / retail misnaming.....thanks for that post....

To prevent misunderstanding in the discussion so that if anything is banned it will be clear what is and is not legal to own. I don't really care if Walmart lies to you about your firearms.

[KoolBak]

WTF do you mean by that walmart crack? Don't know if you're trying to be an ass to me....but....any wording will be clear in the text if and when it comes out no matter the harping here. The last (10 year) ban in '94 simply prohibited new manufacture of certain weapons and high capacity clips....from my consumer standpoint it did nothing to the established gun owner but make their pre-ban weapons more valuable; I recall the market on used guns / clips going through the roof during that time period...you could still buy used pre-ban weapons, so.....

Here is an interesting read on the subject

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/17/everything-you-need-to-know-about-banning-assault-weapons-in-one-post/