What is the argument for reinstating the AWB?

[Atticum]

Hello Highroaders,

I was wondering - What is the argument for reinstating the Assault Weapons Ban that expired in 2004? Have the demographics of American safety declined in the last four years? What related events have occured since it expired? Was there an explosion of assault-weapon related crime? Was it assault weapons that killed the Wall Street?

Is it because we are worried about drug cartels in Mexico? I'm not saying we shouldn't be, but I wonder how much the AWB directly impacts that situation. Maybe instead of reinstating it we could create more American jobs in the US Border Patrol.

I do not wish undue suffering on anyone. But I do think that the rights of American citizens come before the considerations of other nations.

 

[Seminole]

You are looking for the kinds of reasons that have nothing to do with the real motivations for gun control. Oh, sure, those types of reasons are sometimes given, but they are always pretenses.

The desire to impose gun control is unrelated to issues of safety or crime. Gun control is based on the premise that individuals have no legitimate right to self-determination; instead, they should depend on and obey the state.

 

[Just Jim]

Democrats use any incident they can to bring more socialist control on America. The border is left open so an incident can happen. Like Rhame Emanual (pres chief of staff) says, no sense wasteing a good crisis.

jj

 

[everallm]

There is no RATIONAL argument although it can pass legal muster under a "rational basis" level of constitutional law scrutiny, two different beasties.

This is why getting 2A incorporated is so important as then we get scrutiny (should be "Strict Scrutiny a la 1A) evel tied down, something the SC was lamentably negligent on in Heller.

 

[scottgun]

Assault weapons are dangerous, they have no useful purpose other than mowing down crowds of innocent children. They are bullet hoses, flinging endless amounts of death and dispair into our vulnerable inner cities. Nobody needs a military style weapon.



I am scottgun and I do not approve this message.

 

[TexasRifleman]

Is it because we are worried about drug cartels in Mexico?

No, that's just a handy excuse.

Last year the problem in Mexico was all the FN Five Seven handguns being smuggled into Mexico, now it's Barrett 50's and AR's, even though most of the violence seems to be happening with full auto AK's and homemade explosives.

No, it's just a handy excuse to do something the anti's have wanted to do all along

 

[eye5600]

The AWB is a natural extension of the line of thinking among politicians that goes something like this: Something terrible happened, what can I make illegal so it won't happen again? It's true of the both the left and the right, and it happens all the time. Right now someone in DC is proposing legislation to outlaw private ownership of large primates because of approx 1 incident in the 233 year history of the country. You would think that if it took until now for it to happen once, it wasn't a big problem, but politicians don't think that way.

So sometimes guns are involved in bad things, and many very bad people have assault weapons. I'm talking gangs and druggies with AK-47s. (I think they like AKs for the same reasons as other insurgents and rebellions: they're cheap and they work.) Also, one or two nuts. So politicians are looking for something to make illegal.

One of the major reasons it sounds so reasonable is that they are outlawing something they don't want themselves. (Chances are there aren't any congressmen who have chimps as pets.) Mostly urban people don't know about or care about rifles. It's a tyranny of a majority over a minority. It can work the other way round too. For example, voters in a mostly rural state might refuse to fund mass transit, or not see the point of school busing for integration.

Politicians don't read all their mail, but they do count the pros and the cons. It's a fine time to send a note to your congressman saying that if he ever votes for gun control, you will never vote for him again.

 

[ArmedBear]

No, it's just a handy excuse to do something the anti's have wanted to do all along

It's the PATRIOT Act technique.

Take a laundry list of some interest groups' wishes that no regular American citizen really even thinks about, let alone wants. Have it ready, hundreds of pages of it. When something happens and everyone is waving the flag and paying no attention, force it through Congress.

Did anyone in Congress READ the PATRIOT Act before it passed? AFAIK, no. Nobody could have.

Did anyone in Congress READ the [strike]Generational Theft[/strike] Stimulus Act of 2009 before voting for it? No. Nobody could have.

This is how a Republic dies.

 

[Justin]

There is fundamentally no rational reason for re-instating a ban on so-called "assault weapons."

Even the study commissioned by the Clinton administration came to the conclusion that the ban had little effect on crime. (You can read the summary of the study here.)

Attempting to reinstate the ban is nothing more than a culture war issue.

 

[lanternlad1]

The original AWB had to be re-written several times before it was viewed as "not too broad to be overturned by SCOTUS". Even then, it had to slipped into the Clinton Crime Bill as it would not have passed on its own. Be on the lookout for any such "necessary" bill (like the Stimulus package) that they can slip a new AWB into, because that's how they'll do it. Granted, Heller gives us some precedent with SCOTUS, but that won't stop Holder. The Mexico thing is B.S., and Holder knows it, he'll do anything to make the cards fall his way. It will be another VT slaying that will doom us, not Mexico.

 

[beatcop]

-Use to utility ratio...cars kill more people, but they are used by the majority of the populace to get to work, etc...the danger of the arms outweighs their usefullness.

-Acceptable losses...when an "innocent" is gunned down with one, this is TOTALLY unacceptable. There are no acceptable losses when it comes to gun violence.

-Outgunned...these arms are superior to "everything", the police/good people don't stand a chance.

When you can change these "impressions" you might have a shot at striking it down. These arguments appeal to the average Joe/Jane who have no interest or inclination in shooting.

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

There is no cogent valid argument. The only 'argument' is:

"I don't like guns; lets ban some of them at least, even if it is a complete sham based on cosmetic features which has nothing to do with lethality and zero correlation to crime stat reduction -- Gawdsakes its for the children, people!!!"

 

[eye5600]

It's the PATRIOT Act technique.

The history of the Patriot Act is indeed instructive, and in a number of different ways. It contains many clauses that are reasonable and necessary but it's hard to tell that from the newspapers who are only interested in the two or three things which crossed the line. It's hard for Congress to simply modify the excesses in part because the reporting has been so simple-minded, and in part because Congress is so simple-minded. (Congress, as an institution, is not half as smart as most it's members. Not sure why....)

 

[jimmyraythomason]

The argument? Well let's see, a friendly president, a friendly congress(both houses) and a friendly speaker of the house. No reason for them not to try again.

 

[KBintheSLC]

Attempting to reinstate the ban is nothing more than a culture war issue.

Who do you think will win that war? The armed, the unarmed, the dot gov. Heck, the majority of police and military folks are pro-2A. Will they turn their guns on us en masse? Not too likely. There may be patches armed government assaults against gun owners, but I bet their determination would wither rapidly compared to our determination.

If its war they want, they should think long and hard before waging it against 100 million armed citizens. Most of us are already at the end of our patience reserve.

I personally will not abide by any further Federal infringements. I have a few LE friends at the public range that say they will not enforce any more Federal gun regulations... one of them said "if they want to pass more laws, they can send in their own thugs to enforce them".

I think a lot of folks are tired of the same old Fed crap. After all, whether you are a cop, BATFE agent, or just a working-class civilian, in the end we are all Americans. And taking away fundamental rights will effect us all.

Congress is so simple-minded. (Congress, as an institution, is not half as smart as most it's members.

That can be said for society as a whole. The mob mentality is a potent retardant.

 

[OAKVILLE SHOOTER]

Because they want to. No other reason is needed. Gun Control has never been about the guns. It is about the control. They don't have and don't need a rational reason.

 

[RedAlert]

IMHO, the base issue is fear. The average US Citizen is afraid of guns and the pain and suffering caused by criminals, irresponsible owners, and the Waccco Image presented by so many PRO-GUN people. Just look at the "Bunker Buds" and their "bunker mentality" expressed by many on this site which is fairly moderate.

Too many of our average citizens only see AWs as battle weapons that are used in a time of war "over there somewhere." Not here in our generally peaceful cities and suburbs. Not trying to say we have no violence here; but, look at what they see on TV all the time with the AKs being fired in the air by every Tom Dick or Saddam!

IMHO, reasoned defense of our RTK&BA will win when coupled with reasoned education. Some guy hollering that the only way you'll get my weapon is from my cold dead hands in the streets and press will not do us a single good thing. The guy will be dead, the police will have his weapons and his voice will be silent. It might demonstrate to the average Joe/Jill out there the depth some will go to defend their rights but in the wrong manner. We need to focus on the veterans who won us this right, not the Bunker Buds! Their image of "Bunker Buds" is imprinted by Ruby Ridge, and Wacko Texas.

Are you going to be a screamer or an advocate who through reasoned dialog and education advances our rights?

Personally, I'd rather try to educate with reasoned conversation, letters to my Political Members and letters to the editor in the newspapers.

I still defend my personal rights and person.

Ralph

 

[Jorg Nysgerrig]

RDF nailed it. Anyone who is discussing civil war is doing little more than making noise on the internet and more than likely damaging the cause. Real change is going to happen through education, civil discourse, and working within the system. The sooner the chest-thumpers realize this and focus their energy towards a realistic goal, the better off we all are.

That said, let's keep on the topic of the reasoning behind AWB and other such bills.

 

[TexasRifleman]

The average US Citizen is afraid of guns and the pain and suffering caused by criminals, irresponsible owners, and the Waccco Image presented by so many PRO-GUN people.

I don't even buy that the average citizen is afraid.

There is a small but vocal, and voting, minority that wants these things in place.

If you were to flat out put this to public vote it would never pass.

That's why these things are never allowed to be decided by referendum.

California's marriage bill is a perfect example of why they try to stay away from public votes.

 

[ArmedBear]

It contains many clauses that are reasonable and necessary but it's hard to tell that from the newspapers who are only interested in the two or three things which crossed the line.

The news media is simple-minded. Who went into Journalism in college? The best and brightest, with the most potential for using their intellect to invent the future? Or the marginally book-smart who were envious of those who were?

That said, though, you brought up something that bears discussion.

A long time ago, I took a Real Estate class through a local college. The prof taught part time; he was a successful local broker who enjoyed teaching classes here and there. He owned a number of rental properties and ran a large realty.

His taxes were quite complicated, and he used every remotely plausible deduction, figuring that, if the IRS doesn't like it, they can always disallow it.

So, as you might guess, he got audited every year.

When he went to an audit, he would bring in a good thousand pages of detailed documentation: receipts, printouts, whatever, an enormous stack of paper. He put the rock-solid stuff first, then the pretty-good deductions, then the dubious ones, then finally, at the bottom of the pile, he put the most egregious "hail Mary" writeoffs -- the ones that would make most people laugh that he even tried them. And he got away with most of them, too.

Usually, by the time the auditor got through the legit stuff, he/she was tired and bored, and just quit and sent him on his way. Maybe there would be a few token disallowed deductions, but not enough for the guy to care. He'd write a check, shake hands, and go home.

So... Are those "two or three things that went over the line" the real reason for the bill? Do the many "reasonable" phrases and paragraphs just serve as cover for the really egregious stuff that would never have flown by itself?

I'd assert that, in at least some of the cases, Congress does exactly what my old Real Estate prof did: pile on the legit stuff to hide all the "over-the-line" stuff that is the whole point in the first place.

 

[hso]

What is the argument for reinstating the Assault Weapons Ban that expired in 2004? No logical arguments exist in light of the failure of the AWB to accomplish any of the stated goals.

Have the demographics of American safety declined in the last four years?

Demonstrably, no.

What related events have occured since it expired?

None

Was there an explosion of assault-weapon related crime?

Demonstrably, no.

As has been said, this is a culture war without any basis in fact.

 

[Justin]

Who do you think will win that war? The armed, the unarmed, the dot gov. Heck, the majority of police and military folks are pro-2A.

Please, please, please tell me that I don't have to explain that the "culture war" is not an actual shooting war...

 

[MT GUNNY]

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
National Institute of Justice

National Institute of Justice
Jeremy Travis, Director

March 1999

-------------------------------

ISSUES AND FINDINGS

Discussed in this Brief: This study examines the short-term impact (1994-
96) of the assault weapons ban on gun markets and gun-related violence as
contained in Title XI of the Federal Violent Crime Control and Law
Enforcement Act of 1994. Title XI prohibits the manufacture, sale, and
possession of specific makes and models of military-style semiautomatic
firearms and other semiautomatics with multiple military-style features
(detachable magazines, flash suppressors, folding rifle stocks, and
threaded barrels for attaching silencers) and outlaws most large capacity
magazines (ammunition- feeding devices) capable of holding more than 10
rounds of ammunition. Weapons and magazines manufactured prior to
September 13, 1994, are exempt from the ban.

Key issues: Although the weapons banned by this legislation were used
only rarely in gun crimes before the ban, supporters felt that these
weapons posed a threat to public safety because they are capable of firing
many shots rapidly. They argued that these characteristics enhance
offenders' ability to kill and wound more persons and to inflict multiple
wounds on each victim, so that a decrease in their use would reduce the
fatality rate of gun attacks.

The ban's impact on lethal gun violence is unclear because the short period
since the enabling legislation's passage created methodological difficulties
for researchers. The National Institute of Justice is funding a followup
study by the authors that is expected to be released in 2000. It will assess
the longer term impacts of the ban and the effects of the other firearms
provisions of Title XI. The long-term impacts of the ban could differ
substantially from the short-term impacts.

Key findings: The authors, using a variety of national and local data
sources, examined market trends--prices, production, and thefts--for the
banned weapons and close substitutes before estimating potential ban
effects and their consequences.

--The research shows that the ban triggered speculative price increases and
ramped-up production of the banned firearms prior to the law's
implementation, followed by a substantial postban drop in prices to levels
of previous years.

--Criminal use of the banned guns declined, at least temporarily, after the
law went into effect, which suggests that the legal stock of preban assault
weapons was, at least for the short term, largely in the hands of collectors
and dealers.

--Evidence suggests that the ban may have contributed to a reduction in
the gun murder rate and murders of police officers by criminals armed
with assault weapons.

--The ban has failed to reduce the average number of victims per gun
murder incident or multiple gunshot wound victims.

Target audience: Congressional representatives and staff; State and local
legislators; Federal, State, and local law enforcement officials; criminal
justice practitioners and researchers; advocacy groups; State and local
government officials.

 

[Zoogster]

The reason is because they want them banned. Not just the type of "assault weapon" of before either. The definition has expanded, and they aim to include new gun banning powers in a "renewal". The last proposed bans even let the Attorney General ban any gun at will.
That if a firearm was used by any military agency or federal LEO or was based on a similar firearm it would be presumed "unsporting" and prohibited.

After being told over and over from many sides for years that the old ban was cosmetic they have begun to focus on the action itself. The self loading capability of semi-auto firearms. They use the old rhetoric to not alarm people, and bills with similar wording except the key addition of carefuly worded lines.


They want them banned. No there has not been an explosion of crime with them. If there was they would highlight that to ban them. Instead they will highlight problems in Mexico. If it was not Mexico they would highlight someplace in South America, or Canada. They want them banned. The argument they propose does not have to been deeply logical, they already have the support of much of the Democrat party in such legislation regardless of the argument made. So it is just a matter of creating the argument, and then acting on it.

The new definition of "assault weapon" includes the majority of semi-auto firearms, far more encompassing than the old one. They realized the old one was a cosmetic ban, and they aim to change that.

 

[theotherwaldo]

Whatever happens is always a reason to do what you WANT to do.

Just as Market Booms/Market Busts mean that we must become Socialists.

Just as Global Warming/Cooling/Climate Change means we must become Socialists.

-And, by the way, Socialists do not approve of the concept of self defense for common people. If you are important to Society then Society will provide defense for you. Otherwise you are merely a replaceable cog and do not have the right to damage other cogs, regardless of reasons.