CPennypacker: So the law banning assault weapons expiring also expired the existence of the definition of an assault weapon?

Neat

Where did that "definition" of an assault weapon originally come from?

GanjSmokr: Where did that "definition" of an assault weapon originally come from?

Lawyers. It has no functional definition outside of the specific law that defines a set of scary looking weapons to ban.

CPennypacker: So the law banning assault weapons expiring also expired the existence of the definition of an assault weapon?

Neat

It's the new, semantically altered reality.
If it's not explicitly against the law, it's OK to do it, regardless of being morally right or wrong or of unintended consequences.

/It's a Texas thing.
//The Bush family was expert at exercising this doctrine.

sprawl15: ITT: directly quoting myself and asking for clarification is a strawman argument.

LOL

No, this would be a better example: Ah, so it's abnormal for the military to be provided guns designed to kill people. Fascinating, tell me more.

Keep digging up I guess. Marketing is the same thing as providing. Whatever works.

This thread has been derailed into the dumbest circular semantic chess match I have ever seen.

GanjSmokr: CPennypacker: So the law banning assault weapons expiring also expired the existence of the definition of an assault weapon?

Neat

Where did that "definition" of an assault weapon originally come from?

This one was the law of the land for a decade:

Assault weapon (semi-automatic) refers primarily (but not exclusively) to firearms that possess the cosmetics of an assault rifle (which are fully-automatic). Semi-automatic firearms, when fired, automatically extract the spent cartridge casing and load the next cartridge into the chamber, ready to fire again; they do not fire automatically like a machine gun, rather, only 1 round is fired with each trigger pull.

In the former U.S. law, the legal term assault weapon included certain specific semi-automatic firearm models by name (e.g., Colt AR-15, TEC-9, non select-fire AK-47s produced by three manufacturers, and Uzis) and other semi-automatic firearms because they possess a minimum set of cosmetic features from the following list of features:
A semi-automatic Yugoslavian M70AB2 rifle.
An Intratec TEC-DC9 with 32-round magazine; a semi-automatic pistol formerly classified as an Assault Weapon under Federal Law.

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

Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device which enables the launching or firing of rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those which are mounted externally)

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

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

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

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

Assault weapon (semi-automatic) refers primarily (but not exclusively) to firearms that possess the cosmetics of an assault rifle (which are fully-automatic). Semi-automatic firearms, when fired, automatically extract the spent cartridge casing and load the next cartridge into the chamber, ready to fire again; they do not fire automatically like a machine gun, rather, only 1 round is fired with each trigger pull.

In the former U.S. law, the legal term assault weapon included certain specific semi-automatic firearm models by name (e.g., Colt AR-15, TEC-9, non select-fire AK-47s produced by three manufacturers, and Uzis) and other semi-automatic firearms because they possess a minimum set of cosmetic features from the following list of features:
A semi-automatic Yugoslavian M70AB2 rifle.
An Intratec TEC-DC9 with 32-round magazine; a semi-automatic pistol formerly classified as an Assault Weapon under Federal Law.

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

Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device which enables the launching or firing of rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those which are mounted externally)

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

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

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

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

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

give me doughnuts: COSMETICS

COSMETICS

once more:

COSMETICS

It's not cosmetics.
It's RATE OF FIRE and CAPACITY TO MAINTAIN THAT RATE OF FIRE.

give me doughnuts: Also, since the ban expired, it is no longer a valid precedent.

Until it gets copy and pasted into the next ban legislation.
Which it will.

Your argument is bankrupt.

Dusk-You-n-Me: sprawl15: If someone breaking into your house is a statistically unlikely event, then specifics like what weapon was used to break into your house would have no statistical significance from comparing two events.

OK. But I'm still for the ban.

Why? The assault weapons ban is almost purely cosmetic. It has nothing to do whatsoever with actual function. A gun like an M-14 with a collapsible stock and bayonet mount is an assault weapon, while one with just a collapsible stock isn't. It's an utterly silly ban; the primary effect was to make gun manufacturers a shiatload of money and give the public a warm fuzzy about having accomplished something.

The potentially most effective part of the ban was on large capacity magazines, because those were much more widespread than assault weapons, but because of the grandfathering of them (and the post-ban expiration rush to make new ones), the number of them significantly increased post-ban. There's a ludicrous amount of them floating around.

HotIgneous Intruder: HotWingConspiracy: DORMAMU: HotWingConspiracy: sprawl15: Some guns are designed specifically to kill people. Those are the ones normally provided to the military.

Or your average homeowner. The only thing a handgun and the ammo it uses is designed to do is kill people. They tout stopping power for a reason, and it has fark all to do with target practice.

I forgot to add:

I use to hike alot in the mohave desert mountains. Carried my handgun with snake/bird shot as first round and hallow points for the rest.

Used the snake shot once on a snake that got too close while I was resting (rattler slid right next to me & I couldnt stand up without risking a bite.)

Ran into a cougar? (big freaking cat) and fired a warning shot, scared it off.

Ok. I'm glad you survived your hike.

Without weapons, it could have gone down much differently.

/No wildlife would have been killed.
//I've hiked thousands of miles in desert and non-desert environments and never carried a firearm nor needed to. Your brain is your most important weapon. Oh. Sorry.

Yes, my brain prompted me to take a tool with me in preperation for my hike.

Kind of like taking water and food while hiking in the desert along with a map, compass, signal mirror, first aid kit.

I too have hiked hundreds of times. Twice I chose to use a particular tool (a weapon is basically a tool) I brought with me.

/I was pointing out handguns have legitimate uses besides just shooting people.
//am pro gun
///also pro basic gun control

sprawl15: Dusk-You-n-Me: sprawl15: If someone breaking into your house is a statistically unlikely event, then specifics like what weapon was used to break into your house would have no statistical significance from comparing two events.

OK. But I'm still for the ban.

Why? The assault weapons ban is almost purely cosmetic. It has nothing to do whatsoever with actual function. A gun like an M-14 with a collapsible stock and bayonet mount is an assault weapon, while one with just a collapsible stock isn't. It's an utterly silly ban; the primary effect was to make gun manufacturers a shiatload of money and give the public a warm fuzzy about having accomplished something.

The potentially most effective part of the ban was on large capacity magazines, because those were much more widespread than assault weapons, but because of the grandfathering of them (and the post-ban expiration rush to make new ones), the number of them significantly increased post-ban. There's a ludicrous amount of them floating around.

So they should pass a better one

dlp211: HellRaisingHoosier:

I don't have any problem with guns.
I do have a problem with the NRA.

Perlin Noise: L82DPRT: Yet the overwhelming number of firearms in private hands never do either.

That's an interesting observation, however, I don't understand how it is relevant. I'm not trying to be a jerk, could you elaborate your point? From my perspective, it sounds like you are saying there are a lot of totally unnecessary guns out there.

The vast majority of firearms are legally owned and never used in crime.

The law abiding public is unjustly demonized as nutjobs or timebombs and would be penalized for the actions of criminals.

I'd say the vast number in private hands is relevant and are necessary as criminals are known to prey on the weak.

Dusk-You-n-Me: sprawl15: Why? The assault weapons ban is almost purely cosmetic.

Except that it reduced those guns showing up in crimes by 66% over ten years.

I'm sure you have a report to back that up - could you check that report and see if it reduced crime in general or did it just reduce the number of those scary looking guns showing up in crimes?

And then maybe provide a link to said report.

CPennypacker: So they should pass a better one

Ideally, yes. The AWB is a meaningless fluff law.

As I said upthread, I'd really, really like to see laws passed at addressing the causes of crime - ending the drug war, better general mental health care/availability, social programs, etc. Then simple laws like waiting periods would help weed out people who are on an emotional binge and need to kill someone RIGHT NOW. Banning specific gun models is idiotic at best.

Dusk-You-n-Me: Except that it reduced those guns showing up in crimes by 66% over ten years.

If you made 'painting guns blue' illegal, and then the number of blue guns showing up in crimes was reduced by 66%, is that a meaningful statistic?

If everyone who had blue guns painted them red, and continued to commit crimes at the same rate, the ban would seem 'successful', the number of blue guns in crime went down. But the goal of the law is to reduce overall crime, not just a specific meaningless subset. The 66% reduction gives absolutely no information as to how much crime was actually reduced.

Dusk-You-n-Me: That's fine, ban those too.

Did you not read how the ban was largely ineffective in actually stopping them from existing? Their availability didn't significantly decrease under the ban.

L82DPRT: I'd say the vast number in private hands is relevant and are necessary as criminals are known to prey on the weak.

if they are never used, they are unnecessary. However, I certainly understand what you are saying but prevention by threat of violence is the wrong way to run a society as far as I am concerned.

Dusk-You-n-Me: GanjSmokr: I'm sure you have a report to back that up - could you check that report and see if it reduced crime in general or did it just reduce the number of those scary looking guns showing up in crimes?

And then maybe provide a link to said report.

via John Rosenthal, founder of the advocacy group Stop Handgun Violence Link

Start your email engines.

So... an interview with a pro-ban person is now a report to cite numbers from?? I'm POSITIVE you'll be able to find an ACTUAL REPORT to back up your claims instead of linking to a radio interview. Otherwise, some people might think you were just pulling shiat out of your ass and calling it fact. And I'm sure that's not the case, right?

And once you find that report, maybe you can answer my previous reply...

could you check that report and see if it reduced crime in general or did it just reduce the number of those scary looking guns showing up in crimes?

Dusk-You-n-Me: Dude. Enough with these.

...enough with showing how you're asserting a fallacy?

Dusk-You-n-Me: Just a coincidence, then, that they stopped showing up in crimes.

"Despite a doubling of handgun LCM prices between 1993 and 1995 and a 40% increase in rifle LCM prices from 1993 to 1994, criminal use of LCMs was rising or steady through at least the latter 1990s, based on police recovery data from four jurisdictions studied in this chapter. These findings are also consistent with an earlier study finding no decline in seizures of LCM guns from juveniles in Washington, DC in the year after the ban (Koper, 2001). Post-2000 data, though more limited and inconsistent, suggest that LCM use may be dropping from peak levels of the late 1990s but provide no definitive evidence of a drop below pre-ban levels. These trends have been driven primarily by LCM handguns, which are used in crime roughly three times as often as LCM rifles. Nonetheless, there has been no consistent reduction in the use of LCM rifles either."
--Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003

Perlin Noise: L82DPRT: I'd say the vast number in private hands is relevant and are necessary as criminals are known to prey on the weak.

if they are never used, they are unnecessary. However, I certainly understand what you are saying but prevention by threat of violence is the wrong way to run a society as far as I am concerned.

While the vast majority are never used, depending on who you believe, hundreds of thousands to maybe millions are used in self defense or to ward off crime.

Remember there are hundreds of millions of firearms lurking out there just waiting to point themselves at you.

Oh no wait, I've never had a firearm point itself at me. Have had a person point one at me. Not fun.

Dusk-You-n-Me: sprawl15: "Despite a doubling of handgun LCM prices between 1993 and 1995 and a 40% increase in rifle LCM prices from 1993 to 1994, criminal use of LCMs was rising or steady through at least the latter 1990s, based on police recovery data from four jurisdictions studied in this chapter. These findings are also consistent with an earlier study finding no decline in seizures of LCM guns from juveniles in Washington, DC in the year after the ban (Koper, 2001). Post-2000 data, though more limited and inconsistent, suggest that LCM use may be dropping from peak levels of the late 1990s but provide no definitive evidence of a drop below pre-ban levels. These trends have been driven primarily by LCM handguns, which are used in crime roughly three times as often as LCM rifles. Nonetheless, there has been no consistent reduction in the use of LCM rifles either."
--Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003

So we need more effective bans.

Like in Russia?

Dusk-You-n-Me: GanjSmokr: So... an interview with a pro-ban person is now a report to cite numbers from?? I'm POSITIVE you'll be able to find an ACTUAL REPORT to back up your claims instead of linking to a radio interview. Otherwise, some people might think you were just pulling shiat out of your ass and calling it fact

Well first, I never said it was from a report. It's me quoting someone else who would know better, since I am not an expert (novel idea). I trust the guy's credentials as well as NPR's. If you're really interested you should contact him for clarification - I get the feeling he's the kind of guy who would gladly respond. I, however, will not. I take him at his word.

Well, since you are too damned lazy to back up your statements, here's an actual report for you. There are others out there. You might try this new site called "Google" to try to find them if you want to actually back up your claims.

Of particular interest to you might be sections 3.3 and 6.4.

L82DPRT: Oh no wait, I've never had a firearm point itself at me. Have had a person point one at me. Not fun.

I can certainly see your perspective. I would just rather there were less guns to point at you so you would not have to have one yourself. That's really all it boils down to.

My real feeling is, a simple shotgun will do just fine for home defense. If you need to protect yourself from guns on the street, how does more guns on the street help?

Dusk-You-n-Me: DORMAMU: Like in Russia?

In Russia guns ban you!

I didnt have the heart to do it. Glad you still got a sense of humor.

I believe in russia all hanguns are illegal unless you are military or police. Yet, they still have rampant handgun issues.

I am more worried about knee jerking back & forth of extremes. A balance needs to be struck. An all out ban will do little (see prohibition as a loose example)

/would post citation on russia, but on mobile at work

Dusk-You-n-Me: GanjSmokr: here's an actual report for you. There are others out there.

What a coincidence you just happen to post the same report as sprawl, and not any of the others out there. But that's cool. And like I said to him, this calls for more effective bans.

Here's one from the Brady Center - I'm sure you'll find the numbers in it favorable to your position.

I know Google seems confusing and daunting when you first try to use it...

I typed in a convoluted regex expression to get my results (report assault weapon ban results). I don't know how Google's crazy search algorithm stuff works but that particular random string of words got me quite a few results.

Dusk-You-n-Me: What a coincidence you just happen to post the same report as sprawl, and not any of the others out there.

Sure, 'any of the others' that you can't be bothered to find or ensure exist.

Dusk-You-n-Me: So we need more effective bans.

Or intelligent laws instead of laws driven by pants shiatting fear.

sprawl15: IlGreven: Also interesting to note, the second amendment says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms should not be abridged.

It says nothing of the right of the people to produce arms.

Luckily, that's not how the Constitution works. That's why the Constitution doesn't need to explicitly say that you have a right to not be raped.

...Okay, okay...everyone has a right to produce arms, just like they have a right to do what they want as long as they don't infringe upon another person's right to do what they want.

HOWEVER...there can be pressure put on a gun maker that has several government contracts, to stop producing a certain firearm or lower their total production..."nice contract you got there. You'd prolly wanna keep it when it comes time to renew, right?" And that's how I'd like them to run, like a business would. "You wanna play with us? You play by our rules."

Dusk-You-n-Me: Hey now, without pants shiatting fear the NRA wouldn't exist.

Aside from the factual errors already covered by redmid17, so what? Why do you think insulting the NRA would somehow be a meaningful thing to say?

IlGreven: HOWEVER...there can be pressure put on a gun maker that has several government contracts, to stop producing a certain firearm or lower their total production..."nice contract you got there. You'd prolly wanna keep it when it comes time to renew, right?" And that's how I'd like them to run, like a business would.

That's pretty straightforwardly illegal.

Dusk-You-n-Me: The NRA is not what they used to be, and they are certainly not immune to criticism, no matter how much you love them.

Do you actually have brain damage, or do you just play a brain damaged person on the internet?

Hit cntl+f and look at the first two things that I posted in the thread.

redmid17: Dusk-You-n-Me: redmid17: So your assertion they wouldn't exist without preying on fear is demonstrably false, like I said.

That's fair. They would still exist. But then why do they do it? Why does the VP of the NRA make a speech like that?

Do I really need to draw it out for you? I hate making process flow diagrams. I get my BAs to do it

With this particular person, I don't think even simple crayon drawings would help...

Dusk-You-n-Me: I missed that. You do not love the NRA. We can move on.

Even if I had an NRA logo realdoll, it wouldn't make your horrible series of posts reflect a semblance of intelligence.