Talk:Federal Assault Weapons Ban

This law has been criticized as being ineffective because the particular features that are prohibited do not greatly enhance the capabilities of a given weapon.

I just happen to find it funny that the list preceding this sentence featured a detachable grenade launcher. -- Erzengel 10:51 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)

The CRPA members opposing the AWCA were amused by the same point. In the U.S., since 1934 grenade launchers have been subject to draconian federal licensing laws. Banning them is redundant, obviously a matter of political posturing. Something not widely realized is that in the U.S., wealthy individuals can purchase almost any weapon, after paying license fees well beyond the reach of most individuals. Wealthy individuals are often very well armed, and the very politicians who support gun control usually themselves carry concealed weapons (e.g., both California Senators: Boxer and Feinstein, whose concealed-carry pistol permits are matters of public record). The hypocrisy is breathtaking. A grenade launcher on a weapon is little more than a modified flash surpressor -- a gas spigot powered by a blank cartridge. The launcher itself does nothing to increase the lethality of the firearm. The grenade itself would certainly increase lethality, but grenades are regulated by completely separate legislation. When was the last time you heard of a grenade attack in an American city? You can buy a grenade launcher equipped rifle (SKS) for about $120, but good luck finding any grenades!

I feel the article violates NPOV... basically it just states how pointless and horrible the law which is opionion even if it's a well founded one.

You'll need to explain why the AWB is "well founded."

The article is obivously biased, as is the one on assault weapons. The author is using his entry to promote the cause of the gun lobby.

The author states nothing that isn't factual. If you insist on claiming bias: which pieces of information are untrue, and what relevant information is omitted?

I agree. While the article sounds very bias because it points out all the fallacies of the law, it is actually objective because it just so happens the foundation of the law is itself based on fallacy. It is therefore no surprise that a neutral article would point this out. Being neutral does NOT mean equal weight to two sides of a discussion, but rather factual presentation of the facts and only the facts. If any of the points presented do not make sense to an objector, he or she should point out exactly what is not neutral and present a counter point instead of just hand waving an arugment he or she does not understand him/her self. Wodan 17:07, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)

I don't think it's really possible to be unbiased on this issue; it's impossible to consider the issue and be unbiased, because you'll either see banning "assault weapons" as logically founded, or you'll see banning certain types (based on cosmetic features) as stupid and illogical, and that what you do with those weapons should be regulated and not that you have them. "Guns don't kill people; the Government does" -- Dale Gribble on King of the Hill. As for promoting the cause of the gun lobby; wouldn't they know more about the weapons, in many cases having grown up around firearms, than someone who grew up in someplace like California or France and has always been taught to be afraid of them and never touch them? I think when talking about the guns, you need to be familiar with them, so that rules out people that are more likely to ban them (or want them banned). That the gunban lobby and the media always show footage of fully automatic weapons is relevant, but perhaps should be linked to Media bias.

"This law is ineffective because the particular features that are prohibited do not enhance the capabilities of a given weapon, they remain in fact identical to their non-prohibited counterparts except for mainly aesthetic changes. Thus, making these features illegal does nothing to prevent crime or make the guns any less dangerous, especially since they were used in less than 1% of crimes to begin with. What could be effective is the ban on high capacity magazines for these weapons, although it is extremely rare for crimes to involve firing over 10 rounds."

I don't consider this fact (and got rid of it) - ask the NRA for their opionion of the numbers that support this, and you'll get totally different answer from what you'd get if you asked the Brady Campaign people the same question. If you want to state why the AWB is ineffectual, show some independent evidence.

Nothing to do with automatic weapons?

According to the Brady campaign website, the bill bans by name the manufacture of UZIs, Kalashnikovs, Tec-9s and AR-15s I think the ban is being misrepresented as just banning hunting rifles or collector's pieces, which it clearly does not.

I need not be too bold to claim that you obviously know very little about firearms. Automatic weapons have been banned federally since the 1930s, so no, this ban indeed has nothing to do with automatic weapons whatsoever. It has to do with semi-automatic weapons. Banning manufacture names is also meaningless, since one can always just change the name of the gun, and similarly, each manufacture can make a wide array of gun types. Wodan 01:42, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

good of you to add your little insult as you began your response. However, i do know a good deal about guns, and my point remains. yours does not. Whether or not automatics were already illegal before Brady, the Assault Weapons Ban mentions them, and thus it does indeed have something to do with automatics.

You need not be insulted, for I have simply tried to give yourself and readers some insight about your lack of knowledge, as was once again displayed by your response. Please do not be so defensive, as nor is this meant to be an insult. Just because one is not an expert in a certain field does is no reason for bad feelings. Perhaps if you are willing, I would be happy to educate you. If your response will be "I'm already educated enough, no thanks" then it is unfortunate that you are so closed minded. But to answer your new comment... no, the Assault Weapon Ban once again does nothing to ban anything of an automatic nature. Nor does it mention it anywhere in the congressional act itself. If you don't believe me, you can read this directly on the Brady Campaign web site. Wodan 02:04, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

Don't feed the anons, Wodan. I was a bit amused (although simultaneously disgusted) at the page you link to above, however, particularly its handy bullet list of banned features:

A large-capacity ammunition magazine, enabling the shooter to continuously fire dozens of rounds without reloading. Standard hunting rifles are usually equipped with no more than 3 or 4-shot magazines.
Because that second and a half required to change clips mid-rampage goes a long way toward stemming gun crime.
A folding stock on a rifle or shotgun, which sacrifices accuracy for concealability and for mobility in close combat.
Like simply removing the stock (a perfectly legal act) doesn't do this.
A pistol grip on a rifle or shotgun, which facilitates firing from the hip, allowing the shooter to spray-fire the weapon. A pistol grip also helps the shooter stabilize the firearm during rapid fire and makes it easier to shoot assault rifles one-handed.
Are they serious? How does one "spray-fire" a semiautomatic rifle, much less from the hip or with one hand? (Someone has seen a few too many Charles Bronson movies, I think.)
A barrel shroud, which is designed to cool the barrel so the firearm can shoot many rounds in rapid succession without overheating. It also allows the shooter to grasp the barrel area to stabilize the weapon, without incurring serious burns, during rapid fire.
Apparently they have access to some high-tech refrigerated barrel shroud I'm not familiar with. That would be handy the next time I'm mowing down innocent passers-by with an AR-15 in each hand.
A threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor, which serves no useful sporting purpose. The flash suppressor allows the shooter to remain concealed when shooting at night, an advantage in combat but unnecessary for hunting or sporting purposes. In addition, the flash suppressor is useful for providing stability during rapid fire, helping the shooter maintain control of the firearm.
I'm not sure if this is another blatant non sequitur or simply sheer ignorance. A flash suppressor does absolutely nothing for concealment, as it works in a manner precisely opposite what they seem to think—flash suppressors shield the operator from the muzzle's blinding flash. I'm not a hunter, but I can imagine this being rather useful—it's a good thing flash suppressors don't require a threaded barrel.
A threaded barrel designed to accommodate a silencer, which is useful to assassins but clearly has no purpose for sportsmen. Silencers are illegal so there is no legitimate purpose for making it possible to put a silencer on a weapon.
Silencers are, in fact, legal, provided you have the money to license them. Again, I'm not a hunter, but doesn't it seem like it would be handy to be able to take a shot without, I don't know, frightening the animals away? (And since when do assassins care about laws?)
A barrel mount designed to accommodate a bayonet, which obviously serves no sporting purpose.
But apparently poses a clear and present danger to society. Take anything you want, just don't spear the kids!

Seldom have I seen a more pathetic, misinformed, kneejerk group. References to fully automatic firearms—which, as Wodan points out, aren't even mentioned in the bill—abound in their pages upon pages of ignorant propaganda. I'm not surprised our anon was duped. Austin Hair 03:32, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

Could someone edit the second paragraph of the "Provisions" section so it's clear what the "these" refers to, ie it just says "these are all semi-automatic firearms" etc without being in context at all... Evercat 14:51, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Done. Wodan 01:53, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

Out of curiosity: I read this CNN article which says AK-47s and Uzis can now be bought - but I gather from our article and the talk above that fully automatic weapons are still illegal. So is CNN just completely wrong, or do semi-automatic-only Uzis and AK-47s exist? Confused, Evercat 17:21, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Semi-automatic-only versions of many fully automatic weapons do exist. This is because most countries ban fully automatic weapons and it is not very hard for gun manufacturers to simply remove the fully automatic feature of weapons they already make. Concerning the CNN article you read, the assault weapons ban made the semi-automatic versions of fully automatic weapons illegal. I believe this was because it is not hard to convert a semi-automatic gun back to a fully automatic gun if the parts are already made. The article you read was talking about the federal assult weapons ban automatically expiring ten years after it went into effect, which happened today (Monday September 13, 2004). Now that the assault weapons ban has expired, you are free to buy all the weapons that it banned, as long as the state you live in has not also banned the same weapons, which is true of California and many other states. I hope this answers you question.

Well, not an American myself, you see, but thanks for the explanation. :-) Evercat 23:06, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)