"Assault" weapons bans

[bascule]

I *hate* Tucker Carlson, but in this video he's awesome:

 

 

This video underlies the real problem with assault weapons bans: the legislation is authored by people who are unfamiliar with the items they're attempting to legislate, and the end-result is legislation that doesn't make any sense.

 

For example, in this video, the proposed legislation defines guns with a barrel shroud as being assault weapons. This makes about as much sense as defining computers with a heat sink that can accommodate an 80mm fan as being supercomputers.

 

Worse, the author of the legislation had no idea what a barrel shroud actually is. Asked repeatedly by that horrible douchebag and human slime Tucker Carlson, she simply couldn't answer what a barrel shroud actually is.

 

I'm not against an assault weapons ban per se, but I haven't seen one worded in such a way that I could actually agree with it. The ones I've seen so far are a complete joke.

[Pangloss]

I vaguely remember agreeing at the time that the AWB was flawed.

 

I think it's going to happen, though. Almost a sure thing, IMO.

[foodchain]

Guns are by far to plentiful to really be banned in the first place. I mean in some places you can sort of control I imagine the population density of weapons but those places I think geographically have to be either well isolated or small overall if not both.

 

How do you really ban guns in just the state of California really, or any type, how do you adequately police that for such giving the reality of gun industry and the fact weapons are international also?

 

I could agree with banning dangerous people from assault weapons, but thats about just a band aid of all I think you can really do.

 

I think such a ban really would only serve to piss off those that do not really commit violent crimes with them for the most part. Such a person could decided to hurt people and do more damage with an assault rifle over a club or a knife I would think, but its not in America really doing to derail people from getting such weapons if they want them really bad, simply put there are to many guns flowing into a very large and heavily populated area.

 

There needs to be action to really reduce the amount of small arms floating around on the globe, or else I think most any legislation is flawed and temporary and just another way to punish people but not come close to ending such crimes.

 

I also have to look at the moral message behind this. Sure you can say an assault rifle is more deadly then a shotgun, but how about a semiauto shotgun? IS there just some probability density on how many causalities a person can inflict? Are some guns okay because a nutcase may only be able to hurt X amount of people?

[ecoli]

I *hate* Tucker Carlson, but in this video he's awesome:

 

I'll be hearing him speak this friday for a Cato Institute event. I'll tell him you send your love.

[Severian]

In my view, the most worrying thing about that clip is how stupid the politician is. I know nothing about guns, but just the words "barrel shroud" tell me rather explicitly what a barrel shroud is.

[Rakdos]

Politicians are so misinformed about certain things like the differance in Clips and Magazines. For the less informed I give you Figure 1:

 

[Riogho]

I also have to look at the moral message behind this. Sure you can say an assault rifle is more deadly then a shotgun, but how about a semiauto shotgun? IS there just some probability density on how many causalities a person can inflict? Are some guns okay because a nutcase may only be able to hurt X amount of people?

 

 

From what I've always been told is that what guns are used for (hunting) doesn't really require an automatic shotgun for instance. If you need an automatic shotgun to kill a deer than you are a terrible hunter. So what else would that automatic shotgun be used for? Shooting people.

 

Or so they say.

[ParanoiA]

Well, first, it's perfectly legal to be a terrible dear hunter. If white people are allowed to dance, then you really have no argument here. J/K.

 

Also, people come in all flavors. Some could be innocent, reasonable people trying to make it day to day with a fairly ethical approach. Some could be soldier types attempting to oppress the people and remove their freedoms with force, no doubt using terrorism and fear to justify it. It's nice to be armed for the latter, and assault rifles are more effective than hunting rifles and handguns.

[Saryctos]

From what I've always been told is that what guns are used for (hunting) doesn't really require an automatic shotgun for instance. If you need an automatic shotgun to kill a deer than you are a terrible hunter. So what else would that automatic shotgun be used for? Shooting people.

 

Or so they say.

Guns are also used for home protection and fun at the range/skeet trap. In some cases I've heard of people using them for goose bustin'

[Flashman]

Given that your truly motivated nutjob would spend 15 years collecting paper clips to forge into a weapon, I think the answer is obviously to ban steel and all metals strong enough to make firearms or edged weapons. Possession of chert, flint or obsidian should likewise be banned. We would all have to manage with plastic eating utensils and pyrex cooking pots (provided they are tempered to shatter into small pieces) but it would be a small price to pay for the freedom to bully and marginalize sensitive individuals until they snapped. Then should they prove adaptive, and merely attempt to gouge peoples eyes out with their thumbs, we should implement compulsory surgically attached thumb caps for all, to prevent entry of a thumb into an eye socket.... eventually we'll have a truly safe society where it's impossible to do anything harmful.

[Realitycheck]

From what I've always been told is that what guns are used for (hunting) doesn't really require an automatic shotgun for instance. If you need an automatic shotgun to kill a deer than you are a terrible hunter. So what else would that automatic shotgun be used for?

 

"To defend your home from terrorists, thieves, etc."

[Sisyphus]

"To defend your home from terrorists

 

Surely we can stipulate exceptions if you live in the mountains of Afghanistan.

 

To Flashman's sarcasm: I'm sorry, but we have to draw the line somewhere, and your slippery slope can go in both directions and end up just as ridiculous in the other. It's simply not acceptable to me, for example, that my neighbor be allowed to construct his own functioning nuclear ICBM. He's got too much of a temper, and I just don't value my second amendment rights enough to allow the highly likely annihilation of myself and the other millions of people within the blast radius. Yet of course, outlawing all weapons is both clearly unconstitutional and even more clearly impossible. And so, since neither logical extreme is an option, I'm afraid we have no choice but to make reasonable judgements (gasp!) on a case by case basis.

[Flashman]

Reasonableness! Pah, that's a slippery slope, next you'll be insisting people have a sense of proportion and don't see everything in black and white terms.

[bascule]

Is everyone clear that "assault weapons" bans are more inclusive than a ban on automatic weapons?

 

Assault weapons bans are worded around various features present on the guns. The guns aren't automatic.

 

It's like if we were trying to get rid of street racing by placing a ban on all "racing cars", racing cars defined as any car with a spoiler.

[waitforufo]

These rifle bans are all silly cosmetics. The original post mentions a "barrel shroud." I'm reasonably sure they are trying to ban muzzle flash suppressors. Muzzle flash suppressors are used on military weapons to reduce the chance of location identification at night. Not much use in civilian applications unless you consider insurrection a civilian application (as many of our founders did). The reason they use the term "barrel shroud" instead of muzzle flash suppressor is because the term is more generic and avoids semantic issues. The problem with this is that there are muzzle enhancements that would fit the term "barrel shroud" that are used to improve weapon accuracy. For example Browning makes a system called BOSS (Ballistic Optimizing Shooting System)

 

http://www.browning.com/products/catalog/firearms/detail.asp?value=001B&cat_id=035&type_id=005

 

BOSS is a barrel resonance tuning weight attached at the rifle muzzle. When a rifle is fired the bullet passes down the length of the barrel at a speed determined by the powder charge and the weight of the bullet. These cartridge characteristics as well as the barrel length attempt to ring the barrel like a bell but at a frequency determined by the time the bullet passes through the barrel. The barrel itself has a natural frequency based on its physical dimensions alone. If these two frequencies are properly matched, the barrel vibration looks like a half wavelength standing wave. In other words in wiggles in the middle but the breach end and the muzzle end are stationary. This significantly improves accuracy at long ranges. Also, since the barrel resonance can be tuned to match the cartridge, the resonance characteristic does not need to be damped by adding barrel weight. Barrel weight can therefore be reduced making the weapon easier to carry during the hunt. Most BOSS systems include holes drilled into the weight that act as a recoil break. Gasses leaving the barrel after the bullet push out through these holes and back toward the shooter reducing the force of recoil. Less recoil on the shooter also improves shooter accuracy, mostly because the shooter does not flinch in anticipation of a large recoil.

 

So banning "barrel shrouds" would also ban rifles designed specifically for hunting or long range target shooting. Trying to ban "barrel shrouds" is just going to piss off hunters.

 

Another cosmetic favorite of gun banners is to ban weapons with bayonet mounts. So importers of bolt action military surplus weapons have to grind off these mounts before importation. What is the point of this? Have we recently had a crime wave of bayoneting?

 

There are probably more semi-automatic weapons in the US than any other type. A semi-automatic weapon fires one cartridge each time the trigger is pulled without manually cycling the receiver. So semi-automatic weapons include almost all handguns including revolvers and all rifles with the exception of pump, lever, and bolt action rifles. Pumps and lever action rifles however can be cycled manually very quickly. Almost everyone that owns more than one rifle owns a semi-automatic rifle. Generally this will be a 22 caliber (22 long rifle). The rounds for this rifle cost about 1 cent each. Because 22s are so prolific in both handguns are rifles, the 22 cartridge is the most dangerous (deaths and injuries) and the least likely to be successfully band.

 

The second amendment says nothing about hunting. The recent Supreme Court decision says nothing about hunting (Heller).

 

As a Republican, I truly hope the democrats try to ban guns.

[bascule]

These rifle bans are all silly cosmetics. The original post mentions a "barrel shroud." I'm reasonably sure they are trying to ban muzzle flash suppressors.

 

Or they're just assuming that any weapon intended for a high enough rate of fire that it needs a barrel shroud to improve cooling is clearly intended as an assault weapon.

[Phi for All]

WARNING!

 

This is not aimed () at any one person, but let's be clear that this thread is NOT about guns and gun control in general. It is very specifically about bans on assault weapons. Threads on gun control in general go on ad infinauseum and really go nowhere.

[Dak]

Or they're just assuming that any weapon intended for a high enough rate of fire that it needs a barrel shroud to improve cooling is clearly intended as an assault weapon.

 

i'm not exactly a weapon-technician, but wouldn't the truly dedicated psychopath fork out the extra money for an assault weapon made with different metal, that could sustain as high a ROF without the need for a barrel shroud?

[foodchain]

Thats a issue though is it not. I mean the mini-13 has been a hot topic in gun regulation debates forever. Today they make 7.62 ones. You can buy all kinds of high power rifles, carbines, or heck soon to be full auto shotguns. The damage this weapons can inflict are amazing really, in many situations it has been proven humans acting criminally can inflict mass casualties really, even in the face of organized armed resistance.

 

I think a better term of such should be civil weapons ban, who wants anyone to be able to obtain to easily such weapons. I think this could be a simple fix by simply making such weapons outrageously expensive to purchase. Then focus on combating black market arms trade in the U.S. In some nations in Africa for instance a crate of ak's don't cost that much, this kind of problem occurs on a global scale really or in many nations. So many ways if you just think rationally rather then with fervent passion for just the gun I think its easy to see problems.

[YT2095]

A semi-automatic weapon fires one cartridge each time the trigger is pulled without manually cycling the receiver. So semi-automatic weapons include almost all handguns including revolvers and all rifles with the exception of pump, lever, and bolt action rifles.

 

semi-auto is largely accepted to mean single action (self cocking), rather than double action as in the case of a revolver.

[waitforufo]

semi-auto is largely accepted to mean single action (self cocking), rather than double action as in the case of a revolver.

To bascule's point, the definition of terms often gets in the way of gun ban legislation. I mention revolvers because the primary goal of any assault weapons ban is to eliminate from the public rapid fire weapons. In fact, revolvers can be fired more rapidly than semi-automatic handguns. The secondary goal of any assault weapons ban is to eliminate from the pubic rapid fire weapons capable of holding a large capacity of cartridges. Revolvers fail this test but it brings in to consideration other weapons like pump and lever action weapons.

 

Pump and lever action weapons can be fired rapidly and can carry a large number of cartridges. The Henry Rifle was used in the civil war with devastating results. The original weapon did not include a forend and those that used it often complained about the barrel being to hot to hold during the required rapid fire of combat. This weapon evolved into the commonly used Winchester 30-30. Also consider the common Remington 870 wingmaster shotgun. The hunting versions of this weapon are commonly built with a 5 round capacity (w/one round chambered) of three inch cartridges. A 3 inch 12 gauge 00 buckshot round holds 12, 38 caliber lead balls. So this common hunting weapon can very quickly fire sixty 38 caliber bullets.

 

I mention all this because assault weapons bans will never achieve their goals. They will always be based on silly cosmetic features on weapons. They should stop calling them assault weapon bans and simply call them ugly weapon bans. The ugly features are then easily removed. Don’t like bayonet lugs? The lugs are simply ground off. Don’t like barrel shrouds? Just take them off. Don’t like pistol grips? Remove the pistol grip and stock and replace with a thumb hole stock.

 

If the Democratic Party wants to fall into this bottomless pit, I as a Republican welcome them to it.

 

Finally, since it is Thanksgiving Day, I would like to thank the founders of the United States for the Second Amendment to the Constitution. I would also like to thank the US Supreme Court for the Heller decision.

Edited November 27, 2008 by waitforufo

[YT2095]

In fact, revolvers can be fired more rapidly than semi-automatic handguns.

 

only by fanning and considerable loss of accuracy due to this method.

[waitforufo]

only by fanning and considerable loss of accuracy due to this method.

 

You only need to fan a single action revolver. The fanning action is to cock the weapon. Double action revolvers don't need to be fanned.

 

This guy is not fanning..

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uisHfKj2JiI

 

No not everone can do this, but with a little practice most can produce speed and accuracy.

[Flashman]

Excess stocks of turn of the 19th Century bolt action rifles were converted to emergency issue light machine guns in WWII with a few simple machine shop parts... It's very easy for a determined psychopath to do this. Rigging forward pistol grips or fold down stocks is trivial. There's nothing too complicated about making extended capacity magazines either. Jewish resistance fighters in the Warsaw ghetto made submachine guns out of plumbing parts. It's very rare indeed that a major shooting incident is the result of someone "Just snapping" they've been planning it for months, even years. Guns were invented, there's no putting the genie back in the bottle. All you can do is frustrate the hell out of enthusiasts while barely hindering the criminals and psychopaths. Doesn't matter if you make some collection of trivial gun features super double secret illegal or not, the "wrong hands" will find a way to get it.

[npts2020]

You can and should attempt to track where all weapons are going in order to help keep them out of the hands of psychopaths and criminals imo.