The claim that the AWB bans guns based on cosmetic features is left over rhetoric from the last time. The new ban is so much more extensive and names so many more guns specifically that it's just not true.
This is a classic pro-gun trick, exaggerate or distort what the opposition says and then argue against it as if they really did say it. You can see it on this very blog all the time. The gun-rights folks take their cue from the NRA.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
A comparison to racism is overwrought, but the cosmetic feature criticism of the old AWB was TOTALLY justified. Just look at the fact that the gun used at Newtown was compliant with the first ban, and that the Mini-14, which I talked about recently was not covered by it at all and fired the same round out of magazines that are very similar to AR-magazines, identical in size, and were also very available even after the ban due to the large number of them.
ReplyDeleteAs for Feinstein's new ban, we Still don't have the text, but from her summary, the most common models of Mini-14 would STILL not be covered. The only model covered would be the assault on my aesthetic sensibilities that E.N. provided a link to a VPC picture of--the Least common model.
Post Script:
DeleteIf you want me to explain myself on the cosmetic criticism of the old ban, I'll gladly do it, but I won't do so unless asked as I don't want to draft a long post on a moot point.
Similarly, I'd be willing to give my analysis of Feinstein's new bill, at least as much as we know of it, if you doubt my statements regarding it and what it covers. Otherwise, I'll wait til I know exactly what we're dealing with.
In the mean time, I'd like to know how you would define an Assault Weapon since the definition is up in the air. Also, why would you define it in that way, and why are the defined weapons more dangerous than weapons that fall outside the ban?
The formal definition of "assault weapon" is not up in the air. Government, media, and gun control proponents continually misapply that term to firearms that are not assault weapons. It is a scary term that gun control proponents know invokes a visceral response in the masses that do not know any better.
DeleteThe firearms that are frequently and incorrectly called "assault weapons" are simply semi-automatic handguns or rifles with detachable magazines and pistol grips.
Anonymous,
DeleteI think you are thinking of the term "Assault Rifle" which is what is inappropriately applied as you describe.
"Assault Weapon" is often confused with "Assault Rifle" a military term that, I'm sure someone has noted here in the past, is applied to a select fire rifle, often carbine length, firing an intermediate power cartridge.
When I talked about the definition of "Assault Weapons" being up in the air, it is because the term didn't exist before the push for the first AWB. The term was created because, as you say, it would create a visceral impact, and because confusion with the military term "assault rifle" would lead people to worry about the rednecks buying their unregistered M-16's.
Right now, the term "Assault Weapon" is defined differently in different state laws, but there isn't a federal definition. This is why we won't really know what guns fall under the definition until we have a bill introduced and see the lists and features. Right now, we'd just be guessing based on Feinstein's summary.
I agree that defining "assault weapon" is a problem. That's why in the new AWB they're planning on naming more specific guns than they did last time. High cap mags is pretty straight forward though.
DeleteEven if we create a definition, not by listing features, but by simply naming the guns themselves (which is a process that has a lot of problems), why would banning AR's, AK's, and others you would want on that list help. This is taking out magazine size bans--capacity is a separate issue from the design of the gun itself as a high cap mag can and has been made for everything.
DeleteSo, without talking about Magazines, what makes an AR, AK, or some other type of gun more dangerous than a typical, allowable, reasonable semi-automatic hunting rifle?
As for Magazine bans, they're not so straightforward. We have genuine reasons for wanting standard sized magazines rather than reduced size 10 rounders. One of the reasons is in case of a multiple actor home invasion which can require more than 10 shots, especially if you miss a couple times. If someone can't have a 30 round magazine with 15-20 rounds in it, they're probably going to have 3 ten rounders with 7-8 rounds each.
But these aren't the people you have to worry about. You have to worry about the spree shooters and other criminals. Even if they can only get their hands on 10 round magazines, these can be changed very quickly, so that as long as the shooter puts some small distance between himself and his victims, as most other than Loughner have done, they can change magazines as much as they need to. In the case of Sandyhook, there would have been no difference. Lanza could have still killed the teachers first and then proceeded to massacre the children. The suggestion that having to change out magazines would have slowed him is ludicrous given that a painfully slow magazine change takes a 2-3 seconds (more common would be 1-1.5) and he had 20 minutes.
I'm not so sure how you can say this isn't a cosmetic ban. It's still based on a features test, rather than the actual function of the gun. They're not banning semiautomatics that can accept detachable magazines. In fact, from what I can extrapolate from Dianne Feinstein's summary of her impending legislation, it's probably going to be the California ban attempted at a national level, since new features include "thumbhole stocks".
ReplyDeleteEven naming firearms by name is kind of pointless; technically all firearms by the name "AR-15" are banned in Connecticut. While we will see what Dianne Feinstein names, the reality is that's no going to be a substantive policy change either.
What everyone is telling you is what we all knew already, "assault weapon" is an invented term and thus there's no substantive definition to be used. This was something your colleagues in the Violence Policy Center noted when they coined the term, that creating a definition would be difficult.
Jack, in the new AWB, how many guns are named?
DeleteWe don't know for sure. Feinstein won't give up the list, and her filing of the bill has been pushed off til the 22nd. I've called several times and requested a better summary. They're keeping it close to the vest.
DeleteWhat we do know is that it includes a cosmetic features test, cut down to one feature instead of two so that it pulls in more types of guns, and it still looks silly to us due to what it does and doesn't cover.
It's sure to outlaw AR's and AK's whether you use a 10 round magazine or not. However, it looks like it won't affect M14's which are semi-auto and shoot a MUCH more powerful round, but which don't look as threatening.
120. If you think that somehow hits every gun ever, I don't know what to tell you. Besides, if it's anything like the Connecticut or California bans (which already name an absurd amount of firearms), I'm guessing at least a good portion of those will be guns absolutely no one has any access to anyways. Those bans had examples like "Steyr AUG" and "K1/K2" (standard assault rifle of South Korean Army). Say what you will, but to my knowledge neither of those are sold in any sort of configuration US civilians in even the most lenient of states would be able to access.
DeleteJack,
DeleteJust for informational purposes, there are a few Steyr AUG's around. They were too expensive when they brought them over here, so few people bought them. In Tennessee, the patron state of shootin stuff, I see one at a gun show occasionally--once every year or two. Typically its a safe-queen that someone is selling so they can get something more practical (or a new safe queen). (Come to think of it, there's no way of knowing I'm not seeing the same Steyr. change hands repeatedly the way I've watched a certain Norinco SKS sporter float around.)
Still, your point is well taken in noting that there are very few of many of these guns in circulation. Listing them is probably to provide an additional block to their import.
I think they're also naming hundreds of guns that are not affected by the ban.
DeleteThe thing is, we don't know what these named guns are. I've called Senator Feinstein's office many times trying to get details but they won't release them. The NRA claims to have a leaked copy and says that some of the guns given an exclusion wouldn't fall under the ban anyway.
DeleteWe'll have to see when the bill text becomes available to all of us.
Something we can discus, though, is the merits or flaws of defining a group of guns as assault weapons and of the definition itself.
It's almost like they think guns make people kill people. The whole thing is complete and utter nonsense.
ReplyDeleteorlin sellers
Only your comment is nonsense. It's not at all like they think guns make people kill. Only gun-rights fanatics keep saying that as a way of ridiculing gun control people. It's one of the many lies.
DeleteRiculing gun control freaks is easy. Orlin's was merely one of many ways to do it.
DeleteMikeB, you often claim that gun rights advocates conflate gun control sentiments. For example you claim that gun control advocates just want some "sensible" laws and don't want to ban all guns or nearly all guns. Then we get legislation like the package that will be introduced shortly in Illinois which will ban everything but break action (single shot) and bolt action rifles. (The proposed ban makes pump action and semi-automatic shotguns that are indisputably designed for hunting illegal.)
ReplyDeleteAre there times that people are misinformed or even deceitful? Sure -- on both sides. What I see, however, is a consistent trend of ignorance and/or deceit on the gun control side. I don't see that consistent practice on the gun rights side.
You're blind then. It's probably due to excessive bias.
DeleteTelling us that this new proposed ban is worse than the last ban isn't helping your case, especially since you constantly claim that you don't want to ban guns.
ReplyDelete"Ban guns" is not the same as prohibiting certain ones. You use the general and inflammatory expression, "ban guns" to conjure ideas of total gun bans and door to door confiscations.
DeleteI didn't propose an Assault Weapons Whatchamacallit. It's your side that keeps coming up with proposed bans.
DeleteMike,
DeleteThat's where you'd be wrong. When we said Obama would ban guns back during the campaigns (and we said that McCain and Romney would probably try too), we were talking about Assault Weapons.
We're smart enough to realize that we will be left some type of gun as a token of the Second Amendment. Heck, even the Illinois ban proposal allows single shot shotguns and bolt action rifles. We object, however, to having the most efficient tools for self defense removed from us.
mikeb302000January 5, 2013 9:04 PM
ReplyDelete"Ban guns" is not the same as prohibiting certain ones. You use the general and inflammatory expression, "ban guns" to conjure ideas of total gun bans and door to door confiscations.
You have absolutely no understanding of the English language.
Main Entry: prohibit [proh-hib-it]
Definition: make impossible; stop
Synonyms: ban, block, bottle up, box in, bring to screeching halt, constrain, cool*, cork, debar, disallow, enjoin, forbid, forfend, freeze*, gridlock, halt, hamper, hang up, hinder, hold up, impede, inhibit, interdict, jam up, keep lid on, kill, lock up, nix, obstruct, outlaw, pass on, preclude, prevent, proscribe, put a lock on, put a stopper in, put chill on, put down, put half nelson on, restrain, restrict, rule out, shut out, spike*, stymie*,
So some guy whose hairdo comes from sticking his finger in a light socket is offended? I'm supposed to care?
ReplyDeleteOn the subject of bans, Illinois and New York are talking right now about banning semiautomatic firearms. Confiscation is even being discussed. Mikeb, you can deny that bans are the goal, but your side is showing its true desires. What I don't understand is why you keep trying to fool anyone.
Mike may very well mean what he says and just want to ban some types of guns and regulate guns like crazy the way he talks about. I have known some people who were like this, and it won't hurt us to allow him that HE doesn't want to take all of our guns.
DeleteHowever, it would also be nice if, after seeing attempts like this, he would admit that we're not so far out there in believing that some modern politicians and activists WOULD like to ban all guns and take them away from us.
There are extremists on both sides, but no serious gun control person wants to remove all guns from civilian ownership. The extremists on your side often say that is our hidden agenda, but I don't think it's true.
DeleteMike,
DeleteIllinois democrats have proposed taking away damn near every gun. They're taking it up again this afternoon. They are trying to outlaw All types of semi-autos, double action revolvers, and even pump action shotguns. This is probably 90% or more of guns.
There have been rumblings that New York legislators may try the same if Illinois succeeds. In the case of at least these people, it appears that this has been their hidden agenda all along, even though they have been talking more about assault weapon bans. It is therefore difficult for us to trust that compromise with the gun control demands you issue won't make us vulnerable to the politicians on your side who do want to take almost everything.
Mikeb, I'm willing to accept that you may not have thought through the implications of all the things that you propose. The fact is, though, that if your ideas became law, no matter how unconstitutional that law would be, legal gun ownership would be so difficult that few could comply. It would be a de facto ban. Criminals, of course, would still be armed.
DeleteNo, Greg, it would only affect about half of you guys, the worst half.
DeleteMikeb, your proposals:
DeleteInsurance on each gun owned
Psych. exams for gun owners
Licensing for gun owners
Registration of all guns and annual inspections
Magazine limits
Medical exams for gun owners
May-issue policy to own guns
May-issue to carry guns
I'm sure I've left things out. Each one of those would cost money. Many of them create a lot of opportunity for officials to abuse their power. Each one of those would take time to comply with.
If you can't be honest, can you at least cease being stupid?
mikeb302000January 7, 2013 6:04 PM
ReplyDeleteNo, Greg, it would only affect about half of you guys, the worst half.
If they are the worst half why would they comply with any of your proposals?