Violence Policy Center claims over 1 million AWs sold since 1994

[slackmaster]

...The study also estimates that more than one million "post-ban" assault weapons have been manufactured in the United States since the ban's passage in 1994 and warns that today "there are more assault weapon manufacturers and assault weapons available for sale than ever before."

That's what always happens when you tell people they can't make or own a particular thing that they like to make or own.

See http://www.vpc.org/press/0407USofAW.htm

The study itself contains some interesting ideas that might make good discussion items here. For example, from the proposed model legislation:

Clarify the term “firearm” as used in the assault weapons ban to include the frame or receiver of a prohibited gun. The “receiver” of any firearm is its major working part. Receivers and frames are defined by the Gun Control Act of 1968 as “firearms.” The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), however, has adopted a different interpretation of this basic federal gun law in the case of assault weapons, determining that the term “firearm” as applied to assault weapons does not include receivers or frames....

Not strictly true. Right now Colt cannot make a lower receiver and mark it as an "AR-15" because that model is specifically banned. And in fact many kinds of firearms that can be configured as assault weapons (as defined by features, take your pick which definition to use) can also be configured as non-AWs. Well-known examples would include the Ruger Mini-14, Springfield M1A, and the US M1 Carbine. Is the VPC proposing banning all of those because they COULD be configured as AWs? That would be a pretty serious expansion of the law that would affect a lot of people.

This interpretation allows gun dealers and wholesalers to sell new receivers of otherwise banned guns. Furthermore, all of the other parts necessary to make an assault weapon are readily available, often sold as “parts kits.”

Yes, parts is parts. Receivers and frames ARE regulated for all types of firearms manufactured for resale. People have legitimate needs for replacement parts.

Compounding this problem is the fact that it is legal for an individual to manufacture a firearm for personal use.

Yet another Draconian expansion of the scope of the proposed law. Why shouldn't people in principle be allowed to make their own personal firearms? Does the federal government have constitutional authority to stop it? Even in California I can build my own firearms as long as I don't intend to sell them. Restrictions would have a chilling effect on inventors and craftspeople. Do we really need to do that in the interest of public safety? I don't believe so.

[FeebMaster]

1. Kind of dishonest calling post-ban weapons assault weapons.

Especially since civilian post-ban weapons are by definition not assault weapons.

[slackmaster]

5. I'm happy to give them a pass on that for purposes of discussion

But it does point out the inherently slippery slope of using loose definitions for items that are concrete.

[Bowline]

69. Damn you and your logic!

There you go again, spouting facts.

[MrBenchley]

2. That's what happens when a scummy industry

has the GOP in its pocket.....

[iverglas]

3. disingenuousness runneth amok

Yet another Draconian expansion of the scope of the proposed law. Why shouldn't people in principle be allowed to make their own personal firearms?

Uh, maybe ... just maybe ... because the whole fucking point of the whole fucking thing is to at least reduce the numbers of these things in private hands? How could it possibly matter who made them if that was the purpose??

Let's all remember that I think the US's "assault weapons ban" -- from what I know of it -- is ridiculous. What you folks obviously need is an assault weapons ban ... or, more accurately, a restricted access to assault weapons law.

Restrictions would have a chilling effect on inventors and craftspeople.

Yeah, that would be sad. Everybody should be permitted to make anything s/he wants, absolutely. Firearms, and the cloned human beings to shoot them at, right?

Yes, parts is parts. Receivers and frames ARE regulated for all types of firearms manufactured for resale. People have legitimate needs for replacement parts.

Not if anybody had got their silly act together and just BANNED ASSAULT WEAPONS, for dog's sake. Then nobody would have anything that needed parts.

Keep in mind that the things that the US's "ban" covers aren't actually banned in Canada, as I understand it. They are restricted. So anybody who qualified to own one would undoubtedly also qualify to acquire replacement parts.

And now let's everybody guess how much I care whether nobody thinks that anybody should have to qualify to own one ...

Again, feel free to read all about an actual working set of rules here:
statute: http://www.canlii.org/ca/sta/c-46/sec84.html
(something that is "prescribed" is a thing listed in the relevant regulations)
regulations: http://www.canlii.org/ca/regu/sor98-462/

I'm still curious how those rules might answer some of the kinds of questions you ask.

[FatSlob]

6. Why should they be banned or restricted?

[MrBenchley]

7. Becuase they're a public menace

[FeebMaster]

8. How so?

They were rarely used in crimes even before the AWB.

[Romulus]

9. yup

This:



is a "more deadlier public menace" than this:



Edited to add:
Or wait - is it the other way around? :crazy:

[MrBenchley]

12. Yeah, and "the ban is only cosmetic"...

[Zister]

55. Backyard pools and high school sports kill more than AW's

[iverglas]

64. oooooo!

We have another statistician in our midst!

One with great integrity, too, I see.

[iverglas]

14. no no no

If you want to remove yourself from the discussion, that's your prerogative.

"Participating" in a discussion of what should be banned, and how, by asserting that nothing should be banned no-how isn't participating.

[FatSlob]

17. I asked you a question

Are you going to answer it? I'll ask again. Why should they be banned or restricted?

[Romulus]

18. shut up -don't ask questions, serf

per the Canadian law:

"prescribed" means prescribed by the regulations

"prohibited firearm" means . . . d) any firearm that is prescribed to be a prohibited firearm

Certain Firearms are banned because the government says so.

Why are you questioning the government? What are you, an AMERICAN or something?!?

[MrBenchley]

20. Just repeat what nice Mr. Nugent and Mr. Pratt say...

they have your best interest at heart...

[iverglas]

24. if someone

can find a coherent thought in that post, I'll be glad to respond to it.

Certain Firearms are banned because the government says so.

(Actually, persons in Canada are prohibited from possessing certain firearms because the government says so. I find this talk of the "banning" of inanimate objects tiresome. Criminal laws ban conduct.)

Well, duh. Murder is banned because the government says so. Guess that's just not a good enough reason; time to un-ban it.

Of course, if I were proposing to un-ban murder because "the government says so" isn't a good enough reason for banning it, I'd expect someone to be pointing out that "the government says so" ISN'T REALLY THE REASON WHY IT IS BANNED.

Just 'cause somebody can type the words and put punctuation with 'em doesn't mean that they make sense.

Why are you questioning the government? What are you, an AMERICAN or something?!?

Damn, and here I thought I was agreeing with the government. It's just such a big giant coincidence that the government does some stuff that I think oughta be done, isn't it? I mean, it has nothing at all to do with ... whaddaya call those things now? ... elections?

Now, if I actually WERE a USAmerican, I gather that I'd be sitting around bitching and moaning and calling it "questioning the government" ...

[slackmaster]

10. Whether you stop people from building homemade guns or not

It is and will always remain easy to take an existing non-AW and convert it to an AW. I've built several firearms myself but never an AW - Because and only because it would be illegal for me to do so. When the ban ends I plan to reconfigure an AR-15 with pre-ban features. However, that will not be illegal and will not create a federal AW, nor will it violate California law because the lower receiver is already an AW and registered.

Uh, maybe ... just maybe ... because the whole fucking point of the whole fucking thing is to at least reduce the numbers of these things in private hands?

A purpose that the existing AW ban has spectacularly failed to achieve.

Everybody should be permitted to make anything s/he wants, absolutely. Firearms, and the cloned human beings to shoot them at, right?

I'd add just one caveat - Anything he or she wants to build that is legal for him or her to possess. That would include cloned humans to use as targets, provided the law excluded cloned humans from enjoying the civil rights of natural ones.

Not if anybody had got their silly act together and just BANNED ASSAULT WEAPONS, for dog's sake.

Begging the question - Just how would one define "assault weapon"? I'd be happy to consider any proposal that lends itself to scrutiny.

Keep in mind that the things that the US's "ban" covers aren't actually banned in Canada, as I understand it. They are restricted.

That accurately describes the state of "assault weapons" in the USA. If they were actually banned they would have been rounded up and destroyed.

[iverglas]

15. and what have we here?

In the context of *my* post, could

"A purpose that the existing AW ban has spectacularly failed to achieve." ... ...

... be one o' those straw fellas? Why, I do believe it could.

Find somewhere that I have argued in favour of the US's existing AWB, and then that won't just be bits of straw.

It is and will always remain easy to take an existing non-AW and convert it to an AW. I've built several firearms myself but never an AW - Because and only because it would be illegal for me to do so.

Well there ya go. And if it's illegal to do it, and people who don't care whether it's illegal or not do it anyway, and they get caught, then they can be charged, tried, convicted and punished. Just pretty much exactly how it works with ANY OTHER CRIMINAL OFFENCE. Not *all* firearms laws are going to keep firearms out of the hands of those who oughtn't to have them by making them less accessible/available; some of them are still going to have to rely on that old punitive/deterrent effect.

I'd add just one caveat - Anything he or she wants to build that is legal for him or her to possess.

And therein, again, appears to be a bundle of straw. If it is legal to possess the things that people in the US are not allowed to make, without restriction (e.g. without specific authorization), then the solution is to solve that problem, it seems to me: make anyone who wishes to possess the thing, whether it is an antique, made in China or cooked up in the bathtub, demonstrate qualification for possessing it. Not to make it legal to possess the damned thing, without having to qualify to possess it, as long as you cooked it up yrself. Is that true of, oh, meth? DDT?

Begging the question - Just how would one define "assault weapon"? I'd be happy to consider any proposal that lends itself to scrutiny.

Do you somehow keep managing to miss those nice colourful LINKS that I keep providing, along with the requests for comment?

That accurately describes the state of "assault weapons" in the USA. If they were actually banned they would have been rounded up and destroyed.

So all y'all need is a more functional and effective definition of what's subject to restricted access. We have one, and I'm sure you'd be welcome to borrow it.

[Romulus]

4. but I thought crime with "AW's" was down?

Wasn't that the whole point of the ban? Getting "AW's" "off the streets?"

:shrug:

[slackmaster]

11. That's where the ban advocates always use the proper definition

Crimes committed with pre-bans is down.

The AWB fans use whatever definition fits the moment.

[MrBenchley]

13. Whereas those creaming their jeans over assault weapons

will even pretend that the VPC opposes an assault weapon ban...

[RoeBear]

33. If you are referring to a comment I made...

...you are mistaken.

[OpSomBlood]

16. This is proof of the impotence of the 1994 law.

They are basically establishing here that, in their opinion, the definition set forth in 1994 of an "assault weapon" is faulty.

I find it curious that groups like Brady and the VPC blame the gun makers for using "loopholes" to skirt the ban, but never seem to blame the legislators whose ignorance resulted in those loopholes.

They always say "strengthen the ban"...what they should be saying is "the 1994 ban was a terrible piece of legislation" and work to get legislators into office who will promote their agenda while still possessing a modicum of technical knowledge on the subject.

The only problem with that is that the only people who seem to have expert technical knowledge of firearms are almost always pro-gun. I guess that's a dilemma.

So Brady and VPC end up stuck with people like Dianne Feinstein, who speaks for how "dangerous" assault weapons are while handling them in the single most dangerous manner possible. Makes the anti-gun side look marvelous.

[MrBenchley]

19. And why the ban should be strengthened...

Funny how our "pro gun democrats" never blame any of the Republican shitheads who fought the bill, isn't it?

"I find it curious that groups like Brady and the VPC blame the gun makers for using "loopholes" to skirt the ban"
Yeah, it's almost like the gun manufacturers actually did something scummy...oh wait, they DID.

[JayS]

21. Why bother doing anything with it if the laws are loosely...

...enforced anyway? Surely even certain "progressives" here can see a problem.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x72017

[MrBenchley]

22. Hey, why not turn up toes and become Republicans?

then you don't have to worry about corruption, dishonesty and greed imperiling the public.

See how easy that was? Wheeeeeee guns!

[JayS]

23. Are you saying Democrats don't want to enforce laws?

[MrBenchley]

25. Tell us, Jay...

Who do you suppose is responsible for gutting the budget of the BATF? The "eeeevil" Demcorats like Schumer and Feinstein that our "pro gun democrats" are always slandering? Or the shitheads in the GOP?

"In this age of terror and mad bombers and criminals armed to the fangs, the mission of the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms has become even more critical. Yet the agency is far less effective than it could and should be. One might even call it gun-shy. And that's being kind.
Part of the blame can be laid at the feet of the GOP, because Republicans in the Bush administration and Congress delight in doing the dirty work of the National Rifle Association. Each year, the NRA pressures Congress to cut the ATF's budget. As former NYPD Commissioner Bill Bratton observed in '98: "The NRA has strenuously opposed increased financing for the bureau and has successfully lobbied against giving it the authority to quickly investigate the origins of gun sales."
This year, it's even worse. Congress has compelled the ATF to keep secret the identities of illegal gun sellers."

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ideas_opinions/story/90655p-82435c.html

[JayS]

26. Their budget went up when they moved to Justice. Editorials...

...are not the best source of news.

[MrBenchley]

27. Yeah, surrrrrrrre....

[OpSomBlood]

28. The only way you'll get the "strengthening" you want...

...is to ban all semi-autos.

If that's what the anti-gunners want, they should lay it on the table. Think of how many lives you'll save if you just ban them all in one fell swoop rather than slowly conditioning the public over the course of several decades.

[TX-RAT]

29. ban all semi-autos.?

Where have i heard that before?
I'll be damned it was me.

[MrBenchley]

30. Sez you....

But I think I'll stick with Democrats like McCarthy and Schumer...

[OpSomBlood]

56. Why ban "assault weapons" and not other semi-autos?

Do you have an answer for that very simple question, especially since "assault weapons" are used in less than 3% of gun crimes?

Can anybody provide a compelling argument for why a rifle that fires one shot per trigger pull is "more lethal" than a pistol that fires one shot per trigger pull?

And is anybody here in favor of the AWB but not further bans? If so, can you explain why?

[JayS]

31. It sounds like a lot of lives could be saved if we work with the...

...laws we have already. It isn't as exciting as a new law but it is worth a shot.



http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x72017

[MrBenchley]

34. Sounds more like

SSDD

[JayS]

36. That is your response to poorly enforced laws? I thought you...

...were all big on this "saving lives" thing.

[MrBenchley]

38. That is my response to you...

But then I'm not into fantasy....

[JayS]

39. What an intelligent response....not.

[MrBenchley]

40. All the response it deserved...

[JayS]

42. It doesn't sound like you care at all about other people's lives.

I certainly would not entrust my safety to the likes of you.

[MrBenchley]

44. What I don't care about is RKBA horseshit...

but I guess you knew THAT....

[JayS]

45. Then you aren't upset that laws are not getting the proper attention?

[MrBenchley]

46. It's best not to work yourself up about RKBA horseshit

and focus on actual FACT.....you know, like the kind you were pretending the Daily News made up out of whole cloth?

[JayS]

47. RKBA? None of what I posted is a RKBA issue.

[MrBenchley]

48. Uh-HUH....

Certainly no-one's ever ever heard that from the RKBA crowd....

[JayS]

49. Are you drinking again?

[MrBenchley]

50. Nope....

but then I'm also not parroting the NRA's "if the laws were only enforced" horseshit, either.

[JayS]

51. That is from the Kerry campaign.

[OpSomBlood]

52. Keep in mind that he also thinks JFK's views on RKBA are invalid...

...because he was shot.

[MrBenchley]

59. You still flogging that JFK quote about the National Guard, op?

that's REALLY sad....

[OpSomBlood]

60. Actually, it was a quote about individual civilian RKBA.

You seem to have a selective memory.

[MrBenchley]

61. It was a quote about the National Guard....

We could ask him to be sure, but some asswipe with a gun shot him.

[OpSomBlood]

62. Yeah, the National Guard exists to protect us from "governmental tyranny"

Too bad the words "National Guard" are never uttered in this quote:

"Although it is extremely unlikely that the fears of governmental tyranny which gave rise to the Second Amendment will ever be a major danger to our nation, the Amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships, in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason, I believe the Second Amendment will always be important." - John F. Kennedy, April 1960

[MrBenchley]

63. Gee, op...

What did JFK say about that "governmental tyranny"? Oh yeah....it was "unlikely." Of course, its' worth noting that the fuckwits who have taken us as far along toward "governmental tyranny" as we've got in history are right wing shits and pro-gun all the way.

"our basic civilian-military relationships"
I guess there he's not referring to the National Guard but to some solitary humhole clutching a popgun in his pants as he skulks to church...

[OpSomBlood]

66. Whatever you say.

It's fun to watch you when you're wrong.

[MrBenchley]

58. Sez you...

but we've seen what that's worth...

[Wickerman]

32. So people build guns from parts kits?

All these law abiding lovilies willfully skirt the, uh, law? I, for one, am shocked.

[slackmaster]

35. I've built a few working firearms from parts kits

Not a blessed thing illegal about any of them.

I've also built non-firing display (dummy) guns, like my model German MG-34.

[Wickerman]

37. skirting the law vs breaking the law

difference.

[slackmaster]

41. Then skirting is not illegal

People do it all the time.

If you enter the USA from Mexico you are allowed to bring no more than one quart of alcoholic beverages. One liter is more than a quart, so our friends in Mexico who are WAY ahead of us in adopting the Metric System, cheerfully accommodate us by providing 946 ml bottles of tequila. Skirting the law or complying with it?

In California the exhaust pipe terminus of any street-legal vehicle must be no more than 11 inches nor less than 10 feet from the ground level. Lots of large trucks have pipes that end about 10 feet plus 1/2 inch above the pavement. Skirting the law or complying with it?

The legal minimum barrel length for an unregulated shotgun in the US is 18 inches measured from the bolt face (or sometimes the firing pin, which is how the BATF decided that Randy Weaver had violated the National Firearms Act on a barrel he shortened for a friend). I won't cut them to less than 18-1/2" just to make it clear I'm complying with the law (or would some people claim I'm skirting it?)

Guns are solid objects with measurable dimensions and definable physical traits. No matter where you set limits, people are always going to do just the minimum to COMPLY with the law. And, it seems that there will always be someone around to talk about "skirting" and how that makes the skirter a bad person.

[FeebMaster]

43. What's wrong with building your own gun?

It's not like you can legally build a machine gun or violate any other federal law for that matter while you do it.

[mbnd45]

68. Here's the deal with

parts kits: You buy everything EXCEPT for the receiver. By definition of law, the receiver itself is the firearm. Everything else is just parts.
Building a kit gun does not skirt the law at all. You still have to purchase a receiver from an ffl and go through the background check, just as you would with a complete firearm. This allows the owner of the receiver to assemble a complete firearm from a wide variety of aftermarket parts to make a custom, one of a kind firearm.

[slackmaster]

70. Unless you make your own receiver or frame

In most cases that's the hardest part to make, and not within the abilities of most people.

[Gord]

53. They should

ban those scary guns.

[Zister]

54. They sell a million because

The AWB never made it illegal. It only made it illegal if they have 2 or more of the so called EVIL features. A plain jane AR-15 style rifle can be bought any day of the week. Its exactly the same as it was prior to the ban with the exception of things like a bayo lug, adj stock or barrel comp.

The Gun Makers took off a couple of evil features which complied with the law and kept selling them. Why define "Assault Weapon" and specificly state "WITH 2 OR MORE of the following features, if thats not what you mean?

No one is sneaking around the law.

[OpSomBlood]

57. If you think the law has "loopholes," blame the legislators who wrote it.

Again, I don't understand how gun manufacturers who are fully compliant with the law are "skirting" it. If the legislators "really meant" to ban all semi-automatic rifles, they should have passed a law clearly stating that.

[MrBenchley]

65. But only the Democratic ones...

according to our "pro gun democrats," the loopholes are never the fault of the Republican fuckwits who punched loopholes in it...or the gun lobby who funded them. It's only ther fault oif those trying to solve the problem in good faith....

[OpSomBlood]

67. Please cite examples.

I'm very curious, what was the "first draft" of the 1994 AWB, and how did the "Republican fuckwits" put the loopholes into it? Do you have this information? Can you prove that the original intent of the AWB was not to ban folding stocks and bayonet lugs...that it was supposed to ban a wider range of semi-autos?

Oh, I forgot...you don't back up your assertions with facts.