You know you're in trouble when even Salon destroys the "assault weapon" myth

[pablo_marmol]

First off, why not just re-institute the “assault weapons” ban that expired in 2004?

"I think that would be a mistake. A ban on military-style rifles won’t do much to stop criminal activity and, in the case of mass shootings, handguns are used more often and to equally devastating effect. Contrary to popular wisdom, these are not machine guns, which have been effectively outlawed for sale since 1986. Like a handgun, you need to pull the trigger for each round you wish to fire. Most of these guns are basically rifles with military styling. When the federal assault weapons ban was in effect, the manufactures just made slight alterations in the design and sold the same guns, with the same lethality, by the millions.

Basically, banning assault-type weapons to prevent mass shootings is like regulating drunk driving by banning scotch. Most people seem to believe that it is more like banning all hard alcohol, leaving drinkers with the less powerful spirits, like beer and wine. In fact, it’s more like banning scotch and allowing people to drink vodka, tequila, and rum. Even with a ban on assault weapons, there will still be equally powerful weapons out there."

http://www.salon.com/2016/06/20/an_ar_15_ban_wont_stop_mass_shootings_thats_like_regulating_drunk_driving_by_banning_scotch/

The "banning Scotch" analogy is spot-on!

[bluestateguy]

1. There is no evidence that the AWB is even partially resposible for falling crime rates in the 90's

Those guns are an overall very small share of actual crime rates.

[CrowCityDem]

2. No one serious says it will stop mass shootings...

... but the idea is that by banning assault rifles, people would have less access to powerful weapons, which could at least limit the damage when one of these incidents happens. It's not proposed as a cure-all, but at least a step taken to save SOME lives, even if far too many will still be lost.

The argument seems to, as most do nowadays, devolve into a criticism that because it won't completely solve a problem, it isn't worth considering.

[gejohnston]

3. the the words of Sam Harris

on the event "those who don't know anything about guns are confused and those who do are being dishonest." These are actually less powerful than grandpa's deer rifle, unless he uses this round for deer hunting. First, mass murders are statistically rare. Since this was a terrorist attack, he blocked the exits and would have got the same results with a couple of petrol bombs.

BTW, this isn't an assault rifle. True assault rifles have been pretty much banned when FDR was in office. Assault rifles are capable of automatic fire, like the ones used in Charlie Hebdo and the Paris night club. Europe and Thailand has far more terrorist attacks than we do per capita. Machine guns have been banned in Europe since, well, probably forever. That didn't stop people like the Red Brigade back in the day or Islamic fundies now.

My argument is that it doesn't solve a problem, simply grandstanding for elections and petty culture wars.

[CrowCityDem]

4. It does solve a problem. It's one less way to kill more people more efficiently.

[gejohnston]

5. no it doesn't

Do you seriously believe a law would deter a terrorist from getting a semi auto in the US when Europe, Thailand, and Israel can't stop them from getting machine guns? Why do you think it would more effective than our drug laws, heroin kills more people homicide. Illegal opiates kill more people than all gun deaths combined. How is that ban working out?
What's even worse, these people are talking about shredding the fifth amendment along with the second. Think about that.
Here is Joe Manshin's words

“The problem we have and really the firewall that we have right now is due process. It’s all due process. So we can all say, yeah, we want the same thing but how do we get there?” If a person is on the terrorist watch list like the gentleman, the shooter in Orlando, he was twice by the FBI, we were briefed yesterday about what happened, but that man was brought in twice. They did everything they could. The FBI did everything they were supposed to do, but there was no way for them to keep him on the nix list or keep him off the gun buy list. There was no way to do that. So can’t we say that if a person’s under suspicion, there should be a five-year period of time of time that we have to see if good behavior, if this person continues the same traits, maybe we can come to that type of an agreement? But due process is what’s killing us now.”

That isn't bashing the guy, that is his exact quote. He probably does a good job in fighting for liberal values and for the people in WV. But on this, he is wrong and illiberal.
https://ethicsalarms.com/2016/06/16/ethics-observations-on-the-unethical-quote-of-the-week-by-senator-joe-manshin-d-wv/

Ben Franklin is a personal hero of mine. His famous quote about liberty and security comes to mind.

[CrowCityDem]

6. Maybe not terrorists, but average nutbars, yes.

[Straw Man]

17. I hate to keep bringing this up, but ...

... this was done by an "average nutbar":

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/dozens-die-fire-illegal-bonx-social-club-1990-article-1.2152091

[Puha Ekapi]

7. Damn that pesky...

...due process. We can't let the rights of the people get in the way of our objectives now can we?

[DonP]

8. Aw, hell no

In the past week I've seen people absolutely willing to throw out the 1st amendment by banning anyone that doesn't demand another AWB.

Some DU members in favor of forced confiscation, including door to door searches and seizure ... ironically, by other people with guns doing their dirty work.

The gun control folks are just not happy with most of the Bill of Rights, and are perfectly willing to throw the rest in the Crapper to get at the 2nd.

[pablo_marmol]

13. I quit being surprised by Controller hypocrisy a long time ago.

Still nauseates me though.

[Duckhunter935]

10. Did you even BOTHER to read the article?

[Matrosov]

11. It doesn't solve anything at all

How do we define assault rifles? By the definition of the 1994 law? That focused on cosmetic aspects of the rifles. The reality was that after the 1994 ban everybody could still purchase an AR15 that was functionally the exact same as an AR15 before the 1994 ban.

We could reinstate the 1994 ban tomorrow and it would literally stop zero people from walking into the next night club with an AR15 and maybe killing 100 people. 'It's better than nothing.' No, nothing is still nothing.

Want to get rid of AR15s? Ban semi-automatic rifles in general. But then you'd still have to figure out a way to get the tens of millions of existing semi-automatic rifles off the streets.

[gejohnston]

14. there is a technical definition for assault rifle

"assault weapon" is whatever some politician says it is. You could also buy an AR that is functionally the same as the the ones before and after the ban. It only banned cosmetic features.

Assault rifles, like the ones used at Charlie Hebdo, the Paris night club, and Westgate Mall, have been banned. BTW, they are illegal in those countries too.

Oh, and your avatar is of a mass murderer. Che was to Castro what Himmler was to Hitler.

[Matrosov]

15. Is a mass murder of mass murderers still a mass murderer?

Most of Ernesto's 'victims' were scum who killed tens of thousands of Cubans in the name of the Eisenhower-backed Batista regime. I doubt the term 'mass murderer' is appropriate, but then again, I've seen people around here who honestly try to establish a link between Sanders and Venezuela. There's never any shortage of conservative propaganda, even on DU.

¡Hasta la victoria siempre! ..comrade

[gejohnston]

16. nonsense, that is Cuban government propaganda

the executions were anyone who were "enemies of the revolution" including gays. He said he enjoyed killing people in his own writings. If you ever read his diary, you will also see that he was a racist.
A racist totalitarian is a racist totalitarian. The fact that one wore a swastika and the other a red star is of no consequence to me.

[pablo_marmol]

12. You've been sold a lie. Read and learn.

http://www.assaultweapon.info/

[benEzra]

18. You just proved Salon's point.

Outlawing rifle handgrips that stick out (which is what you actually mean by "banning assault weapons&quot does not affect, in any way, the lethality of available rifles. Just like outlawing scotch, but not vodka, wouldn't affect drunk driving in the slightest.


"Assault weapon":




Not an "assault weapon":




Those are the *same rifle*.

[Duckhunter935]

9. Ouch, or should I say bazinga