Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: why an assault weapon ban cant work:

Posted 6 years ago on Jan. 9, 2013, 7:19 a.m. EST by bensdad (8977)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

From Wikipedia: The 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB), was a subtitle of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, a federal law in the United States that included a prohibition on the manufacture for civilian use of certain semi-automatic firearms, so called "assault weapons". The 10-year ban was passed by Congress on September 13, 1994, and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton the same day.

The ban only applied to weapons manufactured after the date of the ban's enactment.

The Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired on September 13, 2004, as part of the law's sunset provision. There have been multiple attempts to renew the ban, but no bill has reached the House floor for a vote.

Criteria of an assault weapon
The term, assault weapon, when used in the context of assault weapon laws refers primarily (but not exclusively) to semi-automatic firearms that possess the cosmetic features of an assault rifle that is fully automatic. Actually possessing the operational features, such as 'full-auto', changes the classification from assault weapons to Title II weapons. Merely the possession of cosmetic features is enough to warrant classification as an assault weapon. Semi-automatic firearms, when fired, automatically extract the spent cartridge casing and load the next cartridge into the chamber, ready to fire again. They do not fire automatically like a machine gun. Rather, only one round is fired with each trigger pull.

In the former U.S. law, the legal term assault weapon included certain specific semi-automatic firearm models by name (e.g., Colt AR-15, TEC-9, non-select-fire AK-47s produced by three manufacturers, and Uzis) and other semi-automatic firearms because they possess a minimum set of cosmetic features

Provisions of the ban
The Act addressed only semi-automatic firearms, that is, firearms that fire one shot each time the trigger is pulled. Neither the AWB nor its expiration changed the legal status of fully automatic firearms, which fire more than one round with a single trigger-pull; these have been regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934 and Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986.

The Act also defined and banned 'large capacity ammunition feeding devices', which generally applied to magazines or other ammunition feeding devices with capacities of greater than a certain number of rounds, and that up to the time of the Act were considered normal or factory magazines. Media and popular culture referred to these as 'high capacity magazines or feeding devices'. Depending on the locality and type of firearm, the cutoff between a 'normal' capacity and 'high' capacity magazine was 3, 7, 10, 12, 15, or 20 rounds. The now defunct federal ban set the limit at 10 rounds.

During the period when the AWB was in effect, it was illegal to manufacture any firearm that met the law's flowchart of an assault weapon or large capacity ammunition feeding device, except for export or for sale to a government or law enforcement agency. The law also banned possession of illegally imported or manufactured firearms,

but did not ban possession or sale of pre-existing 'assault weapons' or previously factory standard magazines that were legally redefined as large capacity ammunition feeding devices.

This provision for pre-ban firearms created higher prices in the market for such items, which still exist due to several states adopting their own assault weapons ban. [edit] Compliance

The National Rifle Association has referred to the features affected by the ban as cosmetic,[3] as has the Violence Policy Center.[4]

In addition, in March 2004, Kristen Rand, the legislative director of the Violence Policy Center, criticized the soon-to-expire ban by stating, "The 1994 law in theory banned AK-47s, MAC-10s, Uzis, AR-15s and other 'assault weapons'. Yet the gun industry easily found ways around the law and most of these weapons are now sold in post-ban models virtually identical to the guns Congress sought to ban in 1994."

Expiration and effect on crime
Opponents of the ban claimed that its expiration has seen little if any increase in crime, while Senator Diane Feinstein claimed the ban was effective because "It was drying up supply and driving up prices."

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention studied the "assault weapon" ban and other gun control attempts, and found "insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence," noting "that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness."
A 2004 critical review of research on firearms by a National Research Council panel also noted that academic studies of the assault weapon ban "did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence" and noted "due to the fact that the relative rarity with which the banned guns were used in crime before the ban ... the maximum potential effect of the ban on gun violence outcomes would be very small...."

Senator Diane Feinstein announced she would introduce a Federal assault weapons ban bill in the U.S. Senate[27] following the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.[28] The original passage of the 1994 AWB preceded a Republican majority in Congress, whereafter Democrats were voted out.

Update!!! Scalia & Heller says the second amendment does not give the right to own assault weapons


a buyback plan &
a $25,000 fee to own one &
proof of $10,000,000 liability insurance &
1-5 years in jail for owning one illegally



Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by KevinPotts (368) 6 years ago

ATTENTION Gun Debaters…Please Read This Entire Article…‘The Riddle of the Gun’ By Sam Harris

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 6 years ago

demand a plan:


alex jones – without his straight jacket!

The 1994 gun "ban" did not ban assault weapons.
It banned the MANUFACTURE of assault weapons.
We must not repeat this mistake. We must do what CAN be done.


VP Joe Biden, Gun Panel, 1600 Pennsylvania Av, Washington DC 20006

Dear ............................:

[ Y.O.U.R...I.N.T.R.O...H.E.R.E ]

While some people may want to confiscate guns, here is a much more feasable approach. It will not solve all gun problems, but it will reduce the number of guns and will reduce the number of dangerous people who have access to guns - and isn't THAT our real goal?

Please consider advocating these four steps below to help America with our gun disasters:

My proposal - for a NATIONAL gun law for all guns & owners:
My four points are SIMPLY based on seeing a logical parallel between cars & guns.

all gun owners must be licensed & tested with all guns they own and pass a written test.

if you own a motor cycle, a dump truck, and a car - you are tested in each
a written gun test - to guarantee the owner's understanding of gun laws
being forced to know the law - via the test - means the police know who you are -
and you may be less likely to commit a crime

every year, you must prove that you have gun liability insurance &
be background checked and prove that your gun is properly locked when not used.

insurance should be at least as high as car insurance [ I would like at least $1,000,000 ]
you must prove your car insurance
annual back ground check to verify your suitability to own guns
every gun must be locked in a gun case or have a trigger lock

as the owner of a gun, you are legally responsible for what is done with it.

you are required to report if your gun is missing within 48 hours
the owner will be much less likely to leave a gun accessible to a family member or thief

every gun must be registered and tested & a sample fired bullet stored by the police

knowing that your gun & its bullets are so easily traced will make you think before using it


Gun fees should be high enough to create a very substantial gun buy-back program

Penalties must be very high in money & jail time - especially after the first offense

No citizens ( except dealers & real collectors ) need more than a small number of guns

Gun fees should be higher for more guns.

The nra fighting against this - will be balanced by the insurance companies fighting for it

But the nra may be in favor of this when the gun companies understand that a gun owner
can get paid to turn in their old gun and will be able to buy a new gun -
with an INTEGRATED lock .

If we legalize drugs, we will clear out jail cells to fill with gun law breakers and
free up police "time" for real crime investigation

I am fundamentally NOT opposed to confiscation, but we WILL get higher compliance
and lower opposition if we use high fees & buyback. Take a position of reducing guns,
like assault weapons such as semi-automatic rifles -
rather than punishing a gun nut who spent $10,000 on an armory.

Some real 2011 / 2012 gun statistics:

Americans own almost half of all civilian owned guns in the world.
Per 100,000: America: 88,880 guns owned ; 2.97 homicides
Per 100,000: England…: 6,200 guns owned ; 0.07 homicides
Per 100,000: Austrailia: 15,000 guns owned ; 0.14 homicides
Per 100,000: Canada…: 30,800 guns owned ; 0.51 homicides
Per 100,000: France…..: 31,000 guns owned ; 0.06 homicides
Per 100,000: Japan……..: 1,000 guns owned ; 0.08 homicides
Per 100,000: Israel……..: 7,300 guns owned ; 0.90 homicides

Clearly the number of guns adds to the risk of homicides.

More complex is the effect of gun laws and restrictions.

When Australia had a massacre in 1996 when 35 people were killed, gun laws were substantially strengthened and a major buy-back was instituted.
There has not been an incident in Australia since then.
Of course, they did not have the benefit of the nra.

For 2011, the average Murder Rate of Death Penalty States was 4.7,
while the average Murder Rate of States without the Death Penalty was 3.1

For 2011, the murder rates were highest in red state regions:
Per 100,000: South 5.5 Midwest 4.5 West 4.2 Northeast 3.9

In 2011, there were 11,000+ gun homicides in America
In 2011, there were 35 gun deaths in England

In the last 30 years there have been 62 gun massacres (4+ dead) in America
How many were stopped by an armed civilian?

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 6 years ago

yah the private prison system needs another way to fill it's prisons.

Really 1-5 years in prison for owning a gun because someone couldn't afford a 25,000 dollar fee?

I am not a gun owner, nor am I a fan of guns, but filling America's prisons with more people is not the solution to this problem. We already have the worlds largest prison system due to a failed war on drugs. You could learn something from portugal. They didn't make drugs cost 25,000 dollars to cut addiction rates.

I do like the gun owner insurance idea, but it needs to be affordable.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 6 years ago

minor clarification- the fee is to own an assault weapon - not a gun
gun fee should be like a car registration fee + money
for a buy back program
maybe $200-$500

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 6 years ago

oh okay. Buybacks work. Also gun amnesty days are legit too. Where people can turn guns over to the police, no questions asked. It gets guns off the street and cost is reduced in comparison to buy backs.

In my city people have turned in sawed off shot guns and even a grenade.

[-] 0 points by bigjoe (-117) 6 years ago

What is the point of this? What does it accomplish? Why would you want to burden tens of millions of honest, hard working middle class citizens, who haven't commited a crime.

Punishing the masses of gun owners solves nothing. Try again.

[-] -1 points by outlawtumor (-162) 6 years ago

Since you're imposing fee's and mandatory liability insurance on Constitutional rights,the same criteria should apply to the 1st Amendment also.

Words and free expression have been known to cause many untold deaths and destruction throughout history.

You should be more consistent.

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 6 years ago

Real universal background checks, Licensing/serial numbers/tracking/registration/insurance of every gun, real jail for sellers who break the law.

But I'm not entirely against you proposal. I think it might work. but certainly the poor are hit hardest.