Political Crossfire Forums

Whenever in a discussion about gun control GCA's (Gun control advocates) always want to bring up assault weapons as indefensible, they think its very obvious they should be banned because nobody should have military weapons.

Without getting into the why or why not, I want to establish the difficulty of creating a legal definition of assault weapons.

We need to create this legal definition because there is no actual definition, assault weapon is a term of the GCA, and not of the firearms industry or firearms users.
Since firearms dont neatly fall into this category any attempt to ban them will miss some, and/or hit some that it didnt intend to target.
Weak attempts are easy to modify around, strong ones are overly punitive to gun owners.


We can start with the California assault weapon ban, its a kind of middle ban which bans some it arguably didnt intend too, yet still is easy to get around and thus misses its intended target.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roberti-Ro ... ct_of_1989
It bans certain named firearms, which is easly circumvented by name changes, and a list of specifications
(1) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:
(A) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon.
(B) A thumbhole stock.
(C) A folding or telescoping stock.
(D) A grenade launcher or flare launcher.
(E) A flash suppressor.
(F) A forward pistol grip.
(2) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
(3) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has an overall length of less than 30 inches [762 mm].
(4) A semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:
(A) A threaded barrel, capable of accepting a flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer.
(B) A second handgrip.
(C) A shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel that allows the bearer to fire the weapon without burning his or her hand, except a slide that encloses the barrel.
(D) The capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip.
(5) A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
(6) A semiautomatic shotgun that has both of the following:
(A) A folding or telescoping stock.
(B) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon, thumbhole stock, or vertical handgrip.
(7) A semiautomatic shotgun that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine.
(8) Any shotgun with a revolving cylinder.


Which are all cosmetic features, the only feature not cosmetic is the capability to accept a detachable magazine.
To work around that manufacturers fixed the magazines to "require a tool" to detach, the tool being pretty much anything small enough to poke in the hole, like a round of ammunition.

Thus, the law failed in its intent.

The US federal government made a 10 year stint into banning assault weapons, it seems to be based on the california law and also failed to control the firearms in intended to control. The only thing it managed to do was increase the price of >10 rounds magazines and create a spike in imported civilian SKS and AK-47 rifles, and their post-ban variants.
Gun manufacturers and modifiers should thank clinton, he created demand for their product.


Finally, the only assault weapon ban that was actually effective in banning assault weapons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia
Basically any and all self loading firearms are extremely limited in ownership, illegal for the average person.

Only by banning a large class of firearms, including legitimate sporting rifles, was the nation able to actually ban assault weapons, because assault weapon is not a firearm classification, its a political term.


TL;DR assault weapons cannot be effectively banned because there is no such thing.


If you disagree, please define an assault weapons ban, try to be specific because I will critique your submissions for errors

assault weapons are scary bra, nuff' said

like porn, i know it when i see it

None of this helps achieve the OPs purpose of "defining" what a weapon is. No one has proposed (legally) banning pornography. Therefore, there is no need for a definition. The only types that are illegal are well-defined - child porn, bestiality, etc.

The law cannot be a grey area. It must be definied. When I write a law, the first thing that I ask myself is "What is the problem?". You first have to define the problem, before you can fix it.

There is no problem with the right people owning guns of any kind (excluding fully-auto). Also, there is no problem with the wrong people (mental cases, vidictive boyfriends, etc.) having guns. The problem comes when either of those groups of people use guns in the wrong way. Namely, against other people.

So, how do you prevent guns from being used against other civilians?

Well, you don't. Until we have some tamperproof software that can be fitted to a gun to prevent it from being fired at another human, except when the owner is in mortal danger, that is.

Until that time, we simply have to restrict gun sales to those people most likely to use them against other people.

and who are those people?

If a kid picked up a Daisy Red Rider bb gun and started shooting at other people, wouldn't that make it an assualt weapon? The problem is not with the weapons, but with the people. Assault weapons arn't just guns either, they can be just about anything. Ballbats, knives, golf clubs, cars, and on and on and on.