The cosmetic nature of gun control

[Atypical Liberal]

[gravity556]

1. So you're trying to say that

things like the AWB were just about getting rid of things that are scary? You mean to tell us that during the 10 firearms death free years of the AWB, people were still able to purchase the same firearms less some minor cosmetic changes? Like a muzzle brake instead of flash hiders, fixed stocks instead of adjustable stocks (screw you, short armed shooters-you should get longer arms if you want to shoot comfortably) and the removal of those weapons of mass destruction, bayonet lugs? Unpossible! I was told by the news that just a few years ago, nobody anywhere could even buy "high capacity" magazines!

[Tejas]

20. So, you DENY the decrease in drive-by-bayonettings?

Surely you can't ignore the 10 year absence of deaths due to nuetered bayonet lugs??!? Good googly moogly man, just the barrel shroud legislation saved countless children!!!!1!!1!

all hail Carolyn McCarthy!

[baldguy]

2. So, owning a gun is more about fashion & style than any notion of self-defense?

Except that the latest haute couture doesn't cause 30,000 people in America to die each year.

[X_Digger]

3. Whoosh, that was the point flying by..

Was it intentional, I wonder?

[rl6214]

23. I can see why baldguy is...

baldguy. Everything flying right over his head has been flying so close it has trimmed him bald.

[mvccd1000]

4. No, BANNING a gun was more about... blah, blah, blah

Since gun owners apparently did not buy based on "fashion & style," and therefore continued to buy guns when the fools in Washington banned certain "fashion & style" elements of certain rifles.

Only gun control advocates and uninformed legislators fell for the banning of those features. Gun owners kept on buying their machines and laughing at the absurdity of the law.

[baldguy]

6. If a gun is nothing but a tool, then "flashy" assault-weapon styles wouldn't exist.

After all, you don't put racing stripes on a hammer. Do you?

[Kurska]

7. Doesn't that same logic apply to cars and computers?

Are you going to say cars aren't tools because we put racing strips on them or computers are not tools because people put blue leds on them? I could put a racing stripe on a hammer, does that mean a hammer is no longer a tool?

[RSillsbee]

12. If the cosmetics of the weapon have no effect on function

why does it matter?

[PavePusher]

13. Quite the opposite, actually.

So-called "assault weapons" are more ergonomic, lighter weight, lower maintenance, lower recoil (due to design and caliber), modular, and easier to accesorize. In short a more efficient tool.

And it's fun to raise Sarah Brady, Carolyn McCarthy, Paul Helmke and Dennis Henigan's blood pressures while buying tools that have modern engineering.

[Glassunion]

14. .

[Katya Mullethov]

18. That looks ten times racier

Than the one my wife was beaten with . I showed it to her, and she seemed pretty ambivalent about unrestricted availability of that particular configuration .

[slackmaster]

19. Ban Assault Hammers Now, For The Children

[Tejas]

21. Wonder if BINFORD ever produced a version of those?

"I don't think so, Tim."

[slackmaster]

22. I have a Binford Tools sticker on my milling machine

And a Binford Tools coffee mug.

:hi:

[Tejas]

26. LOL!

[DissedByBush]

24. Fancy hammers have been around for a long time

In fact, people have been pimping out their weapons for thousands of years.

We rarely come close these days.

[rl6214]

25. Some nascar types might

but when it comes to the so called assault weapons, it's all about ergonomics. They are the most popular weapon configuration because they are the most effective.

[Atypical Liberal]

28. Now you are getting it!

After all, you don't put racing stripes on a hammer. Do you?

Now you're getting it! In fact, aesthetics are a huge, huge, driver in the tool industry. Go down the tool isle at Home Depot once. Whereas a drill used to be a completely functional device, now they look all sleek and sexy, like some sort of futuristic ray-gun or something.

Most firearms marketed as "assault" are functionally identical to century-old sporting designs. They may be more rugged in harsh environments, but they are certainly no more deadly.

[AtheistCrusader]

31. Serious Response

A flash hider protects the vision of the shooter in low light scenarios, preventing temporary blindness. Very useful for hunting SAFELY.
A collapsible stock allows my wife and I to use the same rifle, ergonomically, which translates into safety. (her arms are somewhat shorter)

These are safety features, yet they were used to ban rifles under the 1994 AWB, under the guise of 'hiding the shooter's location' and 'hiding the rifle under clothing', neither of which is true. Flash hiders do not conceal the shooter's position, and weapons with folding stocks, let alone collapsable stocks, are still meeting federal overall length requirements, or they are illegal. Period.

[baldguy]

35. Thank you all for proving the OP wrong.

Assault weapons are not merely cosmetic upgrades of standard weapons, and those "safety features" are the very things which make them better killing machines - and significantly more deadly. Exactly the kind of thing which SHOULD fall under the purview of federal regulators.

[AtheistCrusader]

36. Perhaps you have trouble reading.

Those features are SAFETY features. One improves safety for the shooter without increasing any danger to the public. The other increases safety to the public, and the comfort of the shooter, without enhancing any danger to the public.

[X_Digger]

37. Ooh, that supah-dupa dangerousse barrel shroud! And bayonet mount!

You'd be funny if I didn't think you were serious.

[rrneck]

38. Better for killing who? nt

[ManiacJoe]

39. That really should have come with a drink warning.

:spray: :rofl:

[gravity556]

42. re:Thank you all for proving the OP wrong.

"Assault weapons are not merely cosmetic upgrades of standard weapons, and those "safety features" are the very things which make them better killing machines - and significantly more deadly. Exactly the kind of thing which SHOULD fall under the purview of federal regulators."

How do you figure? A .223 from a bolt gun will kill you just as dead as a .223 from an AR15. A bayonet lug makes a pretty good spot to mount a bipod, pistol grips are much more ergonomic for firing from the SHOULDER, an adjustable stock means that I and my 5'4" wife can use the same rifle comfortably (although she has her own AR, which, rather than being black and scary is purple and scary) and a flash hider keeps me from being blinded in the event that (god forbid) I have to use my rifle to defend myself. Particularly since most break ins occur at night.

I don't hunt. I shoot targets, but the real purpose of owning a firearm for me is self defense. A rifle with a light and sling offers some serious advantages over a pistol-better accuracy (it's much easier to aim a weapon with a longer sight radius), a more effective round (particularly since PHX is experiencing a booming home invasion trend, multiple individuals, some of whom are using body armor) and greater capacity-30 rounds rather than 16.

The police have long guns for the exact same reasons, and not surprisingly, the police tend to favor the AR15 for the exact same reasons that I and millions of other shooters prefer them.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

8. the two machines in the top half of the OPs picture are

responsible for more death/injury than the two devices in the bottom half of the picture.
But I won't let facts stop your rampage of daftness.

[beevul]

17. Well hey...

Those qualifications weren't made when the statement "If a gun is nothing but a tool, then "flashy" assault-weapon styles wouldn't exist", was made.

In fact, its not even the person you replied to that made the above statement.

That line of argument was quickly and easily debunked.

In short, your statement does not debunk the debunking of the original statement, nor will attempting to change the premise of the original argument after the fact, make it disappear.

[krispos42]

9. Yes, because we know that every single murder with a gun simply wouldn't have happened

...and nobody that would have committed suicide with a gun would have found another way.


But the point of the OP was that bans on "assault weapons" are about appearance. The only rational reason to support a ban on assault weapons is because it represents a political victory, a propaganda victory, and opens the door to more gun restrictions in the future with an eye towards artificially lowering the gun ownership rate because it is believed to be inherently "good" for society.

[beevul]

11. And if 15000...

And if 15000 decided it was their own life to end, what business is it of yours?

Who owns YOUR life?

[Atypical Liberal]

27. Aesthetics drive many things.

Just as aesthetics drive the design and sales of everything from clothing to cars to toothbrushes to power tools, they also drive firearms.

Of course, in the end, whatever the object, it does need to also function. But even if a rifle looks like a machine gun, that won't make it a machine gun.

[spin]

34. Are you sure that passing draconian gun laws would drop the murder rate?

The assault weapons ban made "black rifles" popular. If you ban something everybody just has to have it. Before the assault weapons ban, no one thought black rifles were fashionable or stylish, they were considered ugly. The ban made such weapons extremely popular and completely backfire on those who are advocates of draconian gun control.

But even though the number of semiautomatic firearms (including black rifles and high capacity semi-auto pistols) in our nation increased dramatically after the assault weapons ban passed in 1994, the violent crime rate FELL. The crime rate also continued to fall after the assault weapons ban expired in 2004. This suggests that the assault weapons ban had little or no effect on the crime rate.

Assault weapons ban comes to end: A dud?
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/24/world/americas/24iht-gun.html

NEW YORK — Despite dire predictions that America's streets would be awash in military-style guns, the expiration of the decade-long assault weapons ban in September has not set off a sustained surge in the weapons' sales, gun makers and sellers say. It also has not caused any noticeable increase in gun crime in the past seven months, according to several city police departments.

The uneventful expiration of the assault weapons ban did not surprise gun owners, nor did it surprise some advocates of gun control. It underscored what many of them had said all along: The ban was porous - so porous that assault weapons remained widely available throughout their prohibition.

***snip***

When the ban took effect in 1994, it exempted more than 1.5 million assault weapons in private hands. Over the next 10 years, at least 1.17 million more assault weapons were produced - legitimately - by manufacturers that availed themselves of loopholes in the law, according to an analysis of firearms production data by the Violence Policy Center.

Throughout the decade-long ban, for instance, the gun manufacturer DPMS/Panther Arms of Minnesota continued selling assault rifles to civilians by the tens of thousands. In compliance with the ban, the firearms manufacturer "sporterized" the military-style weapons, sawing off bayonet lugs, securing stocks so they were not collapsible and adding muzzle brakes. But the changes did not alter the guns' essence; they were still semiautomatic rifles with pistol grips.

After the ban expired in September, DPMS reintroduced its full-featured weapons to the civilian market and enjoyed a slight spike in sales. But that increase was short-lived, and predictably so, said Randy Luth, the company's owner. "I never thought the sunset of the ban would be that big a deal," he said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/24/world/americas/24iht-gun.html

Let's suppose a law could be passed that banned handgun ownership. Would that work?


source http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

WOULD BANNING FIREARMS REDUCE
MURDER AND SUICIDE?
A REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL AND
SOME DOMESTIC EVIDENCE
DON B. KATES* AND GARY MAUSER**

International evidence and comparisons have long been offered
as proof of the mantra that more guns mean more deaths and that
fewer guns, therefore, mean fewer deaths.1 Unfortunately, such
discussions are all too often been afflicted by misconceptions and
factual error and focus on comparisons that are unrepresentative.
It may be useful to begin with a few examples. There is a compound
assertion that (a) guns are uniquely available in the United
States compared with other modern developed nations, which is
why (b) the United States has by far the highest murder rate.
Though these assertions have been endlessly repeated, statement
(b) is, in fact, false and statement (a) is substantially so.

Since at least 1965, the false assertion that the United States has
the industrialized world’s highest murder rate has been an artifact
of politically motivated Soviet minimization designed to hide the
true homicide rates.2 Since well before that date, the Soviet Union
possessed extremely stringent gun controls3 that were effectuated
by a police state apparatus providing stringent enforcement.4 So
successful was that regime that few Russian civilians now have
firearms and very few murders involve them.5 Yet, manifest success
in keeping its people disarmed did not prevent the Soviet
Union from having far and away the highest murder rate in the
developed world.6 In the 1960s and early 1970s, the gun‐less Soviet
Union’s murder rates paralleled or generally exceeded those
of gun‐ridden America. While American rates stabilized and then
steeply declined, however, Russian murder increased so drastically
that by the early 1990s the Russian rate was three times
higher than that of the United States. Between 1998‐2004 (the latest
figure available for Russia), Russian murder rates were nearly
four times higher than American rates. Similar murder rates also
characterize the Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and various
other now‐independent European nations of the former U.S.S.R.7
Thus, in the United States and the former Soviet Union transitioning
into current‐day Russia, “homicide results suggest that where
guns are scarce other weapons are substituted in killings.”8

***snip***

This Article has reviewed a significant amount of evidence
from a wide variety of international sources. Each individual
portion of evidence is subject to cavil—at the very least the
general objection that the persuasiveness of social scientific
evidence cannot remotely approach the persuasiveness of
conclusions in the physical sciences. Nevertheless, the burden
of proof rests on the proponents of the more guns equal
more death and fewer guns equal less death mantra, especially
since they argue public policy ought to be based on
that mantra.149 To bear that burden would at the very least
require showing that a large number of nations with more
guns have more death and that nations that have imposed
stringent gun controls have achieved substantial reductions
in criminal violence (or suicide). But those correlations are
not observed when a large number of nations are compared
across the world.emphasis added
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

[SteveM]

45. Does my Winchester '03 .22 qualify?...

"...they were still semiautomatic rifles with pistol grips." Oh, wait! It has a straight grip.

[geckosfeet]

5. What an honest and adult way to approach the issue. I am impressed.

No.

Not really.

You can't see me but I am laughing out loud.

[krispos42]

10. A better comparison would have been an AR-15 and a Mini-14.

As they are both the "same under the hood", being semi-automatic. But yeah, it gets the general idea across.


On edit:

Like this

[Callisto32]

15. I would change something.

Instead of a bolt gun under the un-riced car, why not a Mini-14. That way we have two auto-loading firearms of the same caliber, one of which was specifically NOT subjected to the AWB.

[Callisto32]

16. I just looked, above my last post.

Nevermind.

[Atypical Liberal]

29. More "assault" weapons pictures

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

30. You *conveniently* forgot to mention that the rifle @ the right has the shoulder-thing that goes up.

[PavePusher]

33. "+2 against undead"

:rofl:

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.......

Whew...

But seriously, what's with the anti life-challenged bigotry around here? The recently-undeceased have a Right to Li... er... existance... too, you know. I'm calling my zombi... err... lawyer!

PavePusher
Risen-from-the-grave Anti-Defamation League
Ask me about how to care for your Golem

[Euromutt]

40. Golems are constructs, not undead

Excuse me, I mean "metabolically challenged" (or, if you prefer, "vitally impaired").

[PavePusher]

44. Oops, you are correct.

However, all being sub-sets of the "soul deficient", they'd probably have a lot in common.

[Euromutt]

41. The peculiar thing is that actual battle axes didn't look anything like that

The typical 9th-14th century battle axe was generally a single-bladed axe head on an simple wooden shaft, with minimal decoration. The more elaborately decorated and double-edged axes were typically ceremonial, and not intended for actual use in combat.

[shadowrider]

32. Wait. The media calls the two on top "AK47FA" (for full auto) n/t

[benEzra]

43. In one pic:

[Tuesday Afternoon]

46. I wonder how many Recs this thread actually got ....

Probably more than the +2 now showing. I hope. I do wonder though.

[guitar man]

47. Exactly

This is one of my rifles. Of all the firearms I own it's the one I shoot the most. I'll shoot 20 rounds from this one for every round I shoot from any of the others I own. The enthusiasts here that recognize it will know why. now, as for me, I like this rifle pretty much as it is. I like the walnut stock and the only upgrades I have planned for it are some sling swivels and a sling, and to replace the stock rear sight with one more to my liking.



However, I could easily do this to it if I wanted. It would not make the weapon any more deadly, it would only change the looks and perhaps make it easier to carry in the brush and tight spaces. It's still the same rifle I have in the top pic.



I can see absolutely no reason to ban any weapon based only on the way it looks. It's foolishness of the highest order.