• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do you support a new ban on 'assault weapons'?

Do you support a new ban on 'assault weapons'?


  • Total voters
    37

Goobieman

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2006
Messages
17,343
Reaction score
2,876
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Its already been made public that The Obama looks to reinstate an 'assault weapon' ban:

ABC News: Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban

Do you support a new ban on 'assault weapons'?

If you answered 'yes', please answer these questions:

-What positive effect did the 1994-2004 AWB have on crime?
-If you cannot specify a verifiable positive effect, then why do you support another ban?


<poll pending>
Choices:
Yes
No
 
I voted no, I will wait for some of the Obama supporters to state why they do support it before I answer.
 
Not in the least. I think most of the restrictions against guns should be lifted (like not being able to own fully automatics, etc).
 
Back in '04 the DOJ wrote a report about the AWB's effects

Source [National Criminal Justice Reference Service | Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003] (PDF)

The Banned Guns and Magazines Were Used in Up to A Quarter of Gun Crimes
Prior to the Ban

• AWs were used in only a small fraction of gun crimes prior to the ban: about 2%
according to most studies and no more than 8%. Most of the AWs used in crime
are assault pistols rather than assault rifles.

• LCMs are used in crime much more often than AWs and accounted for 14% to
26% of guns used in crime prior to the ban.

• AWs and other guns equipped with LCMs tend to account for a higher share of
guns used in murders of police and mass public shootings, though such incidents
are very rare.​

The Ban’s Success in Reducing Criminal Use of the Banned Guns and Magazines
Has Been Mixed

• Following implementation of the ban, the share of gun crimes involving AWs
declined by 17% to 72% across the localities examined for this study (Baltimore,
Miami, Milwaukee, Boston, St. Louis, and Anchorage), based on data covering all
or portions of the 1995-2003 post-ban period. This is consistent with patterns
found in national data on guns recovered by police and reported to ATF.

• The decline in the use of AWs has been due primarily to a reduction in the use of
assault pistols (APs), which are used in crime more commonly than assault rifles
(ARs). There has not been a clear decline in the use of ARs, though assessments
are complicated by the rarity of crimes with these weapons and by substitution of
post-ban rifles that are very similar to the banned AR models.

• However, the decline in AW use was offset throughout at least the late 1990s by
steady or rising use of other guns equipped with LCMs in jurisdictions studied
(Baltimore, Milwaukee, Louisville, and Anchorage). The failure to reduce LCM
use has likely been due to the immense stock of exempted pre-ban magazines,
which has been enhanced by recent imports.​

It is Premature to Make Definitive Assessments of the Ban’s Impact on Gun Crime

• Because the ban has not yet reduced the use of LCMs in crime, we cannot clearly
credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence. However, the
ban’s exemption of millions of pre-ban AWs and LCMs ensured that the effects of the law would occur only gradually. Those effects are still unfolding and may
not be fully felt for several years into the future, particularly if foreign, pre-ban
LCMs continue to be imported into the U.S. in large numbers.​

It would seem that the largest effect of the ban was seen due to restritions on weapons with Large Capacity Magazines, and that exemptions greatly reduced its effectiveness. I don't have a strong opinion about the AWB (I really don't see anything negative about banning assault weapons), and am generally against gun control, but from the DOJ report I would have to conclude that the AWB was effective, and would have been much more effective had it been stronger.
 
Last edited:
It would seem that the largest effect of the ban was seen due to restritions on weapons with Large Capacity Magazines, and that exemptions greatly reduced its effectiveness.
"Exemptions" like existing magazines beng grandfathered.
Do you suppose that will change?

but from the DOJ report I would have to conclude that the AWB was effective, and would have been much more effective had it been stronger.
The DOJ report uses terms like:
-The Ban’s Success in Reducing Criminal Use of the Banned Guns and Magazines Has Been Mixed
-It is Premature to Make Definitive Assessments of the Ban’s Impact on Gun Crime
-we cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence.

Given that, how do you support the position that the AWB was effective?
 
"Exemptions" like existing magazines beng grandfathered.
Do you suppose that will change?

The weapons that were grandfathered in are now a decade and a half old. If I had to guess I'd say that either the exemptions would not be included, or that exempt weapons and equipment would be far less prevalent. I do not know for sure if the same exemptions are included again, though.


The DOJ report uses terms like:
-The Ban’s Success in Reducing Criminal Use of the Banned Guns and Magazines Has Been Mixed
-It is Premature to Make Definitive Assessments of the Ban’s Impact on Gun Crime
-we cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence.

Given that, how do you support the position that the AWB was effective?

The report is careful to avoid crediting the nationwide drop in gun violence to the AWB, but the effects on crime involving assault weapons are clear.

Following implementation of the ban, the share of gun crimes involving AWs
declined by 17% to 72% across the localities examined for this study

Additionally, one of the reasons for the mixed results are the exemptions that weakened the bill

However, the decline in AW use was offset throughout at least the late 1990s by
steady or rising use of other guns equipped with LCMs in jurisdictions studied
(Baltimore, Milwaukee, Louisville, and Anchorage). The failure to reduce LCM
use has likely been due to the immense stock of exempted pre-ban magazines,
which has been enhanced by recent imports.

To expand on one of the quotes you used (the part not included in your post is quoted is in bold)

Because the ban has not yet reduced the use of LCMs in crime, we cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence.

From the report I would conclude that the ban definitely had an effect on gun violence involving AWs and LCMs, that those effects were positive, and that the reason that the effects were not larger and more definitive was exemptions that weakened the restrictions.
 
-What positive effect did the 1994-2004 AWB have on crime?
-If you cannot specify a verifiable positive effect, then why do you support another ban?

Crime in the large US cities have gone down since the ban..

Assault weapons in cities is just something you do not need.. On the countryside/rural areas I support them. It should be banned in some states.
 
Not in the least. I think most of the restrictions against guns should be lifted (like not being able to own fully automatics, etc).

You think anyone without a felony conviction should be able to own fully automatic weapons? In any states? In urban areas? With no restrictions, such as "only former military or police personnel"..
 
Crime in the large US cities have gone down since the ban..

Assault weapons in cities is just something you do not need.. On the countryside/rural areas I support them. It should be banned in some states.

AWB didn't ban any guns you know. It was more like accessories. And if someone in the country can use gun A, then there is no reason why people in the city should be forbidden from having gun A.
 
You think anyone without a felony conviction should be able to own fully automatic weapons? In any states? In urban areas? With no restrictions, such as "only former military or police personnel"..

Fully automatic weapons should be completely legal. And any criminal who has finished the full of their punishment (including probation) should have the full of their rights recognized.
 
Fully automatic weapons should be completely legal. And any criminal who has finished the full of their punishment (including probation) should have the full of their rights recognized.

In Europe I support handgun ownership for everyone, except convicted felons, not everyone but violent ones and murderers. I support heavier weapons including semi automatic weapons for anyone who had proper training with them, in for example the military or the police.

I guess thats what I think it should be in the US as well.
 
Following implementation of the ban, the share of gun crimes involving AWs
declined by 17% to 72% across the localities examined for this study



Yeah that sounds great until you realize that your talking about less than .001% of all gun crimes.... (read like 12)


this statistics is funny business.




Police View: Over 100,000 police officers delivered a message to Congress in 1990 stating that only 2% to 3% of crimes are committed using a so-called "assault weapon."105

* New Jersey: The New York Times reported that, "Although New Jersey's pioneering ban on military-style assault rifles was sold to the state as a crime-fighting measure, its impact on violence in the state . . . has been negligible, both sides agree."106 Moreover, New Jersey police statistics show that only .026 of 1 percent of all crimes involve "assault rifles."107

* Nationwide: The Bureau of Justice Statistics reported in 1993 that violent criminals only carry or use a "military-type gun" in about one percent of the crimes nationwide.108
 
Last edited:
In truth, I'm not very open to debating this issue. I'm going to oppose any weapons ban, categorically, as the default position. Grabbing guns is nothing more than grabbing power.

No, it's not about public safety, that's surrogate argument for the real issue. Anyone, anyone, who makes that argument is a liar and summarily ignored.
 
If somebody is a law abiding citizen, what difference does it make what kind of gun they own? The argument from the gun-control crowd is "Why do you need them?" when the question really should be "Why shouldn't you be allowed to have them?"

Somebody tell me, a person with nothing other than a minor traffic violation on his record, why I shouldn't be allowed to own an assault rifle.
 
Of course I do.

Democrats are weapons used to assualt the Constitution, and should be banned.
 
As long as anybody who buys one realizes that they are in the militia and could and should be called upon in time of need, go for it.
 
I voted no, I will wait for some of the Obama supporters to state why they do support it before I answer.

I'm an Obama supporter but I absolutely disagree with a new assault weapons ban.
 
I'm an Obama supporter but I absolutely disagree with a new assault weapons ban.

You're not excused, you are very much on the hook.

We knew gun control was an issue Obama was going to press. It was a core issue which lead Conservative to oppose Obama, in fact.

By voting for Obama, you voted for gun control, so please spar us the hyperbole about how you suddenly care about Constitutional rights. You don’t because you support Obama, and Obama hates the Constitution and everything it stands for. He proves such every day, from socialized healthcare to supporting forced abortion.
 
You're not excused, you are very much on the hook.

We knew gun control was an issue Obama was going to press. It was a core issue which lead Conservative to oppose Obama, in fact.

By voting for Obama, you voted for gun control, so please spar us the hyperbole about how you suddenly care about Constitutional rights. You don’t because you support Obama, and Obama hates the Constitution and everything it stands for. He proves such every day, from socialized healthcare to supporting forced abortion.

Jerry, how about you take your meds and come back when you've settled down a little bit? You don't need to flip your lid here.

This is an issue I disagree on, but not one I'm wrapped around the axle on. While I disagreed with it, the previous assault weapons ban did not destroy our nation and enslave us to the liberal SS. If they get this reinstated, and I hope they don't, I won't be happy, but I'm not worried about federal agents kicking down my door to take my Glocks or my DPMS Panther. I don't need the rifle, but I wanted it. I don't believe the government will try to take it.

I've never found a candidate that is all things to all people. I went with Obama for a number of reasons, but gun control is not one of them. It just wasn't enough of a "threat to my rights" to scare me off.
 
Last edited:
Obama hates the Constitution and everything it stands for. He proves such every day, from socialized healthcare to supporting forced abortion.

Forced abortion:confused:
 
I voted No, but only because there wasnt my preferred option :

You get a free assault rifle if you're 18, with no criminal record, when you get your license renewed... as well as pistols and/ or shotguns, depending on the persons preference.

If the person takes a gun they must sign up to a basic proficiency course on the chosen weapon.

Done.
 
I'd say not, though the gun lobby's claims that the introduction of more guns into a community reduces violent crime is disingenuous at the least and a flagrant lie, at the most. I am amused by liberals (who allegedly support "rights" and want to attack the "root cause" of crime), favoring extremely draconian gun bans, while not acknowledging that the root cause of many forms of crime is unjust poverty, for instance.
 
Back in '04 the DOJ wrote a report about the AWB's effects

Source [National Criminal Justice Reference Service | Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003] (PDF)



It would seem that the largest effect of the ban was seen due to restritions on weapons with Large Capacity Magazines, and that exemptions greatly reduced its effectiveness. I don't have a strong opinion about the AWB (I really don't see anything negative about banning assault weapons), and am generally against gun control, but from the DOJ report I would have to conclude that the AWB was effective, and would have been much more effective had it been stronger.

With all that said you just proved that the assault weapons ban was a failure.
Crime went down while assault weapons were readily available.

I worked at a large gun shop while it was in effect and guns that took high capacity magazines were for sale just as they were before the ban.

The ban did not do anything but make some assembled cosmetic features illegal.

High cap magazines were banned as well but before the ban took place the manufacturers pumped out an ass load thus having no effect on availability.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom