6 ms·

I initially thought that a ban on 'assault weapons' might make sense, but after learning more about firearms technology, I've come to the conclusion that 'assau

by nokcha 6y ago

I initially thought that a ban on 'assault weapons' might make sense, but after learning more about firearms technology, I've come to the conclusion that 'assault weapons' just doesn't make sense as a legal classification. It's mostly about minor cosmetic and ergonomic features (such as having a pistol grip) that look scary to large segments of the population. A Mini-14 Ranch Rifle is nearly as capable as an AR-15, yet nobody is trying to ban it because it looks like a traditional hunting rifle. And there isn't really a clear-cut meaningful distinction between rifles and pistols; a so-called 'AR-15 pistol' is legally a pistol even though it can be easily converted to a rifle by replacing the arm brace with a stock (but to do so legally requires a $200 tax stamp if the barrel under 16 inches long).

tptacek 6y ago
I don't want to recapitulate the whole very long argument here, but I believe this meme about "assault weapons" being incoherent and cosmetic is essentially propaganda. The original FAWB proposals targeted all semi-automatic rifles with detachable clips. Like you, I took the time to learn more about firearms technology and I came to the opposite conclusion you did. See this thread for my reasoning (somewhere in there, there's a back-and-forth about the Mini-14, which is a favorite Facebook meme subject). https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21021388 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21021388
- ChrisLomont 6y ago
  >The original FAWB proposals targeted all semi-automatic rifles with detachable clips Yet that was not the definition used in the law. The original FAWB (for rifles) itself defined an assault weapon as a semi-auto rifle with 2 of - folding or telescoping stock - pistol grip - bayonet mount - flash hider - grenade launcher. This was such a ridiculous list, with about zero to do with lethality, that it was trivial to work around. No one was killing people with grenade launchers or bayonets, for example. Targeting only detachable clips only leads to fast loaders like those used for 6-shooters, i.e., it's not much of a deterrent to quickly reloading weapons. In practice and history, these bans seem more based on scary looking features than empirical lethality. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban
  - tptacek 6y ago
    "The law" was the result of intensive lobbying by groups like the NRA and represents a capitulation from the original position of gun reformers. I don't accept that we're bound by the definitions in that law when we're discussing potential new policy. In fact, rejecting that definition of "assault weapon" is the point of my comment.
    - ChrisLomont 6y ago
      > I don't accept that we're bound by the definitions in that law when we're discussing potential new policy Here's a recent Assault Weapons Ban by Diane Feinstein, 2020, not the result of political lobbying. It takes your statement to heart. Do you see any holes in this one being effective? I do. >the result of intensive lobbying by groups like the NRA and represents a capitulation from the original position of gun reformers Every bill will be the result of lobbying and ideas from competing groups, and will result in compromise. That's not such a bad thing. Not every American wants either extreme that political parties can concoct. https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/66 https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/66
- wl 6y ago
  And last time you brought this up, I pointed out you mischaracterized the proposal in question. I'd correct your statement to say "The original FAWB proposals targeted all semi-automatic rifles with detachable [magazines that a future Attorney General wanted to ban]." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21811186 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21811186
  - tptacek 6y ago
    As the thread shows, the intent of the original FAWB proposals was not to focus on scary-looking cosmetic features. I think my description in this thread is fair, you'd like to qualify it further, and that's fine, but I don't think we should pretend like we don't understand each other, or that there aren't sources that refute the idea that the original intention of assault weapons regulation was just stuff like barrel shrouds.
    - wl 6y ago
      The problem is that neither the proposal you linked nor the 1994 FAWB make a rational distinction between banned semi-automatic rifles with a capacity to accept a detachable magazine ("assault weapons") and ones that shouldn't be banned, with the exception of a few specific carveouts. In the proposal you link, instead of feature tests, we get the attorney general judging which guns are ok and which ones aren't. AWBs are incoherent and irrational. The feature tests are a manifestation of that. But the lack of them doesn't fix the irrationality of the whole idea.
      - tptacek 6y ago
        I think the bill I cited is has a pretty clear and coherent definition of assault weapons: they're semi-automatic rifles that accept detachable clips of more than 10 rounds. You're fixated on the fact that the AG/SecT can designed some semi-automatic rifles with clips as "not" assault weapons, at their discretion. So what? I don't think mandatory licensure of tactical rifles is an irrational idea at all.
        6y ago
- nokcha 6y ago
  >The original FAWB proposals targeted all semi-automatic rifles with detachable clips. OK, I agree with you that such a proposal makes sense conceptually. (But I would still oppose it on the grounds that it offends the Second Amendment.) My complaint about conceptual incoherence is limited to bans that focus on things like pistol grips.
phobosanomaly 6y ago
Form follows function. The addition of a pistol grip does lend increased tactical maneuverability to a rifle. It doesn't just look scary. The tactical ability of a semi/fully-automatic rifle does not exclusively come from its ability to rapidly chamber rounds, it also comes from its tactical maneuverability, especially when firing multiple rounds in a short period of time. This is why the military uses rifles that look like the M4 platform, and not rifles that look like the M14 platform anymore. This is why the AK-47 doesn't look like the SKS. The addition of a pistol grip to a semi or fully-automatic rifle represents an advance in military technology. The 2015 San Bernardino Shooting, the Sandy Hook shooting, and the Orlando nightclub shooting all involved light, tactical rifles with pistol-grips. Stephen Paddock had 21 pistol-grip rifles, and not a single Mini-14. There is a meaningful advantage in the ability to kill people in in-close, rapid-fire situations with a light, semi-automatic rifle featuring a pistol grip. This is why people whose job descriptions involve killing people at relatively close-ranges (military, SWAT) use this style of weapon, and not a weapon that looks like a Mini-14. The stock Mini-14 looks like a traditional hunting rifle, because it is engineered for hunting. Its design is not optimized for controllability when rapidly firing multiple rounds in multiple directions in a tactical setting. A good hunter shouldn't need to discharge much more than two rounds, and they have one single target. They're not controlling for recoil over the course of an entire 30-round magazine, while pivoting in multiple directions. In that context, the legal classification of an assault weapon does make pretty good sense.
- Bancakes 6y ago
  Pistol grips do not inherently make a weapon system more maneuverable, as they do not change any of your leverage on the firarm, nor its centre of mass or mass distribution. Making a weapon more comfortable does not make it more deadly since you can always fire more rounds if you miss. Pistol grips are simply easier to manufacture than weird shapes of wood or plastic.
  - phobosanomaly 6y ago
    Why wouldn't a pistol-grip impact leverage? It's literally a lever attached to the bottom of the rifle. > does not make it more deadly since you can always fire more rounds if you miss More rounds on-target is the definition of more deadly. > Pistol grips are simply easier to manufacture than weird shapes of wood or plastic. I don't follow. A hollow pistol-grip is not only more plastic, it also requires a much more complicated mold. There's a reason every modern, light, self-chambering rifle system uses a pistol grip. If it were simply a matter of ease of manufacture, or of comfort with zero tactical advantage, nobody would care if AR-15s were banned because they'd be perfectly happy with their Mini-14.

by nokcha 6y ago

tptacek 6y ago

I don't want to recapitulate the whole very long argument here, but I believe this meme about "assault weapons" being incoherent and cosmetic is essentially propaganda. The original FAWB proposals targeted all semi-automatic rifles with detachable clips. Like you, I took the time to learn more about firearms technology and I came to the opposite conclusion you did. See this thread for my reasoning (somewhere in there, there's a back-and-forth about the Mini-14, which is a favorite Facebook meme subject). https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21021388 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21021388

ChrisLomont 6y ago
>The original FAWB proposals targeted all semi-automatic rifles with detachable clips Yet that was not the definition used in the law. The original FAWB (for rifles) itself defined an assault weapon as a semi-auto rifle with 2 of - folding or telescoping stock - pistol grip - bayonet mount - flash hider - grenade launcher. This was such a ridiculous list, with about zero to do with lethality, that it was trivial to work around. No one was killing people with grenade launchers or bayonets, for example. Targeting only detachable clips only leads to fast loaders like those used for 6-shooters, i.e., it's not much of a deterrent to quickly reloading weapons. In practice and history, these bans seem more based on scary looking features than empirical lethality. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban
- tptacek 6y ago
  "The law" was the result of intensive lobbying by groups like the NRA and represents a capitulation from the original position of gun reformers. I don't accept that we're bound by the definitions in that law when we're discussing potential new policy. In fact, rejecting that definition of "assault weapon" is the point of my comment.
  - ChrisLomont 6y ago
    > I don't accept that we're bound by the definitions in that law when we're discussing potential new policy Here's a recent Assault Weapons Ban by Diane Feinstein, 2020, not the result of political lobbying. It takes your statement to heart. Do you see any holes in this one being effective? I do. >the result of intensive lobbying by groups like the NRA and represents a capitulation from the original position of gun reformers Every bill will be the result of lobbying and ideas from competing groups, and will result in compromise. That's not such a bad thing. Not every American wants either extreme that political parties can concoct. https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/66 https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/66
wl 6y ago
And last time you brought this up, I pointed out you mischaracterized the proposal in question. I'd correct your statement to say "The original FAWB proposals targeted all semi-automatic rifles with detachable [magazines that a future Attorney General wanted to ban]." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21811186 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21811186
- tptacek 6y ago
  As the thread shows, the intent of the original FAWB proposals was not to focus on scary-looking cosmetic features. I think my description in this thread is fair, you'd like to qualify it further, and that's fine, but I don't think we should pretend like we don't understand each other, or that there aren't sources that refute the idea that the original intention of assault weapons regulation was just stuff like barrel shrouds.
  - wl 6y ago
    The problem is that neither the proposal you linked nor the 1994 FAWB make a rational distinction between banned semi-automatic rifles with a capacity to accept a detachable magazine ("assault weapons") and ones that shouldn't be banned, with the exception of a few specific carveouts. In the proposal you link, instead of feature tests, we get the attorney general judging which guns are ok and which ones aren't. AWBs are incoherent and irrational. The feature tests are a manifestation of that. But the lack of them doesn't fix the irrationality of the whole idea.
    - tptacek 6y ago
      I think the bill I cited is has a pretty clear and coherent definition of assault weapons: they're semi-automatic rifles that accept detachable clips of more than 10 rounds. You're fixated on the fact that the AG/SecT can designed some semi-automatic rifles with clips as "not" assault weapons, at their discretion. So what? I don't think mandatory licensure of tactical rifles is an irrational idea at all.
      - 6y ago
nokcha 6y ago
>The original FAWB proposals targeted all semi-automatic rifles with detachable clips. OK, I agree with you that such a proposal makes sense conceptually. (But I would still oppose it on the grounds that it offends the Second Amendment.) My complaint about conceptual incoherence is limited to bans that focus on things like pistol grips.

phobosanomaly 6y ago

Form follows function. The addition of a pistol grip does lend increased tactical maneuverability to a rifle. It doesn't just look scary. The tactical ability of a semi/fully-automatic rifle does not exclusively come from its ability to rapidly chamber rounds, it also comes from its tactical maneuverability, especially when firing multiple rounds in a short period of time. This is why the military uses rifles that look like the M4 platform, and not rifles that look like the M14 platform anymore. This is why the AK-47 doesn't look like the SKS. The addition of a pistol grip to a semi or fully-automatic rifle represents an advance in military technology. The 2015 San Bernardino Shooting, the Sandy Hook shooting, and the Orlando nightclub shooting all involved light, tactical rifles with pistol-grips. Stephen Paddock had 21 pistol-grip rifles, and not a single Mini-14. There is a meaningful advantage in the ability to kill people in in-close, rapid-fire situations with a light, semi-automatic rifle featuring a pistol grip. This is why people whose job descriptions involve killing people at relatively close-ranges (military, SWAT) use this style of weapon, and not a weapon that looks like a Mini-14. The stock Mini-14 looks like a traditional hunting rifle, because it is engineered for hunting. Its design is not optimized for controllability when rapidly firing multiple rounds in multiple directions in a tactical setting. A good hunter shouldn't need to discharge much more than two rounds, and they have one single target. They're not controlling for recoil over the course of an entire 30-round magazine, while pivoting in multiple directions. In that context, the legal classification of an assault weapon does make pretty good sense.

Bancakes 6y ago
Pistol grips do not inherently make a weapon system more maneuverable, as they do not change any of your leverage on the firarm, nor its centre of mass or mass distribution. Making a weapon more comfortable does not make it more deadly since you can always fire more rounds if you miss. Pistol grips are simply easier to manufacture than weird shapes of wood or plastic.
- phobosanomaly 6y ago
  Why wouldn't a pistol-grip impact leverage? It's literally a lever attached to the bottom of the rifle. > does not make it more deadly since you can always fire more rounds if you miss More rounds on-target is the definition of more deadly. > Pistol grips are simply easier to manufacture than weird shapes of wood or plastic. I don't follow. A hollow pistol-grip is not only more plastic, it also requires a much more complicated mold. There's a reason every modern, light, self-chambering rifle system uses a pistol grip. If it were simply a matter of ease of manufacture, or of comfort with zero tactical advantage, nobody would care if AR-15s were banned because they'd be perfectly happy with their Mini-14.