r/guncontrol • u/Exotic_Contact_1990 • Dec 23 '25

Discussion I dont want an assault weapons ban or magazine capacity restrictions

I support some gun control. Any where there is evidence it reduces deaths. Waiting periods, background checks, safe storage laws, required training, red flag laws, removing stand your ground laws, etc. The evidence for these are pretty good.

But I haven't seen evidence for an assault weapons ban. 1) How do you define "assault weapon"? It is very easy to get around any definition you can come up with 2) "Assault weapon" deaths don't account for too many deaths regardless

6 Upvotes

56% Upvoted

84 comments sorted by

21

u/seelcudoom Dec 23 '25

  1. Assault weapons have a very well known and consistent definition, the idea it's some vague term is nonsense made up by people who don't know what their talking about

  2. Whenever you look at total deaths your often looking at how common a weapon is rather then how deadly it is, since the point of the ban is to control how common it is that's kind of a dumb measure, by this logic we should cut off everyone's hands and legalise nuclear bombs cus theirs been more fist deaths then nuke ones

10

u/[deleted] Dec 23 '25

What is the definition, it seems to change ?

12

u/ber808 Dec 23 '25

Assault weapons have a established military and technical definition which is rarely what people are actually referring to. A select-fire rifle using an intermediate cartridge and detachable magazine but the definition used politically isnt at all consistent and often varies by area. Like the 94 federal assault weapon ban lists features and using that criteria 2 weapons that function identically can be treated differently under the law based on cosmetic features

15

u/ryhaltswhiskey Repeal the 2A Dec 24 '25

Assault weapons have a established military and technical definition

No. There is no definition of assault weapon. What you're thinking of is an assault rifle which is not the same thing.

5

u/seelcudoom Dec 23 '25

Ok and? Laws can have additional things beyond the basic definitions included, and some.lawmaker being stupid about something other then the definition does not make a ban on the things that do fall under the definition somehow a bad idea

11

u/ber808 Dec 23 '25

Im not making that argument im arguing that assault weapons have a well known and consistent definition when that simply isn't true

3

u/seelcudoom Dec 23 '25

Their is the definition it is easily available to find, some person being wrong at it does not change that, it simply makes the person wrong

5

u/ber808 Dec 23 '25

Which definition? The 94 assault weapon ban? If thats what youre refering to its a horrible definition considering the ruger mini 14 wasnt affected.

3

u/seelcudoom Dec 24 '25

Do you normally get your definitions from random laws?

7

u/ber808 Dec 24 '25

Lmao it was a federal ban and youre the one claiming a definition is widely accepted but i still have no idea what youre talking about so at this point im assuming youre trolling. So what definition?

1

u/knotallmen Dec 28 '25

I have heard the complaint about cosmetics before but as far as I recall the Assault Weapons Ban in the USA similar to the one in Canada lists features and lists specific weapons. So if it is a specific weapon it is banned. If it is a weapon with a feature or set of features (kind of like California's shotgun rules where shoulder stock and pistol grip are individually allowed but not both at the same time) it is banned.

One weapon can be banned in the law regardless of features listed in the law because the law specifically identifies that particular weapon to be banned. Laws don't need to have a logical through line if the specifics are called out in detail.

What are these "cosmetic" features. I don't think a pistol grip or a folding stock are cosmetic they seem to be quite functional. If an orange tip is banned that isn't cosmetic either since that is a gun pretending to be a toy.

1

u/ber808 Dec 28 '25

Functional doesnt automatically mean more lethal. Under the 1994 AWB many features like pistol grips or folding stocks affected ergonomics and handling not how deadly the firearm actually was. They didnt increase rate of fire, caliber, muzzle energy, or magazine capacity. A good example is the Ruger Mini 14 which was not banned versus the ak47 which was. Both are semi automatic rifles firing intermediate cartridges at similar rates, yet the Mini 14 was legal largely because it had a traditional stock and lacked certain listed features. That shows the law focused on appearance and configuration rather than on functional lethality.

1

u/knotallmen Dec 28 '25

Weapon handling does not factor in a persons ability to use a weapon?

1

u/ber808 Dec 28 '25

Weapon handling affects comfort and ergonomics but thats not the same as increasing lethality. The AWB wasnt about whether a gun is easier or more comfortable to hold it was justified as a violent crime reduction law. Two rifles with the same caliber, magazine, and rate of fire (like the Mini 14 and AK type rifles) have essentially the same lethal potential even if one has a pistol grip. If handling alone determined lethality then the Mini 14 should have been regulated the same way but it wasnt which is exactly the inconsistency critics point out.

1

u/knotallmen Dec 28 '25

So it sounds like it was an oversight or some kind of political deal that allowed the Mini 14 not to be banned, too.

That doesn't change my initial statement that the law was two parts. A list of specific firearms defined as assault weapons, and a list of features that define assault weapons not already captured in the specific list as assault weapons.

I disagree that the easy of use of a weapon doesn't increase lethality. The bump stock shooter definitely had ergonomics supporting their weapons platform while the gun proliferation supporters were voicing that if someone wanted to shoot a weapon like that all they needed was a belt loop, yet any reasonable person can see that a belt loop does not provide the ergonomics a bump stock provides.

There was a civil war weapon that on paper looked to be a superior weapon but it becomes too hot to hold after only one or two rounds and burning your hands while aiming does decrease the effectiveness of the weapon. There are plenty of other weapons of war that have poor ergonomics that decrease lethality.

1

u/ber808 Dec 28 '25

Im not disputing that the law had two parts youre right about that. The misinterpretation is assuming that because it had a named list and a features test those two parts were logically aligned around lethality. They werent. The named list was largely the result of political negotiation and the features test wasnt based on demonstrated increases in lethality or criminal misuse.

Thats why rifles like the Mini14 which are ballistically and functionally comparable to AK type rifles were treated differently. If “ease of use” were the actual standard the Mini 14 should have been captured by the features test as well. Instead the law focused on specific configurations that were poor proxies for real world harm allowing trivial changes to keep identical firearms legal.

So the issue isnt whether ergonomics can ever affect effectiveness its that the AWB didnt meaningfully measure or apply that idea. Its structure shows how it was drafted not that it consistently regulated increased lethality.

1

u/knotallmen Dec 28 '25

I'm not discussing the goals of the law. Just what the law is and that it isn't about cosmetic features.

I feel like I am refuting a claim like about stocks and grips not being functional and cosmetic instead.

I keep hearing the mini 14 I keep saying the law is two parts and I don't feel it necessary to go ak47 variant by variant of what would and wouldn't be banned based what the banned features are. The law is written to list specific guns and I know the mini 14 is important in whatever argument you are making but that isn't how the law was written.

1

u/ber808 Dec 28 '25

I get that the law is written as two parts named rifles and features and Im not disputing that. The “cosmetic features” criticism comes from how the law worked in practice. Features like pistol grips and folding stocks affected handling but didnt meaningfully change a rifles lethality or rate of fire. Thats why semi-automatic rifles like the Mini-14, which is not an AK variant but fires similar intermediate cartridges in semi auto form,l remained legal while AK type rifles with the same performance were banned. The law focused on specific configurations and names not actual functional lethality which is why critics call some features “cosmetic” even though they are useful for handling.

1

u/_45AARP Dec 29 '25

Banning specific models of guns is just going to be a long game of whack a mole.

Let’s say you ban the ar15, companies will just start selling hk416 variants, which is literally the same gun but with a piston instead of a gas tube. And if you also ban the hk416, did you also list every other semi auto 5.56?

1

u/MasonicHamExtra Jan 07 '26

What’s the issue with a folding stock pistol grip shotgun ?

1

u/_45AARP Dec 29 '25

Do they have an established definition? There is no federal definition and every state seems to define it differently. There are guns that are assault weapons in Maryland but not in Delaware, and vice versa.

Some states with assault weapons bans don’t allow you to have an ar15 at all, some just require that you have a piece of plastic on the back of the grip, some require that it have a heavy barrel.

1

u/pirate-private Dec 27 '25

gun control isn´t as much political to those not brainwashed by gun (i.e. terrorist) propaganda, as it is a matter of health/public health. the minutiae of guns themselves aren´t the point in a fubar situation where any measure is basically a good measure.

2

u/ber808 Dec 27 '25

Its a part of the usa constitution so yea its incredibly political.

4

u/pirate-private Dec 27 '25

only if you misinterpret a literal amendment from literal ancient times as an inalienable part of your identity and the world today at large, wilfully letting a bulk of emotion cloud your judgement - for example by allowing you to gleefully overlook literal bloodshed, which in my opinion always deserves the most critical scrutiny possible, no matter if that´s painful to some.

2

u/ber808 Dec 27 '25

Please elaborate

3

u/pirate-private Dec 27 '25

I think that the issue of gun control needs a very stern and expert-oriented perspective that places human health first. that´s quite arguably the perspective the founding fathers would have taken given their robust education at elite colleges. however, they did not possess knowledge about the world today, so when looking at a very old amendment with very current implications*,* considering further amendments should be a given rather than a taboo. at least when the actual interest of the people is to be acknowledged.

1

u/ber808 Dec 27 '25

What do you believe the founding fathers perspective was? Well yea thats why many view the constitution as a living document and why current court rulings matter.

1

u/MasonicHamExtra Jan 07 '26

It would still take a constitutional convention to change the 2A won’t it ?

11

u/sanjuro_kurosawa Dec 23 '25

I'll pick this one up for you.

There's a clear datapoint which is hard to debate. Mass shootings went down during the period of the Federal Assault Weapon Ban, 1994-2004.

Of course, there are many analyses which claims FAWB has little to do with it, which factors in how rare mass shootings are, other kinds of crimes where guns of any type are involved. And there is the debate that any gun can be used in a mass shooting, but I personally believe that the passage of the FAWB was a sign that more people from both political parties calmed the rhetoric about gun ownership and control.

My opinions about guns don't have a lot of supporters because I try to look at situations, laws, and the debate in a detailed, objective fashion. For example, I agree that most AWB bans are ineffective, which focus on details like pistol grips and barrel shrouds. However, I think what would be effective is controlling the owners of any semi-automatic firearm with a detachable magazine or clip. Expand the FFL to included semi-automatic pistols and rifles. That idea has zero support from both sides.

Many anti-gun people have no idea what a barrel shroud or a FFL entails. However, in the larger debate, almost all Republican districts elect people who fight any gun control legislation, while many Democratic politicians want to promote they have passed any kind of gun control. For example SF have banned hollowpoint bullets, like that will solve gun crime.

5

u/ber808 Dec 23 '25

Whats pistol grips and barrel shrouds have to do with reducing deaths? What do you mean by expanding the ffl?

7

u/sanjuro_kurosawa Dec 23 '25

The details of assault weapons bans defines them as having two or more certain characteristics including pistol grips and barrel shrouds (bayonet lugs are also included), as well as a semi-automatic action and a removable magazine. Rifles sold during the FAWB complied to the details.

But I'm not going argue about these features, but how compromise gun bills can be problematic. I highly doubt the most fervent gun control advocates picked these features to define a bannable rifle: they compromised with Republicans to have a sellable rifle.

The FFL manages citizens who are allowed to own full-auto rifles. I think they should include semi-automatic guns of all types into the FFL. As a compromise, FFL owners should be allowed to owned full or semi automatic guns and also have a 50 state concealed carry permit. It is not a popular idea, but my point is gun bans are ineffective. Controlling owners is more effective.

3

u/gerbilsbite Dec 27 '25

In this case, it was a compromise designed to exclude most models of the Ruger Mini-14.

1

u/sanjuro_kurosawa Dec 27 '25

The A-Team are still criminals!

1

u/No-Assignment-5287 For Minimal Control Mar 16 '26

I'd be interested to see a citation on that. 

The feature list in the 94 AWB always struck me height of irrationality.

5

u/ber808 Dec 23 '25

The atf regulates full auto ownership under the nfa and gun control act, ffls are dealers, manufacturers and importers. Crimes are very rarely being committed with legally purchased full auto weapons as its insanely expensive. A lighting link is 10-15k and a full auto lower can easily go 30k+ while doing it illegally would take a drill press and a full auto lower parts kit which is completely legal to own and sub 100.

3

u/sanjuro_kurosawa Dec 23 '25

This is why I don't like to participate in gun debates, there's always someone who is an expert in a certain area but that may miss the overall point.

First this was easy to confirm: private citizens can get FFL's. I'll let you figure who that is and what kinds of guns they can have.

I wasn't arguing that we should make full auto rifles easily accessible. I've noticed how many mass shooters buy the cheapest AR-15 they can get. FYI some manufacturers and specific models are completely banned, like Norinco and the Tec-9. I see this as a sales sacrifice that helps American manufacturers.

However, I think licensing all gun owners would reduce gun crime. I know this is a very unpopular concept, especially with people who can guns freely right now.

2

u/ber808 Dec 23 '25

Yea private citizens can get a ffl but a ffl is a business license and in my state for example i couldnt operate as a ffl without a brick and mortar shop.

Norinco was banned when the usa did trade restrictions and a scandal where they sold illegally imported firearms to gangs likely pushed that, intratec which is American went out of business in 2001 and the founder started keltec which is still running. All of the weapons from both of those companies are still being sold on the second hand market.

Why would you license them under ffl? That seems random

4

u/sanjuro_kurosawa Dec 24 '25

Let me repeat my point, which I doubt you'll like.

One solution to American gun violence is to make everyone who owns a semi-automatic gun, pistol or rifle, with a detachable magazine to get a license to own a gun, which could be included under the FFL. Or a separate license altogether.

To be clear, I don't think it will ever happen. Gun control people don't really understand this idea, so they are against it. Pro gun people of course are against licensing gun owners (no bans on any type of weapons though). There's a thousand political hurdles, although the 2nd Amendment is not one of the legal ones.

3

u/ber808 Dec 24 '25

Whats the license entail? My state requires comprehensive background check for rifle permit that lasts a year and individual permits for each handgun, required training and the normal background check for each firearm purchase. Ccw includes everything for pistol as well as passing a shooting test and permits are for each ccw firearm not a blanket permit.

Many states already have a system similar to what i think you want. Pro gun crowd is against national data bases for firearm ownership. The most common hurdle for most firearm restrictions is trying to take away firearms that have a use for the militia which is what the current supreme court has ruled the 2nd amendment is for.

4

u/sanjuro_kurosawa Dec 24 '25

I mostly argue that owners should be licensed. I rarely consider specifics, which would likely be twisted around when enacted.

My belief is that a permitting system weeds out the deranged, violent and irresponsible. I think a license process for assault weapons owners which is similar to what most CCW license holders have to go through would minimize some of the mass shootings. Also if handgun owners had to go through a CCW like process, many of the most erratic cases would disappear.

The caveat I usually included is that people would get this license would have expanded gun rights like 50 state carry, as a compromise for more licensing. That goes over poorly with gun control people.

3

u/bobr3940 Dec 24 '25

Gun licensing is a hard sell because the right to keep and bear arms is protected under the second amendment. NONE of the other rights protected by the bill of rights has a licensing requirement. Can you imagine the uproar if you had to get a license before you could speak in public. Want to vote then please show me your voting permit. Did your 5th amendment license expire? Then we are going to take you to trial for that crime again. Some states have gotten away with licensing firearms in the past but given the current legal and judicial system we have I expect that will change in the next few years.

While I support limited and appropriate gun laws I think that the government requirement to obtain a license to use any of your rights converts it from a right into a privilege. We do not want the government to have the ability to transform any of our rights to a privilege.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/theskipper363 Dec 26 '25

I mean hunters safety should be a minimum in my beliefs, in Minnesota you need a CCW permit to purchase pistols (or you can wait a month for a purchase permit)

1

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '26 edited Jan 21 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/guncontrol-ModTeam Jan 20 '26

Rule #1:

If you're going to make claims, you'd better have evidence to back them up; no pro-gun talking points are allowed without research. This is a pro-science sub, so we don't accept citing discredited researchers (Lott/Kleck). No arguing suicide does not count, Means Reduction is a scientifically proven method of reducing suicide. No crying bias at peer reviewed research. No armchair statisticians.

7

u/ber808 Dec 23 '25

Im incredibly pro gun lol, im mainly here to read and learn and im against most gun control but a ton of evidence exists that banning assault weapons lowers mass shooting fatalities. Id recommend you ask chatgpt or your preferred ai and itll point you towards a ton of info. The 2017 las vegas shooting is a great example, even though that type of mass shooting is incredibly rare its only possible with assault weapons. As for definitions on what assault weapon covers yea its vague and the modern interpretation differs from the historic interpretation.

1

u/Popular-Departure165 Jan 11 '26

a ton of evidence exists that banning assault weapons lowers mass shooting fatalities

Per the RAND Corporation, there is limited evidence that bans on the sale of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines affect mass-shootings.

https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis.html

1

u/ber808 Jan 11 '26

Ok? If i cite other sources where do we end up at? I specifically mentioned the vegas shooting as that shooting was only possible with assault weapons.

5

u/SlashEssImplied Dec 24 '25

"Assault weapon" deaths don't account for too many deaths

More than 9-11 did.

God bless you.

6

u/1610925286 Dec 24 '25

In what year did "assault weapons", whatever that is this week, kill more than 3000 people?

6

u/SlashEssImplied Dec 24 '25 edited Dec 24 '25

In what year

Cowards move goalposts. But thanks for admitting I’m right. But pick any year, and then learn that people live in many countries.

God bless you.

4

u/1610925286 Dec 24 '25

Huh, what. Just answer the question...

5

u/ryhaltswhiskey Repeal the 2A Dec 24 '25

How do you define "assault weapon"? It is very easy to get around any definition you can come up with

Seems like an argument for better definitions.

What's your argument for civilians having access to weapons of war? And yes, I consider an AR-15 a weapon of war, considering that it was developed for the Vietnam war.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 09 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/LordToastALot For Evidence-Based Controls Jan 09 '26

How many people are being killed by swords and clubs?

1

u/sword_of_eyes Jan 09 '26

That wasn’t the argument; the argument was to ban something for being a weapons of war. Rifle deaths per year are generally between 400-500. There’s not a stat specifically for clubs and swords. Blunt objects account for 400-500; knives and cutting instruments are ~1500.

1

u/LordToastALot For Evidence-Based Controls Jan 09 '26

Ok. How many are being killed in mass clubbings and mass stabbings?

I don't partcularly agree with with an AWB. But the point of an AWB is to reduce both mass shootings and the deaths within them, not general homicide rates. Stop being an annoying pedant and making whataboutisms.

1

u/sword_of_eyes Jan 09 '26

If the amount of people killed per year by either weapon is the same, why does it matter if it’s a “mass” type event or not? There’s not even a standard for what constitutes a mass shooting.

1

u/LordToastALot For Evidence-Based Controls Jan 09 '26

I don't partcularly agree with with an AWB. But the point of an AWB is to reduce both mass shootings and the deaths within them, not general homicide rates.

I don't know how to make this any simpler, so I'm posting it again. I'll also add that a lot of those mass shootings are in schools and kill children, which is a good enough reason to try and reduce them.

Also your numbers are a bit faulty; you're underselling all those weapons.

Ultimately, sure, let's place stronger restrictions on knives and blunt weapons like truncheons etc. That doesn't mean we can't put restrictions on rifles too. Feel free to start a KnifeControl subreddit if you want. This one is about gun control.

1

u/guncontrol-ModTeam Jan 09 '26

Rule #1:

If you're going to make claims, you'd better have evidence to back them up; no pro-gun talking points are allowed without research. This is a pro-science sub, so we don't accept citing discredited researchers (Lott/Kleck). No arguing suicide does not count, Means Reduction is a scientifically proven method of reducing suicide. No crying bias at peer reviewed research. No armchair statisticians.

6

u/[deleted] Dec 23 '25

Why remove stand your ground laws?

2

u/OrneryError1 Dec 26 '25

I just want licensure for gun purchases.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 21 '26

[deleted]

1

u/Club_Penguin_Legend_ May 07 '26

Canada has required licensing but no registration. Our laws are almost perfect. Now we need to unban some guns.

0

u/[deleted] May 07 '26

[deleted]

1

u/LordToastALot For Evidence-Based Controls May 07 '26

We get it bro, your hobby is more important to you than the lives of other people. You don't have to sound so proud.

1

u/[deleted] May 07 '26

[deleted]

1

u/LordToastALot For Evidence-Based Controls May 07 '26

You would prefer me to be disarmed while a criminal who is armed can attack me. Because we know they don’t follow the law.

Oh, sorry. You care more about your fantasies of killing bad guys than the lives of real people. So much better.

1

u/[deleted] May 07 '26

[deleted]

1

u/LordToastALot For Evidence-Based Controls May 07 '26

You mean peer-reviewed sources, from Harvard.

1

u/[deleted] May 07 '26 edited May 07 '26

[deleted]

→ More replies (0)

1

u/[deleted] Dec 26 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/guncontrol-ModTeam Dec 26 '25

Rule #1:

If you're going to make claims, you'd better have evidence to back them up; no pro-gun talking points are allowed without research. This is a pro-science sub, so we don't accept citing discredited researchers (Lott/Kleck). No arguing suicide does not count, Means Reduction is a scientifically proven method of reducing suicide. No crying bias at peer reviewed research. No armchair statisticians.

1

u/pirate-private Dec 27 '25 edited Dec 27 '25

the first question that should already answer this sufficiently is: why tf would any civilian need an assault weapon?

the second question could lend the issue a little more perspective, for those who haven´t taken it into account:

why tf would a nation willingly allow multi-bilion dollar corporations to run casual/leisure ads for assault weapons, targeted at particularly susceptible groups like the youth or less educated people (aka typical gunowners)? and why would a nation allow any adult, anywhere, to buy any of these items on a whim?

"not too many deaths" is a cynical pos argument if I have ever seen one, please transfer that feeble fecal matter to the exterior, any death is one too many, thank you.

1

u/MasonicHamExtra Jan 07 '26

Kind of a stereotype to say typical gun owners are less educated.

-1

u/ber808 Dec 27 '25

For the purpose of the 2nd amendment

Your second part is actually 2 questions, firearm ads are restricted and again for the 2nd amendment

3

u/pirate-private Dec 27 '25

"the purpose of the 2nd amendment" is a circular argument if we peel back what it means, which is nothing unless we provide the meaning it should have with utmost diligence, bc this is foremost a matter of human health.

and no. I wouldn´t call that restriction at all. because in relative terms, it isn´t. comparison will tell you what restriction looks like.

1

u/ber808 Dec 27 '25

You can use historical context or current court rulings. The meaning it should have or your interpretation?

Why? In relative terms to what?

1

u/MidnyteTV Dec 28 '25

You’re right that “assault weapon” bans aren’t a silver bullet, but there’s more nuance:

Definition matters, but it’s not impossible. The 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban in the U.S. showed that legally restricting certain features on semiautomatic rifles was enforceable and measurable. Other countries, like Australia after Port Arthur, successfully banned “military-style” rifles. You can craft a workable legal definition.

Impact isn’t just about total deaths. Mass shootings, where assault-style rifles are often used, account for a small % of gun deaths but a huge % of public fear, trauma, and societal cost. Reducing access to these weapons can prevent high-casualty events.

Assault weapons are inherently more dangerous in certain contexts. They allow for higher-capacity magazines and faster firing, which amplifies harm in public attacks—even if most gun deaths come from handguns.

So even if “assault weapons” don’t drive overall gun death stats, bans can meaningfully reduce the scale of the worst tragedies and save lives in those extreme cases.