undefined | Better HN

0 pointsajross6y ago0 comments

Seems like exactly the opposite is true. Where specific bills have reached the floor, they've passed. The tactics of the opposition are to use procedural control and veto power to prevent these from becoming laws. The assault weapons ban of 1994 was a successful law, and would have removed access to almost all the weapons used in the recent attacks. It had a sunset provision, and expired in 2004. But it passed, and it worked.

It's a common founding myth among gun rights people that "The American People" are pro-gun, but it's just not really true. It's a particular driving issue for a particular subset of the republican base, and beyond that opinions aren't as strong, but are broadly pro-gun-control.

0 comments

4 comments · 2 top-level

ufmace6y ago· 1 in thread

That's total nonsense. The AWB accomplished nothing at all, and did not remove access to any weapons for anybody. It banned specific models of weapons and a few specific features that don't correlate to anything in particular. Manufacturers basically instantly made minor modifications and kept selling the exact same thing.

sk5t6y ago

Seconding your assertion that the AWB was ineffective. It barred certain cosmetic features--some malarkey about muzzle brakes and folding stocks or foregrips or whatnot. While doing nothing to diminish the availability of equally potent weapons. 100% toothless, feel-good legislation.

s_m_t6y ago· 1 in thread

I was under the impression that the 1994 ban targeted specific models of firearm and silly features like pistol grips, flash suppressors, and bayonets (I might be confusing this with a california ban). The whole "Assault weapon" thing is considered something of a joke to a lot of firearm enthusiasts. For example, the ruger mini 14 wasn't legally considered an "Assault weapon" (but would be considered one if it had a collapsible stock? might be a myth idk this is what some people claim) despite it being a well regarded semi-automatic rifle which was also used in an infamous shootout with the fbi to devestating effect.

ajrossOP6y ago

> might be a myth idk this is what some people claim

It was a flawed list of too-specific rules that were self-contradictory or incomplete in a bunch of places, and indeed that became part of the mythology about it in gun circles.

But it also directly outlawed clones of the Kalashnikov and AR-15 rifles that have been preferentially used (for fairly obvious reasons) in much of the recent violence. It worked, within its domain.

No one likes the ACA either, but you can still buy insurance with a pre-existing condition. Same deal. The gun folks like to conflate "flawed law" with "useless law", but that's not how it works in practice.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse