www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcassaul.html

Here are some answers to your questions.

The rifles that were banned were not mechanically different from the rifles that were not banned.  The ease of conversion would be the same, which is to say, it would be difficult and highly illegal.  Specialized knowledge and machining ability would be required.

Now, the rifles that were legal after the ban were prohibted from having flash hiders, folding stocks and bayonet lugs.  

Flash hiders contrary to myth do not eliminate flash, they simply redirect it somewhat out of the shooters eyes.  Someone looking from ahead, or to the side would still see it.  

Folding stocks, still leave an awfully long weapon.  Not very good for concealment.  Their true purpose is to provide an adjustable length stock for swat teams wearing body armor.  They also look cool.

Bayonet lug, no real reason for one on a civillian or police rifle.  Also somewhat harmless and of value only to combat soldiers and collectors.  Ask him about the last drive by bayonetting he remembers.

In short, the assault weapons ban did not affect machine guns.  It did affect semi auto rifles that cosmetically looked mean.  The rifles that complied with the law that looked similar were not banned.  It was a useless law that was foisted on the American people to give the perception of doing something about gang violence without actually doing anything.  Its only actual provision that changed anything was the 10 round magazine limit.  This however was made moot by the millions and millions of larger capacity magazines that were already in circulation and were always readily available.

Ask your teacher if it is ok to make laws that do nothing.  Suggest that perhaps since Race cars are not legal on the street, we should outlaw cars with spoilers on their trunks because they look like race cars and could easily be converted into high speed death machines.  It is a valid analogy.

Now, as to the why do you need one question?  The answer is simple, because I'm an American and I can.  Its a good enough reason to own a mustang Cobra, its a good enough reason to own a bushmaster.

You're getting lots of good advice.  You can put together a hell of an argument with it!  

How does a law banning something help to reduce crime?

It doesn't.   Prohibition has NEVER, EVER worked,  in any form.  History bears this out.

Those who are inclined to obey the laws would comply with a prohibitive law....but as they're the ones that obey the laws,  what's the point of even having that law?

Those that DON'T intend to obey such a law are what we call CRIMINALS.  The law will not stand in their way,  it never has, and it never will.     That's why they're criminals.    

Who cares if a given rifle might be fairly easy to covert to fully automatic operation?   Since when have a great number of crimes been committed with FA weapons lately, anyway?    Except for that bank robbery in Compton, CA,  there hasn't been any FA crime that I've heard of in at least the last DECADE.

It takes just one thing to make a criminal:  Criminal INTENT.    Lacking that, you have no criminal.

It doesn't matter what you own.  What matters is what you do with it.   If you lack criminal intent,  it doesn't matter at all if you happen to own a TANK, or anything else.


The Second Amendment isn't about the right to hunt ducks.   It's about the people having the means to protect themselves against ALL enemies,   one of which would be a government, if that government goes bad and starts trying to deprive its citizens of their basic rights.    

The weapons that the Founding Fathers had in their day when they drafted the documents this contry is built on were the assault rifles of their day.    They knew there would be advancements in weapons, as there is always advancement in all fields of learning and skill.    They did NOT limit our gun ownership to only what was available at the time,  and would not have done so.     They believed in having the best firepower currently available at the time,  and still would believe in that today.


If you get off on a track regarding the 2nd amendment,   throw this at your teacher:

Do you believe that if our state were to pass a law outlawing the practice of your religion,  that this law would survive a Constitutional challenge?

Of course not.

So why would you think that a law that infringes on the 2nd amendment would be legal?
How is the 2nd amendment different from ANY other amendment in its applicability to the states?
How could it be that a state can't  restrict freedom of religion or speech (1st amendment) but can get away with restricting the right to keep and bear arms?  (2nd amendment)    What's different about the way the 2nd amendment is written that makes it OK for states to ignore it, while the other amendments can't be overriden by state laws?

That's sure to piss him off...but it might get some of your fellow students thinking.



Note that the only people who claim the AW ban actually worked to reduce crime are those who want to ban ALL guns.    If they were telling the truth,  how come the FBI's statistics, and that of the U.S.  Department of Justice,  simply don't agree with the anti's claims?

Point out that the slight decrease in crime seen in the later 90s corresponds almost exactly with just ONE factor:  The waning of the crack cocaine epidemic, and nothing else.



I'd better stop now.   I could keep going on for way too long.   I've given you enough to work with, as have several others.    It's all good stuff.

CJ

The best use for assault weapons is for ridding the world of Libertarians.  Bunch of toked up people with improper morals.