Assault Rifle ban

[SoulFire]

Well, for those of you who don't know it, a ban on the sale of assault rifles is about to expire. President Bush is trying to avoid its reinstation, presumably to crony with the NRA...but nonetheless, what do you think about it? Now, I myself believe this is ridiculous. "Sportsmen" don't need AK-47s and TEC-9s to go deer hunting. Note that the repealing of this bill would result in it being completely legal and easy for terrorists and serial killers to get their hands on these weapons.


Bush's Stance:
"We stand strongly for the Second Amendment, which gives every American the individual right to bear arms. My position and my record stand in stark contrast to my opponent's record of voting against the rights of law abiding gun owners.
Listen, as a sportsman, I understand that gun ownership carries serious responsibilities. When someone uses a gun to commit a crime, they should be prosecuted and sent to jail. Over the past three years, federal prosecutions of crime committed with firearms have increased by 68 percent. The way to make our communities safer is to lock up more gun-toting criminals, not to restrict the constitutional liberties of law abiding citizens."

[Oekss]

There is absolutly no reason at all for any civilian to own an assault rifle. None. They are for military and police forces, nobody else. The second amendment is a wek argument for owning assault rifles as well...because I'm pretty sure they didn't exist.

Bush is a ****tard, and is an embaressment to republicans.

[SoulFire]

Assault rifles aren't for hunting; they're for defense.


Martial arts are for self-defence, guns are for killing people.

[Palooka]

Bah. Couldn't delete it in time to write something better.

Yes, martial arts are also for defense, but guns are a lot better, since -- believe it or not -- sometimes you need to kill another person to defend yourself or others.

PS.
Congress renews the assault weapons ban, not the President. Don't blame Bush.

[SoulFire]

Bah. Couldn't delete it in time to write something better.

Yes, martial arts are also for defense, but guns are a lot better, since -- believe it or not -- sometimes you need to kill another person to defend yourself or others.

PS.
Congress renews the assault weapons ban, not the President. Don't blame Bush.


Wich also makes them dangerous, who is to decide when the time to kill an intruder is there? people make diff desicions based on personal opinions, i can kill someone a lot sooner or later then you, the chance of you killing someone is A) very slim and B) will probably be an un-nessacary option since killing is very serieus and is only to be used as a last resort.

Eventough, do we really a full-automatic riffle to kill someone in self defence when a normal handgun will be sufficient ?

and yeah, congress votes, but Bush makes the final desicion....

[Diablo]

Bah. Couldn't delete it in time to write something better.

Yes, martial arts are also for defense, but guns are a lot better, since -- believe it or not -- sometimes you need to kill another person to defend yourself or others.

PS.
Congress renews the assault weapons ban, not the President. Don't blame Bush.

Don't you think Assault Rifles are a bit overkill to defend yourself? Unless its in a war..

[Pinky's brain]

You have to draw arbitrary lines in the sand, if you just take the constitution as absolute then howitzers/tanks/fighter-aircraft/WMDs are really no different from an AK-47.

[Exodous]

An assult rifle seems to be overkill IMO.
Personnaly I would rather see a bill that requires any store that sells guns to record and register every guns markings(including the grooves within the barrel), caliber, a picture of the gun, and if applicable a pictuer of the owner. It would also be nice to require anyone who bought a gun to be required to pass a test to establish that they are mentally stable, and require that the person buying the gun had no criminal record.
I cannot fathom what use anybody who did not intend to murder, or threaten to murder, someone would use an assult rifle for, actually the only type of person I can think of who could use an assult rifle is a gang member in a gang war.

[TheRealDecoy]

Gun-right advocates say that guns are needed for protection. I'm sorry, but that is BS. If people REALLY wanted to protect themselves then our country would get off it's...umm...rear end and find out where criminals are comming from and what is causing them to resort to criminal activity. With less criminals there's is less need for protection and therefor less need for Joe A. Redneck to keep a M-16 in his house.

/anger towards people against gun control

[Rush the Resplendent]

I think the ban should be renewed. Handguns are more than enough. Get yourself a Desert Eagle if you're so paranoid.

[Stinkbog]

I guess no one here is a gun buff.

I am sure most people have seen bumper stickers saying, 'If guns are outlawed, then only outlaws will have guns.' Like it or not, it is a true statement. I am not up on current stats, but towns/counties that allow permits to carry, also have a lower violent crime rate.

The point isn't what people can potentially do with them. Obviously criminals who have bad intentions should not have them. Guns laws currently on the books would accomplish a majority of this if they were actually enforced.

The point is, the government should not be telling me that I can't own one. I think I may go buy another one just to spite the idea that people think I shouldn't have one. It is a recreational activity that is fun. Going out to the range and firing off a 30 rnd clip through and SKS is fun.

[Blazer3]

Just because you don't see a practical use for a firearm doesn't mean you can just say they are unnecessary and should be banned. The processes people go through when buying guns is thorough.

[Hyakki-Yaku]

It's hard to argue that making more dangerous firearms more available won't eventuate in more of said dangerous firearms winding up being used in mundane crimes in the place of relatively less devastating weapons. As fatalistic as it sounds, I'd much rather see your average gun-toting lunatic go on a rampage with a handgun than a fully rigged assault rifle.

[Kerghan]

Great! As soon as I'm old enough, I'm going to go out and get a sleek looking instrument of death (just in case someone breaks into my house, and I need to riddle their head with bullets until it can no longer be recognized). I think President Bush's logic makes perfect sense. The problem is that there are criminals...criminals that commit crimes...with guns. If there weren't any, then there wouldn't be a problem! SO all we need to do is lock up the people who commit crimes with guns...before they commit a crime. Brilliant! :dizzy:

[Pinky's brain]

The point is, the government should not be telling me that I can't own one.

Well I can respect that view point, at least it is consistent ... but sorry, I dont feel like having open markets for plutonium/uranium/smallpox/anthrax/sarin/scuds/stingers or even something as mundane as a LAW and fragmentation grenades (pipe-bombs and the like can of course be manufactured at home quite easily, but a lot of experimenters blow themselves up ... so lets not remove that bit of natural selection).

Not drawing a line in the sand is consistent, it is also not terribly bright ... and as soon as you draw a line in the send you cant argue in favour of assault rifles from principle, it just becomes a matter of opinion to be decided by government and indirectly democracy.

[Koiju]

Stinkbog, I shall point out that this country (England) has MUCH stricter gun laws then America, and we get FAR FAR less gun crime per year (based on % of population) then America. Draw form that what you will.

[Stinkbog]

plutonium/uranium/smallpox/anthrax/sarin/scuds/stingers or even something as mundane as a LAW and fragmentation grenades

The only line in the sand I would draw here is that none of these examples would be things used for a recreational/sportsmanlike activity. Such as a firing range or skeet shooting or whatever. (I suppose the law and grenade could be argued, but for safety reasons I think it's easy to see a difference here).

I shall point out that this country (England) has MUCH stricter gun laws then America, and we get FAR FAR less gun crime per year (based on % of population) then America. Draw form that what you will.

Can't argue with you on a % statistic analysis. About this I can only say that Americans have it's roots (yes we are a comparibly younger country) in it's freedoms. Wild west, great frontier, survive or die. (Live Free or Die is my state's motto) I think all these things have an effect culturally in the way I view things such as gun ownership. If I had happened to be born in England and had it's cultural backbone, I would probably feel the same as you.

[Koiju]

Oh dont get me wrong, im all for freedom, as much as any american, however, there are certain limits and lines that must be drawn, if you give people too many freedoms they will abuse them.

If you want to use a gun on a fireing range, then why do you need to own one? Why cant you keep it on the firing range ONLY? Why do you have to have it in your house? Its just an accident waiting to happen if you ask me, a freedom with too many costs

[Pinky's brain]

The only line in the sand I would draw here is that none of these examples would be things used for a recreational/sportsmanlike activity. Such as a firing range or skeet shooting or whatever. (I suppose the law and grenade could be argued, but for safety reasons I think it's easy to see a difference here).

No, I dont see a fundamental difference in safety between a LAW and an assault rifle on a professionally run appropriately build range. Hell if you think shooting assault rifles is sport, then what is wrong with mortar shooting? Takes skill ... and again with the right precautions/facilities it is pretty safe.

BTW I think that if allowed plenty of gun nuts would want to shoot LAWs on firing ranges ... or would you disagree? :)

[Stinkbog]

BTW I think that if allowed plenty of gun nuts would want to shoot LAWs on firing ranges ... or would you disagree?

Ummmm, yeah they probably would. Guess it's a matter of the explosive nature of those weapons. Cost/fun ratio would be a little high for any average enthusiast. It would be like a high end Club Med weekender.

[stevemcqueen]

Stinkbog, I shall point out that this country (England) has MUCH stricter gun laws then America, and we get FAR FAR less gun crime per year (based on % of population) then America. Draw form that what you will.

Add to this, that our regular police doesn't bring guns with them, except for the special forces. :)

[Exodous]

The only line in the sand I would draw here is that none of these examples would be things used for a recreational/sportsmanlike activity. Such as a firing range or skeet shooting or whatever. (I suppose the law and grenade could be argued, but for safety reasons I think it's easy to see a difference here).
Granted I don't know much about gunnery ranges, but if the only use of a weapon was sport, and lets face it, the size of an assult rifle is prohibitive for self defense and the power is overkill for hunting, why not allow someone to rent the weapon to use on the range?

[Blazer3]

Oh dont get me wrong, im all for freedom, as much as any american, however, there are certain limits and lines that must be drawn, if you give people too many freedoms they will abuse them.

If you want to use a gun on a fireing range, then why do you need to own one? Why cant you keep it on the firing range ONLY? Why do you have to have it in your house? Its just an accident waiting to happen if you ask me, a freedom with too many costs
That is why there are several safety measures. There is the gun rack, gun lock, or even just leaving the chamber empty and setting the gun and bullets in a high place. It doesn't seem costly when you keep safety (and common sense) in mind.

[Charles Ensign]

Unlike other countries, we don't ban things in this country just because you don't 'need' them.

Laws, by definition, only apply to law-abiding citizens. What do you care if law abiding citizens want to own weapons? If they ever committed a crime with those weapons, they would have instantly be guilty of something with an even harsher penalty for owning a gun, making the gun control law superfluous.

Criminals who want guns will get guns anyway. They're going to use them to commit crimes that already have harsh penalties, so what do they care? Terrorists? Don't be absurd. You mean they have to buy assault weapons on the black market before doing something horrendously illegal? They may as well just pack up and go home.

All you're doing is constricting the rights of ordinary citizens who, for whatever reason, want to own a quality firearm for their own amusement, that won't hurt anyone. Gun control is one of those feel-good policies that doesn't actually achieve what you want it to. Just like drug laws, you don't eliminate anything from society - you just push it into the underclass and away from the spotlight.

Peace,
-CxE

[Rush the Resplendent]

All you're doing is constricting the rights of ordinary citizens who, for whatever reason, want to own a quality firearm for their own amusement, that won't hurt anyone.
You can get a quality firearm that isn't an assault rifle specifically designed for warfare and human killing, gg.

[Siran Dunmorgan]

There are far too many arguments here to quote, so I'll summarize: it's not about sportsmanship, and it's not about protecting oneself from burglars or thugs.

The point about the disparity between American and British weapons laws is relevant, however: America has less strict laws regarding ownership of weapons than does Britain precisely because Britain had strict weapons laws.

The second amendment to the US Constitution is not to be taken in isolation; it comes before the third amendment because it supports the third amendment, in much the same way that the fourth and fifth amendments form a logical pair:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. "

Those lines are in the Constitution because British soldiers were literally invading private homes in the Colonies, and the legally enforced lack of military-grade weaponry and training in those private homes made it infeasible for the people to resist.

The right to keep and bear arms exists in the United States in order for the people to defend themselves—should it become necessary—against the government of the United States itself, not against some nebulous criminal.

The people need military-grade weapons precisely because they are military-grade weapons—and the military already has them.

—Siran Dunmorgan

P. S. Not, mind you, that the present govenment of the United States represents an invasive threat. We enjoy a state of relative freedom, and the ability to redress our issues with the government in a peaceable way.

But if for any reason that should change, it will be too late then to acquire the means to defend ourselves.

[Rush the Resplendent]

But if for any reason that should change, it will be too late then to acquire the means to defend ourselves.

Sorry mate. If the military wants your ass, you're going down. An assault rifle ain't gonna help.

Heard Costco's having a big sale on canned food, though. Might wanna check that out.

[Siran Dunmorgan]

Sorry mate. If the military wants your ass, you're going down. An assault rifle ain't gonna help.

Heard Costco's having a big sale on canned food, though. Might wanna check that out.

Heh. I shop at Costco regularly. They don't have sales. Just generally good prices on 'family-size' items. I rarely get more than I need for a couple of weeks at a time, though. My kids'll go though a flat of canned veggies every couple of days. :D

As to your other point, though—

That simply isn't true. A lot of it, of course, will depend on why the military would 'want my ass'. If they're after me, specifically, and I'm not otherwise supported by my community, then my chances of avoiding capture or death would be slim. But if I'm simply one of a broad class of persons declared undesirable—computer gamers, say—and I live in a community where most people are uncomfortable with random or unjustified persecution, then there is a good chance that I'm not 'going down'.

One person, with an assault rifle and minimal training, might be able to pin an infantry squad for an hour or so. I believe that would be about the upper limit of my real-world operational skill, and even then, I'd need a lot of luck. And maybe when my time was up, I'd be dead. But, also, maybe that hour was what my wife and kids needed to get out. Would it be worth it, to protect my family? Yes: it would. Could I have done even that much, if I didn't have the military-grade hardware? Probably not.

Would that squad have 'pwnd my ass'? No: not if my objective was to get my family out.

Now, I don't expect this scenario to play out in my lifetime. But I can't speak for my childrens' lifetime: too much of history suggests that it's too easy for this kind of thing to happen. And I don't want my kids and their peers to be crippled by our generation's short-sightedness.

Talking in this vein no doubt makes me sound as if I sit on my roof with a rifle, waiting for the "gummint men" to take me away. Nah. :) It's not even a concern of mine from day to day: I spend too much time wrestling with sloppy documentation and inane implementation details on object database systems to pay much attention to broad political matters.

I wouldn't even be discussing it now, except that there was this forum thread that caught my attention...

—Siran Dunmorgan

[Scrivener]

This is a "wedge issue" like the Gay Marriage Amendment. It's something people care deeply about, but which isn't massively important, in the sense that the number of people affected is very small in absolute terms. What I mean is the number of gays who want to get married (or conversely the number of people adversely affected if they do get married), or the number of people who can make good use of assault rifles if they are un-banned, (or conversely the number of people whose lives are saved if they stay banned), are not real big in absolute terms. That's compared to stuff like the Iraq war, health reform, the deficits, unemployment, and so on.

What it does is it takes up a lot of media attention, and it makes swing voters more likely to vote for Bush, because those who are worried about his performance on economic and security issues may just back him so they can keep their guns or because they can't stand gays.

That is why Karl Rove is not going to renew the assault rifle ban, if you ask me.

[Pinky's brain]

Of course they could just put a predator in the air which will wait for you to drive to costco and send a hellfire up your tailpipe, and blaim it on terrorists.

[Bea Wary]

Just a note ... I don't have A firearm .... I have MANY ... I don't sleep with them ... they are never loaded unless I intend to use them ... but I sleep better because they are within easy reach.
If anyone I am not aquainted with wants to find out why I have them they can walk into my home without my permission. I will quickly show them the muzzle end of the nearest firearm and suggest they beat a hasty retreat.
Now comes the tricky part ... if all I see is said intruder's backside as he leaves ... problem solved ... any other action on his part will result in an immediate reaction on my part ... I won't elaborate.
As long as we are banning firearms why not all forms of projectile generating instruments ... bows - x-bows - etc. I am aquainted with several individuals that are extremely deadly with these as well as firearms.
If they ban firearms they better ban ammunition as well. If I can get ammo I can fabricate something to fire it. It won't be pretty or accurate to 100 meters but when fired will probably do much more damage to it's target than it's manufactured counterpart. Non-spec'd barrels usually result in faulty ballistics which result in tumbling/wobbly projectiles which are extroadinarily nasty when they strike their target.

Bea - P.S. I DO NOT own or wish to own an Assault Rifle ... I only need one well placed round ... an assault rifle is designed for mass killing ... a shotgun full of 00 buck will do the same thing.

[The Evil Villain]

You American Gun hores... Scared of anthrax, killed 4 ppl. Leaving kids have M4s... countless kills and prison costs...

God I love Canada... It may be run by men without balls, but at least they have a head they dont want shot.

[Pinky's brain]

Hey if you had a choice between Kerry and Bush as supreme commanders of your military you would want to be able to defend yourself too :)

[Scrivener]

I'm all for the Constitution, but I'd rather emphasize the points on freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, separation of powers, etc., so that your government doesn't get to the point of you needing to go hide in the woods with your assault rifle ( :down: ).

[Xavz]

The thing is, you never know, meaning you have to prepare for any and all possibilities lest you be caught off guard and end up screwed. That's why we have constitutional rights: to help prevent these eventualities from happening.

[Cicciro]

The only problem I haver personally towards firearms is the fact that anyone can really get their hands on them no matter what the cost. If someone wants a gun, they can get it, who needs legal standards? The second ammendment backs the right for anyone to bear firearms for a militia purpose. The problem with this is, the militia is gone and the military is here. Anyone in the military is granted firearms at some point, thus completing the second ammendment.

Deaths can occur in many ways. I don't see why anyone would need anything more than a rifle or a sidearm in any situation as a civilian. I can kill someone with a pair of tweezers, but it is a lot easier to hide behind a gun. Any gun can kill, do we really need to put more deadly guns on the street?

Sort of like the atomic bomb, does it really need to get any bigger? No. I say we all go back to fighting with swords and arrows, seemed a lot more fun back in the day.

[Stinkbog]

I don't see why anyone would need anything more than a rifle or a sidearm in any situation as a civilian.

Need isn't really the right qualifyer here. It's not that there is a need.

Do I need one to hunt with? no Do I need one to defend myself with? no
Are they fun to own and shoot the crap out of things with? yes Besides they are just down right cool :P

Opinions vary.

[Blazer3]

I wonder if the true reason for even having this ban was because of some groups of people complaining that these guns look too menacing to be on the street?
Maybe those guns were just normal weapons in the first place but lobbyists wanted them gone since people would then conclude that they had too much power to be used in socially acceptable activities such as hunting?
If anyone remembers the uproar of the .50 caliber Magnum having so much power that gangs would go out of their way to get them, but then the manufacturer stated that the recoil had too strong a kick to be used in fighting situations (it can break your wrist) and the cost was too prohibitive and so a cheap handgun did the job better.
If you take the Second Amendment seriously, I consider my training in various firearms along with dad to be an organized unit and my home as headquarters. Nothing you can say will change that.

[Saben]

I think the problem is that some people take the right to bare arms to an extreme. I can understand hunters having hunting weapons or things like that but for someone to own an assualt rifle and say that it is for thier protection is ridiculous. If you are that concerned about protection then a handgun should do just fine. For a regular civilian to own an Ak-47 or any other type of rifle is just to extreme. Why do you need such a weapon in your home? An army is not going to come to your home and rob you. If protection is what someone wants so bad that they have to buy an assualt rifle then maybe they should buy one of those bullet proof Landrovers as well that way thier safe on the road, "just in case".

[Narcism]

Well, some people say, assault rifles should be banned, because well, they can kill people, well, so can an arrow in the throat, or tying a rope around someone's neck. Hell rattlesnakes kill people too (or something i don't know).
Using a handgun as a sport, using an assault rifle as a sport, who's to say the difference. Who's to say which is overkill? A semi-automatic shotgun or sniper rifle as equally as deadly (more or less). Are we going to ban something because it's deadlier than another, but the same thing? Remember the Corvair? some of you old folks might know.

And.. easier to acquire for a Terrorist? excuse me? Of course terrorists walk into the local gunshop in groups of 6 and ask for two dozen rifles, good thing we'd have that ban... it fixes everything as it is...

[Rush the Resplendent]

Well, some people say, assault rifles should be banned, because well, they can kill people, well, so can an arrow in the throat, or tying a rope around someone's neck. Hell rattlesnakes kill people too (or something i don't know).
Using a handgun as a sport, using an assault rifle as a sport, who's to say the difference.

Who's to say? Try the government.
You can kill someone with an arrow; yes. You can't kill 10 or more people by walking into a room with an arrow.
Use your damn heads.
If you take the Second Amendment seriously, I consider my training in various firearms along with dad to be an organized unit and my home as headquarters. Nothing you can say will change that.
No one cares, sorry mate.

[Narcism]

Who's to say? Try the government.
You can kill someone with an arrow; yes. You can't kill 10 or more people by walking into a room with an arrow.
Use your damn heads.

Argh.. let's try homemade fragmentation grenades and pipe bombs..


We could go on forever..

[Rush the Resplendent]

Okay, seeing as how you can make something on your own that will kill people, let's give everyone access to extremely destructive weaponry on the off chance that they would have made it themselves.
You're right; that's brilliant.

[The Evil Villain]

After Rifles will I be able to own my own A-Bomb or H-Bomb... Wtf man.

I just pray that I live to see the day 5 Canadian Ranger go down to US soil And kill thousands of you puny armed civilians with Scoutknifez...

Gun Hores

[Palooka]

You pray for thousands of people to be murdered? You're pretty messed up, even if you were joking.

[Koiju]

Need isn't really the right qualifyer here. It's not that there is a need.

Do I need one to hunt with? no Do I need one to defend myself with? no
Are they fun to own and shoot the crap out of things with? yes Besides they are just down right cool :P

Opinions vary.

Well, thats your opinion and I respect that, but personly, I fell that anyone that uses 'its cool and fun' as an excuse to own somthing deadly is childish and should NEVER be given ANYTHING potentially deadly.

This is just my opinion btw, im not trying to insult you, its just how I feel, and I feel quite strongly about it too.

Anything potentially deadly without specialised training should only be owned under pure nescessity, anything less is immoral, IMO

[Rush the Resplendent]

The problem with an Assault Rifle ban, as with any enlightened action, is that it requires a higher level of thought and action on the part of those who would endorse it.
As one can tell simply by surveying the American landscape, the lowest common denominator, in this case, the, "I like to have guns and shoot things because it's awesome and vaguely legal if one chooses to blatantly misinterpret the Second Amendment", continually triumphs over reasoned action.

[Silver Bells]

I'm all for not outlawing things simply because someone can mis-use them. For example, the same line of thinking applies to VCR's, P2P applications, etc. Although Hatch is trying to make that all illegal. I'm all for stricter gun control laws in the form of waiting periods, background checks etc. Also, concealed weapons I don't think really need to be carried unless you are a law enforcement officer.

[Blazer3]

The only problem I see with stricter gun control laws is that the population will eventually lose control of their guns and either become disarmed or...well, give them an inch and they take it all.
I wonder if people really have an educated reason to think that stricter laws are needed?
I say that because there are countries with that line of thinking and most of them are or nearly disarmed while crime and other social problems are rampant (don't trust government statistics, those can be made up easily).

[Stinkbog]

Well, thats your opinion and I respect that, but personly, I fell that anyone that uses 'its cool and fun' as an excuse to own somthing deadly is childish and should NEVER be given ANYTHING potentially deadly.

All I was doing (as the :P should have indicated) was bring a touch of levity to the thread. Time to loosen up the knickers there friend. I did not realize that being a responsible adult required one to be a stick in mud word snob. I do not believe that you do respect my opinion on this subject so please do not simply say it for the sake of trying not to hurt my feelings ;)

Currently, depending on State Law, in the U.S. the average law abiding citizen can walk into a gun shop and buy a semi-automatic "assault" rifle. Buying one includes a background check and ties your name to the serial number on the rifle. The same process when buying any gun.

There is a list of rights and freedoms that one has to surrender in order to get a permit/liscense to purchase/sell a fully automatic assault rifle. One of which is that you give up all rights of search and seizure. I believe that that Assault Weapons Ban has more to do with the way a gun looks as opposed to the way in which it fires mechanically however. The words 'Assault Rifle' are a little misleading.

This fact is supported by a quick comparison of a rifle that was banned (Colt AR-15) and one that was not. (Ruger Mini-14) Both of these weapons fire the same exact cartridge and bullet, the .223 Remington. Both are semi-automatic. Both can accept detachable magazines. Functionally, these are very similar weapons. So what is the main difference? The AR-15 has a black synthetic stock and looks like a military weapon. The Ruger Mini-14 has a wooden stock, and looks more “conventional.”

From a random website from an 'assault rifle ban' search on MSN.

[Koiju]

Ok, I will be mroe specific:

I respect your right to have that opinion

Thats a little more accurate, but i didnt think it nescesary to point that out :P


I already explained my educated reasons for having stricter gun laws, and over here in England we have stricter gun laws, believe me, they work, we have less gun related crime in this country then the state of LA alone :P (hell, we probably have less gun crime here then one LA high school :P ).

I havnt even SEEN a real armed gun, let alone been involved with one, and I feel safer knowing that some random joe on the street doesnt have one and thereforeisnt likely to shoot me with it.

You cant argue with facts, and the fact is that the gun laws in this country significantly reduce all gun related crime.

[Xavz]

Yes, Koiju, there is an awful lot of crime in the state of L.A.

/sarcasm

Trust me, if you make guns illegal, the people who want guns will find ways around the laws and obtain them anyways. Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

[Killenator 5000]

No, people with guns kill people. The gun is as much part of the death as the one holding it. Guns should only be allowed to the military(or the police and other groups like that), or in a firing range, because the average citizen should not be able to get a firearm on the streets without having to do a great deal of work to get it (and therefore having to spend a great deal more money to obtain it, making the ownership of a gun something people will spend much more time considering). By allowing people to have a gun in a firing range you allow 'sportsmen' to continue with their 'sports' while still keeping guns in control.
If guns were harder to obtain the need for a gun in self defense would decrease. People in need of a form of self defense could take a martial art, something where there are ways to counter a threat that dont (always) involve killing someone.

[Blazer3]

The stories I have heard (from firearms magazines) about England was much different than what Koiju has said, even to the point of rampant crimes involving guns, and Killenator's statement was plain laughable.
If there is any product that is recently deemed illegal by any government, people will go to great lengths to keep their formerly legal possession or just finds ways around the law.
Guns will beat any melee, I don't want to be the one with that sort of disadvantage.

[Scrivener]

Guns don't kill people, rappers do. (http://www.jengajam.com/r/I-Hate-Rappers-WMV)

(Music video)

[Xavz]

What about hunters? Are their guns going to be taken away as well if guns are banned? That's bad for the environment; overpopulation of animals tends to destroy diversity and leads to disease.

No, people with guns kill people.
To this I say, people with knives kill people. People with sticks kill people. People with hands kill people. Just because something can be misused doesn't mean it should be banned.

[Silver Bells]

Why on earth are you using ak-47's to hunt.

That's an awfully big bear, must be pretty sporting.

[Rush the Resplendent]

Just because something can be misused doesn't mean it should be banned.The point of a gun is to kill people. That is the difference between a gun and a stick.

[Xue Jing]

Does anyone remember in GTA 3, the talk radio station with Laslo?
Remember the redneck that called in, they were talking about gun control (in Liberty City of all places to be talking about gun control).

Redneck:
"Why guns don't kill people, cardic arrest (from getting shot) kills people!"

Anyway, the general stance the NRA is going to take is that any gun control, will lead to futher gun control.
BTW, I'm living in 'ole Al Gore's home state (TN), which he lost in 2000 for 2 reasons:
1.) After going to Washington in '92, he never really came back here; especially during the 2000 campaign. On top of that the state in 8 years switched to a Republican slant. But more importantly...
2.) I firmly believe the NRA lost him TN, and therefore the entire election (and his career). Keep in mind that TN has more electorial college votes than FL. The ballot/miscount/conspiracy/whatever would have been totally moot if he had won his home state!

[Silver Bells]

"The point of a gun is to kill people. That is the difference between a gun and a stick."

Good friend of mine actually owns an ak-47. Modified or whatever it is to make it legal.

So far he hasn't killed anyone with it. Although he does like going to the shooting range.

Personally I don't understand it but if he gets his jollies out of it and operates it in a safe manner more power to him I guess.

[Greg]

I play airsoft a lot, which is kinda like paintball but with replicas of guns (usually assault rifles) that fire full-auto plastic BB's. Check out Red Wolf Airsoft (http://www.redwolfairsoft.com) for some pictures of what they look like. Some of them look startlingly real. I personally own an airsoft M4A1, Uzi, and an M3 Super 90 (shotgun) among many others.

I don't own a real gun, I've never fired a real gun, and I don't have any intentions to do either one in the immediate future. But man, I can understand the appeal of it. Just holding and shooting a replica that fires plastic BB's is fun, even if it's just target practice. I admit that I didn't buy my second big airsoft gun (the Uzi) because I prefer using it to my M4. I bought it mostly because, well, it's just fun to have. A lot of my airsoft-playing buddies have bought airsoft guns more for the collector's appeal of owning it than for any practical field use in a game. I mean, just look at that rifle in Blazer3's signature. That's one sexy gun. I'd pay to have an airsoft version of that.

Most of this would've sounded pretty dumb to me a few years ago, as it probably sounds to many people who are reading this now. But after going through extensive contact with assault rifle replicas, I can understand the collector's appeal of owning a real one. I personally don't have an overwhelming urge to, but I can understand the urge to. I think the closest analogy here for people who still don't understand would be cars. People want cars all the time for reasons beyond the driving performance.

With that being said, I'm not really arguing for or against the assault rifle ban. It's simply not an issue I feel very strongly about, so I'm not going to pick a side and defend it. I have some mild leanings in favor of the ban, but not really enough to argue.

My point is just that people here have stated that there's no reason to own an assault rifle without the intention of killing someone, or that there's just no reason to own one period. I can assure you that this is not the case. Now, whether or not this is worth the costs and risks involved, I'm not going to debate. I'm just saying that there IS an appeal to it beyond anything related to violence, whether that violence is towards another human being, or towards an animal for hunting.

[Stinkbog]

"Why guns don't kill people, cardic arrest (from getting shot) kills people!"

Not all people who like guns are rednecks. :P

Just because I live in New Hampshire and my forum name is Stinkbog.......
......although I do have a flanel shirt......and I do hunt......
Well maybe I am a redneck :laugh:

I still don't like the stereotype!!!! :D

[Xue Jing]

Not all people who like guns are rednecks. :P

Just because I live in New Hampshire and my forum name is Stinkbog.......
......although I do have a flanel shirt......and I do hunt......
Well maybe I am a redneck :laugh:

I still don't like the stereotype!!!! :D

Ha!
Dude, the quote there was what the redneck in Grand Theft Auto 3 for the PS2 said in one part.
I guess you really wouldn't get the humor unless you played the game, and listened to Laslo's radio show...

Anyway, I can call people redneck because I am one.
Yee-haw!
And I don't mind the steroetype.

Has anyone seen the Family Guy episode where Chris is in the witness-protection program and the Griffins move to the Deep South? Or the movie "Deliverance" with Burt Reynolds? That's what it's like down hear. I love it!
Boy, you sure have a perty mouth.
Bet you 'could squeal like a pig!

[Bea Wary]

Why on earth are you using ak-47's to hunt.

That's an awfully big bear, must be pretty sporting.

AK-47s are chambered for several different calibers of rounds and not one of them is a decent hunting alternative. Assault rifles aren't designed for hunting, most hunting rifles are more accurate and more effective assuming the hunter is smart enough not to hunt bear with a .22(used for rabbits and squirrels).
There are several hunting rifles on the market that are auto loaders and would be much more devastating to the human anatomy than most assault rifles it just requires more skill and marksmanship. Watch any movie that has an assassin or a sniper in it .... they don't use assault rifles and neither does the military for that specific task. The Army uses a Remington Model 700 chambered for .300 Magnum ... talk about ruining your day!!!(This I would hunt bear with!)
My argument is any firearm can be an instrument of death in the wrong hands. I am not pro gun control. I like my guns and I will probably never shoot anyone. I simply refuse to exchange my freedom for the life of another human being even if he deserves it, unless I feel my life is in danger.
There are only a few reasons for owning an assault rifle ... to show it off and brag about it ... target shooting ... firing on full auto if you can afford all the permits and the ammo you will burn up ... and all the unlawful ones which is why they shouldn't be sold to the general public.
I am in the military and have access to military weaponry which is probably why I am not obssessed with owning any as a personal weapon. Civilian weaponry is cheaper, much easier to keep clean and maintain, there not as intricate and aren't as affected by dirt and water.

Bea

[Charles Ensign]

Guns don't kill people - polar bears kill people.

[Greg]

"Americans should have the right to bear arms, but not the right to arm bears." - George W. Bush from "That's My Bush" after being attacked by a bear with a rifle

[Killenator 5000]

Guns don't kill people - polar bears kill people.

"Americans should have the right to bear arms, but not the right to arm bears."

This rampant specism against bears disgusts and sickens me. Remember Polar bears dont kill people ... Cows with guns kill people http://www.cowswithguns.com

[Charles Ensign]

Protect your right to arm bears.

[Bea Wary]

Don't forget the comedian, a Vietnam veteran that stated "I was once an avid hunter but I have lost interest since my experiences in Vietnam ... maybe it would be more challenging if the animals had guns.

[Sexicutioner]

I agree with the right to have the types of firearms you want...but I also think the NRA is a bunch of sociopaths...and Moses needs to stfu imo. :laugh:

I myself, have eleven different types of firearms, one of which is an (military not store bought) sks ;) ...and another is a semi-auto version of a tech-9 (30 rnd clip, and optional silencer..very sweet ;) ).

that whole gun control... thing, never made sense to me at all.
Those people were assuming that criminals got their guns by legal means to begin with (wich they didnt/dont)... so all gun control did was make it harder for law abiding citizens to protect themselves against the ones that got their guns out of the car trunks of ppl selling them illegally. :dead: :dizzy: :dead:

[Exodous]

Sexicutioner, I would like to draw your attention to the outward appearance of the main character of the Tell Tale Heart, this man appeared perfectly normal before all people up until he commited the murder. While I do know that this man is from a book, I am sure that there are people like him in real life. That is the reason for gun control, because we don't know who is a law abiding citizen and a deranged maniac just by outward appearances.

What about hunters? Are their guns going to be taken away as well if guns are banned? That's bad for the environment; overpopulation of animals tends to destroy diversity and leads to disease.

If guns are necessary to keep the balance of nature in check it is only because they have been used to remove as many of the natural predators(wolf for example) of an area as possible before the government stepped in. Although I see no reason why a farmer should have his gone taken away when he uses it to defend his crops from interloping animals such as deer.

[stevemcqueen]

First of all let's put one thing straight.
Organized crime will always get hold of firearms whether they are legal or illegal to buy, and that is true for England as well.
So there is not point in discussing if a total ban of firearms will avoid serious criminals to get hold of them, because it won't.

What we should focus the discussion on is if a ban of firearms will avoid petty criminals or occasional criminals to get hold of them, in this case the answer is yes.
By allowing everybody the right to buy firearms you are giving easy access to all those petty criminals that wouldn't have a chance to buy a weapon through the criminal network.
10.58 people are killed each year per 100,000 population in the USA compared with 0.69 per 100,000 in the UK
These are numbers, you can't argue with that.
Another fact is that the majority of gun related crime in UK consist of modified replica guns, which I believe, now have been banned by the government.
75 per cent of guns seized last year by Metropolitan Police Operation Trident were de-activated or replica weapons
If you take the replica guns out of the equation, the gun related deaths in UK drops to something like 0.15 per 100.000 population compared to 10.58 of US.
That's quite a diffrence.

Now if you insists that forbidding the sale of guns to the general public won't make any difference, you are denying the true facts.

Of course I am not arguing the fact that in your country you can decide your rules and laws, and I understand that possessing weapons is in your culture so I know I would never win the argument with you.
But I just want you to know that forbidding guns would make a difference, it would make American citizens safer.
But then again you are free to live your life as you please. :)

[pharalon]

If you take the replica guns out of the equation, the gun related deaths in UK drops to something like 0.15 per 100.000 population compared to 10.58 of US.

Are you saying that 2/3 of gun related deaths in the UK are caused by replica weapons? If you are trying to apply the figures in your second quote to the ones in your first, you can't, cause the two figures are mutually exclusive. Distorting facts is a good way to undermine your argument.

However, your point is still perfectly valid, and I'd strongly agree with you.

[stevemcqueen]

Are you saying that 2/3 of gun related deaths in the UK are caused by replica weapons? If you are trying to apply the figures in your second quote to the ones in your first, you can't, cause the two figures are mutually exclusive. Distorting facts is a good way to undermine your argument.

I am not distorting facts. Replica guns kill people.
You can easily convert replica guns into real weapons and that's why the government is banning them.
Our petty "gangaster" use to modify replica guns to shot real bullets, because they can't buy real weapons anywhere else.

I don't know how many deaths those modified weapons cause but I guessed that if 2/3 of seized weapons are modified replicas, I guess that 2/3 of deaths are caused by them, although is not an official figure.

We can argue about replica guns, but the thing we can't argue is that not selling weapons to the public make a big difference, and I am glad you agree with me on this. :)

[Blazer3]

Sexicutioner, I would like to draw your attention to the outward appearance of the main character of the Tell Tale Heart, this man appeared perfectly normal before all people up until he commited the murder. While I do know that this man is from a book, I am sure that there are people like him in real life. That is the reason for gun control, because we don't know who is a law abiding citizen and a deranged maniac just by outward appearances.

That is probably the worst reasoning, besides banning guns that look scary, I have ever heard.


....What we should focus the discussion on is if a ban of firearms will avoid petty criminals or occasional criminals to get hold of them, in this case the answer is yes.
By allowing everybody the right to buy firearms you are giving easy access to all those petty criminals that wouldn't have a chance to buy a weapon through the criminal network.

These are numbers, you can't argue with that.
Another fact is that the majority of gun related crime in UK consist of modified replica guns, which I believe, now have been banned by the government.

If you take the replica guns out of the equation, the gun related deaths in UK drops to something like 0.15 per 100.000 population compared to 10.58 of US.
That's quite a diffrence.

Now if you insists that forbidding the sale of guns to the general public won't make any difference, you are denying the true facts.

Of course I am not arguing the fact that in your country you can decide your rules and laws, and I understand that possessing weapons is in your culture so I know I would never win the argument with you.
But I just want you to know that forbidding guns would make a difference, it would make American citizens safer.
But then again you are free to live your life as you please. :)
People go through a thorough process that determines if they are responsible to possess a firearm, assuming they even make the minimum requirements. This will keep most of the criminals out so they will instead find other ways. Turning down sales on the Black Market is bad for business, you are wrong there Steve.
All I see from your quotes are that a number of people died from firearms but not how they died or if how many were criminals. I don't trust any statistics since they can be manipulated in any number of ways, such as excluding how it was used, their definition of firearms, plain inflation, etc. Cars have killed far more people per year than those from firearms, yet people also go through a process to buy them.

[pharalon]

You can easily convert replica guns into real weapons and that's why the government is banning them.

There's something I didn't know. You learn something every day :)

Back on topic, I find it very strange that a nation so fanatical about the prohibition of drugs, so much so that it wages a decades long "war" against them, at the same time tries to say they have the right to own semi-automatic rifles because to deny them so would infringe upon their freedoms which are enshrined in their constitution. The hypocracy of situation astounds me.

If someone breaks into your house, would you prefer them to be pointing a joint or a semi-automatic weapon at you :)

[ShivaFang]

The difference being that cars are not intended to kill people, it's just a side effect of their misuse.

Guns are created and designed to kill. Big difference.

I agree with banning guns. The fewer guns there are the less gun related deaths overall. Sure criminals will still get their hands on guns, but it makes it much harder for your average joe-no-connections guy to kill people.

[Siran Dunmorgan]

I've heard it said that in Japan, you need a license to carry a bladed weapon, too. Confiscations of unlicensed swords in Japan far exceeds the number of confiscated firearms there.

Swords, like assault- or battle-class firearms, have as their principal objective the injury of another human being. Their appearance in the archaeological record of a culture is a certain indicator that the culture experiences inter-personal violence.

—Siran Dunmorgan

[Blazer3]

The problem with banning guns is that only the people that obey the law are affected, while joe-no-connections has no one to stop him from using the gun he kept.
I don't know how they removed the former lawfully owned guns in England, but a house-to-house confiscation in the U.S. will create a larger unrest in the population than in Baghdad.

[Siran Dunmorgan]

It wasn't house-to-house confiscation in England; it was simple erosion of rights, much as some folk advocate here in the US.

Check out http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,59866,00.html for a summary of the disarming of the British public.

Of particular note is the increase in violent crime, even with the strict firearms laws in place.

—Siran Dunmorgan

[Palooka]

I've always thought the pro-gun anti-crime argument made a bit of sense. If everyone had a gun, criminals would avoid committing crimes against the person (out of fear of being shot) and shift to crimes against property. This is good because it's better to have your stuff stolen than your life ended. You can always get new stuff. Of course, this is just theory to my knowledge. I can't think of any place where, literally, everyone has a gun. You'd probably see more "shoot then rob" than "point gun at and rob" type crimes too. Like I said though, it makes a bit of sense anyway.

[Scrivener]

Switzerland and Israel have high rates of gun ownership but low rates of gun crime. The underlying factors are cultural. If you want to reduce gun crime in the US, I'd advise voting John Kerry, since George W. Bush is intent on creating a disenfranchised underclass.
link 1 (http://slate.msn.com/id/2100251) link 2 (http://slate.msn.com/id/2104561)

Crime Factors According to the FBI
* Population density and degree of urbanization.
* Variations in composition of the population, particularly youth concentration.
* Stability of population with respect to residents' mobility, commuting patterns, and transient factors.
* Modes of transportation and highway system.
* Economic conditions, including median income, poverty level, and job availability.
* Cultural factors and educational, recreational, and religious characteristics.
* Family conditions with respect to divorce and family cohesiveness.
* Climate.
* Effective strength of law enforcement agencies.
* Administrative and investigative emphases of law enforcement.
* Policies of other components of the criminal justice system (i.e., prosecutorial, judicial, correctional, and probational).
* Citizens' attitudes toward crime.
* Crime reporting practices of the citizenry.

Gun control is a wedge issue that the Republican party is using to "firm up" undecided Republicans who think GWB is an incompetent dishonest moron, but who want to own a gun.

[Blazer3]

Check out http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,59866,00.html for a summary of the disarming of the British public.

Of particular note is the increase in violent crime, even with the strict firearms laws in place.

—Siran Dunmorgan
I didn't know the disarming movement began as early as 1903. I always wonder why English people keep saying crime is lower than in the U.S., where do they get their news?

[Scrivener]

Well here are stats from www.guncite.com , a pro-gun site. Death rates are deaths per 100,000 people.

Country | Year | Population | Total Homicide | Firearm Homicide | Non-Gun Homicide | % Households With Guns
United States | 1999 | 272,691,000 | 5.70 (per 100K) | 3.72 | 1.98 | 39.0
England/Wales | 1997 | 51,429,000 | 1.41 (per 100K) | 0.11 | 1.30 | 4.7

But as they say on that site, really it's the cultural factors that are most important. Reducing poverty is more important than reducing gun ownership, and given the political climate of the US, it's also a lot more acheivable. (Well if the Democrats get in anyway :) )

[Siran Dunmorgan]

I think the idea is to compare overall crime rates, as opposed to simply fatalities and homicides.

Take a look at:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/html/cjusew96/crvs.htm

—Siran Dunmorgan

[ShivaFang]

Siran, I believe the point was GUN crime rates, which are indeed lower in England. Crime ovearll may be higher in england, but gun-related crimes are lower.

[stevemcqueen]

Siran, I believe the point was GUN crime rates, which are indeed lower in England. Crime ovearll may be higher in england, but gun-related crimes are lower.

Exactly, the discussion was about Death rates related to gun crimes.

Also Siran Dunmorgan, involuntary gave more credit to the theory that forbidding gun possession to the general public will drastically reduce gun related deaths.

If the report is true and in England the overall crime rate is much bigger than the US counter part, you should appreciate even more the fact that deaths by firearms are so low in England.
Confirming that not selling guns to everyone is a good measure to prevent firearms deaths.

But as they say on that site, really it's the cultural factors that are most important. Reducing poverty is more important than reducing gun ownership, and given the political climate of the US, it's also a lot more acheivable. (Well if the Democrats get in anyway )

I agree with this statement, and that's why I think that we won't see an anti firearm policy in US any time soon. :)

[Bea Wary]

How did this thread progress from banning assault rifles to banning firearms????

Let's get back on track, banning assault rifles is a relatively miniscule issue compared to banning firearms.

A majority of the firearms owned by the general public in the US are family heirlooms passed from generation to generation and surprisingly many are still in working order.
They were also purchased when no one gave a rat's ass whether you bought it or not so there is no record of their sale.
These weapons are not kept for any other reason than they are heirlooms and belonged to Great-Great Uncle Harry and he used it daily to put meat on the table or whatever.
Anyone can see that collecting these would be a nightmare as only family and friends know they exist and the fact they are cherished as keepsakes.

Bea

[Siran Dunmorgan]

Good point, Bea—thanks for bringing us back on track!

I suspect the reason is because we were all trying to cite sources, and there aren't many easily available statistics on the differences between crimes committed with firearms in general and assault weapons in particular.

By the way, Bea, since you're here, and have more familiarity than most with the subject, could you provide an explanation for the worldwide popularity of assault weapons?

You seem—I could be wrong, but it's the impression I get—to hold assault weapons in some contempt, citing the greater effectiveness of more specialized weapon types.

But if true battle rifles—e.g. G3, FN-FAL—are more effective as military arms, why are assault weapons the dominant type worldwide?

The question isn't strictly off-topic: I ask because I already suspect at least part of the answer, and it has some bearing on the question of public ownership of assault weapons in the US.

—Siran Dunmorgan

[Bea Wary]

Good point, Bea—thanks for bringing us back on track!

I suspect the reason is because we were all trying to cite sources, and there aren't many easily available statistics on the differences between crimes committed with firearms in general and assault weapons in particular.

By the way, Bea, since you're here, and have more familiarity than most with the subject, could you provide an explanation for the worldwide popularity of assault weapons?

You seem—I could be wrong, but it's the impression I get—to hold assault weapons in some contempt, citing the greater effectiveness of more specialized weapon types.

But if true battle rifles—e.g. G3, FN-FAL—are more effective as military arms, why are assault weapons the dominant type worldwide?

The question isn't strictly off-topic: I ask because I already suspect at least part of the answer, and it has some bearing on the question of public ownership of assault weapons in the US.

—Siran Dunmorgan


Assault rifles do exactly what they are designed to do ... put out a large quantity of bullets in a short amount of time forcing anyone in the vicinity of the target to duck or die, the perfect weapon for a each member of a squad that finds themselves ambushed and outnumbered.
They have no plausible civilian application as some civilian rifles are capable of semi-automatic fire(autoloaders), cheaper, more accurate and legal.
Since it requires some very expensive permits, licenses and massive amounts of ammo to utilize an assault rifle in the full auto mode and do it legally, they serve no practical civilian purpose. Federal, state, local and city law enforce require assault rifles because the "bad guys" somehow manage to acquire them.
I will close by saying it IS a rush to blow the sh*t out of something on full auto but then the taxpayers buy my ammo and the weapon I'm shooting. I would never invest in one for my personal use.

Bea
P.S. I will be in Iraq by X-mas and hopefully will only get tired of carrying my M-16 not firing it. I'm not reluctant to do so but would rather do something constructive.

[Citizen]

Guns dont kill people.
People dont kill people.
Polocies dont kill people.

Its the damage caused by the bullet, whether its the direct impact destroying tissue necessary to sustain life, such as the brain or heart, or the internal bleeding or loss of blood due to an open wound.

So lets all get together and start regulating bullets. To quote the wise comedian Chris Rock...

"If every bullet costs 5000 dollars there wouldnt be any innocent bystanders"
"That guy must have done something to piss him off.... look he's got 50 grand worth of bullets in him"
"You wouldnt even need to go to the hospital... after the guy shot ya he would come back and get his bullet saying (in the direction of the person that was just shot) 'excuse me... I think you have something that belongs to me!'"

Ok, now that I'm done having some fun guns and bullets and all of that dont make people die. There are 11 guns per 15 families in Canada and they dont have even a fraction of the gun related crimes or deaths that america has. America is more violent than any other country becuase we as a people are always in a state of fear.

Go rent "Bowling for Columbine"

[Blazer3]

Why won't you back up your post with detailed news and statistics that determine who dies and from what kind of weapons.

In fact, you can also try to back up us Americans being "more violent than any other country becuase we as a people are always in a state of fear." I have firearms and I view only potential criminals that are afraid.

Michael Moore references are getting boring, my dad can come up with better stories and with all honesty.

[Lord DarkSyde]

If you want to reduce gun crime in the US, I'd advise voting John Kerry.


If you do that, then we'll have civilians who are better armed than our army...

Now I'm no republican, but lets have a look at John Kerry's voting record on defense bills since 1988 --

He voted to kill the Bradley Fighting Vehicle
He voted to kill the M-1 Abrams Tank
He voted to kill every Aircraft carrier laid down from 1988
He voted to kill the Aegis anti aircraft system
He voted to Kill the F-15 strike eagle
He voted to Kill the Block 60 F-1
He voted to Kill the P-3 Orion upgrade
He voted to Kill the B-1
He voted to Kill the B-2
He voted to Kill the Patriot anti Missile system
He voted to Kill the FA-18
He voted to Kill the B-2
He voted to Kill the F117

In short, he voted to kill every military appropriation for the
development and deployment of every weapons systems since 1988 including the battle armor for our troops.

With Kerry as president our Army will be made up of naked men running
around with sticks and clubs.

He also voted to kill all anti terrorism activities of every agency of
the U.S. Government and to cut the funding of the FBI by 60%, to cut the
funding for the CIA by 80%, and cut the funding for the NSA by 80%.

[Rush the Resplendent]

Hey, DarkSyde, you know the difference between lying and telling the truth, right? No? (http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/weapons.asp) I didn't think so.

[LordFu]

To quote Archie Bunker, "Would you rather they were pushed out a window, little girl?" I love that quote. :D The point is, if you take away people guns, it won't stop violence, probably won't even effect it statistically except gun violence would become knife violence, or maybe window violence, LOL. Violent behavior is a social and moral problem, not one that can be solved by taking weapons away. If I killed someone with a spoon, would you blame my access to the spoon and try and take everybodies spoons away? This is all a form of blame transference. It's much easier for people to say, "If he didn't have a gun..." than actually put the responsibility where it belongs, on the person who commited the crime. On topic, the assualt weapons ban was nothing more than a politically motivated, hollow bill that banned guns for merely cosmetic reasons. If a gun had more than two of however many features they listed, it was banned. Arms manufactureres had no problem circumventing the legislation by making minor modifications to the guns. Anybody remember the many incarnations of the infamous Tech-9. Trust me, there were a lot. Other guns had weapons with identical actions and barrels that were not banned under the law, which means many guns were only banned in name. It was a worthless law aimed at getting the "soccer mom" vote in that falls election, and I, for one, am glad to see it go by the wayside. BTW, anyone here remember the second amendment. The founding fathers put that in the Bill of Rights to help us protect ourselves from the government as much as from each other, or for any other use. Had the people of the colonies not had so many guns, we would still pay our taxes to England, and the founding fathers had little more faith in the government they were creating than the one they succeded from, knowing humans propensity for twisting even the best intentions to their own purposes.

[LordFu]

Assault rifles do exactly what they are designed to do ... put out a large quantity of bullets in a short amount of time forcing anyone in the vicinity of the target to duck or die, the perfect weapon for a each member of a squad that finds themselves ambushed and outnumbered. You are mis-informed. The way the bill defined "assault weapons" was any semi-automatic firearm with more than two of the listed features. Real "assault weapons" like you describe would all be capable of burst fire, which none of the weapons banned were.

They have no plausible civilian application as some civilian rifles are capable of semi-automatic fire(autoloaders), cheaper, more accurate and legal. Yes, these are the guns they banned. Fully automatic weapons are already illegal, and have been long before this "law" (insert sarcastic tone here) was passed. I have used several fire arms that were "banned" (existing ones were not banned, only the manufacture and sale of new ones was) in a variety of "plausible civilian applications" such as hunting, and target shooting. That is the argument of someone who knows little to nothing about guns practical usage.

Since it requires some very expensive permits, licenses and massive amounts of ammo to utilize an assault rifle in the full auto mode and do it legally, they serve no practical civilian purpose. These were not the guns the banned!!! No automatic weapons were banned in that bill!!! They were all semi-automatic and would require a gunsmith's knowledge of guns to be made into a full automatic capable fire arm. If you can jump through all the hoops to get a license to posses fully automatic weapons, you would not be the type to use them for anything but target shooting and displaying. It is not an easy process, since I know two people who actually have the said license. You can be denied for any or no reason what-so-ever, and the background check is intensive, covering your entire life history with great scrutiny. This is not to mention the screening and psychological testing you must pass.

Federal, state, local and city law enforce require assault rifles because the "bad guys" somehow manage to acquire them. This will not change no matter what. You could make anything illegal, and it only serves to motivate criminals to aquire it by increasing the value of the item and eliminating all reputable sources of the item. Look at the prohibition. That worked out well didn't it. Look at Britain. Criminals are the only ones who have guns now. The regular foot police only carry night sticks. Bad people with no morals and no conciense will always get what is illegal and unavailable to you and I upright citizens and they will use them in whatever way they want, because THEY DON"T CARE IF IT"S ILLEGAL.

[Felix Aval]

This will not change no matter what. You could make anything illegal, and it only serves to motivate criminals to aquire it by increasing the value of the item and eliminating all reputable sources of the item. Look at the prohibition. That worked out well didn't it. Look at Britain. Criminals are the only ones who have guns now. The regular foot police only carry night sticks. Bad people with no morals and no conciense will always get what is illegal and unavailable to you and I upright citizens and they will use them in whatever way they want, because THEY DON"T CARE IF IT"S ILLEGAL.

I agree with Fu on this point. Banning them would might reduce their role in petty crimes and stupid crap juveniles do, but if someone is planning a crime, they'll find ways to get the weapons they want (to a certain extent - no nuclear bombs or anything). Banning assault weapons, in my opinion, would only encourage criminals to acquire them. While I would like to see assault weapons banned, as I don't see why any civilian would really need one, I would rather see much harsher punishments for gun-related crimes. And serious crimes in general. It's insane how early "good behavior" can get criminals out of jail.

Or, as my physics teacher said, let everyone have all the assault rifles, bazookas, etc they want, but give him all the ammunition.

[[BBF]Switchback]

I haven't read every post in this thread, cause... well, that's a lot of them and I got bored.. but I read the first 2 pages or so. So if someone has posted something similar to this already, my apologies. I think what most people fail to realize is that the assault rifle ban accomplished NOTHING! Someone said you don't need an assault rifle, just get a desert eagle if you want to protect yourself... well, a desert eagle is way more dangerous than anything outlawed by the assault rifle ban.

The ban only dealt with the way the gun LOOKED... nothing about the way it operated. And it had nothing to do with fully automatic weapons... those were already illegal, since the 80s. The guns outlawed were semi automatic weapons that LOOKED like military weapons... they outlawed pistol grips, flash supressors, bayonet lugs, collapsable stocks, grenade launchers (which were already and still are illegal) and a few other things... but it had nothing to do with how lethal the weapon was.

It was simply a legislation to make people think the lawmakers were doing something worth while... cause hey, they banned assault rifles, and we don't want criminals buying full auto rifles... too bad the ban had nothing to do with full auto, just had to do with how scary the gun looked.

Also, before the ban, less than 2% of all gun related crimes involved an "assault" weapon, and that number didn't change during the 10 year gun ban... cause those aren't the guns criminals are using, because why would they? A semi auto desert eagle hand gun is more lethal than a .223 semi auto rifle that happens to look like what the military uses.

I own several guns, and they stay locked up in a safe unless I'm taking them to the shooting range. I am collecting military guns, because I'm a bit of a history (well, WWII and vietnam) enthusiast, and I enjoy spending time shooting my M1 Garand and other guns at the range.

It's not like street gangs go and buy weapons legally anyways... so outlawing them wouldn't do much in my opinion...

another side note, a town just south of where I live, the law requires every home owner to own a gun, and that town has an extremely low crime rate... funny how criminals don't wanna mess with people when they know every has a gun... criminals don't care to get shot apparently.

edit: ok, I see someone pointed out that full auto weapons weren't even in the ban... but that a gunsmith would be required to modify them to full auto... well, actually, they are virtually impossible to modify. They are specially made so that the parts that NEED to be modified can't. I can't really explain how the process works, because I don't full understand it, but the way those certain parts are put into the gun, they can't be modified without destroying other parts. If a certain model is easily converted to full auto, then it is legally treated as an automatic weapon, and thus outlawed. (without the proper license)

[Brya]

Actually, there are a few types of guns that are fairly easy to convert from semi to Full with the right parts, in those cases, the parts themselves are classified as a Machine Gun and regulated under the NFA laws (which were enacted in 1939, not the 80's - the law in the 80's was the 'no new full auto to civilians'. Thus, the supply of legal fully auto guns is fixed and as such makes them VERY expensive. A legal M16 goes for about $35,000-$50,000 depending on the model. The only known crime comitted with a legal fully auto gun was commited by a police officer who used his registered Mac-10 to kill a witness.)

I encourage everyone to actually do their own research on firearms and the so-called "problem with guns". Generally, you find that the problem is one of criminals, not guns and that in all cases where Gun Control has been tried, no evidence exists that it helps. Evidence to the contrary is common however.

Think about it. If in fact some of the laws passed in the 400 years of firearm existance actually controlled crime, would not the supporters of such laws hold those situations as clear evidence to their effectiveness? A similar statement was writen into the 1982 Senate record by Utah Senator Orin Hatch when the committee he was on studied the effectiveness of gun control. I encourage you to read that report. I also encourage you to read the 1997 UN report on gun laws that concluded in part "criminals were able to illegally import, steal, or manufactuer firearms for their trade".

The fact is we waste millions each year licensing, tracking, recording, checking, and tracing legal firearms and owners that never commit a crime. And yet, instead of ever abolishing things that don't work, we just add onto the mess.

Read a history of the "Wild West" of the late 1800's and a history of city life in the same time period. You will be shocked to discover that the "Wild West" was hardly the bloody den of murder that Hollywood has suggested, but life in a major eastern city was quite dangerous where your local fire department were some of the most prolific looters around and the wealthy hired the local gangs as bodyguards.

Seriously, Do your own research. There is a LOT of really bad 'fact' used in the firearm debates. What is most disturbing is that much of the media continue to parrot known false statements. One wonders why.

[vii_dion]

I know people seem to have a brain block when it comes to this issue. So I'll try and explain the fairly simple concept. If you ban guns, only criminals have guns, because having guns will be, hey, a crime. So most law-abiding people will let them go. Which leaves just criminals with guns. So that's what's going to bring peace into our country? Only criminals having guns? Yeah, that's a brilliant f**king idea.

[Killenator 5000]

By making the gun harder to aquire we will greatly reduce the number of gun crimes commited. When a gun can only be bought illegally the number of guns sold to criminals will decreas because they will have to pay alot more.

Guns themselves should not be given to civilians period, they are a weapon that can ONLY kill. Owning a gun means you accept that killing someone is alright. Killing someone is NEVER right unless there is NO other option. The best respnse to being robbed at gunpoint is to give up whatever is stolen because it protects your life and keeps blood off your hands. There is no guarentee that you can save your life with a gun, only a guarentee that you can take anothers.

[vii_dion]

Oh, it can ONLY kill, can it? I was under the impression that guns could wound people. I was under the impression that if you're a really good shot, trained and bred in gun use, you can do just about anything. If only we had some law that enforced licensces to use guns to keep people trained well. Silly me.

As for the killing people never being right, that's your own bloody opinion, thanks. If someone comes into my house to attack my daughter and my wife, can I not blow his brains out? You'd better believe I will. If some terrorists walk down the street with guns shooting at people's houses, what's to defend yourself with, without a gun? Sounds like you're on the winning team, buddy.

The second amendment was put in place because the United States of America was founded by a bunch of revolting treasonous people who used guns to attack people opressing them. That's why it's there. If you deny guns, you deny the forefathers of this country, your rights as a human being to defend yourself, your right as a human being to protect your family, your life, your country, and your wellbeing.

[jab_guardian]

i know i'm gonna sound like a redneck, but let's just admit it. guns are fun. assault weapons are even funner. a $3 box of ammo gets me 3 hours of fun and quality time with my dad a friends at a remote shooting range. ever shoot at those orange clay discs with an ar-15 from 100 yards with a peep site? Oh man is it fun to turn the big pieces into little pieces. then what ya do is have everyone load up semi-auto weapons, line up about 20 clay discs, then have everyone unload on the orange suckers till there's only teeny little grains left (we call it "policing the field"). it beats manual cleanup.

like stated before, a good portion of american culture appreciates the novelty of assault weapons and fun that can be had with them (excercising proper gun safety of course). Besides, just because other countries do it doesn't mean we have to. we americans can think for ourselves right?...right?

[Killenator 5000]

I forgot to add that: Guns SHOULD be allowed in shooting ranges with advanced security systems so they cant be stolen.


Oh, it can ONLY kill, can it? I was under the impression that guns could wound people. I was under the impression that if you're a really good shot, trained and bred in gun use, you can do just about anything

Theres only so much you can do with a metal slug going well over 100 feer per second. It is impossible to both defend yourself effectively and leave your oponent alive. Where do you shoot them? The hand? Impossible, and likely to cause the gun to go off anyways. The legs or arms? Likely to cause the gun to go off anyway (muscles tighten before relaxing). The torso or head? Likely to kill your target.

As for the killing people never being right, that's your own bloody opinion, thanks. If someone comes into my house to attack my daughter and my wife, can I not blow his brains out? You'd better believe I will. If some terrorists walk down the street with guns shooting at people's houses, what's to defend yourself with, without a gun? Sounds like you're on the winning team, buddy.

It will be a cold day in hell before terrorists openly walk down the streets shooting people and your intervention does anything, but get you killed. Thats what cops are for.. We pay them for a reason. By removing guns from the open market we prevent the chance of anyone threatening your family with a gun because it will be too expensive to get one. If you are looking for a way to defend your family in a likely non-lethal way I suggest a taser, Pepper spray, and my particular favorite, 9-1-1.

The second amendment was put in place because the United States of America was founded by a bunch of revolting treasonous people who used guns to attack people opressing them. That's why it's there. If you deny guns, you deny the forefathers of this country, your rights as a human being to defend yourself, your right as a human being to protect your family, your life, your country, and your wellbeing.

I deny the forefathers of my country in a lot of things. I do not support slavery, oppresive laws against those who differ from the common religion, or the right to bear arms. I do NOT deny my country... That is total bull, I beleive in the greater good, I just disagree with you in how it can be attained. The safety of my family and my self is hardly complete, but it improves with further gun controll. I do NOT deny my right to self defense, I just go about it differently. Dont make arguments you cant support plz.

[vii_dion]

Most political things are arguments; this isn't. It's a fact. There is a true fact and a bunch of whiny people trying to disprove that fact.

It will be a cold day in hell before terrorists openly walk down the streets shooting people and your intervention does anything, but get you killed. Thats what cops are for.. We pay them for a reason. By removing guns from the open market we prevent the chance of anyone threatening your family with a gun because it will be too expensive to get one. If you are looking for a way to defend your family in a likely non-lethal way I suggest a taser, Pepper spray, and my particular favorite, 9-1-1.

I'm glad you've seen the future and know what's going to happen, that gives me confidence. Makes me feel better. And I'm glad you can dial 9-1-1 and talk to the cops about a guy who's in your house with a gun. I'm glad you think they could get to you in time. Why am I glad? Because you'll be dead, and there'll be one less person whining about this.

[Blazer3]

Mass produced guns such as the AK-47 is so widespread that people pay little for them because of a glut in the market.

[[BBF]Switchback]

they'll be illegal so criminals with have to pay a lot for em eh? Just like pot is illegal so people have to pay a lot for that and it's hard to come by, right? Oh wait, that's rediculously easy to come by even though it's illegal... hm.

When there is a guy in my house with a gun, I'm supposed to dial 911, or, if I'm feeling really bold, stick my arm around the corner and see if i can spray pepper spray everywhere? Pass, I'd rather just plug him in the head. You're right... shooting him in the head would kill him... and if he doesn't want to be killed, he shouldn't break into my house.

I am just dumbfounded by the people so eager to protect criminals from their victims.. simply amazing. When you break into someones house with a gun, or rob someone with a gun, you are stepping outside of the bounds of society and culture. You are openly and freely rejecting society, therefore you lose the rights that you have under that society.... such as the right to not get shot in the face.

And guns can only kill? I didn't kill anyone at the shooting range last weekend, and I was there for an hour....

[Charles Ensign]

You're right, passing a law that bans guns will definately take guns away from people who break the law.

Oh wai...

[Xavz]

Yes, guns are used to kill. Who says what they're killing has to be people? Hunting is an activity many people enjoy and banning guns would certainly disenfranchise them.

[ApeX]

Banning assault rifles will not reduce crime. Just because someone *can* get an assault rifle, does that mean they're going to run out and kill 15 people? No. The people that are going to commit those crimes are going to get their guns, illegal or no. If they can't get automatics, they'll use pistols. No pistols? Try knives. Next? Baseball bats. Cars. Explosives. People will always kill each other, and if they want to bad enough, they will find a way to do it.

I think the American "right to bear arms" is a wonderful thing. I don't like people dying, or killing, or the process of killing, or anything death related. That doesn't mean that American citizens shouldn't have the right to defend themselves. Please note that your "right to bear arms" is not only for the defense of your home against thieves, but also against your own government. Don't scoff; it could happen. How about the Patriot Act? Passed in a time of confusion, with a name like "Patriot" Act, and with a whole lot of things about "terror", there was no way you could reject it without being labelled unpatriotic. There are a lot of things in that document limiting American freedoms.

interesting:

60 gun-related deaths in Toronto, Ontario, Canada last year. POP=3 million
900 gun-related deaths in Detroit. POP=900,000

[jab_guardian]

Theres only so much you can do with a metal slug going well over 100 feer per second. It is impossible to both defend yourself effectively and leave your oponent alive. Where do you shoot them? The hand? Impossible, and likely to cause the gun to go off anyways. The legs or arms? Likely to cause the gun to go off anyway (muscles tighten before relaxing). The torso or head? Likely to kill your target.

a slug gun for self defense? have you ever fired one of those things? it feels like someone taking a sledgehammer to your shoulder. the force required to launch a heavy slug at that kind of velocity produces quite a kick. Also, because the slug is spherical opposed to a pointed bullet, it doesn't go nearly as far. the ammo is heavy and is fired from shotgun-like shells. it wouldn't be practical at all for defense. in fact, you'd be better off with a good ol' 12-gauge.

slug guns are used mostly for hunting big game like elk and bear. you can hunt deer with them too, but usually people only do that in hunting areas that ban rifles due to range concerns.

[Bea Wary]

Banning assault rifles will not reduce crime. Just because someone *can* get an assault rifle, does that mean they're going to run out and kill 15 people? No. The people that are going to commit those crimes are going to get their guns, illegal or no. If they can't get automatics, they'll use pistols. No pistols? Try knives. Next? Baseball bats. Cars. Explosives. People will always kill each other, and if they want to bad enough, they will find a way to do it.


I agree working backward from the deadliest, easiest to master or most likely to avoid injury to the user you have: guns - bows - knives, swords and spears - hammers,maces, cudgels and warclubs - jawbones,legbones and throwing rocks.
There are others like pitchforks, shovels, pipes, candlestickholders, fireplace tools, wrenches, cars etc., that just demonstrates that anything is a weapon in the wrong hands.
Anyone seeking to fatally injure any animal has always found a way be it for survival or malicious intent. The lack of a firearm just makes the attempt more difficult and prone to failure.

This thread is about "ASSAULT WEAPONS" not "The Right to Bear Arms" so I will end this errant post.

Bea

[ApeX]

The point that I was trying to make in my post is that banning assault rifles will not reduce crime. It really won't reduce much at all, except maybe the amount of assault rifles produced in a year.

The second part of my post was to make a point that Americans can't let their rights be stripped away from them. In this case their reason/cloak is that "Assault rifles kill this many people per year bla bla bla, terrorists use them bla bla bla, criminals use them bla." If you let them ban one type of weapon, what's next? Maybe then they'll ban handguns. Don't give them an inch, because they will take a mile.

[Killenator 5000]

lol.... I know so little about guns that I didnt realize that a pistol fires something other than a slug.... Do you prefer chunck of metal? Slug is a term for a shape not a size... I agrre a heavy hunting rifle would be useless in a robery, much like a pistol would.

The chance of saving your/your familiy member(s) lifes with a (insert gun here) is next to none. You MIGHT get lucky, go un-noticed, and get a shot off that hit your target. That said, none of you will be free of the affects of fight or flight and unless you have military training, dealing with it in combat will be next to impossible for you. Can you hit a target like a head from hiding at a distance of likely more than 12 feet while your hands are quivering like mad? So I will reiterate that unless the robber means to kill you... It is better all around to allow them to steal what they want and leave. Killing you is not likely to be high in any robbers choices, because a house robber will be investigate/chased, but it isnt likely they will be caught. A murderor will be hunted to ground and brought to court. In the states if they killed you while robbing you they will be put to death (another stupid American law I dont support).

The reason a gun costs so little is mass production, if mass produced guns are banned (along with other guns) then the price of the gun rises not only because it is illegal, but because shipping in a lot of the mass produced guns will be impossible, meaning that a lot cannot be sold for a little each to make a lot. The common house robber is not going to be able to afford a gun when it becomes expesive. Those that already have guns (legally) can be found by using the information with which they attained their (legal) weapons. Those that dont have them legally are another case, and will have to be found the way we have always found them, by using the law, another reason that we pay them to protect us.

[[BBF]Switchback]

Killinator, how many criminals that would kill someone do you think actually pay for their guns in a gunstore? I believe your belief of the gun price will skyrocket so they can't get them is just simply wrong.

And about not being able to hit anything... speak for your self. Just cause you're a lousy shot doesn't mean everyone that owns a gun is. Im a pretty good shot, and I'm fairly confident that I could hit a human breaking into my house... and I wouldn't try to get a head shot, you know why? Cause most people have tiny heads! You hit a person with a .357 in the chest, I don't think he's going anywhere... if he tries, shoot him again... but I guarantee you he won't be aiming a gun at someone with any accuracy after getting hit with one of those.

And I don't understand how someone who admits they know nothing about guns is trying to tell me how they can't be effectively used for protection... how would know? You don't know a thing about them.

and FYI: A slug is fired from a shot gun, bun instead of several little metal beads, it's one big hunk of metal.

And back to the POINT of this thread... the assault weapon ban did not ban weapons that are used by criminals, period. So, it was a completely phony piece of legislation for a bunch of do-nothing beurocrats to get themselves re-elected for "protecting" the people.

[tektonik]

Read through the second page and no one brought this up so if I missed it just flame me.

The real problem I have is not to do with the 2nd ammendmant but that AWB bill itself. The bill is just a political statement by the Dem's at the time it was first introduced and did little to nothing. If you read it, it didn't ban weaposn like these
http://www.bowensguns.com/pics/ar15hgfired.jpg
That is a AR-15 and as you can see quite concealible....not covered. All firearms capable of firing more than one shot per pull of the trigger ie fully automatic (Uzi, M-16 & AK-47 are included) have been effectively banned since 1934.

The Scary Looking Semiautomatic Ban aka "Assault Weapons" ban banned 19 types of semiautomatic firearms with certain cosmetic features.

Add a bayonet lug & flash suppressor (ie cosmetic) and "poof" it's a scary looking semiautomatic or "assault weapon". Take those features off and it's not. That AR-15 is is only semi-automatic so therefor is not banned at all until you add some attachments.

Ok enough on that bill. If you wish to argue guns and crimes.
GUN MYTHS
www.ncpa.org

Myth No. 1: Guns cause crime.

The National Crime Survey estimates that 83 percent of Americans will be victims of violent crime at some time in their lives. Parties with diametrically opposed views on gun control seize on this estimate to support their positions. Those favoring gun control laws claim that such laws would keep more guns off the streets and out of the hands of criminals in an increasingly violent world. Opponents of new gun restrictions contend that a firearm in the hands of a law-abiding person is one of the best deterrents to crime, protecting people with limited physical strength from physically stronger criminals. Let's take a look at the available evidence.

Domestic Studies.

Several sophisticated statistical models have attempted to measure the net effect of firearms on criminal violence. On balance, they show that there is nothing to be gained from reducing the general level of gun ownership.

A thorough review of 18 studies of the effects of gun availability among potential victims and criminals found that the overall effect on criminal violence was zero.
In one study, researchers found no significant differences in total robbery rates between cities where guns were widely available and cities where they were not; in cities with fewer firearms, armed robbers simply used other weapons.
The best available evidence, based on at least eight national surveys of the general adult population, indicates that guns are used about as often for defensive as for criminal purposes.
This conclusion is especially true of handguns.

International Evidence.

The experience of other nations also provides little support for the notion that guns causecrime:
Switzerland has one of the lowest murder rates in the world, and it requires all able-bodied males between the ages of 20 and 50 to have a military-issued automatic weapon, ammunition and other equipment in their dwellings.
Israel, which has an extremely low crime rate but is vulnerable to enemies including terrorists, depends on the defensive value of widespread civilian gun possession.
Denmark and Finland also have high rates of gun ownership and low crime rates.
The experience of these countries shows that widespread gun possession is compatible with low crime rates. On the other hand, nations like Japan and England also have low crime rates but low gun ownership. There is no simple relationship between firearm availability and crime.

Crimes Involving Guns.

"Eighty-eight percent of violent crimes do not involve firearms."

How many violent crimes involving guns are committed each year? FBI data for 1990 show that criminals used firearms in about 258,000 violent offenses, or about 16 percent of the 1.6 million crimes reported to the police. Fewer than half of all violent crimes are reported to the police, however. The National Crime Survey (NCS) estimates that there are about 5.4 million violent crimes (both reported and unreported) and that guns of all types are involved in some 650,000 or 12 percent.10 In other words, 88 percent of violent crimes do not involve firearms.

While certainly a very large annual number, reported and unreported violent crimes committed with guns remain relatively rare events. Less than 2 percent of the estimated 36 million crimes of all types (in the National Crime Survey) committed each year involve a gun. A majority of gun crimes are assaults, but only one in 42 handgun crimes involves a victim being shot. While there is a lot of violent crime in America relative to other industrial nations, an overwhelming majority of the violence involves knives, hammers, sticks, broken bottles, hands and feet and other weapons besides firearms.

"Firearms were used in a higher percentage of homicides in the 1920s than in the 1980s."

Guns are used in a majority of murders (from 59 percent to 66.3 percent in each of the past 10 years) and accounted for 14,265 deaths in 1991. According to the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports, 53.1 percent of reported murders in 1991 were committed with handguns, 5.2 percent with shotguns and 3.4 percent with rifles, while miscellaneous and unknown firearms accounted for the remaining 4.6 percent. (Long guns, although virtually uncontrolled, were involved in only 8.6 percent of homicides.) By contrast, firearms were used to commit about 70 to 75 percent of homicides in the 1920s, a higher percentage than the average 60 percent rate during the 1980s.11 Firearms were the instrument of death in 60 percent of murders in 1980 and 66 percent in 1991 " the highest percentage in recent years " suggesting an upward trend. Firearms were used in 40 percent of all reported robberies but in only 11 percent of all rapes, 12 percent of severe assaults and 12 percent of all violent crimes.

Guns Involved in Crimes.

No one knows what fraction of firearms ultimately is used to commit crime, but the percentage is almost certainly tiny. Even if the same gun were never used more than once in committing a crime, only one out of every 309 guns would be involved in a crime in a given year. Overall:
Only one out of every 123 handguns (less than 1 percent) and one out of every 1,247 long guns (less than one-tenth of 1 percent) are used in crime in any given year.
Even under very generous assumptions to maximize the estimated percentage of guns used in a crime, at most 6.7 percent of handguns would ever be involved in a crime.
If we realistically allow for repeated criminal uses of the same weapons, the fraction of all guns that are ever involved in crime would be less than 1 percent, with long guns under 0.5 percent and handguns under 2 percent.
Gun control laws cannot possibly reduce the crime rate unless they affect the 1 percent of guns that are actually used in crimes. Even if the laws did this, criminals would find it easy to acquire new guns. The numbers by themselves raise doubts about the efficacy of general restrictions on gun ownership in decreasing the frequency of gun use in violent crime.

...

[Hyakki-Yaku]

I'd like to see a more balanced analysis of the possible ills or benefits of gun control on crime rates before I'm convinced. That article concedes very little and seems all too happy to sing the praises of gun ownership, from my viewpoint. At any rate, interesting stuff.

[LordFu]

I know so little about guns that I didnt realize that a pistol fires something other than a slug. Slug is a term for a shape not a size... I agrre a heavy hunting rifle would be useless in a robery, much like a pistol would. slug 1. A round bullet larger than buckshot. Don't defend your ignorance by arguing that it fits the words definition, because it does not. As far as a hunting rifle or pistol being useless in a robbery, they would be no less usefull then any other type of gun. Guns involved in robberies are rarely ever fired. The criminals use them for the fear and compliance the inspire in the victims. Often, they aren't even functional guns, or are not loaded. Many criminals don't even know how to use the gun they are threatening people with.
The chance of saving your/your familiy member(s) lifes with a (insert gun here) is next to none. You MIGHT get lucky, go un-noticed, and get a shot off that hit your target. That said, none of you will be free of the affects of fight or flight and unless you have military training, dealing with it in combat will be next to impossible for you. Can you hit a target like a head from hiding at a distance of likely more than 12 feet while your hands are quivering like mad? Where to begin? There is so much wrong with that statement that it is hard to chose a starting point. There are no facts that would support anything you said there. The statements are entirely conjecture on a subject you have already admitted having limited knowlege of. So I will reiterate that unless the robber means to kill you... It is better all around to allow them to steal what they want and leave. Are you willing to bet the lives of your family and friends on whether or not a criminal, who has already demonstrated a disregard for the laws of society, is not going to kill you. That's exactly what killed the people on the flights on 9/11/02 and the people who were in the buildings the planes hit. They thought if they cooperated they would not be harmed, so they did nothing, even though they outnumbered the terrorist by a huge amount and the terrorist only had razor knifes, except for the people on the flight that went down in Pennsylvania, who fought back and saved the lives of the people at the terrorist intended target. Killing you is not likely to be high in any robbers choices, because a house robber will be investigate/chased, but it isnt likely they will be caught. A murderor will be hunted to ground and brought to court. In the states if they killed you while robbing you they will be put to death (another stupid American law I dont support). It's next to impossible to solve a robbery/homicide without witnesses, so the criminals have a huge amount of motivation to leave no one alive. The percentage of murderers caught is very low, and even if they are caught, if there are no witnesses, they often are acquited. I'm not willing to put my faith in an obviously broken legal and law enforcement system when I can protect myself and my loved ones. The reason a gun costs so little is mass production, if mass produced guns are banned (along with other guns) then the price of the gun rises not only because it is illegal, but because shipping in a lot of the mass produced guns will be impossible, meaning that a lot cannot be sold for a little each to make a lot. The common house robber is not going to be able to afford a gun when it becomes expesive. Those that already have guns (legally) can be found by using the information with which they attained their (legal) weapons. Those that dont have them legally are another case, and will have to be found the way we have always found them, by using the law, another reason that we pay them to protect us. Your naivity is shocking. Do you think that China and Russia will stop producing huge amounts of cheap weapons. The have shown numerous times, they don't care who they sell them to as long as it's not in their backyard. Those weapons will be highly sought after and create an illegal trade in cheap assualt weapons snuck across the boarders, that only doesn't exist because guns are legal. Look at prohibition. Did it become harder to get alchohol. No. It only became dangerous for the manufacturer and consumer. Marijuanna is in much the same condition today. Guns would be no different. That is a AR-15 and as you can see quite concealible....not covered. That is, however, an illegal configuration of an AR-15. The stock is either folded or removed, which in combination with the other features of the gun, would have made it illegal under that law. Now don't think that means I agreed with the law. I don't think it matters what kind of stock a gun has or hasn't got when your shot in the face with it. In reality, with the right combination of clothing and gun slings, almost all, except the largest, guns are easily concealable.

[Hyakki-Yaku]

Score one for degenerating into a paranoid, vigilante society! :P

[tektonik]

As much as I would like to agree with you, can you back your information up with any sources?
EDIT: I do believe the stock is an optional addition that is Banned by the AWB it not having the stock is ok but if it did it would be banned.

One additional source I have is http://www.haciendapub.com/Images/table1.jpg
I didn't include it in my first post because 1) It is before the AWB 2) I havent found data since then to show a comparison 3) even if I did guns deaths have a trend line going down since 1920's so a lower number of gun deaths would not only have to be lower but lower than the trend line to have a statistical significance.

Most other sources I have are what I think to be partisan toward their goal so i didn't include their data but here they are. VARIOUS PRO GUN STATISTICS
http://www.justfacts.com/gun_control.htm

A SITE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT GUNS
http://www.gunfacts.info/
Gun facts is a free e-book that debunks common myths about gun control. It is intended as a reference guide for journalist, activists, politicians, and other people interested in restoring honesty to the debate about guns, crime, and the 2nd Amendment.

[LordFu]

Score one for degenerating into a paranoid, vigilante society! :P That's what this country has always been, so it would be impossible to degenerate into it.

[LordFu]

As much as I would like to agree with you, can you back your information up with any sources?
EDIT: I do believe the stock is an optional addition that is Banned by the AWB it not having the stock is ok but if it did it would be banned. So does that mean we are in agreement. The AR-15 pictured has a flash suppressor, a folding stock, and a clip larger than 10 rounds. All those are features that can lead to a gun being defined by that law as an "assualt weapon", although I can't remember how many it takes. I had a friend who pulled over for a traffic violation coming back from target shooting with his SKS. His gun was confiscated and he was arrested for having an "assault weapon". He beat the charges because his scope wasn't mounted on the rifle, and thus it was one feature under the limit for the law when the cops took it into custody. After many headaches and much time, he got his rifle back.

[[BBF]Switchback]

You can not have more than 2 of those features... so having a pistol grip, large capacity magazine, and flash surpressor would outlaw it.

Collapsable stocks are on the list, although a folding stock is not(like that difference matters??)... so I'm not sure how they would handle no stock at all.

Also, after the ban, manufacturers would put something that looked like a flash surpressor, but wasn't techinically a flash surpressor, so the gun would still look "cool" as well as being legal. A muzzle break also looks a bit like a flash supressor and was not on the list. Another think they would do is file down the bayonet lug so it was no longer functional, therefore it could stay on the weapon and still LOOK like a bayonett lug, but get away with it. Just goes to show again that the ban was completely stupid.

[tektonik]

As noted I do believe the gun in my pic has a flash surpresser that really isn't considered one and a large magazine. I don't think it has a collapseable stock. To a common man, yes that gun should be an assault weapon but to that stupid bill....no it wasn't. Also the bill only banned 15 guns that were not already banned and that is it. One being a shotgun that is basically a single shot "tube" with a stock.

[Killenator 5000]

I would just like to point out that multiple self-defense trainers I have met have always made a point of telling their students that the BEST defense was not to fight back at all, and to run away or cede to an assailents demands. Fighting back lethally or nonlethally should ALWAYS be your last choice.

Assault rifles should remain illegal outside of a shooting range because unless you plan to defend yourself against an army, they are weapons only for mass murder. (That said, allowing them in shooting ranges is a good thing)

As for how good a shot you are affecting self defense in a dangerous situation. You MIGHT get lucky and hit, but you will be shaking and responding to the same chemicals that everyone releases when in a dangerous situation. Learned skills WILL des(s)ert you in a full panic situation. If someone is attacking you (especially at night) you WILL be in a full panic situation.

[MorningStar]

I started to argue the whole pro-gun thing, but then realized that the subject of this thread the 'Assault Rifle ban'.

So instead, I bring you these:

www.prebanarms.com (http://www.prebanarms.com/)
shotgunnews.com (http://shotgunnews.com/)

Two great sites where you've been able to find pre-ban guns and magazines (clips) all along...

I prefer 'ShotGun News' because their more diverse. :up:

[[BBF]Switchback]

I would just like to point out that multiple self-defense trainers I have met have always made a point of telling their students that the BEST defense was not to fight back at all, and to run away or cede to an assailents demands. Fighting back lethally or nonlethally should ALWAYS be your last choice.

Last choice... yes... but a choice none the less. With no gun, you don't have that choice... so you run out of choices one choice too soon, and die.

If a guy with a gun asks for my wallet, of course I'm going to give it to him!! I'll cancel my credit cards later.

If a guy points a gun at my head, or a loved one, and is about to blast them... I'd take my chances as blasting him first.

[Blazer3]

IAssault rifles should remain illegal outside of a shooting range because unless you plan to defend yourself against an army, they are weapons only for mass murder. (That said, allowing them in shooting ranges is a good thing)
What makes it different than someone who brings a pistol and a number of clips?

[Hyakki-Yaku]

What makes it different than someone who brings a pistol and a number of clips?
Is that relating to mass murderers or shooting ranges? If it's the former, the answer appears rather obvious. :)

[LordFu]

Is that relating to mass murderers or shooting ranges? If it's the former, the answer appears rather obvious. :) It is anything but obvious. Remember the subway shooter in N.Y.C.? He killed a lot of people with a pistol. That's not the only example, but a good one. It makes no difference what kind of gun a criminal uses. Stop blaming guns and start blaming the people who mis-use them. I've said this before, and I'll say it again. If a person killed someone with a car, a spoon, or a chainsaw, would you attribute it to the availability of these objects? Can you not see that some people will hurt people for whatever reasons regardless of what medium they choose to use. Would you ban these "weapons" if they were used in a crime? Your arguement defies logic, and I'm tired of refuting it.

[tektonik]

Guns dont kill people.
People dont kill people.
Polocies dont kill people.

Its the damage caused by the bullet, whether its the direct impact destroying tissue necessary to sustain life, such as the brain or heart, or the internal bleeding or loss of blood due to an open wound.


Sorry I am nit picking: all sources of death AFAIK can be traced soley to loss of blood or lack of oxygen.

[Xavz]

Um, blood loss causes the inability for your body to get enough oxygen.

[Hyakki-Yaku]

It is anything but obvious. Remember the subway shooter in N.Y.C.? He killed a lot of people with a pistol. That's not the only example, but a good one. It makes no difference what kind of gun a criminal uses. Stop blaming guns and start blaming the people who mis-use them. I've said this before, and I'll say it again. If a person killed someone with a car, a spoon, or a chainsaw, would you attribute it to the availability of these objects? Can you not see that some people will hurt people for whatever reasons regardless of what medium they choose to use. Would you ban these "weapons" if they were used in a crime? Your arguement defies logic, and I'm tired of refuting it.
So a pistol, in all cases, has identical destructive capability to an assault rifle? That was simply intended as a quip, not the be-all and end-all of my opinion.

I agree with your argument regarding mundane objects used to murder, spoons and cars and the like, but the ease of murder is far greater if you're wielding an assault rifle. I've never argued that prohibiting weapons will stop violent crimes being committed, but more as an attempt at damage control to taper off casualties when Joe Average criminal or sociopath decides to grab a firearm and have some fun. It would have slight results, in all likelihood, but even a single result would be invaluable.

And keep your purile, exasperated condescention for other discussions.

[[BBF]Switchback]

So a pistol, in all cases, has identical destructive capability to an assault rifle? That was simply intended as a quip, not the be-all and end-all of my opinion.

I agree with your argument regarding mundane objects used to murder, spoons and cars and the like, but the ease of murder is far greater if you're wielding an assault rifle. I've never argued that prohibiting weapons will stop violent crimes being committed, but more as an attempt at damage control to taper off casualties when Joe Average criminal or sociopath decides to grab a firearm and have some fun. It would have slight results, in all likelihood, but even a single result would be invaluable.

And keep your purile, exasperated condescention for other discussions.

a single result would be invaluable? Guns are used more often for self defense than they are by criminals... so getting rid of them and one single "invaluable" result is getting rid of a lot of self defenses... so it's not saving anyone.

And you're more likey to die in a fall, or beaten to death, than to be killed by a gun.

[Hyakki-Yaku]

I'm not talking all guns, I'm talking assault rifles. Using an AR in self defence seems like overkill, not to mention being rather bizarre and requiring some degree of premeditation. I thought I made that pretty clear.

[[BBF]Switchback]

Well I thought it was already clear that assault rifles are and have been illegal for a very long time.

The "assault rifle" ban had nothing to do with assault rifles. It had to do with semi-automatic rifles that are no more dangerous, and even less dangerous, than a perfectly legal handgun... this topic is about the assault rifle ban, and all I'm saying is the assault rifle ban was a load of crap. They decided to ban some guns, and WRONGLY call those guns "assault rifles" in order to make themselves look good.

[Hyakki-Yaku]

As far as I'm concerned, if it's more shooty than a pistol (which I'm sure the majority of semiauto rifles are, with exceptions, which is a flaw in such legislation. A necessary evil, in my opinion) it's in excess of domestic requirement, and therefore has no place in a domestic environment. I suppose that's because I'm an airy peacenik, but hey, that's what I am.

And on that note, I'll take my leave of this thread. The horse carcass is beginning to resemble mulch.

[[BBF]Switchback]

... I have no idea what "more shooty" means....

[Killenator 5000]

What makes it different than someone who brings a pistol and a number of clips?

Could you clarify what you mean here?

If you mean to a shooting range, I said earlier that Im all for allowing guns IN shooting ranges, its just out of them that I have a problem with.

If you meant that a pistol could be as dangerous as an assault rifle... Im sorry, you are wrong, an assault rifle can kill as many people as a pistol weilder can w/ multiple clips in considerably less time which = less time for police to arrive and stop the killer, which = even more dead people.


I would also like to add that most school shootings involve guns bought by parents legally.

[[BBF]Switchback]

the tec-9 that the columbine shooters had was an illegal weapon.

Making it illegal sure saved a bunch of lives... huh?

[jab_guardian]

Switchback']the tec-9 that the columbine shooters had was an illegal weapon.

Making it illegal sure saved a bunch of lives... huh?

no. they would have used another weapon and illegally modify it.

[[BBF]Switchback]

uh.. I don't really understand your response so I assume you didn't understand my post...

I'm saying the gun was illegal, but they got their hands on one anyways... therefore "banning" the gun does nothing. More laws don't really stop people who are intentionally breaking the law...

[MorningStar]

That's what I was saying earlier. The ban has never worked. Weapons, stocks and magazines covered by the ban were labeled 'Pre-Ban' and sold the same as always.

As for illegal weapons, you just have to know where to look. I couldn't find a picture of the Chinese Uzi knockoff that Buford Furrow used in the North Valley Jewish Community Center, but I had one in my hands about a month before he did that. I've often wondered if it was the same weapon.

[Blazer3]

Could you clarify what you mean here?

If you mean to a shooting range, I said earlier that Im all for allowing guns IN shooting ranges, its just out of them that I have a problem with.

If you meant that a pistol could be as dangerous as an assault rifle... Im sorry, you are wrong, an assault rifle can kill as many people as a pistol weilder can w/ multiple clips in considerably less time which = less time for police to arrive and stop the killer, which = even more dead people.


I would also like to add that most school shootings involve guns bought by parents legally.
The pistol would be constantly reloaded.

An assault rifle has less accuracy and weaker stopping power than a pistol. The rate at which the gun discharges is moot.

[tektonik]

The pistol would be constantly reloaded.

An assault rifle has less accuracy and weaker stopping power than a pistol. The rate at which the gun discharges is moot.

I don't know about you but rifle rounds have plenty of stopping power. Considering most pistols are 9mm anyways, even police are using 9mm berrettas phasing out .45's. Accuracy may be a key point but that is up to the user not the gun.

[[BBF]Switchback]

the common assault rifles, ak47 and m16 shoot .223 rounds. A smaller bullet than a .45 pistol... but it does pack a higher powder charge and has plenty of stopping power... but, a semi auto "assault" rifle is NOT the insane street sweeping weapon compared to a pistol that people are making it out to be.... shoot someone with a .45 or a .223, and they're going to hit the ground either way.

[jab_guardian]

Switchback']uh.. I don't really understand your response so I assume you didn't understand my post...

I'm saying the gun was illegal, but they got their hands on one anyways... therefore "banning" the gun does nothing. More laws don't really stop people who are intentionally breaking the law...

oops, i misunderstood your position. jolly good point then.

[MorningStar]

The pistol would be constantly reloaded.

An assault rifle has less accuracy and weaker stopping power than a pistol. The rate at which the gun discharges is moot.

None of this sounds right to me.
----
A rifle CANNOT be less accurarte than a pistol. Accuracy is based on aiming...let's go with iron sites as that's more visual. Based on the width and height of the rear notch or peep, there is a cone of possible inaccuracy based upon the travel of the front site within that notch or peep. The further the distance from the rear site to the front, the smaller this cone is because of the longer axial plane of aiming. Bullet travel through a greater length of rifled barrel also enhances accruacy.
----
Even a rifle of the same caliber as a given pistol will be more powerful because the longer barrel provides greater gas compression (or rather a sustained compression over the longer barrel length), thus propelling the round with greater power.

Knockdown power is a different story. Knockdown power is a balance between alot of things. My favorite example is the .223 (5.56mm) round. The bullet itself is the same diameter as a .22 round, but the powder charge is much greater and is packed into a bottlenecked shell casing. This enhances the power of the powder charge even further.

The .223 is a very high velocity round, which is usually associated with high penetration. Because of the .223's low bullet weight that is all dependent on the barrel rifling. The original BushMaster prototypes that were taken to Vietnam didn't have very many turns in the rifling (1:12 ratio I think) and these weapons would remove limbs and tear holes you could throw a cat through, killing instantly. The tradeoff was less range and accuracy because the bullet was tumbling when it hit the target. The rifling ratio was increase (1:7 ratio I think is current), so now the .223 will punch a hole about the size of a pencil in it's target. This is great at range, because the bullet has slowed down enough to make an exit wound the size of your fist. At closer ranges though, the bullet either goes straight through and does little damage or splinters like a hollow point. Either way adrenaline hyped enemy troops don't stop unless you empty a clip into them.
----
Going back to the original statement about multiple clips (magazines). The largest pistol mag that I can think of the the 25 round mag for the Glock 18.
http://www.impactguns.com/store/media/beta_ccm000-3_sm.jpg This is a 100 round drum for an AR-15.

[Duality]

*sigh* can any of you guys who are wanting that ban to be re-enstated even able to tell me what an assault weapon *is*?

if you answer just weapons like the AK 47 you're dead wrong.

[LordFu]

According to that law, an assault weapon is my Winchester Model 700 .308 with a scope and sling. Let me remind you, this is a bolt-action, high power rifle that only holds 5 rounds which must be loaded one by one. That is why that law was wrong. 25 rounds in a pistol is as deadly as a 100 in an AR-15 in the right hands. You said yourself, it's all about accuracy, which is a matter of aiming. Aiming is a matter of manual skill, practice, and training. Gun control is not what we need. We need civil responsibility. Violence is a social problem, not a gun problem.

[Gradrock]

The assault weapons ban named 19 types of weapons domestic gun manufacturers could not produce except for military or police use. The ban outlawed ammunition clips capable of holding more than 10 rounds.

These firearms included the Action Arms Israeli Military Uzi, a gun that took a starring role in movies like the "Terminator" and cop-buddy flicks, and revolving cylinder shotguns that came with menacing monikers like "The Street Sweeper."

The law was also laden with loopholes, such as a grandfathering clause that allowed weapons manufactured pre-ban to be bought and sold. Meanwhile, gun makers and smiths could make cosmetic changes to weapons, making them legal without crimping their power.

So to the point:
A: On September 13, 1994, domestic gun manufacturers were required to stop production of semi-automatic assault weapons and ammunition clips holding more than 10 rounds except for military or police use. Imports of assault weapons not already banned by administrative action under Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush were also halted. Assault weapons and ammunition clips holding more than 10 rounds produced prior to September 13, 1994, were "grandfathered" in under the law and can still be possessed and sold.

The bill bans, by name, the manufacture of 19 different weapons:

* Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models);
* Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil;
* Beretta Ar70 (SC-70);
* Colt AR-15;
* Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC;
* SWD M-10; M-11; M-11/9, and M-12;
* Steyr AUG;
* INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9, AND TEC-22;
* revolving cylinder shotguns such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12.

The bill also bans "copies" or "duplicates" of any of those weapons. The failure to include a ban of these "copies" or "duplicates" would have opened the door for widespread evasion of the ban. Even so, some unscrupulous gun manufacturers have tried to evade the law by making minor changes to their assault weapons in order to skirt the restrictions.

The 1994 law also prohibits manufacturers from producing firearms with more than one of the following assault weapon features:

Rifles

* Folding/telescoping stock
* Protruding pistol grip
* Bayonet mount
* Threaded muzzle or flash suppressor
* Grenade launcher

Pistols

* Magazine outside grip
* Threaded muzzle
* Barrel shroud
* Unloaded weight of 50 ounces or more
* Semi-automatic version of a fully automatic weapon

Shotguns

* Folding/telescoping stock
* Protruding pistol grip
* Detachable magazine capacity
* Fixed magazine capacity greater than 5 rounds

Alright now that that is all said and done, I have a few things to say in reguards to the ban and the abundant ignorance oozing from this thread.

Reports from state and local law enforcement agencies have uniformly shown that the guns in question have been used in only about 1% of violent crimes. In 1997, a study mandated by Congress found, "the banned weapons and magazines were never used in more than a fraction of all gun murders." (Urban Institute) A second study found that criminals rarely fire more than 10 rounds, that wounds involving pistols (which use magazines) are less likely to be fatal than those involving revolvers, and that the average number of wounds in pistol crimes is lower than with revolvers. Many more people are murdered with knives, or clubs, or bare hands, than with "assault weapons."

The number of "assault weapons," and nearly identical guns, and magazines of over 10 rounds capacity is greater today than when the law was imposed, and all are still rarely used in crime. Meanwhile, the nation`s violent crime rate has fallen every year before 94 and was at a 27-year low. However after the bill the criminal rate steadily increased.

I could reply to earlier posts about the 2nd amendment, but it was very well covered in an earlier post. (Siran I do believe).
-------------

[MorningStar]

That's a great post that covers all the bases. I like it :up:

*sigh* can any of you guys who are wanting that ban to be re-enstated even able to tell me what an assault weapon *is*?

That's doubtful. My definition of an 'Assault Weapon' is covered by Class 3 licensing period.

...and...


25 rounds in a pistol is as deadly as a 100 in an AR-15 in the right hands.

I agree with everything you said but this. That is because I own a .223 and know what it will do.

Edit: Actually that last is dependent on range. Inside of 25 yards I'd prefer the pistol, but from there out I gotta go with the rifle.

[Freyas]

While I think the current ban is very poorly worded and pretty much ineffectual, I believe that many guns should be outlawed. Any weapon that has no practical use besides amusement and killing other people should not be lawful to acquire. While I am a strict advocate of not allowing the government to infringe upon public rights, owning a weapon of this sort is identical to owning anthrax or many other things that no person should own. I'll explain my resoning on this:

Any rifle that is not practical for use in hunting(high caliber, low accuracy, etc) should not be freely available. This especially includes automatic rifles. Rifles are very awkward in a defensive situation, where a handgun is far superior. An automatic rifle or a rifle with an overly large caliber when used in hunting will do nothing besides spoil most of the meat on whatever it is that you are hunting. If your weapon is not accurate past 50 yards, it is not very worthwhile hunting either, since you are very unlikely to hit whatever game you are shooting at.

As for handguns, any handgun that can hold more than 10 shots at one time(actually, I don't even see why you would need this many) is overkill for a defensive purpose. If you're defending against someone who is breaking into your house, or threatening your family, one bullet, with a couple backups if you are a horrid shot is plenty for defense. Again, there is no need for an automatic weapon- shooting that many times merely makes it easier and more likely to kill innocent bystanders.

One of the problems with the ban is that it grandfathers in weapons. Thus, people can buy these guns completely legally, and people can masquerade other weapons as grandfathered-in versions of the weapons. Banning all weapons of these varieties, and making the crime punishable as a felony would be much more effective(though I do admit that some will still be able to acquire the weapons).

Legalizing weapons based on the fact that even if they are illegal that people can acquire them is pure idiocy. People can drive while drunk(and do)... however, does that mean that we should legalize drunken driving? No! While illegalizing something may not stop it from happening, at least it gives people who have their rights violated because of that gives some recourse, and helps cut back on it. In the case of assault weapons, if somebody attacks you with an assault rifle, having an assault rifle of your own does not help prevent this, and a .22 handgun is just as capable of helping you defend yourself against it as an automatic rifle, with far less danger of hurting innocent bystanders.

As for entertainment by shooting assault rifles at a firing range, you can just as easily shoot a less-dangerous weapon. Having an extremely dangerous and lethal weapon for entertainment purposes is similar to owning anthrax. While some people may enjoy themself experimenting and running tests with anthrax in their basement, does that mean that anyone should be able to go to a local pharmacy and buy anthrax samples after going through a background test? Heck, the anthrax tests might even be useful, as someone could come up with a vaccine or another means to defend against anthrax through doing this, while shooting an assault rifle at a firing range has no benefits other than personal enjoyment. However, both anthrax and assault weapons have the very real possibility of seriously harming others.

As for constitutional issues, the third amendment gives us the right to bear arms. This is actually based upon one of the duties of the people as was stated in the declaration of independence.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

It is the right and duty of people who's basic and unalienable rights are being denied by a government to throw off that government and alter or abolish it to provide for their future security. However, posession of assault weapons does no more towards this than less-powerful weapons. With current military technology, an assault rifle will do very little to help throw off a burden placed on us by the United States Government. A thousand civilians with assault rifles would face no more threat to the US military than a thousand civilians with swords.... Facing high-altitude bombing, tanks and other armored vehicles, and even nuclear weapons, assault rifles will do nothing.

There are so many posts in this thread saying that we should not ban assault rifles since the criminals can get them anyways. I would like to reiterate that just because criminals can get something does not mean that that should be legal!!! Criminals can hijack an airplane- should that be legal? How about killing someone- criminals can do it, so why can't everyone else? Having assault rifles might not keep people from having them, but at least it gives the police a means to try to prevent people from using them.

As for the argument that the people that use guns can just as easily use swords, or knives, bows, or other weapons, those other weapons are in general far less lethal than guns, as well as easier to combat. Even if a ban on assault rifles meant that more people took to assaulting others with knives, at least the fatalities will be lower- what's better, being in the hospital for some knife wounds, or being in the morgue due to several bullets in your chest? Most of the statistics that have been posted in this thread are pointless to the debate. Even if crimes involving assault rifles do not make up a significant portion of violent crimes, does that mean that there is a valid reason that they should be easily available and legal to posess? Even if banning guns does not keep criminals from posessing them, does that mean that there should be no consequences for that?

For the situation that was brought up about needing a gun to defend yourself if there was a terrorist walking down your street opening up with an assault rifle, does that mean that you need a cannister of mustard gas to defend yourself with in case a terrorist comes down your street spraying biotoxins?

While this assault rifle ban is not well worded, and does not solve many problems, gun control is a very important issue. The amount of poorly considered posts and bad reasons for allowing assault rifles, and even guns in general that have been posted in this thread disturbs me. So, as for the initial topic of this thread, the assault rifle ban as it is worded and being voted on by congress/Bush, I could care less if it passes, as it is pretty ineffectual due to all the loopholes. However, I am a huge supporter of gun control, especially concerning weapons that have no use besides the ability to kill many people in a short period of time.

[jab_guardian]

the day america has japanese-level gun control is the day i crap out a kitten :biggrin:

[[BBF]Switchback]

Gun control and drunk driving is a very poor analogy. The excuse that people will get them anyways is a good one... drunk driving should be illegal, because by doing it, everyone on the road is in danger.

With gun control, the laws you pass only affect the law abiding citizen. The criminal will still get the gun. So what you have done is unarmed the law abiding citizen, thus making it impossible for him to defend himself against the criminal who will get the gun anyways.

And, you obviously aren't a hunter, because high caliber rifles are needed for hunting... yes, a high caliber rifle will ruin the meat... if you're hunting rabits.

I wouldn't go after a bear with a .22 if I were you. Oh, and a .22 will NOT defend you as well as another gun, because it won't knock down a human. Sure, it'll hurt... but a criminal can keep on going after being hit with a .22. Hit 'em in the chest with a .357 though... that just might knock em over.

And if you want to point out "pointless" arguments, the argument that "you don't need it" is pointless when discussing whether it should be outlawed. I don't NEED this computer I'm typing on right now. I don't NEED a stereo in my car. I don't NEED a TV in my house. The majority of the things you own you do not need... you own them because you enjoy them... because they amuse you. I enjoy shooting guns... and I collect historic military weapons. I don't own a fully automatic right now, but there are several I would like to have in my collection... but because I don't NEED them, the government should make them illegal.

I agree with the law on full auto weapons right now. I don't think you should be able to just go to the store and buy a machine gun, but I don't think a law abiding citizen should be banned from ever owning one. It should be hard to get, but legal to get... just as it is.

More gun control = more crime.

[jab_guardian]

it's not like your gonna be able to waltz down to k-mart and buy an uzi if the ban isn't renewed.

[Freyas]

Switchback']Gun control and drunk driving is a very poor analogy. The excuse that people will get them anyways is a good one... drunk driving should be illegal, because by doing it, everyone on the road is in danger.

With gun control, the laws you pass only affect the law abiding citizen. The criminal will still get the gun. So what you have done is unarmed the law abiding citizen, thus making it impossible for him to defend himself against the criminal who will get the gun anyways.

Yes the criminals will still get guns, even if they are illegal. The drunk driving may not have been the best analogy, but you can substitute it with other things that are illegal. For example, although posession of mustard gas is illegal, terrorists and criminals can get their hands on it(as shown from the biotoxin bombing of japanese subways several years ago). Does the mere fact that criminals can get their hands on it make a valid reason for legalizing it? I do not see how posession of an assault rifle makes you more able to defend yourself against an aggressor than posession of a handgun.

Switchback']And, you obviously aren't a hunter, because high caliber rifles are needed for hunting... yes, a high caliber rifle will ruin the meat... if you're hunting rabits.

I wouldn't go after a bear with a .22 if I were you. Oh, and a .22 will NOT defend you as well as another gun, because it won't knock down a human. Sure, it'll hurt... but a criminal can keep on going after being hit with a .22. Hit 'em in the chest with a .357 though... that just might knock em over.

Actually, I do hunt occasionally. I live in montana, and hunting is a good excuse to get out of doors and enjoy the mountains. Having a high caliber rifle is necessary- you don't go hunting with a .22. However, an assault rifle is not a hunting gun- they tend to lack the accuracy that a hunting rifle has. I do not know anybody who hunts(and it's a very popular activity here) that feels the need for a weapon bigger than a .30-30 or a .30-06 for hunting deer or elk. If you are bear hunting, you'll generally want a larger rifle- a .30-06 will take out most black bears with no difficulty, but for larger bears, including grizzlies, a .45 caliber rifle is preferable. However, there is a difference between hunting rifles and most any "assault rifle". Hunting rifles are designed for higher accuracy, but slower fire rate(most people I know use lever-action weapons for hunting). When you're hunting, you pretty much have one shot at your prey, and maybe a second to finish the animal off if you injure but don't kill with your first shot. If you miss, the animal is going to be running at full speed, and you won't get another decent shot(try aiming at something running through trees at 40+ mph away from you).

As for a .22, it won't knock a person over, but a well-placed shot can kill them. Having a higher caliber handgun will have more of an effect, but can be more difficult for some to handle. However, in a close-quarter combat, which is where you are in pretty much any situation in defending yourself against a criminal, a handgun is much preferable to an assault rifle- if I had a choice between a handgun and an AK-47 to use on someone breaking into my house, I would always choose the handgun. A semiautomatic handgun is more than enough to deal with someone breaking into your house.

Switchback']And if you want to point out "pointless" arguments, the argument that "you don't need it" is pointless when discussing whether it should be outlawed. I don't NEED this computer I'm typing on right now. I don't NEED a stereo in my car. I don't NEED a TV in my house. The majority of the things you own you do not need... you own them because you enjoy them... because they amuse you. I enjoy shooting guns... and I collect historic military weapons. I don't own a fully automatic right now, but there are several I would like to have in my collection... but because I don't NEED them, the government should make them illegal.

My argument is not that "because you don't need it, they should be outlawed". It is that the entire purpose of an assault rifle is to KILL PEOPLE. I feel the analogy I made in my prior post to anthrax spores is very apt here. Both anthrax and assault rifles have the express purpose of killing people. If someone enjoys running tests and experimenting with anthrax spores, then anthrax has the same benefit as shooting an assault rifle at a shooting range. However, I don't see people arguing that it is their right to own anthrax and be able to buy some spores at the local pharmacy after going through a background check. Not needing something is absolutely not a purpose to ban something. However, something with the express purpose of "killing a large number of people in a short period of time" should not be legal to posess without a more valid reason that "it would be cool to own one" or "it's fun to shoot at the range".

Switchback']I agree with the law on full auto weapons right now. I don't think you should be able to just go to the store and buy a machine gun, but I don't think a law abiding citizen should be banned from ever owning one. It should be hard to get, but legal to get... just as it is.

More gun control = more crime.

I'm glad you agree that fully automatic guns should not be available. However, why is it that you think that people shouldn't be able to buy one from a store, but should be able to acquire one in other ways? What is the reasoning behind which it should be legal for someone who has not broken a law(yet) to own a weapon capable of killing hundreds of other law-abiding citizens? Please do not say that you need a fully automatic weapon to deal with a burglar breaking into your house, since that is pure BS.

Also, how do you equate more gun control with more crime? While banning guns may not reduce the amount of crime that is committed, it has been shown in other cultures that banning guns reduces gun-related crime. I personally would prefer for someone to attack me with a switchblade than with an assault rifle. Does having an AK-47 or an Uzi in your house somehow magically prevent crime from taking place? While an outright ban of all guns may lead to some criminals becoming bolder, banning assault rifles is a far different issue from banning all guns. I am in support of a ban on assault rifles, but definately against a ban against all guns. If a gun has a legitemate use that it can serve better than another weapon, such as hunting or defending yourself if your home gets broken into, then I have no problems with it. Nobody has yet given me a valid reason that a fully automatic weapon, or a weapon that can hold more than 10 shots in it's magazine is more useful for defending your home than another gun that does not fit into these categories. I think that the assault rifle ban that is under consideration for being renewed/revoked is ineffectual at best, but I believe that some weapons should be illegal to posess.

[Siran Dunmorgan]

Now, while I know that this is technically off topic in the 'Assault Rifle ban' thread, we have touched on the notion of the effectiveness of gun control as a means of reducing violent crime.

One of the points that's been made has to do with the relatively strict gun controls in Britain producing a reduction in gun related crimes. And yet...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3750568.stm

Now, back on topic, I'll simply reiterate more succinctly what I've said before: if the government has legal access to something, the people ought to have legal access to it as well. If the government wants to keep something out of the hands of the people, then the government should also give it up.[1]

By way of comparison, consider someplace (http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/wallstreet.html) where military-grade firearms use and training is more or less universal.

—Siran Dunmorgan

[1] Including the training necessary to use combined arms effectively, which is also currently a goverment monopoly.

[DarkHydra]

Now, back on topic, I'll simply reiterate more succinctly what I've said before: if the government has legal access to something, the people ought to have legal access to it as well. If the government wants to keep something out of the hands of the people, then the government should also give it up.

While I can sympathize with the right to bear firearms, this is kind of a ridiculous statement. Let us all put electric chairs, stealth bombers, and nuclear weapons on the free market! :dizzy:

[Siran Dunmorgan]

While I can sympathize with the right to bear firearms, this is kind of a ridiculous statement. Let us all put electric chairs, stealth bombers, and nuclear weapons on the free market! :dizzy:

Hardly. With respect to weapons, just let the government stop using them if they don't want people to have them.

With respect to electric chairs, well, there's not much of a market because people who are interested in such things normally build their own—but they are actually legal in most jurisdictions in the US. They're dangerous, and actually using one will bring the user afoul of other statutes, but simply owning one—or even trading in them—is perfectly legit.

—Siran Dunmorgan

[Maximus Tacitus]

I agree that the 2nd Admendment is the 2nd most important Admendment in the Constitution of the United States. It goes along way to hinder invading armies from wanting to invade into the United States.

Now if Terrorists can easily get machine guns, then so too should the local militia forces. You prevent the good guys from fighting the bad guys. That makes you un-patriotic in my book. There a darn good reason it is the 2nd Admendment ever written, your ignorance will do well to remember that before bad mouthing the Constitution.

Your what-ifs they use it against the police. Well if they do, they will go to jail, and the bullets will already be in a crime lab because it comes sold over the counter like a auto-matic hammerprint bullet already shot from that weapon. Allowing investigators get to the culprit faster by matching up bullet hammer prints. If the gun was sold on the black market, it only makes their job 1000 times harder to try and track the weapon back to who used it.

Another thing, since you want to be a communist, go live in Russia or somewhere else where the citizens don't have to worry about ever rebelling against tyranny because they will never have weapons. Oh and your policemen will be very safe. But, you will be less safe in that country the this one!

So all in all, if you argue to restrict the GOOD citizens their liberty of the 2nd Admendment due to the BAD citizens whom will get the weapon on the black market anyway. It truely amazes me that you would want the government like England to have all weapons except perhaps a dagger as a restriction, so that you could not fight for your independence.

Badmouthing the Constitutions 2nd Admendment is the worst of all unpatriotism.

This is like saying Thou Shalt Not Kill and then having Moses come down off the hill and having those who worshiped a golden bull killed. Yet you see that is the wrong interpritation of this LAW, it is Thou Shalt Not Murder, which a good citizen would never do. A good citizen is just like those who fought for our independence during the Colonial wars. Those were average everyday citizens. The Militia won that war, do not forget that ever. The power needs to stay with the Militia for it won our great independence, not recognizing its authority is the most unpatriotic.

Its like saying Thank you for giving your life so I can badmouth you 200 years later, but you know what, I'm stupid and ignorant, and I just don't give a crap about you anymore. So to honor your worthless life, I'm going to make sure everything you stand for no longer exists. Like no weapons for ordinary Citizens, oh yeah and 60%+ taxes just like England did aswell. WooHoo I'm an Unpatriotic 2nd Admendment hater!

Only one thing left to say. Get an appointment with a Doctor to check your Testosterome level, you sound as if you lack alot of this. Because, if you don't have the honor to respect the Colonial Militia and what they stood for, then you deserve much less then the life and liberty he has granted you!

[Maximus Tacitus]

"If a gun has a legitemate use that it can serve better than another weapon, such as hunting or defending yourself if your home gets broken into, then I have no problems with it."

Your kids have just been abducted by terrorist with all types of military grade weapons, from hand guns, to sniper riffles, fully auto's, bombs, semi-autos. They are holding 300 CHILDREN HOSTAGE. Your Police have not been issued proper weapons to combat this situation. You do not have the arsenal to fight them. You call in the Army which are not trained for hostage situations. Something bad happens, your police and army do not know who is in charge and do not co-operate with each other, thinking the other should follow their orders. All the sudden 300 Children dead!

If terrorists have it, if gangs have it, if druglords have it, if the blackmarket has it. Why in Gods green Earth would you want to prevent your Police and Local Militia from having it? You preach thin air without a true reason to argue, other then you can argue it based on mere speculations and half hearted research. You are too narrow minded to comprehend the purpose and the goal of the 2nd Admendment. I suggest you take a very very long period perhaps 4 years and research the Colonial Militia, then come back here, and tell us that even then you would want those brave souls to have only Knifes to the English Rifles.

[Maximus Tacitus]

One last comment.

For those who don't know most Full-Auto's are made for room clearing. Their purpose is Urban warfare. Terrorists use sub-machine guns. If I had a terrorists come into my house with an AK-47 and I had a full auto, chances are he would not survive. If I had a handgun, rifle, shutgun or knife chances are I would not survive.

Think of the full automatic as an upgraded Shotgun. It does the damage like a Shotgun but over a period of time. If its banned why then is the Shotgun not? Because for practical use of room clearing, they are both identical in that purpose.

Plus the best part of Full Auto's is they are totally inaccurate, if your worried about a drive by shooting its less accurate then a drive by shotgun attack. For practical use it is a paper/rock/scissors. Terrorists have scissors, do not restrict us from having rocks to combat scissors ect ect.

Again during the Terrorist era, I can hardly believe the unpatriotic jargon about not giving us the best weapons to defend our own homes against their weapons which would mainly comprise of AK-47 and other urban assault weapons.

[ranger5598]

Freyas i would like to point out that all americans have an opinion, urs is well stated and i appreciate that. but I DO hunt with an assault rifle, You see im am a paralysed american who is a former army ranger, i enjoyed shooting those types of weapons in the military and i enjoy it now, many assault weapons are lighter in weight than normal hunting rifles, which makes them more easily mobile for someone in my condition who enjoys hunting and shooting but has physical limitations now. My life was saved in the state of missouri when i was hunting whitetail and flipped my wheelchair in the woods and was surrounded by a pack of coy-dogs (coyote/dog pack) if i had only had 10 rounds with my being so slow at reloading they most likely would have killed me, and yes i know ur gonna say most coyotes/dogs/wolves run at the sound of the first shot and yes i agree with u MOST do, but however this pack did not, they kept circling and charging in, thankfully my family heard the continous shooting and came looking for me quickly, my stepdad went back out the next day and rounded up 17 carcasses that i had shot, thats a few more than the 10 round limit u support, maybe in ur opinion someone like me shouldnt be hunting in the woods if 10 rounds wont protect us from a situation such as that? or maybe you have not considered that in communities that have higher concentration of gun owners have lower crime rates?

maybe you do not take into consideration that the simple pleasure of firing a weapon such as an assault rifle may carry memories to some people the way smealling a pie or chicken cooking might be so close to your mommas cooking that it brings back memories, i for 1 remember the first time i shot an m-16 i remember the way i felt, and when i go to the shooting range i get a small peice of that feeling, i can remember what it felt like to be able bodied.

[Stormin_Mormon]

Thank you ranger. Lets see, how to add to that, Guns dont kill people, bad parenting does. If you own a gun, and are too freaking retarded to teach your kids respect for it, you dont deserve the honor of owning a gun, or having kids. Guns are a powerful, great thing, but they are something to be used with caution and respect.

[ranger5598]

i agree my entire family owns weapons, my mom has a federal firearms liscence and yes she owns several assault weapons, she doesnt shoot them much, anymore but she enjoys cleaning them and all of us kids were raised around weapons,my wifes family is from the city and when my daughter was 3 and i began teaching her about firearms my mother in law had a fit, the reason i began teaching her so early is my stepdad had left a 45 pistol on the couch loaded while he went to the bathroom we pulled up to the house while he was in the bathroom, if i had let my daughter run in first like always she may or may not have picked that weapon up, my stepdad felt bad but they have no children at home and he didnt think about it, thats how many accidents start. after a year of being yelled at by my mother in law who was really upset about my teaching cheyenne about guns, my sister who believes her children shouldnt learn about guns came to visit, her son was playing with a long ranger cap gun and was pointing it at cheyenne, cheyenne ran to me crying yelling "cody gonna die me daddy", at her age she understood what a guns pointed at gets hurt or killed. my mother in law was here when this event happened and all she could say to me was that she was sorry. i was extremely proud of my daughter ( and yes it was humorous but it was also very sobering ) my sister seen how quick her kids were to point guns at others and how quick a child taught about guns was to know they could be hurt, she has since began having her husband take her boys to firing ranges and also has gotten them bb guns to shoot and understand more about firearms. gun safety begins with kids, i have seen all sides of firearm use. i have seen teh recreational and i have been forced to use a firearm to take life from another person, i hope none of u have been put it that situation or had to see the devastation done to the family of the deceased, but ALL guns were made to take life be it human or animal, there is no distinction, i do not see people screaming to ban 22's most kids at age 13-14 get that as their first firearm, and its the single most used caliber weapon used in homicides, they have just enuff velocit to penetrate the skull but can not exit so they bounce aroun in the skull, people have accidentally shot themselves in the hand and the bullet bounces off the shoulder and enters the rib cage killing them, they are easily silenced for the commition of pre-meditated murders, the list goes on with that weapon, but hey lets get upset about the least used weapons in crimes. i seen earlier someone said they are designed to kill other people, guns were originally created to kill other people, wether u claim to need them for self defence or recreation or your a criminal the basic idea of owning a gun is the threat of being able to kill someone. it makes some people feel safer, it makes some people feel empowered, if your gonna ban 1 gun u might as well ban them all they all have the same basic purpose, and if you try and ban them all i would say it will be an ugly situation. the weapon i used when i killed a man while he was in the process of commiting murder was a 22, i was a kid, i came into the situation by mistake, he was armed he was attempting to kill someone else, it was ruled as justifiable homicide by the law, i was a teenager and was considered a hero by the ppl in my community, the military recruited me i went there became an army ranger trying to feel better about it, i can still see the guys face when i close my eyes, can still remember his family, BUT he made the choices i reacted to the situation, that 22 weapon held 16 rounds, was semi auto, and i used it, if it had been an assault rifle with 50 rounds i woulda used it, if it was a hand gun with 6 rounds i woulda used it, no matter which gun i had at that moment i WOULDA used it. no matter what the weapon i had had that day i woulda shot and killed the guy, i do not see people trying to ban swords, their only function, their existence is to kill people, people collect those.....my point is that many weapons exist only to take human life, it is not the weapons that take the life its the person weilding the weapon, if you want to make a difference quit allowing the state prison system to allow 60-90 days of good behavior = 1 year of a sentence, maybe then we will see a drop in crime. maybe people like a friend of my wifes who was raped by a convict who was sentenced to 18 years and got out after 7, maybe my family wont have to bury another 32 old woman and her 9 and 7 year old girls, all raped and murdered by a man on parole who served barely 1/3 of his sentence, maybe if my aunt had believed in owning guns her and her kids would have been able to defend themselves also, many many ifs in those situations. the fact is criminals can get guns easily, and cheaper than many can doing it legally.

[Pinky's brain]

Do you honestly believe anyone will read that?

[[GoD]Oscar]

Hrm, I'm picking up a chinese SKS with an upgraded stock and grip this weekend, mostly just to have a nice toy, but also to shoot anyone that makes me unhappy and tries to burgle me. Am I going to run out and go postal? No. Would I shoot someone that tried to burgle me if I only had a handgun? Yes. Would I try to stab and/or beat someone that tried to burgle me, in the absense of a gun? Yes. The only people this ban removal effects are the normal, day to day people. Anyone with the right money and connections could get a weapon of choice from a gun runner prior to this ban.

In all actuality, the lack of a ban on these weapons isn't going to lead to some huge increase in crime, or a guerilla task force of Falluja insurgents who managed to make it into the country. The ban has been lifted for a month or two now I believe - my dates may be off though - and I haven't heard of any kids running to school with an AK-47 yet.

[Silvius]

Its not the guns that kill people its the people using it, which is mostly maniacs who have nothing left in life so they go out killing everyone. Even with the ban on assault rifles maniacs like in shootings before still got a hold of automatic weapons. Now when a criminal wants to rob something like a store or a house he has to think if the victim is gonna have a few Ak-47s under his bed. There should be strict laws for the weapons though, and also backround checks to be able to buy weapons.

[Necrotic]

WOW....... :shocked:

I just don't know where to begin.......sooo many inaccuracies, inconsistancies and fabrications that are propagated. :boggled:

Many have been addressed to some degree already, but still.....so many people are so misinformed about the subject in general, even some who would otherwise be on the pro-gun side are crippling themselves by a lack of accurate information. I appreciate the big post on what the AWB actually was, thanks Gradrock.

I do however want to make a few points here myself because I don't feel it was addressed sufficiently:

1) Assault rifles don't make good defense weapons 'cause they are too big
Or too something....either way it is a myth....in fact they make excellent defense weapons, especially if your home is 30 acres of ranch out in the middle of nowhere, 30-45 minutes away from any possible police help. No five-shot bolt-action would be sufficient to defend yourself from a truckload of thieves bent on robbing and willing to murder to accomplish it. Most knowledgable people would prefere to take an AR with them to check on the noise they just heard coming from the barn or shop. And yes I do feel that we should be able to have fully automatic weapons to do it with. Still dont believe me? Just look at the police Emergency Response teams, what do they respond with? Rifles...fully automatic ones usually. Despite the fact that generally they are responding to someone weilding a pistol or shotgun (tho not always)and has hostages. I wonder why, could it be because it is the most appropriate weapon when you know you are heading for a fight.

2)A knife or sword is not as deadly as a firearm

Umm....actually they can be MORE deadly, as in less likely to survive a wound from one. Not counting extremely large weapons such as the .50 BMG (which you're not likely to be using for close range) most firearm bullets range between .22 inches to .45 inches in diameter and between roughly .75 inch to 1.8 inches long. Most knife blades range from 2-4 inches long and are capable of cutting as long as the weilder remains in contact. Swords are as short as 36 inches and can be as long as 56 inches. Some bullets will expand on impact and do some damage to surrounding tissue for as long as 12-14 inches.....depending on type. They otherwise just punch a hole in the human body where as an edged weapon as large as a sword, when weilded properly is capable of cleaving a person in half with a single blow.

Silly fool brought a knife to a gunfight , can very easily become silly fool brought a gun to a knife fight.

There are many more things I would like to say but I think I have posted enough for now.....as I said much has been addressed already to some degree.....but I do want to say this much more:

THANKYOU......thankyou Ranger for your sacrifice, you did not say that your condition was the result of combat or military service....but I do want to say thankyou for being out there anyway. :)

[Eansdad]

Ok first I'd like to say that I would love to own an M-4 assult riffle, just to goto the range with. the 2nd Amendment should be honored and everyone should have the right to bear arms. So what could the solution be???? How bout making it harder to buy ammunition? Maybe require a permit to buy ammo or better yet only allow the sale of ammunition at gun ranges and only during hunting season would you be allowed to take any ammunition out of the range. You can still own the weapon like the the Constitution says but I don't remember anything in it about the ammunition. Honestly if your buying a gun you either collect, goto range, hunt or commit crime with it. Collector don't need live ammunition, range users can buy it there and hunters could goto the local range to buy ammo which leaves criminals to fend for themselves. Either they would have to learn how to make their won (which i do believe the sales of gun powder are or should be regulated) or use different tactics. For those who do want them for defense they would only be allowed so much ammunition and would have to be screened before registering.

[LordFu]

How bout making it harder to buy ammunition? Maybe require a permit to buy ammo or better yet only allow the sale of ammunition at gun ranges and only during hunting season would you be allowed to take any ammunition out of the range. You can still own the weapon like the the Constitution says but I don't remember anything in it about the ammunition. That's one of the worst ideas I've ever heard. Why not sell guns without firing pins, then? People would horde and steal ammunition. It would accomplish nothing. How about we enforce the laws we have that say people who have proven themselves mentally unfit or a danger to society aren't allowed to posses firearms. Until we enforce the laws we have, I see no point to making new ones.

[Shinsei]

Ok first I'd like to say that I would love to own an M-4 assult riffle, just to goto the range with. the 2nd Amendment should be honored and everyone should have the right to bear arms.

You're willing provide the ability for kids to shoot bullets into their classmates' and teachers' heads and gangs shoot down neighbourhoods so you can go to a range and shoot some cans? I thought humans these days were born with hearts... :\

Also, I'd like quote the second amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Note, is says "arms", not "the biggest damn weapon you can find". A pistol is "arms", and people already have a right to bear that. There should always be a limitation to "arms". We don't have people protesting that we should be able to buy A-bombs if we can afford them. Why? Because they are (lets hear the chorus people) weapons of mass destruction! There's no use for them other than to kill people. And fully automatic rifles? The-exact-same! They have no use other than to kill people. You want to go to the range with that? Then let me come along with my A-bomb.

[Lord Thud]

Look, if you don't like guns don't buy one. But don't think you're not protected by them because you don't have one. The uncertainty of whether you own one or not protects you everyday.
I always suggest to people who are super anti-gun to put a sign in their yard proclaiming their home to be "Gun Free!". Make a statement! Nobody ever does it. They know what will happen.

[Shinsei]

Look, if you don't like guns don't buy one. But don't think you're not protected by them because you don't have one. The uncertainty of whether you own one or not protects you everyday.
I always suggest to people who are super anti-gun to put a sign in their yard proclaiming their home to be "Gun Free!". Make a statement! Nobody ever does it. They know what will happen.

people wouldnt need guns to protect themselves in the first place if other people couldnt get their hands on them. thats the whole point. why should everyone be forced to buy fully automatic rifles to survive now? just keep them banned, displease the rednecks who really really want them so they can shoot cans in their backyard a little faster, and keep the kids at school and in the ghettos alive.

[TrapY Access]

I justs did a 2nd ammendment debate in US history class o_0

just something to throw out there: it says well regulated militia. Meaning the Militia must be well regulated. If your just 1 citizen, your not a militia, and if your irresponsable with how you store your gun, your not well regulated. Think about the police, national guard, etc, for examples.

other thing: states with gun control see higher rates of crime, but towns that enforce gun control have lower rates of crime. i think it was kansas city that took 2 neiborhoods, 1 normal and 1 super-gun controlled. the uber-enforced one went down in gun crime by 33% but the normal one went up 200% in crime.

lastly, assault wepons are used in less than 1% of gun related crime. Mostly they are used in drug wars.

oh: also, while school shootings come and go with popularity, i think it was hunting rifles and shotguns that were used most often, not pistols. the Nat Vitial stat report said something like 1:11 gun owners stored their gun unlocked and loaded.

[LordFu]

We've had this conversation. A pistol is just as dangerous in the wrong hands as any other type of weapon is. Your arguement,SinR, is contridictive. People have free will. If they choose to use a gun to hurt innocent people, it is no fault of the gun or their manufacturers. If a kid beats his teachers head in with a tire iron, what's the difference? Is it the tire irons fault? Gun violence, like all violence, is a social problem. We blame guns because, emotionally, it is easier to fault an inanimate object then to try to understand why a person would want to commit violence in the first place. Fully automatic guns will never be legal for mass ownership again. This thread was originally about Congress letting their "Assault Weapon" Ban from the '90s lapse this year. That law didn't ban any real "Assault Weapons". It banned a lot of semi-automatic versions of military style guns and did a very, very poor job of it. Fully automatic guns are the only ones that are deserving of the title assault weapons. Anything else is no more or less dangerous then what was available while the ban was in effect. It was a law passed to pander to the anti-gun lobby. People do not own guns to protect themselves only from people with guns. It will work just as well against anyone trying to commit violence or crime against my loved ones and myself.

[Shinsei]

lastly, assault wepons are used in less than 1% of gun related crime. Mostly they are used in drug wars.

oh: also, while school shootings come and go with popularity, i think it was hunting rifles and shotguns that were used most often, not pistols. the Nat Vitial stat report said something like 1:11 gun owners stored their gun unlocked and loaded.

Columbine highschool and some other schools i cant remember the name for, were shot up by uzis and glock 18s (which were fully automatic). Grenades were involved aswell. They dont register as assault weapons, but can you name another use for those weapons rather then killing other people? I cant.

We've had this conversation. A pistol is just as dangerous in the wrong hands as any other type of weapon is. Your arguement,SinR, is contridictive. People have free will. If they choose to use a gun to hurt innocent people, it is no fault of the gun or their manufacturers. If a kid beats his teachers head in with a tire iron, what's the difference?

Can you kill over 20 kids and fend off the police at the same time with a tire iron? I cant.

[LordFu]

Columbine highschool and some other schools i cant remember the name for, were shot up by uzis and glock 18s (which were fully automatic). Grenades were involved aswell. You are mis-informed. All the weapons used in the Columbine shootings were semi-automatic. The "grenades" you mention were home-made(made right under their parents nose I might mention, as were the gun purchases). No school shootings have involved fully automatic weapons. Fully automatic fire-arms have been illegal to own without a federal licsense since the '40s, and sell in the U.S. for incredible amounts of money to the few people who are licsensed to own them, and what I meant by what's the difference is, violence has still been commited. People are still injured or dead. Why not attack the problem at the root? Stop people from willingly commiting violent acts in the first place.

[Koiju]

http://www.brainwashstudios.com/no_remorse.html

Very good flash animation related to guns and there legality in America, Im awear that the author does not wish to try to prove anything, but this video sums up how I feel on the subject...

[Zam Zoso]

I read not to long ago an article that said states where people are permitted to conceal and carry guns have a lower crime rate overall- due primairly to the fact taht the 'bad guy' do not know if the owners of the home they wanna break into have a gun.

Texas was the big state I remember being mentioned.

I gun however should not be seen as the same thing as an assault riffle. HUGE difference.

[Weezer_Blue]

yes bush is a "****tard" but I like clinton and am a democrat so "hahaha you got a ****tard representing you"


...in any case, you definatly do not need to buy an AK-47 to defend yourself, to hunt dear, or to shoot targets with. bush's stance makes no sence. did you know that you don't even need a license to buy one of these guns!? think about it! with handguns, you need to buy an expensive permit or license or whatever, and with a damn AK-47, you DON'T?!


wtf

[Koiju]

I read not to long ago an article that said states where people are permitted to conceal and carry guns have a lower crime rate overall- due primairly to the fact taht the 'bad guy' do not know if the owners of the home they wanna break into have a gun.

Texas was the big state I remember being mentioned.

I gun however should not be seen as the same thing as an assault riffle. HUGE difference.

Yeah, they had higher OVERALL crime rates, meaning that they probably had much higher burgleries, but lower gun crime (added up its still higher, even though gun crime is lower), much like it is over here in England (we have lower gun crime per % pop then america, though higher other crimes like burgleries). And quite frankly, I'd preffer to be burgled then shot, so I'll stick with the stricter gun laws thanks :P

[LordFu]

with handguns, you need to buy an expensive permit or license or whatever, and with a damn AK-47, you DON'T?!
wtfHandguns are the guns most often involved in crimes, thus the waiting period. Rifles and handguns require licsenses, though. The AK you would be buying would be semi-automatic, too. They're no more or less dangerous than any semi-automatic rifle. They are usefull for hunting, whether you choose to believe it or not. They use the same size round as many popular hunting rifles do. You don't go hunting and try to fire off rounds as fast as you can, which is what people invision with AKs and similar fire-arms. I know several people who deer hunt with SKSs (Chinese version of the AK), and they do very well. People really don't seem to understand that these guns aren't like they are in the movies. Your not dumping off a 50 round clip at a deer (unless you're a complete retard). It's nice to not have to reload very often or work the action after every shot. Personally, I use a Winchester 700 .308, which is a bolt-action rifle that only holds five shots (same rifle police snipers use but without a detachable clip), but if people want to use an AK or SKS, I don't see any reason for them not to. If people prove themselves irresponsible or dangerous with guns, then I'm all for not allowing them to have them. Those of us who are responsible with them shouldn't be punished because the world is full of morons, though. I think a safety class and some serious testing should be required for gun ownership, like it is, here in MO, for a hunting licsense.

[Necrotic]

Yeah, they had higher OVERALL crime rates, meaning that they probably had much higher burgleries, but lower gun crime (added up its still higher, even though gun crime is lower), much like it is over here in England (we have lower gun crime per % pop then america, though higher other crimes like burgleries). And quite frankly, I'd preffer to be burgled then shot, so I'll stick with the stricter gun laws thanks :P

Hmmm.....I guess I am not understanding what you mean by this....that you would rather allow the dregs of society to burglarize your home than be shot by them upon discovering you......or that you would prefere to have no defense against them from shooting you in your own home?

And just to recap from earlier posts.....the AWB did not ban any weapon based on the functioning of the weapon....they were banned by their cosmetic appearance only (they had evil black pistol grips), and criminals can still buy "machine guns" that have been illegal or require a special license to purchase for a long time.

...in any case, you definatly do not need to buy an AK-47 to defend yourself, to hunt dear, or to shoot targets with. bush's stance makes no sence. did you know that you don't even need a license to buy one of these guns!? think about it! with handguns, you need to buy an expensive permit or license or whatever, and with a damn AK-47, you DON'T?!

Somewhat misinformed aren't we?
Okay perhaps your state is unusual in that respect.....since I don't know what state you live in I cannot offer accurate correction. However the state I live in does not require a permit or license to purchase a pistol, unless you would count the typical driver's license for proof of residency and address. A license is only required if you decide to go about the state with one concealed on your person. Now maybe you have never purchased an assault rifle or pistol before or known someone that has recently, but it is not like making a trip to the hardware store for some fertilizer and galvanized pipe. There are several forms that must be correctly filled out and an instant National check is done on you before the store even accepts any money for the gun.

And as for the comment about not needing an AR for defense.....please see my earlier post in this thread found here (http://www.guild-hall.net/forum/showpost.php?p=55388&postcount=170)

[LordFu]

Somewhat misinformed aren't we?
However the state I live in does not require a permit or license to purchase a pistol, unless you would count the typical driver's license for proof of residency and address. A license is only required if you decide to go about the state with one concealed on your person. Now maybe you have never purchased an assault rifle or pistol before or known someone that has recently, but it is not like making a trip to the hardware store for some fertilizer and galvanized pipe. There are several forms that must be correctly filled out and an instant National check is done on you before the store even accepts any money for the gun.
Gun licsensing is done on the fedral level. Those forms you fill out when buying any type of gun is a federal fire-arms liscense application. You must pass their checks before buying the gun. So much of it goes on behind the scenes that people forget that you are actually applying for a liscense.

[Necrotic]

Actually LordFu, the SKS rifle is not a Chinese version of the AK-47 though there are Chinese made versions of the SKS.....it is an earlier issue rifle of the Russian military.....first produced in 1943. The two weapons were designed by two different men....Simonov (SKS) and Kalishnikov (AK-47)

Most notably the SKS, while used by military forces... would not fit most modern definitions of an "Assault Weapon".

1) The out-of-the-box SKS only holds ten rounds of ammunition

2) It was never made with a selectable fire rate (no full auto)

3) It was always made in a straight stock rifle configuration.

It also was not affected by the 1994 AWB except for the convenient little built-in bayonet. Which actually was more of a fold out spike than anything resembling a blade. Once that was removed....it could be imported again.

There were other things that prevented the import of the Chinese SKS later.

[Necrotic]

Gun licsensing is done on the fedral level. Those forms you fill out when buying any type of gun is a federal fire-arms liscense application. You must pass their checks before buying the gun. So much of it goes on behind the scenes that people forget that you are actually applying for a liscense.

No ...it's not a license....you may think of it as such....but the fact remains it is not. That is why you must fill out new forms everytime you buy a firearm from a dealer instead of them just looking at your license information which, if it were indeed a license, they could already have on file. Some states do require you to be more than simply a law abiding citizen, but they are the acception...not the standard.

[LordFu]

I have to admit you're right on the SKS/AK issue. They are very, very similar, IMHO. I'm pretty sure that when you fill out those forms when you buy a gun that you are being liscensed and registered to own it, though, but we're really just arguing symantics there. :D

[Necrotic]

As I said...most states do not register purchases of firearms, but for those that do, they are not required to....at least not by any FEDERAL law.

As for the licensing....you should go along with the next friend or relative who is buying one....read the forms....they will say if they are being licensed or if it is, in fact, mearly an application to purchase.

[LordFu]

I just bought my .308 and I swear it said Federal Fire-Arms Licsense Application or something similar at the top. I'll look into really, though. It's not that serious any way. Why argue about it?

[Koiju]

Hmmm.....I guess I am not understanding what you mean by this....that you would rather allow the dregs of society to burglarize your home than be shot by them upon discovering you......or that you would prefere to have no defense against them from shooting you in your own home?

No, I mean I'd preffer to be burgled by the dregs of society then get shot by some loon while minding my business on a night out...

Burglers DONT HAVE GUNS in this country, as the cost of getting one is too high.... (bank robbers do, and some people robbing stores, but people stealing from houses dont tend to carry any weapons, probably because they know the occupants wont either...)
You get gangs that have guns over here, but generally they dont go around shooting people, nor do they do that much burgling of houses (certianly not in my area anyway) they mostly use them for gang wars and such, but those are still not massivly common.

Basicly, stricter gun laws might mean your more likely to get burgled, but it means everyone is much less likely to be carrying a gun, and as such, your much less likely to get shot by somone for any reason



Oh, and the whole hunting thing... IMO you shouldnt be shooting at innocent animals anyway, so that argument is null and void to me :P

[Zam Zoso]

Yeah, they had higher OVERALL crime rates, meaning that they probably had much higher burgleries, but lower gun crime (added up its still higher, even though gun crime is lower), much like it is over here in England (we have lower gun crime per % pop then america, though higher other crimes like burgleries). And quite frankly, I'd preffer to be burgled then shot, so I'll stick with the stricter gun laws thanks :P


Understandably as would I.
:biggrin:

[LordFu]

Keep your oppressive gun laws in England, thank you very much. Here in America, where we haven't yet completely destroyed our natural environment as has been done in England, hunting is a necessary population control measure. With most natural predators pushed to the brink of extinction, it is left to humans to cull the huge wildlife population. Otherwise, starvation and disease would kill the animals in a much less humane way. I would question the wisdom of your gun laws. Now ONLY criminals have guns. That doesn't seem very intelligent to me. From the statistics I've seen, it hasn't really cut down on crime anyway. You're just one step closer to the One World Government then we are. Call me a conspiracy nut, but I need guns to protect myself from the government as much as I need it to protect myself from criminals. Our founding fathers would agree with me on that point.

[Zam Zoso]

As I said...most states do not register purchases of firearms, but for those that do, they are not required to....at least not by any FEDERAL law.

As for the licensing....you should go along with the next friend or relative who is buying one....read the forms....they will say if they are being licensed or if it is, in fact, mearly an application to purchase.


FOID Card is mandatory in the state of Illinos. I am allowed to purchase a gun and need this card to shoot the gun at the range - however cannot store the gun in my home if my home is in Illinois. I am allowed however to transport said gun in a locked gun box in my trunk-in my vehicle.

What kinda sense does this make anyhow? I can drive all over the state with a gun in my trunk and cannot have it in my home. Should I be stopped and my car searched and the gun discovered I show my FOID card and state I am transporting it.

/ponder

Something seems broken eh?

[LordFu]

Where in the hell are you supposed to keep it then???

[Zam Zoso]

Where in the hell are you supposed to keep it then???

Currently it is always in 'transport'. Its a target shooting 9mm that I take to the shooting range. I transport it taken apart in the gun storage case with no ammo and have my FOID card in case I ever get stopped and I am safe.

Silly yuh I know allot of laws seem to hit me this way the older I get the less I understand.

[LordFu]

Yeah, that law is retarded. What in the hell do they expect to accomplish with it. Again, criminals, the ones they are worried about, aren't going to follow the law anyway.

[Koiju]

Keep your oppressive gun laws in England, thank you very much. Here in America, where we haven't yet completely destroyed our natural environment as has been done in England, hunting is a necessary population control measure. With most natural predators pushed to the brink of extinction, it is left to humans to cull the huge wildlife population. Otherwise, starvation and disease would kill the animals in a much less humane way. I would question the wisdom of your gun laws. Now ONLY criminals have guns. That doesn't seem very intelligent to me. From the statistics I've seen, it hasn't really cut down on crime anyway. You're just one step closer to the One World Government then we are. Call me a conspiracy nut, but I need guns to protect myself from the government as much as I need it to protect myself from criminals. Our founding fathers would agree with me on that point.

There not oppressive, there sensable...
LOL destroyed our natural environment?!?!?!!? America creates more pollution per yeah then any other country in the entire world, so dont even go there please...

And first, Hunting and culling are two seperate things, culling should be handled by the state, prefferably a specific organisation only licenced to carry slow reload hunting rifles (you are alowed such things in England with a licence, there slow to fire and reload so arnt used in crimes, there also quite difficult to get hold of) secondly, those predators wouldnt be so low in number if you haddent gone and bloody shot them all in the first place ¬.¬

Acctually, the vast majority of criminals DONT have guns, gangs are about the only people with guns, and they only carry them to protect themselves from the other gun gangs, and generally only open fire on each other (them and the big organised crime groups, the real big players) but for such insidence, we have S.W.A.T teams, who DO carry guns, semi-automatics I believe, so acctually the criminals arnt the only ones with guns...

I'd also like to point out that having a gun, 99%, aint gonna do f**k all to help protect you from a criminal, there either gonna stick it in your face and pull the trigger before you get the opertunaty to blink, let alone pull out your gun. Or there gonna grab you from behind, head lock you, and put it to your temple before you know whats hit you. you really wont get the chance to use your gun should you carry one.

Your forgetting, I know it hasnt cut down on GENERAL crime, its cut down on GUN CRIME, very specifically, GUN crime. Basicly, it may very well have helped increase other types of crime, but it has REDUCED the number of shootings, its simply moved the crime from one type to another, so whats the point in that you ask? Simple, people dont die from being burgled, people do die from bullet wounds....

HA! You dont need weapons to protect yourself from the government, your already brain washed and controled to do what they want you too anyway, lol, democracy is about mind control, not physical control, personal guns would only help vs a dictatorship...

Oh, and America is WAY closer to a One World Government then England...


Carrying a gun is not a very good idea as a deterrant, its how people get killed. Note the Rand Corporation, it set up a simulation of the world once, and its nukes, to determin all possible outcomes of the cold war, and what the best thing to do would be in order to avoid nuclear hollocaust.... They couldnt find a way, except by simply not having nukes...

Carrying a weapon only ecourages your enemy to strike first, before you can arm your weapon, it in no way deters them from attacking you, if somone wants to burgle you, they WILL burgle you, wether you have a gun or not, having one will just mean they shoot first and ask questions later

[Weezer_Blue]

I live in America, and the vast majority of people here are brainwashed retards. If I am talking to one of these people and I ask them why we are at war, they never give me a legitimate answer. We just went off and pretended that the people who flew a plane into the World Trade Center were directly tied to Saddam. We tried to cover it up by saying he had Weapons of Mass Destruction. And seeing as that was our excuse, it might have been a good idea to let the UN finish their investigation. Now we are at a war with a country that was no threat to us. We have lost track of Osama, who we should have been hunting the whole time, and left a country in ruin. And meanwhile, all you idiots are thinking "thank god we freed these people". I ask you: Would you rather live under an Iron fist that kept an orderly society, or would you like more to live in utter chaos with the most powerful country in the world bombing the hell out of your house? And I have yet to find an explanation for the Iraqis that come on the news and thank us. "thank you for bombing my country and leaving it in ruin with no plan to rebuild it" ?!

On a closing note:

IH - ROCK

...Not I - RACK


...The next redneck I hear mispronouncing the country's name and i'm killing myself.

[[BBF]Tantor]

FOID Card is mandatory in the state of Illinos. I am allowed to purchase a gun and need this card to shoot the gun at the range - however cannot store the gun in my home if my home is in Illinois. I am allowed however to transport said gun in a locked gun box in my trunk-in my vehicle.

What kinda sense does this make anyhow? I can drive all over the state with a gun in my trunk and cannot have it in my home. Should I be stopped and my car searched and the gun discovered I show my FOID card and state I am transporting it.

/ponder

Something seems broken eh?

every state has some form of stupidity law. In Connecticut I was mandated by law to register myself as a malita because I had more that 2000 rounds of ammunition. for some that may seem a lot but I own many makes and models of long rifles, so called assult weapons, and pistols.I have a permit to carry a concealed weapon. I shoot regulary and reload my own ammo. why pay 15.00 for a box of 50 when I can make it for 2.00.
When I go to the range it's not uncommon to shoot 600 or 700 rounds, thats a lot of dough rey me. so once a month me and friends get together and load a few thousand rounds of all kinds. But I'm a Malita....humph go figure.

[Bad_Monkey6186]

Well, I ahve to admit that I didn't read all of this thread (200 posts oO) but I will say that assault rifels is a bit much, doncha think. Wht the hell are you gonna use it for? and don't say defence, because, morelikely than not, whoever is attacking you will probably have one too.

I will have to admit that, despite popular belief, the old American west was about as crime-free as America has ever been. Mainly due to the fact that EVERYONE had a gune, and that, if you were a robber or criminla or whatever, you were more likely to get shot than get rich by robbing a bank or commiting any sor of crime, for that matter.

[Shadow_Dr3am]

americans and their guns. what can I say? It has all been said 100x before such prattle is meaningless.
I would suggest all stupid red-neck, gun loving, gorge bush voting rebuplicans to go buy as many assulat rifles as you can, and promptly bring your strange speices to extintion. good ridance.

[Koiju]

americans and their guns. what can I say? It has all been said 100x before such prattle is meaningless.
I would suggest all stupid red-neck, gun loving, gorge bush voting rebuplicans to go buy as many assulat rifles as you can, and promptly bring your strange speices to extintion. good ridance.

LOL! I like :)

And that is one thing I have noticed, the people in favour of americas less-then-strict gun laws are ALWAYS (almost) gun lovers or hunters (or maybe somone that is friends with one) :rolleyes:

[Bad_Monkey6186]

LOL! I like :)

And that is one thing I have noticed, the people in favour of americas less-then-strict gun laws are ALWAYS (almost) gun lovers or hunters (or maybe somone that is friends with one) :rolleyes:



uhh..duh :rolleyes:

[Koiju]

uhh..duh :rolleyes:

yeah... i know its obvious :P

cos all the supports of americas current laws only support it because if they dont they'll get there precious little hobby taken away! (rather then for any sensible or logical reason) :O! oh no! buu hoo hoo!.. Excuse me while I leave my compasion at the door :P

Its fine to have a hobby, but not when that hobby risks other peoples lives...

[Bad_Monkey6186]

phew.. ok, nice to see that you aren't an idiot :D was kinda worried there for a sec.

[Koiju]

phew.. ok, nice to see that you aren't an idiot :D was kinda worried there for a sec.

.... is that sarcasm? O.o I sense sarcasm :P (its hard to be certain over the net cos you cant hear tone of voice :P) you almost seemed to be in support of it a moment ago.....

And I'm not calling them idiots, there not, there being perfectly normal human beings, defendin what they believe in, dispite what harm it does to everyone else around them, afterall, why should they care? Its not like its gonna affect them! (ok, there was a bit of sarcasm in the last statment there
:rolleyes: )

[Bad_Monkey6186]

lol, yes it is sarcam. BWUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

no, I'm kiddin with you, and I do agree with you. people vote for waht they believe. Its just obvious and natural.

[TrapY Access]

IH - ROCK

...Not I - RACK


some of my saudi friends pronounce it "EAR-OCK". so i guess nobody knows the real pronunciation, just like nobody knew how to spell Osama's name after 9/11 (Usama or Osama)

[[BBF]Tantor]

Well, I ahve to admit that I didn't read all of this thread (200 posts oO) but I will say that assault rifels is a bit much, doncha think. Wht the hell are you gonna use it for? and don't say defence, because, morelikely than not, whoever is attacking you will probably have one too.


I havn't read this intire thread but has anyone stated the fact that less that 1/10 of 1 percent of gun related crimes in the USA are committed with assult weapons?

And has anyone stated the fact that this percentage has NOT gone down since the AWB, it has gone up.

I am sure it has been stated somewhere here that if they just ENFORCED EXISTING LAWS instead of making new uninforced laws everybody would be a lot safer.

[Traenix]

Tantor']I havn't read this intire thread but has anyone stated the fact that less that 1/10 of 1 percent of gun related crimes in the USA are committed with assult weapons?

And has anyone stated the fact that this percentage has NOT gone down since the AWB, it has gone up.

I am sure it has been stated somewhere here that if they just ENFORCED EXISTING LAWS instead of making new uninforced laws everybody would be a lot safer.

So? Makes little difference. Still should be banned

[Weezer_Blue]

lol... we should get rid of guns, nukes, bombs, and every other destructive thing you can lob at an enemy.

...we should go back to bows, arrows, and swords! (comon... you know you all want this!)

[Bad_Monkey6186]

lol... we should get rid of guns, nukes, bombs, and every other destructive thing you can lob at an enemy.

...we should go back to bows, arrows, and swords! (comon... you know you all want this!)


as long as we still get deagles and walther ppks (007's gun)

[SuicideBunny]

...we should go back to bows, arrows, and swords! (comon... you know you all want this!)
you don't want to be armed with a sword when someone else has a crossbow, or a bow even. (unless the bow user is very very close)

[General Napoleon]

Some of you are forgetting that the AWB is not just on extremely pwerful weapons, it also outlaws some semi-automatic rifles and any large magazines. I don't consider many of the things banned to be "assault weapons". Also, most crimes are commited with handguns, not assault weapons. My final point: Outlaw guns, and then you have law-abiding citizens defenseless while only the criminal are armed.

[[BBF]Tantor]

Tantor']I havn't read this intire thread but has anyone stated the fact that less that 1/10 of 1 percent of gun related crimes in the USA are committed with assult weapons?

And has anyone stated the fact that this percentage has NOT gone down since the AWB, it has gone up.

I am sure it has been stated somewhere here that if they just ENFORCED EXISTING LAWS instead of making new uninforced laws everybody would be a lot safer.

So? Makes little difference. Still should be banned

So then there is the arguement that we should ban Scissors because more people are stabbed with them than are killed with assault weapons.

[Koiju]

Tantor']So then there is the arguement that we should ban Scissors because more people are stabbed with them than are killed with assault weapons.

People dont tend to die from scissor wounds though....

Assualt rifles tend to kill people 99% of the time....



Oh, and you cant take on more then one person with scissors...

[OrangeHunter]

Oh, and you cant take on more then one person with scissors...

Hmmm... You've tried it? Maybe if you stab reaaaal hard and they are behind each other?

[Koiju]

Hmmm... You've tried it? Maybe if you stab reaaaal hard and they are behind each other?

LOL, well, I did once throw a pair of scissors at somone (it was during my unstable years at primary school, he was bullying me and i snapped :S). They ducked out of the way though, so there was no injury... (probably jsut as well)

[Necrotic]

People dont tend to die from scissor wounds though....

Assualt rifles tend to kill people 99% of the time....



Oh, and you cant take on more then one person with scissors...

Many people have survived being shot, that doesnt mean they were not incapacitated and kept from harming others. Some have even survived shotgun blasts.

But a sharp instrument doesn't require reloading, doesn't jam, doesn't make any noise. And certainly can kill more than once. Only in Hollywood do bullets consistantly pass through the bodies of the people shot by them.

I really wish people like you would stop making blanket statements about subjects which they have no conceivable experience with.

[Koiju]

Many people have survived being shot, that doesnt mean they were not incapacitated and kept from harming others. Some have even survived shotgun blasts.

But a sharp instrument doesn't require reloading, doesn't jam, doesn't make any noise. And certainly can kill more than once. Only in Hollywood do bullets consistantly pass through the bodies of the people shot by them.

I really wish people like you would stop making blanket statements about subjects which they have no conceivable experience with.

Its nto a blanket statment, im not using hollywood films here, I am awear people survive bullet wounds, you jsut have a higher chance of surviving a knife wound thena bullet wound, hell, people have survived knife wound to the head, not just head acctually, it went IN THERE BRAIN and they lived... Never heard of a bullet passing through somones brain and them living...

Its just fact that a gun is more dangerous then a pair of scissors, any fool knows that...

[eXcel]

On guns in general: Of course they are dangerous, do you know why we (the population) have them?

On assualt rifles: wtf is an assault rifle? How can you be in favor of something called an assault rifle? Seems to me we should clarify what specifically what guns we are talking about, then decide based on the above answer whether to restrict certain weapons or not.

[Koiju]

On guns in general: Of course they are dangerous, do you know why we (the population) have them?

On assualt rifles: wtf is an assault rifle? How can you be in favor of something called an assault rifle? Seems to me we should clarify what specifically what guns we are talking about, then decide based on the above answer whether to restrict certain weapons or not.

And also exactly why they should be restricted (prefferably banned), since we know there highly dangerous, cos there specifically desined for killing.

An assualt rifle, I think, is a gun that has the power and range of a rifle, but with the fully automatic fire capabilities of a machine gun.....

I'm no gun expert however, and im sure one could give you a more accurate description then that... (and theres bound to be one hanging around this thread sooner or later :P)

[Niff]

Man, LUE needs to get Coolhand down here.

He will shoot down every single one of your 'ban assault rifle' arguments, one by one, flawlessly.

Too bad he doesn't play Guild Wars.

[Weezer_Blue]

don't get me wrong... i'de love to have an AK-47. simpyly cause they're cool lol. but I think legalizing them and letting a crazed maniac like me get my hands on one is kind of erm... f***in stupid! the problem is that your average crimal would usually not have an AK-47, and your average hunter definatly does not need a full auto gun with armour piercing bullets to shoot dear. Even worse, seeing as assault weapons are all rifles, we don't even keep track of them, register them, or force people to buy permits for them! wtf is up with that?!

[Xavz]

Anything on full auto is unlikely to maintain the same power and range as a single shot, as far as I know, not to mention the extreme drop in accuracy.

And yes, I have heard of people surviving bullet wounds to the brain. On average, a good cut with a knife is probably far more dangerous than a single bullet wound unless it's to the heart or head, because the knife makes a much bigger hole and is more likely to somehow infect the wound.

[Koiju]

Anything on full auto is unlikely to maintain the same power and range as a single shot, as far as I know, not to mention the extreme drop in accuracy.

And yes, I have heard of people surviving bullet wounds to the brain. On average, a good cut with a knife is probably far more dangerous than a single bullet wound unless it's to the heart or head, because the knife makes a much bigger hole and is more likely to somehow infect the wound.

That being the point, it has to be a GOOD cut, which requires training and/or knowledge of human anatomy (to know where vital spots are etc) it doesnt take much training, if any, to know how to pull a trigger, most 5 yr old boys know how to pull a trigger :rolleyes:
Infection is irrelevant as assuming the person survives the encounter, they'd have access to a hospital...

Basicly, a 5 yr old could accidently kill a fully grown man with a gun (admitedly in the case of a 5 yr old itd have to be a hand gun as i doubt they could even carry an AK, lol) but a 5 yr old would have a bloody hard time killing a fully grown man with a pair of scissors, even if they TRIED to kill him...

What it comes down to here, is not that I dont trust YOU with your AK, im sure your sensable with it, its your younger brother/son/friend/burgler that breask in/ whatever that i dont trust, that could get hold of it and use it to kill somone (wether on perpose, or by accident while playing cops and robbers with a lethal weapon :rolleyes: , which has acctually happened before, btw)

[eXcel]

So you think guns are legal because of hunting?

[Koiju]

So you think guns are legal because of hunting?

Its the only even remotly sensable reason I can think of, and even then its shot down simply because I think its wrong to hunt animals... But thats just an opinion, rather then any raw facts....

[Alun Aedicita]

Unless you're defending your house from a small army, you'll all be fine using a handgun.

Frankly, I don't trust this desensitized, internally-competitive nation with firearms that powerful.

[Lord Thud]

There is no real problem with firearms in the United States. It is a "problem" invented by politicians so they can then promise to make laws to solve their invented problem. The people who can't be bothered to think on a daily basis buy it and run to the polls to vote for them. Journalists sound the trumpets for them because they too have a political agenda (one way or the other).

No gun law has ever made a world of difference in crime. If you took the time to look at just one aspect of crime statistics you would see something amiss. More people die in car accidents, more kids die in bathtubs and household accidents. Please note that through all the Clinton years as crime went down gun ownership went up. Probably just a coincidence though.

And the british can quote their "low" crime rate all they want. They count criminals and not crimes. They count convictions and not unsolved crimes. Thinking that through that if a serial rapist attacks fifteen women and never gets caught that's a crime rate of zero (I've done the thinking for them here, no effort necessary).

Oh by the way, yes a gun is meant for the purpose of killing people. If it wasn't it wouldn't be a real big deterent now would it?

To all the gun ban nuts I always offer a suggestion. Since you don't like them that much you should place a sign in front of your home similar to near schools. Proclaim to all your "Gun Free Home". Not one of them has ever had the guts to do it. That's because they know the simple fact that they even might have a gun is a crime deterent.

[eXcel]

^ those are all great reasons why guns are legal, but the original reason and the reason why it is in the constitution as the second amendment (coming after the freedom of speech/press/religion), is because we the people don't trust the government. Its a lot easier to fix things if your government steps out of line and a significant part of the population is armed. Self protection is always nice too.

[helsvon]

for any of you that posted, or will post things saying the Assault Rifle ban stinks..think about it.

I met a person on CS:Source who's name was N!**er Hunter (black people killer) and he was what I call insane. He was always talking about how he wanted to keep his assault rifles (<----multiple assault rifles) and how he thought black people were terrible. I was completely on this guy man. I would bash the ass out of him on that server. He said that if slavery was back, the world would be better, and a lot of other things that i didn't like. sorry that i'm on a tangent about a freak on a CS:Source server, but what I'm trying to say is..

whats the point of having a weapon in your house? Crime rates of robberies are so low in the rural US it's not even bound to happen that you're gonna need an assault rifle to keep out your local hoodlum. In the cities even, you don't need a god damn M-16...if you have to, use a pistol or a handgun!

Even if you protect your house by killing the poor sod, you'll be charged for manslaughter (am i wrong on this one?)...

And o yeah...if you haven't watched Bowling for Columbine...watch it..

"And in the United States, a total of 1,124 deaths from guns. If guns keep people safe, shouldn't the US be the safest country in the world?"
---Michael Moore

Helsy

[Koiju]

To all the gun ban nuts I always offer a suggestion. Since you don't like them that much you should place a sign in front of your home similar to near schools. Proclaim to all your "Gun Free Home". Not one of them has ever had the guts to do it. That's because they know the simple fact that they even might have a gun is a crime deterent.


Fine, I will, I'll do just that....

Just as soon as I acctually own a house to do it with anyway :P

I dont care, I live in a nice neighberhood, only crime we get here is the occasional 14 yr old vandle writing somthing on the local park bench, or smashing the glass in the bus stop...... Hardly somthing to worry about :rolleyes:

You cant use the protection idea as an excuse for one simple reason, criminals will ALWAYS have better weaponry then you (assuming there the really nasty ones, like drug lords and such) if guns are totally illegal, they have handguns, if handguns are legal, they get themselves assualt rifles, if you make those legal they get rocket launchers or even tanks. There in the business to make sure they have better killing equipment then you, so saying they should be legal for protection perposes is simply wrong, its not gonna help at all...

It'll just escalate, till either all weaponry are legal (baaaaad idea if you ask me), or, the government cracks down and sets a limit, and if your gonna set a limit, might as well put it as low as possible, so the police get as much chance as possible (ie, in this country, they'd be dealing with handguns and maybe uzi's, over there they have to be equipt to tackle assault rifles :rolleyes: )

If you can be equipt better to fight your government incase of fasism, then Jo Loony down the road can also be better equipt to use them for a terrorist act :P

[eXcel]

on CS:Source who's name was N!**er Hunter (black people killer) and he was what I call insane.
Oh please, it was just some kid trying to get a rise out of people like you.

if guns are totally illegal, they have handguns, if handguns are legal, they get themselves assualt rifles, if you make those legal they get rocket launchers or even tanks.
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Weezer_Blue]

it's just some dumbass on counter-strike. don't take it seriously.



(everyone go onto Google, and look for a video of a person named "C-Note" on Counter-Strike! it's the funniest flash movie you will EVER see!!)

[Necrotic]

for any of you that posted, or will post things saying the Assault Rifle ban stinks..think about it.

I met a person on CS:Source who's name was N!**er Hunter (black people killer) and he was what I call insane. He was always talking about how he wanted to keep his assault rifles (<----multiple assault rifles) and how he thought black people were terrible. I was completely on this guy man. I would bash the ass out of him on that server. He said that if slavery was back, the world would be better, and a lot of other things that i didn't like. sorry that i'm on a tangent about a freak on a CS:Source server, but what I'm trying to say is..

whats the point of having a weapon in your house? Crime rates of robberies are so low in the rural US it's not even bound to happen that you're gonna need an assault rifle to keep out your local hoodlum. In the cities even, you don't need a god damn M-16...if you have to, use a pistol or a handgun!

Even if you protect your house by killing the poor sod, you'll be charged for manslaughter (am i wrong on this one?)...

And o yeah...if you haven't watched Bowling for Columbine...watch it..

"And in the United States, a total of 1,124 deaths from guns. If guns keep people safe, shouldn't the US be the safest country in the world?"
---Michael Moore

Helsy

First of all Helsy, I can't believe you are even mentioning the CS player....everyone here should know that there are people that say such things not because its truly how they feel but just to aggravate others.

And as for the Michael Moore quote, well you should at least know that the number he quotes is innaccurate.....aside from the fact that the man is lying about nearly everything he put into that movie. I found a web page where someone actually took the time to counter most of the edited crap that he was trying to portray as a "documentary". Its very enlightening.
The truth (http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html)

[TrapY Access]

think a second. Michael Moore and Counter Strike are bad (or controversial...) enough, putting them together is just asking for trouble :).

Besides, i'd rather have people walking around with assault riffles and using them in less than .1% of gun crimes, than for people to make their own potassium nitrate bombs :). Scary stuff you can make in your house.

[SuicideBunny]

First of all Helsy, I can't believe you are even mentioning the CS player....everyone here should know that there are people that say such things not because its truly how they feel but just to aggravate others.
heh, funny coz just before the x-mas break we went through a study on potential racism in my motivation seminar that basically has shown that there are only two kinds of people:
racists who are aware of their racism and those who aren't. the difference is only the degree at which you are aware of it and willing to admit it to yourself.

someone with such a nick might have the main intention of shocking other people, but generally he wouldn't do it this way if he hadn't developed a tendency for racism on a conscious level.

[eXcel]

heh, funny coz just before the x-mas break we went through a study on potential racism in my motivation seminar that basically has shown that there are only two kinds of people:
racists who are aware of their racism and those who aren't. the difference is only the degree at which you are aware of it and willing to admit it to yourself.

someone with such a nick might have the main intention of shocking other people, but generally he wouldn't do it this way if he hadn't developed a tendency for racism on a conscious level.
So someone is a racist and doesn't like white/black/whatever people. I'm not going to loose any sleep over it, and I can think of worse people.

[Sexicutioner]

late reply yes, but I just now saw this...so

Sexicutioner, I would like to draw your attention to the outward appearance of the main character of the Tell Tale Heart, this man appeared perfectly normal before all people up until he commited the murder. While I do know that this man is from a book, I am sure that there are people like him in real life. That is the reason for gun control, because we don't know who is a law abiding citizen and a deranged maniac just by outward appearances.

there is no need to judge someone on outward appearance in this case. the people that are going to commit a crime with a gun will not buy a gun from a place where they have to register it. they will find someone selling them on a street corner, or steal one. simple.

If guns are necessary to keep the balance of nature in check it is only because they have been used to remove as many of the natural predators(wolf for example) of an area as possible before the government stepped in. Although I see no reason why a farmer should have his gone taken away when he uses it to defend his crops from interloping animals such as deer.

the fact that part of the natural predators are gone is true, but that doesnt change the fact that hunting has to happen, especially now, to keep those animals healthy, and yes to keep them alive. whether you can comprehend that or not, that is also true.

[Sexicutioner]

there are only two kinds of people:
racists who are aware of their racism and those who aren't.

No.

I never understood how everyone can be racist, whether they are or arent. thats just dumb.

You will most likely end up saying im one of the ones that doesnt admit it to myself. fact is, theres nothing to admit.

racism = hating someone because theyre of a different race than I am. I never have done that and never will.

I have hated individuals of different races in my lifetime, but thats where it ended, at that particular individual. I didnt take it to the whole race and blame them for that one person pissing me off.

the people that think that way are ones that are having problems with racism in themselves, and want everyone to think they are racist to make themselves feel better about it.

easy way to look at it? take individuals as they are, not as a color, or anything else you first see with your eyes, or what you were taught during the course of your life (even the thing just before x-mas break).

...even the color that is on the outside of you, whatever that may be. I didnt ask because I dont need to know. If I ever end up hating you it wont be because of your skin color/race. itll be because of they type of person you led me to believe you are.... even then theres no reason to believe my hate would be permanent. ;)

[SuicideBunny]

racism = hating someone because theyre of a different race than I am. I never have done that and never will.
no, that's wrong.

racism as such has no negative or positive tendency, and is just a generalization based on race.
positive racism, for example saying that jews or asians have a high mean iq (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence) (or something like germans build good cars, though not exacty racism, but works the exact same way) is as much racism as negative racism, for example a statement that members of a different race look all the same (even if that is actually true to most, since different races tend to have different facial landmarks to recognize individual difference). it's just that positive racism tends to be generally accepted because we tend to think it's less bad since it includes positive discrimination, and thanks to media you generally only associate racism with extremist like neo nazis.

you don't have to hate anyone to be a racist, and just because you hate a "race" does not mean that you are a racist (because you can hate them all equally too, including your own)

racism, prejudices, and discrimination based on broad generalization are natural. it's one of the ways our brain works. we extrapolate, abstract, and generalize, because it's easier to store information this way and it's actually safer. if we weren't natural racist humanity wouldn't have survived to the point where the both of us can communicate on a virtual forum. it's just that our society has evolved to a point where those old and ass-saving mechanics have lost purpose and are rather hindering further social evolution...

no matter what you do, you will always generalize based on any features you are able to recognize, group belongings, hair or skin color, gender, size, or whatever. the only thing you can do about it is making yourself aware that you actually do such a thing and constantly remind yourself that broad generalizations are wrong and anything but accurate.

[Niff]

for any of you that posted, or will post things saying the Assault Rifle ban stinks..think about it.

I met a person on CS:Source who's name was N!**er Hunter (black people killer) and he was what I call insane. He was always talking about how he wanted to keep his assault rifles (<----multiple assault rifles) and how he thought black people were terrible. I was completely on this guy man. I would bash the ass out of him on that server. He said that if slavery was back, the world would be better, and a lot of other things that i didn't like. sorry that i'm on a tangent about a freak on a CS:Source server, but what I'm trying to say is..


And, of course, everything you see on the internet is true!

whats the point of having a weapon in your house? Crime rates of robberies are so low in the rural US it's not even bound to happen that you're gonna need an assault rifle to keep out your local hoodlum. In the cities even, you don't need a god damn M-16...if you have to, use a pistol or a handgun!

Weapons in your house are for protecting yourself and your family.

Also, stop pulling things from Bowling for Columbine. I truly have no idea why that man defends his house with an M16, but a pistol will suffice.

Even if you protect your house by killing the poor sod, you'll be charged for manslaughter (am i wrong on this one?)...

That depends if he was threatening you and if you were under the right circumstances to kill him.

Also, refractable bullets will not kill your attacker, but will injure him and he won't be getting up for a while.

And o yeah...if you haven't watched Bowling for Columbine...watch it..

"And in the United States, a total of 1,124 deaths from guns. If guns keep people safe, shouldn't the US be the safest country in the world?"
---Michael Moore

Helsy

http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/

Mandatory link post for idiotic Michael Moore followers.

End: Banning assault rifles will not stop crimes. The number one most used types of guns for crimes in America (and in any country most likely) is 1. a 12-gauge shotgun and 2. a 9mm handgun.

Why?

Shotgun:
1. Anyone can inflict damage from ~50 metres away with a 12 gauge.
2. Cheap ammo.

9mm:
1. Cheap as hell to find
2. Ammo is cheaper than buckshot (12c a bullet at WalMart)

Banning assault rifles will only screw over people with shooting hobbies.

[Nehcrum]

End: Banning assault rifles will not stop crimes. The number one most used types of guns for crimes in America (and in any country most likely) is 1. a 12-gauge shotgun and 2. a 9mm handgun.

Why?

Shotgun:
1. Anyone can inflict damage from ~50 metres away with a 12 gauge.
2. Cheap ammo.

9mm:
1. Cheap as hell to find
2. Ammo is cheaper than buckshot (12c a bullet at WalMart)

Banning assault rifles will only screw over people with shooting hobbies.
Or maybe 12G shotguns and 9mm handguns are the most used weapons because they are very easy to get?
12G shotgun likely being the most common rifle anyone has (and a lot handier, especially if you saw off the barrel a bit, than a normal hunting rifle) at home.
And 9mm because you can get one anywhere, just break into some guys home and look through it when he is away on holiday and you got a pretty good chance to get one. Either that or talk to someone who deals a bit in stolen goods, he's about as likely to have handguns for sale as TVs.

The #1 reason you put up for 9mm handguns to be so common, can be directly traced back to the free availability of handguns (in USA), the more common weapons are overall, the more common it is that a criminal has one.

The phrase "banning weapons won't work, then only criminals will have weapons" is wrong, where do you think criminals get their weapons? Do you think they have their own factories where they produce and sell them?
No, mostly they are stolen from their owners and then sold, just like it was a VCR.

Banning all handguns means the criminals will have guns and citizens won't, for some time, until the supply of guns starts to run out, and supply and demand will then make the price for guns rise, and guns will be a lot more uncommon in the hands of petty thieves and gangmembers, instead of today, where everyone, including the bums, got one.

If Assault rifles becomes more common among civilians, they will also become a lot more common among the people you don't want using them. Pretty much all gangwars, are gonna turn into full auto assault rifle shootouts...and innocent people caught in the crossfire is gonna die needlessly.

A simple idea would be to require a license to buy and own a gun, that way you can keep a track of them a bit, and then requiring you show this license when buying ammo, should limit down the cheap 12c bullets from Walmart a bit.

[mt-mug]

I own many guns including assult rifels. If you think I couldnt kill as many people with my semi auto 12 gauage as my Ak47 or my SK your out of your mind. People that are crazy and want to kill others will. I dont hunt and just go to the range 1 time a week. Assult rifel bands are foolish, wont accomplish anything. people that want guns will get them in this society. there are to many out there and by making a ban at this time you will just put the assult rifles in the hands of criminals and out of the hands of people that like shooting. Not to mention if you become proficiant with bolt action 30/30 or a M1 or a M44 9which cost 79 bucks at any gun and knife show) you will be as deadly as a guy with a ak467 spraying a croud. I dont hunt because I dont like killing thing but I do like to shoot guns. the time for bands has come and gone, if ya want to have a deterant make laws to punish peole who miss handle guns. IMPRISON thoes who are pulled over with a gun in there car . IMPRISON EVERY PERSON who lets there child get to there gun and shoot somone else or themselves, that is as bad as murder. IMPRISON EVERY FOOL that gets there conceal carry license and walks in a place that sells liquer with the gun on them. IMPRISON EVERY fool who is stoped and has taken a drink of booze. Anyone that knows about shooting firearms will understand outlawing assult rifels will do nothing. Sure a AK47 shoots lots of bullets fast but anyone with some training can kill as efectivly with a shotgun or even by making a bomb. I have 2 kids and many guns all my guns are Locked in a safe with trigger locks on them . If you broke in my house you couldnt get to them.

[Nehcrum]

I own many guns including assult rifels. If you think I couldnt kill as many people with my semi auto 12 gauage as my Ak47 or my SK your out of your mind. People that are crazy and want to kill others will. I dont hunt and just go to the range 1 time a week. Assult rifel bands are foolish, wont accomplish anything. people that want guns will get them in this society. there are to many out there and by making a ban at this time you will just put the assult rifles in the hands of criminals and out of the hands of people that like shooting. Not to mention if you become proficiant with bolt action 30/30 or a M1 or a M44 9which cost 79 bucks at any gun and knife show) you will be as deadly as a guy with a ak467 spraying a croud. I dont hunt because I dont like killing thing but I do like to shoot guns. the time for bands has come and gone, if ya want to have a deterant make laws to punish peole who miss handle guns. IMPRISON thoes who are pulled over with a gun in there car . IMPRISON EVERY PERSON who lets there child get to there gun and shoot somone else or themselves, that is as bad as murder. IMPRISON EVERY FOOL that gets there conceal carry license and walks in a place that sells liquer with the gun on them. IMPRISON EVERY fool who is stoped and has taken a drink of booze. Anyone that knows about shooting firearms will understand outlawing assult rifels will do nothing. Sure a AK47 shoots lots of bullets fast but anyone with some training can kill as efectivly with a shotgun or even by making a bomb. I have 2 kids and many guns all my guns are Locked in a safe with trigger locks on them . If you broke in my house you couldnt get to them.
If you got your guns in a gun safe with triggerlocks on them, I commend you for it.

I, myself, am a shooting enthusiast, and if you are claiming that a AK47 is no more dangerous in a shootout than a bolt-action rifle, then you're just plain stupid. I've fired a lot of weapons (Sweden got mandatory military training) and I got a assault rifle at home...there is a large difference between a semi/full auto rifle and a single-shot one. And there is a large difference between a pistol and a assault rifle.

Assult rifel bands are foolish, wont accomplish anything. people that want guns will get them in this society. there are to many out there and by making a ban at this time you will just put the assult rifles in the hands of criminals and out of the hands of people that like shooting.
Where do you think guns come from? Santa hands them out? I've been over this before in another post, the guns that criminals use come from normal citizen that has bought them legally.
By allowing assault rifles to be bought legally, there will be a lot more of them about and a lot of them will end up in the hands of criminals. If you think they are commonly used by criminals now, you should just wait and see what happens.
Why do you think USA has such a large problem with armed criminals where other countries doesn't? Do you really want the same to apply to assault rifles?

I'm feeling sad for american police...they're gonna be seriously outgunned by criminals, hell, even SWAT is gonna be on equal footing....not a good thing.

If assault rifles should be allowed, then it should be under strict licensing rules. That way they can see who has them, and how they are storing them, implement rules about keeping them, in a gun safe for example.
That way, shooting enthusiasts can still have them, as long as they are keeping proper care of them.
Extend this to any and all firearms, and you might see a change in crime in the USA....in about 50 years or so....

[mt-mug]

I have a AR15 a ak47 and a really nice SKS and i'd take my Semi auto shotgun anyday in a fire fight . I was in the millitary (marine) and shot everything from m16's to 150mm guns and I am telling you there are 100's of hunting rifels I could kill faster and better with then most assult rifels. 30/30 with a scope i could kill all day befor you could even get to me with your ak47 . Close range there is NOTHING more effective than a shotgun. Thoes are fact from someone who has been in a live fire situation. lots of my buddys carried a shotgun with there m16 for close quarters. I am now a Dayton ohio police officer and the trining of SWAT is what gives them the advantage. They work as a team and try to stick themselves in the least amount of danger. As a Officer I know i have all i need with a 9mm and a pump action shotgun and my training. People that want to kill will with or without a assult rifel ban. BTW I am not SWAT but do have some drinks with the SWAT guys from time to time.

[Nehcrum]

I have a AR15 a ak47 and a really nice SKS and i'd take my Semi auto shotgun anyday in a fire fight . I was in the millitary (marine) and shot everything from m16's to 150mm guns and I am telling you there are 100's of hunting rifels I could kill faster and better with then most assult rifels. 30/30 with a scope i could kill all day befor you could even get to me with your ak47 .
Good for you, that means you are a good shot, newsflash, most criminals aren't....
(Additional info just for fun, I got a AK4b, swedish version of the german 7.62mm G3 with a sniper scope...I'm a trained military sharpshooter)
I'm also talking about standard situation with criminals, urban area with distances ranging from 0-100m, not the half-a-mile sniper situation you seem to be refering to (in that situation, I would go with the 150mm gun, or even better, with the tank I had in the army).
Close range there is NOTHING more effective than a shotgun. Thoes are fact from someone who has been in a live fire situation. lots of my buddys carried a shotgun with there m16 for close quarters. I am now a Dayton ohio police officer and the trining of SWAT is what gives them the advantage. They work as a team and try to stick themselves in the least amount of danger. As a Officer I know i have all i need with a 9mm and a pump action shotgun. People that want to kill will with or without a assult rifel ban.
Swat also has to try and only kill the guy with the guns, they rely a lot on stealth and surprise....criminals doesn't, spray and pray is a valid tactic, especially with a ak47 with a 100 round drum magazine.
BTW, I am lumping in semi-auto rifles with assault rifles, maybe wrongly. I assumed the ban was for all semi-auto and full-auto capacity rifles and full-auto firearms.