Enthusiasts Eye Assault Rifles as Ban Nears End

[Gordy 0]

Quote[/b] ]So don't sleep with his wife. It's not worth it, is it?

'Sir, the cause of death was infedility'

Quote[/b] ]a former Police officer and now Military and Police tactical consultant he knows more about this stuff

So we just have to trust his word have no right to ask for these statistics he's referring to? Japan has more crime? UK has more crime?

Those are very different cultures you are talking about. And you should not believe statistics. He questions them too. He enumerates several things that makes this law very useless. Read it carefully.

[Blake 0]

Quote[/b] ]First of all, you know the 'eye-for-an-eye' legal system is the only fair system there is.

Do I? Thanks for telling me that. I'm sure you'd like to live in a society of full personal vendettas. One man gets paralyzed the other one should be also.

Quote[/b] ]There's no reason to think that "assault weapons" should be different.

Let's see...I think I can find some differences between muzzle-loading muskets and AK-47. And I am also capable comprehending that there are some differences between 18th century US and today's.

Quote[/b] ]The ban was a truly dumb decision made from all the wrong reasons and using completely false logic

Tell that to the relatives of victims Washington sniper for instance.

[Gordy 0]

Oh, please.

First of all, you know the 'eye-for-an-eye' legal system is the only fair system there is.

So what if they had muzzle-loading rifles? They were the most effective firearms (not including artillery pieces) at that time, and they still thought the people should have the right to have them. There's no reason to think that "assault weapons" should be different.

Shooting is fun, but not everything that is fun should be illegal. That includes Doom.

The ban was a truly dumb decision made from all the wrong reasons and using completely false logic. Take the mag capacity law for example, it takes less than two seconds to change a magazine. That's less than it takes to fire one well aimed shot.

Quote[/b] ]First of all, you know the 'eye-for-an-eye' legal system is the only fair system there is.

Do I? Thanks for telling me that. I'm sure you'd like to live in a society of full personal vendettas.

Quote[/b] ]There's no reason to think that "assault weapons" should be different.

Let's see...I think I can find some differences between muzzle-loading muskets and AK-47. And I am also capable comprehending that there are some differences between 18th century US and today's.

Quote[/b] ]The ban was a truly dumb decision made from all the wrong reasons and using completely false logic

Tell that to the relatives of victims Washington sniper for instance.

Excuse me, but assault weapon ban doesn't say anything about AKs' or M4s' (washington case). You can buy them right now with no limits.

[Blake 0]

Quote[/b] ]Excuse me, but assault weapon ban doesn't say anything about AKs' or M4s' (washington case). You can buy them right now with no limits.

It doesn't? Well it should. Hopefully they alter it in the future and reinforce it.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]Well, I guess being a former Police officer and now Military and Police tactical consultant he knows more about this stuff than you do.

Why ?

Show me the relevant data he is referring to.

I know no country where the restriction of private weapon ownership led to a rise in crime.

As you defend that point you certainly have info on it. Please post it.

It´s funny that you try to defend your right to have weapons but have no problem when several constitutional changes are made to limit your freedom. Double standard ?

Anyway it´s just a hobby for most of the gun owners....comparable to who has the biggest car, the fastest car...

It´s a man´s thing. Maybe some need to have an ego boost by owning assault rifles cause they think that they are more "male" with them.

I don´t need that. As I said before, I don´t live in Beirut 1975. Do you ?

I don´t need a gun to be a man. If you need a gun to be a man you´re poor.

[Winters 1]

Finally i can get some sleep at night knowing i am safe in the bosom of my AK74. Now i can keep the King of England outta my house. What a world  

[Gordy 0]

Quote[/b] ]Well, I guess being a former Police officer and now Military and Police tactical consultant he knows more about this stuff than you do.

Why ?

Show me the relevant data he is referring to.

I know no country where the restriction of private weapon ownership led to a rise in crime.

As you defend that point you certainly have info on it. Please post it.

It´s funny that you try to defend your right to have weapons but have no problem when several constitutional changes are made to limit your freedom. Double standard ?

Anyway it´s just a hobby for most of the gun owners....comparable to who has the biggest car, the fastest car...

It´s a man´s thing. Maybe some need to have an ego boost by owning assault rifles cause they think that they are more "male" with them.

I don´t need that. As I said before, I don´t live in Beirut 1975. Do you ?

I don´t need a gun to be a man. If you need a gun to be a man you´re poor.

Now, you starting to talk BS. Go for a walk to calm down a bit.

It has nothing to do with a "man thing" or bigger or faster car. It's about the law being reasonably applied. You are talking about assualt weapons but the ban reffers to aspects like collapsible stock, flash hiders or hi-capacity mags or silencers. Those things make a weapon "easy to conceal" therefore dangerous.

All of those things are easily to be purchased anywhere as pre-ban, which are allowed to be sold.

You fighting for sth that is basicaly stupid and serves no regular people, either victims or legitimate gun owners.

[Balschoiw 0]

If you think I´m talking bullshit, it´s your problem. I think I have clearly stated my opinion on private owned assault rifles on the previous pages and I have not only stated it but tried toi explain why I do think so in a logical way. If you can´t follow it...not my problem.

Quote[/b] ]It has nothing to do with a "man thing" or bigger or faster car.

Haha ! Sure...

Ok name me some reasons then. Others that you are allowed to have them. Name me some logical reasons.

Why do you need an assault rifle in the USA today ?

And back on track. Pls answer my question and name me relevant source for the claim you were so defending.

Post source ! In wich country has the crimerate gone up as an effect of weapon regulations.

I´m still waiting.

And what about the changes done to the constitution that actually limited your rights ?

Why didn´t you defend them like you do with the 2nd amendment ?

I want answers, not just blind accusations of being biased wich is bullshit btw as I do have weapons on my own.

[Ares1978 0]

So we just have to trust his word have no right to ask for these statistics he's referring to? Japan has more crime? UK has more crime?

Don't mix cause and effect. High crime rates motivate people to get weapons for self defence.

If you ban guns and crime rates start to rise dramatically, what does that tell you about the effect of that ban? That it works as it should, or that it is a complete failure?

[Schoeler 0]

...

Now, given that we have firearms to protect ourselves from tyranny and today's tryanny is enforced at the end of the barrel of an automatic weapon or assault rifle, would it not make sense under the current laws of our nation that the citizens be equally well equipped should that power fall into the wrong hands or be used for the wrong purposes?

If you argue otherwise, I would like to hear a credible reason backed by historical fact and the letter of the law as read in the Constitution.  Save your breath though, you won't find one.

...

You might kindly ask your government to lift the ban against Stingers, AT4s  and explosive devices as well. You know, today you wouldn't face just infantry, cavalry and some cannons, but tanks and choppers...

That ammendment might have been appropriate for its time, but today it is just a silly excuse. You won't be able to overthrow an US tyranny backed by its military with some assault rifles.

One last thing - tyrannies are not enforced at the end of the barrel of an assault rifle. Far more, they are enforced by fear, distrust, collaboration and denunciation, controlled by elements ala Gestapo and Securitate...

Is today's political situation in the U.S. so far removed from tyranny?

The 2000 election

The Patriot Act

Unreliable news media

Deepening divide between the American people

Go tell the Iraqi insurgency they can't defeat a modern military power with IED's and a few assault rifles. I'd say they are soundly thrashing your argument.

[Schoeler 0]

Quote[/b] ]First of all, you know the 'eye-for-an-eye' legal system is the only fair system there is.

Do I? Thanks for telling me that. I'm sure you'd like to live in a society of full personal vendettas. One man gets paralyzed the other one should be also.

Quote[/b] ]There's no reason to think that "assault weapons" should be different.

Let's see...I think I can find some differences between muzzle-loading muskets and AK-47. And I am also capable comprehending that there are some differences between 18th century US and today's.

Quote[/b] ]The ban was a truly dumb decision made from all the wrong reasons and using completely false logic

Tell that to the relatives of victims Washington sniper for instance.

You are missing the point. Muzzle loading muskets represented the optimum in military technology at the time the founders allowed citizens to have them. They were the revolutionary era equivalent of assault rifles.

[Ares1978 0]

Do I? Thanks for telling me that.

You're welcome.

Quote[/b] ]I'm sure you'd like to live in a society of full personal vendettas. One man gets paralyzed the other one should be also.

That's what justice is all about.

Quote[/b] ]Let's see...I think I can find some differences between muzzle-loading muskets and AK-47. And I am also capable comprehending that there are some differences between 18th century US and today's.

Sure you are. You can stare yourself blind on irrelevant technical differences on the weapons, but you are still ignoring the similarities in their status as weapons and the purpose of the right to keep and bear arms.

Quote[/b] ]Tell that to the relatives of victims Washington sniper for instance.

How about you telling them how well the ban worked. I bet they are grateful that the wisely made law worked so well in preventing their relatives from being shot. Oh, wait. It didn't.

[Skewballzz 0]

...

Now, given that we have firearms to protect ourselves from tyranny and today's tryanny is enforced at the end of the barrel of an automatic weapon or assault rifle, would it not make sense under the current laws of our nation that the citizens be equally well equipped should that power fall into the wrong hands or be used for the wrong purposes?

If you argue otherwise, I would like to hear a credible reason backed by historical fact and the letter of the law as read in the Constitution.  Save your breath though, you won't find one.

...

You might kindly ask your government to lift the ban against Stingers, AT4s  and explosive devices as well. You know, today you wouldn't face just infantry, cavalry and some cannons, but tanks and choppers...

That ammendment might have been appropriate for its time, but today it is just a silly excuse. You won't be able to overthrow an US tyranny backed by its military with some assault rifles.

One last thing - tyrannies are not enforced at the end of the barrel of an assault rifle. Far more, they are enforced by fear, distrust, collaboration and denunciation, controlled by elements ala Gestapo and Securitate...

Is today's political situation in the U.S. so far removed from tyranny?

The 2000 election

The Patriot Act

Unreliable news media

Deepening divide between the American people

Go tell the Iraqi insurgency they can't defeat a modern military power with IED's and a few assault rifles.  I'd say they are soundly thrashing your argument.

Agree.

Anyone else ever look at the books? LESS than 1% of all gun crimes are committed (in the US atleast) with an "Assault Rifle".

If this ban stays, I propose a new ban on hard car bumpers. Ever bumper needs atleast 3ft of soft padding. That way people are less likely to be killed by them. Ha.

Will someone tell me how having a telescopic stock makes me a killer? So what if I prefer to have a stock that I can adjust to fit my body? Should I spend $4000 on a custom Springfield armory firearm so it fits me?

guns dont kill people, people kill people.

[DracoPaladore 0]

So what if they had muzzle-loading rifles? They were the most effective firearms (not including artillery pieces) at that time, and they still thought the people should have the right to have them. There's no reason to think that "assault weapons" should be different.

At that time, the Canada was still considered a British colony and had British soldiers within it. If I remember, the right to own a fire arm was to protect your home if the British were coming.

What are you defending yourself from now?

Handguns and shotguns, I'm fine with. But a person able to own an assault rifle is scary. It'd be pretty nasty if Bob at the office didn't get his pay raise.

[Ares1978 0]

Handguns and shotguns, I'm fine with. But a person able to own an assault rifle is scary. It'd be pretty nasty if Bob at the office didn't get his pay raise.

Are you talking about assault rifles or "assault weapons"? The two are not one and the same.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapons

[Skewballzz 0]

So what if they had muzzle-loading rifles? They were the most effective firearms (not including artillery pieces) at that time, and they still thought the people should have the right to have them. There's no reason to think that "assault weapons" should be different.

At that time, the Canada was still considered a British colony and had British soldiers within it. If I remember, the right to own a fire arm was to protect your home if the British were coming.

What are you defending yourself from now?

Handguns and shotguns, I'm fine with. But a person able to own an assault rifle is scary. It'd be pretty nasty if Bob at the office didn't get his pay raise.

I'm begining to think that most people here dont realize what we mean when we say assualt rife. Even without the ban, they are plain SEMI-AUTOMATIC guns. They just have the option of pistol grips, flash supressors, bayonet lugs, telescopic stocks, and magazines over 10 rounds. How does that make it any more lethal? Ohhhh, I can mount a bayonet on the front so I can stab you... now would that go to the stabbing stats or assault rifle stats?

In other words, this ban isnt about a full-auto G36 with a grenade launcher under it. Its about normal semi auto rifle that had COSMETIC restrictions. Aparently, if it didnt look like an "assault rife" it must not be as lethal.

[Gordy 0]

If you think I´m talking bullshit, it´s your problem. I think I have clearly stated my opinion on private owned assault rifles on the previous pages and I have not only stated it but tried toi explain why I do think so in a logical way. If you can´t follow it...not my problem.

Quote[/b] ]It has nothing to do with a "man thing" or bigger or faster car.

Haha ! Sure...

Ok name me some reasons then. Others that you are allowed to have them. Name me some logical reasons.

Why do you need an assault rifle in the USA today ?

And back on track. Pls answer my question and name me relevant source for the claim you were so defending.

Post source ! In wich country has the crimerate gone up as an effect of weapon regulations.

I´m still waiting.

And what about the changes done to the constitution that actually limited your rights ?

Why didn´t you defend them like you do with the 2nd amendment ?

I want answers, not just blind accusations of being biased wich is bullshit btw as I do have weapons on my own.

Ok, mr "man-thing". How do you explain women in the issue then? "men-thing" again? Or "women-thing"?

And what other countries you want me to compare US to? There is no other of such characteristics and history.

As far as I know there were no changes made to my countries' constitution.

[DracoPaladore 0]

Doh. I thought it read assault rifles.

[denoir 0]

It's not an entirely trivial question. The guns themselves are not a problem. There are for instance several gun-dense countries in Europe that have low murder rates.

It has a lot to do with how culturally acceptable it is to shoot at other people. I'll try to clarify that a bit - for instance we have a lot of guns in Sweden (hunting is fairly popular), but it is not seen as acceptable to have a gun for some kind of self-protection. Actually it's more or less againt the law (you can only buy a gun for sport shooting or hunting). If you say that you want a gun for self-protection, people will see you as a dangerous paranoid lunatic.

In America, the primary problem is crime. It's not gun ownership. Loading up on weapons is however not a solution for fighting crime - it's treating they symptoms rather than the real problem (which is in America's case on a fundamental social level). The gun availability doesn't make it worse - it's the accepted type of usage that does that. If you are a criminal robbing a house where you can expect people to be armed and willing to shoot you, you'll make sure that you shoot first and ask questions later. Defending your material property by shooting other people is seen as acceptable - and the criminals adapt accordingly.

It works both ways. In Sweden for instance a human life takes always precedence over material property. We don't have armed security guards in banks because it is considered worse to shoot a robber than to let him grab some cash. Good police work will assure that the robber gets caught afterwards anyway.

In turn the robber won't shoot up the bank when he robs it. There is no need to hurt anybody. And as the by far most common type of crime in the world is property related (i.e stealing, robbing etc), this removes a lot of violence. The other core violent crimes (when the criminal's primary goal is hurting somebody) are relatively rare. A criminal will take the least path of resistance and will generally put in a minimum of effort to achieve his goal (i.e stealing or robbing). If people won't shoot at him, there's little reason for him to shoot at people.

In America you have a nasty cricle of hysteria. People are scared (most times irrationally) of getting hurt by criminals, so they load up on weapons. Criminals in turn load up with weapons to meet the opposition. There is a lot of hysteria and fear springing from social and racial segregation. And people that afraid and trigger happy should not have guns. It can only make things worse.

A second thing that I think is very important is proper gun training and focus on safety. Nobody should be able to get a gun over the counter. The same way as you need a driver's license, you should need a gun license. With a gun comes responsibility and you should be forced to show that you can operate a gun safely. Time-locked gun safes should be mandatory - to prevent children from blowing their brains out and to make it more difficult to get a gun by breaking into somebody's home.

Bottom line on the assault rifle ban: About 80% of the illegal guns in the US are stolen former legal guns. I'm sure there are lots of criminals looking forward to the end of the ban. And while it can be fun to shoot an assault rifle, the overall impact has to be considered. Personally, I don't think it will make too much difference. It is the regualr handguns that people keep in their night drawer that are the probelmatic ones. Their volume is far more larger than the assault rifles.

[DracoPaladore 0]

So what if they had muzzle-loading rifles? They were the most effective firearms (not including artillery pieces) at that time, and they still thought the people should have the right to have them. There's no reason to think that "assault weapons" should be different.

At that time, the Canada was still considered a British colony and had British soldiers within it. If I remember, the right to own a fire arm was to protect your home if the British were coming.

What are you defending yourself from now?

Handguns and shotguns, I'm fine with. But a person able to own an assault rifle is scary. It'd be pretty nasty if Bob at the office didn't get his pay raise.

I'm begining to think that most people here dont realize what we mean when we say assualt rife.   Even without the ban, they are plain SEMI-AUTOMATIC guns.  They just have the option of pistol grips, flash supressors, bayonet lugs, telescopic stocks, and magazines over 10 rounds.  How does that make it any more lethal?  Ohhhh, I can mount a bayonet on the front so I can stab you... now would that go to the stabbing stats or assault rifle stats?  

In other words, this ban isnt about a full-auto G36 with a grenade launcher under it.  Its about normal semi auto rifle that had COSMETIC restrictions.  Aparently, if it didnt look like an "assault rife" it must not be as lethal.

Semi automatic or not, flash supressor or not, bayonet or not, its still more lethal than a small pistol you keep in the drawer or the shotgun in your shed for hunting. Just because everyone has one, it does not mean another won't use it. I wasn't referring to a fully automatic G36 either. Bolt action(old rifles, Lee Enfields, newer ones even), semi automatic(SKS? G43? Garand?), or fully automatic(name one), the rounds are bigger and the weapon is overall more dangerous.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]Ok, mr "man-thing". How do you explain women in the issue then?

Do women shoot or own assault rifles in relevant numbers ?

Source pls.

And the "man thing" you are calling me just shows me that I was right about it

Quote[/b] ]And what other countries you want me to compare US to?

I never asked you to compare your country to any other. I asked you to give us a source for the risen crime in countries that restrict weapon access. It´s the third time now, that I ask for it. Either you can come up with it or you failed to prove the claim. Easy as that.

You brought up the thing , now prove it.

Quote[/b] ]As far as I know there were no changes made to my countries' constitution.

No ? Maybe your brain will get a kickstart when you switch back a few pages....

Quote[/b] ]If you ban guns and crime rates start to rise dramatically, what does that tell you about the effect of that ban?

Source ? Proof ? Hot air ?

[Ares1978 0]

Semi automatic or not, flash supressor or not, bayonet or not, its still more lethal than a small pistol you keep in the drawer or the shotgun in your shed for hunting. Just because everyone has one, it does not mean another won't use it. I wasn't referring to a fully automatic G36 either. Bolt action(old rifles, Lee Enfields, newer ones even), semi automatic(SKS? G43? Garand?), or fully automatic(name one), the rounds are bigger and the weapon is overall more dangerous.

At ranges less than 50 meters, a handgun is more effective and easier to conceal. In other words, a semi-automatic rifle in any caliber is less "dangerous".

And nothing prevents you from getting a gun safe.

[Blake 0]

Quote[/b] ]How about you telling them how well the ban worked. I bet they are grateful that the wisely made law worked so well in preventing their relatives from being shot. Oh, wait. It didn't.

How about fixing the laws that they'd work and actually prevent such tragedies.

Quote[/b] ]purpose of the right to keep and bear arms

Yeah and the relevant purpose to own weapons has all but ceased since 18th century. What I was implying had they seen the purpose of today's gun ownership they never would have approved or had they realized how effective modern weapons are in killing people. One man with a musket can hardly cause a massacre.

People defending against 'possible rise of tyranny' is quite pathetic fantasy excuse.

Humans are affected by their personal tragedies and with easy access to guns that misery is easy to spread on innocents.

[Skewballzz 0]

Right now I own an Ithica Armory 300 winchester magnum, Benelli Tactical 12gauge and a Glock 19. Please tell me what makes them more lethal than an "assault rife"

A 300 winmag is an elephant gun. I use it to hunt bear in canada. It is more powerfull the a 5.56 round. It is bolt action, but I can clear the chamber quick. Its impractical to use it on an object at close quarters.

Glock 19 - used for small game and sometimes deer. Its semi-auto. Probably the most dangerous gun I own due to the fact it is small yet does the dammage. On the other hand, I wouldnt be here if I used it on a bear. It would be like shooting a cugar with a BB gun.

Shotgun - Deer hunting. Works great. Pump-action, yet by the time I recover from the recoil its already "pumped". More lethal then a semi? Nope. Just as much. Would I use this on a Fox? Hell no. Id have fur and bones to pick up.

The point I am trying to get at is that each gun has a purpose. Assault rifles (atleast the ones the US government classifys as one) are in essance the best designed hunting rifles. They fit to your body well, are accurate and if ur a bad shot ur can hit a running deer due to the semi-auto. Now tell me that by owning one will make me kill people. I already have a gun for whatever situation. If I ever wanted to kill someone, I could. It just proves that they are no different than other guns.

[Gordy 0]

Quote[/b] ]Ok, mr "man-thing". How do you explain women in the issue then?

Do women shoot or own assault rifles in relevant numbers ?

Source pls.

And the "man thing" you are calling me just shows me that I was right about it  

Quote[/b] ]And what other countries you want me to compare US to?

I never asked you to compare your country to any other. I asked you to give us a source for the risen crime in countries that restrict weapon access. It´s the third time now, that I ask for it. Either you can come up with it or you failed to prove the claim. Easy as that.

You brought up the thing , now prove it.

Quote[/b] ]As far as I know there were no changes made to my countries' constitution.

No ? Maybe your brain will get a kickstart when you switch back a few pages....

Quote[/b] ]If you ban guns and crime rates start to rise dramatically, what does that tell you about the effect of that ban?

Source ? Proof ? Hot air ?

Now you are insulting me. That is normal for Germans.

No amandments were made for Polish constitution. Is it clear now?

I never said anything about crime statistics going up after the ban. I quoted a specialist on the matter (BTW he compared states within US). He is the one who has to defend his rights, because they are not mine. I agree with one thing he says: If the law is stupid, it should be withdrawn. The ban was brought up by Politics who want to please the voters.

I completely disagree with people who say: "ban this or that". That is the simplest way to clear consciense for people like you.

US is a country of over 200 years of a gun. There is no possible way of changing that with one simple BAN.

And quit this insulting tone of yours, this is supposed to be a discussion not a bitching contest.