Enthusiasts Eye Assault Rifles as Ban Nears End

[ericz 0]

Quote[/b] ]If an oppresive governement ever manages to take root in the USA, it will have the support of probably 70-80% of the people (initially).

It may take a smaller percentage figure to accomplish that given not all registered voters vote.

Quote[/b] ]Silly example (very silly indeed) :

Bush comes in for second term, Bush sets up phone taps and extra registrations for all muslims in the USA, because they are a terrorist risk. Imam's get screened, and forbidden to speak if their views are considered "fundamentalist".

The mill of propaganda does its turns, 70% of the people swallow it since they're still oh-so scared of terrorists. Muslims are pissed off naturally, but what can they do? Take up their weapons against the governement? As a minority? I'm sorry, I don't think so.

Some already have (9/11) except in their case the weapon of choice was a civilian jet and none of the restrictions with the exception of the prohibition of raising support for organizations on a target "terrorist organizations list" were in place.

But speaking of silly examples, I'll offer one of my own. I will preface it by saying that this in no way is meant as a threat to you personally.

Lets say that in 2012 after 12 years of constant war and bloodshed due in part to the U.S.A practice of pre-emptive strike (which has somehow survived 3 more administrations)which has taken it to Iran, Syria and North Korea with no end in sight has finally worn on the "people" of the U.S.A. This has created an environment which you (having graduated with an advance degree in governance) and a group of like minded academics and intellectuals find conducive to promote your idealogy and start a movement.

The movement is a combination of repackaged communist idealogy and populist initiatives which resonates with the majority of the voters. They see it as a humanistic and community minded approach and are tired of the old system. With the backing of some of the sympathetic oligarchs (those that will benefit by your new government) you and your party are swept to victory and you busily go about implementing changes.

1) You nationalize the police forces. 2) You outlaw private ownership of firearms. 3) You do away with the U.S Constitution or at least parts of it explaining through your now prodigious propaganda machine that it is a outdated document and that we must look to the future and not to the past.

The first measure you explain as simply a function of centralizing police authority which will standardize it and make if fairer across the board for citizens.

The second is just a matter of safety. Besides with the new expanded police forces and harsher penalties for criminals, self-defense through firearms is obsolete. Hunting is outlawed as a new national vegeterian movement and groups against animal cruelty have gained strong political power in your new government. Sport shooting is allowed, again only by government sanctioned shooters and in government sanctioned events.

Of course their is strong resistance to your measures by a large minority. Granted this minority is disjointed, but it does contain quite a few vocal as well as radical groups. Many did not turn in their weapons and hid them instead.

Knowing this and based on studies done at your request you estimate that fully 20% of the opposition is armed and potentially dangerous to your fledgling government. You redouble the efforts of your propaganda machine and broaden the authority of your national police forces in an effort to eliminate the threat and jail dissenters.

Seeing this in the wind, one lone individual decides that your government is a perversion of every principle the U.S. was founded on and takes it upon himself to stand against it. Knowing that he doesn't have the power to unite the minority against the government and knowing that he cannot compete with your propaganda machine he decides on another solution. He takes his scoped hunting rifle that he purchased when it was legal to own firearms and he plans out your assasination. One fine morning as you give a speech in a university in his hometown, a shot rings out and the back of your head explodes in a shower of pink and red. Your dreams and aspirations die with you for about the cost of 30 cents.

With the head ( literally and figurativley) gone your party is thrown into disarray amid squabbling (maybe). The event at very least underlines the new governments frailty and encourages a large element of the minority to organize. On the otherhand fearing further outbursts of violence against itself the new government brings on even more draconian measures which earns it disfavor with the majority as well and creates a generalized resistance.

In either case one bullet and a rifle destroyed your tyrannical regime or at very least the founder.

Keep in mind, that it was the assasination of Archduke Francis Ferdinand of Austria-Hungry which precipated the start of WWI, or at least served as the pretext for it.

That power of private gun ownership should not be underestimated.

[sputnik monroe 102]

I would also like top point out, the ride of Paul Revere and the battles of Concord and Lexington were set into motion when the British government decided to seize weapons and ammo from the colonist.

[denoir 0]

I think that a heavily armed population can have an impact in for instace the case of a foreign invasion. You can see what kind of problems it created for the occupation in Iraq. Mind you though that it did not thwart the occupation and the resistance there are armed with military grade weapons (RPGs, mortars, explosives etc).

For domestic situations, such as revolutions, it is much less likely that it would have an impact. Such events usually have a broad popular base of support. If you own an array of weapons, chances are your neighbours will point this out to the authorities.

Bottom line is that any civilized government operates on the principle of providing support and restrictions for the common good. And the common good (or what is percieved as the common good) takes preference over individual liberties. Anything else is anarhcy.

And there are far more strange restrictions. It's funny how the right-wingers always go through the roof when you mention guns and start citing how it is their god-given  individual right - that the government should not tell individuals what to do. And yet, you'll find that the same people don't have any problems with criminalizing drugs, same-sex marriages etc - things that really only concern the individual.

My position on this is that for issues that have broader social impacts and things that affect other peopele in society, a decision on them has to be made by the society as a whole. Your individual rights are sacred as long as they do not in practice infringe on the individual rights on other people. At that point everybody should be consulted on what should be legal or not. Point being that it is not for some individuals to declare it as a human right - as it does affect other people.

All propaganda set aside, it is undisputable that there is a causal relationship between the easy access to firearms and gun related violence. If both the criminals and their victims are armed, there is no way of avoiding a shootout - and people will get killed.

That does not however mean that there must be a ban on private ownership of weapons. It just means that it is a social issue that has to be discussed as one. It is fully your right to democratically decide that the fun of having a gun is more worth than the lives it costs.

It's nothing unusual. Millions of people die in car accidents every year in the world. We do not however seek to ban cars as we see the car related deaths as a small price to pay to the benefits we get by using cars.

[ericz 0]

Denoir

Quote[/b] ]And there are far more strange restrictions. It's funny how the right-wingers always go through the roof when you mention guns and start citing how it is their god-given  individual right - that the government should not tell individuals what to do. And yet, you'll find that the same people don't have any problems with criminalizing drugs, same-sex marriages etc - things that really only concern the individual.

My position on this is that for issues that have broader social impacts and things that affect other peopele in society, a decision on them has to be made by the society as a whole. Your individual rights are sacred as long as they do not in practice infringe on the individual rights on other people. At that point everybody should be consulted on what should be legal or not. Point being that it is not for some individuals to declare it as a human right - as it does affect other people.

While I am not sure what a "human right" or a "god given individual right" is and I doubt that anyone would be able to provide me with a concrete example of one, I will say that all the all the above issues have a potential to impact society as a whole.  

Drug use in particular, far from being a victimless crime has the potential to and has generated wasted lives, murder, corruption, destroyed families and cost untold amounts(rehab, jails, counseling, etc).  There is much more available data proving connections between drug abuse and criminal behavior than there is between gun ownership and criminal behavior.

Quote[/b] ]All propaganda set aside, it is undisputable that there is a causal relationship between the easy access to firearms and gun related violence.

If one person were going to kill another and had a firearm handy it would make sense to use it instead of say a knife, a bat or even a car.   I wouldn't dispute that.  It would be interesting to find out what percentage of murders by firearms are made by legal gun owners as opposed to those made by criminals with stolen firearms.

Quote[/b] ]If both the criminals and their victims are armed, there is no way of avoiding a shootout - and people will get killed.

If the criminal dies, ce' la vie.

[blackdog~ 0]

RE: 8 children a day die in murders, suicides and accidents involving guns

Children? OH PLEASE! Most "children" (aka teenagers+) who are killed in murders and suicides are involved in gangs and bad cliques.

Accidents: the parent's fault.

<span style='font-size:10pt;line-height:100%'>I like how everyone ignored how the democrats want and wanted to take all former Department of Defense property including historical planes owned by private citizens, all military jeeps, trucks, tanks (WWII - Current) which are actively used in parades celebrating our glorious country - which all of you so loathingly hate - and putting them on the chopping block. Including all military guns, which means historic (WWII) guns converted to blanks, semiauto thompsons, which are also commonly used in military-aimed events.</span>

Then again, it's understandable why all of the Europeans here would not mind <span style='font-size:15pt;line-height:100%'>MY</span> rights as a US citizen taken away.

"Kind regards" blackdog

[Schoeler 0]

RE: 8 children a day die in murders, suicides and accidents involving guns

Children? OH PLEASE! Most "children" (aka teenagers+) who are killed in murders and suicides are involved in gangs and bad cliques.

Accidents: the parent's fault.

<span style='font-size:10pt;line-height:100%'>I like how everyone ignored how the democrats want and wanted to take all former Department of Defense property including historical planes owned by private citizens, all military jeeps, trucks, tanks (WWII - Current) which are actively used in parades celebrating our glorious country - which all of you so loathingly hate - and putting them on the chopping block. Including all military guns, which means historic (WWII) guns converted to blanks, semiauto thompsons, which are also commonly used in military-aimed events.</span>

Then again, it's understandable why all of the Europeans here would not mind <span style='font-size:15pt;line-height:100%'>MY</span> rights as a US citizen taken away.

"Kind regards" blackdog

I consider this a pretty ignorant statement considering I'm a Democrat and have argued quite persuasively here in support of the end of the ban and the 2nd Amendment.

Do you make ignorant generalizations about whole classes of people with respect to race, sexual orientation and economic status too, or do you save that for politics only?

[blackdog~ 0]

I consider this a pretty ignorant statement considering I'm a Democrat and have argued quite persuasively here in support of the end of the ban and the 2nd Amendment.

Do you make ignorant generalizations about whole classes of people with respect to race, sexual orientation and economic status too, or do you save that for politics only?

1: Not a generalization. Only democrat senators voted for it. Did I say YOU voted against it? I guess YOUR leaders aren't supposed to withold YOUR values anymore I guess. ;-)

2: All the Europeans who posted in this thread that I can see are against this ban, unless I didn't notice someone.

[miss_cleo 0]

ok.. i wish i surfed the OT thread more often, as i certainly have an opinion on this one.

I am a gun owner. Contrary to popular belief, not all gun owners are crazy rednecks.

the assault weapons ban bans certain cosmetic feature of certain weapons, pistol grips, flash hiders, bayonet lugs and folding stocks, none of which contribute to the lethality of a weapon.

the ban prevents the manufacture of magazine of over 10 round capacity. It is perfectly legal to own import and use high capacity magazines manufactured before the date of the ban.

Most of the weapons on the ban list are still available in the US in a slighty different form, IE thumbhole stock instead of pistol grip.

Alot of people seem to think that ARs are super powerful weapons. The fact is that most hunting rifles are far more powerful than assault rifles. In the US the most common hunting rifle round is the 30.06(approximately equivilant to 7.62 NATO or 7.62x54R). Compare the muzzle velocity ,range and penetration of that to 7.62x39 or 5.56 NATO and youll see that Hunting ammo is generally much more powerful.

Less than 1% of gun crimes in the US are commited w/ assault weapons. Most happen w/ small calibur pistols or hunting type weapons. You are far more likely to be killed in a car accident or in a pool or bicycle mishap than shot.

furthermore, most statistics of gun deaths include accidental deaths, suicides and sometimes even people killed by the police or legitimately in self defence. Im sorry but im not going to cry over someone who kills themself or is too stupid to unload before cleaning their gun, that falls under the category of natural selection.

I will agree that the US has a problem w/ violent crime, but i would rather see effort expended trying to fix the root causes of crime rather than trying to treat the symptoms. As far as our crime compared w/ other countries there are considerations such as culture and the size of the population to take into account. Japan has a low gun crime rate? Well they have a low rate of any type of crime.. i think it has more to do w/ the culture than the availability of weapons. Lets see a comparison of Japans suicide rate compared to other countries. England has banned guns for the most part, yet Englands crime rate is on the rise. Most of the guns now in the hands of criminals there are being smuggled in from eastern europe. So criminals have fully automatic AK47s but sport shooting clubs have can no longer have handguns? The general trend towards rediculousness in Merry Old has led to several people being prosicuted for trying to defend themselves.

Banning inanimate objects has and will never solve any problem. Some one earlier mentioned that gun owners are against legalizing drugs and gay marriage. Not me. I support both. I am Drug Free but i realize the hopelessness of trying to regulate against somethinglike that. Prohibition has been tried before.

[Drill Sergeant 0]

I agree with Miss Cleo Here.

Also this ban is the one which made HK stop import.

Which is why I'm paying 2.5k for a HK91.

Most crimes are commited with a .22 revolver or

.38 special as apposed to the "Automatic" Hanguns.

The reason being "Smart" Criminals will use something

with less bark so they have a beter chance of getting

away. Also with the fact a revolver is cheaper and thus

"Disposeable" As apposed to a .9mm auto.

The deadly furry criters are all gone right?

WRONG. Come up here to Michigan and take

a walk-see in a farmers field or down

a dirt road or forrest track in the morning

or later at night, you'll see an asortment.

It's beter to have it and not need it then to need

it and not have it. Trust me to buy a gun in the

US already you have to jump hoops, to get a handgun

(The ones primarily used in crimes) you really have to

jump hoops. To CCW any fire arm your back checked by

the FBI. It's not so much who can buy a gun, as much

as what type. Truly I'd be a little more afrade of some one

with a .22 bolt action and a scope then some one

with a romanian Import.

The reasom being some one with a .22 bolt match would

be, #1 Quiter, less report harder to spot, #2 Will have

practiced with it and be much more deadly, #3 Will have

distance I can't run to dissarm them.

Then again, It may come of and it may stay on.

*edit spelling*

[ralphwiggum 6]

Also with the fact a revolver is cheaper and thus

"Disposeable" As apposed to a .9mm auto.

first time i saw this mistake was with CNN.

1: Not a generalization. Only democrat senators voted for it. Did I say YOU voted against it? I guess YOUR leaders aren't supposed to withold YOUR values anymore I guess. ;-)

some Republicans also voted for AWB.

[Drill Sergeant 0]

Also with the fact a revolver is cheaper and thus

"Disposeable" As apposed to a .9mm auto.

first time i saw this mistake was with CNN.

Very interesting because I'm posting it as I rember from a

police magazine. Odd isn't it?  

*edit*

A good book to read is "Silent Killers" a book written in the

70's by a expert on scilencers. .22 is the preferred caliber

of hitmen. The book "Sniper" is also prety good, has allot

of information on the origin of the gun and some deadly

instances.

[Frisbee 0]

...The second is just a matter of safety. Besides with the new expanded police forces and harsher penalties for criminals, self-defense through firearms is obsolete. Hunting is outlawed as a new national vegeterian movement and groups against animal cruelty have gained strong political power in your new government. Sport shooting is allowed, again only by government ...

I like your example, it's pretty much which policy I'd want any country to adopt as gun policy. Very nicely put.

The part in bold replaced by : governement sanctioned hunters to keep wildlife numbers down if necessary.

Gun ownership is a very important force, as history has proven time and time again.

Personally I can only see the bad things that happen when a disgruntled minority member can use something as barbaric as murder to enforce his opinion.

Case in point : Pim Fortuyn, fairly well known dutch right-winger, now deceased. I was no fan of the man, but if he can sway the vote of the majority he should at least get an honest chance to govern.

Seriously, when every guy who could possibly disagree with the governement has access to weapons, I'd never go into politics. Why would you, if you can't make any change without being afraid of being shot by some idiot whose toes you stepped on?

Sure, you could hide behind a huge barricade of security people, but that doesn't help much.

Hunting => governement appointed, registered hunters.

Shooting for fun? => Shooting ranges, registered guns, don't leave the shooting range.

Perhaps the self protection argument is more valid in the US, with larger area's for police to cover and such, I don't agree that you can protect yourself with guns, but I'll give it the benefit of the doubt.

Thank you for putting the other side of the argument a bit into perspective for me.

[Blake 0]

Quote[/b] ] I am a gun owner. Contrary to popular belief, not all gun owners are crazy rednecks.

the assault weapons ban bans certain cosmetic feature of certain weapons, pistol grips, flash hiders, bayonet lugs and folding stocks, none of which contribute to the lethality of a weapon.

Nobody's calling gun-owners crazy rednecks or I'd had to call many people I know well with that word.  The assault weapon ban is ridiculous, especially when you can use so called old hi-cap mags. Who's going to inspect them anyways. There should be a more efficient law but as the gun lobby is so powerful such law is unlikely to go through or it will be watered down with similiar gimmicks.

Quote[/b] ]The fact is that most hunting rifles are far more powerful than assault rifles. In the US the most common hunting rifle round is the 30.06(approximately equivilant to 7.62 NATO or 7.62x54R). Compare the muzzle velocity ,range and penetration of that to 7.62x39 or 5.56 NATO and youll see that Hunting ammo is generally much more powerful.

Of course hunting rifle ammo has to be powerful enough to kill the prey. But you are totally avoiding the issues such as rate of fire and magazine capacity. Murderers rarely care about muzzle velocities and stuff. The Washington Sniper case proved that 5.56mm round is lethal enough contrary to some 'experts'. 10 out of 13 died with a single shot.

Quote[/b] ]Less than 1% of gun crimes in the US are commited w/ assault weapons. Most happen w/ small calibur pistols or hunting type weapons. You are far more likely to be killed in a car accident or in a pool or bicycle mishap than shot.

Naturally because assault rifles are more rare than other weapons, that's perfectly clear.

But that doesn't take away their lethality. I have nothing against hunting weapons if you pass hunting tests etc. but people buying assault rifles for home defence of 'fun' purposes should be illegal. Cars are for moving around, how about guns? shooting?

Quote[/b] ]furthermore, most statistics of gun deaths include accidental deaths, suicides and sometimes even people killed by the police or legitimately in self defence. Im sorry but im not going to cry over someone who kills themself or is too stupid to unload before cleaning their gun, that falls under the category of natural selection.

Yeah, but why did the police have to shoot in self defence? Because the felon had a gun and there are lots of guns available. Those people falling under this 'natural selection' includes kids too. Wheter you are stupid or not, accidents occur and it's pretty raw to call just natural selection. Many parents must regret the day the brought a gun to the house.

Quote[/b] ]i would rather see effort expended trying to fix the root causes of crime rather than trying to treat the symptoms

Yes of course, but the question here is not just about criminals, it's also about normal people resorting to the gun in a tragic life situation that has fallen on them. Guns are easy way out, just squeeze trigger and that bastard boss of your is no more.

Quote[/b] ]England has banned guns for the most part, yet Englands crime rate is on the rise. Most of the guns now in the hands of criminals there are being smuggled in from eastern europe. So criminals have fully automatic AK47s but sport shooting clubs have can no longer have handguns?

It would be polite to put up a source for English crime rate and a proof on claim that it would have anything to do with lack of guns? And could you also provide link or quote on claim that most guns in criminal hands are smuggled from eastern europe? What do sports clubs and criminals with AK47s have to do each other have to do with each other - are you going to stop them? Isn't there SWAT or police there to deal with them?

[DanAK47 1]

I see that most of the support for the ban here is based on fear, not on facts. You are going on the principle that "someone could mow down a lot of children".

I do not think gun control should be a federal matter.

Remember Charles Whitman, the Texas tower sniper?

He used a hunting rifle.

What about Lee Harvey Oswald? Not an assault weapon either.

[Blake 0]

Quote[/b] ]I see that most of the support for the ban here is based on fear, not on facts. You are going on the principle that "someone could mow down a lot of children".

Fear? How about the fact that assault rifle is just about the most effective weapon there is available. Just look at North Hollywood shootout for example, they pinned down dozens of cops and by pure luck nobody of the victims was killed. Tell me that's not the fact that they had superior firepower?

You talk about fear, I talk about common sense.

Quote[/b] ]I do not think gun control should be a federal matter.

Exaclty why not?

Quote[/b] ]Remember Charles Whitman, the Texas tower sniper?

He used a hunting rifle.

What about Lee Harvey Oswald? Not an assault weapon either.

How about if they had scoped M14s? Certainly more deaths.

The fact that Lee Harvey oswald used bolt-action rifle with expert marksmanship doesn't in anyway blur the fact that assault rifle is potentially more devastating weapon than bolt-action rifle otherwise military would not have adopted it or are you disputing this fact?

[DanAK47 1]

Quote[/b] ]Just look at North Hollywood shootout for example,

As I said before these were illegal for them (PRIOR FELONS) to own. Thank the CA Justice system.

Gun control should be controlled by the states.

How do you know a scoped M14 would cause more deaths? That is an assumption. Maybe because he used a bolt action rifle, he took more care with each shot.

Now, lets assume assault weapons are banned. How will people react?

Law abiding citizen Bob will probably turn his assault weapon in. His investment will not be returned. The price of other weapons will go up. Supply and demand.

Joe on the other hand doesn't care about the law. He will keep his assault weapon. Nobody will come around to take it from him, so it won't matter.

Your arguments about the merits of assault weapons could be morally correct. But that is irrelevant. Gun control does not take guns out of the hands of criminals. If you can't trust someone with a gun, why do you trust them to follow the law?

Do you live in America? Have you fired an assault weapon?

[ralphwiggum 6]

Quote[/b] ]Just look at North Hollywood shootout for example,

As I said before these were illegal for them (PRIOR FELONS) to own. Thank the CA Justice system.

the detail of that reason is because the judge ordered the two to sell their gun and pay redemption for the crime they were previously found guilty of. in a sense, they got their 2nd amendment right reinstated and guess what happened.

Quote[/b] ]Your arguments about the merits of assault weapons could be morally correct. But that is irrelevant. Gun control does not take guns out of the hands of criminals. If you can't trust someone with a gun, why do you trust them to follow the law?

because all the ideas about mental evaluations and such do not establish how a firearm purchaser will be, but gives a glimpse of how he will be. who would have thought Malvo would turn out to be that way? Should I trust him since he was well versed infirearm safety?

Quote[/b] ]Do you live in America? Have you fired an assault weapon?

most european nations have conscript service.

[Blake 0]

Quote[/b] ]Joe on the other hand doesn't care about the law. He will keep his assault weapon. Nobody will come around to take it from him, so it won't matter.

Joe may not care, but Joe might care if he's sentenced to jail for owning illegal assault rifle. If he turns it in he maybe offered compensation or another type of weapon as replacement, depends how the state makes the law. On the other hand he may risk going to jail, but is it really worth it? Going jail for a gun? This alone puts number of 'Joes' down a lot.

Quote[/b] ]As I said before these were illegal for them (PRIOR FELONS) to own. Thank the CA Justice system.

But does it change the fact that they indeed commited this crime with assault rifles that were commonly available on legal markets?

Quote[/b] ]How do you know a scoped M14 would cause more deaths? That is an assumption. Maybe because he used a bolt action rifle, he took more care with each shot.

Maybe having assault rifle would have made him more reckless with his shots then? It's less dangerous because it has more ammunition in a mag and full-auto option? Is that the way Marines are taught?

Quote[/b] ]Your arguments about the merits of assault weapons could be morally correct. But that is irrelevant. Gun control does not take guns out of the hands of criminals. If you can't trust someone with a gun, why do you trust them to follow the law?

Moral correctness being irrelevant? This is a serious issue.

Gun control is able to lessen the amount of for example assault rifles available to the public, and thus, to the criminals. How do criminals get guns? They of course steal them so they can't be traced. And if public has legally bought assault rifles they end up to criminals at some point or 'normal' guys having hard time in life and resorting to guns.

Quote[/b] ]Do you live in America? Have you fired an assault weapon?

No. And yes I have fired numerous assault weapons while in the Army: AK-47S (chinese), Valmet M62 and MP5A3. Other weapons include Remington 870 buckshots and slugs, M85 sniper rifle and M80 (FN M80) pistol.

In civilian life I've shot in a gun club: .44 mangun, .357 magnum, .22 ruger, Glock 19, CZ75.

And no, I don't own any weapons. Only 'weapon' I have is a deactivated M1931 Suomi submachinegun.

So don't get me wrong: I like guns, they're fun. I also read a quite bit about guns also, I have many books and used to read 'Guns and Ammo' a lot also. It also popped into my mind that it would be nice to read non-political thread about 'Which guns do you own' on this forum started by someone who has something to show.

But assault rifles don't belong to the public. Not denying the fun of having one. And in a way, getting any gun for home or self protection is beyond me.

[miss_cleo 0]

Lets look at the big picture here. there are probably more guns in the USA than there are people here.

99% of gun owners are normal responsible people. I live in Florida a state w/ a pretty high crime rate, but its not the wild west here. There is not the huge problem w/ violence here that the media likes to hype up

[DanAK47 1]

The robbers in the N Hollywood shootout obviously shouldn't have been given their guns back. That is not the fault of the 2nd amendment. That is the fault of the judge. I do not think it is legal for a felon to purchase a firearm.

Malvo did not use an assault rifle to mow down people. He fired single shots. It would have been no different had he been using a hunting rifle. There were probably warning signs that he was going off the deep end.

"Joe" will not be offered compensation, and probably won't go to jail.

The weapons are "commonly available on legal markets" but are usually out of criminal's price range. If they had the money to spend they probably would not be criminals.

Blake, I know you do not live in America and assumed that because you live in Finland, you completed conscript service.

You do not live in America so you would not have the grasp of the crime level here that we Americans do. Someone using an assault weapon in a crime is extremely rare. Like the statistics say, the most commonly used weapon is a revolver.

You have fired weapons so you should know that they do not make you god. It takes time to become proficient with any weapon.

If I was a criminal and knew someone who had an assault weapon I would definately not try to "steal it" from him.

What about alcohol? It serves no purpose besides fun and causes more deaths than guns do.

[GoOB 0]

What about alcohol? It serves no purpose besides fun and causes more deaths than guns do.

With alcohol you kill yourself, and you make an informed decision to do so by drinking too much. With guns however, you'll most likely end up killing someone else than yourself.

And about the assault weapons being out of a criminals pricerange, I have to disagree....

Bob and George are two, white, middleclass men living in Los Angeles. Bob has his eyes set on buying that new kickarse SUV that Ford has just announced, but he doesn't want to take another morgage on his house. And George, he has been wanting to expand his five bedroom house with a new, small bedroom over the garage for his teenage son Gary.

Now, after wanting these things a while. Bob & George discuss amongst themselves, and come up with a plan to get some cash. They both have five thousand dollars each in their bank accounts to spare, so they go to the nearest gunshop and order one, semi-automatic AK-47 each. Then they plan the robbery in detail. The expected "profit" is around half a million dollars, Bob & George both agree that it's quite a profit, considering the five thousand dollars they initially had to "invest".

[DanAK47 1]

Quote[/b] ]With alcohol you kill yourself, and you make an informed decision to do so by drinking too much.

Not true. How many innocent people are killed by drunk driving?

As for Bob and George, the assault weapons ban would do nothing to stop them from buying a semi auto AK47. The loopholes are very big.

I don't think anyone would, on a whim, decide to rob a bank anyway. They are middleclass. One of them has a son. Completely ridiculous.

[GoOB 0]

I don't think anyone would, on a whim, decide to rob a bank anyway. They are middleclass. One of them has a son. Completely ridiculous.

People with families have robbed banks here in Sweden, maybe not as ill-planned/on such loose grounds as that. But it happens regularly. People with a "normal" ammount of money, needing more money to get out of debt.

And as for drunk-driving, it is illegal. It doesn't mean all alcoholics, or all people that consume alcohol drive when they are drunk.

And I am not sure the ban is a good idea either, I just think that all assaultrifles should be strictly for military use as they serve no purpose other than killing.

[DanAK47 1]

What did they use to rob the banks in Sweden?

Killing people is illegal too. Why pick on guns and not alcohol, which causes far more deaths?

Weither or not they should be restricted, there are people out there with them, lots of people, who haven't killed anyone. I do not want to debate the morality of taking all assault weapons away. I am only trying to debate the merits of attempting to.

[GoOB 0]

What did they use to rob the banks in Sweden?

Mostly assaultrifles stolen from military supplies, assaultrifles which have been illegaly obtained (the only way to obtain assaultrifles here, really) and sometimes not even firearms. But the weapons used is quite irellevant. Just the fact that most people can be driven to criminal acts. And if assaultrifles are easily availible, it just makes them all the more dangerous.

And once again, alcohol is not intended to kill people or living beings. Guns however, are. And especially assaultrifles.