Enthusiasts Eye Assault Rifles as Ban Nears End

[DanAK47 1]

What kind of car do you drive? Please turn it in and take this souped up golf cart. After all, it is all you need to get you from point A to B.

Why do cars go above the speed limit?

Okay, sorry, last car comparison.

Quote[/b] ]And why cant a shooting range store more than 3000 rifles? Absoluetly no problem. You could easily put them into a large room and let them be administered by a store keeper.

Holy crap I hope nobody breaks into that place!

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]So you just believe the things you want to believe?

Did I talk to you ?

I guess the someone I adressed this one to will understand it.

For you , read my above post. Read it again if you haven´t understood yet.

And you obviously missed a part of the answer...

Quote[/b] ]I guess we all know that there is no ultimate truth in pro or contra ban doc´s. That´s just natural. But that doesn´t safe us from reading such and everyone has to make his decision what he takes for credible and what not. I do think that the first doc has some relevant points. And that´s the things I take for me. Of course some are hard to countercheck but at least I can try to do it as the sources are listed.

Sounds different eh ?

Now, back to invisibility.

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]Furthermore we are not talking about guns here but about automated rifles.

If you mean automatic, then you're wrong. This ban has nothing to do with automatic rifles, it has to do with a group of semi-automatic rifles that were banned for cosmetic reasons.

[Ares1978 0]

Ares, I am all willing to have a decent discussion, but please stop comparing rifles to cars, this not only reminds me of NRA extremists (which I believe you are not) and secondly the comparison is inadequate.

You know that in a modern western country most people need cars. We need them to travel, to work and for keeping up our complicated lifes. In most western nations people possess cars and with them cause far less lethal accidents than if they would all possess guns.

Secondly a car CAN cause death but it is not build to do just that. Car accidents happen but the industry is doing the best to one day reduce the risk of lethal accidents to the minimum. And I may hope that in 10 years from now most BMWs and Mercedes will be damm safe and lethal accidents very unlikely. In most cases an accident will cause yourself being hurt too so people are being a bit more careful, wherease rifles let you hope you dont get hurt.

Guns however will be developed into the opposite direction, they are being made more and more lethal each day.

AND finally in most western countries people need to take a test before they can possess a car. Criminals can steal cars but they can rarely use them to threaten others.

Furthermore we are not talking about guns here but about automated rifles. Those shouldnt be used for hunting (unethical) and they are not very good weapons for self defense. They can be used for sports and I dont want to take that right away from you. But dont you understand that foreigners are somewhat surprised that everyone can buy an war-rifle in an ordinary shop?

Me personally I am only surprised to hear that people buy automated rifles for self protection. This realy is paranoia.

This is a decent discussion, and like it or not, the comparison is adequate. It's not a fair comparison, considering that car accidents cause (local statistics, not a universal truth) about 13 times as many deaths than firearms related homicides (including self defence), despite the fact that there are only about 20% less firearms than cars (illegal weapons not included). How many lives are the cars worth? Most people don't even need them, only the ones moving goods from A to B. Horses are always an option.

Like I said before, the intended purpose is irrelevant, only the result matters. Arguing otherwise would be like trying ban antivenom for snakebites because it was originally made for killing. For example, I could truthfully argue that the .357 in my gun safe is intended for silhouette shooting, not killing. It can be used to kill people, but it's not intended for it. Personally, I don't put much faith in the future of automobiles. 50 years ago they thought that cars would be flying by now.

Ethics are completely subjective and shouldn't in my opinion be used as arguments for or against anything. It's one of those things that always pisses people off.

I do understand that people are surprised by it. Why shouldn't they be, if they have different laws in their country? Where I live, we don't have any large capacity mag or similar "assault weapons" bans (mag capacity limitations during hunting is 2+1 and 3+1 depending on the species of game), but just about all crimes are committed with hunting shotguns and bolt action rimfire rifles and in most cases the main reason for the shootings is alcohol. Of the other weapons used, most are handguns brought home after WWII (Nagant revolvers and such), or Russian pistols smuggled into the country, not assault weapons or fully automatic weapons. Fully automatic weapons are available to registered collectors.

Quote[/b] ]So you just believe the things you want to believe?

Did I talk to you ?

You are talking to me now.

Quote[/b] ]I guess the someone I adressed this one to will understand it.

For you , read my above post. Read it again if you haven´t understood yet.

Oh, I understood it alright. I'm not so sure you understood my question, which you didn't answer, by the way.

[RooK 0]

Rook,

you are telling me that automated rifles are being used for hunting? Why dont you use an RPG instead? Freaks!

Just because you didn't know their used doesn't mean it doesn't happen. My grandfather used a Remington 7400 in .30-06 for deer for years. Benelli just released a new R1 for hunting. AKs have been used for hunting boars and deer, and SKSs have started replacing lever action .30-30s for woods hunting due to price. M1 Garands have been filling this roll since WWII. So nice of you to call people names for exercising preference though, very big of you. I posted a pic a few pages back of a turkey taken with a M1A (M14).

Unless by automated you mean full-automatic? There are different subcatagories within the one you choose to refer to.

Quote[/b] ]Phantoms are things that do not exist. Automated rifles are being used in crimes and drive by shootings are fact and not fiction. You may question the frequency but definetly not the existance.

Phantoms? What phantoms do you refer to? Facts based on what? Watching too many movies are we? I've already stated the frequency of AWs used in ALL crimes as less than 3%, backed up by a scholarly journal I could provide. That puts it well below the radar of concern when compared to other firearms and their uses.

Quote[/b] ]An automated rifle for self defense? Could you please draw a scenario in which an automated rifle would be a favourable tool for self defense?

I think it would be easier to point out a scenario where it wouldn't be, since there are much fewer of those. Places where they wouldn't be used: extremely cramped spaces, apartment complexes with rooms located all around, above and below, and you have no knowledge of the occupants whereabouts.

Quote[/b] ]Your example of pots and pants is sweet but slightly inadquate. I keep my pots in the kitchen cause that is where I use them and where they can do no wrong. I need pots for a daily living and I know that anyone stealing my pots wont kill anyone and I know that my children profit more from my pans than they can do harm.

Or do you come along with the argument "pots dont boil noodles, it is criminals that boil them"

Doesn't self-defense require the firearm be in the home? It certainly doesn't do any good being 15 miles away in safe at a shooting range. If a firearm is stolen, why should the owner be held liable? A person made a concious decision to steal and use it, shouldn't the they be blamed? A firearm has the ability to preserve one's life through proper use, is that not of worthy profit to the owner?

Following your last comment, yes, pots don't boil noodles. They cook food, but it requires a person to retrieve the pot, place it on the stove, and place food in it before it can work. Then isn't the person that cooks the food? Otherwise we wouldn't have chefs. (Is it just me, or has this comment evolved into some wierd analogy? I think were bordering on philosophy.)

[RooK 0]

Furthermore we are not talking about guns here but about automated rifles. Those shouldnt be used for hunting (unethical) and they are not very good weapons for self defense. They can be used for sports and I dont want to take that right away from you. But dont you understand that foreigners are somewhat surprised that everyone can buy an war-rifle in an ordinary shop?

Me personally I am only surprised to hear that people buy automated rifles for self protection. This realy is paranoia.

These are not war rifles or they would be full-auto or select fire. You fail to make that distinction. What is unethical about hunting with them? Does a .308 chambered bolt rifle kill a deer and a .308 chambered autoloader somehow defy the laws of nature and rip the animal to shreds? You act as if they have some form of voodoo that makes them more deadly when all the firearm does is work the action for you.

[RooK 0]

Yes, I was trying to find some relevant numbers on exactly these issues. Right now I don´t even know how many LE officers died last year on a direct firearms confrontation, nor can I find out if they were equipped with Kevlar and even here it´s important what kind of body armor they had.

While a light Kevlar can already have problems with some pistol ammo another one can protect you. For high velocity ammo there are also vests, most of them plated. But they are working on light and efficient body armor made of composite materials that can and will be used. Even if you are facing a SMG a regular Kevlar vest often isn´t sufficient for protection.

But as I said already, data mining on this issue is not that easy as most of the data come from producers of body armour and they tend to verbally overstretch the abilities of their products.

Police mostly use Level IIA body armor, due to price and mobility restraints. This stops most handguns used, as it should since that is what they will mostly be facing. The Only armor that stops rifle ammo is Level IIIA with trauma plates. Mobility is basicly destroyed and only certain special law enforcement teams (SWAT) use them.

Quote[/b] ]It´s easy logic...the more available the lower the price the more they will spread even among guys who still carry a handgun right now.

Lower price? AWs are going down in price. A Bushmaster XM15 (AR-15) cost $800 right now, it won't be coming down anytime soon because that's how much they cost to manufacture.

Quote[/b] ]

Well let´s call it selective reading. I don´t buy everything I get offered in an internet release of any kind, but for sure it does contain relevant info on the subject like industry undergoing the limits and such. Those things are just true. So why damn a complete document for some points that are not true. You can mine some info from the documaent, and that´s not too bad, is it ?

I guess we all know that there is no ultimate truth in pro or contra ban doc´s. That´s just natural. But that doesn´t safe us from reading such and everyone has to make his decision what he takes for credible and what not. I do think that the first doc has some relevant points. And that´s the things I take for me. Of course some are hard to countercheck but at least I can try to do it as the sources are listed.

I doubt much truth will come to bear. I'll look over though when I have the time, I assure you.

[Badgerboy 0]

Gentlemen, gentlemen, we must stop this crazy bickering!

If the Americans (And people of other nations) wish to kill each other with high powered firearms, through crime/paranonia/accidents, its none of my my concern, and after reading this, I don't care anymore. Fuck 'em! Its their problem.

[blackdog~ 0]

Hello!

Guess which weapons were illegal during the ban.

1

2

3

4

5

6

-----------------------------------------------------

The answer? None of them. All of them were legal.

Now if you excuse me, I'm off to do some drive by bayonettings.

[m21man 0]

Dear God...

[Duke_of_Ray 0]

I am glad for this worthless ban, that did no good to end. The only thing a ban like this does is punish the people who desreve to own guns. Finallty I will be able to get me a Romanian AK-47 and legally put a folding stock, and 75 round drum on it.

[red oct 2]

Hello!

Guess which weapons were illegal during the ban.

[imghttp://fototime.com/F21432BAC454B43/standard.jpg[/img] 1

[imghttp://fototime.com/3904CB7E1B0D0E9/standard.jpg[/img] 2

[imghttp://fototime.com/D2EEE01363FAA42/standard.jpg[/img] 3

[imghttp://fototime.com/72023FDBCBC7524/standard.jpg[/img] 4

[imghttp://fototime.com/F0C31A96703126D/standard.jpg[/img] 5

[imghttp://fototime.com/D1A91E44E08F75B/standard.jpg[/img] 6

-----------------------------------------------------

The answer? None of them. All of them were legal.

Now if you excuse me, I'm off to do some drive by bayonettings.

nice guns. are all of those yours? like the AK in the last pic. how much did you pay for it?

[Commander-598 0]

Just a guess from my own experiences but that AK74 probably costed about $500 or more.

[red oct 2]

yea, ive seen them pretty cheap. alot of them i've seen for about $120. most quality handguns cost from $600 to $1200. i've been dying to get a S&W Model 500

[red oct 2]

another guy got shot by his dog

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6147960/

[blackdog~ 0]

None of them are mine, but I know the guy who owns them. It's a nice collection. The Browning 1919 is a semi-auto replica.

[denoir 0]

[ralphwiggum 6]

A handgun saves another life.... NOT!

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/10/13/lottery.winners.death.ap/index.html

Quote[/b] ]SEATTLE, Washington (AP) -- A man shot to death by police outside a football stadium has been identified by his family as one of the winners of an $87 million lottery jackpot.

Rick Camat, 32, was shot early Sunday as dozens of people fled to avoid a fight outside a bar before a St. Louis Rams-Seattle Seahawks game.

Police alleged that Camat was carrying a handgun and fired at a car that was leaving the area. Authorities said he crouched behind another vehicle and pointed a handgun at officers.

Relatives insisted Camat only fired into the air to break up the fight and said officers never issued a warning before shooting him.

"He shot once in the air to scare people away. He didn't aim it at anyone," said Camat's brother, Brian, who was with him at the time.

Officer Debra Brown said the family's account "differs vastly from the statements of dozens of witnesses who were at the scene that evening."

The officer who fired at Camat remains on paid administrative leave. An internal police review and a court inquest are planned.

Camat was one of 13 Starbucks employees in Los Angeles who shared an $87 million California lottery jackpot in 2000.

He recently bought a house in Federal Way, a suburb between Seattle and Tacoma, relatives said. He previously used his share of the lottery winnings to buy a house for his mother and cars for his siblings.

[DanAK47 1]

Not this thread again.

Quote[/b] ]"He shot once in the air to scare people away. He didn't aim it at anyone," said Camat's brother, Brian, who was with him at the time.

Officer Debra Brown said the family's account "differs vastly from the statements of dozens of witnesses who were at the scene that evening."

[walker 0]

Hi all

Time for some humour

http://www.markfiore.com/animation/extravaganza.html

Kind Regards Walker

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]Time for some humour

Of course, all the highlighted weapons in those pictures (Grenade launchers, full autos) have been banned since 1934, and their legal status isn't changed by the sunset of the ban...

AR-15s, AK varients, and other such interesting items were sold during the term of the ban, because the ban went after cosmetic features. Ever see a Before Ban/After Ban picture of an AR-15? Not much of a difference.

Edit: And showing Colombine was just gross and pointless. The assault weapons ban was in effect when that shooting took place. In fact, the ban had been in effect for half a decade when Klebold and Harris attacked. Yeah, that ban sure did a lot of good.