Enthusiasts Eye Assault Rifles as Ban Nears End

[red oct 2]

i've seen more than one ocassion where alcohol was the culprate in violent behavior. couple weeks ago 2 guy's I worked w/ are now out of work because one is in the hospitle and the other is about to go to trial and probaly end up serving at most 10 years in prison for almost killing a man.

Quote[/b] ]

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.

w/ alcohol you might kill yourself, and you might kill or harm somebody else as well. people who enjoy getting carelessly drunk are making a decision that isn't any more or less informed than somebody deciding to purchase a assault weapon an carlessly use poor judgement when owning it. if the government decides they wana ban guns fine, but i don't see why their shouldn't be tougher laws on alcohol. why the hell should a bar be open all night? how about instead of giving people all the beer they want, hows about a 2 drink limit? as much driving as i do, i have more concern for my safty because of somebody having too much to drink and plowing into me than somebody coming to work and kill everybody w/ a gun.

[blackdog~ 0]

Ralph: Wasn't talking about assault weapons ban. I was talking about the democrat senators (there we go, I'll be specific this time) wanting to take away most if not all former DoD property and destroy it.

Miss Cleo: yup

Drill Seargent: yup

DanAK47: yup

Everyone else: nope

[ralphwiggum 6]

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.

no theie 2nd amendment rights would have been breached if the judge destroyed the weapons. even the felons can reform and they need their guns to protect themselves from tyranny of US court system.

Unfortunately it took more than Malvo. the FFL who sold Malvo that Bushmaster also had some very shady practice. This again shows that such 'less restricted' criterion for firearm purchase will lead to more tragedy. on top of that the same FFL dealer has a gun linked to him that was used to shoot Jewish kids in LA area(Burow was the name IIRC).

Quote[/b] ]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.

actually, before the ban, the price of a 'assualt weapon' was a lot cheaper. with AWB, the price shot up, thus making it harder for criminals to get that gun. Having 600 bucks doesn't guarantee that person with 600 bucks will not go on shooting spree.

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

by the attitude set forth by the pro 2A people it seems like it is a divine right.

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

not really. if i needed one, i'd steal it when he is not around.

Quote[/b] ]What about alcohol? It serves no purpose besides fun and causes more deaths than guns do.

alcohol, upon getting stolen, has far less chance of killing another person. as someone stated earlier, primary reasons why guns are made to kill whatever subject you are shooting at. beers are not.

[DanAK47 1]

Alcohol has a lot greater chance of killing someone.

[Pathy 0]

What about alcohol in a society where everyone has a gun.....

All it needs is some kid to get off his head and find his way to daddys assault rifle case and you have a national incident.....

[Blake 0]

Quote[/b] ]You do not live in America so you would not have the grasp of the crime level here that we Americans do.

I kind of have some idea. But it can't be that bad yet even in the worst suburbs that you'd warrant yourself an assault rifle for self protection. As Denoir pointed out, arming yourself makes criminals also armed to the teeth. Since need for money and social problems are not getting better at the moment attraction to make crimes stays the same. It's not vanishing. It's get more violent because robbers shoot first 'just in case' since they know you're probably armed and are ready to shoot. It's a vicious cycle. But I'm not living honeycomb, my country has lots of problems of its own. These are just my opinions about US gun mentality.

Quote[/b] ]Someone using an assault weapon in a crime is extremely rare. Like the statistics say, the most commonly used weapon is a revolver.

That's why it's good to have measures to prevent as much as possible the chance that assault rifles get into hands of criminals while it's not too late. They've outgunned even the police.

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

In fact, AK47 for example is so easy to clean, disassembe and assemble, handle and shoot anybody can learn it very quickly. So is vast majority of assault rifles and weapons.

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

You wouldn't? Well just wait a few days and the guy goes fishing, break into his house and if lucky, you're able to find tons of guns. I'm not aware of affordable safes for guns that wouldn't budge after some sweating with proper tools.

[billybob2002 0]

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

Ever heard of prohibition aka the 18th Amendment....

[DanAK47 1]

Billy - It was repealed. Gun control is being repealed and people go nuts. I don't understand it.

Blake - I was not trying to say crime is so bad that you need an AK. I was trying to say quite the opposite. You do not see stuff about people being killed by assault weapons on the news.

Learning to shoot is not as simple as knowing the controls. If someone who has never fired a gun before goes nuts, buys an AK47, and starts shooting he will be flinching more than a taser victim.

I still do not see how arming ourselves arms criminals. The guns have to be taken from us. I don't know about average Joe Bob but my rifle is under lock and key and hidden inside of the house.

Pathy - Guns teach responsibility.

If someone truly wanted to create a massacre gun laws would not stop them. If they could not obtain AR15s or AK47s they would use pipe bombs. If they could not make pipe bombs they would use bleach and ammonia. Or they could use a pitchfork and rob a bank.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Billy - It was repealed. Gun control is being repealed and people go nuts. I don't understand it.

You said alcohol was not picked on like guns. You would go apeshit if the same thing happened to guns like what once happened to alcohol. Maybe the reason people did not go nuts when prohibition was repealed was that the 18th amendment did more harm than good. The people liked their alcohol.

[ericz 0]

Frisbee: It's a matter of perception, thanks for sharing yours.

ALL:

A small point, the assault weapons ban did not take away or dispose of the assault rifles sold prior to the ban. The ban, from what I understand, affected imported and post ban sales.

Ralph Wiggum

Quote[/b] ]Unfortunately it took more than Malvo. the FFL who sold Malvo that Bushmaster also had some very shady practice. This again shows that such 'less restricted' criterion for firearm purchase will lead to more tragedy. on top of that the same FFL dealer has a gun linked to him that was used to shoot Jewish kids in LA area(Burow was the name IIRC).

This example speaks to the need for enforcement of existing laws and strict accountability, not to the need for a weapons ban.

[sputnik monroe 102]

Quote[/b] ]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.

     So basically you're saying instead of cracking down and preventing/punishing burglary the government should seize innocent peoples property so thieves have nothing to steal.

   Yeah that's justice. <- sarcasm

   "Those who beat their swords into plowshares end up plowing for those who didn't" - Benjamin Franklin

[ralphwiggum 6]

Ralph Wiggum

Quote[/b] ]Unfortunately it took more than Malvo. the FFL who sold Malvo that Bushmaster also had some very shady practice. This again shows that such 'less restricted' criterion for firearm purchase will lead to more tragedy. on top of that the same FFL dealer has a gun linked to him that was used to shoot Jewish kids in LA area(Burow was the name IIRC).

This example speaks to the need for enforcement of existing laws and strict accountability, not to the need for a weapons ban.

what it speaks is that even the existing law and enforcement is hitting a brickwall. Everytime I goto a firearm related place, I can gurantee that someone will whine about how gun control sucks, and stick a finger at it. It won't be surprising that in such environment, someone who dares to break the law either by financial reason or personal beleif can exist.

in about 2 days, that law will go away, thus nothing to enforce upon.

Alcohol has a lot greater chance of killing someone.

pencil can kill someone, but it is not a weapon. reason being that the primary purpose of a pencil is to write something not kill. arrows, katanas, and rifles came to existence to kill, not enjoy.

[DanAK47 1]

So it is the principle and not the results that count?

[Drill Sergeant 0]

I like the AK47 analogy.

The "Assault weapons BAN" covers cosmetics and magazine

capacity, not full auto capability which ALONG WITH

SILENCERS, SELECT FIRE WEAPONS AND SHORTENED

weapons have been EFFECTIVELY controlled since the 20's

and 30's in the hands of civilians.

This ban primarily deals with looks (Bayo lug, flash hider,

(They don't work any way) Recoil compensator's, threaded

barrels, importation of semi automatic weapons which accept

"High cap" Magazines and the construction and importation

of high capacity magazines.

Since the ban has expired, I do so hope this ban is dropped as

it really doesn't affect collectors or gun owners in any way

but price, I can already legally BUY a HK91 it's just it cost

2.5-4.5k and not the 890 dollars it used to.

The majority of fire arms owners are collectors wither they

hunt or not. Why do I have a Spare parts G3? For collectible,

why am I considering purchasing a Hk91? For higher value

collectible.

Why is it a higher value collectible because of

this ban. When the ban goes off will the HK91's come down in

price? No, why? HK isn't going to get messed up in another

Doge the ban of the week importation. Has this ban stopped

major crimes from happening?

No not really, THIS BAN was supposed to prevent things like

columbine and Santana from happening. Did it? No? Why? The

weapons used in columbine were obtained illegally. But

thats a whole nother can of worms.

So Bush, I believe I rember you saying you'd veto your old

mans ban... Is he gona do it on Monday? We'll know soon

enough.

*Prays the ban is vetoed* Clinton's barely passed, I

can see this one failing.  

*edit crappen margins*

[ericz 0]

Ralph Wiggum

Quote[/b] ]what it speaks is that even the existing law and enforcement is hitting a brickwall. Everytime I goto a firearm related place, I can gurantee that someone will whine about how gun control sucks, and stick a finger at it. It won't be surprising that in such environment, someone who dares to break the law either by financial reason or personal beleif can exist.

in about 2 days, that law will go away, thus nothing to enforce upon.

I dont agree with the belief that law enforcement and by that I mean the ATF or the other licensing authorities are diligent enough in performing administrative inspections of licensed firearm dealers.  I don't believe that all that can be done is being done.  

I do believe in regulating firearms to include:

-mandatory firearms handling safety courses

-criminal background checks

-state residency requirements

-mandatory trigger lock mechanisms

I am glad to say that my experiences with other gun owners has been different.  They have been law abiding, responsible shooters who complain (as is there right) about an intrusive law whose efficacy is questionable.

Obviously those that break firearm laws for financial or personal reasons should be prosecuted.  I would even say that their  right to bear arms should be suspended.  Afterall, we suspend motorists licenses when they fail to obey traffic laws, why should it be different.

Quote[/b] ]pencil can kill someone, but it is not a weapon. reason being that the primary purpose of a pencil is to write something not kill. arrows, katanas, and rifles came to existence to kill, not enjoy.

A true statement but it does not negate the fact that irresponsible drinking is a serious problem.  

Consider that motor vehicle deaths accounted for almost double the amount of deaths in which  firearms were involved.  Yet we allow 16 year olds to get a permit and drive a 3000 lb + hunk of metal capable of speeding up to 120 mphs on public streets and highways.  Further note that many (not just teenagers) run red lights, break speed limits, don't signal, drive while intoxicated, and engage in all sorts of unsafe behavior when they are behind the wheel of an automobile yet we still allow it. Perhaps we should ban cars afterall there is such a thing as public transportation.

[denoir 0]

The specific assault rifle ban is I think there just because that's how far Clinton could get support for at the time. It set a precedent and that's basically the purpose of it. Just removing those weapons won't change anything in practice, but it's a start.

As I've said a couple of times now, the basic issue with guns in the US are the context people use them - protection of property. The criminals adapt to the situation and use violence pre-emptively. If you risk getting shot when robbing a house or a bank, then you'll make sure to shoot first.

If you sometime re-evaluate the principle of shooting at criminals then gun ownership will not be a problem (at least not in relation to professional criminals - you'll still have the problem with crimes of passion and irresponsible gun owners).

A bank robber is interested in getting money - not killing people. Faced with armed security guards he will however kill to avoid getting killed. Given the crime situation in the US, it is obvious that guns do not have a deterring effect on criminals - on the contrary, the criminals just get more and bigger guns.

Bottom line is that when you stop using the weapons for killing other people, the problems associated with gun ownership will for the most part go away. Don't have a gun for self-protection. Don't have armed security guards etc

Sure it will hurt like hell at first but the criminals are bound to catch the drift - that there is no threat them and that they don't have to murder people to get their money.

Instead of that, invest in a good police force that catches the criminals after the act. Work on your social problems etc - cure the disease, not the symptoms.

[Pathy 0]

So? We do not allow people to drive at 120mph fuelled on drink. Its banned. Its illegal....you get caught you loose your license.....all this behavior is *not* allowed, if you think it is, your living in a fairy world.

It may be dangerous behaviour but thats why its illegal. It doesnt make allowing assault rifles any less bad.

Quote[/b] ]Pathy - Guns teach responsibility

Really, so thats why those kids a Colombine high school acted oh so responsibily when they got thier hands on some guns?

Sorry, but i think your statement is total BS, guns are an object designed to kill. Possesing one does not make you any more responsible, it just gives you the ability to cause great damage and suffering on people around you.

[DanAK47 1]

Maybe if the Columbine kid's parents paid more attention to them we wouldn't of had this problem. There were warning signs.

Have you fired a gun?

An object that could easily kill someone else, or yourself, unintentionally.

The fact that there are so few accidental deaths proves that they do teach responsibility.

Saying that criminals rise to the challenge is ridiculous. Criminals are lazy. That is why they rob banks instead of working for the money. Because it is EASIER. If they have to risk death or a life in prison conviction they will reevaluate their decision.

[Pathy 0]

If there were restrictions on guns it wouldnt matter if the parents payed attention or not.

How does a gun teach responsibility? Does it sit you on its knee and talk you through it?   The fact that America has the highest gun deaths in the world proves that lack of regulation leads to higher fatalities.

[xawery 0]

Saying that criminals rise to the challenge is ridiculous. Criminals are lazy. That is why they rob banks instead of working for the money. Because it is EASIER. If they have to risk death or a life in prison conviction they will reevaluate their decision.

This statement is simply incorrect. Numerous studies have shown that the death penalty (the 'risk of death' you speak of) is not an effective way to deter crime: they are not correlated. Incidentally, a number of recent studies claiming the opposite have been shown to be statistically flawed.

Take a look at www.deathpenaltyinfo.org.

[ralphwiggum 6]

Maybe if the Columbine kid's parents paid more attention to them we wouldn't of had this problem. There were warning signs.

and it would have been a lot harder for the Columbine two to do their stuff if their parents kept the guns away from them.

Quote[/b] ]The fact that there are so few accidental deaths proves that they do teach responsibility.

there are accidentla deaths, just not getting wide coverage. there were some idiot who placed the loaded handgun in an oven to name one.

the major reason why there is an argument for control is that the control itself breeds safety. long before control, there were enough complain that government is compromising 2A by making people take state madatory safety classes. although it won't completely eliminate dumbasses causing accident, for average joe this will help them greatly with safer firearms handling.

Quote[/b] ]So it is the principle and not the results that count?

the principle is that law has to reflect its time. denoir and some other people have a good argument when they say 2A needs to be updated/reviewed in modernday context. result of gun control is that it is generating more responsible shooters.

I dont agree with the belief that law enforcement and by that I mean the ATF or the other licensing authorities are diligent enough in performing administrative inspections of licensed firearm dealers. I don't believe that all that can be done is being done.

I do believe in regulating firearms to include:

-mandatory firearms handling safety courses

-criminal background checks

-state residency requirements

-mandatory trigger lock mechanisms

I am glad to say that my experiences with other gun owners has been different. They have been law abiding, responsible shooters who complain (as is there right) about an intrusive law whose efficacy is questionable.

unfortunately ATF has been attacked by gun lovers. and they are understaffed IIRC. the regulation you mentioned above are pretty much what is happening across america. however, just getting them was a big fight.

Quote[/b] ]A true statement but it does not negate the fact that irresponsible drinking is a serious problem.

Consider that motor vehicle deaths accounted for almost double the amount of deaths in which firearms were involved. Yet we allow 16 year olds to get a permit and drive a 3000 lb + hunk of metal capable of speeding up to 120 mphs on public streets and highways. Further note that many (not just teenagers) run red lights, break speed limits, don't signal, drive while intoxicated, and engage in all sorts of unsafe behavior when they are behind the wheel of an automobile yet we still allow it. Perhaps we should ban cars afterall there is such a thing as public transportation.

just because two things look similar at the end does not mean they are same to begin with. for example margarine and butter are different. one is a synthtic POS and the other is natural fat. driving under influence is a problem, but they are generated by different origin.

[DanAK47 1]

Quote[/b] ]This statement is simply incorrect. Numerous studies have shown that the death penalty (the 'risk of death' you speak of) is not an effective way to deter crime

I was not referring to the death penalty. I was referring to being shot by a security guard.

Ralph - They should have.

There are accidental deaths with Lego blocks. Just because a talented few play Russian roulette with semi-automatic handguns and are prone to dropping loaded weapons should not reflect the safety standards of the majority.

I do not understand your response to the principle question.

There are backround checks wherever you can purchase a weapon legally. INCLUDING GUN SHOWS.

Margarine and Butter are different, but you spread both on bread with similar results.

If substance A was made to cure cancer and killed 1,000,000 people, and substance B was made to kill people and killed 900,000 people, which would be deemed more dangerous?

[Pathy 0]

Substance A and substance B would both deserve to be banned because we do not ban things on how dangerous they are in relation to other things, we ban them on thier own (lack of) merits.

Therefore any argument that says "but your picking on guns" is flawed, it doesnt matter if there are other equally dangerous things around, its guns that are the issue. And as guns are designed, and always have been, for one sole purpose, to kill, then AT LEAST the higher powered end should not be in the hands of joe public.

And i mean, who needs an assault rifle, machine gun or 50 cal rifle to hunt deer or deter intruders?

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]If there were restrictions on guns it wouldnt matter if the parents payed attention or not.

Are you joking ? If the parents aren't paying attention, then their kid will just find another kind of weapon to use.

Quote[/b] ]And i mean, who needs an assault rifle, machine gun or 50 cal rifle to hunt deer or deter intruders?

First of all, actual machine guns have been restricted since the 1930s. Second, "assault rifles" are durable, have good ammo capacities, and are usually designed to be usable in CQB, making them excellent weapons for home defense. They're also freakishly expensive, which makes it very difficult for a teen or average criminal to purchase one.

Third, what's the problem with .50 rifles? I've never heard of a crime committed with one. Their many-thousand-dollar price tags and their enormous sizes make them unusable to criminals. There's no reason to ban them. What's the problem if a law-abiding American wants to spend $5000 so that he can vaporize varmints at 1200 meters?

Quote[/b] ]The fact that America has the highest gun deaths in the world proves that lack of regulation leads to higher fatalities.

First, "gun deaths" is a misleading term. For instance, a burglar shot by a home owner is counted as a "gun death". Our violent crime rate is significantly lower than that of the UK. Also, there are an estimated one to two million incidents each year where the brandishing of a gun prevented a US citizen from being the victim of a crime.

Quote[/b] ]If you risk getting shot when robbing a house or a bank, then you'll make sure to shoot first.

No, you'll probably avoid the house in the first place. The US's rate of highly dangerous "hot burglaries" (Where there are occupants in the home during the burglary) is much lower than the UK's because American burglars know that entering an occupied home is a good way to get killed.

Quote[/b] ]Sure it will hurt like hell at first but the criminals are bound to catch the drift - that there is no threat them and that they don't have to murder people to get their money.

Wonderful philosophy you've got there. You're betting your life on the hope that the criminal doesn't decide to kill you. You're throwing away any chance of defending yourself and placing your life in the hands of a felon.

Quote[/b] ]Instead of that, invest in a good police force that catches the criminals after the act.

And how does this help murder or rape victims? Murder victims are dead, rape victims are left with permanent mental scars. Citizens with guns can prevent themselves from being brutally criminalized. A citizen without a gun either has to be a talented hand-to-hand fighter or has to curl up and pray. Whether or not the police solve the crime, murder victims will still be dead and rape victims will still have been raped.

[ralphwiggum 6]

Ralph - They should have.

I guess you mean Columbine parents? Yes they should have but they didn't. and who knows how many more times we have to drill in the parent's head that gun should be locked? Unfortunately, a lot of people get too comfortable with firearm around them. if it hasn't been the continuous effort to get firearm owners to be educated it could have been worse.

Quote[/b] ]I do not understand your response to the principle question.

the society has change since the days of founding fathers. a mere M16 cannot stop a determined government from squashing liberty. good luck trying to destroy an abrams tank with M16.(wonder how long it will take with OFP.... ) so the interpretation of 2A has to be reviewed.

Quote[/b] ]There are backround checks wherever you can purchase a weapon legally. INCLUDING GUN SHOWS.

all thanx to "anti's" effort to "control" the gun sales.

Quote[/b] ]Margarine and Butter are different, but you spread both on bread with similar results.

my ananlogy was to show that although the result maybe similar they are not the same. margarine is synthetic, butter is not.

Quote[/b] ]If substance A was made to cure cancer and killed 1,000,000 people, and substance B was made to kill people and killed 900,000 people, which would be deemed more dangerous?

what's the ratio of death per unit of each substance?