Semi-Automatic Weapons to be Legal Again

[ChristinaB]

The ban is expiring, the GOP refuses to allow a vote on extension. So now we can be overrun by a bunch of "legal" Semi-Automatic weapons.

Anyone buying?

Police Fear What Will Happen When Assault Weapons Ban Ends (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/US/assault_weapons_ban_040908-1.html)

[Bez]

Why the hell would anyone want semi-automatic weapons to be legal unless they're physcopathic?

[Michael Davis]

Perhaps to organize a militia in order to fight their own terroristic government.

-Michael

[HDPM]

Do you even know what a semi-auto is? Based on the tone of your post I am guessing you are one of the people who doesn't know. If I am wrong, then I'm sorry, but then again if you do know, you should know why they should be legal and you should have several. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[HDPM]

OK, you fell for the BS. The cop interviewed knows he can get lies past people who don't shoot. He says ending the ban will legalize machine guns. It won't. I read no further in the article. The ban limited the size of new magazines and banned the new manufacture of certain semi automatic weapons (which are NOT automatic, i.e. machine guns) with cosmetic characteristics gun banners were scared of. Semi autos were legal then and are legal now and most gun owners have them. So do most cops. So maybe the whiny liar cop should have his cops give up their semi auto pistols. After all, the police are just citizens. The 1994 ban was a moronic bill.

[Duke]

[ QUOTE ]
Why the hell would anyone want semi-automatic weapons to be legal unless they're physcopathic?

[/ QUOTE ]

We should all be naked and helpless so the government can protect us better.

~D

[Zele]

Who are you worried about owning such a weapon that doesn't already have one? Where I live, Chicago, possession of a handgun is a felony. Consequently, I don't own a handgun. However, the guy that shoved a the barrel of his handgun in my roommate's mouth a few years back didn't seem to have any qualms about flouting the law. Thank God my friend wan't armed: the poor mugger could have been seriously injured!

[Bez]

You Americans are crazy. Ever wondered why children have never started gunning down their classmates after being bullied at school here in the UK?

[Zele]

Canada has just as high a concentration of guns as the US, and you don't hear about school shootings there, either. Gun laws are not an explanatory variable.

[Bez]

However, in the UK it would be very unlikely that a child could get hold of a gun. Obviously a hardened criminal still can, but would it be wise for his victim to also be armed? Anyone who retaliated would quite likely be seriously hurt or killed themselves. This would be -EV, even if they killed their attacker.

[Duke]

[ QUOTE ]
However, in the UK it would be very unlikely that a child could get hold of a gun. Obviously a hardened criminal still can, but would it be wise for his victim to also be armed? Anyone who retaliated would quite likely be seriously hurt or killed themselves. This would be -EV, even if they killed their attacker.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like it. It's better to be helpless than armed, since they might hurt you if you fight back.

There wasn't a hell of a lot of fighting back in the concentration camps of World War 2. Wonderful results there. Not much fighting back on 3/4 passenger jets a few years ago, either.

Yeah, it's a bad idea to disobey anyone who gives the slightest hint that they might hurt you if you don't comply. THAT'S what the most powerful nation in the world was based on from day 1. Wasn't it?

America is based on that tension between government and their law-abiding public. There's a reason that 1984 was thought up by Orwell, and not an American-born author. The reasons why America was a great place are disappearing yearly, and it's likely due to people forgetting why certain American ideals are good things.

~D

[The once and future king]

I am British. I can see your point Duke.

However. If I was armed with a handgun, and some crim got the jump on me with his handgun, I would be giving him my money not getting into a gunfight. I dont want to take a bullet for the contents of my wallet.

The problem with most situations that involve a crim is that the crim will enjoy the initiative in any confrontation because they dont reveal there scumness untill they have pulled there weapon.

So in fact the gun only turns out to be usefull if the criminal isnt armed. Thats likely isnt it?

I could argue this more but my Bird just rang and is waiting outside in the carpark so must go.

[Bez]

I don't see how you brought concentration camps into this.

[mmcd]

However. If I was armed with a handgun, and some crim got the jump on me with his handgun, I would be giving him my money not getting into a gunfight. I dont want to take a bullet for the contents of my wallet.

It's not the money, its the principle. If someone pulls a gun on me and tries to rob me, if given the chance, I'm going to kill the sonofabitch. It doesn't matter whether I have 25 dollars or 25k on me. I think there would be FAR fewer muggings/robberies if these criminals had a situation where they'd be putting their lives at risk every time they decided to try and mug someone.

This is why gun control doesn't make sense to me. The people that you don't want to have guns will almost always get their hands on them anyways, while regular citizens are often either prevented from having guns, or forced to deal with too much red tape to even bother.

Although it does vary among the states in the U.S., I think a person who is sane and has no criminal record should be issued a conceal/carry permit as a matter of course, or even better only make carrying a concealed weapon illegal for people who have a criminal record, or have been found to be incompetant. Street crime would go way down, and the ones crazy enough to keep robbing people wouldn't last too long.

[Duke]

Your point is taken. I'm not directly disagreeing with you, though.

I highly doubt that anyone would try to rob a guy walking down the street with an assault rifle slung across their back.

The law in question doesn't relate to handguns.

I think there's a lot of confusion as to what the issues concerning this really are. Mainly because what "this" is is a matter of confusion as well.

~D

[Duke]

It's an example of people not being able to fight back, since they had inadequate weapons and/or desire to fight back.

~D

[Bez]

Criminals will always stay one step ahead, simply getting more and more violent with an ever increasing arsenal. A victim in a concentration with a gun would be albe to put up a little resistance, maybe kill a couple of guards but would ultimately be killed for it. It's just not worth the risk to be tooled up. Also consider that a career criminal will be more proficient with firearms than the average man in the street. Also consider accidental shootings, times where people panic and shoot someone innocent. Once more consider the chances of children getting hold of a gun, especially younger ones. Accidents are inevitable.

[Duke]

In my opinion, you're dead wrong. Pun intended.

~D

[Bez]

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

[Duke]

Now that's something that I can agree with!

~D

[Rooster71]

[ QUOTE ]
The ban is expiring, the GOP refuses to allow a vote on extension. So now we can be overrun by a bunch of "legal" Semi-Automatic weapons.

Anyone buying?

Police Fear What Will Happen When Assault Weapons Ban Ends (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/US/assault_weapons_ban_040908-1.html)

[/ QUOTE ]
I would love to have a tripod mounted M1919 Browning. Anyone else here into guns?

[Rooster71]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you even know what a semi-auto is? Based on the tone of your post I am guessing you are one of the people who doesn't know. If I am wrong, then I'm sorry, but then again if you do know, you should know why they should be legal and you should have several. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[/ QUOTE ]
LOL...I wasn't paying attention.

[OrangeHeat]

[ QUOTE ]
So now we can be overrun by a bunch of "legal" Semi-Automatic weapons.


[/ QUOTE ]

Just a clarification - semi-automatic weapons were not banned by this bill, assault weapons were. Being a semi-auto does not necessarily mean it is an assault weapon.

If your worried about semi-automatics than nothing has changed.

Orange

[Rooster71]

I can't believe they are making bolt action firearms legal again. The local cop, Barney, told me that the police department is expecting a major increase in the number of gun related homocides.

What will be next? Will they be making break barrel shotguns legal again?

[Gamblor]

Having spent 2 years of my life with an M16 semi-automatic assault rifle on my shoulder, I know a little bit about why they're so dangerous.

The M16, like most assault rifles, has a large magazine. It holds 30 rounds (in Israel we only use 29 so we can reuse the cartridge - filling it to capacity makes the cartridge throw-away because it ruins the spring that pushes the bullets into the chamber). A standard handgun holds 6-12 rounds. Do the math.

Now imagine a mugging victim with a cock-and-fire handgun. Now imagine a scared victim with a semi-automatic assault rifle that fires 45 rounds a minute and has 30 rounds to go through before he even has a second to regain his thoughts.

[Nepa]

[ QUOTE ]
Police Fear What Will Happen When Assault Weapons Ban Ends

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm I going to be able to buy AK-47 M-16A2 and UZI's at Wal-Mart?

[Rooster71]

[ QUOTE ]
Your point is taken. I'm not directly disagreeing with you, though.

I highly doubt that anyone would try to rob a guy walking down the street with an assault rifle slung across their back.

The law in question doesn't relate to handguns.

I think there's a lot of confusion as to what the issues concerning this really are. Mainly because what "this" is is a matter of confusion as well.

~D

[/ QUOTE ]
To the best of my memory, the 1994 "ban" involved the ban of the future manufacture of rifles with screw on-barrels, high capacity magazines, folding stocks on assault-type rifles, etc. I think it also made it illegal to have a bayonet on an existing assault-type rifle that has a folding stock. There are a bunch of other minor things made illegal by this stupid ban, I can't remember all of them.

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Police Fear What Will Happen When Assault Weapons Ban Ends

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm I going to be able to buy AK-47 M-16A2 and UZI's at Wal-Mart?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, since those are automatic weapons. But you can buy ammo for those at Wal Mart right now. And you can buy semi-automatic weapons at Wal Mart right now.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm I going to be able to buy AK-47 M-16A2 and UZI's at Wal-Mart?

[/ QUOTE ] I believe you can buy AK's and AR-15's(civilian model of the M-16) already, Uzi's are automatic weapons though, so I doubt it.

[ThaSaltCracka]

I believe you can buy AK's and AR-15's which are not automatic weapons, although they can be modified to be automatic.

[Rooster71]

[ QUOTE ]
However, in the UK it would be very unlikely that a child could get hold of a gun. Obviously a hardened criminal still can, but would it be wise for his victim to also be armed? Anyone who retaliated would quite likely be seriously hurt or killed themselves. This would be -EV, even if they killed their attacker.

[/ QUOTE ]
Since I live in a rural area, I don't really spend alot of time worrying about being mugged. However, home burglaries are fairly common in my area. If I wake up in the middle of the night to the sound of a cranked-up dope fiend rifling through my house, you can bet your ass I fully intend on killing him. I don't see the point in "reasoning" with him or counseling him on his sins and trying to figure out where he went wrong in life.

Oh wait...I could make a "citizen's arrest" and tell him to wait for the cops.....LOL Something tells me this just wouldn't work. If I wanted to take that route, I might as well say "take as much of my belongings as you want, kick my ass if you feel like it, just please don't kill me, and feel free to come back soon." LOL

[Zeno]

Christina,

Below are two links for you to check out to provide claraification and information:

'Assault Weapons' (http://www.awbansunset.com/whatis.html)

Armed Females of America (http://www.armedfemalesofamerica.com/sightingin/AWresources.htm)

This second webpage has many informative links that you should check into.

[ QUOTE ]
Anyone buying?

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't already own a firearm? Everyone should have several. In fact, classes in target shooting and firearm saftey and responsiblity should be a required class in all American high schools.

But gun ownership, bans, and second ammendment rights have all been gone over at least two or three times in this forum in the past year alone. So do a search on guns or something for old threads to get the sane, correct, and rational view(s) of Zeno, HDPM, Slamdunkpro, Ray Zee etc.

-Zeno

[Nepa]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe you can buy AK's and AR-15's(civilian model of the M-16) already, Uzi's are automatic weapons though, so I doubt it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Could someone give me a name of a gun that this law bans?

[Rooster71]

[ QUOTE ]
or even better only make carrying a concealed weapon illegal for people who have a criminal record, or have been found to be incompetant.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is already the law here in the US. The criminal charge of "felon in possession of a firearm" is a common parole violation that sends many felons back to the penetentiary. Also, a citizen cannot own a firearm if they have been adjudicated mentally defective. However this is not as cut and dried, but it not as common of a problem as felons possessing firearms.

[ThaSaltCracka]

it bans all fully automatic weapons for one, so basically its illegal to own a fully automatic AR-15, or an AK, I think all sub-machine guns are banned.

[Rooster71]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I believe you can buy AK's and AR-15's(civilian model of the M-16) already, Uzi's are automatic weapons though, so I doubt it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Could someone give me a name of a gun that this law bans?

[/ QUOTE ]
This law related mainly to the manufacturing (and importing) of certain firearms such as AK-47's, AR-15's, etc. Look at your local classifieds for guns and notice the really high prices on this type of gun (it will say "pre-ban" in the ad).

[andyfox]

Repeal the 2nd amendment and make all guns illegal. Devote the billions of dollars necessary to get all the guns. It will take years. Take two of the western states that have square borders and small populations and make one of them a prison. Put up one-thousand feet high walls. Send anyone who uses a gun in the commission of a crime to one of them for life. Make the other one a gun-safe haven for all who want to own guns.

A thousand people killed in Iraq to make the world safe for democracy and we're all up in arms (pun intended). Three thousand on 9/11. Thirty thousand killed by guns every year and we love 'em.

[Rooster71]

When talking about this ban, it is important to note that a high number of gun crimes are committed using guns that are considered to be "bad-ass" looking guns. The Tec-9 immediately comes to mind. A Tec-9 is a cheap piece of crap gun that is a favorite among criminals because it looks intimidating, sort of like something you would see in a movie. However, most criminals wouldn't be able to tell you the difference between a Tec-9 and a pre-ban AR-15 or AK-47. My point is that most criminals do not select a firearms based upon its quality or capabilities, they want guns that look "cool" and "intimidating."

So what is the solution? I don't know, but it would be really silly to enact laws based upon "how a gun looks." It is unlikely that a criminal would choose a gun based solely on its quality/capability/durability, and its also unlikely you will ever see a knowledgeable gun enthusiast who owns a cheap firearm like a Tec-9.

[HDPM]

No, it didn't ban fully automatic weapons. The tax stamp law in the 1930's made fully auto weapons more expensive and a pain to get. Subsequently they made it illegal to get full auto weapons made post 1986. But you can get a full auto weapon legally if it was manufactured pre 1986. You have to do an oppressive amount of paperwork and pay for a $200 transfer tax stamp. That is federal law, some states make full auto weapons illegal regardless. Not my state tho. But decent full auto weapons are expensive and the process is a hassle, so most people don't bother with them. (I don't have any and wouldn't go to the trouble. BTW) Also, the 9th circuit had an interesting case regarding federal laws and a homemade machine gun. We'll see if that has any real impact, but I doubt it.

[Matty]

Still, it has drastically cut down on gun-caused deaths.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/2004-09-07-assaultweapons-ourview_x.htm

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]
The ban is expiring, the GOP refuses to allow a vote on extension. So now we can be overrun by a bunch of "legal" Semi-Automatic weapons.

[/ QUOTE ]

The ban was cosmetic, and its expiration will have little practical effect except some lower prices for hardware junkies who like guns. Looks like it's time for Firearms 101.

1. That LA Chief is an idiot or a liar: "Nobody has an inalienable right to run around with a machine gun," he said. "I'm sorry, that's insanity!"

The Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) did not ban machine guns, and its expiration will not legalize them. I suspect he knows that. Owning a machine gun requires a special license from the Feds, and state approval, and there is also a large per gun tax of $200 or $300.

2. Semi-automatic weapons are currently legal. There are basically only two kinds of hand guns: revolvers and semi-automatic. I'd guess that most hand guns sold, including under the AWB, are semi-automatic. The only impact of the AWB on handguns was to limit the size of the magazine. Larger hand guns generally are manufactured with standard 15-shot magazines. The AWB limited new magazines manufactured after 1994 sold in this country to 10 shots. It was and is still legal to own and buy used 15 shot magazines manufactured pre-1994. Window dressing designed to appease anti-gunners.

3. Until the anti-gun people invented the term, there was no such thing as an assault rifle. Like porn, they couldn't define an assault rifle, but they knew one when they saw it. But they tried to define it anyway. They made a list of evil-looking aspects of a rifle, and said that any semi-automatic weapon that had at least two of those things was an assault rifle. The list included a bayonet mount, a folding stock, a pistol-type grip, and a flash suppressor (which lessens the impact of the barrel flash on the eyes of the shooter). New magazines were also limited to 10 round capacity, but it was legal to own, buy, sell or trade any magazine of any capacity manufactured before 1994. During the AWB, there was never any shortage of "pre-ban" 20 and 30 round magazines for "assault rifles", but the price for these was artificially inflated.

Bottom line: the AWB was window dressing to make it appear that something was being done about firearms violence. Anything "banned" has always been legally available at artificially inflated prices due to decreased supply. The major impact of the AWB was increased cost to hobbyists and collectors.

A classic symptom of insanity is repeating the same action while expecting a different outcome. Example: our gun control laws don't decrease gun violence, so we need more gun control laws. Reality: passing gun laws has zero impact on people who don't obey laws.

It has been proven through combined state-federal programs that what decreases gun violence is enforcement of gun crime laws, not gun control laws. The laws are on the books. We need to shift the enforcement resources to gun crime, and not to whether or not a rifle has a bayonet mount.

Although I did see a thing on the news last night about a guy who robbed a bank armed with a pitchfork. Maybe we should start banning those sharp pointy objects. At least in the hands of some people.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
No, it didn't ban fully automatic weapons. The tax stamp law in the 1930's made fully auto weapons more expensive and a pain to get. Subsequently they made it illegal to get full auto weapons made post 1986. But you can get a full auto weapon legally if it was manufactured pre 1986.

[/ QUOTE ] Thanks for the clarification, I don't like guns nor do I really pay attention to the gun laws, so I basically just said something off the top of my head, thanks though.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
Reality: passing gun laws has zero impact on people who don't obey laws.


[/ QUOTE ] Why do we have laws then?

[OrangeHeat]

[ QUOTE ]
Repeal the 2nd amendment and make all guns illegal.

[/ QUOTE ]

You really trust the government don't you?

[ QUOTE ]
Thirty thousand killed by guns every year and we love 'em.

[/ QUOTE ]

Big number but:

How many of those were deaths were caused by people who illegally had their guns in the first place?

How many were justifiable homicides (police shootings, self defense etc...)?

How many of those were suicides?

It is nice to throw out big numbers out of context.

Orange

Edit: Since you know how many people were killed by guns - do you know how many crimes were deterred by law abiding gun owners (rapes/robberies/etc...)?

[Zeno]

Good post. An excellent synopsis of the points made in the web links I posted in response to Christina.

Just shows what a bunch of political hooey the 'ban' really was.

-Zeno

[CCass]

[ QUOTE ]
A thousand people killed in Iraq to make the world safe for democracy and we're all up in arms (pun intended). Three thousand on 9/11. Thirty thousand killed by guns every year and we love 'em.

[/ QUOTE ]

Andy, although you and I rarely agree on political issues, I have always respected your posts/opinions. On this issue, I have a question for you. How many people are killed by cars each year? The answer of course, is none. By the same token, no one has ever been killed by a gun. People kill people. I gun is a tool that can be used to kill, just as a car, hammer, axe, or mnay other tools can be used to kill. By saying that guns kill, we are removing the blame from the person pulling the trigger. Don't blame/punish the tool, blame/punish the person using the tool.

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]
Still, it has drastically cut down on gun-caused deaths.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no evidence of cause and effect here, and there is no logical reason to expect that the ban caused the decrease. As the article says, all "banned" weapons are still legally available to own, buy and sell. And there is no evidence that the ban decreased the number of guns in private hands.

So if the same weapons are still available in the same numbers, maybe something else was responsible for the decrease? Like increased enforcement of gun-crime laws?

Stupidest quote of the day:
[ QUOTE ]
California has shown the way by banning the sale of large ammo clips and weapons with grenade launchers, bayonet mounts or other features that turn rifles into killing machines.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank God Wal-Mart has stopped selling grenades and bayonets.

[OrangeHeat]

[ QUOTE ]

During the 1987-1992 period, offenders fired their weapons in 17 percent of all non-fatal handgun crimes, missing the victim four out of five times. In 3 percent of the non-fatal crimes committed with handguns, about 21,000 annually, the victim was wounded. In addition, an average 11,100 were killed each year.


During the same period an estimated annual average of 62,000
violent crime victims (approximately 1 percent of all violent crime victims) used a firearm in an effort to defend
themselves. In addition, an annual average of about 20,000
victims of theft, household burglary or motor vehicle theft
attempted to defend their property with guns.


[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/press/hvfsdaft.pr

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Reality: passing gun laws has zero impact on people who don't obey laws.


[/ QUOTE ] Why do we have laws then?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why don't we enforce the laws we have, instead of passing more that don't address the problem. What's more effective, passing more laws against drunk drivers, or putting drunk drivers in jail using laws already on the books?

[ThaSaltCracka]

I agree with you, but you made it sound like laws are irrelavant because criminals will break the law regardless. I agree, enforcement of current laws is much better than passing new ones.

[andyfox]

If we're afraid of our govnerment, let' keep militias. Keep the weapons where they can only be used in militia activities.

Let's make if more difficult for people to kill themselves. It would be more difficult for people to kill themselves without the guns. And if the criminals had no guns, we'd need no guns to deter crimes.

[andyfox]

Yeah, we've been over this ground before. (And BTW, thanks for your opening sentence.) Part of my "proposal" was mandatory extile to one of the square states for anyone who uses a gun in the commission of a crime. I do believe in punishing the person. But a gun is a tool used to put a bullet into another person, or to protect oneself from having another person putting a bullet into you. You might as well say a nuclear weapon is a tool; punish the person who has them, don't worry about minimizing the quantity or deadliness of available nukes. Let's worry about both the people misusing the tool and the availability of the tool.

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]
Thirty thousand killed by guns every year and we love 'em.

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolute numbers are meaningless out of context. A recent op-ed page article in the St. Paul paper by an advocate of stricter gun control cited 300 gun deaths annually in Minnesota. As an aside, she mentioned that 75% of those were suicides. CDC numbers indicate that the major catagory of gun deaths that is significantly increasing is suicide by elderly males. Not to be overly crude and insensitive, but I think that this is nobody else's business.

That said, America does have a higher rate of gun deaths than other countries with similar gun-ownership rates. I'm assuming that the ratio is the same when suicides are factored out.

I taped Michael Moore's "Bowling for Columbine" off cable for later viewing. It took 4 tries, since it was so bad I kept falling asleep, but I finally saw all of it. The only rational idea I got from that film was that the US and Canada have similar gun-ownership rates, and the US has a much higher gun-violence rate. The only conclusion I can draw from that data is that American gun violence has a lot more to do with Americans than with guns.

Part of the problem, I believe, is education. Being older than dirt, I grew up in an era when fire-arms training and education was not politically incorrect. I learned to shoot in the Boy Scouts, and I took Marksmanship as a PE course in college. Fire-arms education today consists of telling kids that guns are evil. Which leads to the usually problems with forbidden fruit.

Guns are a fact of life. Wishing them gone is not going to solve anything, any more than Prohibition solved any problems involving alcohol. One possible answer is to find out why America has more gun violence than similar countries and do something about it. But we might find out some things we don't want to know about ourselves, or admit.

[Duke]

Nice one!

Here's to hoping that you're joking!

~D

[mmcd]

I'm talking about conceal/carry permits, not just gun ownership in general

[Dilbert]

[ QUOTE ]
Take two of the western states that have square borders and small populations and make one of them a prison.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whoa, Ray Zee is living in that Prison of yours, buddy.

[MMMMMM]

"And if the criminals had no guns, we'd need no guns to deter crimes."

Soory Andy, this is simply idiotic, AND it is controverted by the facts.

Do some Google on London or England where gun ownership is illegal--the more illegal they have made guns, the more muggings and home invasion crimes have risen, generally speaking. Muggings are endemic in London and they mug you with knives or clubs or theiur fists or whatever because guns are illegal. Do you actually think that violent crime did not exist before guns were invented? Come on, pull off those wisdhul blinders. Do you think violent crime does not exist where guns are illegal? Again check out London.

I can't believe you can even write something like the above with a straight face.

Besides, some criminals will ALWAYS find a way to get guns; the more illegal you make them, the more the market will provide at higher cost and risk in the black market. Just like the war on drugs this your dream of total confiscation is unachievable. However the consequences of total confiscation would likely eventually be FAR more horrific than anything drugs have produced so far (just think 21st century prison camps a la Nazis with 21st century technology, but on much larger scale. Sounds far-fetched, but eventually it must come to pass if only governments have guns).

This is by far the stupidest position you have ever taken on any political issues on this forum or likely anywhere else. I can only tell you that because I love you.

[Boris]

obviously you've never shot a semi-auto. Way too much fun.

[Boris]

.

[adios]

Criminals don't want to f*ck with you if you have a gun, there's too many easy marks that don't have a gun.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
I can only tell you that because I love you.

[/ QUOTE ] Now the bigger question is whether or not this love is natural?

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]
Criminals don't want to f*ck with you if you have a gun, there's too many easy marks that don't have a gun.

[/ QUOTE ]

Some years back there was a rash of robberies and car-jackings of foreign tourists in Florida. After some of the car-jackers were caught and convicted, they were interviewed by a local reporter. They gave two reasons for targeting foreigners:
1. Tourists were more likely to carry a lot of cash.
2. Florida law recently made it much easier to obtain a concealed carry permit, and they knew that foreigners weren't packing.

[cardcounter0]

My .30 cal M1 Carbine is my favorite.

[Bez]

Gun crime is on the increase in London due to police incompetance and a weak government that is 1: letting out prisoners earlier than ever for all kinds of crimes and 2: is so bothered about upsetting the ethnic minorities that carry out the majority of such crimes that little effort is used in tackling this problem. Tony Blair has ruined this country. Someone should shoot him.

[Bez]

A gun is made specifically to kill people, a car is not.

[andyfox]

I should have said to deter criminals with guns. Of course there will always be crime. But guns make life considerably less pleasant. I've walked the streets of Hong Kong and Taipei at midnight without fear. (I understand this is not as advisable as it once was.) Wouldn't it be nice to have a society without fear of getting shot? Impossible? No. Difficult? Yes.

I don't doubt that some people will always find a way to get guns. But why not minimize the problem?

I appreciate the sentiment in your last sentence. You're saying a lot in both that one and the penultimate one. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[hetron]

Except for the stats aren't in your favor. By region, the area of the country with the most liberal gun laws (South) has the highest murder rate, while the area with the strictest (the Northeast) has the lowest.
And the theory of stopping a government takeover is bogus. If a ruthless government came into power, the only thing you can do is pray they don't use the stockpile of verified, documented, we-are-sure-they-are-there-world's-biggest-stockpile of WMD's that they would have access to.

[andyfox]

Well, since you ask . . .

There's a certain comraderie I feel with just about all who post here regularly, even those who post stupid things like I do. The 2+2ers I've had the good fortune to meet have, without exception, been great people. And there many on the opposite side of the political spectrum I'm sure I'd like.

[Rooster71]

[ QUOTE ]
A gun is made specifically to kill people, a car is not.

[/ QUOTE ]
Guns are not made specifically for killing people.

[MMMMMM]

"Wouldn't it be nice to have a society without fear of getting shot? Impossible? No. Difficult? Yes."

First off, I'd be more scared of getting knifed than of getting shot.

Second, it would be impossible to have a society without fear of getting shot--if only government had guns, you would have to fear those in government considerably more so than you do now. And I do seem to recall you once saying something along the lines that no politicians are worthy of being trusted.... /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
The 2+2ers I've had the good fortune to meet have, without exception, been great people.

[/ QUOTE ] I have noticed this as well.

[Ray Zee]

most families in montana have guns in the house. rare for a person to break in when anyone is at home. same for in the car. it is legal to carry a gun in your car. no one messes with you, and you can feel safe driving anyplace, as you know you will not be robbed or mugged or have a car hijacking. even stupid criminals want to live.

we can walk anyplace in the dark as criminals know many carry a weapon, and they do not want to face a person capable of defeating them.
keep the criminals scared and they suddenly become law abiding.

[Duke]

[ QUOTE ]
By region, the area of the country with the most liberal gun laws (South) has the highest murder rate

[/ QUOTE ]

That's interesting. What was your source?

[ QUOTE ]
And the theory of stopping a government takeover is bogus. If a ruthless government came into power, the only thing you can do is pray they don't use the stockpile of verified, documented, we-are-sure-they-are-there-world's-biggest-stockpile of WMD's that they would have access to.

[/ QUOTE ]

So the argument is that inbred rednecks go out for a-killin', and it's safer for me if I can't even put up any fight at all if the government ends up being a problem. Therefore nobody should have a gun.

Ok. Your point is taken and disregarded.

~D

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
If we're afraid of our govnerment, let' keep militias. Keep the weapons where they can only be used in militia activities.

[/ QUOTE ]

umm, are you going to enforce this by having the government keep the weapons or something? And if they are safeguarding all the weapons for a militia that will oppose them, how does that work exactly?

I can see it now:

"Hey, let's kill the opposition and put Hitler in power! Great idea! Wait, those damn militias have a stockpile of guns. They could oppose us! What will do?"

"Guys, all their guns are locked up in a warehouse that only we have the keys to. Those militias were morons. Let the takeover begin!"

"Sweet!"

[ QUOTE ]

Let's make if more difficult for people to kill themselves. It would be more difficult for people to kill themselves without the guns.

[/ QUOTE ]

This kind of paternalism is what's wrong with our country, Andy. We could save society by banning television, and prohibiting all junk food, fast food, cigarettes, alcohol, and red meat. It would be better for everyone if they couldn't get that stuff.

I've noticed that the strongest advocates of paternalism from government usually just happen to already follow the strictures they'd like to force on others.

natedogg

[trippin bily]

assault weapons was a spurious phrase used to help pass the bill

[MMMMMM]

As usual, your posts are both logical and insightful.

[trippin bily]

new york city, philadelphia, washington d.c. 3 of the top 5 murder cities. L.A. and chicago are the other 2. hardly southern areas.

[Zele]

[ QUOTE ]
Except for the stats aren't in your favor. By region, the area of the country with the most liberal gun laws (South) has the highest murder rate, while the area with the strictest (the Northeast) has the lowest.

[/ QUOTE ]

I, too would like a source, or at least some numbers.

2002 Murder and non-negligent manslaughter rate per 100,000 inhabitants (FBI uniform crime reports):
Washington, DC: 46.2
Texas: 6.0

DC, strict gun control. Texas, shall-issue CC permits. Your claim is unsubstantiated.

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]

keep the criminals scared and they suddenly become law abiding.

[/ QUOTE ]

An armed society is a polite society.
Robert A. Heinlein

[andyfox]

Good post.

My original post was, of course, tongue-in-cheek. My point is that there are many thousands of people shot to death as in our country, many more than die as a result of what is commonly called terrorism. The issue deserves more scrutiny than it gets.

[bingledork]

[ QUOTE ]
I gun is a tool that can be used to kill, just as a car, hammer, axe, or mnay other tools can be used to kill. By saying that guns kill, we are removing the blame from the person pulling the trigger. Don't blame/punish the tool, blame/punish the person using the tool.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have to call bullsh*t on "Guns don't kill people" line.
Yes you can kill people with other tools, but guns are designed to kill. And assualt rifles are designed to kill lots of people.

I believe in the right to own a gun. I think it's OK to own a tool that can kill a person, or maybe two. But where do you draw the line? How big a weapon is an individual allowed to own? Can we own a weapon that can kill millions, like an atom bomb? How about thousands, like serin gas?

People will always find a way to kill other people. Yes, it is people who kill people. But it is guns that let these people kill LOTS of people.

I think it is reasonable to ban any weapon that can kill more than a handful of people at one time. Perhaps limiting the magazine size to 6 is reasonable to me.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe in the right to own a gun. I think it's OK to own a tool that can kill a person, or maybe two. But where do you draw the line? How big a weapon is an individual allowed to own? Can we own a weapon that can kill millions, like an atom bomb? How about thousands, like serin gas?


[/ QUOTE ]

<sarcasm> If the purpose of the second Amendment is to protect the citizenry from an oppressive government, then we should allow weapons designed to kill many, but not those designed to kill just one. How many street crimes are committed using automatic weapons vs. pistols/single shot weapons? I say ban handguns and most rifles and shotguns and only allow automatic weapons or better. After all, that is more in line with the thinking of the founders. </sarcasm>

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
<sarcasm>

[/ QUOTE ]

Elwoodblues,

Has the Other Topics Forum degenerated to the point that the above is required? Rather pathetic don't you think?

-Zeno, AKA: Le Misanthrope

PS All foreigners are idiots and should be ignored.

[hetron]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
By region, the area of the country with the most liberal gun laws (South) has the highest murder rate

[/ QUOTE ]

That's interesting. What was your source?


[/ QUOTE ]
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/region.htm

Read the top couple of lines.

[ QUOTE ]
And the theory of stopping a government takeover is bogus. If a ruthless government came into power, the only thing you can do is pray they don't use the stockpile of verified, documented, we-are-sure-they-are-there-world's-biggest-stockpile of WMD's that they would have access to.

[/ QUOTE ]

So the argument is that inbred rednecks go out for a-killin', and it's safer for me if I can't even put up any fight at all if the government ends up being a problem. Therefore nobody should have a gun.

Ok. Your point is taken and disregarded.

~D

[/ QUOTE ]

No one is saying that people shouldn't be allowed to own guns. Total prohibition of guns is not going to happen in the US, probably ever. Most gun laws are aimed at making sure that people who shouldn't have them, don't and making sure that weapons clearly not designed for hunting or self defense are not accessible to any Tom Dick or Harry. What's wrong with that?

[hetron]

See this link and the first couple of lines:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/region.htm

[hetron]

See this website:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/region.htm