PDA

View Full Version : Assault weapons ban



Snoopis
04-19-2004, 07:10 PM
Well, the "Assault Weapons" Ban is set to expire in September. I'm interested in hearing what everyone thinks.

I think it's a joke, and should be allowed to expire. The scope of what they classify as an "assault weapon" is not even worth the time it takes to type the words 'assault weapon.' Just pick and choose a few, while others, equally useful in anything you'd use an "assault weapon" for, are still legal. That, and the fact that most murderers and other criminals aren't exactly law abiding citizens to begin with, so it's not like some stupid law is going to stop them. Also, most crimes are committed with hand guns anyway.

People like Feinstein don't want you to know that 99.9999% of "assault weapon" owners are just everyday people like you and I, with a hobby no different than bodybuilding or racing cars.

Here's the link that gave me the idea for the thread.

http://www.2ndamendment.com/Miscellaneous/News/20040419-04.htm

I'm also curious to see if any pro 2nd Ammendment people actually agree with the AW Ban.

Ak47
04-19-2004, 08:33 PM
Allow me to play devils advocate for a moment... Perhaps the law was put in place because having normal, everyday people owning m-16's and whatnot just give criminals easier access to more powerful firearms. This is desirable to all criminals who use firearms (more powerful guns, that is) for obvious reasons. Sorry if I missed it in the article or whatever, but where is the proof that 99.99999% of assault weapon owners are everyday people? And where was your source that most crimes are committed with hand-guns? I don't know where you live, but here in Chicago when the news talks about big drug busts where weapons are found, many, if not most, are more powerful than mere hand-guns. And if criminals had easier access to more powerful weapons, why wouldnt they just steal them from the normal law-abiding citizens that own them?

Canadian Nanook
04-20-2004, 09:45 AM
Originally posted by Snoopis
Well, the "Assault Weapons" Ban is set to expire in September. I'm interested in hearing what everyone thinks.

I think it's a joke, and should be allowed to expire. The scope of what they classify as an "assault weapon" is not even worth the time it takes to type the words 'assault weapon.' Just pick and choose a few, while others, equally useful in anything you'd use an "assault weapon" for, are still legal. That, and the fact that most murderers and other criminals aren't exactly law abiding citizens to begin with, so it's not like some stupid law is going to stop them. Also, most crimes are committed with hand guns anyway.

People like Feinstein don't want you to know that 99.9999% of "assault weapon" owners are just everyday people like you and I, with a hobby no different than bodybuilding or racing cars.

Here's the link that gave me the idea for the thread.

http://www.2ndamendment.com/Miscellaneous/News/20040419-04.htm

I'm also curious to see if any pro 2nd Ammendment people actually agree with the AW Ban.
Question for you, what would someone be using an assault weapon for on a normal law abiding basis. I'm sorry but I don't think you can cut your lawn with an M-16. Even a hunter, hunting ducks or caribou or elk or whatever, who the hell needs an automatic assault rifle to kill these things. IF the scope of the law is too small, then widen it and expand it to more weapons. If it's illegal to buy weapons then no one will be selling them and therefore there will be fewer assault rifles on the market for criminals to use. saying that normal everyday people like you and I need to have assault rifles is like saying that normal everyday people go out and blow up buildings or need catapults in order to knock on the door of a friend. Come on

fireman_x
04-20-2004, 10:10 AM
Originally posted by Canadian Nanook
Question for you, what would someone be using an assault weapon for on a normal law abiding basis. I'm sorry but I don't think you can cut your lawn with an M-16. Even a hunter, hunting ducks or caribou or elk or whatever, who the hell needs an automatic assault rifle to kill these things. IF the scope of the law is too small, then widen it and expand it to more weapons. If it's illegal to buy weapons then no one will be selling them and therefore there will be fewer assault rifles on the market for criminals to use. saying that normal everyday people like you and I need to have assault rifles is like saying that normal everyday people go out and blow up buildings or need catapults in order to knock on the door of a friend. Come on
You don't seem to understand how criminals get weapons. Most automatic weapons either come in from South America or Eastern Europe, you can make all guns illegal if you want but it won't stop criminals from obtaining them. M-16's, AR-15's, SMG's can all be considered home defense weapons, ask residents living along the Mexican border that are constantly attacked by narco-trafficers. Incase you didn't already know, guns such as AK's and UZI's very durable and last for decades. It's not as if a ban on the weapons will protect you when they are already in the hands of criminals and terrorists. If someone were to break into your house with an assault rifle what would you do, call the police? You'd be dead before you could dial the second "1". If you had equal firepower then you might have a chance to survive. Illegality never prevents a person from obtaining what they want, just like the war on drugs failed.
http://newsfromrussia.com/war/2002/05/25/29276.html

Canadian Nanook
04-20-2004, 10:23 AM
Originally posted by fireman_x
You don't seem to understand how criminals get weapons. Most automatic weapons either come in from South America or Eastern Europe, you can make all guns illegal if you want but it won't stop criminals from obtaining them. M-16's, AR-15's, SMG's can all be considered home defense weapons, ask residents living along the Mexican border that are constantly attacked by narco-trafficers. Incase you didn't already know, guns such as AK's and UZI's very durable and last for decades. It's not as if a ban on the weapons will protect you when they are already in the hands of criminals and terrorists. If someone were to break into your house with an assault rifle what would you do, call the police? You'd be dead before you could dial the second "1". If you had equal firepower then you might have a chance to survive. Illegality never prevents a person from obtaining what they want, just like the war on drugs failed.
http://newsfromrussia.com/war/2002/05/25/29276.html
You have got to be kidding me. So, in order to prevent crime or criminals from coming into your house, you need to have an AK 47 to protect you. and also to take on a small army if you would like. That's all well and good that criminals could get their hands on guns even if they wanted to, but have you looked at the amount of gun deaths in Canada over the past decade, well below the US on any scale. We have gun control and yes there are guns coming in from the states and that is where these deaths are coming from, but why not stop them at the border, I know that Canada wants to tighten security at the border to stop more guns from coming in and lower our gun death rates. On a regular basis can you honestly justify someone having an AK47 assault rifle to use regularily or even for protection. How many people are coming across the border from Mexico to kill people using assault weapons. Guns have simply increased your homicide rate and have allowed for more deaths per capita than most other western countries

fireman_x
04-20-2004, 10:46 AM
Originally posted by Canadian Nanook
You have got to be kidding me. So, in order to prevent crime or criminals from coming into your house, you need to have an AK 47 to protect you. and also to take on a small army if you would like. That's all well and good that criminals could get their hands on guns even if they wanted to, but have you looked at the amount of gun deaths in Canada over the past decade, well below the US on any scale. We have gun control and yes there are guns coming in from the states and that is where these deaths are coming from, but why not stop them at the border, I know that Canada wants to tighten security at the border to stop more guns from coming in and lower our gun death rates. On a regular basis can you honestly justify someone having an AK47 assault rifle to use regularily or even for protection. How many people are coming across the border from Mexico to kill people using assault weapons. Guns have simply increased your homicide rate and have allowed for more deaths per capita than most other western countries
First off AK's are incredibly inaccurate at moderate ranges, I would get an AR-15. If you lived in the US which had an untold number of terrorists working secretly then you might be able to grasp the need for personal security.
You live in Canada, you have less crime because you have less people. Have you even been to the US? If you had you might understand. All I'm saying is that the criminals already have the weapons, Americans know the importance of having the right to protect themselves and Canadians don't. But answer my question, what will you do when you are confronted by a person with a gun? I'm sure that you'd be begging for your life right before you got shot. Citizens cannot depend of the govt. to protect them that is asinine.

Jimineye
04-20-2004, 12:03 PM
Originally posted by Canadian Nanook
Question for you, what would someone be using an assault weapon for on a normal law abiding basis. I'm sorry but I don't think you can cut your lawn with an M-16. Even a hunter, hunting ducks or caribou or elk or whatever, who the hell needs an automatic assault rifle to kill these things. IF the scope of the law is too small, then widen it and expand it to more weapons. If it's illegal to buy weapons then no one will be selling them and therefore there will be fewer assault rifles on the market for criminals to use. saying that normal everyday people like you and I need to have assault rifles is like saying that normal everyday people go out and blow up buildings or need catapults in order to knock on the door of a friend. Come on


Look at England, they banned guns and the crimes involving guns has skyrocketed. That's what happens when the general populous is looses their guns.

Heavily Armed
04-20-2004, 12:15 PM
The unconstitutional ban should be allowed to expire. No one has to justify why they want or need a particular type of firearm. The exercise of one's rights don't have to meet a liberal's approval. And making it easier for criminals to get more powerful weapons? Since when are criminals deterred or emboldened by things being easier or harder for them? They get what they want when they want. They of course love laws that make it harder for their victims to defend themselves.

fireman_x
04-20-2004, 12:26 PM
Originally posted by Canadian Nanook
If it's illegal to buy weapons then no one will be selling them and therefore there will be fewer assault rifles on the market for criminals to use.
I overlooked this the first time, but anyone with common sense would recognize that as a ludicrously false statement. This is laughable, as if illigality ever stopped anyone from obtaining anything, prohibition failed as did the so called "war on drugs". I'll remind you one more time, we are Americans not Canadians, it will never be illegal to buy and sell guns.

BigKazWSM747
04-20-2004, 06:23 PM
This is a case where I draw the line on guns and so I support the assault weapons ban.

Petey_G
04-20-2004, 07:28 PM
Why does someone need a car that gets 5 mpg? Why does anyone need a 10,000 sq foot house? Why does anyone need a 14k diamond ring? Why does anyone need a cable modem???
LETS OUTLAW ALL OF THIS STUFF!!!

....Or perhapse we could realize that we dont NEED this **** but its our damn right to have these...

Canadian Nanook
04-20-2004, 07:37 PM
Originally posted by Petey_G
Why does someone need a car that gets 5 mpg? Why does anyone need a 10,000 sq foot house? Why does anyone need a 14k diamond ring? Why does anyone need a cable modem???
LETS OUTLAW ALL OF THIS STUFF!!!

....Or perhapse we could realize that we dont NEED this **** but its our damn right to have these...
That's an ingenious ideology, so we don't need education either, why don't we outlaw that. So you can honestly tell me that You NEED or want an Assault rifle for protection or anything else that isn't illegal, it simply allows more people access to these guns

Ak47
04-20-2004, 07:42 PM
Originally posted by Heavily Armed
The exercise of one's rights don't have to meet a liberal's approval.

But they need to meet the conservative's approval? (i.e. gay marriage)

Reborn79
04-20-2004, 07:46 PM
If assault weapons should be allowed, so should rocket launchers and grenade launchers. I mean...there are no restrictions on the second amendment, right?

Heavily Armed
04-20-2004, 08:22 PM
Originally posted by BigKazWSM747
This is a case where I draw the line on guns and so I support the assault weapons ban.

So you allow government to set the precedent that it can decide how and when a right can be revoked. Where is the clause, exemption or exclusion in the constitution whereby parts or the whole can be suspended?

Heavily Armed
04-20-2004, 08:25 PM
Originally posted by Ak47
But they need to meet the conservative's approval? (i.e. gay marriage)

Which amendment addresses "gay rights"? The 2nd Amendment addresses the right to keep and bear arms. Can you make the distinction?

Heavily Armed
04-20-2004, 08:26 PM
Originally posted by Reborn79
If assault weapons should be allowed, so should rocket launchers and grenade launchers. I mean...there are no restrictions on the second amendment, right?

Does the thought of your fellow citizen being armed terrify you?

Reborn79
04-20-2004, 08:36 PM
Originally posted by Heavily Armed
Does the thought of your fellow citizen being armed terrify you?

I am simply pointing out that there are many items that could be classified as 'arms' and therefore, to some people, be protected under the 2nd amendment.

And YES, a fellow citizen with a ****ing rocket launcher DOES scare me.

Handguns, rifles, shotguns, I understand. They can be used for hunting and defending one's self/family.

Uzis, Ak-47s, etc. are unecessary and should be allowed only for law enforcement/military. I'm sorry, but there is no reasonable argument to allow assault weapons.

There are plenty of guns out there for the various jobs guns do, mainly protection and hunting. Assault weapons are needed for neither of those.

Heavily Armed
04-20-2004, 08:55 PM
Originally posted by Reborn79
I am simply pointing out that there are many items that could be classified as 'arms' and therefore, to some people, be protected under the 2nd amendment.

And YES, a fellow citizen with a ****ing rocket launcher DOES scare me.

Handguns, rifles, shotguns, I understand. They can be used for hunting and defending one's self/family.

Uzis, Ak-47s, etc. are unecessary and should be allowed only for law enforcement/military. I'm sorry, but there is no reasonable argument to allow assault weapons.

There are plenty of guns out there for the various jobs guns do, mainly protection and hunting. Assault weapons are needed for neither of those.

The 2nd amendment isn't about hunting. It's about protecting one's freedom, liberty and country from the possibility of a tyrranical government. The 2nd Amendment covers small arms only, up to and including .50 bmg. Explosive weapons are classified "destructive devices" and are heavily regulated.

So-called "assault weapons" semi-automatic versions of their select-fire forerunners, are particularly suitable and covered under the 2nd Amendment text. What weapon one chooses to defend one's family is their choice. Many who oppose these types of weapons have never fired one. They are quite fun to plink with. I've taken several people out over the years and let them fire this type of weapon. They, to a person, enjoyed the experience, changing their earlier negative view of weapons they feared because they were simply unfamiliar with them. Were you in the neighborhood, I would extend to you such an invitation.

There is no reasonable argument to gut the Second Amendment and turn a God-given right into a government-allowed privelege.

Reborn79
04-20-2004, 09:03 PM
Originally posted by Heavily Armed
The 2nd amendment isn't about hunting. It's about protecting one's freedom, liberty and country from the possibility of a tyrranical government. The 2nd Amendment covers small arms only, up to and including .50 bmg. Explosive weapons are classified "destructive devices" and are heavily regulated.

So-called "assault weapons" semi-automatic versions of their select-fire forerunners, are particularly suitable and covered under the 2nd Amendment text. What weapon one chooses to defend one's family is their choice. Many who oppose these types of weapons have never fired one. They are quite fun to plink with. I've taken several people out over the years and let them fire this type of weapon. They, to a person, enjoyed the experience, changing their earlier negative view of weapons they feared because they were simply unfamiliar with them.

I don't need to fire these weapons to understand that there is NO valid excuse to have an assault weapon. A rifle is effective enough to deter a robber or kidnapper, and is powerful enough to disable/kill a criminal if, god-forbid, the situation arises.

Allowing assault weapons on the streets simply increases the likelihood of a kid getting a hold of one or some other terrible accident. Like hunting? Grab your rifle and go. Want to defend yourself? Fine, take a handgun, shotgun, whatever, and snuggle up in bed with it. I couldn't care less. But I DO care about allowing weapons on the street that can do ten times more damage with one pull of the trigger than what a rifle could do (I am speaking of rounds ejected per each pull of the trigger, not the 'power' of each projectile).

It is common sense: there is no valid excuse to have assault weapons around, they will only cause more trouble than good.

Heavily Armed
04-20-2004, 09:14 PM
Originally posted by Reborn79
I don't need to fire these weapons to understand that there is NO valid excuse to have an assault weapon. A rifle is effective enough to deter a robber or kidnapper, and is powerful enough to disable/kill a criminal if, god-forbid, the situation arises.

Allowing assault weapons on the streets simply increases the likelihood of a kid getting a hold of one or some other terrible accident. Like hunting? Grab your rifle and go. Want to defend yourself? Fine, take a handgun, shotgun, whatever, and snuggle up in bed with it. I couldn't care less. But I DO care about allowing weapons on the street that can do ten times more damage with one pull of the trigger than what a rifle could do (I am speaking of rounds ejected per each pull of the trigger, not the 'power' of each projectile).

It is common sense: there is no valid excuse to have assault weapons around, they will only cause more trouble than good.

Really? So if handguns, shotguns, whatever, are adequate to defend oneself, why does the military use "assault rifles" to defend themselves? Can you guarantee all the possible situations one might find themselves in? How about multiple assailants? Terrorists? You can tell me what I might need or want? Guess how many rounds are fired (not ejected) per each trigger pull of a semi-automatic rifle? One, just like a bolt-action rifle. And how do you propose taking weapons off the streets, out of the hands of criminals? Disarming their victims? Criminals can get whatever they need to conduct their business.

You know, Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than all of my "assault weapons" combined.

Snoopis
04-20-2004, 09:58 PM
Ak47:
I don't remember where I saw the statistic that most crimes that were committed with guns were done by handungs... I did a quick search, but couldn't find it. As for saying "99.9999% of 'assault weapon' owners are just everyday people," I didn't mean that to come across as being a real statistic... I was merely trying to say that there are a LOT of guns out there, and if you look at the number of guns in the country vs the number of guns used to commit crimes, it is a very small percentage being used for crimes. I guess I should have just said that. I also grew up near Chicago, and I know what you're talking about. But of those weapons, the majority of them weren't stolen from my neighbor's bedroom or from the gun shop down the street... they were imported illegally from other countries.






As for what we need, what DO we need? Did you know that it only takes about 50-60hp for the average car to do the speed limit? How many cars out there have 100, 200, even 300hp? You don't need that. I would seriously be pissed if they regulated horsepower to what we "need"(even though my car has 90hp). But, they could do that, and it wouldn't be nearly as bad as banning guns or limiting us to single-shot weapons. Why? Because owning a car or driving is a privilege. Owning an "assault" weapon is my consitutional right! And besides, how many people are killed by cars each year? How many people are stabbed, repeatedly with steak knives? Maybe we should be given knives that only cut once before becoming dull. The government can cut our steaks for us. ;) Yes, I'm being facetious, but no more than you.


And I'll finish with a question... if you are scared of a person with a rocket launcher, would you not be scared of that same person with a handgun or a shotgun? Or a car, or a bucket of fertilizer and some diesel fuel?

Jcfreak_02
04-20-2004, 11:06 PM
This thread makes me question what people classify as assault weapons, and for the record if I want an M-16 to defend my home or retake the government by force (original reason for having second ammendment), I want one. There is no defined rule for what makes a weapon an assault weapon or not, just on the part that it has been used in a assualt of any kind. With the most conservative definition it could be a .50 Browning machine gun and the most liberal a misused baseball bat. The federal law up to expire this year I think is a bunch of crap. I am glad when it passed the democrats lost 20 something representatives from it. People have forgotten that they should have guns to protect their families if needed. Cops help bring the people to justice after the crime, guns at home keep the crime from happening. Can someone post the specifics that make guns "assualt" weapons? I find it stupid that through political scare tactics politicians that just want to ban all guns can convince the public that criminals will not be able to commit crimes because the tools they use are illegal...

lunchtray
04-21-2004, 01:31 AM
As far as centrerfire rifles go anyway, here are the characteristics:

The semi-automatic rifle would be considered an assault weapon if it has the ability to accept a detachable magazine and has two or more of the following:

- a folding or telescoping stock
- a pistol grip
- a bayonet mount
- a flash suppressor, or the threads to attach one
- a grenade launcher

Ruhanv
04-21-2004, 03:49 AM
In the UK, all guns are illegal and they have been for many years. It is true that gun crime has recently "skyrocketed". It went from an average of 65 deaths a year to a 130 last year. That compared to over 10 000 gun related deaths in the US. Considering that our population is a third of the US, it could be argued that if gun ownership was legal, we should statistically have 3 000 gun related deaths each year as opposed to a 130.

For the life me, I cannot understand why any sane person would need a gun in the Western world. The whole protection argument goes down the toilet when you consider that more people are killed with their own guns each year than with other people's guns. In addition, kids get their hands on it in their parents' houses and can buy ammo at their local corner shop. This is nuts!

Outlawing guns are completely different than the war on drugs. You cannot grow a gun plant in your basement. They have to be smuggled in and cannot be concealed in large quantities. Ammo also has to be smuggled in and be consistantly available which makes it even harder.

Heavily Armed
04-21-2004, 07:35 AM
Originally posted by Ruhanv
In the UK, all guns are illegal and they have been for many years. It is true that gun crime has recently "skyrocketed". It went from an average of 65 deaths a year to a 130 last year. That compared to over 10 000 gun related deaths in the US. Considering that our population is a third of the US, it could be argued that if gun ownership was legal, we should statistically have 3 000 gun related deaths each year as opposed to a 130.

For the life me, I cannot understand why any sane person would need a gun in the Western world. The whole protection argument goes down the toilet when you consider that more people are killed with their own guns each year than with other people's guns. In addition, kids get their hands on it in their parents' houses and can buy ammo at their local corner shop. This is nuts!

Outlawing guns are completely different than the war on drugs. You cannot grow a gun plant in your basement. They have to be smuggled in and cannot be concealed in large quantities. Ammo also has to be smuggled in and be consistantly available which makes it even harder.

With the strict gun laws in the UK and WWII starting, a plea went out from the UK for firearms for it's citizens. American gunowners donated their own firearms to the citizens of the UK for defense of their homeland in the event of German invasion. After the war, those firearms were rounded up by the government and disposed of.

You may trust a government that doesn't trust it's citizens. I do not. I intend to hold my government to the constraints placed upon it by the Constitution. The issue is liberty, not small arms technology or cosmetic characterisics of said weapons.

Jimineye
04-21-2004, 10:40 AM
Originally posted by Jcfreak_02
This thread makes me question what people classify as assault weapons, and for the record if I want an M-16 to defend my home or retake the government by force (original reason for having second ammendment), I want one. There is no defined rule for what makes a weapon an assault weapon or not, just on the part that it has been used in a assualt of any kind. With the most conservative definition it could be a .50 Browning machine gun and the most liberal a misused baseball bat. The federal law up to expire this year I think is a bunch of crap. I am glad when it passed the democrats lost 20 something representatives from it. People have forgotten that they should have guns to protect their families if needed. Cops help bring the people to justice after the crime, guns at home keep the crime from happening. Can someone post the specifics that make guns "assualt" weapons? I find it stupid that through political scare tactics politicians that just want to ban all guns can convince the public that criminals will not be able to commit crimes because the tools they use are illegal...


Bump!

Also the argument made that assault weapons could get in the hands of kids and they could kill themselves is lame. Parents should be watching over their guns and making sure the guns are kept out of their kids hands. People who grew up with guns KNOW how to handle guns and respect guns, and teach their kids how to handle guns properly. It is the parents responsiblity to keep the guns out of their kids hands NOT the governments.

If I want an AR-15, M-16, or any other gun I should be able to have one. It is my right as an American citizen and NO one is going to take my guns away from me without me goign down in a fight. In the words of Charleston Heston only "From my cold dead hands" will they take my guns away.

Jcfreak_02
04-21-2004, 10:45 AM
Originally posted by lunchtray
As far as centrerfire rifles go anyway, here are the characteristics:

The semi-automatic rifle would be considered an assault weapon if it has the ability to accept a detachable magazine and has two or more of the following:

- a folding or telescoping stock
- a pistol grip
- a bayonet mount
- a flash suppressor, or the threads to attach one
- a grenade launcher
Those look about accurate, is that from the text of the law? I the only part to that I would keep banned is the suppressor threads and grenada launcher, all else is free game. 2nd ammendment applies to arms, from my understanding that means guns, not explosives, thus why I support the grenada launcher ban.

Jcfreak_02
04-21-2004, 10:51 AM
Originally posted by Ruhanv
In the UK, all guns are illegal and they have been for many years. It is true that gun crime has recently "skyrocketed". It went from an average of 65 deaths a year to a 130 last year. That compared to over 10 000 gun related deaths in the US. Considering that our population is a third of the US, it could be argued that if gun ownership was legal, we should statistically have 3 000 gun related deaths each year as opposed to a 130.

For the life me, I cannot understand why any sane person would need a gun in the Western world. The whole protection argument goes down the toilet when you consider that more people are killed with their own guns each year than with other people's guns. In addition, kids get their hands on it in their parents' houses and can buy ammo at their local corner shop. This is nuts!

Outlawing guns are completely different than the war on drugs. You cannot grow a gun plant in your basement. They have to be smuggled in and cannot be concealed in large quantities. Ammo also has to be smuggled in and be consistantly available which makes it even harder.
When one actually looks at the accidental deaths caused by guns it is less than 5% of the total accidental deaths caused, I think something like 2.8%. For the record, a recent study in the US showed that more criminals attempting to commit crimes are killed with guns than people having accidents with their firearms. I like to look at Sweden's example of guns being well integrated and safely used throughout society. I would need a gun to shoot people that don't respect my property and my rights, our constitution allows me that much. I need guns in case I ever need guns, it is better to be safe than sorry.

badbart2000
04-21-2004, 12:37 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,117766,00.html

Gee I wounder if your ban stops illegal guns too.

LT1
04-21-2004, 02:33 PM
Originally posted by badbart2000
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,117766,00.html

Gee I wounder if your ban stops illegal guns too.

Big Bump to that

You people that support bans on weapons such as these have this mistaken and potentially fatal fairy tale belief that if they are illeagal it is no longer a problem.
With you people "Out of sight out of mind" is no longer a saying its a way of life.

Ak47
04-21-2004, 02:39 PM
the point is that making assault weapons legal for everyone is that it makes it easy for criminals to get hold of them. I'm not saying some wouldnt anyway, but not having them available to steal or buy from a neighborhood gun shop may deter many street thugs and so on from getting such weapons. its not easy for small time criminals and street gangs to get m-16s if there illegal, but it is possible.

Jimineye
04-21-2004, 03:01 PM
Originally posted by Ak47
the point is that making assault weapons legal for everyone is that it makes it easy for criminals to get hold of them. I'm not saying some wouldnt anyway, but not having them available to steal or buy from a neighborhood gun shop may deter many street thugs and so on from getting such weapons. its not easy for small time criminals and street gangs to get m-16s if there illegal, but it is possible.


Not many criminals get their weapons from gun stores as it nows anyways, even your average 9mm. So buy preventing sales of assault weapons isn't really stopping any criminals, even the small time ones. All it is just stopping average citizens from buying guns who have no intent on harming others.

Snoopis
04-21-2004, 06:47 PM
Here is an interesting link with some specifics and statistics on "assault weapons."

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcassaul.html

Basically, it says that about 2% of crime guns were assault weapons, and 0.2% of violent crime offenders used assault weapons. Further, about 4% of homocides involve rifles of any type.

Howeber, it also states that about 10% of police homicides were committed with assault weapons.

Most of these statistics appear to be from the late 80's into the mid 90's, but some appear to be more recent.

Snoopis
04-21-2004, 07:03 PM
One more...


Since police started keeping statistics, we now know that assault weapons are/were used in an underwhelming 0.026 of 1% of crimes in New Jersey. This means that my officers are more likely to confront an escaped tiger from the local zoo than to confront an assault rifle in the hands of a drug-crazed killer on the streets.


http://saysuncle.com/archives/002151.html

This link also states that the number police homicides may be more like 20% instead of 10% if you count assault weapons including the ones that weren't banned. Statistics. :rolleyes:

Heavily Armed
04-21-2004, 07:08 PM
Originally posted by Ak47
the point is that making assault weapons legal for everyone is that it makes it easy for criminals to get hold of them. I'm not saying some wouldnt anyway, but not having them available to steal or buy from a neighborhood gun shop may deter many street thugs and so on from getting such weapons. its not easy for small time criminals and street gangs to get m-16s if there illegal, but it is possible.

That's destroying essential liberty for the pipedream of promised security. It's a possibility you might run your car into a group of pedestrians. Should we take away your car to keep this from possibly happening?

Snoopis
04-21-2004, 08:54 PM
Heavily Armed, you make a great point. Giving up our right to bear arms would be a guaranteed way to leave ourselves defenseless, with the hopes that maybe there will be less crime.


Originally posted by Ruhanv
In the UK, all guns are illegal and they have been for many years. It is true that gun crime has recently "skyrocketed". It went from an average of 65 deaths a year to a 130 last year. That compared to over 10 000 gun related deaths in the US. Considering that our population is a third of the US, it could be argued that if gun ownership was legal, we should statistically have 3 000 gun related deaths each year as opposed to a 130.


I present this link (http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=126), which displays that from the period from 1991 to 2000, while the number of guns and gun owners has increased significanlty in the US, the violent crime rate has dropped to a 22-year low, and murder rate to a 35-year low. If your reasoning were correct, violent crime and murder rates would have risen drastically.


Ug, wouldn't it be so much easier if we could just make crime illegal?

Kane Fan
04-22-2004, 11:23 AM
I think it should be alowed to expire because al ot of stuff was classified as an assult weapon for cosmetic reasons
completly stupid

badbart2000
04-22-2004, 11:27 AM
Originally posted by Kane Fan
I think it should be alowed to expire because al ot of stuff was classified as an assult weapon for cosmetic reasons
completly stupid

Very true it was passed bye people who had no diea what they wer doing. You can buy the same guns now they just look diffrent.