GOP likely to let Assault Weapons Ban expire (article plus commentary)

[Lebell]

Why do I do it?

Why do I keep posting articles on the Assault weapons ban?

As one member put it,

About once a week, someone (usually from within a particular crowd) posts this type of thread so the usual suspects can beat their heads against the wall.

So why?

Honestly, because the same lies are told over and OVER again and they can be shown to be lies.

Because people still think Bowling for Columbine was a "good documentary".

Because these same freedom loving people think that it's ok to restrict my freedoms to own guns because it is for the "public good" even when the statistics don't back them up...and when this is pointed out to them, it is ignored or worse, they retreat to emotion: "Yeah, but I still think (i.e. feel) that guns are bad..."

So yes, here is another article on the AWB with my commentary following.

See if you can point out the inconsistencies of logic combined with the outright falsehoods and political PANDERING before I do at the end...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


LINK (registration req'd)


GOP likely to let assault weapons ban die

Kevin Diaz and Rob Hotakainen, Star Tribune Washington Bureau Correspondents

March 12, 2004 GUNS0312

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Less than two months before Election Day, the 10-year-old ban on assault weapons is scheduled to expire unless Congress acts.

But with Congress at loggerheads over gun legislation, it's likely that Republicans will let the Clinton-era ban expire on Sept. 13.

There's widespread agreement that the ban is flawed, but supporters of the ban argue that it should be strengthened, not dropped.

Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., voted to end the ban last week. In an interview Thursday, he called it "more dressing than substance."

Sen. Mark Dayton, D-Minn., voted to uphold the ban, saying the guns' only purpose is "to slaughter indiscriminately human beings."

Coleman's vote represented a change from his position as a candidate two years ago, when he said he would support the ban as long as it did not extend to semi-automatic hunting guns.

Coleman said the difference is studies questioning the ban's effectiveness. "All the studies come to the same conclusion -- little or no impact," he said.

Although most Senate Democrats supported the ban, there were exceptions. Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold sided with the Republicans, saying the ban is more symbolic than effective.

But the symbolism of the issue is sure to make it a hot topic in the presidential race.

"As the deadline for expiration comes closer, there will be a lot more focus on this," said Kristen Rand, legislative director for the Violence Policy Center in Washington, D.C.

While Americans remain deeply divided on gun control, polls show wide support for the assault weapons ban. A University of Minnesota survey last year found that 75 percent of Minnesotans supported strengthening it.

19 weapons banned

President Bill Clinton signed the 10-year ban on the sale of semi-automatic assault weapons in 1994. It also banned the manufacture of 19 different weapons.

"Nineteen kinds of assault rifles that have been kept largely out of our country ... for the last decade are going to be back in circulation full force in September unless something else happens," Dayton said Thursday.

Coleman said that while Congress is unlikely to revisit the issue this year, he expects to hear more about it as the election nears.

"There will certainly be those who will try to make hay of it and try to raise fear," he said. "But the reality is, very few criminals use assault weapons."

Several police organizations, including the International Association of Chiefs of Police, have urged Congress to extend the ban, citing a Justice Department study showing that the proportion of assault weapons traced to crimes has dropped 66 percent since the ban took effect.

Nearly 200 sheriffs and police chiefs from 15 states, including Minnesota, signed a letter to Congress last month urging an extension of the ban. Among the signatories were Minneapolis Police Chief Bill McManus and Bloomington Police Chief John Laux.

Despite objections by the National Rifle Association (NRA), the Senate voted 52-47 for an amendment to extend the ban for 10 years. By a vote of 53-46, the Senate also approved an amendment that would have required criminal background checks on all sales at gun shows.

But when supporters attached those amendments to a bill that would have given gun manufacturers immunity from lawsuits, the NRA objected and urged its backers to reject the entire package. The immunity bill was rejected 90-8.

Coleman, one of the top recipients of campaign contributions from the NRA in 2002, supported the group's positions. He voted against extending the ban, against background checks and against the overall bill.

Coleman received $9,900 from the NRA during his Senate campaign, and the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action spent another $7,558 on a direct mailing in support of Coleman.

Dayton, who self-financed his Senate campaign, voted to extend the ban and for background checks. He voted against the bill to give immunity to the gun industry. Both sides plan to use the votes in this year's elections.

"The U.S. Senate had its vote. ... Law-abiding gun owners will have their turn to vote in November," NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre and Chris Cox, the group's chief lobbyist, said in a statement.

Kerry knocks Bush

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, said that Americans have "no right to have access to the weapons of war in the streets of America." He criticized President Bush for not doing enough to promote an extension of the ban.

"When he ran for president in 2000, President Bush promised the American people he would work to renew the assault weapons ban," Kerry said. "But now, under pressure, he is walking away from that commitment."

Republicans said that while Bush supports extending the ban, he wanted a gun immunity bill devoid of controversial amendments so that it could pass the House.

While the debate continues, manufacturers have found ways to make minor changes in commercial models, such as the AK-47 and the AR-15, so that they can be bought in the United States. "The ban won't change anything either way," said Mark Koscielski, a Minneapolis gun store owner.

One practical effect of the ban, Koscielski said, is that the market value of higher-capacity "pre-ban" weapons and magazines has dramatically increased. He predicted a drop in their value if the ban expires.

"God bless those left-wingers," Koscielski said. "Because they've made a lot of people rich."

Some gun-control advocates are pushing for separate House legislation that would create a stronger assault weapon ban modeled on California law.

"I know it's an uphill battle," said Rebecca Thoman, executive director of Citizens for a Safer Minnesota. "But it really is a no-brainer for the public."

Some point to "post-ban" types of assault weapons that have been used in high-profile crimes, such as the Hi-point carbine used in the 1999 Columbine massacre and the Bushmaster rifle that was used by the Washington, D.C.-area snipers in October 2002.

Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., whose husband was killed in 1993 by a man firing a semiautomatic weapon on a Long Island commuter train, said that whatever the defects in the ban, scrapping it is not the answer.

"Do we actually want on September 14 for anyone to be able to go into a gun store and buy an assault weapon?" she asked. "Is this what this nation is coming to?"

Washington Correspondent Greg Gordon contributed to this report.



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

Ok, point 1)

Several police organizations, including the International Association of Chiefs of Police, have urged Congress to extend the ban, citing a Justice Department study showing that the proportion of assault weapons traced to crimes has dropped 66 percent since the ban took effect.

Anti-gun argument 1: Attacks w/ "assault weapons" went down in the nineties, therefore the AWB works.

Comment: This is a common argument that Dianne Fienstein and the crowd over the Violence Policy Center (formerly Handgun Control Inc.) use all the time. It ignores of course the fact that ALL crime went down in the 90's, that the rate of homicides in the US is at its lowest since the 60's (when rifles could be bought mail order) and is in direct contradiction to the next argument they use:


Anti-gun argument 2: Manufacturers have used "loopholes" to get around the Assault Weapons Ban, therefor the law should be strengthened.

Comment: Ok, so first the AWB got these terrible guns off the street and crime went down, but now we learn that these terrible guns are not really off the street...but crime went down?

Consider this in context of the quote by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y at the end of the article:

"Do we actually want on September 14 for anyone to be able to go into a gun store and buy an assault weapon?" she asked. "Is this what this nation is coming to?"

But of course, assault weapons still need to be banned, because that's what the DC snipers used.

I'm sorry, but the logical disconnect here is mind-boggling.


Anti-gun argument 3 (brought to you by the Democratic presidential nominie):

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, said that Americans have "no right to have access to the weapons of war in the streets of America."

This, THIS is the friggin' scare mongering that Michael Moore should have been referring to and it represents pandering at its worst.

Any grunt can tell you that he doesn't carry an AR15 in the field. He carries a select fire M16.

The difference is that the AR15 (the "assault weapon" that you can still buy RIGHT NOW) is NOT a fully automatic weapon. It is a semi-automatic weapon (one trigger pull, one shot) just like many hunting rifles.

But this is the "weapon of war" Mr. Kerry is refering too. (The same is true of ALL the "assault weapons" in the ban, but they won't tell you that.)

No, they count on the ignorance of the American public when pushing for these bans:

This quote, by Josh Sugarmann of the Violence Policy Center, can still be found on their website (link)

"[Assault weapons'] menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully-automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons --anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun-- can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons."
-- Josh Sugarmann

Anti-gun argument 4) 1 in 5 Police are killed with Assault weapons.

Comment: Straight off the VPC homepage, and in direct contradiction to the argument that crimes have gone down with these weapons.

Also, dig a little deeper.

You'll eventually find that the Justice department statistics they quote don't specify the types of rifles used. Sometimes accompanying story lines will tell you, but oft times they don't.

So what the VPC did was they took all the statistics for all rifle murders and called them "assault weapons" murders because they might have been, not because they are.


So this is why I keep posting: misconceptions, misdirection, logical fallacies and out right lies.

But I encourage everyone, do your own research.

Look up death rates, historical trends, definitions of "assault weapons" and what was banned yourselves.

Definitely look up the histories and backgrounds of those backing the ban, especially "quotes" and you'll see for yourself that the AWB was just a stepping stone and a disingenious one at that.

[Lebell]

By the overwhelming silence, I am guessing that everyone either a) agrees with me or b) doesn't care.

[MadHatder]

I think it's fine to ban assault rifles. Handguns do enough killing, there's no reason to bring about more. You don't need it for hunting, you don't need it for protection, why have it?

[Lebell]

Hooray! Somebody cares!

[MSD]

If these really were our weapons of war, we wouldn't be teh strongest military power in the world.

[Lebell]

Let me help you with that:

Originally posted by MadHatder
I think it's fine to ban sportscars. Cars do enough killing, there's no reason to bring about more. You don't need them for driving to work, you don't need them for taking the kids to school, why have them?

(In otherwords, your argument can be applied to a lot of things, if we base our lives on "need". Also, because you don't see a need, doesn't mean there isn't one...)

[HarmlessRabbit]

Let me help you with that:

Originally posted by Lebell
I think it's fine to ban NUCLEAR WEAPONS. NUCLEAR WEAPONS do enough killing, there's no reason to bring about more. You don't need them for driving to work, you don't need them for taking the kids to school, why have them?

Where do you draw the line? The absolute right to keep and bear arms is a ridiculous right to assert. Right to keep and bear Sarin Gas? Right to keep and bear Anthrax? Right to keep and bear a Howitzer?

So, if the right to keep and bear arms isn't absolute, then you and I are just arguing about where to draw the line.

I hate it when gun owner types take the "I am the pure defender of the intention of the founding fathers" angle. It just doesn't hold up under scrutiny.

[Boo]

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, said that Americans have "no right to have access to the weapons of war in the streets of America." He criticized President Bush for not doing enough to promote an extension of the ban.

Another reason Kerry won't get my vote.

A rifle was used to thwart a breakin here in Anchorage this week. A drug deal gone bad. One gun used wrong, one used correctly. What a mess. Here is an embarrassing link:

http://www.adn.com/alaska/story/4859493p-4795995c.html

IMO - If someone (like maybe a true leader) would build a smart law that included mandatory sentences for violent crimes that are committed with guns (any guns). That enabled the gun buffs to trade, sell, barter and shoot their guns until the barrels fall off (with intelligent controls). That enables a person to utilize a gun as a self defense tool. Then maybe they could sell it to the American people. Not try to push it down our throats. I mean actually sell it. Even a great leader can't sell shit and say its chow mein.

Personally this ban and all its glory are even more proof that America needs some true leadership.

BTW - Alaskans NEED guns. Just being in the woods can be trouble.

http://www.adn.com/front/story/4859481p-4795988c.html

[HarmlessRabbit]

Originally posted by Boo
IMO - If someone (like maybe a true leader) would build a smart law that included mandatory sentences for violent crimes that are committed with guns (any guns).

God knows that has worked really well in the War on Drugs.

Oh wait... it hasn't!

[Boo]

Originally posted by HarmlessRabbit
God knows that has worked really well in the War on Drugs.

Oh wait... it hasn't!

Well thats its own thread now isn't it. Funny, all the people that I knew that were into drugs are either off them... or in prison. Thanks for playing. So maybe it works a wee little bit.

I also believe in the "3 wrecks in 3 years and you walk" thought process.

Oh and the no insurance, you walk home right now and you car is held for 30 days to prove insurance and then it is auctioned off. If you can't afford insurance, stay off the streets.

[Lebell]

Originally posted by HarmlessRabbit
Where do you draw the line? The absolute right to keep and bear arms is a ridiculous right to assert. Right to keep and bear Sarin Gas? Right to keep and bear Anthrax? Right to keep and bear a Howitzer?

So, if the right to keep and bear arms isn't absolute, then you and I are just arguing about where to draw the line.

I hate it when gun owner types take the "I am the pure defender of the intention of the founding fathers" angle. It just doesn't hold up under scrutiny.

In some ways I actually agree with you.

Since I too don't think nuclear weapons should be privately held, we are just arguing where to draw the line.

BUT!

You haven't addressed any of the points I made in the original post.

Should I take your silence to mean agreement that the AWB is a joke and that bans on these guns are based more on irrational fear and not for practical reasons*?


(Practical reasons that I could argue is a good reason that nuclear weapons shouldn't be privately owned, btw.)

[Superbelt]

I agree the AWB was irrational legislation.

Can you give me anywhere near a listing of the guns banned under AWB?

I think it would be interesting to see the list and see what, if any, from that list members here think should be restricted from individuals.

[stevie667]

if the american public wants to have guns and be determined on using them to shoot stuff, then ok, i may not agree with it, but thats your choice.

HOWEVER, you can do that with handguns quite easily enough, i really just can't see any logical application for owning an assault rifle that doesn't involve breaking the law.
yes, i can appreciate the need for high power weaponry in areas like alaska where the local fauna is less than agreeable, but i'm sure letting people legally own high powered killing machines in areas where the only dangerous thing is a dust mite defies logic...

but, maybe thats just me not seeing the obvious benefits to owning a weapon that sprays death

now, i'm going to shut up before i get involved in a big argument about how owning a gun is fundemantally an insane idea, because that horse has been flogged to much already.

[seretogis]

Thanks for posting this Lebell.

First, the AWB is NOT a ban on fully automatic weapons. Fully automatics (guns that keep shooting until you let go of the trigger) are still illegal, even after the AWB expires. The only thing that the AWB does is ban guns that "look dangerous." It is reactionary and irrational considering that weapons that are counted as "Assault Weapons" only are involved in something like .01% (1/100th of a percent) of crime. It's not effective, it's not rational, get rid of it.

[Tomservo]

I have no statistics!

I simply know that in MY life, when I've owned a gun, I've been a whole lot more likely to shoot someone. That's from an attitude perspective, mind you. I sold or gave away my guns in interest of keeping my family happy and healthy, and myself outta jail.

Mileage may vary, but I used to be a large gun and bow proponent- though never a hunter.

[smooth]

Originally posted by Lebell
Should I take your silence to mean agreement that the AWB is a joke and that bans on these guns are based more on irrational fear and not for practical reasons*?


(Practical reasons that I could argue is a good reason that nuclear weapons shouldn't be privately owned, btw.)

I didn't view the AWB as being based on irrational fear. I interpret it as the legislature attempting to ban weapons they viewed as dangerous. The gun industry then found loopholes to continue building weapons that would operate in a similar fashion to the ones that were banned.

They chose elements they thought would stop a certain class of weapons being produced and used. I don't think it's accurate to blame the lawmakers because manufacturers then found ways to get around the legislation. That is, they didn't want citizens arming themselves with pin-point accurate weapons that shot a lot of bullets in rapid succession (we can agree, I'm assuming, that even though both weaopns require one finger pull per bullet, changing 7 seven round clips takes longer than 1 fifty round clip).

This is my take on the situation, although I don't doubt that some people have capitalized on the fear factor of the looks of these weapons. I just don't think that was the only, or even primary, motivation.

[Lebell]

I am not ignoring this thread, but contrary to a minority belief of a few angry TFP'ers, I don't have time for the post needed to respond to everyone's points/questions.

I promise I will take the time as soon as I can.

-lebell

[seretogis]

Originally posted by Tomservo
I simply know that in MY life, when I've owned a gun, I've been a whole lot more likely to shoot someone. That's from an attitude perspective, mind you. I sold or gave away my guns in interest of keeping my family happy and healthy, and myself outta jail.

Well, it's good that you recognized yourself as a threat to your family and disarmed yourself. However, be sure not to assume that others are as quick to use firearms in such a way. My parents argued seemingly non-stop but never did they even make a motion or suggestion as to use a firearm against each other.

[cj2112]

this is the definition of the currently banned "Assault Rifles"....

Specifically, a rifle is considered an "assault weapon" if it can accept a detachable magazine, and possesses two or more of the following features:

Folding or telescopic stock
Pistol grip protruding conspicuously beneath the stock
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor or threaded barrel
Grenade launcher



so if take my ruger 10/22 (basically a gun used for shooting cans)
put a folding stock on it, and a bayonet lug (/sarcasm a truly dangerous item there, as we all know that people are constantly being murdered w/ bayonets /end sarcasm) on it. I have just taken a sporting rifle and made it an assault weapon, even though all i have changed is the appearance of the gun....it still functions the same. This is the biggest problem with the law.

[smooth]

Originally posted by cj2112
this is the definition of the currently banned "Assault Rifles"....

Specifically, a rifle is considered an "assault weapon" if it can accept a detachable magazine, and possesses two or more of the following features:

Folding or telescopic stock
Pistol grip protruding conspicuously beneath the stock
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor or threaded barrel
Grenade launcher



so if take my ruger 10/22 (basically a gun used for shooting cans)
put a folding stock on it, and a bayonet lug (/sarcasm a truly dangerous item there, as we all know that people are constantly being murdered w/ bayonets /end sarcasm) on it. I have just taken a sporting rifle and made it an assault weapon, even though all i have changed is the appearance of the gun....it still functions the same. This is the biggest problem with the law.

Are you contending that a folded rifle (about the size of a grown man's forearm) has the same function as a long stock rifle?

I disagree that they serve the same function. I think that folded stocks allow people to take accurate rifles and more easily conceal them than if they were long stocked.

That said, I understand your desire to shoot a folded stock rifle for fun. Also, you may want to practice in case a war occurs. Older rifles, however, aren't subject to this bill. I've never been approaced by an officer out in the woods, and not at a range. I suspect that the only time you might be bothered over the rifle you just described would be if you were swinging it around in Target. And if you were, I'd certainly want this law on the books to make it illegal for you to do that shit in a supermarket. And I'd want them to arrest you as fast as possible (or maybe Lebell would shoot you with his handgun), before you started letting rounds off.

Put in that light, are you amendable to this bill allowing for you to lawfully use such weapons in a sport or training setting? (that wording is actually a bit loose, but someone would have to fix it up). Essentially illegal in certain areas--like smoking?

[HarmlessRabbit]

Originally posted by Lebell
Should I take your silence to mean agreement that the AWB is a joke and that bans on these guns are based more on irrational fear and not for practical reasons*?

Well, I think some actual assault weapons should be controlled. I see no reason for a person to have a fully automatic large-bore weapon at home in most cases.

I'm flexible to the idea that responsible people, gun clubs, etc, could have the larger weapons, in return for agreeing to deeper background checks or for agreeing to inspection of their facilities for safety, etc. Your pics you posted of people firing off big weapons looked like a lot of fun.

I think the current assault weapons ban is flawed, but I would support a "real" assault weapons ban.

My idea of a perfect gun control law would be this:

Level one - small weapons (home defense and hunting)
- short, lenient background check
- standardized national gun safety course
- limits on quantities
- agreements from the gunmakers to voluntarily limit distribution of "saturday night specials
- national standards for flea markets with the same standards for background check, etc, as gun dealers
- exemptions for antique guns are fine by me

level two - fully automatic weapons and other hand-held guns with no real hunting or self-defense use
- deeper background check
- more extensive safety course
- sold only through licensed dealers

level three - antique, oddball stuff, large guns, small mortars, small rockets
- limited to licensed gun clubs
- extensive background check
- off home facility required
- random inspections possible

Of course, getting a nice clean gun control bill through any congress is impossible. Between the NRA on one side and the Brady bill types on the other, any bill going through is going to be severely watered down by the other side. That's why we have the mess we have today.

[Lebell]

First,

I would like to thank the board for their thoughtful and reasoned responses.

This is when I enjoy being here.

Now to answer some posts:
-------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Superbelt
I agree the AWB was irrational legislation.

Can you give me anywhere near a listing of the guns banned under AWB?

I think it would be interesting to see the list and see what, if any, from that list members here think should be restricted from individuals.

This was actually alot harder to track down than I thought it would be, but I finally found a comprehensive list:

What Weapons Were Banned By the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban?

According to the legislation, the term "semiautomatic assault weapon" means -

(A) any of the firearms, or copies or duplicates of the firearms in any caliber, known as -
(i) Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models);
(ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil;
(iii) Beretta Ar70 (SC-70);
(iv) Colt AR-15;
(v) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC;
(vi) SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9, and M-12;
(vii) Steyr AUG;
(viii) INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9 and TEC-22; and
(ix) revolving cylinder shotguns, such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12;
(B) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of -
(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;
(iii) a bayonet mount;
(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and
(v) a grenade launcher;
(C) a semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of -
(i) an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip;
(ii) a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer;
(iii) a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned;
(iv) a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; and
(v) a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm; and
(D) a semiautomatic shotgun that has at least 2 of -
(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;
(iii) a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds; and
(iv) an ability to accept a detachable magazine.
Ammunition magazines holding greater than 10 rounds were also banned.

(Source: US Code Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 44, Section 921)

Again, it is important to say that all of the weapons banned ARE NOT machine guns (automatic weapons). The are semi-automatic.

Also, most of those have been changed slightly and can still be bought legally. The example I am most familiar with the the AR15 which can be bought legally, even though the Colt AR15 was mentioned specifically.

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

Originally posted by stevie667
I really just can't see any logical application for owning an assault rifle that doesn't involve breaking the law.

yes, i can appreciate the need for high power weaponry in areas like alaska where the local fauna is less than agreeable, but i'm sure letting people legally own high powered killing machines in areas where the only dangerous thing is a dust mite defies logic...

Do a google on CMP and match shooting. It's a big sport.

Also, ranchers and people in the boonies love AR15's because they are light, reliable and easy to use when out on the back 40.

but, maybe thats just me not seeing the obvious benefits to owning a weapon that sprays death

This is how I can tell you've been gotten too: "sprays death".

A machine gun could arguably be said to "spray death". But again, confusion is what they count on.

If these guns "spray death", then so does dad's semiautomatic hunting rifle, because the mechanism is no different: One Pull, One Shot.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by seretogis
Fully automatics (guns that keep shooting until you let go of the trigger) are still illegal, even after the AWB expires.

A correction: Fully automatic weapons are NOT illegal. They are HEAVILY regulated by the Firearms Act of 1934. Right now they are just very expense after an extensive permitting process.
---------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by smooth
I didn't view the AWB as being based on irrational fear. I interpret it as the legislature attempting to ban weapons they viewed as dangerous. The gun industry then found loopholes to continue building weapons that would operate in a similar fashion to the ones that were banned.

I am not making fun of you, but I really want you to look again at what you said: "weapons they viewed as dangerous" key word, "viewed".

They didn't use statistics, they used looks.

But to look at something rational, like all the statistics or functionality of the banned weapons, vs the legal ones, is when this law falls apart.

Again, please, just look at the statistics.

- Crime down. Assault weapons still available.
- Claim "1 in 5 cops shot with Assault rifles" Truth: go look at the FBI stats and what they really say and DON'T say.
- CDC report that no conclusion can be made that these laws have had any effect.
- FBI stats on the number of "assault weapons" used in crime.

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

Originally posted by smooth
Are you contending that a folded rifle (about the size of a grown man's forearm) has the same function as a long stock rifle?

I disagree that they serve the same function. I think that folded stocks allow people to take accurate rifles and more easily conceal them than if they were long stocked.

That said, I understand your desire to shoot a folded stock rifle for fun. Also, you may want to practice in case a war occurs. Older rifles, however, aren't subject to this bill. I've never been approaced by an officer out in the woods, and not at a range. I suspect that the only time you might be bothered over the rifle you just described would be if you were swinging it around in Target. And if you were, I'd certainly want this law on the books to make it illegal for you to do that shit in a supermarket. And I'd want them to arrest you as fast as possible (or maybe Lebell would shoot you with his handgun), before you started letting rounds off.

Put in that light, are you amendable to this bill allowing for you to lawfully use such weapons in a sport or training setting? (that wording is actually a bit loose, but someone would have to fix it up). Essentially illegal in certain areas--like smoking?

When can all play "what if". What if this happened, what if that happened, but again, the statistics don't back you up. Aside from the high profile cases which are great news, criminals overwhelmingly use pistols for crimes, drive-bys, etc.

And yes, if that did happen, I would try my best to stop that person from hurting anyone while not hurting anyone myself, regardless if I happened to by carrying my concealed weapon that day.

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

Originally posted by HarmlessRabbit
Well, I think some actual assault weapons should be controlled. I see no reason for a person to have a fully automatic large-bore weapon at home in most cases.

I'm not hammering on purpose, but this needs repeating:

The weapons here are SEMI-AUTOMATIC, NOT AUTOMATIC.

Fully automatic weapons are strictly controlled by the 1934 Firearms act.

Those that have them pay a LOT of money for them and go through a very very rigorous FBI background check and permitting process.

They are basically a very expensive (and fun) hobby.

Again, statistics bear me out: I think there may be ONE automatic weapons crime in the last 50 years or so, and that was a cop using (I think) a department weapon. (I would have to google for 100% certaintly and I'm getting tired, but I know for a fact that the number is less than 2 and I am about 85% sure of my facts above).

I'm flexible to the idea that responsible people, gun clubs, etc, could have the larger weapons, in return for agreeing to deeper background checks or for agreeing to inspection of their facilities for safety, etc. Your pics you posted of people firing off big weapons looked like a lot of fun.

I think the current assault weapons ban is flawed, but I would support a "real" assault weapons ban.

My idea of a perfect gun control law would be this:

Level one - small weapons (home defense and hunting)
- short, lenient background check
- standardized national gun safety course
- limits on quantities
- agreements from the gunmakers to voluntarily limit distribution of "saturday night specials
- national standards for flea markets with the same standards for background check, etc, as gun dealers
- exemptions for antique guns are fine by me

level two - fully automatic weapons and other hand-held guns with no real hunting or self-defense use
- deeper background check
- more extensive safety course
- sold only through licensed dealers

level three - antique, oddball stuff, large guns, small mortars, small rockets
- limited to licensed gun clubs
- extensive background check
- off home facility required
- random inspections possible

Of course, getting a nice clean gun control bill through any congress is impossible. Between the NRA on one side and the Brady bill types on the other, any bill going through is going to be severely watered down by the other side. That's why we have the mess we have today.

I'm getting tired, but would like to finish this:

While I respect your thoughts on that, I simply ask, "why"?

Again, statistically there doesn't seem to be a reason for your laws.

Crime rates (including gun related ones) are at 1960 levels.

For those that DO occur, MANY are drug related.

My honest opinion is that if people are honest about wanting to reduce gun crime, then we MUST tackle drug crime, because that will cause the greatest reduction in gun deaths, as well as other related criminal activity.

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

Ok, don't gig me for grammar or spelling or other foul-ups, I'll fix it if I can tomorrow, otherwise it might not happen for awhile, as I'll be out of town.

Thanks again!

[smooth]

Lebell,

The statistics don't back me up for what?

I was pointing out to cj2112 that a folding stock and 50 round clip _do_ change the function of a rifle--namely, that it becomes more concealable and can fire more rounds than a the long-stocked ruger he said he currently was fitted with.

I don't know what statistics I need to make this statement. Speaking of statistics, though, crime is down to 1990 levels, not 1960. 1960 was when crime rates skyrocketed. During the 80's they bobbled up and down and finally started to drop around 1992. We haven't come anywhere close the levels we had 40 years ago. Worse than that, while crime has been dropping, juvenile (16-25) violent crime has been increasing. So while the overall crime trend has been dropping, important portions of it haven't always been standing out.

Your play on my words notwithstanding, the legislature drafted a law to regulate weapons they believed to be more dangerous than average guns. You haven't convinced me they based the law on looks, unless you've got something more substantial than speculation

I wasn't implying that they used sight to base the law on when I used the term "viewed." That's a synonym for "believed" or "understood," and could have very well been based on statistics rather than fear and pictures.

[tecoyah]

Personally....I didnt reply to this post because I dint really care what Americans do with guns, as long as I am uneffected. It is not my responsibility to police my fellow citizens, and there are far more important things on the political agenda.
My take on guns:
Guns kill people easier than knives.
If someone wants to kill me, and they are capable of doing so, they will.
A gun just makes it quicker and easier.
The people who kill are just plain fucked up(non military), not the gun they killed with.
Banning guns will not ban murder.
Pissing off people who like guns, seems to me a bad idea.
Big guns dont kill more people(okay maybe more people at one time).
Small bullets kill, just like big bullets.
I dont like guns, but have many friends who do.
I dont like Black beans, but have many friends who do.
Guns dont kill people, Assholes do.

[pan6467]

I am not pro nor anti gun. What I am anti about are weapons that cause great harm.

If I want to protect my family and own a Glock 9MM, a shotgun or a Saturday Night Special then that should be ok, however if I want to own an UZI or AK47 or grenade launcher then 1) my intentions should be questioned and 2) I should not have that right as more people will undoubtedly die from the use of those weapons.

It's not a question of need, it is a question of why. Why does someone need military armament? You aren't hunting with an UZI or grenade launcher, I guarantee that. In these days of terroristic activity and scares, I would think government would be more than happy to keep weapons in the public hands to a minimum.

[geep]

I try to stay away from this board because I get sucked in to the madness. This is a pretty good example of the pit people get stuck in. Two points need to be considered to bring this argument into the proper perspective.

1. Laws banning things do not affect their physical existance. In other words banning something does not make it disappear from the face of the earth.

2. If something exists and someone wants it bad enough, they will be able to get it regardless of the laws regulating it.

IMHO criminalizing something only punishes responsible law-abiding citizens by limiting their freedom to make choices. Laws instead should target criminals and hold people responsible for their errant behavior. Punish the criminals, not the innocent. It is not your right to decide what I should or shouldn't want or need. If I believe I need an assault rifle, that is my choice and so long as I use it in a responsible manner then it is none of your business. If I don't act responsibly, feel free to put the hammer down on me, I would deserve it.

[FoolThemAll]

Originally posted by pan6467
It's not a question of need, it is a question of why. Why does someone need military armament?

Sounds like a question of need. Just sayin', is all.

[Lebell]

Originally posted by pan6467

It's not a question of need, it is a question of why. Why does someone need military armament? You aren't hunting with an UZI or grenade launcher, I guarantee that. In these days of terroristic activity and scares, I would think government would be more than happy to keep weapons in the public hands to a minimum.

This is VERY important because you are suffering from the same confusion that is purposefully perpetuated and what needs to be dispelled:

The AWB is NOT about military weapons.

Military weapons are FULLY AUTOMATIC.

The AWB is about weapons that LOOK like military weapons.

You CANNOT get a grenade launcher...AWB or no AWB...period (they are regulated under the 1934 act as distructive devices.)

I keep coming back to these points because until we have the same basis of understanding what the law means, what it does and doesn't do, it makes it impossible to discuss it.

[Lebell]

Oh, let me please take a minute to discuss "uzi's".

First, a fully automatic uzi is again regulated by the 1934 act.

They are VERY expensive and the permitting process is extensive.

Secondly, the semi-automatic version has a LONG barrel, not the short barrelled version you might have seen in the movies.

This is because short-barreled weapons are again regulated by the 1934 act (exactly the same as sawed off shot guns).

[Lebell]

Originally posted by smooth
Lebell,

The statistics don't back me up for what?

I was pointing out to cj2112 that a folding stock and 50 round clip _do_ change the function of a rifle--namely, that it becomes more concealable and can fire more rounds than a the long-stocked ruger he said he currently was fitted with.

I don't know what statistics I need to make this statement. Speaking of statistics, though, crime is down to 1990 levels, not 1960. 1960 was when crime rates skyrocketed. During the 80's they bobbled up and down and finally started to drop around 1992. We haven't come anywhere close the levels we had 40 years ago. Worse than that, while crime has been dropping, juvenile (16-25) violent crime has been increasing. So while the overall crime trend has been dropping, important portions of it haven't always been standing out.

Your play on my words notwithstanding, the legislature drafted a law to regulate weapons they believed to be more dangerous than average guns. You haven't convinced me they based the law on looks, unless you've got something more substantial than speculation

I wasn't implying that they used sight to base the law on when I used the term "viewed." That's a synonym for "believed" or "understood," and could have very well been based on statistics rather than fear and pictures.

Smooth,

While you made an observation, specifically the statistics don't support you in that folding stocks are prefered by criminals committing crimes.

Are they sometimes found?

Yes.

But there doesn't appear to be a problem.


NOW:

Yes, I can say that the law was based on looks.

I don't have time right now, but if you want me to when I get back, I can pull up the quotes of the senators who drafted the law.

To paraphrase, they went through gun publications like "Shotgun News" and picked out the ones that looked scary.

I'm not making this up.

That's how they picked many of these weapons.

For example, that is EXACTLY why the Ruger Mini14 (a .223 semiautomatic rifle, that has many aftermarket parts available, including folding stocks and large capacity magazines) is on the "Good Rifle List" in Appendix A of the regulation, while the Colt AR15, (a .223 semiautomatic rifle, that has many (blah blah blah)) is specifically banned.

Yes, I promise you, without doubt and by their own words, our Senators and Representatives did this based on emotional reactions after looking through gun magazines.

Not function.

Looks.

[Lebell]

Oh, and yes, Crime sky rocketed in the 60's.

I do have the Justice department chart somewhere that shows crime rates (per 1000 I think).

It is indeed at 1960's levels, before it shot up in the late 60's and 70's.

I wouldn't say it if it weren't true, because for one thing, it is too easy to look up.

[pan6467]

Originally posted by FoolThemAll
Sounds like a question of need. Just sayin', is all.

OK Why would anyone WANT such weapons?

I stand corrected and beg forgiveness..... Baseball's on gotta run.

[smooth]

Originally posted by Lebell
Smooth,

While you made an observation, specifically the statistics don't support you in that folding stocks are prefered by criminals committing crimes.

Are they sometimes found?

Yes.

But there doesn't appear to be a problem.


NOW:

Yes, I can say that the law was based on looks.

I don't have time right now, but if you want me to when I get back, I can pull up the quotes of the senators who drafted the law.

To paraphrase, they went through gun publications like "Shotgun News" and picked out the ones that looked scary.

I'm not making this up.

That's how they picked many of these weapons.

For example, that is EXACTLY why the Ruger Mini14 (a .223 semiautomatic rifle, that has many aftermarket parts available, including folding stocks and large capacity magazines) is on the "Good Rifle List" in Appendix A of the regulation, while the Colt AR15, (a .223 semiautomatic rifle, that has many (blah blah blah)) is specifically banned.

Yes, I promise you, without doubt and by their own words, our Senators and Representatives did this based on emotional reactions after looking through gun magazines.

Not function.

Looks.

OK, well, I wasn't arguing that criminals choose one weapon over another, just that it's silly to me to argue that there is no functional difference between a folded stock and an unfolded one--they have two different purposes, with the former being ease of concealment.

But I can believe that legislature members did pass a law based on fear or looks or what they might have thought represented the most dangerous weapons. I started my point with speculation. So if you say you've got the quotes and all, I'm not too bent to gainsay you.

The stats in relation to crime rates though, since that's what I stare at all day, I'd like you to PM me someday. I'll walk through them with you and we can discuss what's going on.Keep in mind of course, that they are starting to rise again.

[HarmlessRabbit]

Originally posted by Lebell
This is VERY important because you are suffering from the same confusion that is purposefully perpetuated and what needs to be dispelled:

The AWB is NOT about military weapons.

Military weapons are FULLY AUTOMATIC.

The AWB is about weapons that LOOK like military weapons.

You CANNOT get a grenade launcher...AWB or no AWB...period (they are regulated under the 1934 act as distructive devices.)

I keep coming back to these points because until we have the same basis of understanding what the law means, what it does and doesn't do, it makes it impossible to discuss it.

I fully understood your point. I agree that the current AWB law isn't effective. However, that law exists in a political context in which:
- the NRA will oppose any gun control law, no matter how sensible, because they claim that it is a "camel nose under the tent" for harsher gun control later
- the gun control supporters will support any gun control law, no matter how silly, so that they can go back to their constituents and say what a good job they did

So, I expect a clean, effective gun control law to be passed, oh, about never.

Lebell, I laid out my opinion on how I thought guns should be controlled, and you came back with the same argument saying that there is no proof that any gun control is effective. As I said at the beginning of this thread, nuclear weapons aren't freely available to own, therefore it seems like some form of weapon control is needed in the USA.

Are you honestly saying that you believe that any american citizen should be able to freely own as many guns as they want, with no restrictions on the size, capacity, or capabilities of the gun? And that they should be able to get these guns with absolutely no restrictions, training, background checks, or any other controls?

Unless you believe this, then you obviously believe in some form of gun control laws. What gun controls laws would you enact if you could start with a clean slate?

[Tomservo]

Originally posted by seretogis
Well, it's good that you recognized yourself as a threat to your family and disarmed yourself. However, be sure not to assume that others are as quick to use firearms in such a way. My parents argued seemingly non-stop but never did they even make a motion or suggestion as to use a firearm against each other.

I'd like to avoid the snarkiness of your comment, but I really can't. I never said or implied that I considered myself a threat to my family, and I never WOULD have said that. My concern is that some *drunken redneck would wander onto my property and I would drop him, then end up in jail for it. Obviously, me being in jail is bad for the health and happiness of my family.

*This occurrence was indeed the one that changed my mind on guns. I was completely within my rights to blast this fool, and had the situation escalated even a little, I very well may have. That would absolutely not have benefitted anyone. Guns for protection may be fine, but when coolheadedness can protect just as well, I'll take that every time.

[cj2112]

just to illustrate the difference between the banned AR-15 vs. the legal Mini-14 (both rifles are .223 and semi-automatic) i've included these pictures:

banned:



legal:





Keep in mind, that both of these guns are the same caliber, and both are semi-automatic (one pull of the trigger and the gun fires one time), the biggest difference between these two weapons is simply that one looks more menacing than the other. Both are just as deadly, and to be truthful, I ran across somebody hunting a couple of years ago w/ a pre-ban AR-15 (imagine that, somebody hunting with an "assault weapon" )

[Phaenx]

Originally posted by stevie667
if the american public wants to have guns and be determined on using them to shoot stuff, then ok, i may not agree with it, but thats your choice.

HOWEVER, you can do that with handguns quite easily enough, i really just can't see any logical application for owning an assault rifle that doesn't involve breaking the law.
yes, i can appreciate the need for high power weaponry in areas like alaska where the local fauna is less than agreeable, but i'm sure letting people legally own high powered killing machines in areas where the only dangerous thing is a dust mite defies logic...

but, maybe thats just me not seeing the obvious benefits to owning a weapon that sprays death

now, i'm going to shut up before i get involved in a big argument about how owning a gun is fundemantally an insane idea, because that horse has been flogged to much already.

An assault rifle would be handy if something like the L.A. riots happened here, or the U.S. is invaded by a foreign power, or you're in another situation that requires shooting people. This stuff happens, not often here but shit sometimes finds its way to the fan.

Also, the government gets to keep in mind that we're not a bunch of pussies they can push around.

[smooth]

Look, I don't want to keep arguing this point as I don't see my opinion chaning anyone's mind. But I'm going to point a couple things out before I take off:

1) Evidence that criminals don't use assault weapons during crimes isn't evidence that the ban is useless, it's evidence that it works. These weapons have been banned from being manufactured for 10 years now. The pre-94 weapons have substantially increased in price. Any of you collectors out there are more than welcome to buy pre-banned rifles at a collector's price--but companies can't make new ones.

2) Your ability to make a legal gun look like an illegal one notwithstanding, law enforcement officials won't know whether they are looking down the barrel of a fully automatic AR15 or not. Why you failed to mention in your example above that there is a fully auto version of the AR15 is beyond me. A semi-auto version can be converted to a full auto by exchaning some parts and shaving metal from the internals. Granted the mini-14 can be converted, as well, but, well...that leads into this next point:

Q. How is it possible to distinguish semi-automatic hunting rifles from semi-automatic assault weapons?

A. Sporting rifles and assault weapons are two distinct classes of firearms. While semi-automatic hunting rifles are designed to be fired from the shoulder and depend upon the accuracy of a precisely aimed projectile, semi-automatic assault weapons are designed to maximize lethal effects through a rapid rate of fire. Assault weapons are designed to be spray-fired from the hip, and because of their design, a shooter can maintain control of the weapon even while firing many rounds in rapid succession.

Because assault weapons were designed for military purposes, assault weapons are equipped with "combat hardware," such as silencers, folding stocks and bayonets, which are not found on sporting guns. While opponents of the new law restricting semi-automatic assault weapons argued that such weapons only "look scary," there is a good reason why these features on assault weapons should frighten the public. Assault weapons are commonly equipped with some or all of the following combat hardware:

Large-capacity ammunition magazine, enabling the shooter to continuously fire dozens of rounds without reloading. Standard hunting rifles are equipped with no more than 3 or 4-shot magazines.

Folding stock on a rifle or shotgun, which sacrifices accuracy for advantages such as concealability and mobility in close combat.

Pistol grip on a rifle or shotgun, which facilitates firing from the hip, allowing the shooter to spray-fire the weapon. A pistol grip also helps stabilize the firearm during rapid fire.

Barrel shroud which is designed to cool the barrel so the firearm can shoot many rounds in rapid succession without overheating. It also allows the shooter to grasp the barrel area, without incurring serious burns, during rapid fire.

Threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor, which serves no useful sporting purpose. The flash suppressor allows the shooter to remain concealed when shooting at night, an advantage in combat but unnecessary for hunting or sporting purposes. In addition, the flash suppressor is useful in preventing barrel climb during rapid fire, helping the shooter maintain control of the firearm.

Threaded barrel designed to accommodate a silencer, which is useful to assassins but has no purpose for sportsmen.

Barrel mount designed to accommodate a bayonet, which obviously serves no sporting purpose.

--http://www.millionmommarch.org/facts/gunlaws/awb.asp

Now granted, I think shooting semi's off are fun. But as soon as I could, I "fixed" my tech-9 and sks's. We might reach a consensus on where the line between regulating guns should be, but you aren't going to convince me that there is no functional difference between a fold-down polycarbonate stock, pistol grip rifle with a 50 round clip and a wooden stock, full lenght, ruger hunting rifle with a 3 round clip.

[seretogis]

Originally posted by smooth
1) Evidence that criminals don't use assault weapons during crimes isn't evidence that the ban is useless, it's evidence that it works. These weapons have been banned from being manufactured for 10 years now.

There was no evidence that it was necessary legislation 10 years ago. It was nothing but tough words with no substance or reason behind them. Politics at it's "best."

--

edit: Actually, I've had a recent change of heart on the matter. If the AWB will keep weapons like the below out of the hands of our nation's children, I am all for it.

[HarmlessRabbit]

Originally posted by seretogis
There was no evidence that it was necessary legislation 10 years ago. It was nothing but tough words with no substance or reason behind them. Politics at it's "best."

Seretogis, I wonder if you would mind answering the same question (with a few changes), that I asked Lebell:

Do you believe that any american citizen should be able to freely own as many guns as they want, with no restrictions on the size, capacity, or capabilities of the gun? And that they should be able to get these guns with absolutely no restrictions, training, background checks, or any other controls? Would you extend this allowance to non-gun weapons, like grenades and mortars?

What gun laws would you enact if you could start with a clean slate?