Before banning "Assult Rifles" - take a look at this - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

smooth · 09-13-2004, 02:16 PM

I dont know how much longer I can keep going with these points:

Your mom analogy doesn't square with what happened. If we want to keep using it we'll need to modify it to read: if she said I couldn't have a candy bar and I picked up a chocolate covered trail mix bar, yeah, she'd probably have to let me eat it by her rules but next time the shit won't fly very far despite being within the limits of the rule because it'll be pretty clear that I'm not supposed to be eating chocolate or sugar or whatever. I don't know of any parent who would agree with me that the rule was silly because, after all, it didn't prevent me from getting a similar type of bar than the one prohibited. They'd think I was being a smartass--and I would be just because I'd want a candy bar. That's skating the line.

A gun can't have a folding stock without a pistol grip. How would you hold it and shoot it? Perfectly legal and perfectly unusable. I'm going by your comments here, but in Oregon it wasn't legal to buy a foldable stock at all--so I'm not sure if that was state law or if you are incorrect about whether a folding stock is perfectly legal.

Both guns allow me to "spray" just as quickly as I can pull the trigger. The bottom one, however, runs out of bullets faster than the top one and I have to unlatch the clip before changing it instead of just popping a latch. My SKS with the legal clip was a pain in the ass to change. My folding stock, which I illegally converted from a non-foldable stock with a plastic pin in it (yeah, the manufacture is certainly partly culpable knowing full well anyone is going to just grind the pin out) was easily concealable in a T-shirt. And it was a snap to use out of the side of a car (from what I hear, anyway :{}).

Neither my sks (which eventuallly looked and acted just like your 'ak-ish' example) nor my Tech-9, nor the AR-15 we had use of were 3K. More like $50-100. I should mention that while they were street purchased and used illicitly, they have since been destroyed by law enforcement. Until this ban expired, those three weapons could never be obtained legally again.

btw, thanks for the discussion, too. We can't seem to see eye to eye on some of our points and I'm gettin frustrated. If it came through in my post, sorry. I'm going to bow out of the discussion now.

hrdwareguy · 09-13-2004, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth

A gun can't have a folding stock without a pistol grip. How would you hold it and shoot it? Perfectly legal and perfectly unusable. I'm going by your comments here, but in Oregon it wasn't legal to buy a foldable stock at all--so I'm not sure if that was state law or if you are incorrect about whether a folding stock is perfectly legal.

This would be a state specific law.

Quote:

Neither my sks (which eventuallly looked and acted just like your 'ak-ish' example) nor my Tech-9, nor the AR-15 we had use of were 3K. More like $50-100. I should mention that while they were street purchased and used illicitly, they have since been destroyed by law enforcement. Until this ban expired, those three weapons could never be obtained legally again.

That's the thing when buying on the street...prices are much cheaper because the guns are already illegeal. If you are buying an illegeal gun what difference is a ban on that gun going to do. Besides, after the ban went into affect, you could still buy the same guns, they were pre-bans. And if you were that bent on getting one you could get a post ban and modify it.

smooth · 09-13-2004, 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hrdwareguy

This would be a state specific law.

That's the thing when buying on the street...prices are much cheaper because the guns are already illegeal. If you are buying an illegeal gun what difference is a ban on that gun going to do. Besides, after the ban went into affect, you could still buy the same guns, they were pre-bans. And if you were that bent on getting one you could get a post ban and modify it.

Yes, the point I was making was that after the police cleaned those guns off the street they were no longer available ever again.

Now they will be.

I understand that pre-bans and modifications were and are available. I'm posing the scenario that over time the availability dwindles. With a cap on the current supply, as demand increases, so does scarcity and price--even for those cheapo sks's.

One of the main issues I had with the week's current public debate was the constant citation that gun crimes had remained static over the course of the ban, as if that illustrated the uselessness of the ban. By itself, that number means nothing and to most people watching the news in their living rooms it probably meant the opposite--that the ban had kept the numbers from rising.

The_Dunedan · 09-13-2004, 05:41 PM

And just how successful have they been at cleaning Ganga, Horse, and Ex off the street, eh?

adysav · 09-13-2004, 06:03 PM

I realise this is a little off topic but someone mentioned that the gun ban and buyback in australia resulted in an increase in crime.
This is disputed here. It appears that like any other survey, you don't actually know the truth unless you collected the information yourself as someone always has something to gain by distorting the results.

Rekna · 09-13-2004, 06:30 PM

It seems most people use the argument that the AWB only bans guns that "look" scary. And because of this it shouldn't exist. Well then would you support a extension to the bill that banned more than just the scary looking weapons?

The_Dunedan · 09-13-2004, 09:18 PM

Nope. Once again, that pesky Constitution getting in the way...

Rekna · 09-13-2004, 09:26 PM

Pesky Constitution doesn't stop the patriot act, it doesn't help those people in guantonimo, but I don't see conservatives complaining about that.

The Phenomenon · 09-13-2004, 11:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whocarz

Just as a side note, fully automatic guns aren't necessarily more dangerous than semi-automatic. It is very hard to control a gun firing full auto, and it is mainly used to keep peoples heads down. Firing semi-auto is much more accurate, and you are more likely to hit your intended target. Look at the event that brought about the AWB, the bank robbery in LA where the two criminals had full auto AK47s. They wounded 9 cops and a number of civilians, but they didn't kill anyone. If they fired on semi-auto, I'd be willing to bet that they would have killed a few people atleast. Why? Because it isn't as scary, thus the police wouldn't have hid as much behind cover, taken more chances, gone out into the open more, etc.

Anyway, I could go on about this but I'll digress.

Where the difference with fully automatic weapons com e in is when some lunatic walks into a crowd of people. At close ranges fully automatic weapons deal loads and loads more damage in a certain period of time than a semi-automatic ever will be able to.

hrdwareguy · 09-14-2004, 07:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth

Yes, the point I was making was that after the police cleaned those guns off the street they were no longer available ever again.

Now they will be.

I understand that pre-bans and modifications were and are available. I'm posing the scenario that over time the availability dwindles. With a cap on the current supply, as demand increases, so does scarcity and price--even for those cheapo sks's.

Call me dense, but I don't see where the difference lies. You could buy a pre-ban gun and modify it, or you could buy a post ban gun and modify it. You still have not solved the problem, only made it slightly harder to do what you want.

Pacifier · 09-14-2004, 07:46 AM

a bit OT but I found this quiz:
http://www.ont.com/users/kolya/AR15/awc.htm
you have to guess if a gun is legal or illegal
since I'm not a gun nut I scored a 0, it was impossible for me to tell the difference.

As for gun control I'm still undecided, personally I don't see much reasons why someone should own a gun.

hrdwareguy · 09-14-2004, 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pacifier

a bit OT but I found this quiz:
http://www.ont.com/users/kolya/AR15/awc.htm
you have to guess if a gun is legal or illegal
since I'm not a gun nut I scored a 0, it was impossible for me to tell the difference.

As for gun control I'm still undecided, personally I don't see much reasons why someone should own a gun.

Great link. I took the test and am familiar with the AR-15. I missed a couple of them because things you can't tell in the picture. Like the one that (Spoiler: has the telescoping stock welded open, can't tell that in the pic.)

Pretty good overall.

smooth · 09-14-2004, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hrdwareguy

Call me dense, but I don't see where the difference lies. You could buy a pre-ban gun and modify it, or you could buy a post ban gun and modify it. You still have not solved the problem, only made it slightly harder to do what you want.

Well, I'm not going to call you dense, bro, but I'm not sure how I can make my point any more understandable:

If the supply of a given item is held static (via regulations banning the manufacturing and/or sale of it), and the demand increases (due to increased population, demand, etc.), then the ability to acquire the item will be reduced over time.

Making it slightly harder for people to obtain these weapons was the point, as I understand it.

hrdwareguy · 09-14-2004, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth

Well, I'm not going to call you dense, bro, but I'm not sure how I can make my point any more understandable:

If the supply of a given item is held static (via regulations banning the manufacturing and/or sale of it), and the demand increases (due to increased population, demand, etc.), then the ability to acquire the item will be reduced over time.

Making it slightly harder for people to obtain these weapons was the point, as I understand it.

I understand the concept you describe, however that is not what the ban did. It banned guns based on cosmetic features. Manufacturers changed these features to continue to produce these firearms. A gun with the same functionality still existed after the ban as before.

We may be arguing semantics, like after the band a telescoping stock could not be sold on the rifle therefore the function is different. A bayonet lug could not be included, therefore the function is different. However, I see the function of the working of the gun the same...same size bullet, same velocity, same mechanism to fire the bullet.

skyscan · 09-14-2004, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

Pesky Constitution doesn't stop the patriot act, it doesn't help those people in guantonimo, but I don't see conservatives complaining about that.

Doesn't this assume that people who support it sunsetting are republican or leaning to the right?

According to this quiz. I'm a upper left leaning centrist. Just something to think about.

Remember, we all support the same overall goal. We all want our loved ones and ourselves safe from harm; we just have a different way of going about it.

Kadath · 09-14-2004, 05:45 PM

So hrdwareguy, your issue was that the ban wasn't effective enough? If it had, say, banned all weapons with the ability to fire a three-round burst or greater with a single trigger pull, or with a magazine greater than 15 bullets, then you'd be for it? Because that wouldn't touch cosmetic features, just a gun's effectiveness at propelling lead. I agree the AWB was toothless. I know why, and so do you. That it didn't go far enough is a reason to replace with something better.

irateplatypus · 09-14-2004, 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

Pesky Constitution doesn't stop the patriot act, it doesn't help those people in guantonimo, but I don't see conservatives complaining about that.

those people in guantonimo aren't u.s. citizens. why should it?

The_Dunedan · 09-14-2004, 07:38 PM

Rekna,
Where did you get the idea that I was some sort of Bush-bot? I preserve my 2A freedoms largely to defend myself from people like him and his crowd of traitors!

hrdwareguy · 09-15-2004, 06:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kadath

So hrdwareguy, your issue was that the ban wasn't effective enough? If it had, say, banned all weapons with the ability to fire a three-round burst or greater with a single trigger pull, or with a magazine greater than 15 bullets, then you'd be for it? Because that wouldn't touch cosmetic features, just a gun's effectiveness at propelling lead. I agree the AWB was toothless. I know why, and so do you. That it didn't go far enough is a reason to replace with something better.

My issue with the ban is that it was toothless and the anti-gun crowd is touting it's sunset as the end of society as we know it because Ak-47's and Uzi's will now flood the streets.

With that said, let me also clarify that I would not support the bans you propose either. If a ban such as that passed, I would live with it, but I would not support the legislation. I would support gun control through education and a national firearms permit, but not the removal of any type of firearm from society.

To play the devil's advocate though, you are correct, since it didn't go far enough is reason enough to let it sunset and attempt to replace it with something more restrictive. (Keep in mind, I'm playing devil's advocate and would not support such a legislative measure).

And what about commercially available devices such as these

These little gems use spring tension around the trigger to make it fire almost as fast as a full auto and are perfectly legal to own and use.

skyscan · 09-16-2004, 05:41 PM

Anyone searched google forassult rifle ban recently?

deeqin · 09-17-2004, 11:44 AM

I'm a police officer, my wife is a police officer.
We both have come into contact both assault weapons and automatic weapons. And the NRA distinction is quite correct that many people do misconceive the two.
However, one little omission that I noticed in the NRA's reasoning is that one of the most defining factor of an assault weapon is the ability to carry armour piercing ammo.
NOT that this means that everyone who owns one wants to kill cops. Point of fact nearly all legal owners are Nascar dads and such (not to say hick/country-ass/redneck... but c'mon), and can not be held accountable for the actions of those who use assault weapons outside of the law.
The only questions I would pose are that what manner of game wears a bullet proof vest or fires back ?,
And for those that have them for home invasion/protection purposes... who do you think is going to invade your home... the Terminator ??
For home protection (if that is REALLY what it is to be used for), a 9mm handgun would be the most convenient and effective for of weaponry, and as far as game hunting... if you need a 3-burst to put down a deer, or a duck or whatever... then you REALLY need try another sport 'cos you suck at marksmanship.
And for the constitutional aspect of the argument... then as upholders, protectors and idolisers of the constitution... then they should be 100% supportive of the indiviuals rights to freedom, and whole heartedly embrace gay marriage ???
(I'm gonna go ahead and assume our country bretherin are gonna still object to that one)

Not everyone in the NRA is nuts, just most of them.

The_Dunedan · 09-17-2004, 12:16 PM

deegin:
Actually, yes. I support Gay marriage, as I believe that the State has no cause to be in the marriage buisness.
Armor-piercing ammo: Anything can penetrate anything else if it's moving fast enough. A plane-Jane 30-06 softpoint will punch through anything up to III-A, and 30-06 Ball will penetrate IV-A, if I'm not mistaken. "Armor peircing" ammunition is not limited to "Assault weapons." My single-shot Contender G2 can fire AP-06 ammo with a tungsten-carbide core which will penetrate any wearable body armor on the planet: A level-IV vest will stop the steel-cored stuff, but not tungsten.
Point is, "Assault weapons" are no deadlier to police than any other firearm.

Lastly ( and please do not interpret this as a threat against yourself ) the Second Amendment has -nothing- to do with hunting, target-shooting, or any other "Sporting purpose." It's intended, stated purpose is to provide for a heavily armed Citizenry, in the event that the Government were to grow too powerful and tyrannical. As a consequence, "Assault weapons," machineguns, RPGs, etc etc etc are totally -CONSTITUTIONALLY- legal for citizens to own. Any laws which infringe upon this right are illegal, null, and void. Any officer or official who enforces said laws is violating their Oath Of Office.

smooth · 09-17-2004, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Dunedan

Lastly ( and please do not interpret this as a threat against yourself ) the Second Amendment has -nothing- to do with hunting, target-shooting, or any other "Sporting purpose." It's intended, stated purpose is to provide for a heavily armed Citizenry, in the event that the Government were to grow too powerful and tyrannical. As a consequence, "Assault weapons," machineguns, RPGs, etc etc etc are totally -CONSTITUTIONALLY- legal for citizens to own. Any laws which infringe upon this right are illegal, null, and void. Any officer or official who enforces said laws is violating their Oath Of Office.

In that case, let's keep the example in the same class of distinction. rather than bopping over to homosexual marriage.

Why does that line of logic not declare prohibiting felons from firearms as null, void, against the natural law, and etc?

Or would you support a removal of such restrictions?

09-13-2004, 02:16 PM	#41 (permalink)
smooth Junkie Location: Right here	I dont know how much longer I can keep going with these points: Your mom analogy doesn't square with what happened. If we want to keep using it we'll need to modify it to read: if she said I couldn't have a candy bar and I picked up a chocolate covered trail mix bar, yeah, she'd probably have to let me eat it by her rules but next time the shit won't fly very far despite being within the limits of the rule because it'll be pretty clear that I'm not supposed to be eating chocolate or sugar or whatever. I don't know of any parent who would agree with me that the rule was silly because, after all, it didn't prevent me from getting a similar type of bar than the one prohibited. They'd think I was being a smartass--and I would be just because I'd want a candy bar. That's skating the line. A gun can't have a folding stock without a pistol grip. How would you hold it and shoot it? Perfectly legal and perfectly unusable. I'm going by your comments here, but in Oregon it wasn't legal to buy a foldable stock at all--so I'm not sure if that was state law or if you are incorrect about whether a folding stock is perfectly legal. Both guns allow me to "spray" just as quickly as I can pull the trigger. The bottom one, however, runs out of bullets faster than the top one and I have to unlatch the clip before changing it instead of just popping a latch. My SKS with the legal clip was a pain in the ass to change. My folding stock, which I illegally converted from a non-foldable stock with a plastic pin in it (yeah, the manufacture is certainly partly culpable knowing full well anyone is going to just grind the pin out) was easily concealable in a T-shirt. And it was a snap to use out of the side of a car (from what I hear, anyway :{}). Neither my sks (which eventuallly looked and acted just like your 'ak-ish' example) nor my Tech-9, nor the AR-15 we had use of were 3K. More like $50-100. I should mention that while they were street purchased and used illicitly, they have since been destroyed by law enforcement. Until this ban expired, those three weapons could never be obtained legally again. btw, thanks for the discussion, too. We can't seem to see eye to eye on some of our points and I'm gettin frustrated. If it came through in my post, sorry. I'm going to bow out of the discussion now. __________________ "The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman Last edited by smooth; 09-13-2004 at 02:25 PM..

09-14-2004, 07:46 AM	#51 (permalink)
Pacifier undead Location: Duisburg, Germany	a bit OT but I found this quiz: http://www.ont.com/users/kolya/AR15/awc.htm you have to guess if a gun is legal or illegal since I'm not a gun nut I scored a 0, it was impossible for me to tell the difference. As for gun control I'm still undecided, personally I don't see much reasons why someone should own a gun. __________________ "It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death — Albert Einstein Last edited by Pacifier; 09-14-2004 at 07:51 AM..

09-14-2004, 05:45 PM	#56 (permalink)
Kadath Muffled Location: Camazotz	So hrdwareguy, your issue was that the ban wasn't effective enough? If it had, say, banned all weapons with the ability to fire a three-round burst or greater with a single trigger pull, or with a magazine greater than 15 bullets, then you'd be for it? Because that wouldn't touch cosmetic features, just a gun's effectiveness at propelling lead. I agree the AWB was toothless. I know why, and so do you. That it didn't go far enough is a reason to replace with something better. __________________ it's quiet in here

09-17-2004, 11:44 AM	#61 (permalink)
deeqin Upright	What deer fire back ?? I'm a police officer, my wife is a police officer. We both have come into contact both assault weapons and automatic weapons. And the NRA distinction is quite correct that many people do misconceive the two. However, one little omission that I noticed in the NRA's reasoning is that one of the most defining factor of an assault weapon is the ability to carry armour piercing ammo. NOT that this means that everyone who owns one wants to kill cops. Point of fact nearly all legal owners are Nascar dads and such (not to say hick/country-ass/redneck... but c'mon), and can not be held accountable for the actions of those who use assault weapons outside of the law. The only questions I would pose are that what manner of game wears a bullet proof vest or fires back ?, And for those that have them for home invasion/protection purposes... who do you think is going to invade your home... the Terminator ?? For home protection (if that is REALLY what it is to be used for), a 9mm handgun would be the most convenient and effective for of weaponry, and as far as game hunting... if you need a 3-burst to put down a deer, or a duck or whatever... then you REALLY need try another sport 'cos you suck at marksmanship. And for the constitutional aspect of the argument... then as upholders, protectors and idolisers of the constitution... then they should be 100% supportive of the indiviuals rights to freedom, and whole heartedly embrace gay marriage ??? (I'm gonna go ahead and assume our country bretherin are gonna still object to that one) Not everyone in the NRA is nuts, just most of them.

09-13-2004, 05:41 PM	#44 (permalink)
The_Dunedan Junkie	And just how successful have they been at cleaning Ganga, Horse, and Ex off the street, eh?

09-13-2004, 06:03 PM	#45 (permalink)
adysav Insane	I realise this is a little off topic but someone mentioned that the gun ban and buyback in australia resulted in an increase in crime. This is disputed here. It appears that like any other survey, you don't actually know the truth unless you collected the information yourself as someone always has something to gain by distorting the results.

09-13-2004, 06:30 PM	#46 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	It seems most people use the argument that the AWB only bans guns that "look" scary. And because of this it shouldn't exist. Well then would you support a extension to the bill that banned more than just the scary looking weapons?

09-13-2004, 09:18 PM	#47 (permalink)
The_Dunedan Junkie	Nope. Once again, that pesky Constitution getting in the way...

09-13-2004, 09:26 PM	#48 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	Pesky Constitution doesn't stop the patriot act, it doesn't help those people in guantonimo, but I don't see conservatives complaining about that.

09-14-2004, 07:38 PM	#58 (permalink)
The_Dunedan Junkie	Rekna, Where did you get the idea that I was some sort of Bush-bot? I preserve my 2A freedoms largely to defend myself from people like him and his crowd of traitors!

09-16-2004, 05:41 PM	#60 (permalink)
skyscan Tilted Location: Missouri	Anyone searched google forassult rifle ban recently?

09-17-2004, 12:16 PM	#62 (permalink)
The_Dunedan Junkie	deegin: Actually, yes. I support Gay marriage, as I believe that the State has no cause to be in the marriage buisness. Armor-piercing ammo: Anything can penetrate anything else if it's moving fast enough. A plane-Jane 30-06 softpoint will punch through anything up to III-A, and 30-06 Ball will penetrate IV-A, if I'm not mistaken. "Armor peircing" ammunition is not limited to "Assault weapons." My single-shot Contender G2 can fire AP-06 ammo with a tungsten-carbide core which will penetrate any wearable body armor on the planet: A level-IV vest will stop the steel-cored stuff, but not tungsten. Point is, "Assault weapons" are no deadlier to police than any other firearm. Lastly ( and please do not interpret this as a threat against yourself ) the Second Amendment has -nothing- to do with hunting, target-shooting, or any other "Sporting purpose." It's intended, stated purpose is to provide for a heavily armed Citizenry, in the event that the Government were to grow too powerful and tyrannical. As a consequence, "Assault weapons," machineguns, RPGs, etc etc etc are totally -CONSTITUTIONALLY- legal for citizens to own. Any laws which infringe upon this right are illegal, null, and void. Any officer or official who enforces said laws is violating their Oath Of Office.