POLL: Expiration of the assault weapons ban

[Slith]

Today, I was watching the news, and I saw that the ban in the United States on assault weapons (fully automatic weapons, generally) had expired recently. It was to be put to a vote this year after ten years in effect to see if it would continue, but, from what the program I saw said, it never was voted on.

The question is whether you think the ban should be re-enacted, and why.

Poll Information
This poll contains 1 question(s). 17 user(s) have voted.
You may not view the results of this poll without voting.

Poll Results: Expiration of the assault weapons ban (17 votes.)

Should the ban on assault weapons be reinstated? (Choose 1)
* The ban should be re-enacted. - 76% (13)
* The ban should remain expired unless there is urgent need to reinstate it. - 18% (3)
* I am unsure, or of another opinion. - 6% (1)

[Blackthorne TA]

Your premise is faulty I'm afraid. Fully automatic weapons have been banned for quite some time and still are. The assault weapon ban was on certain semi-automatic weapons, and frequently had more to do with the cosmetics of the weapon than anything else.

[Ragusa]

True. But then, scan some US gun magazines to find out that it ain't difficult to make a semi-auto gun full auto - it only includes some minor changes to the mechanism.
That doesn't change a thing about that that bill likely is misdesigned - I didn't read it - nevertheless, semi-auto conversions of military assault rifles shouldn't be in civilian hands IMO.

IMO Americans are a little emotional on that matter, just take "... from my cold dead hands!"

Nevertheless, I find that that there should be a limit - in weapon type as well as calibre and mag capacity - no one needs a .50 cal rifle for example - the only purpose this is used in armies for is as a light anti-tank and anti-material rifle and it's range goes well beyong what's needed for home defense, it's also, say, a little bulky to be maneuvered through your house to shoot that omnipresent burglar - and through him into your neighbours bedroom. Use it for hunting, say with expansion bullets like typically used, and you'll neither have a trophy or meat left to eat - you can scratch the splatter together for some minced meat. Put that on a roll and add some onions .... hmm, yummy, if you don't mind eating fur and bone splinters.

As for high capacity semi-autos, they are IMO fun weapons only that serve no legitimate purpose I see - that is: Self defense, hunting or sporting. Blasting away isn't sporting, just a particular moronic way to entertain yourself, having been in the army firing a machine gun I know it is fun - but you don't stay 20 forever.

I wouldn't have a problem with owning a gun myself I think, depending on where I live. Handguns for self defense are all right. But I see the useful end of the gun somewhere near the elephant rifle or semi auto's for the "Drückjagd", that is, when chasers chase the game toward the hunters, and they then fire at it when it is in motion (iirc pretty unusual in the US). And of course, shotguns are useful hunting weapons as well.

IMO gun ownership in the US goes beyond that what's common sense. But then, have fun folks.

PS: The point is IMO that the US citizens have the right to be armed; fine with me. The problem is that what the hardcore whackos among them feel they need to have or allowed to have by the respective amandment differs from a more common sense perspective like, in my characteristic modesty, I think I hold So the discussion is quite fundamental: What does armed population mean? Does that include hand grenades, mortars, RPGs or stinger or strela missiles like the people in Iraq have today? No one 200 years ago could have foreseen automatic weapons and general technical progress.
As long as the ideas of what a 200 year old law might have meant come from Washington, the hillbilly gun freaks will oppose it by priciple, be it only to teach them Yale and Princeton snobs a lesson and to defy central government. And they will vote Bush (even though he is the most-central-gvt president the US had in a while, nm), if for no particular reason, it will be that they dislike Kerry's chin, or that he spoke bad about the glorious Vietnam war - or to piss me off. That is the ever mysterious mid-western American mind

[ September 16, 2004, 12:08: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

[Register]

That reminds me, do you really think George Washington would be proud if he saw how you Americans are miss-using his words on the gun laws, as Ragusa said? I think that George Washington would be very much ashamed if he saw Charles Heston, or the general gun nut in average, since he have very much understood that the englishmen are your friends now, not enemies.

[The Great Snook]

Here's a question. If a law abiding citizen owns a tank, a flamethrower, four stinger missiles, three dozen hand grenades and a 155mm howitzer who gets hurt?

I'm guessing no one.

If someone's idea of fun is to use a bazooka to blow up targets (assuming there was a safe way to do this) , why shouldn't they be allowed to?

The misrepresentation of the assault weapon ban is criminal. From everything I have read they basically banned weapons that cosmetically looked scary. I think the hysteria over crime is way over-blown. I'm sure if you looked at the numbers most criminals use handguns and not rifles.

As to people converting them from legal semi-automatic to automatic. That is illegal and they should be prosecuted, but it shouldn't prevent the legal use/ownership of law abiding citizens.

For the record, I am not a gun owner (the wife would never allow it).

[chevalier]

I tend to agree with Ragusa. Weapons are all right for self defence, sport and hunting, but there's no need for typically offensive weapons in civil hands. It would be quite negligent to take such a risk only to make people able to blow up plastic targets with bazookas if they so desire.

And while it's probably true that more criminals use handguns than rifles, it's probably also true that more criminals use knives than fire arms. And it's not like we can ever ban knives. But we can ban anti tank weapons, rocket launchers, elephant rifles and the like.

[ArtEChoke]

If a law abiding citizen owns a tank, a flamethrower, four stinger missiles, three dozen hand grenades and a 155mm howitzer who gets hurt?

That is until the law abiding citizen:

1. Walks in on his wife and another man.
2. finds out his kid has been raped by a schoolteacher, priest, babysitter, all of the above.
3. Has been cheated out of his share of the profits by his business partner.
4. etcetera.

Everybody is a law abiding citizen, until they commit a crime.

[Ragusa]

But we can ban anti tank weapons, rocket launchers, elephant rifles and the like.

Without infringing the right for or effectiveness of self-defense, that is.

[Rallymama]

@Caleb the Chosen: If you have some great insight into exactly what the framers of the US Constitution meant by saying

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

please do share your great wisdom with the US Supreme court, the NRA, and the American people at large. This is the heart of the gun-control debate, after all.

And the Congressional Republican leadership wouldn't allow renewing the ban to be voted on because they said the American people weren't asking for it to be renewed. That all depends on who you listen to, I guess. Nothing like selective hearing out of the people who are supposed to be representing our interests, eh?

I've heard the opinion expressed that perhaps terrorists will think twice if they know that the average American citizen is packin' heat and will blow their sorry butts away, given the chance. This goes a bit far for me, but think about it...

[Aldeth the Foppish Idiot]

hillbilly gun freaks will oppose it by priciple, be it only to teach them Yale and Princeton snobs a lesson and to defy central government. And they will vote Bush

Bush loves these people! He doesn't even have to ask them to bend over!

Look, all of you people talking about bazookas, flamethrowers, stinger missiles, mortars, .50 cal machine guns, etc. ALL of these things are illegal. Just because the assault weapon ban expired does not mean some millionaire can go down to the local car dealer and purchase an Abrams tank. It doesn't work that way.

I will say two things though: 1. Despite the law being more for cosmetic purposes than anything, there are far more practical purchases for firearms - whether you are buying for the purpose of hunting or self defense - than an assault rifle. First, you can't hunt with most assault rifles - it's actually illegal. Second, an assault rifle is a bit of a clumsy weapon to use in home defense when the typical person you are attempting to shoot isn't going to be more than several meters (and most likely only a couple of meters) away. 2. Your average criminal, whether you're talking about a petty thief, bank robber, or serial killer also isn't going to choose such a weapon. Most criminals, whether they are thieves, bank robbers or serial killers, rely - to some extent - on the element of surprise. Therefore, having a concealed weapon is for more useful, and hiding an assault rifle under your trench coat is a bit more difficult than a hand gun.

So it's really not all that big of a deal - hardly anyone uses these weapons anyway.

[Ragusa]

Actually I was talking about .50 cal rifles, bolt action. Not machine guns but slow firing manual loading rifles.

My point in this respect was cartridge performance which ... err ... because designed as an antitank rifle cartdrige shortly after WW-I ... grossly exceeds the requirements of civilians. And therfor it is absolutely pointless how many are owned in the US.

If you have some $ 10.000,- left, you can order today the de-luxe quasi-military model:
http://www.impactguns.com/store/BFMM107.html
And if you want more bang for the buck, get this one, for just $ 3.000,- ...
http://www.impactguns.com/store/barrett_model99.html
iirc the low end is the AR-50, which is even cheaper - just 2.500,- ...
http://www.impactguns.com/store/armalite_ar50.html
Prices can go down even lower, like $ 2.195,- for this one ...
http://www.50bmgstore.com/serbu50bmg.htm


Ever thought about what such a baby could do in the hands of a terrorist? The question is the mere availability of weapons of such a performance to civilians. Think about some moron "plinking" (or a terrorist carefully aiming for) self loaded incendiary rounds or even common match bullets at a liquid gas tank - or how about a chemical reactor in a factory? How about an aircraft shortly before start - with 300 passengers and fully tanked? A fuel truck delivering at a gas station? And all that from approx 3.000 metres (targets that large can be hit without too much trouble from such distances), well beyond the normal security perimeters.

No, I don't think it is a good idea to have something like that available for civilians, how law abiding they however may be.

[Death Rabbit]

Here's a question. If a law abiding citizen owns a tank, a flamethrower, four stinger missiles, three dozen hand grenades and a 155mm howitzer who gets hurt?

The obvious answer here is "Whomever pisses him off the most." While someone who would want to own all these weapons may be a law-abiding citizen, the fact that they find it necessary to own them would make any sane person question their emotional state, no? Hell, Snook - I'm a law-abiding citizen. If I were your neighbor, wouldn't you find it a little unsettling if I had an S&M sexual torture museum in my basement, and held regular demonstrations on willing masochists? After all - I'm a law-abiding citizen.

Here's a few questions. Can you name one good reason - just one - for a civilian to have any of these weapons? I'm talking non-military, civilian, average-joe John Q. Public.

Can you illustrate a likely scenario where someone would need a flamethrower to defend onesself? In America?

How many hunters have you met who casually mention, "Boy howdy, this huntn' sure is hard...I wish I had me a rocket launcher! Then them deers'd be in fer a lickin! Course there'd be nut'n left, but...hell it'd be a hoot, eh Skeeter?"

I can't see the logic in deliberately misinterpreting the 2nd Amendment so that average citizens can own weapons they have no business owning, or have no good reason for owning. But then I'm a childish lefty, so who knows.

[Blackthorne TA]

But then, scan some US gun magazines to find out that it ain't difficult to make a semi-auto gun full auto - it only includes some minor changes to the mechanism.

My understanding is this is not true. My understanding is that all weapons "readily convertible" to fully automatic are illegal. My understanding is any legal weapon would require very skilled mechanism knowledge and machining capabilities in order to convert it to fully automatic.

[The Great Snook]

@The Bunny

My post was a deliberate exaggeration to show the absurdity.

My point is that people who own guns legally are not the people that I worry about. I worry about the people who illegally own guns.

In general I take offense to the characterization of gun owners as people on the edge who when they snap will go on a killing rampage. Artechoke was another poster that posted various situations that supposed gun owners will go crazy in. I just don't see it. If someone is going to snap there are a multitude of ways they could kill someone. But, who says the people are going to snap? To imply that because someone owns firearms makes them inheritantly more dangerous is a falsehood.

[Ragusa]

BTA,
who cares if it takes some expertise to make a conversion kit when you can buy it and add it yourself, or when you can get a nice handy manual explaining the "how to" to you, in nice simple steps?

http://www.butokukai.com/page1.html

[Death Rabbit]

@ The Snook

I don't. I'm not talking about firearms in general. I'm talking about assault weapons, and I'm asking for one good reason why your average, law-abiding citizen needs one.

I myself own a gun. My father is an NRA member and a champion target shooter. He runs a small company on the side who guides game-hunting trips. He owns a glock 9mm for protection, and about 2 dozen rifles. He's not who I'm talking about. Despite his small arsenal, he's still a reasonable gun owner. My good friend has a concealed weapons permit and carries a gun. He's not who I'm talking about, either.

The guys who go to gun shows and buy AK-47's, and assault shotguns, and lazer-sighted fully-automatics, and M-16's, and live hand grenades (I know this because I've attended 2 gunshows in Texas in the last year alone)...all because they think they're cool. All while the merchant who's supposed to be doing a background check looks the other way in favor of making a sale. THAT'S who I'm talking about. I'm talking about crooked gunshop owners who "lose" their truck shipments, and their stock ends up in the hands of organized crime and/or gangs, vastly outgunning the police, when the fact is that if these guns weren't legally sold anywhere in the US this situation wouldn't be possible. THAT'S who I'm talking about. I'm talking about teenage kids who walk into their school and mow down their classmates before turning the guns on themselves, despite the fact that, at some point, the very guns they used were indeed sold to...wait for it... "law-abiding citizens." THAT'S what I'm talking about.

If you say your post was a deliberate exaggeration, fine. It also happens to be the justification most 2nd Amendment nuts use, and that's what I take offense to. Because they're wrong.

[Shoshino]

what is the point in this debate? what makes a weapon dangerous? the person using it, you could have the most advanced weapon in the world with a 1200 round per min fire rate a with 2.5 inch gun and still be able to do bollucks with it. put it in the hands of another man, and he could start a small war.

the point is, it doesnt matter the weapon, they are all equally dangerous, you could fire a rpg into a window and cause loads of collateral damage, then be picked off by a man with a 9mm handgun- who was the most dangerous? the man who knew what he was doing.

thats what it all comes down to.

[Late-Night Thinker]

Does anyone know if there has ever been an independent study (IOW not by the NRA) that examined homicide rates in countries where all guns are illegal (some European countries I believe) versus American homicide rates?

Has there ever been a study done by an independent organization (IOW not by the NRA) which examined crimes in America where the criminal was armed and the victim was not? How often did one of them die? How often was it the victim? How often did the victim being armed save his life? Is an armed victim actually at more risk of being shot?

It seems fairly logical to me. A gun crime requires a gun. The criminal initiates the crime. The victim may or may not be armed. I am not convinced that having a gun yourself is a viable defence. So, making guns illegal would reduce gun crimes since less criminals would have them. Those that did would then have a tactical advantage which may in fact prevent victims from being killed. But the bottom line is less people would die. Isn't that really the point?


EDIT

...hunting can be done with traps or bows.

...I imagine the suicide rate would drop as well.

[AMaster]

the point is, it doesnt matter the weapon, they are all equally dangerous, you could fire a rpg into a window and cause loads of collateral damage, then be picked off by a man with a 9mm handgun- who was the most dangerous? the man who knew what he was doing.

You're correct, to a degree--but only to a degree. Sure, an expert with a handgun is more dangerous than a neophyte--myself, for instance--would be with an automatic pistol. But, uh. Even a neophyte--again, myself--could cause some problems with a mounted .50 cal machinegun on the roof of his car.

[Blackthorne TA]

BTA,
who cares if it takes some expertise to make a conversion kit when you can buy it and add it yourself, or when you can get a nice handy manual explaining the "how to" to you, in nice simple steps?

Well, I'm no expert on weaponry, but any firearm could be made fully automatic with enough expertise in mechanisms and machining.

I'm also sure a kit would be an illegal thing to sell even though a manual probably isn't, but it would be illegal to implement the instructions in a manual.

And I certainly don't know how difficult such a manual would be for a non-machinist. The site you linked says the manuals are written "with an eye to making the conversion manufacturing process as simple and practical as possible". That doesn't mean it's easy to implement.

Anyway. What difference does it make if you buy an illegal fully automatic weapon, or buy a legal semi-automatic and make it illegal through illegal means? None IMO; both things are illegal.

[The Great Snook]

@Late night

You are assuming equal force. Let's pretend that by some force all guns were made to vanish. Assuming that guns are not what drive people to be criminals, then criminals would be forced to either use knives or brute force. This then puts people on the weaker end of the scale (notably women) at a severe disadvantage. Guns are a great equalizer.

Now as we all know this type of a fantasyland is impossible. I don't see how gun legislation does anything except take the guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens and swings the balance of power to the criminal element.

@Death Rabbit

I have no reason to doubt your statement that you have witnessed people buying fully automatic machine guns and hand grenades. However, the point is they are illegal and have always been illegal. The AWB has nothing to do with them. Proper enforcement of the existing laws would prevent the problem of such purchases.

As has been stated before most of the "Assault Weapons" that have been banned are basically semi-automatic rifles (which were never made illegal) that cosmetically were threatening. The other part of the ban banned high capacity magazines. Another useless ban as all it meant was someone had to carry around two smaller magazines instead of one big one.

The entire AWB legislation was designed poorly to give the appearance of being tough on crime. Instead the only effect it probably had was to inconvenience law abiding citizens.

[Chandos the Red]

The entire AWB legislation was designed poorly to give the appearance of being tough on crime. Instead the only effect it probably had was to inconvenience law abiding citizens.

There are some policemen in this counrty who felt that the law made their job safer. We can argue if police officers fall into the catagory of "law abiding citizens."

[Blackthorne TA]

Hmmm. I very much doubt that since the ban didn't make their job safer. As was said, the ban was on pretty much cosmetics of weapons, and there were plenty of equivalents to banned weapons that were legal (but had a nice wooden stock instead of a black plastic one ).

I have no doubt however that many policemen supported the law because they would support any law on gun control. The more the merrier, and the more that are passed the more likely the next one will be. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing mind you.

[Abomination]

I'm glad in New Zealand that our gun laws are so strict. I guess we have the advantage of the largest predator being a ferret or maybe a wild dog - no wolves, bears, lions, dragons or whatever. So farmers don't exactly need much more than a 22.

However we don't have much gun violence but we sure as hell have alot of violence. In our country of only 4 million people, only police, soldiers and farmers (people living in certain areas) should be allowed firearms. However America would require civilians to have firearms since higher population leads to higher (and more violent) crime. As mentioned before, in a country with as many people as America and so many 'individual rights' such as requiring a very good reason before pulling somebody over to search for illegal items (you can't say something like "He is black, playing hip-hop in a car worth less than my jacket with a grim look on his face") even though anybody with common sense would know that someone like that most probably does have something illegal (i.e. a firearm without a warrent) and they probably plan on using that illegal item in a crime. So it would be impossible to police who can and can not have a gun in a country with these rules and a high population. So it is better to allow people to own guns for protection since police cannot be everywhere, protecting everyone at once.

[joacqin]

Snook, a gun might feel like an equalizer and a feeling of safety is worth something I reckon. However, every statistic I have read shows that introducing a gun in a confrontation raises the danger for both parties. I also wonder what it is people are afraid of so as to need a gun? Foaming raving burgling your house while you are home criminals are probably not all that common and if you are ambushed or attacked while moving about you are probably caught by surprise and the only use the gun in your purse will be is to help your ambusher in his next robbery.