Assault Weapon Discussion Split from Middle class thread

[Knife]

Knife - look at Abortion, its a right (so far) but that doesn't stop both sides from arguing it back and forth to try and regulate or eliminate it all together, thankfully the pro choice groups have been more effective in their propaganda on this issue. In the case of guns we have the control lobby winning and the gun lobby gives us images of Charlton Heston holding up a rifle and proclaiming "Only from my cold dead fingers." which in the environment of post Columbine and the other such incidents makes the gun lobby seem very insenstive and callous.

I guess it depends on what side to look at. The anti gun nuts are just as zelous and distasteful. After Columbine, they tried to attach every gun related issue to Clebould and his fucked up buddy.

But I digress, it must seem in the big cities that the anti gun side is easily winning. Yet out here in the rural areas, the anti gun nuts are a joke.

[Illuminatus Primus]

I don't get into these debates for the plain and simple reason that I don't see anyone needing to have any kind of assualt weapon. Shotguns and pistols are fine, but you really need that AK-47 or whatever the hell automatic weapon is out there. "Look a deer!" Brrrrrrrrrrrrrrp. "Its hamburger now, quick Cletus brings me a new clip." "Yeehaw!"

Seriously if the gun lobby would just be honest and say we want our cool looking guns to shoot then maybe I'd have a little more sympathy for them. I'm not advocating no guns, thats unrealistic and unAmerican, but c'mon, automatic weapons have no need to be in the hands of citizens.

It'd be nice if you actually read the issue and realized that no one is advocating fully-automatic rifles, which have been banned since 1934.

We're against banning semi-auto rifles (what the Liberals and Marketing call "assault weapons") that look black and militaristic, just because they look black and militaristic.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Why does anyone NEED these weapons is the core question. You can defend yourself and your property with a handgun, shotgun or rifle.

Ugh, Stravo I expected better.

These weapons are simply rifles. The only major differences are the black plastic, pistol grip, and larger capacity magazine.

They cannot be used a military-style selective-fire weapons.

Now if Hunter X decides that he gets better handling and accuracy from his Bushmaster than his old wood-furniture and stock .22, why can't he use the Bushmaster?

Because it fucking looks different?!

[Stravo]

Why does anyone NEED these weapons is the core question. You can defend yourself and your property with a handgun, shotgun or rifle.

Ugh, Stravo I expected better.

These weapons are simply rifles. The only major differences are the black plastic, pistol grip, and larger capacity magazine.

They cannot be used a military-style selective-fire weapons.

Now if Hunter X decides that he gets better handling and accuracy from his Bushmaster than his old wood-furniture and stock .22, why can't he use the Bushmaster?

Because it fucking looks different?!

IP, I admitted my gun knowledge was scant to nil up front. Unfortunately for the pro gun lobby that seems to be the majority of voters these days as well. See your attitude towards mine, and then maybe you'll get why the average voter is for gun control even though they don't know the difference between a semi automatic and automatic weapon.

[Illuminatus Primus]

IP, I admitted my gun knowledge was scant to nil up front. Unfortunately for the pro gun lobby that seems to be the majority of voters these days as well. See your attitude towards mine, and then maybe you'll get why the average voter is for gun control even though they don't know the difference between a semi automatic and automatic weapon.

I wish people would get educated about these things, that they may look like M-16s, but they can't pump out any different bullets than your old-fashioned wooden 5.56.

[MKSheppard]

It'd be nice if you actually read the issue and realized that no one is advocating fully-automatic rifles, which have been banned since 1934.

I hate to do this to you but.....

*attaches Illuminatus to a Chevy Caprice '79 and peels off, leaving a trail
of blood behind*

The 1934 NFA made it very hard to get FA weapons. You had to pay a $200
tax per weapon to register them, etc, but you could still buy M-60 GPMGs

Hower, in 1986, Frank Lautenberg, a Democrat from New Jersey, where MGs
are banned, slipped a rider into a gun rights bill that overturned most
of the stupid shit from 1968 GCA, made it illegal for civilians to buy
machine guns made after 1986, so now, most of the machine guns
on the market are hideously expensive...

Thanks a lot, New Jersey, for electing that shithead

[Stravo]

Shep, I have a feeling that Chevy Caprice must have a lot of blood and hair stuck in the oddest places during these debates.

[MKSheppard]

Shep, I have a feeling that Chevy Caprice must have a lot of blood and hair stuck in the oddest places during these debates.

I only use it when someone says something so mind blitheringly stupid
I have to reply virulently. It's nicer than saying "YOU FUCKING NUMBNUTTED
PUSNUTTED MORON!"

[EmperorChrostas the Cruel]

Classic example of this, is the SKS I own. If I change the stock, suddenly it become an assualt rifle! If I add a bipod for stability, it is LESS suited for crime, yet it become an assaul rifle!

All thing not forbidden are permitted.Freedom.
All thing not permitted are forbidden is the OTHER philosophic point of view. Totalitarianism.


More to the point, there seems to be too much reverse justification going on here.
When the state tells me I can not own something, it must justify not letting me own it. The burden of proof is NOT on ME, to "justify" having or wanting one.

I don't have to "prove" that I "need" it!
YOU have to prove that I "CAN'T" have it!


Why would anyone need a car that can go 3 times the maximum speed limit?
Why would anyone drink alchohol?

Using force, in the form of government coersion, requires justification.
Me buying and using something you don't like/need/want is none of your business. Until you can show me a good reason not to do what I want, mind your own fucking business!

What the fuck is it to you, anyway?

[aerius]

I have yet to see the pro gun lobby come back with anything other than "It's our damned rights to have these guns." When you have inner city kids shooting the shit out of each other with these same guns, that just doesn't fly with many voters anymore.

Actually those inner city kids shoot each other up with MAC-10's and other such cheap sub-machineguns, which are also known as machine pistols. They fire handgun rounds and don't have anywhere near the accuracy or power of a rifle. They're generally used in gang related driveby shootings where the shooter rolls down the car window and sprays 20-30 rounds of full auto fire at the target, and generally hits him a couple times at most while wounding lots of bystanders. I haven't checked up on gun laws in a while but I'm pretty sure these things are quite illegal.

[MKSheppard]

I haven't checked up on gun laws in a while but I'm pretty sure these things are quite illegal.

Very Highly illegal

1. They never registered it with the ATF
2. They never paid their $200 tax for transfer of the MAC-10
3. They never recieved the tax stamp for it.
4. They never did the background check - you can be rejected by the ATF
on basis of "living in a bad neighborhood", even if you lived there over
TEN YEARS AGO.

The list goes on and on...

[Illuminatus Primus]

Shep, I have a feeling that Chevy Caprice must have a lot of blood and hair stuck in the oddest places during these debates.

I only use it when someone says something so mind blitheringly stupid
I have to reply virulently.

It was an honest mistake. I'm not as well versed in this legalese, as this issue is not as important to me as it is to you.

[Stravo]

Shep, I have a feeling that Chevy Caprice must have a lot of blood and hair stuck in the oddest places during these debates.

I only use it when someone says something so mind blitheringly stupid
I have to reply virulently.

It was an honest mistake. I'm not as well versed in this legalese, as this issue is not as important to me as it is to you.

Don't sweat it, IP. I was the first to take a ride on the chariot o' death. I have a feeling we won't be the last in this thread.

[Coyote]

Gil, th epoint is not "need". What I was trying to point out in my "speech", which you apparantly just skimmed, is that in America "need" is irrelevant. I can have something because I want it and that is good enough-- the responsibility is that I dpon't use it in a way that endangers others.

The guns are banned based solely on looks and hype whipped up by the gun ban crowd to frighten people who are ignorant of guns. That is not a good and proper basis for banning something. Here in this very thread we have seen peopel comment about "assault rifles" being "designed for spray-fire from the hip and slaughtering thousands". The sentence in intself reveals such a stunning ignorance, based solely on Hollywood action flicks, that it cannot be taken seriously.

We should not pass any law or certainly not amend the Constitution based on things ignorant people see in Hollywood.

And still, as for the "need" issue: burden of proof is on the ban crowd to show that there is a "need" to ban these weapons. And there must be better proof than Hollywood lies, distortions of the truth, and inflated statistics...

[Sea Skimmer]

Actually those inner city kids shoot each other up with MAC-10's and other such cheap sub-machineguns, which are also known as machine pistols. They fire handgun rounds and don't have anywhere near the accuracy or power of a rifle. They're generally used in gang related driveby shootings where the shooter rolls down the car window and sprays 20-30 rounds of full auto fire at the target, and generally hits him a couple times at most while wounding lots of bystanders. I haven't checked up on gun laws in a while but I'm pretty sure these things are quite illegal.

Actually anything but small caliber handguns are extremely rare in crime, banning .22 and .32 pistols inside of cities would do more to reduce crime then all other gun laws combined. No one uses larger more expensive weapons because they're going to have to dump them immediately after the shooting.

[Coyote]

Bear in mind that a good crime gun would be small, light, easy to conceal, and cheap to dump. If you spend $700.00 on a black market AK47, rob a 7-11 and get $40.00, then throw the AK47 away so it can't be traced to you, you have lost money not gained.

So-called "assault weapons" account for less than 3% of gun homicides, IIRC. The stats I remember are mid-90's stats which may have changed, but since overall crime has gone down the new figures may actully be even more in the gun-owners favor. And not all homicides are committed with firearms, so when you look at total homicides, 'assault weapon' murders become an even smaller percentage overall. If "public safety" were the motivating factor, then there are far, far bigger fish to fry than the rare AK that grabs a news headline.

[Gil Hamilton]

Oh, incidently, since I've accomplished what I wanted out of this thread, I'll point everyone to the first line at the very front of this thread. As it happens, I'm a gun owner myself, though I'll grant it's only a handgun that I use for recreational shooting (I've never had to actually point it at anyone or anything other than paper targets... I've got the best security system money can buy against people who would break into my house; a pair of dogs).

[Coyote]

Oh, incidently, since I've accomplished what I wanted out of this thread, I'll point everyone to the first line at the very front of this thread. As it happens, I'm a gun owner myself, though I'll grant it's only a handgun that I use for recreational shooting (I've never had to actually point it at anyone or anything other than paper targets... I've got the best security system money can buy against people who would break into my house; a pair of dogs).

I noticed you mentioned playing "devil's advocate" and wondered when you'd reveal a difference of opinion other than the one you mentioned. You do fairly well at bringing up the questions of the 'other side' which is good-- if you can understand another's arguments then you can understand the strengths and weaknesses of their argument.

Dogs are a good way to go, and can be left on patrol while you are away for short periods. The best way to be personally secure is not to buy a gun and have it sitting around the house like a magic talisman; people need to have a fully integrated program of security that could include dogs, an alarm system, choosing a particular neighborhood, locks, fences, lighting, neighborhood cooperation, and so on. A gun is one of the many tools available and not the only one.

For a person who is uninterested in buying a gun, or does not have the time to devote to proper training and practice, they may be better off without and getting one or more of the other systems.

[Gil Hamilton]

Dogs are a good way to go, and can be left on patrol while you are away for short periods. The best way to be personally secure is not to buy a gun and have it sitting around the house like a magic talisman; people need to have a fully integrated program of security that could include dogs, an alarm system, choosing a particular neighborhood, locks, fences, lighting, neighborhood cooperation, and so on. A gun is one of the many tools available and not the only one.

Well, actually, they aren't security dogs or anything, but they are very motivated about barking at people who are poking around the house. Burgulars are statistically unlikely to break into a house if they hear a pair of dogs barking their heads off. Of course, my dogs are pretty sweet natured and probably wouldn't actually chew up an intruder... but they have a great game face.

[Wicked Pilot]

But I digress, it must seem in the big cities that the anti gun side is easily winning. Yet out here in the rural areas, the anti gun nuts are a joke.

It's quite simple. If you're out in the middle of Po'Dunk, Texas and you hear a gun go off, you probably think it's farmer bob hunting, shooting targets, or using a firearm for some other legal and legitimate reason. You go back to what you're doing. If you're out in the middle of New Orleans and you hear a gun go off, you know some G just got a cap in your ass, and you may be next. You shit yourself and run like hell. People out in the country tend to vote Republican, hence their pro-gun stance, and people in the city tend to vote Democrat, hence their gun control stance.

[aerius]

The best way to be personally secure is not to buy a gun and have it sitting around the house like a magic talisman; people need to have a fully integrated program of security that could include dogs, an alarm system, choosing a particular neighborhood, locks, fences, lighting, neighborhood cooperation, and so on. A gun is one of the many tools available and not the only one.

Couldn't agree more. And the most important thing I think is mindset and preparation. Never ever live in la-la land and think that no one's gonna ever try and break into your house, accept the fact that it can and probably will happen and start preparing for it. Fortify your home and make it a bitch to break into, draw up defence and escape plans for you and your family and rehearse them.

For instance after someone broke into our house through the front door by kicking it open, we put in a stronger door with heavy deadbolts and hinges that go into steel columns which are bolted and set into concrete. Our windows are shatterproof glass with mylar composite backings which'll take about a minute to bash through with a sledgehammer, and the basement windows also have steel bars across them. Family members have been trained to not leave windows and doors unlocked in unattended rooms. We have a cell phone in case our phone lines are cut. And so on and so forth.

[Gil Hamilton]

Actually, Aerius, it is statistically unlikely that someone will break into your house and then they will very likely run off if things start stirring around the house. In all reality, unless you live in the middle of a really bad neighborhood, you'd be having rotten luck if someone tried to break into your house or stick around if they hear something.

[Darth Wong]

Prevention is better than reaction, which is better than revenge.

The best way to avoid problems is to live in a low-crime neighbourhood (they are usually low-crime neighbourhoods for a reason, eg- in my case, a few influential politicians live nearby so there are a lot of police patrols) and not to have a lot of valuable shit inside your house.

This is a bit like the old axiom that nobody mugs somebody who looks like he's broke

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I see. I still find it unlikely anyone's going to make legalizing 'assault weapons' part of their public campaign, but.

I do have one question, though. Ignoring the AWB, what is your opinion on Dean's gun policy, IE, turning the power over to the states?

I do. Of course I do; I think it should be in the hands of the States. That's where the maximum amount of legislation should be. But I also think that at the federal level the AWB should be gone. I can live with the other federal levels, but the AWB needs to sunset. End of subject. I'll fight like hell to eliminate it. That's where I put my foot down. We can tolerate the other laws at the federal level--but the AWB goes too far!

It's the use of a combination of traits to eliminate weapons from the market which are still commonly used in America today--and not for violent crime (except the occasional shooting that does nothing statistically but gets on the news). These guns are circulating, but you can't buy new ones. If the AWB sunsets new ones can be purchased. If it's extended, we'll slowly lose our rights to these guns, the water heated up from below us, the rights vanishing, quietly strangled--and we can't let that happen.

[Edi]

Americans and gun control.... *shakes head*

Why don't they actually craft something that would work? something simple and clean and efficient that isn't mired in layers of bureaucracy, because it isn't that damned hard to do.

What they should do is write an entirely new bill that doesn't have all the bells and whistles and claptrap, but is instead plainspoken, comprehensive, not too restrictive and would repeal all preceding bills related to gun control. This bill would also have to be kept absolutely free of any piggy-back measures and pork barrel shit, which just has to be doable in some way, even if it means gridlocking everything else until doomsday until the blowhard fucktards give up on their pet projects and try to push them as attachments to something else.

Something along these lines maybe?

• * registry similar to driver's license registry, with photoed entries, at the federal level
  * background checks for gun buyers
  * automatic fire weapons banned, harsh penalties for possession
  * semi-automatics are allowed, but maximum allowed clip capacity can be limited to e.g. 15 rounds, should be quite adequate for hunting and recreational purposes
  * all guns evaluated by performance and actual mechanical properties, evaluation to be done independently by experts, preferably several times by different instances
  * leave hand gun legislation and CCW permits up to the states

That's a raw draft that took all of three minutes to think up, and it can be kept simple and neat even when you fill in the inevitable details. We've got a strict set of regulations about gun ownership, there is no problem with any of it, and Finland has the biggest per-capita number of guns in Europe. I'm sure if the people here who actually know their guns (I can't claim any extensive knowledge) and the ones who know their laws put their heads together, they could come up with something infinitely better than the nitwits on Capitol Hill.

I'm not in favor of banning guns, I'm in favor of regulating gun ownership, and this here is a difference that usually sails right over the heads of people in these debates. Sometimes it seems you people can be just so fucking clueless (on both sides of the debate), and the people you've elected to office seem even more clueless (then again, they're politicians, which means they have to pander to cluelessness, so even if they know better, the perception is essentially the same).

Sorry about the rant, but I just needed to get it out.

Edi[/list]