POLL: Expiration of the assault weapons ban

Remove all ads!

@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.

 

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."

 

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.

 

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.

 

Here's the problem I have with this: The ban did not take the guns out of the hands of criminals. The only thing it did was make it illegal to own one.

Here's my point - if you're a criminal, and you want such a gun to commit a crime, the law forbidding you to own one isn't a deterrent. It just means you have to acquire one illegally, through the black market or whatnot. By illegally acquiring the assault rifle you aren't putting yourself in any more danger of police action than you otherwise would be by dint of being a criminal in the first place.

It's illegal to rob a bank, regardless of whether you held it up using a handgun or an assault rifle. Similarly, you will also be persued and most likely caught regardless of whether you used a hand gun or an assault rifle. For the most part, this law affected the non-criminals far more than the actual criminals.

 

@ Aldeth

I realise that. But why make them any easier to obtain? If they're legal somewhere, that makes getting one easier. If a criminal wanted an assault weapon, and he had a choice between dealing with back-alley arms smugglers or breaking into some law-abiding citizen's house or gun shop and stealing it for free, which do you think he'll choose? Why grease the wheels for a scumbag?

@ Snook

I do agree that the assault weapons ban was window dressing. Congressional Republicans made damn sure of that at the time of its passing. I personally don't think, based on my experience, that it's lapse will make too much of a difference on the streets. You could walk into a store and buy a high-capacity magizine or AK a week ago - the only difference is now it's just officially ok. The truth is no one ever really followed it. However, the fact that nearly every police department in the country disagrees should at least give us all pause. They obviously know better than we do, and it's their ass on the line out there every day, not us.

I wish the AWB had more teeth. I wish it were actually effective. While the last AWB wasn't very potent, it at least was something. Having it on the books at least left the door open for an improved version. Now that this one died, how easy do you think it's going to be to put something more effective on the books, especially if Republicans stay in control of congress? At the end of the day, this is a huge setback for gun control, and that's hurts us all IMO.

 

You see, I just don't see it that way. That second post was adding to what I forgot to put in the first one. My reasoning is basically:

1. Most criminals don't need an assault rifle to commit a crime.

2. Most other firearms are cheaper, easier to get your hands on (hand guns don't even require a waiting period AFAIK), and simply more practical for use in crime than an assault rifle.

3. Even given the first two points, if a criminal still wants to get his hands on an assault rifle, he still can. The ban does nothing for existing criminals because criminals would (presumably) not have a problem with acquiring a firearm illegally.

 

Amaster: wouldnt you be just as dangerous if you walked into a school with a handgun?

 

imagining someone trying to kill themselves with a bow:
"Goodbye, cruel world!" *twang* "oh, damn..."

The idea that having a fully armed populace would make the world much safer (from criminals, terrorists, what have you) seems a little absurd to me. Sure, there might be somewhat of a deterent factor, but it seems to me that would be far outstripped by the number of accidents, lost tempers, and incidents of general stupidity that would ensue. For example, the Beslan school seige happened in an area that was armed to the teeth (no deterence), and most accounts of the seige going FUBAR point to vigilante yahoos as triggering the final confrontation, adding to the general chaos, and accounting for most of the casualties among the Russian swat teams, who they mistakenly shot in the back.

Think about most of the people you know, and see around you. Would you feel any safer to think they were concealing a gun? Owing to the general levels of human incompetence, *I* certainly wouldn't...

[ September 17, 2004, 19:31: Message edited by: Bion ]

 

QUOTE: "...I imagine the suicide rate would drop as well. "

That is an interesting question. I'm not so sure it's true though, simply because I'm not sure a whole lot of people use a gun when trying to kill themselves. I know women hardly ever use a gun. Plus, if you really wanted to try and kill yourself, and you weren't able to use a gun, I'm pretty sure you would turn to other options. I don't think banning guns would really reduce the suicide rate at all.

 

Agreed. Especially in regards to this topic, if a depressed teenager were to kill themselves with an Uzi or do a grenade like an apple, all I could say to that is...cooooool.

If there were a list of top 5 most popular suicide methods, what with hanging, popping pills, slit wrists, poison, etc...I can't imagine a gun would make the top 5. Can't believe I knew that, actually.

I'm gonna go listen to the Cure now and write dark poetry about how much life sucks. Later, you conformist douchebags.


edit - - - BELOW - - -

Huh! I stand corrected. I don't know as much about suicide as I thought. I'm happy after all! Woot.

[ September 17, 2004, 21:22: Message edited by: Death Rabbit ]

 

Actually, I think guns are the most common method, perhaps owing to the high probability of success...

http://www.infoline.org/Crisis/stats.asp

 

Americans often have guns to protect themselves from the other Americans who have guns who have guns to protect themselves from....... circular argument.

I saw a poll that 2/3rds of Ameriacans support the ban continuing, so why is it going to lapse? I know, the NRA, but the majority should decide - its a democracy!

BTW, I'm Australian... where there is no gun licences handed out unless you need one (policeman who has recieved threats, farmer needing to kill foxes etc) and that works just fine - AND, you dont end up spending so much money, because the other people dont have guns either, so you dont need to protect yourselves from them with guns.

 

Depends whether or not you know how to use a handgun. I don't, ergo I'd expect to miss most shots I fired.

I'd be as dangerous with a handgun as I would be with a butcher's knife; not very.

However, when you get into the realm of weapons with rates of fire that exceed 600 rounds per minute......you don't have to be good. You just have to pull the trigger. SOMETHING will happen if you fire off a full belt of 200 rounds from a light machine gun. That's my theory, and I'm sticking to it!

 

I agree with AMaster. If you want to hit something with a weapon, you have to have one of the two following: Accuracy, or sheer volume of fire. If you dont have one, all you need is the other.

 

Then again you could also not understand what an assault rifle is. An assault rifle is a rifle that has military looking (cosmetic) features. It is not a machine gun (which is fully automatic). Therefore both AMaster and Takara are reduced to either a handgun or a butcher's knife if they want to go on a killing spree.

As an aside I would love to know how much 600 rounds of ammunition would weigh. I doubt it would be light.

 

i disagree, people are large targets, you dont have to shoot a child through the neck, or head to kill them, the shock of simply being hit would do that, all you have to do is point and fire.

with regards to fully auto fire - every fired a weapon on fully auto with no support? the recoil is tremendous, youd probably hit the roof before a child.