POLL: Expiration of the assault weapons ban

Remove all ads!

Then again you could also not understand that at no point did AMaster refer to assault rifles, and was merely attempting to refute the argument that "all weapons are equally dangerous."

 

I would like to remind all that in the Columbine tragedy it was assault weapons that were used, and I think not only for their cosmetic purposes. A pre-ban TEC-9 is one of the examples of the weapons used, and it is a assault weapon, not for any other use than assaulting other. Hell, Intratec even boasts about the handle is very tolerant to fingerprints.

 

all weapons are equally dangerous, its the person using it, (which i think youve pretty much agreed on while refering to how you would dangerous with an automatic rifle while not with a handgun)which makes it dangerous.

1 person may beable to put a bullet through a mans throat at 50 metres with a 9mm handgun, while at the same time be completely inable to hold an automatic weapon steady.

while another may have a shotgun and beable to kill people with the scatter, while be inable to aim a handgun.

tanks, in my opinion are pretty deadly weapons, but theyre pretty useless in the hands of an untrained individual- is it still deadly? hell no.
i dont know if its just me, but ive never quite managed to be afraid of a stationary tank manned bby someone who cant aim the main gun and hasnt noticed that it has a GPMG.

 

I understand what you're saying, and I've heard this arguement a thousand times (ie, a weapon is a weapon - they're all dangerous, etc). But unfortunately it isn't a logical one. Of course some weapons are more dangerous than others. While sure, rolling pin, a handgun or a bazooka are relatively just as deadly when we're talking about killing a single person. But what about when we expand the situation?

Say, for example, a nutcase walks into a mall, where a crowd of some 50 people have gathered. He has exactly 5 seconds to kill as many people as he can before the security guard standing by that he didn't notice draws his weapon and takes him out. Let's assume that, in situation A, said nutcase is armed with a Glock 9mm (13 rounds /clip). In situation B, he's armed with an Uzi 9mm (40 rounds /clip). They both fire the same calibur of bullets and can both unload their entire clip in the same 5 seconds. I think it can be agreed that any idiot can fire a weapon into a large crowd and have an excellent chance of hitting someone. That said, the success rate certainly favors situation B, as the man only has to pull the trigger one time, versus 13.

[For those who might dislike the above analogy and think it's unlikely, just replace "nutcase" with "gang member" and "mall" with "concert" or "neighborhood block party" and I think you can relate more easily.]

In which situation, A or B, will more people be killed? What if we change the arguement to include more potent weapons?

Let's expand it further. Let's say there's a standoff between the nutcase and the cops, and the nutcase won't be subdued until he runs out of ammo. He has 3 clips of each weapon, in each situation. See what I'm getting at? Situation B certainly favors the criminal here, in both danger to the police and the amount of damage that one person can do.

Unfortunately, all weapons are not created equal. Any cop in America (and probably anywhere) will tell you that.

[ September 21, 2004, 00:42: Message edited by: Death Rabbit ]

 

@Death Rabbit.

I see your point and agree with the logic behind it. Where I have the problem is limiting the use for law abiding citizens. It is true that the ban on automatic weapons and other "military" quality weapons makes sense from a public safety view-point. It just has never been proven to me that "Assault Weapons" as defined by the law were any more dangerous than a normal rifle or shotgun. Therefore to me it was a ridiculous law that infringed on the rights granted by the 2nd Amendment. I think it was an attempt to make certain guns illegal to build momentum to eventually making all guns illegal. It kind of reminds me of the pro-life movements attempts to get rid of abortion.

 

Well, Death Rabbit said everything I was trying to say, only much more eloquently than I did.

Snook: that's probably true.

 

@Tal

I take it you have never heard of "Chipping away at the stone"?

It is a very common way to get things done if you have an unpopular position. It is the reason the NRA fights any and all gun legislation. It is the reason why the Pro-Choice movement fights any and all anti-abortion legislation.

Once the foot is in the door it is really hard to kick it out.

 

i know what your getting at, but i still conclude that any weapon is practically useless unless you know how to use it.

for this we will use 2 people as an example:

person A: expert marksman, fires small arms at a gun club on a regular basis.

person B:never fired a gun before in his life.

person A is come across by this nut who hands him a 9mm glock and sends him on his quest into the mall: he fires lethally and accurately taking out 10 people per clip.

person B is come across by this nut who hands him a 8mm uzi and sends him on his quest into the mall.
he thinks, "easy, automatic weapon, Ill just point it at the crowd and mow them down" and pulls the trigger only to find that in being completely suprised by the force of the rate of fire he kills 2 people only to find that the rest of his 32 round clip is fired at the ceiling due to the recoil - he also sprained his wrist because he didnt support the weapon properly and is unable to resume his killing spree.

 

Your situation B only works in the extremely unlikely event that an untrained nut is lucky enough to have an Uzi handed to him. The problem is anyone who possesses an Uzi will likely have fired it a few times, and be competant enough to use it without it flying out of their hands.

I see what you're saying, but still don't think it's terribly logical given the likelyhood of the person using the weapon. I've met martial arts experts who could impale you with a wooden spoon, and my girlfriend could pick up a machine gun and have it knock her over the minute she pulls the trigger. The difference is motivation and intentions. Someone wanting such a weapon but then not bothering learning how to use it isn't very likely. A much more likely situation would be your person A with person B's weapon, given that someone motivated to kill lots of people would accessorize accordingly. People passing out sub-machine guns to random unskilled people is too ludicrous to be a logical option here.

While I agree with your larger point - that any weapon is more dangerous in the hands of an expert - but unfortunately it is invalidated greatly by the likelyhood of that happening IMO. The scary thing is that people intent on doing harm will try to get their hands on the most lethal weapons they can. They won't settle for a Glock when getting an Uzi is only slightly harder to come by. Any law that makes weapons like this more prevelant in our society just increases their chances for success.

 

/me applauds!

 

i agree with you rabbit. though i think we also agree that it is the person more then the weapon - but i will concede to an extent.

 

Sorry if this has already been explained before, but I believe people are misinterpreting what is meant by "cosmetic" regarding the assault weapons ban. The ban affected weapons that looked military in nature, but not that same weapon, with the same rate of fire, using the same type of bullets that had a wooden stock on it.

Basically, if it looked like "Pa's huntin' rifle" it was legal to own, but if it looked like something a Rowandan militia unit might carry around, it was illegal. The gun was the same it was the appearance that mattered. I have looked at the legislation, and I can see two things that were outlawed:

1. Owning a "military" looking gun, while still allowing a "non-military" looking counterpart with essentially the exact same capabilities.

2. You aren't allowed to equip any rifle with a bayonette.

Now, I will say that 2. is probably a good idea, but 1. doesn't really do anything.

 

However, you wouldn't know that unless you read the bill. Instead we hear propaganda that our children are now in danger and that the country has gotten more dangerous. It is all nonsense.

 

@ Aldeth is the term 'bayonette' described as just 'bayonette' or does it mean placing something sharp on the end of a firearm? Not to mention it is slightly pointless since the stock of almost any firearm makes a rather effective club.

 

An interesting other perspective on the firearms issue

... and the whole article is here: http://www.cdi.org/program/document.cfm?DocumentID=2362&StartRow=1&ListRows=10&appendURL=&Orderby=D.DateLastUpdated&ProgramID=23&from_page=index.cfm

[Can't fix this link for some reason...] -Tal

[ September 23, 2004, 21:51: Message edited by: Taluntain ]

 

@ Abomination - I don't have the exact text in front of me. However, from what I remember, it was a rather generic term, not just a bayonette. It was like you couldn't attach a knife, or blade of any type to the end of the rifle, which essentially means you couldn't make a bayonette. Sorry that I can't be any more specific, but no they don't specifically say, "You can't attach a bayonette to the end of the rifle."