Assault Weapons

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by stubeeef, Sep 14, 2004.

  1. stubeeef macrumors 68030

    stubeeef

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2004
    #1
    Well I'm sure there will be a load to debate here, and here we go.....

    While I recognize the 2nd Amendment, and respect it, I am one of the 61% of republicans who want a ban. In all honesty the last bill had few to none in the teeth department. Both sides are full of it, the Kerry blogs, where is his proposal, where have they been, 2 decades in the Senate, don't Senators propose legislation (even if killed off the bat, they can propose). And I will admit I am dissapointed with W, he could ask congress to push the legislation. The truth, to me, is that we need a weapons ban with teeth, not so many holes.

    There are plenty of laws, rules and regs to hinder the wrong people getting these weapons. The problem is follow-through. We ought to just eliminate the weapons.

    Fellow republicans, please don't trash me with the box cutter argument, etc...(I love the archie bunker line to meathead about gun stats and murder..archie says "what do ya want'em to do? Push'em out a window?").
    I want to keep the guns I own & hunt with, guns from my dad and granddad. I just think some of these meat cleavers and accessories should be made illegal and more difficult to get.
     
  2. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #2
    Good riddance to bad legislation.

    Stu, you won't solve gun violence by banning a small portion of the weapons available, particularly if you ban them only because they can mount a bayonet and let the identical gun w/o the bayonet mount be sold. Once the shooting starts, are you worried about being bayonetted?

    I'd rather see an instant backgroud check inplemented and the gun show loophole closed. I'd like to see tougher enforcement on gun dealers who sell irresponsibly. But banning guns? It just doesn't work. That cat's out of the bag already.

    There are a whole host of reasons assault weapons are only a tiny tiny part of the problem, but any moment 'Rat will come in and give you an earful in that regard. I can tell you that banning weapons based on how deadly they look isn't the way to reduce crime.

    I'm curious though, how would you write legislation to remove these weapons from the street?
     
  3. G4scott macrumors 68020

    G4scott

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2002
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    #3
    That bill that just expired really didn't do a whole lot to stop people from obtaining the weapons they supposedly "banned." And now that it has expired, there haven't been flocks of people rushing to gun stores to pick up their AKs and Tech 9s... Overall, the rate of violent crimes committed with the banned weapons decreased by such a small amount, the bill was practically useless in achieving it's original goal...

    Instead of banning certain weapons, we should keep certain people from having weapons... The problem is that there are still lots of ways to get a gun illegally. The most effective way I can think of, which would make hardcore advocates of the 2nd amendment cry tyranny, would be to have gun owners register their firearms with a central agency, and bring it in 4 times a year or so, and update their registration... If you registered a gun, and can't produce it, you're in trouble. The problem is that it would be way too much work, and it would come off as a huge infringement on people's rights to own firearms and privacy. That's the problem. Without going to some extreme like that, you can't keep guns out of the hands of all the people who shouldn't have them...

    Anyways, now that the ban's lifted... I'm off to buy my Kalisnikov...
     
  4. Lyle macrumors 68000

    Lyle

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2003
    Location:
    Madison, Alabama
    #4
    For reference, here's a link to the previous thread on this topic. For someone like me who doesn't really get too stoked about this issue one way or another, there was a lot of good discussion.
     
  5. stubeeef thread starter macrumors 68030

    stubeeef

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2004
    #5
    You can not legislate morals/values, so people will find the weapon if they want it bad enough. I want to make it a little harder to get, a teethy background check has always been the best way to attempt at keeping them from the wrong hands. I just believe these meat reducers should not be a public consumable.

    You will not get them totally off the street by legislation, and I didn't think that the assault weapons ban in any form will reduce gun violence to any great extent, but just possibly not another "heat" street scene.

    mactastic, didn't you read my post? I even refered to the ole archie bunker line...I didn't and don't believe that this would solve gun violence! Banning all guns would not stop all murders either. Mactastic, your sarcasm about me worring about being bayonetted is a bit extreme, but I am worried about a projectile with a mile or more range missing its mark and hurting/killing more innocents. When they are being fired at a high rate&volume more seem to miss the mark. I never said that because a weapon can mount a certain accessory (nite scopes/flash suppressors/laser targeting/high volume clips) it should be banned, but I have no problem banning some of the accessories. What is the "how deadly they look" line for or about?

    I am sorry that it is so difficult to believe that making such weapons illegal that can kill en masse is impossible. But I have a dream.

    I don't want to ban all guns, I would love to see stiffer enforcement of existing gun laws..except for the criminals, who wouldn't. This is not a thread about banning all guns, just assault types. I don't want a national gun registry, there is a difference in a right vs a privilege. But a right to bare arms still doesn't mean nuclear, or other WMD.

    I do concede that it is difficult to draw the line, ie....clip size, firing rates, which weapons and why....
    But we need this debate in congress.
     
  6. stubeeef thread starter macrumors 68030

    stubeeef

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2004
    #6
    Thank you, I should have done a better search. :eek:
     
  7. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #7
    But we're not going to have this debate in Congress. As nearly as I can tell, the existing law was allowed to expire without any discussion about whether it needed to be replaced with something more effective, let alone, stronger. For a little insight into why this is the case, take a look at this discussion from last night's NewsHour:

    http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/congress/july-dec04/ban_9-13.html

    Read carefully Wayne LaPierre's response to the question about flash suppressors, about two-thirds of the way down the transcript.
     
  8. wordmunger macrumors 603

    wordmunger

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2003
    Location:
    North Carolina
    #8
    I think the 2nd amendment should be banned. It just gets in the way of sensible gun control legislation. This is not to say guns should be banned -- obviously they can be useful tools -- but we need MUCH more monitoring of who has what gun.
     
  9. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #9
    Your meat could be reduced just as easily and quickly with a .45 semi-auto as with an Uzi semi-auto. I don't see how the definition of 'assault weapon' works as a place to draw the line between legal and illegal.

    How many crimes have been committed with so called 'assault rifles' lately? And how many with handguns? Yet you want to ban the one causing the lease destruction in the streets and ignore the one causing the most?

    Apologies, I should have said "Do you think banning a small subset of weapons will lower the gun crime rate."

    That wasn't a sarcastic remark. The whole point of the 'how deadly it looks' comment and the bayonet comment was that you could (under the AWB) buy a gun without a bayonet mount legally, but the exact same weapon with the bayonet mount was illegal. Same weapon, cosmetic difference, legal vs illegal.

    And as for your 'mile or more' comment, can a good hunting rifle not cover that distance pretty accurately? Assault rifles aren't known for their high accuracy anyway. Sniper rifles are, but you'd leave those legal and toss out red herrings.

    Banning something will not make it go away. Particularly when there are so many places to smuggle them in from. As long as the militaries of the world use them, there will always be places to get illegal weapons.

    And that's why I asked you how you would write legislation that would do what you propose without undue hardship like Scott's proposal, and while distinguishing between legal and illegal weapons clearly and with some kind of logical rationale?
     
  10. yellow Moderator emeritus

    yellow

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #10
    I believe Lenny Leonardson said it best:

    "Assault weapons have gotten a lot of bad press lately, but they're
    manufactured for a reason: to take out today's modern super animals,
    such as the flying squirrel, and the electric eel."
     
  11. krimson macrumors 65816

    krimson

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2003
    Location:
    Democratic People's Republic of Kalifornia
    #11
    Chris Rock said it better :D

    -------------
    Incidently, i picked up my AR 1.5 years after the ban went into effect.
     
  12. stubeeef thread starter macrumors 68030

    stubeeef

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2004
    #12
    Mactastic, we seem to not communicate, I have never said that awb would make them dissapear. It won't! I aggree!

    It would make it harder for those stupid enough to try and use them for illegitamate purposes, to get.

    Refering to the 45 vs other aw, I think I remember mentioning
    Your argument of how many aw have been used lately would support the previous awb, that it may of had some effect. Although I think I heard a story of a police officer getting shot by one recently.

    There are many hunting rifles with long range and in the right hands are deadly accurate. A gun designed to hunt animals and one designed to hunt humans are different BY DESIGN, ask the military, they have specs for that. If you are so handicaped that you need an assault style weapon or one with a folding stock, laser targeting device, large clip, bayonett, and gernade launcher to hunt, I would argue that you shouldn't be hunting. Stick to doom.

    AWB legislation will not be, and can not be an end all solution, but I believe it is better than not having one. I still assert that assault weapons should not be a consumable, sorry.

    As far as record checks, I think I am on the record with that subject. I also believe we should strictly enforce all gun legislation. I have no problem with waiting periods. Just please make it a little harder to get the assault style weapons in the hands of the criminals please.
     
  13. krimson macrumors 65816

    krimson

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2003
    Location:
    Democratic People's Republic of Kalifornia
    #13
    illegally gotten AW's dont have "waiting periods".
     
  14. katchow macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2002
    Location:
    Dayton, Ohio
  15. LethalWolfe macrumors G3

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #15
    Just to clear up possible confusion when it comes to flash suppressors. They keep the flash out of the shooters eyes, the gas is directed down and away from the barrel, so as not to blind the shooter by the flash if shooting at night. They do not conceal the flash from on-lookers. The muzzle flash is not deminished it is just directed out of the shooters line-of-site.


    -Lethal
     
  16. takao macrumors 68040

    takao

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Dornbirn (Austria)
    #16
    hmm is flash surpressor the thing at the end of the barrel with those openings on 3 sides etc ? or am i wrong on that ?
     
  17. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #17
    From the transcript of the discussion I just posted:

    GIL KERLIKOWSKE: Well, Wayne and I have very different opinions of what cosmetic is. Let me tell you what a flash suppressor does.

    If a police officer is under fire from an assault weapon and that weapon has a flash suppressor, he or she can't tell where that round is coming from. You know, yesterday....

    JIM LEHRER: Excuse me. Because no fire is coming out of the barrel, right? You can't see it?

    GIL KERLIKOWSKE: Exactly. It helps to conceal the muzzle flash and so yesterday when a Miami/Dade police officer was assaulted and wounded, shot twice, her car riddled with bullets from an assault weapon, it would be difficult to see-- it was 2:30 in the morning -- where that fire could be coming from.​

    Gil Kerlikowske is the Chief of Police for the City of Seattle.
     
  18. krimson macrumors 65816

    krimson

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2003
    Location:
    Democratic People's Republic of Kalifornia
    #18
    Takao: they can have 2-5 openings in different configurations.
    -----

    Flash Suppressors do not completely hide the flash. The flash is directed to other places OR its is dispersed at a higher rate because of the velocity of the gases are increased when vented in a directed manner.

    I have used numerous rifles with flash suppressors installed (BTW, you can get them aftermarket that attach to "post-ban" rifles), there is still a flash, just not as large. ie. instead of a mushroom cloud shaped flash 12" in diameter, you have 3-5 smaller 1" flashes that are more intense but more brief.

    If you need more proof, watch those night vision shots from the 1st war in Iraq, or any of the newer videos, you'll still see flashes.

    -----
    One problem I see with that Seattle PC's statement is that underfire, the officer would have not time to seek out where the shots came from. If the shooter was on top of the building out of his vision, and he's under fire, i seriously doubt he has the time to find the shooter just based on his flash.
     
  19. takao macrumors 68040

    takao

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Dornbirn (Austria)
    #19
    i wasn't sure if it's that what i think it was ;) i asked before making a stupid comment
    our rifles had 3 (and the older ones 5) openings ..but none of them was pointing down..
    from the front it looked like this
    .|
    / \

    and the lower ones were more sideaways...
    i was told the opoing was aiming upwards to reduce the barrel-moving when shooting
     
  20. krimson macrumors 65816

    krimson

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2003
    Location:
    Democratic People's Republic of Kalifornia
    #20
    i think that sounds more like a muzzle break... what kind of rifle? alarge calibre?
     
  21. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #21
    LaPierre's interview did not endear me to his cause. His repeated assertion that these features are merely cosmetic made the rest of his statements suspect to me.

    Of course they're more than just cosmetic. If my car had a hitch on the back and a roof rack on the top, I'd be able to tow a trailer or haul a kayak.

    If a gun has a bayonet lug, I'll be able to attach a bayonet. If it has a flash supressor, I'll have less flash. If it has a grenade launcher, I'll... you get the idea.

    I wonder if Wayne thinks that a silencer is also a simple accessory for decoration's sake.

    My bull**** alarm went off big time for the NRA on this one.
     
  22. krimson macrumors 65816

    krimson

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2003
    Location:
    Democratic People's Republic of Kalifornia
    #22
    I think he point was more in terms of performance. Bayo lugs are rarely used, and if there was one to be installed, it would hinder shooting performance than help.

    Flash suppressors can be added on later, as i've said before, and it's perfectly legal to do so.

    ------
    edit:

    While were im speaking about aftermarket products, it is perfectly legal to purchase a folding/collapsing stock and put it on your "post-ban" rifle. No one at the range checks if you have a pre or post ban rifle, at least none that i've been to.
    You could purchase a forward pistol grip and install it. if you wanted to, you could attach a bayo lug.

    Using your tow hitch comment.. just because your truck didn't come with one, doesn't mean you can't have one installed later after you drove it off the lot.
     
  23. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #23
    Stubeef, you appeal to emotions, but there's not all that much logic in your dislike of "assault weapons". (They ain't assault weapons, in the accepted military meaning of the words.)

    Question: If a law has no efficacy, why pass it?

    The BATF in '94 testified before Congress that AWs were used in roughly 2% of gun crimes. So why bother?

    mac, crime guns accquired via gunshows, per the feds, run about 1% to possibly 2% of all crime guns. Again, what loophole?

    Sure, I'm putting a certain amount of "merely" pragmatism in my argument.

    But, look: We know as fact that with a 20mph speed limit we'd have some 10% of today's traffic fatalities at most (Drunks will be drunks). We accept some 40,000+ deaths per year in the names of quicker commuting and faster arrival times for vacations.

    So why all the upset and excitement over those ugly guns which account for such a small part of the total evil? Remember, the totality of all crime guns accounts for roughly 30-ish percent of all homicides.

    And the frustrating part for guys like me is that there is no difference in hazard between those banned rifles and unbanned semi-automatic rifles. If anything, considering the cartridges for which semi-auto hunting rifles are chambered, the "good" semi-autos are deadlier.

    Categorical statement, based on the findings of several studies by several different statisticians: No gun control law has ever affected crime rates.

    'Rat
     
  24. Chip NoVaMac macrumors G3

    Chip NoVaMac

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    #24
    A few things.

    Other than for collecting purposes, I don't see the need for the average citizen to have an AW. Can someone explain why it is so important that people be able to buy such a weapon?

    To 'Rat's comment. Stricter laws that would reduce gun violence by 2 to 3 percent seems worth it. While the 20mph argument makes a nice soundbite, think of other areas in which we have recalls or laws for the same 3 to 4 percent extra safety. CPSC rules on cribs, strollers and the such. Laws against using cell phones while driving without a headset. You get the point.

    Just as we have given up some of our liberties since 9-11, to make our airports, aircraft, and skies safer - are we not making things easier for those that want to do harm? I can almost hear Bush and others say that with the AWB we could have saved those lives if terrorists used AW in a minor attack.
     
  25. dotnina macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2004
    #25
    Amen to that.

    I know that people who really want assault weapons can get them, regardless of legislation or legality. By legalizing it, however, you're letting some disgruntled employee or mentally unstable individual get their hands on a lot of potentially distructive firepower ... without much delay, I might add.

    I can't see what good will come of this.
     

Share This Page