AWB renewal

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by LethalWolfe, Aug 19, 2004.

  1. LethalWolfe macrumors G3

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #1
    So the Assault Weapons Ban is about to sunset. Opinions?

    Here's my 2 cent take. Let it Die. The AWB ranks up there w/"duck 'n cover" from the 50's and the color-coded terror alert threat system thingy. It's empty legislation designed to appear helpful to the public but in reality it does little more than zilch.


    And, please, try to stay on the specific topic at hand (the AWB). I don't want this to balloon into another 2nd Amend. debate (although I know it will get there eventually).


    Lethal
     
  2. takao macrumors 68040

    takao

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Dornbirn (Austria)
    #2
    what weapons would fall under this ban ?

    personally i don' have a problem with that ban but hey my opinion doesn't count because i neither have a gun nor do i understand reasons for having one
     
  3. LethalWolfe thread starter macrumors G3

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #3
    Nor do you live in ths US. :p


    By and large weapons that had certain cosmetic features were banned. The features were things that made the weapons look "military." For example, bayonet lugs were one of the flagged features. So to make an "okay" version of the weapon all you had was remove the bayonet lug.

    It's like if you were trying to stop SUV sales by banning vehicles w/luggage racks.

    The intent was pretty obvious but the execution was pointless.


    Lethal
     
  4. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #4
    weren't there more important things banned, like the "automatic" part of automatic rifles?
     
  5. trebblekicked macrumors 6502a

    trebblekicked

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Location:
    Chicago, IL, USA
    #5
    am i the only one who thought this was a thread about the average white band?
     
  6. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #6
    <obscure>
    i thought maybe brian kernighan decided to drop his last name
    </obscure>
     
  7. LethalWolfe thread starter macrumors G3

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #7
    By "automatic" I assume you mean "fully automatic" (as opposed to semi-automatic). If that assumption is correct then the answer is, "no." The AWB effects semi-automatic assualt weapons. Fully automatic weapons (machine guns) have been heavily regulated sense 1934.

    Source: http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/faqs/?page=awb


    Lethal
     
  8. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #8
    (emphasis mine)

    Well, I am glad I will able to get that feature again...those groundhogs better watch out...

    Maybe I am missing something, but the weapon types/features banned seem like a good idea to me, however imperfect the law is...

    how is no restrictions better than the AWB? I am afraid I don't understand...but then again I do not understand while anyone would need a grenade launcher or fully-automatic/semi-automatic weapon...

    I am confused here...
     
  9. takao macrumors 68040

    takao

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Dornbirn (Austria)
    #9
    sounds rather rational to me...

    hm i don't know about most rifles mentioned ... personally i only had to handle the austrian Steyr-Mannlicher StG77 (full automatic version of the AUG with army barrel and olive-green coloured stock)
    to convert that gun into a semi automatic and back you need less than 10 seconds because you have to exchange the 'hammer-unit' (the thing in the stock)
    so the risk of the gun getting illegally converted is not small
    and if you can't get your hand on a new 'hammer-unit' you can still manipulate the semi-automatic one to fire full auto only

    and sport shooting / hunting with the AUG ?

    edit: oh i missed the grenade launcher thing quite amusing
    and the austrian army don't use bajonetts because they say that today they are unneeded ... and if an army has no use for bajonetts why do some civilians in the US 'need' one ? ;
     
  10. Leo Hubbard macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    #10
    And Army doesn't need bayonetts? :eek:
     
  11. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #11
    thanks for the clarification. on that list, i see many things about which i have no problem being outlawed.

    anyone here a hunter? i'm interested in knowing which things on that list interfere w/ hunting, and why.
     
  12. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #12
    Actually, it works for both.
     
  13. LethalWolfe thread starter macrumors G3

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #13
    What strikes me as pointless is the "...the 1994 law also prohibits manufacturers from producing firearms with more than one of the following assault weapon features:" part. It's unless bloat. It's hollow. It's "feel good" legislation. It's "Hey, we think there is trouble brewing so we are now at Alert Level Orange." What does that really do for me? Nothing. But hey, at least I feel like it does something.

    Weapon X is illegal if it has a collapsing stock AND a bayonet lug. But it's legal if it only has a collapsing stock. Is the lethality of weapon X increased because it has both those additions, and decreased because it doesn't?

    What makes military assault rifles so deadly are the trained military personal that use them. Not the fact that they have protruding pistol grips AND bayonet lugs.

    I don't think we'll ever hear this line from a cop, "The suspect put up a fight and a couple of officers were injured. But thank god he didn't have a collapsing stock and a pistol grip on that rifle. The s**t really woulda hit the fan then."

    I understand the intent of the law but in reality it largly regulates the appearnce of certain types of firearms and only hampers their functionality in a very small degree (if at all).


    Takao, just a useless fact. IIRC, there was a US bayonet charge during the first Gulf War. Military history is full of "useless" tech and tactics that isn't quite as useless as people thought.


    Lethal
     
  14. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #14
    Okay, so it's a pretty dumb law. Who's in favor of an effective one?
     
  15. Bobcat37 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2004
    Location:
    Colorado
    #15
    LOL @ that comment.

    Anyway, a complete repeal of the law, or at the very least a better one in its place, would be a great idea.
     
  16. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #16
    Well, the ban was quite effective in reducing the number of drive-by bayonettings...

    Testimony by people from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) at the time of hearings on the proposed ban stated that the targeted rifles were used in some two percent or less of crimes involving firearms.

    Insofar as utility in reducing crime, zilch, zip, nada. Rifles without the cosmetic features but otherwise identical are still being sold--and are still rarely used in crime. Further, these rifles function no differently than any other semi-automatic rifle.

    The AW ban is strictly feel-good "We've done something!" legislation serving no useful anti-crime purpose. The only result was to increase the prices of good-used pre-ban rifles.

    zim, a guy over at http://www.thehighroad.org posted some pictures in the Hunting forum of himself, his "AK" and a feral hog he'd killed. In general, the 7.62x39 cartridge is a minimally effective round for deer hunting. I will not allow anybody to use a rifle firing that cartridge, at my mule deer hunt camp. It is inadequate for clean, ethical kills on those larger deer. The performance of the cartridge is just below that of the venerable .30-30.

    Personally, I think they're ugly and clunky and cheap looking. They're somewhat difficult to aim accurately. The triggers are junky. The plus side is that they're quite rugged and reliable; moreso than the AR-15 or the Ruger Mini-14. For those who don't mind the aesthetics, they're excellent plinking rifles for entertainment at a firing range, and excellent as an inexpensive item for home defense if needed.

    'Rat
     
  17. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #17
    Banning a weapon because of how scary it looks seem stupid to me. Besides, if you want to waste your money on ammo for your fully automatic toy be my guest. Just pick up your damn shell casings.

    The AWB is totally feel-good legislation. Let it die, and spend your time working to keep guns out of the hands of terrorists.
     
  18. LethalWolfe thread starter macrumors G3

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #18

    I always am.


    Lethal
     
  19. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #19
    Suggest away...
     
  20. LethalWolfe thread starter macrumors G3

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #20

    See now we're going where I didn't want this thread to go. But sense the thread seems about played out anyway...

    Here's my idea (it's not very specific so feel free to flesh out parts if you like). Focus on socio-economic problems that are the root cause of the vast majority of crime instead of the tools used in commiting those crimes.

    Now, is it your turn to make a suggestion or do you just tell me what's wrong w/my idea? :p


    Lethal
     
  21. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #21
    No, it was an honest effort to give you a chance to state your case. I have to say I though, since you expressed the belief that the existing law is dumb, that I expected you to have some more sensible scheme of your own for keeping heavy military weaponry out of the hands of non-military personnel. Are you saying this isn't a concern of yours at all?

    Also, I don't see why you didn't want the thread to go in this direction. This is what naturally follows from your original question.
     
  22. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #22
    yes, but...

    do you see the widening gap between the "rich" and "poor" helping or hindering that effort?

    in chicago, there's been a ban on handguns for years (cops et. al. excluded, of course). good or bad? the murder rate is lower than it used to be...
     
  23. Bobcat37 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2004
    Location:
    Colorado
    #23
    Read a chapter about banning handguns in London (I think) in the book Bias. Basically stated how banning handguns seemed to only keep them out of the hands of law-abiding citizens. If a criminal wants a handgun, he'll still get it.

    As I recall murders ROSE in england after the handgun ban, not sure why the results were different for Chicago, but maybe there was more to it there?

    I'll look up the chapter in the book and post more specifics later, but for now I must get to bed.

    If I'm wrong about any of this I'll make sure to correct myself.
     
  24. LethalWolfe thread starter macrumors G3

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #24
    Civilians don't have legal access to heavy military weapons. And, honestly, the weapons and cosmetic accessories covered by the AWB don't concern me nearly as much as someone w/criminal intent.

    I dislike the AWB for the false sense of security it gives people. I dislike the AWB because it makes the population at large feel like the government is addressing an issue when, in fact, they are not. Geewhiz, now weapons that are involved in about 2% of gun crimes are marginally more difficult to come by. Can you honestly say that a law that, by and large, does nothing more than keep a weapon from looking like a military rifle is worth while?

    Even the eye-catching "grenade launcher" part is hollow because 1. actually getting a grenade is next to impossible because of the National Firearms Act of 1934 (so this is another cosmetic ban), and 2. You can still buy a weapon w/a grenade launcher on it as long as it doesn't have a folding stock, bayonet lug, pistol grip or a threaded muzzle. Does that make any sense at all?

    "hmmm... I really want to blow the s**t out of my office for firing me, and I was lucky enough to get this grenade off the black market, but I've always wanted a rifle w/a folding stock. Hmmm... well crap. I'll save the grenade for another time 'cause that folding stock is just too cool."

    I sure feel safer knowing no one can legally purchase a military looking rifle...

    Again, I'd like to see all this time and money directed toward treating the cause instead of the symptom.

    What I meant was I didn't want this to balloon into just another gun/anti-gun debate. I wanted the discussion to stay AWB centric. Those who think it's been effective say why they think it's been effective, and those who think it's ineffective saying why they think that.


    Lethal
     
  25. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #25
    about chicago

    the handgun ban took effect in 1982.

    here are the questions i find compelling:
    1. since the ban, has the overall murder rate gone down?
    2. since the ban, has gun violence (incl. murder) decreased?
    3. since the ban, has other crime increased? (the deterrent argument)

    here is some data from this Dec 2002 Chicago Tribune piece
    (emphasis mine)

    so there's some data arguing for the handgun ban. guns make killing easier (duh), and violence to strangers is more likely.

    i'm having trouble locating good data for chicago for the years, say 1970-2003. bah.
     

Share This Page