MERGED: Assault Weapons

[Popmartijn]

It must be noted that these automatic weapons are still only single shot at a time deals. There is no unloading a full clip of ammunition like Rambo. It is point and shoot, point and shoot. Also most gun violence is commited with handguns, now handguns have no real purpose other than killing, rifles even Automatic ones have applications but handguns, not so much.

Actually, I think that was the case before the ban ended. Weapons manufacturers had modified their weapons so they were not fully automatic, but since the 13th, they may sell them again. How is it otherwise possible to fire 800 rounds in one minute?

 

[nbcrusader]

Actually, I think that was the case before the ban ended. Weapons manufacturers had modified their weapons so they were not fully automatic, but since the 13th, they may sell them again. How is it otherwise possible to fire 800 rounds in one minute?

They don't. I can go purchase an "assault style" weapon, but it won't fire 800 rounds per minute. Period.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Assualt Stye weapons are semi-automatic, you still have to pull the trigger for every single shot, there is no Rapid Fire, rapid fire weapons have been banned since before WWII. Now I ask again, why is this a big deal when handguns are responsible for so many more deaths every year than rifles?

 

[nbcrusader]

Because assault weapons look scarier

 

[Popmartijn]

Now I ask again, why is this a big deal when handguns are responsible for so many more deaths every year than rifles?

OK, ban handguns and assault weapons.

 

[A_Wanderer]

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Here's the full text of the comments Kerry made after receiving the endorsement of the National Association of Police Organizations and the National Coalition of Public Safety Officers:

Thank you. It's great to be here at the Thurgood Marshall Center. For so many years, this is a place that has given our children the gift of hope. And today, I am proud to stand with the heroes who risk their lives every day so that our children can live that hope on safe streets in protected communities.

I want to thank the National Association of Police Organizations and the National Coalition of Public Safety Officers for their endorsement today. These organizations, along with International Brotherhood of Police Officers, the International Union of Police Associations, and police officers all across the country are standing with me in this campaign because they know we need to set a new direction for America. And like me, they're tired of a President who takes cops off the streets with one hand while he puts AK-47s back on with the other.

Ten years ago today, with the leadership of Sarah Brady and police officers all across the country, we passed a tough crime bill to protect America. We made sure that criminals couldn't get their hands on assault weapons. And I'm proud I led the fight to put 100,000 cops into our nation's communities where they could make an impact and stop crimes before they happen. And it worked. We saw record drops in violent crime all over America, including gang violence and school-related murders. We saw assault weapon-related crimes drop 65%. Criminals were on the run and communities were able to live in peace because of the tireless work of brave officers.

But then George Bush became President. And when his powerful and well-connected friends asked for a massive tax cut he said "sure," and he paid for it by gutting the COPS program, slashing gang prevention, and cutting enforcement programs that keep drugs like meth off the streets.

Sure enough, over the last four years, crime has made a comeback: 800 more murders a year. Gang-related deaths up 40%. And more school murders last year than even the year of the Columbine shootings.

So when it came time to decide whether to keep the ban on assault weapons, the evidence was staring George Bush in the face: crime on the rise. More criminals looking for more dangerous weapons. Al-Qaeda telling terrorists to get their assault weapons in America. Police officers begging the President to keep the ban so they don't walk into a drug bust staring down the barrel of an Uzi.

George Bush gave them his word that he would keep the ban. But when it came time to extend it and George Bush's powerful friends in the gun lobby asked him to look the other way, he just couldn't resist, and he said "sure." And so tomorrow, for the first time in ten years, when a killer walks into a gun shop and wants to purchase an AK-47, he's gonna hear one word: "sure."

Today, George Bush chose to make the job of terrorists easier and make the job of America's police officers harder. That's wrong. Let me be very clear. I support the second amendment. I've been a hunter all my life. But I don't think we need to make the job of the terrorists any easier.

I'm a former prosecutor who knows what it takes to fight crime. After I returned from Vietnam, I worked in the DA's office in Massachusetts. We put murderers and mob bosses behind bars for life. As President, I will continue to fight crime and stand with police officers in doing whatever it takes to protect our communities and keep our families safe.

Our plan for a safer America puts more police officers back on the beat by restoring every last dime of funding to the COPS program. We'll also put 5,000 new prosecutors in our communities to help our police officers fight crime and put criminals behind bars.

We'll take on gang violence with a zero-tolerance policy and a message to our young people that there is another path. And we'll help local law enforcement shut down the methamphetamine labs that are taking the lives of our children and we'll make it harder to buy the drug in the first place.

Finally, we will always keep ban that keeps dangerous, military-style assault weapons out of the hands of killers and terrorists.

George Bush made a choice today. He chose his powerful friends in the gun lobby over the police officers and the families he promised to protect. The President made the wrong choice. When I am President, we will set America in a new direction with a plan to fight crime and keep our communities safer.
.........................................................

if anyone's interested, there's quite a bit of info available about assault weapons at stopthenra.com

 

[nbcrusader]

Kerry is really good at quoting statistics, pointing the finger and doing nothing.....

 

[ThatGuy]

Kerry is really good at quoting statistics, pointing the finger and doing nothing.....

Funny, that reminds me of somebody else ...

 

[BostonAnne]

Kerry is really good at quoting statistics, pointing the finger and doing nothing.....

Please explain your comment nbc..

 

[Flying FuManchu]

Is their anyone with perspective of being a gun owner and supporter of rights to owning guns that can comment or bring in their perspective? I've read somewhere else the assualt ban was pretty worthless/ pointless.

 

[pax]

This is an old thread, but I thought this article might clear up a few things...

http://www.slate.com/id/2106813/

 

[nbcrusader]

Interesting article. It leaves unanswered the number of semi-automatic weapons that were not covered by the 1994 ban.

Also, why is a grenade launcher considered an important attribute when you cannot purchase grenades.

 

[ImOuttaControl]

After reading peoples comments on this subject, I'm amazed at how ignorant some people are!

First off, I am a hunter and a rifling sportsman. Between my father, brother and I, we have about 65 guns which we keep in a safe at home. Most never get used- it's just a collection that is pulled out once and a while. We hunt and go target shooting. There are many people who, just because they don't hunt or would never shoot an "assault weapon," can't fathom how or why anybody else should. My oh my the ignorant bliss. That'd be like someone who doesn't drive saying "cars go so fast and cause so many deaths...why on earth would anybody ever use one!?" The truth is that they are incredibly fun to shoot! And don't take this like I'm some redneck talking. I'm working on my doctorate for history and in the evenings am in a band. I, as well as everybody I know who goes sportshooting is a comletely normal person--not some nut out there looking for things to shoot.

We do own an AR-15, which is the civilian version of the military M-16 used by U.S. troops. We also have 2 SKS's also 2 AK-47's. Let me say this loud and clear. ALL OF THESE WEAPONS COULD BE BOUGHT DURING THE "ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN." 3 of the 5 assualt rifles owned by my family were bought under the "ban." The ONLY thing the ban did was to selectively choose guns to ban further importation of. Another amazing thing the ban did was to outlaw lugs for bayonetts--this always boggled my mind.. It also outlawed the further creation of high capacity magazines. Again-- ALL THESE WEAPONS WERE LEGAL UNDER THE BAN. The only thing the ban did was to "limit the market," making them more expensive.

Machine guns/automatic rifles have been ILLEGAL in the U.S. for over half a century! The end of the assualt weapons ban does nothing to change that fact.

Why were assault weapons "banned?" Because the look scary. Simple as that. If I were a nutjob and wanted to go shoot someone, I guarantee that an AK-47 would not be the most lethal gun I could choose. My deer hunting .308 bolt action rifle, being sighted in perfectly, is a much more precise and dangerous weapon than an AK-47. Those of you who know anything of ballistics know that the bullets used by hunting rifles mushroom and expand on impact, making them more lethal than the full metal jackets used on "assault rifle" ammunition.

Far more dangerous than assault weapons and hunting rifles are handguns...I mean, it'd be hard for some guy to hide a AK-47 with a 30 magazine in his pocket.

And for those of you who blame Bush for the end of the ban. Knock it off and do some research. The ban ended because Congress- both democrats and republicans, did not push to get it extended.

As for crooks and "terrorists who are now going to buy them"... Riiiight. Anybody know how much a Colt AR-15 costs?? Oh oh, I do. How 'bout $1200? Those 2 bit crooks out there must have a lot of money sitting around to buy such an expensive weapon. Why wouldn't they, on the other hand, spend about $100 for a used handgun they can easily conceal?

Face it, the only reason these guns were banned was because they look scary. There is absolutely no mechanical difference between them and a regular semi-automatic rifle. They both shoot bullets and can both use high round magazines. Basically this was one of those "feel good" laws that really didn't do too much. Want to really make a difference? How bout we start enforcing the laws we have already and push to make sure we get guns out of the hands of criminals--because in the hands of someone like me, a gun will never do any harm ('cept to deer ) For example: A law that is often broken is that convicted felons are not supposed to posess guns. Well, this is one of those laws that isn't really enforced. I have a personal story about how one of my neighbors (a convicted felon) shot and killed his brother with a hunting rifle. If law enforcement would have done their job making sure this guy didn't have that rifle, his brother would still be alive. Banning certian types of guns won't help, because the only people who will turn them in are law abiding people like myself. Lets quit running in circles; enforce the laws we have and enforce them hard! Give real punishments to people who break the laws!

Anyway, enough of my rant.

 

[ImOuttaControl]

Is their anyone with perspective of being a gun owner and supporter of rights to owning guns that can comment or bring in their perspective? I've read somewhere else the assualt ban was pretty worthless/ pointless.

Hello- see my other post. I am a gun owner/hunter. Yes, the ban really was quite worthless and basically made people feel good by banning only the "scariest" looking guns.

A much better system is a rigorous background check/waiting period for people who want to purchase guns. Close the loopholes so we ensure we are not arming felons and others who are a danger with a gun.

 

[BVS]

After reading peoples comments on this subject, I'm amazed at how ignorant some people are!

We're getting good at the finger pointing, aren't we?

 

[Flying FuManchu]

ImOuttaControl made an interesting defense. Actually I've read a similar one. I used to be anti-guns but after finding out that fully automatic weapons are illegal in terms of ownership my stance softened. Its changed more b/c my philosophy on legislating people's personal freedoms has changed as well. I think its somewhat unfair to legislate the banning of guns when its a 2nd Ammendment right and from the looks of things, gun accidents and crimes are result of a small group of people. Alcohol is one America's most beloved beverages but are we really being fair by not banning it's sale and consumption considering how much death and pain it causes?

There is no denying the appeal of guns comes from the recreational aspects (people have said shooting them is more fun then it appears), hobbyists (collectors), and self defense (Lord knows guns have helped save lives). Are people gonna punish the lawfully abiding citizens? That to me is unfair.

People who are irresponsible, people who have bad motivations, etc. are seemingly the problem. I don't see the majority of gun owners being crazy redneck gangsters who leave their guns on top of their kid's desk.

Cars, alcohol, etc... all have caused deaths, abuse, etc... but honestly, no one is going to ban those things, but to ban guns b/c they are scary looking or b/c of someone's own opinion that owning a gun is stupid is not a gun reason ("I don't see the purpose of owning a gun," arguers) People say, its different, but I don't see how it is any different in terms of the end result.

With that said, I'm supportive of "gun licenses."

 

[Boston01]

The assault weapons ban was a poor attempt at best at controlling these types of weapons. It was really a token effort. Manufacturers rebranded the explicitly named weapons and similar weapons which were as deadly were allowed to be sold anyway. With that said, I don't see the need for these weapons to be sold, but this whole hype is just politics at play. Most weapons of this type today are illegally brough into the country from cheaper manufactuers in eastern europe at this point.

 

[Klaus]

So we need a more efficent gun control than the assault weapons ban!

 

[Angela Harlem]

The ONLY people who need any kind of gun are the military, police and farmers.

It's not ignorance but common sense.

 

[BVS]

Sorry I don't buy the alcohol and cars defense. Yes cars do and can kill, so can alcohol, and the combination is already illegal. This is a case of personal responsibility. But when was the last time you heard of someone delibrately taking either one of these to kill a group of kids or hold up a bank?

The 2nd ammendment doesn't make sense anymore. You can't take up arms against a government, believe me you'll be outgunned. When your military had the same technology as you, yes it made sense, unfortunately you are now at their mercy. Why should we allow citizens to own enough weapons to arm a small army? Because it's fun? I've heard drugs can be fun too.

 

[Flying FuManchu]

The ONLY people who need any kind of gun are the military, police and farmers.

It's not ignorance but common sense.

If I was a gun collector and gun enthusiast, I would complain that you're taking away my livelihood and hobby.

 

[Angela Harlem]

and i'd say you could possibly pose a risk to society by possessing such dangerous items.

there is no way from an application of telling who is of sane enough mind to be able to responsibly manage a gun collection, or even one.

 

[Flying FuManchu]

Sorry I don't buy the alcohol and cars defense. Yes cars do and can kill, so can alcohol, and the combination is already illegal. This is a case of personal responsibility. But when was the last time you heard of someone delibrately taking either one of these to kill a group of kids or hold up a bank?

The 2nd ammendment doesn't make sense anymore. You can't take up arms against a government, believe me you'll be outgunned. When your military had the same technology as you, yes it made sense, unfortunately you are now at their mercy. Why should we allow citizens to own enough weapons to arm a small army? Because it's fun? I've heard drugs can be fun too.

Of course the combination of alcohol and cars is techincally illegal. However that crime still happens in spite of said legislation. Alcohol also helps bring about abuse ranging from spusal abuse to child abuse and if the abused is unlucky enough, death. Alcohol helps bring about vandalism, violence (I used to live in a college town), and at the least crappy behavior.

Seeing as how alcohol lowers inhibitions and is actually a major cause of these "problems," why not ban/outlaw the root cause? Wouldn't that be more effective method then half assed laws? But its not gonna happen b/c the underlying argument is that the instances of wrongdoing/ bad behavior apply to a small percentage of people and the majority of people who consume alcohol shouldn't be "punished" for the wrongs of the minority. Same as guns. There are law abiding gunowners who have a genuine interest in their hobby, to take it away b/c a "minority" of owners misuse their privilege is unfair.

Almost all analogies break down in some form or fashion, but the gist of the argument is there.

 

[Flying FuManchu]

and i'd say you could possibly pose a risk to society by possessing such dangerous items.

there is no way from an application of telling who is of sane enough mind to be able to responsibly manage a gun collection, or even one.

But you don't know me. If I was a criminal, you could make a case. But if I'm just an enthusiastic gun owner, you're taking away a hobby or my liberty and my pursuit of happiness.

OLD people pose a risk to me when I see them driving but I'm not willing enough to take awy their driving privileges.

There are some groups of people who shouldn't have kids, get married, have specific jobs, etc... there is no application to tell whether a person will commit a crime by being abusive, violent, etc. unless that person has already committed the crime.

Anyways, I don't believe removing guns from responsible gun owners will actually take guns away from criminals who are the main reasons gun violence is such a scary thing.

 

[BVS]

Of course the combination of alcohol and cars is techincally illegal. However that crime still happens in spite of said legislation. Alcohol also helps bring about abuse ranging from spusal abuse to child abuse and if the abused is unlucky enough, death. Alcohol helps bring about vandalism, violence (I used to live in a college town), and at the least crappy behavior.

Seeing as how alcohol lowers inhibitions and is actually a major cause of these "problems," why not ban/outlaw the root cause? Wouldn't that be more effective method then half assed laws? But its not gonna happen b/c the underlying argument is that the instances of wrongdoing/ bad behavior apply to a small percentage of people and the majority of people who consume alcohol shouldn't be "punished" for the wrongs of the minority. Same as guns. There are law abiding gunowners who have a genuine interest in their hobby, to take it away b/c a "minority" of owners misuse their privilege is unfair.

Almost all analogies break down in some form or fashion, but the gist of the argument is there.

To say alcohol is a root cause is irresponsible. Studies have shown that violent people will be violent regardless of alcohol. Yes there are law abiding gun owners. A neighbor of mine was a law abiding citizen for 62 years of his life until he had an argument with his wife went out bought a gun and killed her that night...crime of passion. Guns were invented for one intent, collecting them doesn't change that fact.

PS. I agree with you about old people behind the wheel, but I believe they should be retested.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Alcohol + Guns = Bad Combination

I wonder what about safety mechanisms. Such as fingerprint ID on weapons so that only the licenced owner can use the weapon, this would eliminate "accidental" deaths where someone steals or picks up a registered weapon and someone winds up hurt.

 

[Flying FuManchu]

Maybe root cause is too strong b/c I believe in personal responsibilty but alcohol does lower inhibitions and for some to such a degree that crimes do happen. IS a drunken rage more likely to happen or drunk driving for that matter if alcohol wasn't around. It wouldn't.

The story about the gunowner is sad, but then its unfair b/c you're characterizing all gunowners as being the same personality. That is unfair.

 

[BVS]

Maybe root cause is too strong b/c I believe in personal responsibilty but alcohol does lower inhibitions and for some to such a degree that crimes do happen. IS a drunken rage more likely to happen or drunk driving for that matter if alcohol wasn't around. It wouldn't.

The story about the gunowner is sad, but then its unfair b/c you're characterizing all gunowners as being the same personality. That is unfair.

No I wasn't characterizing any group, just the fact that anyone is succeptable to snapping at any moment or is capable of making rash decisions.

I know responsible drug users but that's still illegal. Why? Personal health? No, there are many things legal that are just as unhealthy.

 

[nbcrusader]

The 2nd ammendment doesn't make sense anymore. You can't take up arms against a government, believe me you'll be outgunned. When your military had the same technology as you, yes it made sense, unfortunately you are now at their mercy. Why should we allow citizens to own enough weapons to arm a small army? Because it's fun? I've heard drugs can be fun too.

If the 2nd Amendment doesn't make sense, the appropriate solution would be to repeal the Amendment, instead of countless attempts at restricting the rights created by the Amendment.