MERGED: Assault Weapons

[MrsSpringsteen]

I don't think Bowling For Columbine is representative of the viewpoint/mindset/characteristics of all Americans..anyway, I grew up around guns (used for hunting purposes) but have never fired one or owned one, and never wanted to. I'm morally opposed to hunting, and lucky enough to live in an area where it is relatively safe. Of course in this day and age no place really is..I have been tempted to want a gun for personal protection, but would use mace or pepper spray before a gun. I wouldn't judge anyone who feels the need to have a gun for that purpose, as long as it is safely used and stored.

But I just will never see the point of the avg citizen needing or wanting an Uzi or Tec 9 or whatever else for legal purposes..seems to me those are for/are used for criminal dangerous purposes.

 

[A_Wanderer]

I think in all fairness the danger is from illegal weapons as opposed to legal gun ownership. If there is suitiable regulation over who can obtain said weapons then it shouldn't be an issue. If a terrorist really wants an automatic machine gun then they will buy one or more illegally rather than waste their time going through the background checks required to purchase one legally.

Of course you could just enact some sort of zero tollerance policy and remove pisols from the streets but that just isn't on the cards now is it?

 

[Klaus]

A_Wanderer
The more Assault Weapons are out on the streets the easier it is to get one - not just for me and you but also for people who want to harm us (for example Terrorists).

 

[nbcrusader]

NBC, I don't think your argument holds water here. I mean, I collect postcards. Do I need, let's say, the 307th postcard in my collection? No, certainly not. But could the 307th postcard spray someone--intruder or innocent person--with hundreds of bullets and give them an incredibly painful and gruesome death?

Believe me, I'm not all that into gun control--I like the Bill of Rights, even the 2nd Amendment. I see nothing wrong with a law-abiding citizen having a couple of guns for target shooting, hunting, or self-defense. I personally don't have a gun and am not interested in owning one, but I support people's rights to use, store, and own guns safely.

These assault weapons, however, have zero purpose beyond killing people. It's not like you could take your AK-47 down to the target range. There is no reason for any ordinary person to have one in his or her home when a simple pistol or rifle would suffice for the aforementioned purposes.

Pax,

You are mixing arguments here.

If we want to regulate things that could harm others, let us set a principled standard for this. And lets consider all things that can harm others.

We have a right to own guns. Some, as their hobby, may want to own an AK-47 and be fully able to use it safely. To you, an AK-47 may have no purpose but for killing people. To others, there may be simple pleasure in firing this type of weapon. Are we judging their choice of hobby?

If the problem is criminal use of guns, why don't we address that issue.

 

[Klaus]

Well i like to collect WMDs - just for fun - why does my Government not allow me to do this?

 

[BAW]

 

[nbcrusader]

Well i like to collect WMDs - just for fun - why does my Government not allow me to do this?

Is it a protected right in your Constitution?

 

[BAW]

Is it a protected right in your Constitution?

I don't think our forefathers had AK-47's in mind when they gave us the right to bear ams.

 

[ThatGuy]

Is it a protected right in your Constitution?

I didn't know you were a big ACLU supporter.

 

[DrTeeth]

Re: Assault Weapons Ban Expires Next Week

Since 1994, the assault weapons ban has taken the deadliest military- style weapons off our streets, dramatically cutting their use in crimes by 66 percent, according to the U.S. Department of Justice, and reducing the murder rates of police officers and the public.

This looks like an important piece of information don't you think?

 

[nbcrusader]

I don't think our forefathers had AK-47's in mind when they gave us the right to bear ams.

This argument can apply to many issues. It does not invalidate a constitutional right or invalidate rights applied to new situations.

I don't own a gun. It has been 20 years since I've fired a gun (including what would be considered an assault weapon). And if the assault weapons ban is extended, I don't care.

It is easy to vilify the gun owner. Pass judgment on them as some back-woods simpleton who isn't smart enough for "proper" hobbies.

I think we would want laws that are crafted to address problems. And we should enforce those laws.

 

[Klaus]

I think we would want laws that are crafted to address problems. And we should enforce those laws.

Exactly and if you remember MrsSpringsteens posting

Since 1994, the assault weapons ban has taken the deadliest military- style weapons off our streets, dramatically cutting their use in crimes by 66 percent, according to the U.S. Department of Justice, and reducing the murder rates of police officers and the public.

It sucessfully addressed the crime problem.

 

[DrTeeth]

Logic also suggests that it's easier to illegally obtain legal weapons than illegal weapons. You can just knick them from the store instead of having to make deals with shady arms dealers.

 

[BostonAnne]

It seems to me that the rights of a small group of responsible people are being valued more than the lives of many.

 

[nbcrusader]

It sucessfully addressed the crime problem.

Careful. The cause and effect relationship may not be there.

Also, if we ban automobiles, we effectively reduce traffic accidents.

 

[nbcrusader]

It seems to me that the rights of a small group of responsible people are being valued more than the lives of many.

Interesting point when you consider that 1,370,000 abortions occur annually in the U.S.

 

[Klaus]

nbcrusader
So.. tell me... you are against abortion and pro assault weapons?
(Btw. 1,370,000 abortions dosn't mean "only" 2,740,000 parents who were pro abortion in the US - but don't turn this thread into an abortiton thread)

 

[ThatGuy]

It seems to me that the rights of a small group of responsible people are being valued more than the lives of many.

Wouldn't that be catering to special interests?

President Bush on National Security, August 14, 2002

We're making progress, but the Senate now needs to take up the idea. And the concern is that they will be more concerned about their own political turf and jurisdictional turf than they will be the larger concept of protecting the American people. They'll be more concerned about special interests and less concerned about how to adequately protect America.

Remarks at a luncheon, November 10, 2003

There's a lot of needless politics in the Nation's Capital. We're focused on the people's business. You sent us to Washington to work on behalf of the people, not special interests, not lobbyists, but the people. And that's what we're doing. (Applause.)

Too bad that the majority of Americans are in favor of extending the restrictions:
http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/naes/2004_03_guns_09-06_pr.pdf
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0910/p01s01-uspo.html

 

[DrTeeth]

Also, if we ban automobiles, we effectively reduce traffic accidents.

I bet automobile manufacturers would be the first to complain about a lack of cause and effect relationship.

 

[Klaus]

Also, if we ban automobiles, we effectively reduce traffic accidents.

The difference between Automobiles and Assault Weapons is:
Everyone here can explain why it's not only fun to drive but necessary for daily life.
I'd understand it if Iraq would legalize Assault Weapons so that their Civilists can self-defend against various attacks but...
...i think that there's not so much violence in the US so that there is a NEED for Assault Weapons (or do we use Assault Weapons for hunting?)

Let's face it if you take a look how usefull Assault Weapons are for the US citizens and compare it to the danger, Assault Weapons make a pretty bad shape compared to cars

 

[BAW]

Also, if we ban automobiles, we effectively reduce traffic accidents.

But automobiles were not designed specifically to kill. You can't dispute an automatic machine gun's true purpose.

 

[DrTeeth]

What are you talking about BAW, assault weapons are obviously designed to "collect".

 

[nbcrusader]

But automobiles were not designed specifically to kill. You can't dispute an automatic machine gun's true purpose.

You could argue that all guns are "designed" to kill. We can still have them. I'm not sure this creates an adequate distinction for purposes of banning.

 

[DrTeeth]

Maybe not but it most countries it is a reason for a firm legislation.

 

[nbcrusader]

nbcrusader
So.. tell me... you are against abortion and pro assault weapons?
(Btw. 1,370,000 abortions dosn't mean "only" 2,740,000 parents who were pro abortion in the US - but don't turn this thread into an abortiton thread)

Actually, I've never said I was pro-assault weapons. I am simply questioning the basis on which we make the decision to ban. The principle behind the arguments break down.

 

[nbcrusader]

Also, if we ban automobiles, we effectively reduce traffic accidents.

The difference between Automobiles and Assault Weapons is:
Everyone here can explain why it's not only fun to drive but necessary for daily life.
I'd understand it if Iraq would legalize Assault Weapons so that their Civilists can self-defend against various attacks but...
...i think that there's not so much violence in the US so that there is a NEED for Assault Weapons (or do we use Assault Weapons for hunting?)

Let's face it if you take a look how usefull Assault Weapons are for the US citizens and compare it to the danger, Assault Weapons make a pretty bad shape compared to cars

Funny, we lived quite successfully before we invented automobiles, so necessity is questionable.

Instead of regulating and enforcing lawful and unlawful use, we throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I am suggesting that we create a principle on regulating things that can be used to harm others. Banning items on an item by item basis violates the concept of liberty.

 

[Klaus]

nbcrusader
Well i don't think that the banning of Nuclear- or Biological weapons for households violates the concept of liberty.
I think that the personal liberty has to be restricted where it harms many other and has no use for society in general.

Also while i see attemts to make a car safer (even for the persons who aren't inside the car) weapons are designed to kill and Assault weapons are pretty effective.

Our society would simply colapse if there was a "car Ban" for a few years. Economy would definetly colapse.
Did anything close to this hapen when the Assault Weapons were banned for years? - no

So this might be one reason why there isn't a national outcry when hundreds of people are killed by car accidents. But of course there will be an outcry when the next amok-run will be done with a highly effective Heckler & Koch 36 to pump 750 rounds per minute into a schoolyard.
Why? - Because it was preventible

The only reason i can see that stuff like that is sold is valuing profit over human lifes

 

[nbcrusader]

Auto deaths were over 17,000 in the US in 2002. Auto related injuries were around 3 million. But that's not the point.

There was never a right to own nuclear or biological weapons. So, we didn't have a right to own some precursor to them, and technology advanced.

It would be hard to argue that the 2nd amendment right only applies to flintlock or other such period weapons.

Another issue - should rights be created or limited based on public outcry? Does might (many voices) make right?

 

[pax]

Okay, what could someone do with an assault weapon besides kill someone or frame it behind glass to look at it?

 

[nbcrusader]

Okay, what could someone do with an assault weapon besides kill someone or frame it behind glass to look at it?

Use it on a firing range. I've done it (a long time ago). It was fun. It would be like any other endorphine-inducing activity.


Am I a bad person?