# Assault Weapons Ban



## AnimEdge (Sep 15, 2004)

The Assualt Weapons Ban is gone or will be gone in the next few days what is everyones view on this?

I think people are greatly over reacting on the AWB becouse they do not understand it, im tired of people on the news saying that people can now buy AK-47 at there local wal-mart(joke) and the police are afraid of the ban being lifitd, they use the 47 as a example becouse it is one of the most widly use automatic weapon used around the world, but they dont tell you the ones normally being used(mind you Assualt weapon crimes are way in the minority)
in the states the ones that are being sold are Semi-Automatic, they are not fully automatic(the ones you can legally buy) there is a law agenst automatic(aka machine guns) sence the 1930s that law states that no one can own a weapon that shoots more than 3 rounds a pull of the trigger. And people are freaking out that people can by a semi-automatic(notice that sence this whole talks about AWB i only heard one person state that these are the Semi on the news) ak-47

The AWB is only about the add-ons you can get on a gun, the ban never stoped anyone from geting a ak-47 during the ban, just teh extra stuff you can put on it, like certain grips for a shotgun, foldable stocks, flash compressors, and longer clips. there is no never was a ban on the guns just the accessorys that go to it.

The weapons even fully "Assualted Out" work the same as they did before, they are the same weapon just with "Assualt" Add-ons, like for a shot gun before you could only by one with a sholder stock, now you can buy them with a pistol grip, the only diffrence? its the same weapon but now it can be concealed easyer and is more moble, the ak-47 with there assult ad-ons? the flash compressor? all that does is make the flash of the mussle not so bright to make you not so flash blinded at night and to make you less noticable, pistols? you can now get them with longer clips, the foldable stocks that can now be bought? they just allow for the weapon to be conseled easly, tehre is nothing about the actual weapon is changed.

Now about the actuall ban being lifted, i personaly dont care if its lifted or reinstated, i dont care about having a flash compressor or a pistol grip for my shotgun, the only thing the lift in teh ban helps are the collectors and gun owners who want this and the bad guys who also want them, doesnt really help teh cops any to not have this ban, and will probly be more helpfull to the cops to have it reinstated, so if i had to vote on weather or not to have the ban reinstated, i would vote for it, the add-obns have nothing to do but for cosmetic and concelment, this makes it easyer for crimnals and others to hind a shotgun or whatever with them and so for the law inforcments sake i think it shoudl be reinstated, but dont expect me to protest for it cuz over all i dont care weather or not its banned

Im just tired of the news saying that soon people will start running around the streets with automatic weapons(though they never call it automatic they use the term assualt whitch confuses people i mean if some one came up to you and yell "He has a assualt rifle!" wouldnt you think a fully automatic machine gun? or a normal rifle with a flash compressor? this is why i dislike the media)
ugh


----------



## DeLamar.J (Sep 15, 2004)

Its funny how they ban full auto, that way criminals are forced to shoot more accurately and conserve ammo instead of spraying out all of it  :mp5:  :boing2:


----------



## OULobo (Sep 16, 2004)

AnimEdge said:
			
		

> doesnt really help teh cops any to not have this ban, and will probly be more helpfull to the cops to have it reinstated, so if i had to vote on weather or not to have the ban reinstated, i would vote for it, the add-obns have nothing to do but for cosmetic and concelment, this makes it easyer for crimnals and others to hind a shotgun or whatever with them and so for the law inforcments sake i think it shoudl be reinstated, but dont expect me to protest for it cuz over all i dont care weather or not its banned


 Just a comment, but shouldn't we take the average law enforcement officer's opinion to make the decision on whether it is helpful to them or not. The majority of LEOs state that the ban had no effect on making their jobs easier, the only desenting opinons came from polititians in uniform.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Sep 16, 2004)

My understanding is that it only banned a few parts, and it's continued existance isn't a help.

Most items covered by it were already covered under other laws, so it was little more than a political redundancy.


----------



## loki09789 (Sep 16, 2004)

Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> My understanding is that it only banned a few parts, and it's continued existance isn't a help.
> 
> Most items covered by it were already covered under other laws, so it was little more than a political redundancy.


The general firearms community saw it as political 'feel good' legislative action that people could point to and claim that they were doing something about the 'gun problem' in America.

It was cosmetic, and as Bob mentioned it was redundancy.

Generally speaking, I think the issue should be real application of the legal process instead of lip service.  If you actual enforce the laws in place, things would be better than they are now.  Not perfect by any means but better.

My thing is that whether the gun 'looks' mean or not, it can kill.  AW's aren't the problem as they stay at civilian/manufacture specs.  The control issue should be on the after manufacturer tweeks that are possible because the parts and engineering isn't watched nearly as closely as that cruel looking M16 on the shelf.

Control and regulate and ENFORCE ammo capacity, manufacturer parts that can make a legal gun illegal and things would be better.

In the end though most of the 'illegal' activity that involve firearms are not being done with sophisticated or expensive market weapons.  It is generally done with cheap throw away small caliber hand guns.

The California "Heat Hit" isn't the norm.


----------



## dearnis.com (Sep 16, 2004)

As an LEO I don't see any benefit to legislation that restricts the personal liberty of decent people.  As a citizen I am disgusted by legislation that erodes basic rights.


----------



## Tgace (Sep 16, 2004)

dearnis.com said:
			
		

> As an LEO I don't see any benefit to legislation that restricts the personal liberty of decent people. As a citizen I am disgusted by legislation that erodes basic rights.


Some folks are worried about LEO's expressing this. Check....
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=17257

What do you think about the issue of the Brass saying one thing and the Patrolmen saying another??


----------



## Cruentus (Sep 16, 2004)

dearnis.com said:
			
		

> As an LEO I don't see any benefit to legislation that restricts the personal liberty of decent people.  As a citizen I am disgusted by legislation that erodes basic rights.



*whistles*

A-men Chad...

Paul


----------



## dearnis.com (Sep 16, 2004)

Where to begin....
I stopped even trying to discuss 2nd Ammedment issues here.  Some of our more "anti" members leave me at a loss that  supposedly  thinking folks can arrive at such disturbingly wrong positions.
The national FOP has endorsed Bush; The IACP and other organizations are basically stooge groups for the Brady/Shumer/Feinstein/Clinton crew.  I cant really comment on the politics where I am; suffice it to say that the positions and actions of some hereabouts have led me to cut a few extra checks to the NRA this month.
My room mate is an academy classmate of mine; like many cops she did not shoot prior to the academy, and is not very well informed on the issue.  To her credit, she was able to admit this and actually ask what the ban was about.  She got it when I demonstrated that my Garand has several ban features that  my post-ban (soon to be a post-sunset  :mp5: ) bushmaster lacks.
The big mistake was claiming that the ban was do-nothing feel-good legislation.  It was not.  It was a stepping stone.  The very term semi-automatic assault weapon is a lie.  Note: not a misnomer; a lie.  If anyone seriously believes that the die-hard gun ban advocates will stop short of creating the same weapons-free paradise that exists in the UK and in Australia think again.  
The Brass play politics; they have to.  If you look at the NRA F-rated elected officials of my home state you can guess what the local politics are like.


----------



## Tgace (Sep 16, 2004)

Yeah, your right about the "stepping stone" point. A little emotional blather on my part there . It just upsets me that people will call us "Jackboots" for enforcing laws they dont like, and accuse us of being "the enemy" if we complain about laws they do like.


----------



## GAB (Sep 16, 2004)

Hi,
This Ban had little to do, or nothing to do, in regards to the state of California. 

I was talking about it the other day, not getting much input from anyone here in the land of Gun Control, and any other type of control you can think of, with not much of it working very well at that.

Actually California is really a separate country in regards to the rest of the US.
With the New Gov, I can see us trying to get something on the ballot, to have CA. named a different country. With the Gov being the King. Very convoluted at this point in time.

The Republicans are trying to kill our economy and we have very little respect for the rest of the US, especially when it comes to citizens rights, we are way ahead of the rest of the country. We are truly socialist, or trying to be. IMO.

I am not saying that is what I want or don't want, it is just an observation.

Sort of like British Columbia in Canada.

Regards, Gary


----------



## dearnis.com (Sep 16, 2004)

> It just upsets me that people will call us "Jackboots" for enforcing laws they dont like, and accuse us of being "the enemy" if we complain about laws they do like.



Frustrating at times.  Few people are ever happy to see us, that is for sure. Well, my consolation prizes this week: 1) AWB sunset (that gets shared with all my friends 2) My office back (the TDY people are gone!!!)  3) 6 years completed, only 14 to go  and 4) Award from the state for doing the most on my department to improve highway saftey in the last year.
I may by a new upper to celebrate!


----------



## Cruentus (Sep 17, 2004)

dearnis.com said:
			
		

> Frustrating at times.  Few people are ever happy to see us, that is for sure. Well, my consolation prizes this week: 1) AWB sunset (that gets shared with all my friends 2) My office back (the TDY people are gone!!!)  3) 6 years completed, only 14 to go  and 4) Award from the state for doing the most on my department to improve highway saftey in the last year.
> I may by a new upper to celebrate!



Oh Chad...that's not just a bannana in my pocket...I am always happy to see you!  :rofl:


----------



## GarethB (Sep 17, 2004)

dearnis.com said:
			
		

> If anyone seriously believes that the die-hard gun ban advocates will stop short of creating the same weapons-free paradise that exists in the UK and in Australia think again.
> The Brass play politics; they have to. If you look at the NRA F-rated elected officials of my home state you can guess what the local politics are like.


Just a clarification. Australia is not the "weapons-free" paradise you're thinking of. Yes, firearms are highly regulated and restricted, but it's still possible to legally buy and use shotguns, rifles and handguns here, although the list of allowable firearms has been shrinking. Maybe we'll become another weapons-free nation like the UK and Japan, but I genuinely hope not.


----------



## Gaidheal (Sep 27, 2004)

Neither Japan nor the UK are "weapons-free" ;¬)

Please at least be accurate if you want to rant!  I rant occasionally about our (UK) restrictions on firearm ownership too, but if you want to, get it right.

For the record.. it is perfectly possible to own and use shotguns, but you better not try it for self-defence (vide: Tony Martin).  Pistols are no longer legal in civilian hands unless de-activated, to all intensive purposes.  I believe there are a few small exceptions, but not for J Random Punter.  Ownership of even de-activated firearms is CLOSELY monitored, although inevitably stuff gets by the system and it starts a whole new media storm every so often.  Rifles are basically also illegal in civilian hands.  No .303 hunting rifles here, pretty much.  Again, I think it is possible to be excepted, but not as a J Random Punter.  Automatic weapons of any kind are outlawed and shotguns may not be able to hold more than 3 rounds at once.  No more 10-round pump-action sports shooters...

In short, you can apply for a shotgun licence, pay your money, a check will be run on you and so long as you don't have a history of mental illness, violent/serious crime you will be granted it.  At that point you can purchase a shotgun which will either be a 2-round sports type or a 3-round pump-action.  They do have minimum barrel lengths and no folding stocks / pistol grips and there are restrictions on how you store the gun and ammunition - i.e. it must be securely stored and not kept loaded, etc, etc.

It used to be pretty much the same drill for pistols, but Dunblane changed that once and for all.  Hungerford had already led to severe changes, e.g. the shotgun limitations, increased restrictions on pistol calibres and banning of rifles and all automatics, as I recall...

But UK is far from "weapons-free" people are just much less scared of each other and thus the number of incidents involving any kind of weapon at all is far lower than in the USA.  This is true of Canada too, though, which still has easy access to pretty much all the same guns the USA does...

Japan has civilian gun ownership as well, but I don't claim to be an expert on the ins and outs so I shall leave that one alone.

John


----------



## Tgace (Sep 28, 2004)

I think Canada has strictly limited weapon ownership lately. Flatlander can expand on that better than I.


----------



## Flatlander (Sep 28, 2004)

Indeed, I can..... 


From the Canadian Firearms Act:



> *7. (1) An individual is eligible to hold a licence only if the individual
> 
> (a) successfully completes the Canadian Firearms Safety Course, as given by an instructor who is designated by a chief firearms officer, and passes the tests, as administered by an instructor who is designated by a chief firearms officer, that form part of that Course;
> 
> ...


*From Canadian Criminal Code




			"prohibited firearm" means 

(a) a handgun that

(i) has a barrel equal to or less than 105 mm in length, or

(ii) is designed or adapted to discharge a 25 or 32 calibre cartridge,

but does not include any such handgun that is prescribed, where the handgun is for use in international sporting competitions governed by the rules of the International Shooting Union,

(b) a firearm that is adapted from a rifle or shotgun, whether by sawing, cutting or any other alteration, and that, as so adapted,

(i) is less than 660 mm in length, or

(ii) is 660 mm or greater in length and has a barrel less than 457 mm in length,

(c) an automatic firearm, whether or not it has been altered to discharge only one projectile with one pressure of the trigger, or

(d) any firearm that is prescribed to be a prohibited firearm;
		
Click to expand...

 *
This doesn't really give the whole story.....

Essentially, in order to procure and possess a weapon, you must first obtain a firearms aquisition certificate. This will involve getting a criminal record check done, and the process takes a loooong time (government beaurocracy ).

In order to own a handgun, one must be a member of a "gun club" (sport shooter's club). There are heavy restrictions on storage and transportation, everything's got to be broken down and locked up, ammo separate, etc.

Only _ON DUTY_ police may carry.

The only time your rifle may be in public is when you are actively hunting with it - once again heavy restrictions on transportation and storage.

It's all rather strict.


----------



## dearnis.com (Sep 28, 2004)

> But UK is far from "weapons-free" people are just much less scared of each other and thus the number of incidents involving any kind of weapon at all is far lower than in the USA. This is true of Canada too, though, which still has easy access to pretty much all the same guns the USA does...



It is my understanding that firearms-related crime in the UK has risen steeply in recent years...accurate??

On the topic I have been having a little "post-AWB" celebration here for the last 2 weeks; I'll post a few pics when I have time.


----------



## Flatlander (Sep 28, 2004)

Gaidheal said:
			
		

> This is true of Canada too, though, which still has easy access to pretty much all the same guns the USA does...


Nope, sorry.  This is just plain wrong.  A Canadian essentially needs to be able to prove they won't commit a weapons offence before they will be granted an FAC.  Handguns may only be owned for sporting purposes, and this must be demonstrated before you get a permit.

Fully automatic weapons are comprehensively illegal, as are modified shotguns (sawed off).  

Of course, what you can get on the street is another story, but my understanding is that we are discussing that which lies within the realm of legal acquisition.


----------



## Gaidheal (Sep 28, 2004)

I said nothing to the contrary ;¬)

Seems I may (erring on the generous side) have been ambiguous.....

In any case, the comment refers to the per capita deaths by weapons, especially guns.

John


----------



## KungFuWarrior (Sep 28, 2004)

Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> My understanding is that it only banned a few parts, and it's continued existance isn't a help.
> 
> Most items covered by it were already covered under other laws, so it was little more than a political redundancy.




As far as AK-47's are concerned the ban only prohibited add ons like flash suppressors, bayonet lugs, and folding stocks.  Even with the ban in place all these things could be obtained and installed legally on a rifle that was imported or build before the ban (known as preban)  I know this because I bought one of the evil preban AK-47's.  I'm not sure exactly what they expect people to do with the bayonet that is illegal on postban weapons because personally I can find many more dangerous weapons that I would rather use than a bayonet for ex. Knife, spear, the gun lol.  All the ban really was, was a way for politicians to win the publics vote by making them think that it would solve the crime problem in America.  I'm getting so tired of hearing the news try to make people believe that the AWB banned automatic weapons and that the only people that own this firearms are terroist because like I said I own one of these "evil" guns.


----------



## Gaidheal (Sep 28, 2004)

I am not in favour of ownership of automatic weapons by civilians, as it happens. Their application is obviously military and as such restricting them seems reasonable. I can certainly understand your frustration with stupid laws restricting add-ons though.. even more so when idiots make out that the repeal of such a law is going to put automatic weapons into the hands of 'terrorists and criminals' - ummm... since when did such people care what the law said anyway?

John

{edit} I think the AK-47 and its variants are an abomination anyway.  Great cheap weapon for sending to the troops in a hurry... not much else to recommend it.


----------



## KenpoTex (Sep 29, 2004)

Gaidheal said:
			
		

> I am not in favour of ownership of automatic weapons by civilians, as it happens. Their application is obviously military and as such restricting them seems reasonable.


When you say "automatic" are you referring to semi-automatic, or full-automatic?  As far as "restricting them seems reasonable,"  Why?  The Second Ammendment refers to the need for a militia (all able-bodied, law-abiding citizens, not the national guard) for national defense.  It says nothing about self-defense or hunting.  Therefore IMO the types of weapons used by the military are the ones that should receive the most protection (no, I'm not talking about Stinger-missiles and BIO/CHEM stuff so don't anybody go down that road).  I'll stop my rant before I really get started, we've argued this one "up one side and down the other" many times in the past.




			
				Gaidheal said:
			
		

> I think the AK-47 and its variants are an abomination anyway.  Great cheap weapon for sending to the troops in a hurry... not much else to recommend it.


  Acutally, the AK is a great weapon, assuming you get a good one (Romanian, Bulgarian, etc.) if you get a Norinco (chinese) you wasted your time.  Many people consider them to be superior to the M-16 in terms of reliability (especially in the early years of the M-16's development).  Also, there is something to be said for the fact that over 100 million of them have been produced in 25 different countries.


----------



## Gaidheal (Sep 29, 2004)

Yes, if you want to be pedantic *FULLY* automatic weapons. As for 2nd Am. rubbish - we don't all live in the USA. If you want a discussion about the 2nd Am. start one about it, we are discussing more general topics as a spin-off from the repeal of the AWB legislation.

Now, AK-47, etc. I said I did not like it, not that it was inferior to the M-16. In fact, as you observed, unless it's an Asian copy they are pretty reliable. I just don't like them one little bit. There really isn't anything to recommend it though, as I said, compared to almost any other Assault Rifle.

The reasons there are so many are a) it's cheap b) it was widely licenced c) it was widely copied regardless of licence without any real comeback.  The last made easier by the fact it was already widely available and well licenced.

John


----------



## OULobo (Sep 29, 2004)

Gaidheal said:
			
		

> Yes, if you want to be pedantic *FULLY* automatic weapons. As for 2nd Am. rubbish - we don't all live in the USA. If you want a discussion about the 2nd Am. start one about it, we are discussing more general topics as a spin-off from the repeal of the AWB legislation.
> 
> Now, AK-47, etc. I said I did not like it, not that it was inferior to the M-16. In fact, as you observed, unless it's an Asian copy they are pretty reliable. I just don't like them one little bit. There really isn't anything to recommend it though, as I said, compared to almost any other Assault Rifle.
> 
> ...



Careful what you call rubbish. This thread was opened to discuss the American assault weapons ban, which, as an American law, is intrinsically tied to the Constitution. Moreover, as this is an open forum, it is just as valid to mention and debate the 2nd amendment, in relation to the ban, as it is to discuss any "spin-off" general topic.


----------



## Gaidheal (Sep 29, 2004)

I'll call whatever I see fit 'rubbish', thanks.  If you want a flame-war on the 2nd Am. feel free - just not in this thread, please and don't expect me to care.

A law is not intrinsically tied to the constitution any more than you being human is intrinsically tied to it.  People without constitutions still have laws.  The USA (area now known as) had laws before it had a constitution.  If you want an argument about "Mah cahnstitooshunal raht tuh one uh musheen-gun.." great.. but I am not interested in the slightest.

And yeah.. you can mention it all you like, but it wasn't relevant to my post, really, no matter how hard you try and make it so, since I was not talking about you right or lack of, but my personal opinion on a general, even worldwide, matter.

John

P.S.  "Y'all have a nice day, now!"


----------



## OULobo (Sep 29, 2004)

Gaidheal said:
			
		

> I'll call whatever I see fit 'rubbish', thanks.  If you want a flame-war on the 2nd Am. feel free - just not in this thread, please and don't expect me to care.



Now I can easily see why we wanted out of the Britain. They can't handle their guns and they have no manners or tact. Not to mention that some of them are arrogant and obnoxious. 



			
				Gaidheal said:
			
		

> A law is not intrinsically tied to the constitution any more than you being human is intrinsically tied to it.  People without constitutions still have laws.  The USA (area now known as) had laws before it had a constitution.  If you want an argument about "Mah cahnstitooshunal raht tuh one uh musheen-gun.." great.. but I am not interested in the slightest.



As you put it, I don't care if you are interested. This thread was opened on the subject of the American ban of the ability of Americans to carry certain weapons. That means, that since it is an American law, that the Constitution is indeed relevent to the discussion as it protects the rights of all Americans by the same law that they are using to ban those rights. Whether you believe in those laws, think they don't apply to you, think that the laws of "The USA (area now known as)" are secondary to those laws of the land before our current government or choose to not "be interested", doesn't change the fact that if you are caught breaking them here where they apply, you will still be prosecuted, tried and punished under those laws. 



			
				Gaidheal said:
			
		

> And yeah.. you can mention it all you like, but it wasn't relevant to my post, really, no matter how hard you try and make it so, since I was not talking about you right or lack of, but my personal opinion on a general, even worldwide, matter.
> 
> John
> 
> P.S.  "Y'all have a nice day, now!"



It was tantamount to your post in which you shuff off the mention of the very thing that is in debate here. The rights of the US gov. to ban assault weapons. 

PS-After that post, you can shove your day.


----------



## Gaidheal (Sep 29, 2004)

OULobo said:
			
		

> Now I can easily see why we wanted out of the Britain.


You were never in it ;¬)  If you meant prior the "War of Indepence" still not so.  The 'states' that became 'The States' were just colonies.



			
				OULobo said:
			
		

> They can't handle their guns


Really?  UK Military handily outperforms the US.



			
				OULobo said:
			
		

> and they have no manners or tact. Not to mention that some of them are arrogant and obnoxious.


You'd know ;¬) 



			
				OULobo said:
			
		

> As you put it, I don't care if you are interested. This thread was opened on the subject of the American ban of the ability of Americans to carry certain weapons.


AWB is, as detailed in an earlier post or two, about what modifications can be made, what accessories fitted - i.e. variations, not weapon types, per se.  Sorry.



			
				OULobo said:
			
		

> That means, that since it is an American law, that the Constitution.. <snip> if you are caught breaking them here where they apply, you will still be prosecuted, tried and punished under those laws.


Long ramble which still doesn't establish the relevance of 'the Constitution' to my point and has the additional irrelevancy of them applying if I break them... well duh!



			
				OULobo said:
			
		

> It was tantamount to your post in which you shuff off the mention of the very thing that is in debate here. The rights of the US gov. to ban assault weapons.


Nope.  The thread doesn't dispute the right to do any such thing.  Government may pass laws and the laws are binding.  There is no dispute.



			
				OULobo said:
			
		

> PS-After that post, you can shove your day.


LOL.  It was sarcasm :¬)  But what makes you think I care?


Now... in a more serious vein... I think I was probably a bit offhand and dismissive.  For which I do actually apologize, it's a feature of not being face-to-face - easy to type something which simple reality of social interaction would make you much less likely to actually say.  Add impunity to that as well... and you can see why we have 'flame wars' at all.

My major point is:  whilst AWB is a US issue, the comment that led to me dismissing 2nd Am. concerns was a reply to me when I was talking about a personal opinion on automatics in a general sense.

So.. if you read nothing else in the post... I apologize for being rude to you.  It was uncalled for even if I did get a laugh out of your reply.  Sorry.

John


----------



## OULobo (Sep 29, 2004)

Gaidheal said:
			
		

> Now... in a more serious vein... I think I was probably a bit offhand and dismissive.  For which I do actually apologize, it's a feature of not being face-to-face - easy to type something which simple reality of social interaction would make you much less likely to actually say.  Add impunity to that as well... and you can see why we have 'flame wars' at all.
> 
> My major point is:  whilst AWB is a US issue, the comment that led to me dismissing 2nd Am. concerns was a reply to me when I was talking about a personal opinion on automatics in a general sense.
> 
> ...



Cool, I guess. I'll add my apologies too. Fires are easier to stoke than extinguish. It just seemed that you were dismissing a most integral part of the discussion. Thank you for the apology and I hope you can accept mine.


----------



## Gaidheal (Sep 29, 2004)

OULobo said:
			
		

> Thank you for the apology and I hope you can accept mine.



Done and dusted. ;¬)

Back to the point of the thread....


Will this really change very much, in fact, in the USA?  My understanding is that the legislation's effect was in reality, trivial and the current media 'hype' exactly that - empty rhetoric for "Shock!  Horror!" news programming.

Comment?

John


----------



## OULobo (Sep 29, 2004)

Gaidheal said:
			
		

> Done and dusted. ;¬)
> 
> Back to the point of the thread....
> 
> ...



I went to a gun show just this past weekend, and the only real differance I had seen was a shortage or hi-cap mags. Appearently, people expected the manufacturers to flood the market once the ban went, but they didn't. To top it off some areas are proposing local or state laws to keep LE mags illegal for civs. This means that people aren't rearing to buy them, because they don't know if they will be legal in the near future. That was the only thing I saw different, except the usual media circus and attacks on both candidates for not pushing the issue to congress. In 6 mo. to a year I'm confident we'll have realistic and reliable stats that show no real rise in crime, and it will be more ammo for the pro-gun campaigners.


----------



## Gaidheal (Sep 29, 2004)

Forgive my ignorance of US slang.. but 'LE mags' ..?

As for the crime stats.. it's a given.  There is no evidence at all that it is availability of guns, per se that causes the US's staggeringly high murder by firearm rate.  There are many nations around the world with much less restriction on firearms who have lower rates.  Some of them are even lower than here in UK which is easily the lowest of any 'Industrialized Nation' (a supposed paragon of 'gun control').

'Gun problems' are actually 'People problems' - it's culture not weaponry that is the problem.

John


----------



## Tgace (Sep 29, 2004)

Denser population and a less homogenous society in terms of economics,ethnicity,race, etc. play a big part.

BTW: LE mags= Law Enforcement magazines=Capable of holding more than 10 rounds.


----------



## Gaidheal (Sep 29, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Denser population and a less homogenous society in terms of economics,ethnicity,race, etc. play a big part.


Actually.. hate to be a bugger, but that is an old myth.

USA is much less population dense than almost any European nation, all of which have far fewer firearms deaths and fewer _per capita_ as well.

USA is as homogenous as any major European nation, more so than, say, France.

USA is economically, until recently, strong.

Ethnicity/Race is covered in the issue of homogeneity, but to tackle it in slightly more detail.. USA has a smaller 'ethnic minority' population as a proportion of its overall population than Canada, which is right next door.  It also has no more 'dense concentrations of ethnic minorities' than Canada.  Arguably the reverse, but I am not going to try and argue that.. no need - it is enough that it is no 'worse'.

Comparing to the UK, your 'ethnic minority' situation is different only in that the USA actually does, I believe, have more diversity there - i.e. people from more countries make up groups significant enough to be noted statistically.  As an overall proportion it is, apparently, quite similar.  UK has higher concentrations of minorities, though, with less violence.  Our gun laws?  I don't think so.

Your [USA] issues are cultural.  Most who have studied it think it has to do with what is called "The Culture of Fear".  I'll leave it there for now... but if you want to carry this on, by all means, let me know.

John

P.S.  Thanks... I thought "Law Enforcement" but it did not seem to make any sense... I suppose it came about as a result of exception on high-capacity magazines being made for LEOs.  Something I despise, by the way.  LEOs are civilians.  Trained, yes, but civilians.  Should have no more 'rights' than anyone else, aside from certain differences extended to them specifically as regards investigation and arrest in the name of and interest of "The People" [i.e. State]


----------



## Tgace (Sep 29, 2004)

All the same, if you look at the economic and/or racial statistics in US gun crimes, you cant deny that its an issue...


----------



## Gaidheal (Sep 29, 2004)

It's not 'an issue' it is a characteristic.  Sorry to be pedantic... but the reason that people are shooting / being shot is not their ethnicity per se, but the situations they are found in.  It is an unfortunate truth that in the USA (and elsewhere) ethnic minorities tend to make up a higher proportion of the criminals actually prosecuted.  It is also true that for ethnic minorities crime is often a much more viable option than for the ethnic majority as a result of economic hardship being more common for them.

In the USA it is in fact not true that "more blacks commit gun crime".  In fact, research shows that if treated as a homogenous group 'blacks' are overwhelmingly opposed to the use of guns and tend to favour gun restriction not increased access.  What the statistics point at is the bias in the justice system.  Arguably, this is itself why the people actually convicted were even committing crimes at all.... though I personally have a lot less truck with that ["Society made me do it"] argument than many.

John


----------



## Tgace (Sep 29, 2004)

The gun violence stats also include suicide by gun and justified use of force by citizens and LEO's..

Based on the "culture of fear" comment, it sounds like you watched "Bowling for Columbine" too. I wont go into that here too much, theres a thread on it somewhere. This guy has some interesting counterpoints...

http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/bowlingforcolumbine/scenes/canada.htm
http://www.lewrockwell.com/edmonds/edmonds215.html
http://www.johnjemerson.com/zizka.guns.htm


----------



## Gaidheal (Sep 29, 2004)

Sure, I have seen it [BfC] but his use of the phrase is because of earlier usage in scientific literature.

I'll browse the links - never one to ignore information. But I actually do know what I am talking about on this one... heh. Still, there is always more to know....

John

[edit] altered 'word' to 'phrase' above


----------



## Tgace (Sep 29, 2004)

Remember that suicide makes up a large proportion of the "gun death" statistic here too. Ive seen stats placing it as high as 57%
http://www.ichv.org/suicideandguns.htm

Work that into the comparison mix and the impression may change. Some nations have as high or higher suicide rate but use other means....not the entire problem admittedly, but a variable.


----------



## Gaidheal (Sep 29, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Remember that suicide makes up a large proportion of the "gun death" statistic here too. Ive seen stats placing it as high as 57%
> http://www.ichv.org/suicideandguns.htm
> 
> Work that into the comparison mix and the impression may change. Some nations have as high or higher suicide rate but use other means....not the entire problem admittedly, but a variable.


Valid and very relevant point. In fact it accounts for a high proportion of UK gun crime. But that is mostly because gun crime is low here.

Reading your last link now... then I'll probably comment again.

John

[edit]  Curses!!  Burnt my dinner.  I am now, however, going to eat it... so may be tomorrow night before I post again (your time)  - 1:28 here


----------



## OULobo (Sep 29, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> BTW: LE mags= Law Enforcement magazines=Capable of holding more than 10 rounds.



Just to add to this, LE mags actually have a stamp on them that says, "For law enforcement use only." They are high cap mags that were illegal for civs to have. There were pre-ban high cap mags that were legal to own and buy. They have to have been made prior to the AWB goinging into effect. Basically it is "grandfathering" in the old mags. There were reletivly few of these available and the price was hellish.


----------



## Gaidheal (Sep 29, 2004)

OULobo said:
			
		

> Basically it is "grandfathering" in the old mags. There were reletivly few of these available and the price was hellish.



I'll bet it was.  I also will bet that there was a quiet market in... *ahem* 'aging' post-ban high capacity magazines.

John

P.S. Yeah.. I am still up.. still reading about the 'Deep Magic' that is x86 machine code and assembler. In case people did not know, I am a programmer.


----------



## Gaidheal (Oct 1, 2004)

Well, I think this one has wound down to a natural and amicable end..

.. by way of tieing up loose ends:

I read the links and they were informative if only by way of providing an alternative opinion.  It has to be said though, that even if 60% of US gun killings were actually suicides, it'd still have a much higher rate of firearm caused killings than almost every nation, per capita.

The figures for reference, as I recall, break down into:

UK ~50

Germany ~70

France ~130

USA ~11,000

These are 'rough and ready' but in the right ball-park area with the figure for the USA being AT LEAST what I have stated.  Obviously this is annual deaths, not monthly or something.  60% of 11k still leaves 4,400 killings.  If we assume the other figures have NO suicides counted in that still puts the USA way 'ahead' in this regard.  What this means is a whole other debate, but that it is true is indisputable.  Moore's conclusions about what it means and why it is there can be challenged but it is hard to argue there is no problem at all.

John


----------



## Bushigokoro9 (Oct 1, 2004)

I guess I'll join in on the always-friendly never heated debate.  

Amendment II

A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. 


I still do not understand all the confusion???????  It is a matter of principle.

"The right of the people"  

 I do not read where it states the right of PARTICULAR people or it is the priviledge of government-approved people. 

"to keep and bear arms"

Again I do not read where it states the right to keep and bear CERTAIN arms or APPROVED arms.   

When the Bill of Rights were drafted the technology of arms that the civilians (colonies) had where not less effective than that of the government, British Crown or his majesty's armed services or however you would like to call it. 

The Bill of Rights is to protect individuals from the Government.  The Bill of Rights is a safeguard created to protect individuals from the crimes that were experienced in Europe under various governments.  There is a very logical order to the Bill of Rights.  There is a reason why particular rights are classified first, second etc

The last point "shall not be infringed"  

I do not know how anyone could read this any other way.  If so I would love to have it explained to me.   

Now, the more freedom a society has the greater potential of crime and / violence a society COULD have.  This is also going into other areas of study that I will not go into at this time.  

Best Regards,
Bushigokoro


----------



## Tgace (Oct 2, 2004)

Also add in accidental discharge deaths and LEGAL use of force. Of course a nation with a high per-capita gun ownership is going to have a higher use, legally, illegally, suicide, accidents etc. The same can probably be said of car accidents.


----------



## Gaidheal (Oct 2, 2004)

Heh!  Even if it is legal, that is still very high.  That is the point... and per capita ownership *isn't* higher than a lot of nations with much lower figures.  Cars is another area where a similar problem shows up - more people killed as a result of drink driving, every year in the 90s, than were killed in the entire Vietnam War, for example.  I am not saying "America's crap!" though obviously in some regards it is, but rather saying "Be realistic and honest about what issues there are".  For those who can't read well - any nation is "crap" in some regard, not least my own (Scotland).

John


----------

