Assault Weapons Ban

[KungFuWarrior]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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.

They can't handle their guns

Really? UK Military handily outperforms the US.

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

You'd know ;¬)

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.

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!

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.

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]

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

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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