Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

"No-ban" pre-ordering going on now...Agree or not?

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by ROXRAN, Aug 13, 2004.

Tags:

Page 4 of 6

Rashmon Member

Joined:

Jun 2, 2000

Messages:

21,217

Likes Received:

18,217

knowledgable scholarship vs. visceral pamphleteering

hmmm, I'm gonna go shoot something...

#61 Rashmon, Aug 15, 2004

ROXRAN Member

Joined:

Oct 12, 2000

Messages:

18,814

Likes Received:

5,219

Originally posted by Rashmon
knowledgable scholarship vs. visceral pamphleteering

hmmm, I'm gonna go shoot something...
Click to expand...

Be careful,...you might get into it...I was once indifferent to my beloved sport and hobby, but now I can recite the ballistics of nearly every cartridge...I know what to look for when selecting a firearm...

You see, semi-automatic rifles fashioned after military specifications aren't REAL, TRUE assault rifles, designed with selective fire...For some reason, the public can't get this...

#62 ROXRAN, Aug 15, 2004
Rocket G Member

Joined:

Jun 23, 2004

Messages:

1,623

Likes Received:

8

I suppose a large part of this comes down to the level of trust one places in local law enforcement authorities. My trust level in them is low. VERY low.

If you feel comfortable putting your life, and that of your wife's or kid's, in the hands of a "highly-trained professional" (a VERY funny way of describing most LEOs) in the hope that you will be lucky enough to beat the odds and somehow have a cop arrive at your home in UNDER the 4 minutes they usually arrive at (and thats 4 minutes for a Priority 1 call) then so be it.

I do not have that faith in them. I will not cower in my closet for 4 minutes or longer - praying that whatever intruder is in my home doesn't find me or harm me before a cop shows up.

I know plenty of cops. Because I do, I know how VERY poorly trained most fo them are in the use of firearms. Budget problems & poor training are rampant. The rash of recent shooting incidents involving local LEOs is a fine example of this.

I do not trust HPD to ride to my rescue in a time of need.

Now as for assault weapons - I think most see what they look like and get scared ****less - without understanding anything about the weapon. If you argue that "assault weapons" should be banned you should also argue that semi-automatic hunting rifles intended for deer should be banned (shoot just as fast & are much more powerful).

Also, do most of you even KNOW wtf you are talking about when you discuss the AW Ban? Do you know it really only banned FOREIGN made assault weapons? Do you know that cheaper, domestic assault weapons are readily available & there HASN'T EVER been an AW fueled "crime-wave?"

Why don't you ask why cheap handguns weren't banned? The Saturday Night Specials. The ones that ARE actually involved in the OVERWHELMING majority of gun related deaths. I'll tell you why - because the AW Ban was about politics - not safety. A few suburban soccer moms cry b/c one jackass sprays a foreign made AK into a schoolyard in one incident & we have these foreign scary weapons banned. Not the domestic ones though... Oh, and we just ignore the fact that kids are getting killed by 20 dollar handguns in the barrios & ghettos right? No soccer moms in the ghetto to cry = no political gain = no meaningful ban or look at WHAT GUNS are actually being used to kill people.

Sorry for the rant but the AW Ban was all political, not safety related. It was a joke and should be looked at as a prime example of political malfeasance & hypocrisy.

You wanna take a look at which weapons are actually being used to murder & commit other crimes - fine. Do that, then come back and let's not only look at what's going on with why THOSE guns are being used, but also at the underlying socio-economic reasons those guns are being used by PEOPLE in the first place.

Do that, then we'll talk, but even then, unless you can assure me that Tom Cruise & the rest of the Pre-crime guys from Minority Report will get there before the murder even happens, don't even think about trying to generally disarm the populace & leave its safety in the hands of public servants...

#63 Rocket G, Aug 16, 2004
Last edited: Aug 16, 2004
SamFisher Member

Joined:

Apr 14, 2003

Messages:

61,826

Likes Received:

41,301

Originally posted by Rocket G

Also, do most of you even KNOW wtf you are talking about when you discuss the AW Ban? Do you know it really only banned FOREIGN made assault weapons? Do you know that cheaper, domestic assault weapons are readily available & there HASN'T EVER been an AW fueled "crime-wave?"

Why don't you ask why cheap handguns weren't banned? The Saturday Night Specials. The ones that ARE actually involved in the OVERWHELMING majority of gun related deaths. I'll tell you why - because the AW Ban was about politics - not safety. A few suburban soccer moms cry b/c one jackass sprays a foreign made AK into a schoolyard in one incident & we have these foreign scary weapons banned. Not the domestic ones though... Oh, and we just ignore the fact that kids are getting killed by 20 dollar handguns in the barrios & ghettos right? No soccer moms in the ghetto to cry = no political gain = no meaningful ban or look at WHAT GUNS are actually being used to kill people.

Sorry for the rant but the AW Ban was all political, not safety related. It was a joke and should be looked at as a prime example of political malfeasance & hypocrisy.

Click to expand...

All right, so then let's ban saturday night specials and such . . . Would you be opposed to that idea?

All the pro-gun people like to undercut the AW ban as ineffective because its too full of loopholes -- but any suggestion that the loopholes should be closed usually is met with outright dismissal coupled with emotional rambling about the 2nd amendment.

I don't care what kinds of weapons that are banned -- ones that are predominatly used for no other purpose than to commit crimes, or that are especially dangerous to law enforcement, etc, should be heavily regulated, if not banned outright.

#64 SamFisher, Aug 16, 2004
StupidMoniker I lost a bet

Joined:

Jul 18, 2001

Messages:

16,150

Likes Received:

2,817

An armed populous is a safer populous. You need look no further than the City of Kennesaw, Georgia. In 1981 Kennesaw was home to 5,242 people and saw 228 Part 1 Crimes (violent crimes + burglaries, larcenies, auto-thefts, and arsons). In March 1982, a new gun ordinance was passed requiring that every head of household must maintain a firearm and ammunition (with a few exceptions). That year saw a 27% reduction in Part 1 Crimes. In 1998, the population of Kennesaw had grown to 19,000, an increase of about 275% since 1981. There were 227 reported Part 1 Crimes. That is a crime rate less than 1/4 that seen before the new gun ordinance.

link

#65 StupidMoniker, Aug 16, 2004
Rocket G Member

Joined:

Jun 23, 2004

Messages:

1,623

Likes Received:

8

Which also agrees with the numbers coming out of the UK. Since they banned all guns, violent crime - and gun related crime - have skyrocketed since the criminals, now the only ones w/ guns besides the cops, have nothing to fear from an armed populace and KNOW they have at the very least a small window to operate in attacking people & businesses before the cops show.

As for banning the Saturday Night Specials- maybe. I'm not a fan of denying a populace of what I consider the basic human right of arming oneself for defensive purposes. Poor people would cry out that you are now leaving the right to defend onself in the hands of only those rich enough to afford high end weaponry. In the poor areas, where police response times are dismal at best, nonexistant at worst, the effect could exacerbate crime.

I'd look at that before banning "assault weapons" however. The ban did nada, zero, zilch to reduce crime. Unlike "assault weapons" the SNSs are cheap, easily concealable, and readily available. This is why they are used so often. It's not cheap - even on the street - to get a military style rifle, and even if you have the $ to do so, they're not exactly the most inconspicuous of items to lug around.

I used the example to show you that the gun control has turned into nothing but a political shell game. People don't bother educating themselves on the subject. Again, the two camps argue out of fear. The one side in fear of an armed populace - unable to believe in responsible ownership of even "scary looking weaponry" (regardless of its ultimate functionality), the other in fear of a population that is disarmed - believing that public officals cannot bear total responsibilty for protecting us (or believing we must protect ourselves from their potential abuses).

#66 Rocket G, Aug 16, 2004
ROXRAN Member

Joined:

Oct 12, 2000

Messages:

18,814

Likes Received:

5,219

This is from www.awbansunset.com , below is an e-mail, we often hear...The response is worthwhile read as it deals with semi-automatic firearms with "high-capacity" magazines...btw, in another story, remember the King riots in L.A.?...then you might remember the mayhem and destruction...you will also note the infamous Korean shopkeepers defending their stores with AR15 semi-auto. rifles with full 30 round magazines...Guess whose stores was untouched by the thugs?

From: Charles D.

Subject: Colin Ferguson

I ride the Long Island Railroad everyday. If Collin Colin Ferguson had a ten round magazine how many more people would be alive today? One is enough for me, but maybe not for you. If this is the case exactly how many people does the ban have to save to make it worth while? maybe 2, or 34, or 19 or122... Exactly how many people need to be saved to make it worthwhile?

Here was my response...

Greetings,

First of all, your question is based on a faulty premise. Prefixing an argument with "if we could just save one life" is an extraordinarily weak tactic that just doesn't hold up.

For instance, take that argument and instead of guns, make it cars. How many lives could we save if we dropped the speed limit on the interstates and highways to 30mph? I'd say PLENTY. How about if we mandated that every single car on the road must be equipped with one of those alcohol blood level breath tester things that must be blown into before the car will start, like some judges have made DWI offenders use? Think of all the lives that would save.

Also, banning swimming pools would save a great many lives each year.

Sorry, those analogies aren't very good, but it's the best I can come up with at the moment. My point is that there are countless things we could do in this country that could save lives. I don't at all mean to sound cruel and heartless, but we as a society perform a "cost-benefit analysis" on many issues, not just guns. Are you as vocal in your criticism of these things as you are guns? No, because you probably don't care a whole lot about gun ownership. And I don't mean that in an insulting way... you probably don't own any guns, or at a minimum you obviously see no value in having a firearm with a magazine capacity of over 10 rounds, so since it doesn't directly affect you, ban 'em!

Ok, with that out of the way, let's move on. Even though I disregard your assertion for the above stated reason, I'll make a few points anyway...

1) Proponents of the ban, including Feinstein, The Brady Campaign, AND CAROLYN MCCARTHY have voiced support for the bill by Rep. Michael Castle that renews only the "assault weapon" portion of the ban, and allows the magazine restrictions to expire. If the 10 round limit is so critical, why have they so readily compromised just for the sake of trying to get the more symbolically important cosmetic gun ban passed?

2) The magazine ban has not had an effect on crime. From the 1999 study on the effects of the ban: "...other analyses using a variety of national and local data sources found no clear ban effects on certain types of murders that were thought to be more closely associated with the rapid-fire features of assault weapons and other semiautomatics equipped with large capacity magazines. The ban did not produce declines in the average number of victims per incident of gun murder or gun murder victims with multiple wounds."

3) Ferguson's pistol, if I remember correctly, had a 15 round magazine. However, it was the hesitiation of the passengers to fight back that played a far greater role in how many victims there were. His shooting spree was only stopped by passengers after he paused to RELOAD his magazine for the THIRD TIME. Now keep in mind, I don't mean he simply ejected the empty magazine and popped in a fresh, fully loaded one. He pulled the magazine out of the gun, and proceeded to insert cartridges one by one. And the passengers did nothing during this time. I'm sure it was a terrifying situation to be in, and I will refrain from saying something macho like "hey, if I would have been there, I would have jumped the guy a lot sooner," but you get the picture.

4) There is one piece of gun-related legislation that genuinely COULD have resulted in a dramatic reduction of the number of victims in this case... shall-issue concealed carry. "How many lives could have been saved" if just one of the passengers on this train had been legally armed? If I were in McCarthy's position, having experienced the unthinkable tragedy she has had to endure, THAT is what I would be fighting for... something that really could have made a difference in saving the life of my loved one.

This was a week or two ago... I have not yet received a reply. I don't think I'm going to.

#67 ROXRAN, Aug 19, 2004
Last edited: Aug 19, 2004

SamFisher Member

Joined:

Apr 14, 2003

Messages:

61,826

Likes Received:

41,301

Originally posted by Rocket G
Which also agrees with the numbers coming out of the UK. Since they banned all guns, violent crime - and gun related crime - have skyrocketed since the criminals, now the only ones w/ guns besides the cops, have nothing to fear from an armed populace and KNOW they have at the very least a small window to operate in attacking people & businesses before the cops show.

Click to expand...

This assertion is severely questionable and appears to not be reflected in relevant statistics - yet that doesn't it stop it from being propounded by the pro-gun lobby at every opportunity.

http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/guns/malcolm.html
Thu, 24 Oct 2002
English Crime Trends
Joyce Lee Malcolm has an article in Reason online entitled Gun Control’s Twisted Outcome. In that article she claims

“And in the four years from 1997 to 2001, the rate of violent crime [in England] more than doubled.”
and asserts that this increase was caused by British gun control.

However if you look at the official English crime statistics: Crime in England and Wales 2001/2002 and go to the section on violent crime you will find the following:

“Estimates from the BCS reveal large and consistent falls in violent crime overall since 1995.”

“Longer-term trends in violence overall continue to show significant declines. Comparison of results reported to the BCS in 2001/02 with those for earlier years show a 17 per cent decline in BCS violence since 1999, a 22 per cent decline since 1997 and a 33 per cent decline since 1995, all of these decreases being statistically significant”

“The fall in violent crime may seem surprising, given media attention to violent crime. However, the BCS suggests that violent crime in general has been falling for some time. Although BCS estimates present an average experience of violence, it is possible that the very rare but more extreme incidents of violence have increased at the same time. It is the latter that are more often reported in the media.”

Figure 6.2 shows how violent crime in England has declined since 1995.

So how come Malcolm reported that the violent crime rate more than doubled from 1997 to 2001? The answer lies in the difference between two different ways crime can be measured. The BCS is a victimization survey. It is conducted by asking a sample of the population questions about any crimes they might have experienced. The other way crime is measured is being collating crimes reported to the police. Because most crime is not reported to the police, surveys like BCS give a much more accurate estimate of the total number of crimes than police reports.

If you examine page 49 of the report you will find that it shows that the police recorded violent crimes increased from about 350,000 in 1997 to 800,000 in 2001/2002. However, it also notes that:

“There is a discontinuity in the police recorded trend for violence in 1998 when new offence categories were added to police recorded violence, notably common assault, and new crime counting rules were introduced. The raw numbers of recorded violent crimes before and after this change should not be compared, as they are not on the same basis.”
That is, most of the increase was caused by a change in the way crimes were counted. There was also an increase in the police recorded violent crime between 1998/99 and 2001/02, but, as the report explains:
“In contrast, between 1998/99 and 2001/02 police recorded violent crime appears to be increasing, with an overall recorded increase of 34 per cent over this period. However, these increases appear to be largely due to increased recording. The BCS estimates that the recording of comparable violence increased by around a third between 1999 and 2001/02, from 36 per cent to 48 per cent (Tables 3.04 and 3.08).”
To summarize: the increase in the police recorded violent crime was caused by changes in the crimes counted and increased recording. The underlying violent crime rate, as measured by the BCS in fact declined significantly.

If, after reading Malcolm’s article, you believed that English gun control caused an increase in violent crime in the past five years, logically you should now believe that it caused the decrease that in fact occurred. Similarly, if you believed that Lott’s analysis had shown that more guns cause less crime more data has been analyzed and shown the opposite, you should now believe that more guns cause more crime.

Update: Glenn Reynolds has some comments and links on Malcolm’s article. Reynolds observes that other reports he has heard suggest that crime in Britain is increasing. I suspect that is because there is a selection bias in the reports he tends to hear about. Crime rates tend to fluctuate and there are many different categories, so you will almost always be a comparison that shows that crime goes up. Statistics that show that crime went up following English gun control are the ones that pro-gunners will pass around and the ones that Reynolds will tend to see. Another example of this sort of thing has occurred with Australia. An email claiming that gun control here had somehow caused crime increases of up to 300% was circulated so widely that it ended up being debunked on an urban legends site.

Update 2: Joyce Lee Malcolm has been kind enough to reply to my email about this matter. Her reply and my comments follow.

Thank you for your EMail. As you point out the British Crime Survey published in 2000
I actually cited “Crime in England and Wales 2001/2002”. This document was published in 2002 and contains both BCS and police statistics.
did find a decline in violent crime, although the actual number of crimes counted between 1981 and 1997 increased by 49%. But the BCS is just one of two official sources of crime statistics, the other being Scotland Yard and the Home Office. Scotland Yard’s figures are more recent than the 2000 BCS and sharply at odds with its findings. As I wrote, the Home Office reported that from April 1999 through March 2000 violent crime was up 16%, street robberies by 26%, robberies in London by nearly 40%, and from 1997 through 2001 violent crime as a whole more than doubled.
“Crime in England and Wales 2001/2002” discusses the difference between the BCS and police statistics. The increase in the police recorded violent crime was caused by changes in the crimes counted and increased recording. The underlying violent crime rate, as measured by the BCS, declined significantly.
The police have tended to under-record crime reported to them so the BCS had higher results earlier while police may be catching up, but Scotland Yard’s finding of increasing violence is supported by events since the BCS 2000 report and by independent and international studies.
As I mentioned before, the publication I cited is from 2002 and is more recent than the ones Malcolm cites.
A study by the Centre for Defence Studies at Kings College, London, of July 2001, for example, found that in the two years after the 1997 handgun ban, handgun crime rose by 40%. Government reported that between April and November 2001 murders with a firearm soared by 87%. During the same period the number of people robbed at gun point rose by 53%. And now, for the first time in their history, police units in several inner cities in England are routinely going armed.
I looked up the firearms crime figures for myself (Chapter 3 of “Criminal Statistics England and Wales 2000” published in December 2001).

I am rather disturbed to find that while all the figures Malcolm reports are dramatic increases, the actual figures include large decreases as well as increases. For example, while it is true that robbery with firearms increased from 2,973 in 98/99 to 3,922 in 99/00 to 4,081 in 00/01, these numbers are much less than those from the start of the 90s: 5,296, 5,859 and 6,012 in the period 91-93.

Robberies with firearms are less frequent now than they were at the start of the 90s.

Similarly, while firearms homicide increased from 49 in 98/99 to 62 in 99/00 to 73 in 00/01, all of these are less than the number of firearms homicides in 1993 – if you examine the figures for the whole decade instead of those for a few months as Malcolm does, no significant trend in present.

Furthermore, in the case of firearms homicides, it is misleading to present the changes as percentages, since the raw numbers are so small. Even small random fluctuations look like dramatic changes when converted to percentage increases or decreases. It also obscures the fact that firearms homicide in England and Wales is extremely rare.

Another gauge of the seriousness of English crime is the level of its violent crime compared to that of other nations. A study from the US Department of Justice published in 1998 found English crime far higher than American crime for the four types of violent offences measured. A second study of eleven industrialized countries based on 1996 victim surveys found England the highest or among the highest for the categories of crime and victimization examined. Finally, and most tellingly, the UN crime and research study of eighteen developed nations released in July found the people of England and Wales experience more crime per head than people in the 17 other developed countries including the US. Further England and Wales also had the worst record for what the study labelled “very serious” offences, and for contact crime they were second highest with 3.6% of those surveyed compared to 1.9% for the US.
If someone wants to ascribe these difference to British gun control, then that person should also accept that their gun controls have caused them to have a much much lower homicide rate than the US.
You ask that I acknowledge that gun control in England has succeeded in reducing violent crime. It has not only NOT reduced violent crime it has not reduced armed crime. If you consider the 40% increase in handgun crime in the two years after the handgun ban as a success, I have to wonder what you would regard as a failure. England has a serious crime problem.
Violent crime has, in fact, decreased there. By the logic Malcolm uses in her article, this must have been caused by gun control.
Disarming the public has not reduced crime and may very well have increased it.
Except that crime has gone down….

Update 3: Reason has printed my letter and Malcolm’s reply. Despite our earlier exchange of emails, Malcolm insists on using police-recorded crime figures instead of the BCS ones that show a decrease in violent crime because:

There are good reasons to credit the police figures. They are not likely to exaggerate the rates of the most serious crimes and have been corroborated by independent studies.
She offers no evidence that the BCS exaggerates the rates of the most serious crimes and even if it did, this would not explain away the decrease in the BCS-measured crime rate. As for the police figures being “corroborated by independent studies”, the only studies she mentions are based on the police figures, so do not corroborate them at all.
Malcolm also misses my point about whether the decline in violent crime was caused by the handgun ban. Handguns were already tightly regulated, so the ban did not represent that much of a change on previous policy and consequently it is not reasonable to attribute large changes in crime rates to the ban. My point was that if she is going to attribute the violent crime increase that she erroneously believes occurred to the ban, she should attribute the large decrease in violent crime that actually occurred to the ban
Click to expand...

#68 SamFisher, Aug 19, 2004
Rockets2K Clutch Crew

Joined:

Mar 22, 2000

Messages:

18,050

Likes Received:

1,271

Why are most of the arguments in this thread so off topic?

Isnt the thread about assault weapons? and yall are arguing about the right to own guns...

I support your right to own a handgun, legitimate hunting rifle and shotguns.....but can anyone please explain to me why are assault weapons needed by the normal average American?

Why shouldn't weapons that fire a high rate of bullets per minute be banned?

I dont need to read more NRA propaganda, and I dont need you to attack me as some leftist(which I am not)....I am just requesting a reasonable explanation why fast firing assault weapons are needed by your average citizen.

#69 Rockets2K, Aug 19, 2004
lpbman Member

Joined:

Dec 12, 2001

Messages:

4,238

Likes Received:

795

The main purpose of the 2nd Amendment is for the people to have the power to rise up against a tyranical government, as our founding Fathers did to England

Welp, we flattened the Iraqi army like it wasn't even there... they had lots of tanks so we can put this one out to pasture
If the American people want to stand up against the Gov. it would have to be done with political means, even a show of force, marching through the streets with your guns... does it matter what you're packin?
doesn't matter if you have a full auto rifle or not so imo this argument is outdated

The second purpose of the 2nd Amendment, as I see it, is to protect one's own livelyhood.

a good ol 1911 .45 and a crap load of clips, or any large bore semi-auto hunting rifle should be plenty to defend one's own, as I can't imagine a scenerio where you are robbed-maimed-killed because the Gov. won't let you have a Colt model 727 (M4)

I also don't see gangs running through the streets with them just because they are suddenly legal, if you've got $5000 to spend on a gun, you're going to get whatever the hell you want reguardless if it's legal or not

To me, this comes down to the personal right for boys to have their toys
present company excluded

I say track them closely, make fairly extensive training for the assault rifles manditory (stupidity is being outlawed ya know) and concentrate on those who have no business having a gun, like oh I dunno kids and ex-cons

People will always be more dangerous than guns

#70 lpbman, Aug 19, 2004
lpbman Member

Joined:

Dec 12, 2001

Messages:

4,238

Likes Received:

795

dang no edit

#71 lpbman, Aug 19, 2004
SpaceCity Member

Joined:

Feb 15, 1999

Messages:

1,046

Likes Received:

2

So it's ok to own a weapon of potential mass destruction but I can't smoke at a bar?!

What's wrong with this picture?

#72 SpaceCity, Aug 19, 2004
ROXRAN Member

Joined:

Oct 12, 2000

Messages:

18,814

Likes Received:

5,219

Originally posted by Rockets2K
....but can anyone please explain to me why are assault weapons needed by the normal average American?

Why shouldn't weapons that fire a high rate of bullets per minute be banned?

Click to expand...

Did you read this part in my previous post?:...you will also note the infamous Korean shopkeepers defending their stores with AR15 semi-auto. rifles with full 30 round magazines...Guess whose stores was untouched by the thugs?

Were the "evil" Korean shopkeepers wrong for defending themselves and their shops against the riot thugs with AR15 rifles? People got maimed, severely injured, and their possessions destroyed...But none of the thugs wanted no part of engaging these Koreans armed as they were...

Also semi-automatic sporting arms are not assault rifles...Only machine-guns are assault rifles...There are actually people confused with this issue...

O.K. the assault weapons ban is culminated in two parts:...

1. High capacity magazines

2. Cosmetic features (which provide no effect on lethality)...i.e flash supressor, bayonet lug, telescoping stock...

If you have an issue with high-capacity magazines then why is Proponents of the ban, (the worst enemies of gun rights) including Feinstein, The Brady Campaign, AND CAROLYN MCCARTHY have voiced support for the bill by Rep. Michael Castle that renews only the "assault weapon" or cosmetic features portion of the ban, and allows the magazine restrictions to expire. If the 10 round limit is so critical, why have they so readily compromised just for the sake of trying to get the more symbolically important cosmetic gun ban passed?

This is not a soundbite, it is a point in fact, that those unwilling to educate themselves cannot answer...

#73 ROXRAN, Aug 19, 2004

ROXRAN Member

Joined:

Oct 12, 2000

Messages:

18,814

Likes Received:

5,219

btw, for those in the Nashville, TN. area...look for me tonight on channel 5 news...I will be on a featured segment dealing with the demise of the gun ban...I will be backdropped at Specialty Arms II in LaVergne, and my "expert" advice will be shown!...

#74 ROXRAN, Aug 19, 2004
Rockets2K Clutch Crew

Joined:

Mar 22, 2000

Messages:

18,050

Likes Received:

1,271

Originally posted by ROXRAN
Did you read this part in my previous post?:...you will also note the infamous Korean shopkeepers defending their stores with AR15 semi-auto. rifles with full 30 round magazines...Guess whose stores was untouched by the thugs?

Were the "evil" Korean shopkeepers wrong for defending themselves and their shops against the riot thugs with AR15 rifles? People got maimed, severely injured, and their possessions destroyed...But none of the thugs wanted no part of engaging these Koreans armed as they were...

Also semi-automatic sporting arms are not assault rifles...Only machine-guns are assault rifles...There are actually people confused with this issue...

O.K. the assault weapons ban is culminated in two parts:...

1. High capacity magazines

2. Cosmetic features (which provide no effect on lethality)...i.e flash supressor, bayonet lug, telescoping stock...

If you have an issue with high-capacity magazines then why is Proponents of the ban, (the worst enemies of gun rights) including Feinstein, The Brady Campaign, AND CAROLYN MCCARTHY have voiced support for the bill by Rep. Michael Castle that renews only the "assault weapon" or cosmetic features portion of the ban, and allows the magazine restrictions to expire. If the 10 round limit is so critical, why have they so readily compromised just for the sake of trying to get the more symbolically important cosmetic gun ban passed?

This is not a soundbite, it is a point in fact, that those unwilling to educate themselves cannot answer...
Click to expand...

whoooaaa bigboy....I dont believe I invited or warranted a attack..

I have no disposition for or against the ban at this point...and my post should have reflected that.

I merely asked a perfectly reasonable question that any normal american would ask if they had very little contact with guns or gun enthusists (fanatics?).

I dont particularly like shooting guns, it does nothing for me...so therefore, am pretty ignorant about the specifics of what oine gun is versus another and what features..etc...etc..

I wanted a reasonable explanation for why it is necessary for the average, normal, everyday american citizen to own a hig velocity, rapid firing firearm.

Something that lots of yall that love to defend a position forget about those of us that are undecided is that nothing will turn one of us off towards your position faster than being attacked for asking a simple question about your position.

I dont participate in the pooslinging around here...when I post, it is to anbswer a question asked...or to ask a question for clarification about an issue....I dont have hidden meanings in my post...I wasnt tryin to be cute or snide or sarcastiv....I needed an explanation.

ok....with that said...

Your position is that the ban is a bad idea since it is too restictive? or would you rather there was no ban period?

Assuming the law neeeds to more directly target the "true" asssault weapons....wouldnt it be a better idea to fix the law instead of allowing any Tom Dick and Harrry to buy a weapon that is capable of unleashing a dozen rounds(or more) in a second?

You use the shopkeepers in a riot as a example...well gee, that happens real often doesnt it?
They could have just as easily fended off the looters with a shotgun or 9mm pistol....(which I dont really see a problem with owning)

Why is it necessary for them to use a machine gun? Honestly...look past the obviously huge love of firearms and the NRA propoganda for a moment and honestly tell me you believe that the citizens of these United States really need access to the type of firerms I am talking about.

There are some very real weird people out there who should never be allowed access to weapns like that imo.

#75 Rockets2K, Aug 19, 2004
ROXRAN Member

Joined:

Oct 12, 2000

Messages:

18,814

Likes Received:

5,219

Originally posted by Rockets2K
whoooaaa bigboy....I dont believe I invited or warranted a attack..

I have no disposition for or against the ban at this point...and my post should have reflected that.

I merely asked a perfectly reasonable question that any normal american would ask if they had very little contact with guns or gun enthusists (fanatics?).

I dont particularly like shooting guns, it does nothing for me...so therefore, am pretty ignorant about the specifics of what oine gun is versus another and what features..etc...etc..

I wanted a reasonable explanation for why it is necessary for the average, normal, everyday american citizen to own a hig velocity, rapid firing firearm.

Something that lots of yall that love to defend a position forget about those of us that are undecided is that nothing will turn one of us off towards your position faster than being attacked for asking a simple question about your position.

I dont participate in the pooslinging around here...when I post, it is to anbswer a question asked...or to ask a question for clarification about an issue....I dont have hidden meanings in my post...I wasnt tryin to be cute or snide or sarcastiv....I needed an explanation.

ok....with that said...

Your position is that the ban is a bad idea since it is too restictive? or would you rather there was no ban period?

Assuming the law neeeds to more directly target the "true" asssault weapons....wouldnt it be a better idea to fix the law instead of allowing any Tom Dick and Harrry to buy a weapon that is capable of unleashing a dozen rounds(or more) in a second?

You use the shopkeepers in a riot as a example...well gee, that happens real often doesnt it?
They could have just as easily fended off the looters with a shotgun or 9mm pistol....(which I dont really see a problem with owning)

Why is it necessary for them to use a machine gun? Honestly...look past the obviously huge love of firearms and the NRA propoganda for a moment and honestly tell me you believe that the citizens of these United States really need access to the type of firerms I am talking about.

There are some very real weird people out there who should never be allowed access to weapns like that imo.
Click to expand...

#1...It was not an intention to attack you. My post was to simply answer your questions by example...I'm puzzled why you interpreted it as an "attack". It wasn't.

#2...Any Tom Dick and Harrry CANNOT buy a weapon that is capable of unleashing a dozen rounds (or more) in a second...That would be a machine gun...The AWban does not cover machine guns! This impending demise has absolutely nothing to do with machine guns...NOTHING! Yet, I can understand the common citizen's confusion when I can cite articles which imply or even state criminals amock with machine guns after the ban...The blatant irresponsibility from journalism iks me to the fullest.

#3...Of course I want NO ban. Absolutely!... As a gun enthusiast, I want the cosmetic features to be allowed again on my AR15 rifle-which btw, does not enhance the weapon to be more lethal in any way...A riot is an unusual event, but it can happen anywhere from the inner city to the suburbans...I believe in my protection and my family's protection, and connecting this to magazine capacity is the fullest, the better...In other words, I have a better chance of repelling handfuls of thugs with a 30 round capacity, than a limited 10 round capacity...Unless you can guarentee that bad guys only come one at a time, I want those new production "high-capacity" magazines...

Notice I said "new production", the fact is I can easily buy a "pre-ban" high capacity 30 round magazine for my AR15 rifle right now...I just will spend $60.00 for a good quality one...With the demise of the ban, my price will drop to $15.00 as supply floods the market...

I apologize if I sounded like a combatant, but that's what throwing smelly stuff with the others will do to you...If I can answer any questions further, let me know...

If you are a gun enthusiast, nothing will be better than getting my hands on an AR-15 semi-auto. sporting rifle made to mil. spec. (i.e. Bushmaster) with all the trimmings...

My wish list is to get (2) AR15's with 20 inch barrels complete with flash suppressor, bayonet lug, tritium night dots on the A2 top and regular stock...

Then I want (1) in the M4 configuration with telescoping stock...

About $3,500.00, but worth it!

#76 ROXRAN, Aug 19, 2004
Rockets2K Clutch Crew

Joined:

Mar 22, 2000

Messages:

18,050

Likes Received:

1,271

if it was not you rintention to sound like an attack...Ill take your word for it...you didnt seem the type when we met...and I will take the other posts I have seen from you as just the unbridled enthusiasm of a huge gun enthusiast intent on arguing something you feel strongly about.

that said...

question then.....if a machine gun(pardon the generalization, Im not sure what else to call fully automatic weapons) is not what is covered by the ban....than....what kind of weapons are covered?

what does it take to be classified as a "assault weapon"
wouldnt that be by definition a gun that fires a high rate of bullets? (similar to what I consider a machine gun)

#77 Rockets2K, Aug 19, 2004
ROXRAN Member

Joined:

Oct 12, 2000

Messages:

18,814

Likes Received:

5,219

Originally posted by Rockets2K
if it was not you rintention to sound like an attack...Ill take your word for it...you didnt seem the type when we met...and I will take the other posts I have seen from you as just the unbridled enthusiasm of a huge gun enthusiast intent on arguing something you feel strongly about.

that said...

question then.....if a machine gun(pardon the generalization, Im not sure what else to call fully automatic weapons) is not what is covered by the ban....than....what kind of weapons are covered?

what does it take to be classified as a "assault weapon"
wouldnt that be by definition a gun that fires a high rate of bullets? (similar to what I consider a machine gun)
Click to expand...

You are not generalizing. Machine guns and fully automatic weapons are one in the same...

Civilians cannot obtain machine guns except for the most strictest exceptions involving heavy regulation, complicated permit process, heavy ATF taxation, and the strictest of usage regulation...A Civilian can technically obtain a machine gun, but the process of legally getting one is like finding a needle in a haystack...

the AWban conceived in 1994 does not address machine guns or fully automatic weapons...What it did was address SEMI-AUTOMATIC weapons that "looked evil", the situation of the ban had a provision in which it would end in 10 years if progress against gun-related crime isn't worthwhile...It has been shown to NOT be worthwhile and the fact is it was doomed from the start...why, you ask?...because the ban started in 1994 targeted 2 things: features, and capacity...

These features were mainly "extras", (like a telescoping stock, with pistol grip, and flash suppressor) which was predominant on one kind of semi-auto. sporting rifle: the AR-15...It looks just like the military version, but it is in semi-automatic mode only...hence it is legal for the civilian to own...semi-auto. rifles like the M1 Garand, etc. has been in existance to the general public for over 50 years...

The ban makes no sense, here's why...
This ban made no sense, because it allowed the continuance of AR15 type rifles without the extras...An AR15 without the extras is just as deadly as an AR15 with them...Plus, a post ban AR15, which has been available during this ban, is technically more accurate without a flash suppresor or muzzle break...All the ban did was made the AR15 look less cool...Kinda like taking away the outside extras which adds beauty to a sports car without doing anything to the engine...

3 "evil" features combined...Oh my...
They called this round up: the 3 evil features...Yes, you can buy a firearm with a permanent flash suppressor, but as long as you don't have a pistol grip and telescoping stock...Such a firearm now available is the powerful Springfield Armory M1A in .308...

what's so scary about the 3 little features?
But combining these 3 "evil" features on an AR15 made it a "robust, and savage killing machine"...It's a joke!...There is no significant advantage of the pistol grip than a straight stock...The flash suppressor doesn't really hide the tell-tale flash...The telescoping stock doesn't shorten the weapon to be truly concealable...It makes you wonder what they were trying to do?...

The motives of the 1994 ban...
Many behind the 1994 ban wanted outright banishment of semi-automatic sporting rifles, but they knew it was better to take a step than a leap...The problem was their right-infringing step made no sense, and proved is was done hastily and without research and education...I feel if they did the research, maybe they wouldn't feel so intimidated by the "looks"...

O.K. I got the 3 little features point...What about capacity?
Now, high capacity magazines before the ban in 1994 were in high circulation...What was the decision about this?

Anything legal before 1994 was termed: "pre-ban"...This included AR15 rifles with the 3 evil features, or high capacity magazines...The numbers of these high capacity magazines were in the thousands upon thousands...But 10 years is a long time, and demand exceeds supply...and now high quality pre-ban production magazines are extremely rare...For example, high-capacity pre-ban Glock magazines can easily command prices well over $100.00...Then you have low quality "after market" high capacity magazines, which are cheaper, but generally not as reliable for feeding, and more likely to jam...The point is the high capacity part of the ban only receeded the supply of new production magazines and made remaining availability inflated with price, while loopholes in after-market magazine types became available...Some say 10 rounds is enough for defense...enough for most defensive situations, I generally agree, but what about defending less likely situations such as a riot...social breakdown...SHTF stands for something, I'll leave it to you to read into it...In today's crazy world, I want the added protection...Plus even AWban advocates have focused more on the features issue than the high-capacity issue...Beretta is NOW offering 2 high-capacity 15 round magazines via mail, if you purchase a Beretta vertec pistol between now and October of this year...This includes the 2 - 10 round magazines that comes with it right now...The stipulation is the AWban actually expires...But for them to offer this now, is telling...

#78 ROXRAN, Aug 19, 2004

lpbman Member

Joined:

Dec 12, 2001

Messages:

4,238

Likes Received:

795

whew... I wasn't really aware of the firepower you can get your hands on, legally

http://www.ferret50.com/ferret50_conversion.html

folks, that makes really big holes

#79 lpbman, Aug 20, 2004
synergy Member

Joined:

Jul 18, 2002

Messages:

1,269

Likes Received:

0

Assualt weapons are sorely needed in America. Who else is going to protect you from the police.

#80 synergy, Aug 20, 2004

(You must log in or sign up to post here.)

Page 4 of 6

Share This Page