Asssault weapons

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-02-2004
Asssault weapons
56
Thu, 09-09-2004 - 9:11pm
How do you feel about the Assault weapons ban being lifted? Do you think that our police are in danger?
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-18-2004
Sat, 09-11-2004 - 10:48am
I think some people just like to collect them, or shoot them at a range for fun.

Miffy - Co-CL For The Politics Today Board

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2004
Sat, 09-11-2004 - 5:59pm
That may be the message that the union is putting out, but if you read any of the magazines dealing with guns / rifles / hunting, you would see that the reverse is true, and the police on the beat know that the ban is useless.

What is the difference between a semi-auto AR-15 with a flash supressor and the same exact rifle without one? Absolutely nothing. The first one is illegal to buy under the ban, and the second one is totally legal.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-03-2003
Sun, 09-12-2004 - 2:13pm
Some are, some aren't. But it's the street cops whose opinions should really be checked here, and most police officers don't support the ban because they KNOW it was and is pointless. It didn't change anything of note.

>>>"The semi automatic can fire some 30 rounds in I don't know 1 sec?"

Functionally identical firearms are around now, and have been ever since the ban was enacted. They would STILL be around if the ban was renewed since it doesn't address functional characteristics, but rather cosmetic similarities to fully automatic firearms.

>>>"The more stricter the laws are against such weapons the more harder will be for anyone to acquire it, I would think... Who better to talk about it than Police cheifs?"<<<

They are still completely legal to purchase and possess, both banned (banned from import and manufacture, not purchase or possession) and unbanned firearms. As for who it's better to talk to, talk to street cops, those walking a beat, not those driving a desk for a living.

Not an unbiased site, but an accurate, thorough one on the issue...

http://www.guncite.com/aswpolice.html

~mark~

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-03-2003
Sun, 09-12-2004 - 2:21pm
Not a problem at all. That many people really don't know the difference between assault weapons, assault rifles, and still legal firearms is one of the reasons myself and those like me jump on this subject when it comes up... if we don't point out those differences, provide objective, accurate information about them, many people won't get that information at all, from any source. They certainly can't depend on the media or gun control groups/advocates to provide it, as has been shown by the glaring inaccuracies and misrepresentation we've pointed out in their articles and claims on this and other boards. If you'd like I can recommend some other reading on the subject.

One thing of note though is your comment about wanting to see more gun control... gun control laws, like all laws, are only of use for those who are already predisposed to obey the law in the first place. Those who aren't, aren't, and certainly won't be concerned about laws which they feel only apply to others. Firearms will always be available to those who want them and aren't restricted to legal means of acquiring them. The outright illegality of illicit drugs illustrates how (in)effective even complete banning of a item is, and firearms would be no different in the event they were banned completely. It's unfortunate on several levels, but there it is. In the end crime-control is a better answer, and one more productive in the long run.

In any event, take care...

~mark~

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-03-2003
Sun, 09-12-2004 - 2:27pm
Hi Miffy, sorry I appeared to abandon the discussion, but I left with my wife's GS troop for a weekend campout up in the mountains Friday afternoon and didn't get back till today.

But, as to your question... >>"Do you think knives will be banned next because to many people use those during crimes? (or is there already something out there like that??)"<<<

Not here in this country that I'm aware of, but it has happened in Australia.

http://www.bcwf.bc.ca/s=194/bcw1079670458751/

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/03/08/1078594297517.html?oneclick=true

I don't myself see it going quite that far here, but the *rationale* behind laws like that one is held by a wide range of people even here, and I for one find that really scary.

~mark~

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-03-2003
Sun, 09-12-2004 - 2:51pm
Actually, you appear to be operating under several misconceptions about them.

For one thing, so-called "assault weapons" are generally (there are a few exceptions) very accurate, rather expensive firearms. They aren't cheap junk suitable only for "mowing people down" or "killing human beings". They are in reality rather high quality firearms which can be and are used for competitive target shooting. For example, at the Camp Perry National Rifle Competition each year a great many "assault weapons" are well represented there, being used by some of the best shots in the country. Recreational target shooting is also a valid, enjoyable use for these firearms. They're easy to shoot accurately, durable, and fairly cheap to purchase ammunition for, even more so when you reload your own or use a .22 rimfire adapter to reduce the cost of shooting even more. This has the advantage of functionally giving you two firearms for the price of just over one.

And contrary to your assumption about hunters and such firearms, many of those firearms are well suited for such purposes as varminting, hunting small animals such as coyotes, fox, groundhogs, etc. where a relatively small-caliber, flat shooting round is required. The AR-15 class rifles fall into this category. When you move up to larger game, rifles such as the SKS work well at reasonable ranges for game up to deer size. The 7.62mm round they chamber is just about ballistically identical to the 30/30 Winchester cartridge which has been used for over a hundred years for deer and such. So even among hunters the "assault weapon" is a perfectly valid, effective firearm if you match the cartridge to the game you're hunting.

Then, you need to consider that many of these weapons are not just good quality, accurate firearms, but are valuable as well. Some people purchase firearms for investment purposes, and "assault weapons" are no exception.

In short, you've been lied to Donna. There are plenty of legitimate uses for "assault weapons" beyond killing people, it's just that gun control groups and the media don't want you to know it. I hope that helps clear up the issue for you somewhat in any case.

~mark~

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-18-2004
Sun, 09-12-2004 - 3:14pm

Hey Mark!


Thank you very much for the reply and for the links!

Miffy - Co-CL For The Politics Today Board

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-21-2004
Sun, 09-12-2004 - 3:26pm

In short, you've been lied to Donna. There are plenty of legitimate uses for "assault weapons" beyond killing people, it's just that gun control groups and the media don't want you to know it. I hope that helps clear up the issue for you somewhat in any case.


Thanks for assault weapons 101. I actually own a gun myself, a 5 round revolver for protection that I have had for some ten years, when I was stalked by an insane man (yes, I also reported him to the police and got a restraining order but we know how well those work on a determined individual). I used to be a fair shot also. I do not really believe in banning all guns, believing as you do, that those who want them for illegal purposes will find them. However, I do find

Donna
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-21-2004
Sun, 09-12-2004 - 3:33pm

And contrary to your assumption about hunters and such firearms, many of those firearms are well suited for such purposes as varminting, hunting small animals such as coyotes, fox, groundhogs, etc. where a relatively small-caliber, flat shooting round is required. The AR-15 class rifles fall into this category. When you move up to larger game, rifles such as the SKS work well at reasonable ranges for game up to deer size. The 7.62mm round they chamber is just about ballistically identical to the 30/30 Winchester cartridge which has been used for over a hundred years for deer and such. So even among hunters the "assault weapon" is a perfectly valid, effective firearm if you match the cartridge to the game you're hunting.


It is hard for me to consider this type of hunting "sport" but I hate

Donna
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-03-2003
Sun, 09-12-2004 - 4:09pm
Good to read that you have some practical, hands-on experience with firearms. Even among people who don't care for them it's helps in discussing the issue when both parties have some personal experience.

>>>"No self respecting hunter of animals could possibly call it sport to hunt an animal with an automatic weapon (hope I got that one right....a gun that fires continuously). I find it interesting that this admin will let the current ban expire for political purposes (to appeal to his base)."<<<

Nobody is claiming otherwise in regards to automatic weapons where hunting is concerned. BUT, and this is a *big* but, automatic weapons aren't what we're discussing here. "Assault weapons", those addressed by the about-to-expire AWB, are semi-auto only... not fully automatic, not selective fire. "Assault weapons" can only fire one round for each pull of the trigger. Fully automatic firearms are already regulated and their possession/purchase controlled via the 1934 National Firearms Act. Such weapons are not and never were intended to be covered under the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban.

As for allowing the ban to sunset, the ban was pointless to begin with, on several levels. First and foremost, most of these firearms aren't commonly used in the commission of crime... they tend to be far too large, bulky, and heavy to be concealable, and walking into a bank or liquor store with one across ones shoulder tends to attract unwanted attention. And of course firearms with the exact same functionality are still and have been available. The expiration of the ban will only change how many banned features (flash hider, bayonet lug, folding/telescoping stock, pistol grip, etc) are allowed to be on a particular firearm... right now it can have any two of them.

It's like I said, the media and most gun control groups are intentionally misleading the public through misrepresentation of what these firearms are, what the AWB did and what was covered under it. I sincerely appreciate the opportunity to discuss it here with you and others and hopefully dispel some of the misconceptions which result from the tactics commonly used when the AWB and "assault weapons" comes up.

~mark~