ClumsyMonkey.net

hpdfk wrote:In a few days (I believe monday), the ban imposed on automatic weapons 10 years ago will expire. When Bush was elected, he promised to renew this ban. Unfortunately, he lied (Gasp!). Many police officials and politicians predict crime will dramatically increase when gang members and criminals and legally able to get their hands on Uzis. I think that the government really dropped the ball on this one. I am against the right to bear arms, but I can see reasons why people are for it. I see no reason for a civilian to have an automatic weapon.

Discuss

As another gun owner, I'd like to make a correction on this remark, and if it's already posted I apologize. The Assault Weapons ban was not a ban on automatic weapons (def: many rounds until the trigger is released) the ban effected certain aspects of Semi-automatic weapons(one round per trigger pull). Hunting rifles are semi-auto. They could not have more than 3 of the following:

Pistol grip, bayonet lug, threaded flash supprosor, collapsable stock, high capacity magazines (more than 10 rounds)

Otherwise if you only have 3 of the 5 it's fine.

AUTOMATIC WEAPONS are still against the law. Gang bangers who MIGHT be able to get a hold of an automatic weapon will still be breaking the law (as if they followed it anyways). I say MIGHT just because they are really really expensive.

I myself own an AR-15...telescoping stock, bayonet lug, high cap mags...legal. I also have a CETME .308 (see also HK G3 or HK PSG1)

My point. These so called assault weapons have already been available and legal to obtain as long as they meet certain conditions. Gang member and criminals will never go through the legal chains to get them. NOTHING is going to change because of this law expiring. Crimes will not increase or decrease.

And just to brush on the subjecto of WHY do regular folks need an "assault rifle" they're just fun to shoot. I like to go shooting once in a while. Not for any reason. I don't even hunt. I don't like killing things. I also want to be prepared in the use of a firearms to be able to protect myself and my loved ones.

My 2 cents
some facts about people's concerns

What I really don't understand is why the original assault weapons ban was created to expire after 10 years. If you think they're a bad thing and need to be banned then surely that ban should be permanent, or at least permanent until someone comes along with a whole new law and justification to stop it (not that I think that such a thing's possible, but in theory that option's still there) and goes through the process of getting that law enacted. I just can't get my head around why the law should suddenly expire after a set period of time.
Does anyone know why?

This was purely a cosmetic law. And what I mean by that is what I said in my previous post:

Can anyone tell which is the military rifle?





If not, then that is my point exactly. They banned the weapons based on how mean and dangerous they looked. And that's why it's not being renewed, because they know it's a useless bill. Weapons like the first one pictured are still LEGALY available, like I said I have one. The second one is one that was used in the military and is full auto. (good luck getting one). The bill never stop criminals from getting their hands on them. (refer to Columbine. They did not buy any of those weapons legaly)

(I think I may be the only one who doesn't care that the bill expires)



Automatic weapons have no place outside of the military. I agree that particular type of weapon should not be allowed. I never once went to a gun range and saw someone shooting a fully automatic rifle.
I have...and I have. Shot an m16 at a fireing range, and shot an MP5 also. Again, fun to shoot, no more, no less. Plus it's good to know the functionality of various weapons.

St. Louis.

hmmm....is that still the south?

DONT POST PICTURES OF THE THINGS

:never comes to this thread again:

I never saw the fascination of collecting things designed to kill things.

i said it was an American thing, not just a Texas thing. It's just more prevelent in the south.

And of course Canada has nuts too, but many less.

Rusty wrote:I never saw the fascination of collecting things designed to kill things.

Me either.


Saying that owning guns is a typically southern thing is wrong. There are a lot of owners in the mid-western United States, and north in Montana, Idaho, the Dakotas, etc.

I AM ME wrote:i said it was an American thing, not just a Texas thing. It's just more prevelent in the south.

And of course Canada has nuts too, but many less.

still waiting on the evidence.

my american history teacher actually had the statistic of gun violence in canada compared to the states...and then pointed out the discrepancy in numbers is because of population difference. so he multiplied the canadian number by 10...and although it was still lower...it was a difference of a few hundred instead of a few thousand.

*begins searching for the statistics*

If I'm not mistaken, even when factoring in the ratio of 10:1 there are still 3 times as many gun related crimes in the USA. It is not necessarily gun laws that contribute to this number but rather sociological aspects such as social class and environment.

I'm really torn about this gun law. Having read the posts made by those people here who have guns it really doesn't seem like there will be much difference. I guess really only time will tell.

I have a couple of issues to raise.

First of all, why is there the need to go out and shoot a hundred rounds at a hay bale? Surely there are other less... destructive, more contructive things to do.

2ndly. I live in a country where guns are not part of the culture so I may be missing something here. But surely you don't need an AR 15 to protect your family. IMHO the "right to protect myself with gun" argument i sone of the key pillars to gun owndership. But surely, if there weren't as many guns out there, you wouldn't need one to defend your family with.

3rdly. The fact you are allowed to own these guns makes them more accessible. and the more accessible they are, the easier it is for the ones who use them with "alternative" intents to lay their hands on one. And that makes it a bad thing. There are those who dont share the same morals as some of us and will willingly sell their firearms to less than reputable characters while maintaining a squeaky clean record.

I'm not really sure why people enjoy shooting. For me it was something to get out of the house and do outdoors. If I was having a crappy day, I could go shoot and just forget about whatever was wrong. A lot of times me and my old boss would go and just shoot and hang out with the old men who were always there. For a while, I even shot competition on a weekly basis.

People selling guns to criminals in private transactions bothers me. I wish there was a way to police it better. When guns are used in violent crimes and the weapon is recovered, the ATFE's National Tracing Center can contact the manufacturer and start following the paper trail to find out how the criminal got the gun.

But surely going out and flying a kite is just a good a way to get out of the house.

As long as the gun isn't used for shooting people, they have every right to be able to use it. Just because something has the ability to kill someone doesn't mean they aren't allowed to use it. If that was the case I really shouldn't have that meat cleaver in my kitchen cause that could easily kill someone, when a smaller knife would still cut meat.

But thats not the point. A meat cleaver actually has a domestic use that isn't violent. Where does this apply with a gun?

How about equating this to martial arts? Why do people train in Karate, or Mui Tai, or Aikido? Are those arts not taught to make a person a weapon? So to a lesser extent, it's still a violent weapon to have. But people do it. People train. But there is more than violence being taught. There is discipline being taught also. Self control, sense of right and wrong. And when you have a bad day

Mind you I'm not trying to "turn" anyone. I just want to make the point that the hysteria/fear people feel about guns is unwarnted. Granted they are dangerous things, make no mistake about it. But it's no more dangerous than a chunk of metal if it's not in a PERSON'S hand. What make the weapon dangerous, it's the person who owns it.

I disagree again. Where is the years of training and discipline under a supervised teacher with guns?

Are you asking where people get their training/experiance with firearms?

No Im pointing out that with martial arts, you MUST have years of discipline and training under your belt to become a violent weapon so to speak. Its not like any schmoe can walk into a dojo off the street and walk out again that same afternoon a killing machine. But you can with guns

That is true. However, the gun doesn't make a person a killer. If a person is pathetic enough to want to take another person's life, he's already a killer before he even gets a gun.

But my previous analogy was in response to what other use is there for a firearm other than killing. I was just pointing out that though it was designed to kill, it more often than not used for other purposes than to kill. Like martial arts is used for more than to beat someone up.