weapons ban expiration

[amezri]

For those people who support Bush and believe he is doing a great job and love his policies: He's let the weapons ban expire. What do you think of that? Do you agree with this?

Now, some people might reason that he's protecting the right to arms. (I think he just wants that NRA backing.) I don't have a problem with people owning a shotgun or a hand gun. Don't like it, but it's your right to protect yourself or hunt for food. I do, however, have a serious problem with the average joe being able to purchase and use a semi-automatic weapon. The ban outlawed 19 types of military-style assault weapons, including the AK-47 and the Uzi. No, seriously, what the bloody helll do you need one of those for?

This site proclaims that the ban is basically unfair because well, hey, they're calling an Uzi an assualt weapon as well as certain rifles. Take a look at this:

Specifically, a rifle is considered an "assault weapon" if it can accept a detachable magazine, and possesses two or more of the following features:

* Folding or telescopic stock
* Pistol grip protruding conspicuously beneath the stock
* Bayonet mount
* Flash suppressor or threaded barrel
* Grenade launcher

Uhm, if your rifle features a grenade launcher, I think it should be considered an assault weapon. Remember all those crazies running around with rifles taking shots at people? Yeah. I particularly like the section of their site titled "Why Would You Want to Own One?" with one of the reasons being they're fun to shoot.

Look, I'm sure there are some really responsible gun enthusiasts who would love to be able to own and collect these sort of weapon, but there are also plenty of crazy people out there who don't need more weapons. Guns are designed to injure and kill - if not people then animals. So, yes, let's make it easier for people to buy things that kill.

That make as much sense to me as the guy who is a pyrotechnic/bomb afficianado wanting them to allow the private citizen to make dirty bombs or some such because they're a collector and it's "fun to blow things up."

From ABC News: Gun Enthusiasts Rejoice, But Police Fear What Will Happen When Assault Weapons Ban Ends

Chuck Payne, manager of Ray's Sporting Goods in Dallas, is upbeat about the situation. "If you got a high-capacity magazine you spend less time reloading," he said. "You shoot more, which is good for us because we sell more ammunition."

Wow... I'm.. really glad you can sell more ammunition.. ?!

"They're weapons of murder," says LAPD Chief Bratton. "They are not weapons for hunting or collecting. Why do we want to let the ban expire just so some nut can go running around with a gun and show off? And that's exactly what will happen."

In fact, in 1997 two bank robbers in North Hollywood armed with assault weapons, some of which had been modified to be fully automatic, held off 350 cops for more than two hours. They fired more than 1,100 rounds from their 75-round drum magazines.

I sure am glad that in the future, robbers won't have to worry about being charged with posession of an illegal firearm.

Comments

[antheia.livejournal.com]

I particularly loathe the car analogy. Cars are designed to stay on the road and move swiftly forward. Though there are accidents, they aren't designed to injure.

Assault rifles are designed to rip through flesh.

No. Comparison.

[crzydemona.livejournal.com]

The point is that even a car in the wrong hands is deadly. This is why I think people should have to pass a test on proper use and safety before they can have a gun... just like with a car.

Although, I'm not sure I agree that they should be completely banned. I don't like the government telling me what I can own and what I can't. Timothy McVeigh made a bomb out of fertilizer, should we ban that too? Where does it end?

Jen

[antheia.livejournal.com]

You missed my point, I think.

Yes, a car in the wrong hands can be deadly, and you should have to have a license, etc...

A gun is designed to be deadly. Assault weapons are, largely, designed to effect maximum damage in minimum time.

I have an uncle who hunts. I support his right to do so. He uses a fairly standard rifle, and hasn't really found any need for an assault weapon in his hunting. Amazingly enough. Another close family friend used a compound bow. Fine by me, I even enjoy the delicious meat they bring home.

I don't think guns should be wholly banned. I do, however, think it is completely reasonable to ban assault rifles. I would also agree that hand guns are more generally problematic. Who really needs a handgun?

Sure, McVeigh made the bomb out of fertilizer. Each ingredient, by itself, being wholly legal. The combination being deadly. And so the problem isn't the ingredient, but the end use. A rifle isn't the problem, necessarily, it's the combination of ingredients that turn it into an assault rifle - its end use.

[jen-ella.livejournal.com]

I need a handgun.

I have some crazy trying to break into my house, cutting my phone lines and calling and hanging up.

I live alone and until now have neer even considered owning a gun. Right now, I'm borrowing one from a neighbor until I can choose one that's right for me. I was going to get a shotgun, but it was too heavy and hard for me to control and I'd much rather put a couple of slugs in the intruder than just pepper my wall and break my shoulder.

Yeah. I need a gun, but an UZI... We don't need the criminals outgunning our police.

[amezri.livejournal.com]

This is exactly what I mean. You're in a situation where your life may be in danger, so yes, I can see you going out and getting a handgun or a shotgun for your own protection. There's no need for an Uzi.

[antheia.livejournal.com]

Wow.

I have to confess, though, that I sorta feel like you're more likely to have your gun used against you than you are to successfully use it against an intruder.

As to our cops being outgunned, I'd rather they weren't using guns. Still, I'd settle for them being able to aim. The link is a brief article about Diallo, who was shot at 41 times, with 19 shots actually landing in the target.

[rhyana.livejournal.com]

And then there is the entire problem of Bush promising to cut funding to the COPS program, which Clinton pushed for hard. It would allow cities to give pay raises to its officers and to go out and recruit new officers. Cities are now in budget crunches because they voted for the pay increases and now there isn't any money (promised by the government) to pay for those increases.

And even worse, there may LOOK like there are more cops on the road, but in reality there is only one cop per squad car. They have to call for backup when they pull someone over for speeding, taking that cop away from an area where he could have stopped someone from robbing a convience store and killing the clerk.

[crzydemona.livejournal.com]

Just curious, where do you live where they need to have two cops pull someone over for a speeding ticket? What about Motorcycle cops? Do they need a back up too?

This just doesn't happen like this where I live, so I'm curious.

Jen

[rhyana.livejournal.com]

Garland, TX. I've seen two-three squad cars (only on occassion will it be a motorcycle cop) pull over one car at one time, but that is normally a wreck. Two cars pull over a speeder or other traffic violater. I've seen the state patrol do the same thing, but I know that is standard procedure and there are two officers in each car at a time.

[crzydemona.livejournal.com]

I've seen two or three squad cars pull someone over, but that's because the cops in Fillmore, CA. are bored.

I've been pulled over more than once by a single cop in a squad car. (I really should take the warp engines off my car). My friend and my brother-in-law are both CHP. One is alone in his squad car, the other a motorcycle cop. The only time they require backup is if there is a search needed or possible DUI. Standard traffic stops only need one officer.

(I called to find out! WHEE)

Jen

[rhyana.livejournal.com]

Nope, according to the police officers who come to the library, they are required to call for backup when they are stopping someone for speeding. Heck, we had two cars pull up for a case of twin girls mouthing off to one of the librarians. Funniest damn thing you could have seen. Cop tells one of the girls, loudly, "You are not suppose to raise your voice in a library, little girl. Now, you'll respect what this lady has to say and what I have to say or I'm taking you down to the station, where I will have a conversation with your mother. Is that understood?" They haven't been back since.

[eiluned.livejournal.com]

I just want to assure you that that guy from Dallas doesn't represent all of us. What a fucking moron. "Gee whiz, it sure is great that we'll sell more ammo! Maybe some psycho will be able to kill a whole church full of people instead of just five!" [facepalm]

[amezri.livejournal.com]

Don't worry, I'm pretty sure most people in the US aren't like that guy from Dallas. ;)

[crzydemona.livejournal.com]

I'd rather we ban handguns, personally. They cause more deaths per year than any assault rifle, they rob more banks, they kill more convenience store clerks, etc. But I don't think the government should tell me if I can have a gun or not, short of taking a test to get a license to get one. By putting a gun ban in place, all the government accomplished was taking the guns away from responsible law abiding gun owners... the criminals still have them, good thing we spent money on THAT legistlation.


(how's that for your local right-wing nut-job response?)
Jen

[amezri.livejournal.com]

I agree that handguns should be banned as well. Short of law enforcement, I don't see a reason why anyone should be allowed to own a gun. Personal protection, blah, blah. If no one owned a gun, you wouldn't need a reason to won a gun. Yeah, it's bad if the government regulates everything we do, but since they're already regulating information, people and drugs, I think they should also regulate a device designed to kill.

I think the thing I'm most pissed about is that the current administration is doing so much to take away our individual rights, but it's totally okay for a psycho to go out and buy a gun - any gun. Like, it's okay to question and detain someone for taking pictures in a public area because they look Middle Eastern even though they are a born citizen, yet we shouldn't keep a ban on assault weapons because it violates our freedom to choose.

The logic does not compute.

[crzydemona.livejournal.com]

So, guns are banned in the UK... right? But a man comes up with a fully automatic machine gun and blows away a school yard full of kids in Scottland. ...why did the long existing gun ban not prevent this?

My thoughts? I think that when you criminalize something, then only the criminals will have it. Drugs, guns, etc. Law abiding citizens will follow the rules... the criminals bypass the rules. They'll have the guns anyway.

I agree with you on the removal of individual rights, which only makes me MORE desperate to hang onto my gun rights. The reason we have a right to bare arms is because King George didn't allow colonists to have guns, only the military.. HIS military. Do you really want just the military to have weapons? Do you REALLY want to give the President that potential control?

Jen

P.S. Just as a disclaimer that I have to use these days... I'm totally loving this conversation and I really like the points you're bringing up. Thanks!

[amezri.livejournal.com]

Yes, of course. I love this sort of discussion and am not taking any of it as a personal attack :) If gun control wasn't such a hot topic, uh, well... I guess it wouldn't be such a hot topic. Or something.

I have to agree with what you're saying about how criminals still are able to have access to whatever weapons they want - but they're criminals. That's not a good justification, but there are a lot of high-strung people in this country and I'd rather not have any of them legally in possession of a weapon just because they can, only to snap one day and take out their neighborhood.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I'd rather have only criminals (ie: a few people) own an automatic assualt weapon instead of three guys on my block. Maybe in my mind it's more logical that criminals obtained the weapons illegally for their illegal activity, rather than them having purchased them legally. "Hey, I'm going to Walmart to pick up an Uzi, then we can take over downtown."

I disagree with the fact that this ban takes away your gun rights. Anyone who wants to own a gun can still own a gun. You just can't own an Uzi or an AK-47. Please explain to me the need for an AK-47 assualt weapon, because I just don't see it. There are ZERO benefits in allowing the private citizen to own this sort of weapon.

[jen-ella.livejournal.com]

"Hey, I'm going to Walmart to pick up an Uzi, then we can take over downtown."

Was this directed at me? *wink*

[amezri.livejournal.com]

Not unless you were planning to take over downtown once you were done with that punk who keeps messing with your property XD

[needia.livejournal.com]

So, guns are banned in the UK... right? But a man comes up with a fully automatic machine gun and blows away a school yard full of kids in Scottland. ...why did the long existing gun ban not prevent this?
If what you're referring to is the Dunblane massacre, circa 1996/1997 (Can't quite remember), the handgun ban was passed *in response to* this, not before. The man who shot those kids owned his handgun legally, and the ban was put through Parliament a few months later (This was in the Conservative Parliament days, before Labour came to power) after a big national outrage about how this guy was a handgun nut, regularly went to the gun club etc., yet no one spotted he was a nutjob. Before that there was another incident of a lone nutjob walking into the centre of a town (In the late eighties) and shooting several people dead with a legal gun.
Anyway, just to clarify, the ban was passed after this incident, in direct response to it, and I don't feel particularly wronged by not being able to go to the shop and buy meself a gun. Personally, the only person I know who possibly owned a gun was my uncle who enjoyed ferreting out rabbits and stuffing them in his hallway, so, really, the further he is from any form of fire-arm the happier I am.
I'll reply to some of the other posts later, but I gotta get an early night.

[amezri.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the information. I didn't know about that incident, or at least can't remember hearing about it. Look forward to reading your other responses.

[girlinthetrilby.livejournal.com]

My thoughts? I think that when you criminalize something, then only the criminals will have it. Drugs, guns, etc. Law abiding citizens will follow the rules... the criminals bypass the rules. They'll have the guns anyway.

Then the only real way would be to removed the guns and have them checked by serial number that they have been removed from the population.

The law-abiding citizen thing always amuses me because ppl are law abiding until they are not. You're a law abiding driver until you choose to speed, you're a law abiding person until you choose to smoke the pot or drive after too many drinks because you can handle it, you're a law abiding person until you crack one day and shoot your spouse, parent, children, school mates.

The idea of gun deaths being only the domain of the recognizable criminals is a fallacy.

I agree with you on the removal of individual rights, which only makes me MORE desperate to hang onto my gun rights. The reason we have a right to bare arms is because King George didn't allow colonists to have guns, only the military.. HIS military. Do you really want just the military to have weapons? Do you REALLY want to give the President that potential control?

The Second Amendment reads:

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.

That gun owners not are not standing up to the those who are destroying the freedoms in Amendments 1, and 3 - 10, they are not living up to the reasoning for the Amendment. The point is to have guns for Freedom from Tyranny, not just to have guns.

The freedom to bear arms is to aid the Republic, per the Constituition, that is all.

[amezri.livejournal.com]

The law-abiding citizen thing always amuses me because ppl are law abiding until they are not.

That's a really good point. Why didn't I think of it? Heh.

You are correct about Second Amendment rights. Though, actually, if you think about it, the 2nd Amendment is no the right to own guns - it's the right to bear Arms. When the Constitution was written, "arms" could mean anything from a crossbow to a sword - any weapon that would help you fight the government if the need arises.

[tylergrrls.livejournal.com]

I think that when you criminalize something, then only the criminals will have it. Drugs, guns, etc. Law abiding citizens will follow the rules... the criminals bypass the rules. They'll have the guns anyway.

I understand exactly what you're saying, but in this case I think that the harder we make it to have access to guns that are built ONLY for killing people and for no other purpose, the less likely it is that we'll have problems with them.

If assault weapons are illegal, it is much harder to get ahold of them. Sure, people will still have guns. We can't really stop it. But I don't see why we should make it easy just because we can't make it impossible.

Following that logic, if we can't acheive total success, we shouldn't even try.

And I'm sorry that people have made you feel like you need a disclaimer. Considering how well thought out and coherent your comments are, it's not really rational to think you're being inflamatory.

[ozw.livejournal.com]

My thoughts? I think that when you criminalize something, then only the criminals will have it. Drugs, guns, etc. Law abiding citizens will follow the rules... the criminals bypass the rules. They'll have the guns anyway.

Good point. But that's more why I think certain drugs would be legalized than that assault weapons should be banned. If assault weapons are banned and the law is enforced they become much harder to obtain than a simple handgun. You'd have to be a pretty enthusiastic nut to go through all the trouble to get an AK47. And you know what, some people will. But some of them, hypothetically, would be stopped if the law is enforced. But most criminals won't go that far. They'd just get a handgun to rob whatever or kill whoever. And the difference between a handgun and an assault weapon is the difference between a murder and a massacre.

I don't think weapons should be banned altogether, I just think they should be heavily restricted. Especially when if you have kids in your home. If a kid shoots himself or his friend because he found his parent's gun, I think the parents should be put on trial. It's cool to have your freedom and get a gun, but I don't think people realize how big of a responsibility that is.

[superswank.livejournal.com]

The whole thing just makes me feel sick. I would like to have a President who makes me feel secure; the legalization of deadly assault weapons shatters any semblance of safety under the Bush administration.

What's Kerry's stand on the issue? What he has to say about it will go a long way toward deciding my vote come November.

[amezri.livejournal.com]

I haven't heard anything officially, but it seems he's for people owning guns, but against gun violence.

Kerry Reshapes Agenda for Gun-Control Lobby
John Kerry on Gun Control

[tylergrrls.livejournal.com]

Well, George Bush's stance on the matter is that he would fight to keep the assault ban in place. See how well that went?

Maybe I'm just cynical. But I'm tired of stuff like this.

[ronniefaerie.livejournal.com]

Obviusly the laws are different over here, but the way things are set up here seems to make a lot of sese to me (at least what I know of our gun laws - and I only know a little bit, from when my Dad got his gun license.).

I can't remember all the gun that became banned when the new laws were introduced several years back, but what I know was put in place was to have a gun license you must first apply for it through the police, have a criminal record check know how to use a gun and either have a reason to use it (I think) or be a member of a shooters club (I know this one is certain, because my Dad had to join the local shooters club).

I don't know about having a gun for home protection - maybe because it's not something that we really need out here, any problems and the police turn up quickly (they were here within 30 mins for a noise complaint).

As I said, my Dad owns a gun and has a gun license and shooters club membership - but the major reason he owns the gun (a rifle) is because we were travelling up north several years back and there were plans to travel up north after that (which hasn't happened yet). Now I don't know what it's like travelling in other places, but if you're going up north the way we were (travelling by 4WD (SUV) and camping in tents) you're going to need to take something to protect you in case of a croc attacking. And about the only thing that's got a chance of stopping a croc is gun.

[amezri.livejournal.com]

I think a lot of people here in the US own guns for either home/personal protection or for sport.

I believe to purchase a legal firearm, you first have to go to a dealer Federal Firearms Licensee license. Then they have you fill out some sort of form and do a background check with the NICS (National Instant Check System) and depending on the firearm you purchase, there may or may not be a waiting period.