Maybe I’m confused here, but they seemed to be suggesting that having actual military issue assault rifles be illegal and yet similarly looking but differently functioning rifles might create an enforcement problem as it would make them harder to distinguish to a law enforcement officer. I’m saying that I don’t see why that’s an issue, and if an officer is in a position to inspect the gun, they can quickly tell the difference.
I admit that I wasn’t too sure exactly where Terrifel was going with that post, though.
Yeah, pretty much. Or a knife wielding student. Or a gun wielding student. What’s wrong with that?
Of course.
I generally think firearms regulations are a pretty bad idea.
I’m not sure I agree. I would argue that Japan’s low level of violent crime is due far more to cultural conditions than restrictive gun laws. Witness the UK, where guns have been banned for over a decade and violent crime has done nothing but rise.
I’m thinking of it from the other way round; if AK-47s are regulated, then having a booming industry of almost-AK-47s (that can only be distinguished from the real thing if fired or closely inspected) makes it easier to abuse those regulations. Yes, it’s possible to closely inspect each weapon’s mechanism and come to a conclusion thereby, just as it might be possible to closely inspect each police officer’s uniform for discrepancies-- but from a regulatory standpoint, it’d be much more effective to avoid the problem in the first place. It’d be harder to evade AK-47 regs if there aren’t a billion fake AK-47s on the market; likewise, it’s that much harder to impersonate a police officer if you’re not dressed like one.
If people in Japan had been allowed to have guns, Godzilla never would have stomped Tokyo. It is the deterrent of the guns of patrotic Americans that has kept the likes of Godzilla from destroying the cities of the USA. You should get down on your knees and give thanks.
Yeah, that was essentially my question: not whether it’s likely for someone to pretend to be an Iraqi insurgent using a fake AK-47, but whether it’s likely for someone to pretend to be a law-abiding gun aficionado while posessing real (amid the larger market of fake) AK-47s.
I don’t think you have a good analogy here. If someone where to wear a police uniform at their house or at a costume party, what harm would it do? None. It’s only if they use it to attempt to gain power over someone else that it’s a problem.
And owning an AK-style rifle does no harm in itself. Only misuse does.
I just don’t see where you’re coming from, or why this is a problem. If someone is waving an AK-style rifle around in the streets, they’re already doing something massively illegal and so it doesn’t matter if it’s easy to distinguish a select fire one or not. If they happen to have one in the trunk when a police officer searches their car, he can quickly verify what type it is.
You seem to be coming up with a solution that there’s no problem for.
You can Google “donkey cock pills” and get a lot of hits, but they won’t work. Maybe a trained machinist /gunsmith could do it, but you would effectively be rebuilding the rifle. If you could do this conversion, you could build your own machine gun to begin with. Some of those conversion kits, if they work at all, grind off a sear, resulting in automatic fire that can’t be stopped until the magazine is dry, which would be about as useless as tits on a bull. In fact, if someone was hell bent on shooting up a school, I’d MUCH prefer they “modified” their rifle in this way. They probably wouldn’t hit anyone.
As others have pointed out, full auto isn’t all that it’s cracked up to be. In the military, it’s useful on a squad level, to lay down suppression. It’s not useful for assassinations. All always get a chuckle when people talk about a fully automatic Uzi as it’s some kind of hell spawned super gun. In reality, an Uzi is a pretty pathetic shootin iron. If someone was planning on shooting me, I’d much prefer they chose an Uzi over a regular 9mm pistol, despite the Uzi going full auto and boasting thrice the magazine capacity.
Additionally, all the paperwork and licensing aside, a real fully auto Kalashnikov is going to have a price tag of 5 digits. Economics alone make it a poor choice for going on a rampage.
I find it hard to believe that no gun enthusiasts have ever tried to evade regulations on military-style weapons.
Granted, anyone behaving in the way you describe with a regular hunting rifle, or a toy gun for that matter, would be in trouble too, I venture to say. But-- insofar as military style weapons are regulated more closely than other types of weapons (regardless of how they are individually used), I can understand why officials might reasonably object to a market of fake ones. From their perspective, what harm is there in restricting fake military weapons if it helps them keep better tabs on the real ones?
And from a collector’s view, what’s the point of having a gun that looks like a military weapon, but isn’t capable of shooting like a military weapon? That’s like collecting rubber swords. Why not just have a flag that pops out and goes ‘bang’ instead? I’m sure there are people out there that would collect counterfeit currency just for kicks if given the chance (there’s certainly a demand for improperly printed money), but that’s not much of an argument for the government to give actual counterfeiters any wiggle room.
No, it isn’t. And what you just presented is the ultimate stawman in the whole gun control debate. The items you list above are legally defined as ordnance, not arms. There was never a constitutional right to own those items, and the NRA does not, has not, and IMO, will not waste time and money advocating private ownership of those items.
A few rare collectors might own a few of those items; they are heavily regulated by the BATF just to own denatured versions of them.
Your ignorance is only superceded by your arrogance. Many ranchers pay highly competent marksmen (and women!), with their highly accurized/customized super-high velocity .22s, to take out prairie dog colonies, as they are a threat to cattle and livestock.
Prairie dogs are skittish critters at the best of times; you’ll never get close enough with an off-the-shelf AK to make a dent in one of their colonies. It takes a really long range weapon, accurately sighted, in the hands of a competent marksman, over several days of shooting, to successfully pot a colony of the little fuckers.
But, since you can’t conceive of a usefull, peaceful application for a firearm, then there must not be one, right?
Then you missed the point. They are not really AK-47s. They are regular rifles that are designed to LOOK like AK-47s so that those that use them can more easily fantasize that the prairie dogs are people. Which, honestly, let them do what they need to do to get through the day, because shooting prairie dogs is some pretty tedious stuff.
Bull-plop. The NRA opposes and actively campaigns against folks who support even minor, seemingly reasonable laws meant to prevent illegal gun trafficking or restrictions on criminals buying guns directly. It seems to me that the interests of the NRA lie far more with those of the gun manufacturers rather than with 2nd amendment protections ensuring that every patriot should be able to own a pistol and a rifle armed and ready for assaults on their liberty by government or private citizen (something I basically think the constitution does support).
So your assertion is that the Constititution allows state militias to own “guns” and other arms, but the Fed Govt can deny states the right to equip their militia with cannons, artillery, and other ordnance. Is that a common belief?
And you keep missing the point: “needs based” or utilitarian arguments for-or-against one type of gun over another is anathema to people who believe in the right to keep and bear arms.
If someone wants to try to shoot prairie dogs with an AK-47, I say more power to them. It’s their ammo, and if they get little or no return for their efforts, that’s their business.
And a double Bull-plop right back at ya. The NRA opposes those laws which have vast unintended consequences for legal, law-abiding gun owners. Like the much-hyped “Cop Killer” armor piercing bullets in the 90s.
Anti-gun chuckleheads in Congress wrote the ban on armor piercing bullets in such a way that it would have banned 95%+ OF ALL ammunition; after all, even a non hardened-core rifle round (and some large calibe rhandgun rounds) will penetrate some levels of body armor with enough kinetic energy behind it.
The NRA led the opposition to this legislation. Not because they wanted to see “Cop Killer” armor piercing bullets in the hands of criminals, but because they didn’t want to see a backdoor ban on guns through a ban on 95%+ of all ammunition on the market.
And this is what really pisses me off about people like you, Apos. You intentionally spread lies about the NRA and gun owners who support the NRA, because in your mind, I suppose, any tactic is a good tactic as long as it undermines those “whack job” gun owners and their evil corporate shills in the NRA.
DanBlather: I have to run and do stuff today, but I’l try to get back this evening to address your point, as I think it’s a worthy one, and worth taking a look at in a historical context. Short answer: no.
Because it restrict’s people’s freedoms unnecesarily. Let’s say one out of every 5000 corvette owners soups up their car with some illegally powerful engine that let’s them go 200 mph. Should we ban all Corvettes because we can’t see at a quick glance if they’re using an illegal engine or not? Similarly, even if someone is using an illegal engine, there’s not really any harm in unless they’re crashing into things at 200 mph. Of course, they could crash into things at 170 mph even without the engine.
And it’s not “fake” - these aren’t toys or replicas. They’re fully functional rifles based on the same design as the real thing, they just have a different fire control group. They still share the same benefits that the military uses them for, with the exception that they’re limited to semi-automatic fire.
Anyway, you’re grasping at straws to eliminate a problem that doesn’t really exist. How many crimes do you think are committed with assault rifles? And how much more damage can you do with an assault rifle versus a semi-automatic rifle? Not much, as I’ve tried to cover in this thread.
So it’s really not a threat. Semiautomatic rifles aren’t some menace to society - if you want to target guns on the basis of how often they’re used to commit crimes, handguns are far and away more common than anything else.
I just don’t really understand what you’re coming from. It seems like you’ve made up your mind that they should be gone, and you’re throwing every possible solution, even if there’s not really a problem it’s solving, in an effort to see what sticks.
They’re not toys, they’re not replicas. The military uses them because of the ruggedness, ergonomics, operation systems, etc. And people use them for the same reason. They are fully functional, useful rifles, that just happen to lack an ability that militaries tend to teach their soldiers not to use frequently anyway. They are in no way analogous to rubber swords.
Yep, the only reason anyone would own the most proven, reliable rifle in the world would be because they fantasize about shooting people. You have us all pegged.
What are you talking about?
If you listen to the media and gun control agencies, I can see why you’d believe this. But they fabricate stuff routinely to make the NRA look bad.
For instance, about a decade ago, they tried to introduce a “cop killer bullet” bill. It would ban essentially any bullet that can penetrate a certain kind of vest. The NRA opposed it because ALL RIFLE ROUNDS besides .22s could penetrate those vests. So, if the ban passed, they would essentially be outlawing all rifles but .22s. And yet, when the NRA quite reasonably opposed it, the media labelled it as “THE NRA WANTS TO KEEP COP KILLER BULLETS ON THE STREET”
Edit: That’s funny, ExTank and I came up with the same example independently at the same time. I didn’t see his post when I wrote that.
There are people who believe that the right to keep and bear arms isn’t based on need? I guess I am missing the point then, because I do not understand how this remark applies to prairie dog hunting.
I didn’t mean to imply that it isn’t, so long as it’s legal; I just meant to suggest that it could be interpreted as crazy.
You know, for all the talk in this thread of people shooting up schools with automatic weapons and such nonsense, I think it’s time to bring this discussion back to reality.
Since the passage of the National Firearms Act in 1934, the law that effectively banned the possession of automatic weapons without going through an extraordinary amount of red tape, there have been exactly two known murders committed with automatic weapons. Cite.
The first one was, remarkably, a police officer, who killed a police informant. Ironically, the ban on automatic weapons would not have stopped him from having that weapon as the ban does not apply to police.
The second one was a doctor, which is unsurprising if you have any knowledge of how much an automatic weapon costs and how much paperwork it takes to get one. You have to be squeaky clean so you can qualify for ownership, you have to convince the head of your local law enforcement agency to sign off on it, you have to pay somewhere in the neighborhood of $200 for the tax stamp, and you have to pay many thousands of dollars for the weapon itself. None of the above steps are guaranteed. You can be turned down FOR ANY REASON. People who pass these checks and have that kind of coin generally don’t shoot up schools, to say the least.
Anyhow, back to the point: the fear of automatic weapons is totally irrational when you look at the reality of the situation. The rhetoric being thrown around with regard to automatic weapons is ludicrous when the facts are known.
So, does this not mean that the National Firearms Act of 1934 worked, if there have been only two cases since then? Sounds like a damn effective law to me.
The whole machine gun issue is an excellent example of gun control in action.
They enacted severely heavy restrictins in 1934 designed to essentially discourage and heavily regulate the ownership of certain kinds of weapons without outright banning them. The $200 tax stamp was actually meant to be a barrier to entry - back then, a gun might cost you $10, and then you’d have to pay a $200 tax stamp on top of it.
So, after quite a few decades and hundreds of thousands of people owning these weapons, no crime is committed with them. (What’s the date on that second story, USAF? I was under the impression that the cop was the only one) Or let’s say 1. You could make the argument that the gun control worked perfectly, if you were so inclined. People had them, but no one who did anything wrong with them.
So, what happened? Even though full auto weapon owners had essentially a perfect record over 50 years, and this could even be considered a success for gun control depending on how you look at it, the importation and manufacture of machine guns was banned in 1986, with the intent of eventually drying up the market and eliminating private ownership of full auto weapons.
So - people allow a gun control allow designed to discourage full auto use through punitive taxes to be passed. It ends up that this is almost never abused, despite lots of people over many many years. The people with full auto weapons are far more law abiding than even the average citizen, as a group. And what happened? They got banned anyway, despite the current measures causing no problems at all.
And that’s a perfect example of gun control. Even when it’s clearly not a problem, they try to push their solution.
What would be more interesting to me would be the frequency of use prior to that by, shall we say, “ordinary” people. The reason why I qualify that in that manner is because prior to 1933 we had another fine example of what happens when one attempts to ban something with no good justification: Prohibition. You might have read about the aftermath of that: crime, violence, smuggling, all sorts of good stuff. And all because people wanted a drink. Go figure.
But I digress. I suspect that automatic weapons even then were not frequently used by anybody but gangs, which were created by the actions of do-gooders who only wanted to protect people from themselves. Road to hell, good intentions, and all that.
