Because books don’t kill people, I guess (unless you bash someone over the head with them, repeatedly.)
But really - you’re much much more likely to be killed by a car than by a gun (especially an “assault weapon” covered in that absurd ban.)
So back over to you, if it’s your issue just because you like the way they look, and other guns that are just as functional are legal, how is that logical?
A. Since when does a single case settle any issue in the Supreme Court? They revisit stuff when they feel it’s necessary.
B. In fairness to McCain, I doubt he’ll nominate a very conservative judge, given the majority Democrats are likely to have after November; certainly several more than the Senate has now.
Books =/= guns.
Because they’re not just as functional. I guess I mis-spoke when I used that specific word so let me elaborate.
The features of an “assault weapon” do not make that weapon any more likely to be used in a crime, and they certainly do not somehow make it more “deadly,” but they do help the ergonomics of the firearm.
A pistol grip allows you to get a more comfortable grip on the gun with your shooting hand.
A folding stock lets you adjust the stock according to your personal preference or your body type.
A barrel shroud (which you hardly ever see - most “assault” rifles have plastic forearms with heat shielding inside) lets you grip the barrel without burning your hand, but again, these are practically obsolete on rifles.
A vertical foregrip on a rifle allows you to grasp the front end of the weapon more firmly and comfortably.
So, these features do make a difference in the ergonomics of the gun in question. But they do not make it any more dangerous. The reason why they are in the “assault weapons” ban is because they look scary because you tend to see them in Hollywood action movies. (Remember Carolyn McCarthy, the main force behind the AWB, didn’t even know what a barrel shroud WAS?)
I’ve said it before and I will keep saying it until I’m in my goddamned grave. The only people who are screwed by the AWB are gun hobbyists and recreational shooters who collect military-style firearms. The weapon of choice for actual criminals has always been, and will always be, the handgun.
Of course, if you’re an “anti” - a knee-jerk anti-gun person - you will simply never see eye to eye with me on this. I could talk all day about this and you’d still just be picturing Scarface and Heat in your mind. But maybe, just maybe, I can shed some light on this by explaining it clearly.
I dunno. ‘THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO’ killed a hell of a lot of people.
It may not be the features that make them more likely to be used in a crime, it could just be reputation and appearance, but just one example (from the other thread), the SKS, IS used a lot more in crime than any other rifle. It has a bad reputation because far more law enforcement workers have been killed by the SKS than any other rifle.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m against practically all gun control, but it’s inaccurate to divorce the types of weapons in these bans from crime. For whatever reason, these weapons are more popular with criminals than other weapons of similar functionality
Think about all the times that you use or are in proximity to cars, or more to the point that people in general encounter cars. How often are people not killed by cars relative to how often they are?
It’s really the denominator in the consideration of risk that people really seem to fail to understand very well at all.
In 2006, there were about 202 million licensed drivers in the US. There were about 42,000 traffic fatalities (cite).
The number of firearm owners is hard to come by. The most recent number I found was from the Department of Justice, who estimated the number of firearm owners in the US at 44 million. In 2007, there were 10,086 murders committed with firearms in the US (cite).
So, that means that there was one traffic fatality for every 4700 registered drivers (202M/42000).
There was one firearm murder for every 4300 gun owners (44M/10000).
So, while you might be more likely to be killed by a car, a gun owner and a driver are about equally likely to kill someone.
It doesn’t take an “anti” not to see eye to eye with you. It takes someone like me, someone who feels that guns are not relevant to my daily life and that nothing can make guns into an issue I care about. Want concealed carry? It’s okay with me. Want to repeal the Second Amendment? It’s okay with me.
I think for many of us, the right to carry guns is only seen as a right because it’s in the Constitution, while the right to other things is seen as a right because we feel it’s something really important worth protecting.
I don’t defend things on the basis of them being Constitutional. I defend them on the basis of them being what I consider right and important.
So do you find the “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people” arguement to be bullshit too?
OK, I’m going to say a lot of stuff that the people who don’t know anything about guns are not going to be able to understand, so all you guys, you can go back to doing whatever it is that you care about enough to let the rights of those who do care about guns slip by the wayside. What I am about to say is directed specifically towards the quote above.
The SKS rifle, which stands for (roughly translated) Simonov Self-Loading Carbine, is not and never has been considered an “assault weapon” by anybody. The only feature of the AWB that the SKS meets is that of the bayonet lug, and again, I don’t think criminals are bayoneting each other in the streets.
Let me give a brief summary of the SKS. It is chambered in 7.62x39, the same cartridge as the AK-47. But this is where its similarity to the AK-47 ends. The SKS has a traditional wooden stock, like the M1 Garand or the Mauser rifle or any number of much older rifles. It does NOT have a pistol grip, which automatically disqualifies it from falling under the criteria of the AWB. The SKS has a fixed (non-detachable) magazine which holds ten rounds - perfectly kosher, by the standards of the AWB, which prohibits detachable mags, or mags with more than 10 rounds capacity, on guns with a pistol grip. The SKS also does not have a folding stock, at least not in its standard configuration, though aftermarket ones are available. It does not have a vertical foregrip nor a barrel shroud.
The SKS rifle passes nearly all the criteria which would exclude it from the “assault weapons” ban. Therefore, it is not, and never has been considered an assault rifle, except by idiotic newspaper reporters who keep calling it one, probably because they don’t know their ass from their elbow or an M-16 from a Marlin 60.
Now, as to why the SKS is more popular with criminals than other rifles of similar function (rifles, not pistols) - very, very simple answer: it is cheap, and it uses cheap ammo. You can get an SKS for 250 dollars and a big case of ammo for 100.
A semi-automatic civilian AK-47 variant - a Saiga, WASR, or similar rifle - will run you around 400 dollars at the cheapest, and much more if you want a higher quality weapon. (If anyone has any links to crimes committed with WASRs or Saigas, please link to them now.)
Going up the ladder a little bit, an AR-15, on the very cheapest end, will cost you at least 600 dollars for a cheap Century build, and about 1000 for a decent quality Bushmaster or similar AR-15. This is not money that the average criminal has to spare. (If you have links to crimes committed with AR-15s, please link to them now.)
Going up the ladder even more, an HK91 - which I own - will run you around $2,000. What kind of criminal has that money to spare? This might be the most evil looking rifle on the planet, and you might see it in a lot of violent action movies, but really - in real life - how many crimes are committed with this rifle? How many criminals can even afford the ammo for it (.308 cartridges)? I’m willing to bet that in the past ten years, an HK91 was used in maybe ONE crime in America, if that. And yet - the AWB would ban this rifle.
All the way at the top, the mighty Barrett .50-cal. The Brady Campaign claims that this rifle is “the preferred weapon of terrorists.” To date, exactly zero crimes in the United States have ever been committed with one.
See where I’m going with this?
The AWB is stupid in its purest and most potent form. It relies on the ignorance of firearms on the part of the public.
Holy dogshit, can’t you guys get your own thread?
Just to stay on topic (and because I happened to be reading this article earlier and thought it was actually, you know, relevant ;)), CNN says here that Obama is starting to pull away and that McCain’s chances are fading…unless there is a major change or gaff by Obama.
McCain is probably not forked (yet)…but I’d say his chances are definitely fading and it’s looking more and more like it will be President Obama in a couple of months…
-XT
And this has how much chance of becoming law?
I wouldn’t give a flip about how a pol felt about intelligent design, if it was some backwater issue where even its supporters weren’t particularly energized to push for it, because it wasn’t going to make that big a positive difference in the lives of most Americans, its opposition was strong and organized, and it was about 73rd on their list of priorities anyway.
Yeah. I didn’t subscribe to this thread to read a hijack about the minutiae of the Assault Weapons Ban. I realize that this is your pet issue, and you hope to educate people about your particular field of interest, but I don’t see why you must do so here.
I suspect John won’t be able to force himself into any semblence of respect for Obama, if his conduct during the Senate’s consideration of the bailout bill yesterday is any indication:
Oh, yeh, and some other interesting observations from the same source:
Are you saying you want an Assault Weapons Ban Ban in this thread?
You forget two things- there will be a Swifboating by the GOP. There also will be dirty tricks, like disenfranchising likely Dem voters.
Obama needs to go in with a solid lead.
I didn’t have much of an impression of McCain before this election, but now I’m starting to think he’s a guy not just with a temper, but with some serious pent-up anger toward life in general. He went through hell in Vietnam, and now the country owes him this. If Obama thinks he can stand in the way of what John believes he is owed by this country, then he’s not a competitor, he’s an Enemy.
Not sure that it would be wise for him to go that route, but I think if Obama makes even an innocent-sounding joke about McCain’s service, he has a good chance of provoking McCain into a frothing red-face diatribe on live TV. After John utters some boilerplate about how he will steer the economy, Obama might touch him on the shoulder and say joshingly, “LIke you crashed those five planes, John? Ah, you know I’m just kidding, buddy.”