# Weapons ban lapsing causes no panic, except in fearmongers. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 24, 2005, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/weapons-ban-lapsing-causes-no-panic-except-in-fearmongers/300863 "2005-04-24T14:59:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 148
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2005, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/weapons-ban-lapsing-causes-no-panic-except-in-fearmongers/300863/148 "2005-04-26T00:21:42Z")
> [@Avenger](#): > > Someone wanna explain to a non-armed to the teeth Limey why, if the ban didn’t actually affect anything, what the big deal is? > > If you want to have a shot at why the second ammendment doesn’t protect the right of citizens to own a tank, feel free, for a bonus point… Because the 2nd protects the right to keep and bear _arms,_ NOT ordnance. > [@Johnny L.A.](#): > > Incidentally, you _can_ own a tank. I believe you can, even in England. But you cannot own a working canon. Correct; the _cannon_🙂 must be “demilled (sp?),” that is, rendered non-functional. IIRC, it typically involves removing the firing pin and plugging the barrel with something (steel, cement, etc.,). > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Those “fearmongers” you speak of would include GWB, you know. He said he would sign the ban again if it got to his desk. So don’t forget to include him while you’re burning down strawman. > > And congratulations on regaining access to to more powerful phallic substitutes. I hope you can finally feel like a man now. IMO, GWB said that to play the political game. IMO, he knew it wouldn’t be renewed by Congress, so he cold safely espouse his, “if it’s passed, I’ll sign” platform to appease the hand-wringers without having to actually worry about having to follow through with it. Oh yeah: _you’re_ a Dick, and one of the biggest problems with The Straight Dope. > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Personally, I think the framers probably were thinking of citizen militias and intended the amendment to apply to individuals but it’s far from a settled question and the contempt and hostility heaped on people who interpret it that way is unwarranted and unfair. Okay, I retract the “biggest problem” statemt. But you’re still a Dick. > [@Johnny L.A.](#): > > _Should_ they be banned? Given that I’ve never heard of one being used in the commission of a crime, and that they appear to be no danger to society, I don’t see a good reason to ban them if they aren’t already. But I don’t think that they would fall under the protection of the Second Amendment. YMMV. Of course they’re used in crime! And supported by the NRA, too! Didn’t you see _Lethal Weapon 4_? Mel Gibson and Danny Glover said so. Hell, it was shot in _L.A.!_ Man, you west-coast people can’t even be bothered to pay attention to what happens in your own town. :rolleyes: 😉 > [@Czarcasm](#): > > So this thread is an admission by the “slippery slope” proponents that they were absolutely wrong? > In that case, thank you for the apology. It’s so nice when people can admit their mistakes and move on. Get bent, asswipe. It’s not an admission of being wrong, it’s an exhultation of victory over those who would shamelessly use an incremental process (slippery slope) to achieve their political agenda. > [@kung fu lola](#): > > Listen, dood, I’m not an American (Thank G-d), and so I don’t care or have to care. Then shut the fuck up and fuck off, asshat. > [@kung fu lola](#): > > It rubs me the wrong way when ordinary, Joe-Blow citizens start running around with machines that serve **no other purpose** than to rain hot-leaded flesh-shredding death down onto other human beings, and I don’t think that makes me stupid or ignorant. If it was, in fact, the intention of the Founding Fathers that Josephine Average have the Gawd-given right to pack heat that can spit out multitudes of bullets in one minute, then perhaps they didn’t think that particular concept through very thoroughly. Firearms in private hands are used predominantly for hunting and target shooting in the U.S., **dickhead.** You don’t have single fucking clue, and YMMV (the alternate meaning). > [@Zoe](#): > > Handguns are easier to smuggle into schools in backpacks. (I’ve had two handguns removed from students in my classroom.) They are easier to take into banks and corner markets in a pocket. They are easier to use in parking lot robberies. They are handier for those with suicidal impulses. Handguns aren’t terribly useful in hunting. > > Banning both the gun and the ammunition might actually make a dent in criminal use of handguns. Yeah, that’s working wonders in Mexico and Brazil. :rolleyes: And how often do you go hunting? When was the last time you went hunting? What were you hunting, and what with? A handgun is fairly useful to hunters. > [@Zoe](#): > > **catsix** , the person who told me the statistic about handguns being more likely to kill someone who lived in the household than an intruder is a former state Director of Mental Health who also works with the prison system. I guess he’s not an ultimate authority, but he’s very knowledgeable. > > In my own experience, I’ve known five people personally who have used their own handguns to take their lives, but none who have killed an intruder. (I realize that is anecdotal.) The “State Director” was quoting Dr. Arthur Kellerman, who collected statistics of one crime-ridden county in Washington state over a few months and then drew an erroneous (and completely discredited in the Academic community) conclusion of “43 times more likely.” Anti-gun types have used that number relentlessly and shamelessly to scare people just like you with. > [@spooje](#): > > There only purpose of a firearm is to fire a projectile, at a velocity that happens to deadly. Even when the owner uses a firearm for recreation, there is still the very real possibility that someone could get hurt, even killed. There’s several times more deaths from accidental falls that accidental shootings in any given year. > [@Mockingbird](#): > > I completely agree with the OP and wish the NRA and gun supporters hadn’t been fear mongering about the assault weapon ban. > > The individual doesn’t need automatic weapons to defend their home or to hunt deer. > > It also is not a slippery slope that will inevitably destroy the second amendment. > > It isn’t an all or nothing proposition. Just because someone at one point didn’t get a UZI to protect their still from the Revenooers doesn’t mean my ability to get a .45 is next. Neither the NRA or any other pro-gun rights organization was fighting for the right to allow criminals to commit crimes, or shoot police in the performance of their duties. Go dry-hump your strawman somewhere else. --- _[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/weapons-ban-lapsing-causes-no-panic-except-in-fearmongers/300863)._