Again I ask Argent for help in reducing my ignorance.
Would agree that there it is reasonable to regulate some weapons as being particularly efficient at killing many people rapidly?
How would you define these weapons?
This is like saying “some Jews believe in Jesus Christ” and pointing to the Jews for Jesus.
Those three Republicans (all in very liberal states) are a drop in the bucket next to the laundry list of Democrats I’ve provided. And the Democrats are pound for pound vastly more anti-gun than the Republicans. We had the AWB under Clinton - we didn’t have it under Bush. We will probably have it again under Obama. (Who will be protected around-the-clock by guys with Uzis and MP5s with folding stocks and very, very conspicuous pistol grips.)
My biggest problem with gun control proposals–aside from the dearth of factual information, clearly defined terms, hysterical bombast from extremists on both sides of the issue, and (in the United States) the real Constitutional conundrums that result therefrom–is that they are primarily a tool used by politicians to avoid actually having to deal with the difficult root socioeconomic problems that result in violent crime. It is much easier to flop out a soundbite about “getting guns off our streets” (and I agree, we should not have firearms or any other litter presenting a driving hazard) and have a photo op press conference than to deal with the tough reality of providing and encouraging education, discipline, and economic opportunities to the sub-poverty communities in which violent crime is epidemic.
Of course, this is little different than any of a wide range of issues on which largely-ignorant politicians weigh in and attempt to sway even more aggregately ignorant public opinion. And it all adds up to a phenomenal waste of time on the taxpayer’s dime. It’s enough to make one question the value of representative democracy driven by a Madison Avenue marketing culture.
Stranger
I would define them as fully-automatic weapons, and they are already regulated.
Anything else, as so many other people have said in this thread over and over again, is a matter of aesthetics.
In any case, the vast majority of gun crimes are committed with handguns. I don’t have a cite but it’s something like 98 percent.
It is widely recognized that the people who really get screwed by the AWB are collectors and gun hobbyists.
The Assault Weapons ban is stupid because besides the fact that gun control laws do not work, the AWB simply bans weapons on the basis of them *looking *dangerous. I bought a Smith & Wesson carbine rifle several months ago anticipating the AWB being brought back, and it appears it may have been a smart purchase.
Automatic weapons are already regulated and rather difficult to get a hold of (due to the already extremely-limited supply and the extra requirement of paying the federal tax to get an automatic weapon as well). This is what happens when you have ignorant lawmakers who know nothing about guns (and apparently even less about the success [or lack thereof] of the first AWB) wanting to pass more laws which accomplish nothing.
And you reject the idea that there are a lot of Dems who hunt and own guns. To characterize the whole dem party is just your irrational love of guns and paranoid fear that someone is after yours. We are ass deep in guns in this country. No one thinks that it is even possible to take your guns away. No one is even trying. But to jump to assault weapons is a huge leap. You have already won the gun fight. yet you keep fighting it over and over.
Uh…I’m “paranoid” because I don’t want another AWB to be enacted? It was already enacted. Thankfully it expired. Now it’s up for renewal. I don’t want that to happen.
I don’t reject the idea that there are a lot of Dems who hunt and own guns. (The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting, but whatever.) I’m sure there are a lot of Democrats who own guns and still don’t realize that the “assault weapons” they want to ban are no more powerful than the rifles they hunt deer with - out of sheer ignorance. I’m also sure there are a lot of Democrats who are guarded round the clock by guys with guns, but don’t want others to have them because, you know, the life of the poor peasant is not as valuable as the precious life of the politician. And there are some anti-gun Democrats who are just plain elitists. (There’s a well known picture of Charles Schumer, a rabid anti-gun activist, firing a machine pistol with great glee.)
I’m not having it.
Again my ignorance showing … are there semi-automatics that can be relatively easily converted to fully automatic? Are there weapons not automatic but of sufficient caliber or other measure of force as to warrant additional regulation in your mind?
Absolutely not.
Most semi-automatic weapons are very difficult to convert to full-auto and even if it’s done, the results are unsafe and unreliable. If a criminal wants an automatic weapon, he buys it on the black market.
As for calibers - there are no calibers that deserve to be regulated on the basis of their “power.” The cartridges that most military weapons are chambered for, are less powerful than the most popular hunting cartridges like .270 Winchester. (What’s the difference between a hunting rifle and a people-hunting rifle? Nothing. The best sniper of the Vietnam War, Carlos Hathcock, took most of his kills with a Winchester 70 in .30-06, a rifle that’s sitting in the den of grandpas all over America.)
**DSeid ** - why don’t you go to a firing range and try some rifles? I bet you would like it.
^ Best post in the thread.
There are semi-automatics which could be converted, but it’s a difficult operation requiring a lot of mechanical knowledge. If you can do this, then you could quite possibly build an automatic from scratch. Rare guns do exist which can be converted more easily, but this too requires more than average effort. Aside from which, criminals do not generally use automatics. Automatics are expensive to maintain, have more complex mechanisms, need more ammo, and - here is the key - don’t actually help you any. A psycho can perfectly well kill people with a bunch of old revolvers or a couple shotguns. A bolt-action rifle will do the job nicely. A criminla of the more ordinary type doesn’t need a bunch fo help killing because he wants to wave a gun, get some cash, and leave.
If you want caliber, there are umpteen-bajillions of guns around with that. They’re called “hunting rifles” or “shotguns” and they are often much more powerful in terms of putting down large, heavy mammals than any military rifle around.
A killer can also kill a lot of people by starting a fire. And let me tell you, even with the gas prices the way they are, it’s a hell of a lot cheaper to get some gasoline and a pack of matches than any kind of firearm.
Well, good. Every year thousands of innocent people are killed in the United States because we allow people to own firearms. Murder rates are much lower in all first-world countries that don’t allow firearms. I’m glad that the Democratic Party has the courage to say something on the issue, even though I recognize that the odds of them writing actual legislation are roughly equal to the chances of getting struck by lightning while winning the lottery. Obviously I’m voting for the Democrats regardless, but perhaps I’ll give drop another thousand dollars on the DSCC in thanks for this rare act of courage.
Are you able to name these Democrats, or are you merely spreading mindless insults?
Thanks for the answers.
Nah. I’d get too frustrated.
Um…name any prominent Democratic politician who is against semi-automatics and handguns. “Barack Obama” comes to mind. Pretty much any Senator and definitely a Presidential candidate is going to have very close security, and they’re not going to have bolt-action rifles - they’ll have Sig or Glock semi-automatic handguns or Uzis or MP5s. For these same people to think that I can’t own a semi-automatic handgun or rifle is the height of hypocrisy.
Is their life more precious than mine? They’re at higher risk, you might say. Well, so is someone living in a very dangerous neighborhood. They don’t think he should be able to have a semi-automatic handgun either.
It’s elitism.
And - the horror! - lots of those people are killed in places where concealed handguns are banned! Like Washington, DC! Why aren’t the bans working? Why isn’t gun control making it safer to live in DC or South Central LA or the Bronx? Why, oh why, am I a million times safer walking down the street in beautiful Indiana where I can get a carry permit as easily as a new pair of shoes, and a handgun at any sporting-goods store?
So you believe in abolishing the 2nd amendment and doing a gun-confiscation sweep of the country? Because short of that, you’re not getting rid of guns in the US. Aww hell, let’s be honest, that wouldn’t even get rid of them.
Do you realize more people are killed in a day by distracted drivers (NON-drunk) than in a year by assault weapons? That is a DAY, versus a YEAR. Think about that. Do you support banning eating, drinking, and talking on cell phones while driving, senior citizens driving, and teenagers driving? All of these lead to many, many more violent, preventable deaths than guns with bayonets do.
So my final question, if you can answer the previous ones and still stand behind your position, is: what effect do you expect this assault weapons ban to have on the lives and personal safety of the average American? Why is it a rare act of courage and not a clueless gesture of appeasement?
(By the way, if you’re going to get all philosophical about how guns shouldn’t exist, aren’t needed, etc, I agree with you. I wish they were never invented. It would require us to solve our problems in a much more civilized manner if the alternative was ripping each others’ throats out in hand to hand combat. But this is not a perfect world. Guns are here and they are ubiquitous. Keep that in mind when answering.)
New York City is America’s safest city. (Among large cities.)
You are not a million times safer. You are, rather, in a great deal more danger. Gary, Indiana is America’s most dangerous city.
So in short, your questions were based on false premises. Now that you have actual facts, you presumably won’t repeat the same mistakes.
Nixon-guns are an abomination, He favored legislation and hand gun control
Bush the !st-Banned assault weapons in 1989 Promoted ownership only foe hunting purposes
Reagan-Pushed prohibition of carrying on person or in vehicles in public
Guliani-sued gun manufacturers and pushed licensing
Pataki-Signed strict licensing and was for trigger locks.
All repubs . When they saw there was a segment of the population they could guarantee to vote for them ,the gun lovers were on. People who are one issue like anti abortionists and gun lovers are so easy. Whether you really believe in it, say you do and you own them.
Here’s a thread from a couple years back where I looked at the statistics from cities that do and don’t allow concealed carry. Those that don’t allow it had murder rates that were vastly lower.