With the now revealed rationalization “If it’s not useful for hunting, I get to ban it!” ?
Sure, in the same way as an orca is pro penguin.
Actually, I don’t. I have two guns, both are shotguns, and both are owned only for the purpose of shooting small orange discs as they fly through the sky.
However, from a moral, legal, and historical perspective, I will continue to argue with you. Because I am from a long line of people who fought… and lived… for their beliefs. Mostly by making some other poor sucker die for theirs. Because, when it comes down to it, freedom of speech must be backed by strength of arms, else strength of arms will muzzle every tongue that dares disagree.
The first amendment and the second are brothers, each supporting the other.
Um…you realize you can’t increase the rate of fire on a semi-automatic, right? Additionally, a ‘hunting situation’ isn’t the only use for a gun.
Well, a folding or telescoping stock and pistol grips are both rather handy depending on the type of shooting you are doing…and the flash suppressor is exactly that. It suppresses the flash which, again, could be handy. The other things are probably red herrings if I were to guess…I doubt most folks would need a bayonet mount or grenade launcher. Note that AWB applies to two or more of these…so, if you wanted a pistol grip and a folding stock (both reasonable items) you are out of luck…so sorry. And really ALL of these are really ‘cosmetic’ effects that don’t make the gun any more lethal…just more enjoyable to shoot or ‘cool’ looking.
They don’t change the rate of fire or make them bad ass Rambo guns or something.
A magazine merely increases the number of rounds a weapon has and makes it easier to reload…again, it has no effect on the rate of fire. Threaded barrel is from the last list. Barrel shroud is also handy depending on what they mean by that exactly (this category is about pistols so not sure)…but again, it’s more of a cosmetic effect, or used for easy of shooting or comfort. No idea what the uploaded weight thingy is about. However, ‘A semi-automatic version of an automatic firearm’ is double speak for ‘looks like a really scary ACTUAL military weapon’.
Again, if it has 2 or more of these features you are out of luck…and yet most of these features are mostly cosmetic and don’t change the lethality of the weapon at all. They just make it LOOK scary, especially to folks who watch too many Die Hard movies.
Same thing. This one is simply about shot guns. None of this stuff makes the gun fire faster or makes it more lethal…just makes it easier to shoot comfortably (I prefer a pistol grip on a shot gun myself, as well as a detachable mag…it’s also nice to have more than 5 rounds available) and makes it look like a military grade weapon, when in fact it isn’t.
Can you articulate why they shouldn’t have most of those features? Since they don’t change the lethality of the weapon, don’t make em shoot faster or hit harder. Why do essentially cosmetic changes freak you out, why do you think they shouldn’t be allowed?
Well, since the answer isn’t really ‘To kill people’ based on the lack of evidence that weapons on the AWB actually are USED to kill more people than, say, a Saturday Night Special, I suppose if you have to boil it down to ‘Cause I wanna’ then my question is…why is that a problem exactly? Do you feel that accessories shouldn’t be available on cars because they aren’t necessary? How about houses? Do you feel that there should only be one flavor of alcohol allowed?
-XT
That’s great. I get that.
Did I ever say anything about taking away your shotguns? Or have I explicitly stated, ad naseum, that I can see no problem with you owning a shotgun? I have a problem with anyone being able to walk into Walmart and buy them. I have a problem with those who would fight to make it easier to get them. I have a problem with gun owners who are unwilling to see that their own benign uses for firearms are not necessarily the same as everyone elses.
The shotgun you have can be used to shoot skeet, or another(qualifier for Sabbath) innocent human being. Saying that “Shucks, I just use mine at the range!” says NOTHING at all about what any other person is likely or capable of doing with it.
I noticed you skipped over the most glaring use for most of these modifications, the ability to conceal.
You would honestly say that the only reason you can see for a screw fitted barrel, collapsible stock, or flash suppressor is cosmetic? Or can you conceive of these things being used specifically to make the guns easier to hide and easier to silence?
And, correct me if I am wrong, but regarding the “A semi-automatic version of an automatic firearm” clause, aren’t these weapons easier to modify to fully-auto?
Really? Well, point em out then. I assume you mean the ‘Folding or telescoping stock’ part…but if we are talking about a rifle the utility for hiding it are going to be fairly small I should think. What is your evidence that before the AWB that this was a major problem that urgently needed to be addressed? Or that concealing rifles is a major problem today? Because guess what…if you REALLY wanted a concealed gun you’d probably pick a hand gun.
Yeah, I know…you want to ban those as well probably.
Do you have any evidence, outside of the movies, that silencing a gun is a major contributing factor in gun crime? How many instances of weapons silencing in a major crime are we talking about here? Do you have any statistics?
Same with flash suppression…how big a factor is it exactly? Are 30% of gun crimes and murders related to the use of flash suppression, collapsible stocks and screw fitted barrels? More? Less? None?
You are so corrected. The look of the gun makes it no easier or harder to convert it from semi-auto to full auto fire. It’s more the type of bolt being used. Regardless, again, do you have any evidence that illegally converted semi-automatic weapons are a major factor in gun related crimes? A minor factor? A ‘once in a blue moon’ factor, such as the case you cited? Let’s see some statistics here so we can make an informed decision. Myself, I know of only a handful of crimes committed with full auto weapons (either converted or military grade) that have been committed in the US since, oh, say the 30’s. However, fight my ignorance here and show us the evidence that prior to or after AWB this was a major factor.
-XT
Easier to conceal, easier to store/transport. six of one half dozen of the other. Criminals who want portable, concealable high-power arms already can buy actual pistols–basically, there’s no good criminal reason to conceal a rifle in this way.
As for flash suppressors and silencers, they really don’t do much to mute the noise of rifles, their biggest objective it to make it harder to return fire on the holder of the firearm. Aside from assassinations, in which case the shooter’s likely going to try to get illegal weapons anyway, no real use to a criminal–and for that matter, any competent machinist can trivially fabricate silencers with a minimum of effort. They’re not mechanically complex.
As far as I know, and I’m open to being corrected by someone more knowledgable, there are modifications and modifications. It’s absolutely true that it’s “easy” to modify the semi-auto versions of some firearms to full auto. It’s also absolutely true that said “easy” modifications are frighteningly likely to jam or mis-feed (the stat I saw for the cheap modification to the AK-47 was a 90% misfire rate (that is, out of the 30 rounds in a stock military magazine, you’d get THREE shots off if it didn’t jam up first.) with off the shelf ammo). A true conversion is closer, metaphorically, to switching your car from automatic to manual transmission–it’s certainly possible, and some attach points are there that make it a bit easier, but you still need a skilled gunsmith, a machine shop, and the right parts (which you can’t buy so you have to make 'em).
Tiger Tamer, for the love of Mike, I wish you would just admit that you don’t know anything about these firearms that you’re talking about. When it comes to the technical specifications of the rifles, you are getting owned every single time by people who - by some miracle - actually understand how the guns are built and how they work. This whole thread is getting ridiculous. Have YOU ever heard of an AR-15 being used in a crime? How many crimes? What percentage of total gun crimes? Did you even know the difference between an AR-15 and a full-auto M16 before you were told in this thread here?
People made fun of me for repeatedly bringing up the movie Heat. Well, the reason I do so (and it’s a great movie) is because I believe that this movie is an enormous factor responsible for the specific fear of “assault weapons” and particularly AR-15s among non gun-people who don’t know anything about firearms. Heat features two very dramatic robberies that very conspicuously feature M16s (actually M4s) and several other assault rifles like the FAL and Galil rifle that Sizemore’s character uses in the armored car and bank robberies respectively (I don’t expect you to know what a Galil or a FAL is, though.) But the most memorable rifles are the M4s. I mean, the image of Val Kilmer and Robert Deniro, wearing hockey masks, holding up the armored car with their M4 rifles in that movie is an iconic part of cinema.
Heat is a great movie, but it seems to have led a lot of people to believe that there are actually robberies and other crimes carried out on a regular basis with automatic assault rifles. (Note - the guys in that movie were using automatic assault rifles.) And, face it, the idea of crooks having a shoot-out in a major pedestrian area right in front of a huge bank, with assault rifles, is pretty terrifying.
BUT IT’S JUST A MOVIE.
(And the rifles that they’re trying to ban aren’t even the automatic kind used in the movie.)
Really, the people who are trying to justify the banning of AR-15s just generally don’t know anything about the rifle, they’ve probably never seen one up close let alone fired it or field-stripped it - to them, it’s just a “scary gun.” This kind of mentality is not something that laws should be based on.
Once the penguins are gone, the seals will have nothing to worry about though.
My god man, do you think the Heat thing is clever?
Something like it, yes.
In fact, you said that it should be hard to get it.
Entirely true. What’s your point? I’m waiting to hear your coherent philosophical stance, here. I’ve given you mine. You just say, ‘Well, guns for hunting are fiiiiine.’, more or less. And yet, the guns for hunting make pretty good guns for shooting people, too. Oh, and for those bayonet lugs and grenade screws? Outlawing them outlaws perfectly good military surplus guns. Semiautomatic guns. Very good rifles. And they were cheap, at the time. Inexpensive, high quality, reliable guns. The bayonet lugs and grenade screws were pretty much useless features in civilian life, but they made it easy to ban a whole class of rifles.
Oh, and another note? One of the duties of every (male) citizen is to serve in the armed forces, in case of a draft. I think that people should hunt or shoot with the closest available equivalent of the nation’s battle rifle for that reason. To be a better soldier, when the nation has need. One who is a superior shot, with less training.
One thing I’ve never understood about the pro-gun crowd is their apparent vitriolic hatred for legislation such as the Assault Weapons Ban, and I’d appreciate someone knowledgable clarifying this for me.
As I look at it, there is nothing inherently wrong with most gun ownership. I acknowledge the validity of “sports” such as target shooting, skeet shooting, and hunting, and I respect the right of individuals to hunt for food. As such, I must respect their right to posess weapons such as pistols and other handguns, shotguns, rifles, etcetera.
Do I like them? No. I wish they were all gone, banned, destroyed, and I wish it was illegal to own or even manufacture guns for any reason other than national defense (read: Army use), because I believe a great deal of the crime in our society stems from the fact that criminals see guns as a means to obtain the power necessary to commit crimes. For example, I think if guns were banned in the US, we would see fewer murders in inner cities because the killers have a much easier time gunning someone down in a drive-by shooting than they would coming up to them and stabbing them to death. Is my position rational, or based on any actual facts and evidence? Maybe, maybe not, but that’s a seperate debate altogether; I am merely illustrating my beliefs in the interest of full disclosure.
Back on topic: Do I like guns? No, I hate them, but I acknowledge that they have legitimate uses in society and so I grudgingly accept people’s right to own them, as stated above. BUT…
Regarding assault weapons, automatic weapons, and other prohibited firearms: Why is their restriction such a big deal? As I see it, these weapons do not fit into any of the legitimate uses for guns, such as hunting (You need an automatic assault rifle to take down your dinner? What are you eating, Wooly Mammoth?) or target shooting (skeet, etc). Those are, as far as I understand, usually done using firearms DESIGNED for such recreational purposes. However, the assault weapons, automatic rifles, and whatnot, are purpose-built human-killing machines, designed by military weapons engineers to allow soldiers to inflict the maximum amount of damage on enemy troops they possibly can. What on earth would a recreational cvilian user need such a weapon for? Maybe you want to fire it becuase you would find it thrilling. I can’t really think of any other reason. However, it seems like protesting the banning of weapons specifically designed to kill people as effectively as possible on the basis of “because I want one!” is childish, selfish, and generally despicable.
So please, enlighten me. Why, exactly, is banning automatic and assault weapons such a big deal with pro-gun people? What uses would civilians have for such weapons, why do you want them, and why can’t you simply enjoy your shooting sports using other weapons which are better-suited to the hobbies which gun rights activists traditionally trot out as examples of why guns need to stay legal? And most importantly, what justification can you offer for their legalization which is compelling enough to outweigh the obvious dangers of making these same purpose-built people-killers available to criminals who have already shown themelves willing to kill?
Note: I am not being snarky or sarcastic in the slightest. I genuinely do not understand why pro-gun folks seem, based on what I have seen of their arguments, to be so deeply upset that assault weapons are illegal, and I genuinely think less of them for contesting such bans because, in my view, they don’t care what harm the guns might bring to society and simply want to shoot them because they think they would enjoy it. I really want to understand their mentality so I can stop broadbrushing them as drooling, ignorant hicks compensating for their small penises via excessive firepower, but absent a rational, coherent argument, I can’t, so please, fight my ignorance!
Because until I harm you, what I own or what I do are none of your business. I will certainly not permit you to restrict me based on your fear and dislike of inanimate objects.
Oh, god, here we go again.
Look. The AWB doesn’t ban automatic weapons. Automatic weapons were essentially already banned. More or less since 1938.
Secondly, the AWB banned guns on essentially cosmetic appearances. Two guns with the same performance characteristics could have different legal standings. It’s like banning red cars with big spoilers, while a blue car with a trunk fairing is still legal.
Thirdly, the people promoting the ban didn’t know what they were talking about when they wrote it. They were really, really ignorant of guns.
Finally, the guns banned were not noticeably used in crimes. Something like less than two percent of all gun crimes were committed with guns covered under the ban. If you removed the pistols that qualified under the AWB, and left rifles, the percentage was much, much smaller. This means the law didn’t reduce crime at all.
Got it?
More or less. I guess the hate stems not so much from a desire to own these particular weapons as it does from a reaction to people restricting your ability to purchase them; in essence “I don’t care if I want one or not, I should be allowed to purchase one if I choose!”
I still don’t understand why anyone would want these weapons, but if the case is (as you say) that the ban just reflects cosmetics, then I guess I can sort of understand the ire. “You can purchae an equally functional/deadly weapon elsewhere, so why shouldn’t you be able to buy whichever model you wish?” or something like that. Would it be an accurate analogy to say that the ban is the equivalent of banning black crossbows but not red ones, and you want the black one because it looks cooler/is lighter/has a lighter draw weight/etc?
I’d have to read the full text of the AWB to debate particulars, which I don’t currently have time to do, but at least I can sort of see where you’re coming from wrt this particular piece of legislation.
Are you saying that attempts at crime prevention should be tossed out the window, and all our effort should be put into punishment?
When crime prevention consists of banning or restricting legal objects owned and used in legal ways by millions of good citizens, yes. That applies even to those objects not Constitutionally protected.
If by “crime prevention” you mean “approach the issue by assuming that everybody is a potential criminal and restricting their rights as such,” then yes, that is in fact the sort of thing we want to toss out the window. I don’t see why you think that leaves a focus on punishment as the only choice, though.
So, do you think this is a good line of reasoning to apply to everything potentially dangerous in life? How about alcohol? Booze kills way more people every year than guns do, and I honestly don’t see how anybody could consider it necessary. Seems like an excellent reason to bring back prohibition, right?
I suppose it’s possible to shoot someone “moderately”(i.e. just wing 'em) the same way it’s possible to drink moderately, but perhaps you meant it some other way?
Good question. Did drinking go up or down during Prohibition?