[Logic]

US assault weapons ban to lapse

What is the purpose of having an AK-47 or an Uzi at home?

Discuss™

[Dakar]

NRA Support, I suspect.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by Logic:
What is the purpose of having an AK-47 or an Uzi at home?

Just in case some A-rabs pass by.

[djohnson]

Imagine people trying to shoot a deer with an uzi...

[argod]

[dreilly1]

Originally posted by Logic:
What is the purpose of having an AK-47 or an Uzi at home?

Discuss™

OK, I'll play... (even though I agree with you, but I've heard the counter-arguments so many times before, so I can quote them chapter and verse...)

What is the purpose of banning an AK-47 or an Uzi? If someone's going to go on a killing spree, the type of weapon won't make much of a difference. And murder is murder, no matter which weapon you use. Americans tend to take a dim view of the Government taking away any rights unless it's for a very good reason. (Or, at least they did before the Patriot Act, but I digress...). Why should mere purchase or possession of an AK-47 be illegal? Shouldn't the intent of the person be what implicates them?

And as for the pansies like Kerry who assert that the lapse of the ban will "betray police officers", one should remember that Police Officers usually go after criminals. Criminals, by definition, do not pay attention to laws. So making assault weapons illegal will not deter them, it will just make then slightly more expensive to get for criminals, while law-abiding citizens can't get them at all. It's like a built-in arms advantage for criminals - no wonder all you foreigners support a ban! Strong Encryption was illegal to export outside of the U.S. for years. That didn't mean that the unwashed masses outside the USA couldn't get it...

(and yes, I implied on purpose that all non-Americans must be criminals. I am making a right-wing argument, after all. )

[djohnson]

Originally posted by dreilly1:
OK, I'll play... (even though I agree with you, but I've heard the counter-arguments so many times before, so I can quote them chapter and verse...)

What is the purpose of banning an AK-47 or an Uzi? If someone's going to go on a killing spree, the type of weapon won't make much of a difference. And murder is murder, no matter which weapon you use. Americans tend to take a dim view of the Government taking away any rights unless it's for a very good reason. (Or, at least they did before the Patriot Act, but I digress...). Why should mere purchase or possession of an AK-47 be illegal? Shouldn't the intent of the person be what implicates them?

And as for the pansies like Kerry who assert that the lapse of the ban will "betray police officers", one should remember that Police Officers usually go after criminals. Criminals, by definition, do not pay attention to laws. So making assault weapons illegal will not deter them, it will just make then slightly more expensive to get for criminals, while law-abiding citizens can't get them at all. It's like a built-in arms advantage for criminals - no wonder all you foreigners support a ban! Strong Encryption was illegal to export outside of the U.S. for years. That didn't mean that the unwashed masses outside the USA couldn't get it...

(and yes, I implied on purpose that all non-Americans must be criminals. I am making a right-wing argument, after all. )

Good points! If a criminal wants an Uzi or AK-47, they will get it, no matter what. I always wondered how Hollywood could use these guns in movies yet they were illegal to own in the US...

BTW, if I want to own a gun, it should be any gun I want. We do need free will, right?

[The Oracle]

Originally posted by dreilly1:
one should remember that Police Officers usually go after criminals. Criminals, by definition, do not pay attention to laws. So making assault weapons illegal will not deter them, it will just make then slightly more expensive to get for criminals, while law-abiding citizens can't get them at all. It's like a built-in arms advantage for criminals - no wonder all you foreigners support a ban! Strong Encryption was illegal to export outside of the U.S. for years. That didn't mean that the unwashed masses outside the USA couldn't get it...

yes. You guys remember when those loons in LA strapped on body armor, grabbed some AKs, and went around blasting everything and everyone? The cops were shooting them, but their armor protected them. The cops didn't have the firepower to take them down. They had to hit up a civilian gun/ammo store for the armor-piercing bullets.

Bottom line: the crooks are going to get this stuff, and the ban didn't have an impact on actually keeping them off the streets. Anyone that's ever been to gun shows or into stores could see these things all over the place, both pre- and post-ban.

personally, I'll probably pick up a tec-9 or uzi with a high-capacity mag. The advantage here is in laying down lots of firepower in home defense. A shoddy 6-round revolver or even an 8-round 9mm simply can't compete. It's times like these I remember the words of Hank Williams, Jr.: 'Take 'em away from the criminals first and I'll gladly give you mine.'

[The Oracle]

Originally posted by djohnson:
Good points! If a criminal wants an Uzi or AK-47, they will get it, no matter what. I always wondered how Hollywood could use these guns in movies yet they were illegal to own in the US...

BTW, if I want to own a gun, it should be any gun I want. We do need free will, right?

fully automatic weapons are legal to own, and the banned weapons were also legal to own. Manufacture of new weapons of that type was just illegal.

You can own a fully automatic weapon, provided you get it through a legit source, pay hundreds in registration fees, pass the requisite background checks, and are fingerprinted by the FBI and your local police. It's an involved process, and the full autos are expensive, but it's there for the committed enthusiast.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Logic:
US assault weapons ban to lapse

What is the purpose of having an AK-47 or an Uzi at home?

Discuss™

So we can shoot them in the air after celebrating terrorist attacks!

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Logic:
US assault weapons ban to lapse

What is the purpose of having an AK-47 or an Uzi at home?

What's the harm in having an AK-47 or an Uzi at home? Discuss. If you want to ban something, you have to show how it directly causes harm to others. I challenge you to do so.

Is having an assault weapon at home ridiculous? Yes. Does it inherently cause harm to others? No. Perhaps this is something which should be dealt with by social mores, but if it lacks inherent harm then it should not be the province of law.

[dcolton]

I hate guns. They are nothing more than a tool for destruction. I don't understand why anyone would need any type of weapon outside of hunting...and I don't even see the need for that.

Why would anyone want to own something that they will probably NEVER use?

Anyway, despite my feelings. I am against any type of ban on guns in the US. It is a right guaranteed by the constitution.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by dcolton:
I hate guns. They are nothing more than a tool for destruction.

That's hilarious coming from someone who wants to see WWIII!

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by dcolton:
I hate guns. They are nothing more than a tool for destruction. I don't understand why anyone would need any type of weapon outside of hunting...and I don't even see the need for that.

Why would anyone want to own something that they will probably NEVER use?

Anyway, despite my feelings. I am against any type of ban on guns in the US. It is a right guaranteed by the constitution.

This was a major thread a while back, so I won't rehash it all over again. I'll just say that I'm a gun owner and I have a license to conceal and carry. We don't have kids -- just me and my wife in the house -- so my 9mm sits in the top drawer of my night stand, safety on, clip in the inserted but not seated, no round in the chamber.

I hope I never have to use it, but if I ever do need to, I'll be glad I have it.

Maury

[dcolton]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
That's hilarious coming from someone who wants to see WWIII!

Point?

[dreilly1]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
This was a major thread a while back, so I won't rehash it all over again. I'll just say that I'm a gun owner and I have a license to conceal and carry. We don't have kids -- just me and my wife in the house -- so my 9mm sits in the top drawer of my night stand, safety on, clip in the inserted but not seated, no round in the chamber.

I hope I never have to use it, but if I ever do need to, I'll be glad I have it.

Maury

We're not talking about handguns here, though, we're talking about assault weapons. You feel you need your 9mm at home to be safe. But do you ever think you'll need an Uzi?

When it comes to these types of weapons, I think that even we Americans need to acknowledge that there is an inherent risk in owning any type of gun. It can get stolen, it can get inadvertently found by a child, the owner can have an itchy trigger finger and shoot an intruder while he's trying to flee.

Even in your case, with just you and your wife at home, what happens if a bunch of teenagers break into your house, drink all your beer, and then find the gun and play Russian Roulette? Even of you don't think you're at fault, I guarantee you'll be sued and your life will be made miserable. But even a bunch of drunken teenagers with a handgun can only do so duch damage to the community as a whole. (Most of the damage done will be to the teenagers themselves, and your property, which is bad enough, but your town will go on...)

When using heavier arms like assault weapons, those inherent risks are that much greater. I think it's proper for the Government (read: the People, at least in this country) to step in and say that the inherent risk to the community when ordinary citizens carry these weapons outweighs the benefit of protection for the owner. In this case, it's not a matter of trying to keep the guns out of the hands of criminals, or of criminalizing gun ownership itself, but a recognition on the part of the community that those types of weapons are overkill for pretty much everything that a citizen would ever need to defend themselves. This is why we can't keep Tactical Nuclear Weapons in our nightstands; the risk to the community is too great to justify the benefit to us.

Here in the US, at least, it's considered reasonable to use a 9mm to defend yourself, but not a TacNuke. The issue, then, is where do Assault Weapons lie on this spectrum?

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Logic:
US assault weapons ban to lapse

What is the purpose of having an AK-47 or an Uzi at home?

Discuss™

I can answer that. I love shooting them on the target range. Lots of fun, and a great way to relieve tension.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
Just in case some A-rabs pass by.

YEAH! Dem towel-heads makes fer good targit practiss! (j/k!!)

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
YEAH! Dem towel-heads makes fer good targit practiss! (j/k!!)

YEEEEEEE-HAAAAAAW!





(being an Arab myself I'm not an advocate of any of this sh1t, I'm just being silly)

[Spoogepieces]

Originally posted by Logic:


What is the purpose of having an AK-47 or an Uzi at home?

Discuss™

What business is that of yours?

[Millennium]

Originally posted by argod:

Show me any crime which was prevented because law-abiding citizens couldn't get their hands on such weapons. Show me even one.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by djohnson:
Good points! If a criminal wants an Uzi or AK-47, they will get it, no matter what. I always wondered how Hollywood could use these guns in movies yet they were illegal to own in the US...

BTW, if I want to own a gun, it should be any gun I want. We do need free will, right?

Absolutly right! Likewise, if a criminal wants illegal drugs, they will get them, no matter what. Why should any drugs be illegal?

(by the way, the guns used in Hollywood movies are props)

[djohnson]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Absolutly right! Likewise, if a criminal wants illegal drugs, they will get them, no matter what. Why should any drugs be illegal?

(by the way, the guns used in Hollywood movies are props)

Since I was being sarcastic, I am guessing you are as well. I know perfectly well that they are "props", but why do the hollywood stars get all of the fun?

[smacintush]

This law did nothing good. Why should we have a law that infringes on the rights of law abiding people if the effect is NIL?

HEY! IF WE PASS MORE LAWS THE CRIMINALS WILL HAVE TO OBEY!!!!

To you that want to know why someone needs one of these, the answer os that they probably don't, but who are YOU to say that a law abiding person such as me shouldn't own one?

Even if I supported the spirit of this bill, the language sucks. Banning bayonet lugs is retarded.

[tie]

Originally posted by djohnson:
Good points! If a criminal wants an Uzi or AK-47, they will get it, no matter what. I always wondered how Hollywood could use these guns in movies yet they were illegal to own in the US...

BTW, if I want to own a gun, it should be any gun I want. We do need free will, right?

Exactly, this is just common sense. Why not just let them have an AK-47 if they are going to get it anyway? I feel the same way about nuclear weapons proliferation, and about genocide in Sudan. We're all going to die in the end after all, don't worry be happy.

[chris v]

Originally posted by Millennium:
What's the harm in having an AK-47 or an Uzi at home? Discuss. If you want to ban something, you have to show how it directly causes harm to others. I challenge you to do so.

Is having an assault weapon at home ridiculous? Yes. Does it inherently cause harm to others? No. Perhaps this is something which should be dealt with by social mores, but if it lacks inherent harm then it should not be the province of law.

There's a statistical correlation between accidental gun deaths, and poeple having them in the home. Basically, if you don't have a gun, your child is far less likely to kill himself or a playmate with one. The Center for Disease Control keeps very detailed records of gun fatalities, if you want hard facts.

I used to keep a .357 for self defense, but got rid of it due to concerns about my children.

[placebo1969]

Originally posted by chris v:
There's a statistical correlation between accidental gun deaths, and poeple having them in the home. Basically, if you don't have a gun, your child is far less likely to kill himself or a playmate with one. The Center for Disease Control keeps very detailed records of gun fatalities, if you want hard facts.

I used to keep a .357 for self defense, but got rid of it due to concerns about my children.

I know about those stats too. In those cases, however, the parent should be held accountable. My father also had firearms in the home growing up and they were never in his safe or under direct supervision by him.

[chris v]

Originally posted by placebo1969:
I know about those stats too. In those cases, however, the parent should be held accountable. My father also had firearms in the home growing up and they were never in his safe or under direct supervision by him.

That makes two of us. My step-dad had a small arsenal, and I learnded to shoot at a pretty young age. You and I both survived, but the fact are the facts, kids in homes with guns die from gunshot wounds at a disproportionate rate compared to those who don't live in homes with guns. Sure, the parents are to blame, and should be punished, but a dead kid is a dead kid. Millenium asked a specific question, saying "who does it harm?" and I gave a specific answer. Children.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
YEAH! Dem towel-heads makes fer good targit practiss! (j/k!!)

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by chris v:
That makes two of us. My step-dad had a small arsenal, and I learnded to shoot at a pretty young age. You and I both survived, but the fact are the facts, kids in homes with guns die from gunshot wounds at a disproportionate rate compared to those who don't live in homes with guns. Sure, the parents are to blame, and should be punished, but a dead kid is a dead kid. Millenium asked a specific question, saying "who does it harm?" and I gave a specific answer. Children.

Same here. I was taught how to fire a handgun at age 5 (and taught to respect them long before that), and I was never harmed. Hell, when I was in rifle team in HS we carried around .22 caliber rifles in school (in a hard case), and never had any issues or problems. If you educate people there won't be accidents.

[chris v]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Same here. I was taught how to fire a handgun at age 5 (and taught to respect them long before that), and I was never harmed. Hell, when I was in rifle team in HS we carried around .22 caliber rifles in school (in a hard case), and never had any issues or problems. If you educate people there won't be accidents.

This is why I'd support some kind of mandated firearms testing. NOT to keep track of who has them, so hold that thought for another post-- but because too many people get hurt as a result of gun-owners not following even the slightest common sense firearm safety.

We test drivers to make sure they're safe with a car, so why not guns? I know, I know, the constitution says "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed" and such testing would mean that we're infringing on the rights of those who fail the test, and sure, the constitution doesn't guarantee the right to drive a car. I know these things, and that's why this is still a dicey issue. I'd just like to see less than 20,000 people a year die gun-related deaths. It seems that if we put politics aside, we could find a way to reduce these numbers without screwing with people's constitutional rights.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by chris v:
There's a statistical correlation between accidental gun deaths, and poeple having them in the home. Basically, if you don't have a gun, your child is far less likely to kill himself or a playmate with one. The Center for Disease Control keeps very detailed records of gun fatalities, if you want hard facts.

I used to keep a .357 for self defense, but got rid of it due to concerns about my children.

Accidents are not crimes, so I'm afraid this doesn't solve anything. For that matter, an assault weapon carries no more or less risk for accidents than any other kind of gun.

I neither have nor want a gun, but I support the rights of those who do.

[PacHead]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
I can answer that. I love shooting them on the target range. Lots of fun, and a great way to relieve tension.

Definitely. I've shot a Tek-9 before, which is basically a "ghetto uzi", IMO. I haven't gotten to try the real one yet, but I will !

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Millennium:
For that matter, an assault weapon carries no more or less risk for accidents than any other kind of gun.

They probably pose less risk of accidents because an AR-15 or AK is quite a bit longer than a handgun. It would be harder to accidentally shoot yourself with a longer gun than a smaller one.

Anyway, I go backwards and forwards on this. The assault rifle ban seems to have very much been a political response to pressures of the won't somebody please think of the children! variety. Most of the things the statute focusses on -- flash suppressors, pistol grips, and so on -- are trivial and irrelevant. A perfectly legal semi-automatic or bolt action hunting rifle is every bit as dangerous. Mostly, people react to assault rifles because they look nasty.

On the other hand, it is also hard to come up with a real need for assault rifles for the same reason that a bolt action is as effective for anything that a reasonable sportsman would want a high power rifle to do. So if you accept that the government can put reasonable restrictions on firearms (and that is by no means a slam dunk the way I read the Second Amendment), then I guess the ban is OK. I just don't think it is either necessary, or especially meaningful.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
They probably pose less risk of accidents because an AR-15 or AK is quite a bit longer than a handgun. It would be harder to accidentally shoot yourself with a longer gun than a smaller one.
[...]

My understanding is that many police chiefs, especially in major cities, also support the ban.

BG

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
My understanding is that many police chiefs, especially in major cities, also support the ban.

BG

What has that got to do with accidental shootings?

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
What has that got to do with accidental shootings?

Very little, I imagine. I was addressing the wider issue of the assault weapons ban.

I apologize for the non-sequitur if you were not.

BlackGriffen

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Very little, I imagine. I was addressing the wider issue of the assault weapons ban.

I apologize for the non-sequitur if you were not.

BlackGriffen

OK, well to address that, I guess I tend to think that cops are a little predisposed to be ban-happy on all kinds of things. It goes institutionally with the territory in rather the same way that they would reduce speed limits to 4 miles an hour with a guy with a red flag walking in front of the car if they could.

This is why legislators write the laws, not the cops.

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by chris v:
This is why I'd support some kind of mandated firearms testing. NOT to keep track of who has them, so hold that thought for another post-- but because too many people get hurt as a result of gun-owners not following even the slightest common sense firearm safety.

We test drivers to make sure they're safe with a car, so why not guns? I know, I know, the constitution says "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed" and such testing would mean that we're infringing on the rights of those who fail the test, and sure, the constitution doesn't guarantee the right to drive a car. I know these things, and that's why this is still a dicey issue. I'd just like to see less than 20,000 people a year die gun-related deaths. It seems that if we put politics aside, we could find a way to reduce these numbers without screwing with people's constitutional rights.

Good points.
Arms doesn't translate to automatic rifles.

[deedar]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Show me any crime which was prevented because law-abiding citizens couldn't get their hands on such weapons. Show me even one.

It's almost impossible to prove a negative, and I don't know about "crimes", but it doesn't require much imagination to envision an accident or two prevented because people couldn't get their hands on a weapon...

[chris v]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
My understanding is that many police chiefs, especially in major cities, also support the ban.

BG

And judging from past experience with police chiefs in larger cities, we should trust them why? Any good authoritarian is going to be anti-gun proliferation. This is partly why I'm on the fence, and not a rabid anti-gun Nazi.

I have seen handguns used effectively in self-defense with my own eyes, too. I do not, however think that the second amendment unequivocally states, that due to the need for a well-armed militia, that every citizen should have the uninfringed right to carry fully automatic machine-guns. Such a device was beyond the imagination of the "Framers."

I'd like for common sense to prevail, but given the political climate in America, especially concerning firearms, one can assume that common sense will just about never come in to play. The assault-weapons ban was flawed for this same reason, with some of the prohibited features seeming rather arbitrary. Still, the streets filling up with tek-9 toting "citizens" is a scary thought. I have no idea, really of an honest solution to this dilemma.

[deedar]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
If you educate people there won't be accidents.

BS. Even if this were true, how you gunna do it?

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Same here. I was taught how to fire a handgun at age 5 (and taught to respect them long before that), and I was never harmed. Hell, when I was in rifle team in HS we carried around .22 caliber rifles in school (in a hard case), and never had any issues or problems. If you educate people there won't be accidents.

Well, there are a couple of things to correct there. First, there will be fewer accidents, not none. Second, "None is so ignorant as he who will not learn."

I guess #2 is just part of #1, but whatever.

BlackGriffen

P.S. Good counterarguments to the police endorsements.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by deedar:
BS. Even if this were true, how you gunna do it?

Require a firearms safety course in elementary school.

[zwiebel_]

The Chinese invent a highly reactive form of powder (gun powder) and use it for celebratory purposes (fireworks). The people from the West come along, find out about that powder, take it from the Chinese and ponder what to do with it. After so many fireworks in the courtyards of the Western Kings, they got bored with its beautyful application and start tinkering with it. Not too long after, the brilliant minds of the European scientists come up with a brand-spanking-new-and-very-efficient-native-people-trimmer (read guns), to be used in colonies of the big European countries.

The wonders of civilizations.

[Spoogepieces]

The Chinese and Japanese used powder for warfare long before Europeans made muskets and cannon.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
If you educate people there won't be accidents.

Educate? That sounds like a bleeding-heart Liberal solution to problems.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Educate? That sounds like a bleeding-heart Liberal solution to problems.

No, I said "Educate", not "throw $ at it and hope it goes away".

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
No, I said "Educate", not "throw $ at it and hope it goes away".

Ahhhhh! Still sounds the same to me. You're proposing throwing money at the problem of improper firearms use with the hope that it will go away.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Ahhhhh! Still sounds the same to me. You're proposing throwing money at the problem of improper firearms use with the hope that it will go away.

So, what you're saying is that people can't learn to use something correctly? And no, I don't propse the gov't spend the $, I'm sure the NRA and like groups would be happy to fund it.