New Assault Weapons Ban

[cannon_fodder]

Obama started whispering about new gun control legislation today:
http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=6960824

Essentially a reinstatement of the Clinton Assault Weapons Ban, which banned guns that looked mean.  If it looks like a military rifle, the manufacture or import of the weapon will cease.  Existing weapons will still be available (just like full-auto weapons now).

When asked if it will have an impact on crime in the United States Holder said "I think that will have a positive impact in Mexico, at a minimum."  Mexican gangs are purportedly importing weapons from the United States for their violence, though it is unclear how the suggested ban would really help that (guns would increase in price whereby drug dealers would be a more likely buyer) or how it correlates to the "cartels employing automatic weapons and grenades,"  which are notably already under a ban in the US.

However, they want to ban guns that look like AK-47s, Uzi's, and M16's (really, the criteria amounts to "looks like" a military rifle - for instance a pistol grip is an "evil" feature) as well as "cop killer bullets" and restrict the right of private citizens to legally sell firearms to each other.  Unfortunately, the data doesn't support the notion that such a ban will do anything other than make money for people who have stock piled such weapons as investments.  The statistics don't support the notion that these measures will have an impact on illegal activity.

Assault weapons were used in about 2% of violent crime in the United States prior to the ban, high capacity magazines for hand guns were used in 3% of gun violence - the numbers remain about the same during and after the ban.  When similar previous measure took effect in 1989 and was upped under Clinton gun violence from effected weapons failed to materially change:



The laws also failed to have a correlation to the incidents of Officers killed in the line of duty, another reason given for the ban:



DOJ data:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/topics/crime/gun-violence/welcome.htm

And just for fun, the National Institute of Justice (governmental body) concluded that a potential renewal of the ban would have no measurable impact on crime.  It further states that use of other banned items among criminals failed to decline in proportion to the number of weapons available (in other words, the criminals simply bought illegal weapons and ignored the ban):

http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf

Sorry, but if you want to limit my constitutional rights you have to show that there is an actual reason for it.   The plan is clear:  go after the firearms that look mean and you see doing bad things in the movies, a little while later take another step and require permitting of all firearms, then take one more step and require permission to own a firearm.  From there just tighten the ownership criteria and further restrict what weapons can be owned until the 2nd Amendment right of a Citizen to bear arms is meaningless.

What's just a little more freedom so long as it is in the name of security?  Good thing the King didn't impose a ban on effective weapons.

[TURobY]

I'm not arguing for or against gun control laws, but I am curious as to why the average person needs an assault weapon. Could someone please explain some non-military uses for them?

And before anyone jumps down my throat, let me re-iterate that I am asking with the purest of intentions.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by TURobY

I'm not arguing for or against gun control laws, but I am curious as to why the average person needs an assault weapon. Could someone please explain some non-military uses for them?

And before anyone jumps down my throat, let me re-iterate that I am asking with the purest of intentions.

For one thing, they are a total gas to go out and target shoot.  You know the little boy inside every man that likes to hear loud bangs and blow things up.  Guns generally are also a good long-term investment.

Another thing that increases demand is when there's the threat of tighter controls on firearms.  There's one part of the crowd who want to claim their 2nd amendment rights, and another who simply see cachet in owning something you can no longer legally purchase, or at least without jumping through hoops.

Prices for hi-cap semi-autos, especially SKS, AK-47, AR-15, mini-30, mini-14, .308 and other variants (and their ammo) sky-rocketed at the Nov. Wanenmacher's show.  In anticipation of a new "ban".  Prices had relaxed a little recently, I'd expect another sharp increase.

FYI- "assault weapon" is a total misnomer placed on semi-automatic rifles by the media.

[nathanm]

quote:Originally posted by TURobY

I'm not arguing for or against gun control laws, but I am curious as to why the average person needs an assault weapon. Could someone please explain some non-military uses for them?

And before anyone jumps down my throat, let me re-iterate that I am asking with the purest of intentions.

They have the same non-military use as any other firearm.

Pistol grips do not make a gun any more or less deadly.

Even the term "assault weapon" is stupid. Because it has a pistol grip and an attachment point for a bayonet it's somehow deadlier than any other rifle?

This is one of those places where my opinion diverges greatly from the Democratic leadership.

[cannon_fodder]

Non-military uses for "assault weapons" include:

1. Hunting

2. Target Shooting
a. With friends and family as recreation
b. Semi professionally as a hobby/gun club (socially)
c. As a profession

3. Home/Personal Defense

4. Investment purposes

5. Defense against governmental intrusion, foreign or domestic

People chuckle at this one, but consider all the governments that have toppled, invasions that have occurred, or tyranny from within that has occurred in the last century.  Many or most of them without much warning and in nearly every instance the population was unarmed and without recourse.

Do I think the Federal Government will suddenly turn into a horrible tyranny?  No, I don't.  But I am not willing to bet my freedom on the notion that the status quo will continue indefinitely and certainly if the risk ever presented itself as a near term possibility our chance to arm ourselves to prevent it would have long passed..

6. Civilian Military Training

The nation has an interest in having a population that is familiar with firearms.  The idea of a foreign power invading Montana is almost laughable.  Again, I do not consider such things a realistic threat in my lifetime - but even having 18 year olds entering the military who are familiar with weapons is a great military advantage for our nation.

7. Status/compensation for a small penis

Owning an assault rifle can be a status symbol in some groups.  Also, I thought the compensating for a small penis reference would be kinda funny.

8. Because I can.

The burden is not on me to explain why I should have a particular freedom.  The burden is for the state to show why they have a compelling interest in taking my freedom away and to show that they are doing so in the least intrusive method possible.  In this instance, I don't believe they have done so.  The proposed law would effect the rights of every American while doing little IF ANYTHING to achieve it's purported aim.
- - -

Why does anyone need a car that travels over 70mph or accelerates faster than 0-60 in 10 seconds?  Why does anyone need a knife longer than 10"?  Why is it legal to be able to build your own rockets?  Why does anyone need fireworks that can be turned into explosives?  Why does anyone need to smoke cigarettes or drink alcohol (12,000 people are killed/murdered by guns in the USA each year, about 19,000 from alcohol,and as many as 435,000 from tobacco . . .)?  

The question isn't why should they be legal, it's why not.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder


The nation has an interest in having a population that is familiar with firearms.  The idea of a foreign power invading Montana is almost laughable.  Again, I do not consider such things a realistic threat in my lifetime - but even having 18 year olds entering the military who are familiar with weapons is a great military advantage for our nation.

Not so far-fetched, don't you watch South Park?  Bucolic parts of America are always under threat of being taken over by a foreign power.

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder



7. Status/compensation for a small penis

If you say so chief, I wouldn't know...

[Hawkins]

quote:Originally posted by TURobY

I'm not arguing for or against gun control laws, but I am curious as to why the average person needs an assault weapon. Could someone please explain some non-military uses for them?

And before anyone jumps down my throat, let me re-iterate that I am asking with the purest of intentions.

We have a God-given right to overthrow any government that becomes tyrannical.

Period.

And...

The experts agree (Hitler, Stalin, Castro): Gun Control Works!!

[Breadburner]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder


The nation has an interest in having a population that is familiar with firearms.  The idea of a foreign power invading Montana is almost laughable.  Again, I do not consider such things a realistic threat in my lifetime - but even having 18 year olds entering the military who are familiar with weapons is a great military advantage for our nation.

Not so far-fetched, don't you watch South Park?  Bucolic parts of America are always under threat of being taken over by a foreign power.

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder



7. Status/compensation for a small penis

If you say so chief, I wouldn't know...

Lol...Last response for post of the year....heh..

[jamesrage]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Non-military uses for "assault weapons" include:

1. Hunting

2. Target Shooting
a. With friends and family as recreation
b. Semi professionally as a hobby/gun club (socially)
c. As a profession

3. Home/Personal Defense

4. Investment purposes

5. Defense against governmental intrusion, foreign or domestic

People chuckle at this one, but consider all the governments that have toppled, invasions that have occurred, or tyranny from within that has occurred in the last century.  Many or most of them without much warning and in nearly every instance the population was unarmed and without recourse.

Do I think the Federal Government will suddenly turn into a horrible tyranny?  No, I don't.  But I am not willing to bet my freedom on the notion that the status quo will continue indefinitely and certainly if the risk ever presented itself as a near term possibility our chance to arm ourselves to prevent it would have long passed..

6. Civilian Military Training

The nation has an interest in having a population that is familiar with firearms.  The idea of a foreign power invading Montana is almost laughable.  Again, I do not consider such things a realistic threat in my lifetime - but even having 18 year olds entering the military who are familiar with weapons is a great military advantage for our nation.

7. Status/compensation for a small penis

Owning an assault rifle can be a status symbol in some groups.  Also, I thought the compensating for a small penis reference would be kinda funny.

8. Because I can.

Well said.

[/quote]The burden is not on me to explain why I should have a particular freedom.  The burden is for the state to show why they have a compelling interest in taking my freedom away and to show that they are doing so in the least intrusive method possible.  In this instance, I don't believe they have done so.  The proposed law would effect the rights of every American while doing little IF ANYTHING to achieve it's purported aim.[/quote]

You hit the nail on the head. Most of the anti-2nd amendment nuts claim this is for our protection because it takes firearms out of the hands of criminals. It is a idiotic argument to ban certain fire arms because of the notion that people who already do not obey the law in the first place are somehow going to obey anti-2nd amendment laws. So you are right,the government has not shown a compelling reason to take our rights.

[Gaspar]

Lets see, I have an AK, and a couple SKS's.  They are a blast to shoot, but they are not nearly as deadly or dangerous as my old 7mag hunting riffle, or my .227.

They just look scary.

The hard edges, lack of warm wood-tones, carbide returns, and heavy stature, make them more reliable under adverse environmental conditions.  They are less likely to miss-fire, explode, or jam.  They have more reliable safety mechanisms, and most can be dropped off a building without accidental discharge.  The real kicker is that they are far safer than most riffles purchased at your local Wal-Mart or Bass Pro Shop.


For years people have tried to ban scary looking guns.  Those who oppose guns in general, find it easier to make hobgobblins out of scary guns, and therefore gain foothold with the public for blanket gun control efforts.  

Once this legislation is in place it is relatively easy to adapt it to other weapons and achieve the "total gun control" goal.  You gotta hand it to them, this is a smart strategy.  

Taking advantage of public ignorance is a pillar of many political movements and seems to be fashion of the day.  

[we vs us]

I've got no skin in this game, but the whole assault rifle argument seems to be about boy stuff.  Watching things go boom and collecting and cataloging gear.  

/also a boy who likes to collect gear and watch things go boom.

[sgrizzle]

I'm a bad republican and don't own a gun but I know the "Assault Weapons Ban" is silly since it's not based on anything mechanical. It's like imprisoning people based solely on "looking dangerous" or electing people to office because "they look like a good leader"

Nevermind on the last example.

[Gaspar]

I dream of a day when a gun is not judged by the color of its metal or the shape of it's stock, but by the content of its cartridges.

[Conan71]

An M-44 or 8mm Mauser round will do far more damage than most common "assault" rounds, but since they are typically fired from bolt action rifles, no one's that interested.  It's amazing how much sandstone you can break up with one of these rounds.

Nevermind that Oswald racked off three pretty good rounds in under, what 5 seconds when President Kennedy was killed with a bolt action. (Okay depends on which conspiracy set you may or may not be down with). []  

This is just political posturing.  Rules will relax when the GOP finishes their time in the penalty box and everyone's pissed at the Dims.  They aren't coming to grab our guns, but they will make it more difficult to get any more for awhile.