Assault Weapons Ban

sanjuro said:

Yep, its that time again.

I was reading over the last federal AWB, and I can see why it is so controversial. Banning guns based on pistol grips and muzzle sheathes seems pretty ridiculous.

Of course, how easy it is for gun manufacturers to get around the ban is just sad.

I think what really makes me think is how many police officers are killed by assault weapons. One study has "at least 41 of the 211 law enforcement officers slain in the line of duty between January 1, 1998, and December 31, 2001, were killed with assault weapons"

http://www.vpc.org/studies/officeone.htm

Click to expand...

If the definition of "assault weapon" is a crock (I agree) how can we talk about how many officers are killed by them...? And if it wasn't an "assault weapon," would the death suck less?

Frankly, I doubt it was the specific offensive capabilities of a weapon which determined whether an officer--or any other murder victim--was killed or not. Mostly it's that he was shot with a gun of any type, due to the criminal actions of the killer. I'm sure you can find a specific example, or possibly a few, where capacity or rate of fire was a decisive factor, but it's the exception proving the rule.

More people are killed with .22 longs, the most innocuous of guns, than any other caliber...why not "ban" them before all? (As if it would stop criminal usage of them in any case...)

sanjuro said:

I have a FBI study of police officers killed by what kind of caliber of bullet: http://tinyurl.com/cbb2uk.

Between 1998 and 2007, 508 officers were killed. 368 by handguns, most of which were 9mm and .40.

101 were killed by rifles, and 63 by 7.62mm and .223 caliber bullets, which are primarily from AK-47's, AR-15's, and their knockoffs.

In comparison, for the 10,000 people killed in 2007 by handguns, only 450 are listed to be from rifles of all types. http://tinyurl.com/dbleya

So for the regular citizenry, less than 1 percent are killed by rifles of any type, but more than 10% of police officers are killed by assault weapons.

Click to expand...

Actually, the AR series typically shoots 5.56mm, which is the same projectile as .223 but a slightly different casing...although AR style rifles come in myriad chamberings these days, so it's not really possible to know where all of these rounds came from. And only 1 5.56mm death is on the chart, not that it matters at all.

It's the 7.62x39 which takes the cake, which is the AK and SKS round. That said, the rifles shooting it are semi-auto for the most part and shooting a medium-power round, so what's the big deal with them specifically? They're cheap and reliable, plus they have a certain tough-guy/pop-culture status, so they're popular. If it wasn't the AK it'd be some other gat de jour. (Plus there are a LOT of SKS out there as well, which aren't an "assault rifle" in any modern sense...)

Stupid scumbags are indeed the problem. However, taxing them will only affect the legal, law-abiding purchasers.

I don't think there's a solution to stupid, violent scumbaggery that comes from a control perspective for the United States. Violent scumbags are the first and only people who will find extra-legal ways to obtain tools of violence.

sanjuro said:

I thought a lot about this, and the key is not keeping guns from law abiding citizens, but stupid scumbags.

The only thing I can think of is taxing cheap semi-auto rifles 100%.

Click to expand...

i agree. its the scumbags out there that are causing us law abiding citizens headaches from buying "assault weapons"...but to tax cheap semi-auto rifles 100% is ridiculous. gun prices have gone through the roof thanks to Obama, but taxing it 100% will never fly.

sanjuro said:

Also, I think states like Arizona should limit semi-auto rifle sales to once a month per customer. Then you won't see truckloads of ak's heading south of the border.

Click to expand...

that sounds like a good idea...theres really no reason to be buying multiple long arms every month anyway

sanjuro said:

Also, I think states like Arizona should limit semi-auto rifle sales to once a month per customer. Then you won't see truckloads of ak's heading south of the border.

Click to expand...

hyperbole much?

tell you what, ask Barry H. O. to strictly enforce the border rules first(good luck on that one). Walla, no way for weapons to "flow" south and no law breakers to enter. Everyone wins.

sanjuro said:

Good idea. Too bad Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush did such a poor job securing our southern borders...

Click to expand...

bonus: no need to legislatively punish average Americans for the piss poor law enforcement situation in Mejico.

sanjuro said:

Well, we are kinda responsible for the drug war in Mexico.

And, it is going to be a long debate before you could convince me I am depriving Americans if they can't shoot AK-47's any more...

Click to expand...

No more so than if we were deprived of the right to Downhill.

ak's are cheaper than downhill bikes though

Aren't HK/SKS/AR types actually low powered? High powered would be going postal with a BAR, Bonnie and Clyde style.

Late to the party, the tinyURL is outdated for the bullet study...

Does it specifically state 7.62x39? Or just 7.62 caliber bullets?

7.62 is .308 caliber, which are the two most popular hunting rifle calibers in the US (.308 Winchester and .30-'06).

The only time I've ever been shot at was by a barricaded suspect with a .30-'06 bolt gun...

But Sanjuro, do you really think that if it hadn't been 7.62x39mm killing those cops, it wouldn't have been some other caliber fired from some other weapon...??

By the way, the whole "we're supplying Mexico's guns for drug wars" is kind of a farce. A percentage of Mexico's traceable guns come from the US. The traceable guns seized in Mexico are in turn a fraction of the guns seized in Mexico... If the guns were purchased from a legit US dealer, they'd be traceable.

MikeD said:

By the way, the whole "we're supplying Mexico's guns for drug wars" is kind of a farce. A percentage of Mexico's traceable guns come from the US. The traceable guns seized in Mexico are in turn a fraction of the guns seized in Mexico... If the guns were purchased from a legit US dealer, they'd be traceable.

Click to expand...

the publicity shots with tows of full auto AKs and M4s with M203s that has caption like "American guns flow into Mexico" crack me up.

I bet the average reporter thinks that you can just go into a gun shop and order an M203 with no background check for 300 bucks.

sanjuro said:

I'm not saying bring back the ridiculous AWB, but an effective law.

Click to expand...

Consider this, it is already illegal to shoot police officers. It is already illegal to commit or attempt murder, manslaughter or even aim a gun at another person except for in self defense.

What I don't get is why people still end up shot and dead, despite the law...

Just so you know, the reason I have *not* shot anyone with my "Assault Rifle" has nothing to do with any law. Do you follow? Always deal with problems at the source.

sanjuro said:

I'm not saying bring back the ridiculous AWB, but an effective law.

Click to expand...

I believe the technical term for an effective law in the legislature is called a "ban".

Tell you what, when Camilla Harris starts prosecuting cop killers seriously, I'll take San Franciscans screaming for gun control in the name of protecting cops a little more seriously.

so there should be no problem with civilians owning full auto guns as long as they are registered then.

sanjuro said:

How many murders are there by fully automatic weapons? Legally owned guns - 2 murders since 1934. http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcfullau.html

Do you know why there so few? National Firearms Act of 1933. You get 10 years in jail for owning one without a license. The AWB only prevented the manufacture of assault weapons, not the ownership.

Click to expand...

I believe the NFA was set in force in 1934. There isn't actually a "full auto license".

sanjuro said:

Maybe you forgot why I started this thread.

Officer Isaac Espinoza died in my district, about a mile from my home, coincidentally on the day I moved to San Francisco. I assume your complaint is that life in prison is not enough of a punishment. I disagree.

He was killed by an AK-47.

Click to expand...

I support death penalty for the murder of a police officer, in fact for any intentional act of murder.

I think using the deaths of police officers to push for gun control cheapens their legacy by using the tragedy as a political tool.

I would rather go after the SOBs that did the murders than blaming the crimes on the instruments.

1453 said:

I would rather go after the SOBs that did the murders than blaming the crimes on the instruments.

Click to expand...

But why wait for an officer to be murdered and then "go after the SOBs that did it"?

What's wrong with being pre-emptive on this one?

Straya said:

But why wait for an officer to be murdered and then "go after the SOBs that did it"?

What's wrong with being pre-emptive on this one?

Click to expand...

Because we don't collectively punish people for the possible future actions of the few. Otherwise imposing a martial law containing a shoot-on-sight-after-dark clause would curb down on crime considerably.

like I said, using police deaths to push for personal crusades cheapens their legacy.

So if there hadn't been, specifically, an AK rifle available, these guys would have decided they wouldn't have shot a cop?? I just don't get it.

(And that's supposing that banning a weapon actually eliminates it from criminal use, which is a farce of a thought anyhow...)

1453 said:

so there should be no problem with civilians owning full auto guns as long as they are registered then.



I believe the NFA was set in force in 1934. There isn't actually a "full auto license".

Click to expand...

Google "Class III Firearms" and this will fill you in on many of the laws, both state and federal.

This blog on the subject http://www.guntrustlawyer.com/class-3-firearms/ is somewhat interesting.

In 1986, the United States government banned the future importation and domestic manufacture of machine guns for civilian consumption, and the already limited inventory of Class 3 weapons has since diminished substantially. At a rate now more accelerated than ever, these weapons are ending up in the hands of collectors who have no intention of ever selling them. The effect is twofold: Class 3 arms are growing increasingly scarce, and their prices are rising accordingly. Further Federal bans in 1989 and 1994 relating to semiautomatic clones of military weapons have spurred similar trends in that arena as well. Thus, the price of a quality, collector-grade Class 3 or semiautomatic weapon has spiraled beyond the comprehension of the average buyer.

We have found, though, that high-end collectors' appetites for the best are rarely fulfilled, and it is to them that we cater. These people are often first-time owners whose efforts to find and acquire a particular arm of choice have been frustrated by their inability to locate that weapon or by a lack of information on what is involved in a legally- conducted Class 3 transfer. - http://www.westernfirearms.com/

Straya said:

But why wait for an officer to be murdered and then "go after the SOBs that did it"?

What's wrong with being pre-emptive on this one?

Click to expand...

I trust you have seen Minority Report then? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0181689/

There might be a few, ok, many laws that dictate what occurs before or after a crime. Officers have to collect evidence of intent, at the very least, which may occur during an arrest for something unrelated. Aside from this situation, just how does law enforcement, in general, know what someone is or is not going to do.

sanjuro said:

Maybe you forgot why I started this thread.

Officer Isaac Espinoza died in my district, about a mile from my home, coincidentally on the day I moved to San Francisco. I assume your complaint is that life in prison is not enough of a punishment. I disagree.

He was killed by an AK-47.

Click to expand...

I appreciate your intent Sanjuro, most members of the LE community are stand up men and women who on a daily basis put their lives on the line for others. To some it might be a job, others it has a slightly higher calling, all besides the point.

How the officer was killed is a mute point. The real issue is that there are failures-in-life who are willing to kill another person for the sole purposes of "not going back to jail" or simply for gaining cred. with their gang. An AK-47 shoots a 7.62mm bullet, the same found in many, many, non-scary-looking-non-black-guns including single shot, bolt action and semi-automatic firearms.

The 7.62mm bullet shot from an AK47 is probably one of the least accurate bullets fired, although that again, is besides the point.

Where do you draw the line? Take note that there are poor, firearm-less people in Africa who routinely kill each other with bear hands, homemade knifes and sticks. The statistics, if it were possible to tally, would likely astound all of us with regard to how many men, women and children are killed in non-firearm murders. Think about my question, "where do you draw the line" and get back to me in lieu of these observations.

sanjuro said:

Like I have said several times, I'm not necessarily against semi-automatic rifles. But I am against the cheap ones which are used in crimes.

It is like arguing against 50 cal rifles. Yes they are illegal in California, but since they cost thousands and are 5 feet long, it has never been used in a commission of a crime.

Click to expand...

The only concern I have in your idea is creating legislation that inadvertently robs law abiding families of lower income, from purchasing equipment of which is guaranteed by the constitution to be able to be purchased. By interfering and adding a "false" cost to certain firearms, by virtue, your interfering in an American citizen's rights.

Yes, firearms cost money to begin with and NO, being given on is not in your rights, so please understand what I am illustrating.

Put it in other terms.

"1st amendment, you have the freedom of speech, writing and reading largely whatever you want too. " (poorly written, but follow along). If judges ruled that American citizens DO have the right to the freedom of speech, but only when they have reached and paid a large tax, you'd probably have a problem with that, as would I. One could argue that "free speech" is cheap and a bunch of people are being irresponsible with it and therefore it should be regulated.

Like free speech, firearms should only be regulated (exceptions noted) by the use of the firearm. There are something that are illegal to say or speak about, such as national defense topics or weapons design. Likewise, it is illegal to shoot at anyone, let alone kill them. The law is already there. There will inherently be some people that follow the law and some that don't. The punishments should be so severe for breaking the law that it either causes someone to think twice and/or removes them from this planet in the event of terrible wrongdoings.