[1000-Oaks]

But the assault ban seems to work. While there are still plenty of killings, I cannot remember the last one in Calif involving an automatic weapon...

Actually, the CA assault weapon ban doesn't outlaw automatic weapons - they've been illegal nationwide for decades (unless you have a special license). Could be since the 1920's, I'm pretty sure the FBI pushed to outlaw them so they could arrest mobsters.

The CA assault weapon ban only affects certain semi-automatic rifles and is based purely on cosmetic features. The AR-15 is a perfect example: it is a .223 caliber rifle and has a detactable magazine. The Mini-14 fires exactly the same round and has detactable magazines of the exact same capacity. But the AR-15 is black in color and "mean" looking (and seen in the movies a lot), so it's not allowed in CA. The friendlier-looking (wood stock instead of plastic) Mini-14 is perfectly legal, though functionally they are 99% identical (same round, same velocity, similar rate of fire, same capacity, etc).

So what does the ban accomplish? Absolutely nothing but keep certain mean-looking but identical-functioning models out of the hands of law-abiding citizens. The irony is that ban supporters whine that some gun manufacturers make "cosmetic" changes to the rifles to "get around the ban", when in fact the ban only applies to cosmetic and not functional features.

Another example: Remember the tiny .22 caliber (some pellet rifles are more powerful) semi-automatic target rifles used by biathalon shooters in the winter Olympics? You guessed it, you can't have or shoot one in CA. Reason? There's a hole in the stock you can put your thumb through. Yep, without the hole for your thumb the rifle is 100% legal. Good thing CA is keeping holes for your thumb out of rifle stocks, I'm sure it saves lots of lives...

(Note: I think CA may have since made an exception to these .22 rifles so that Olympic athletes can train in the state.)

 

[kinghami3]

Actually, the CA assault weapon ban doesn't outlaw automatic weapons - they've been illegal nationwide for decades (unless you have a special license). Could be since the 1920's, I'm pretty sure the FBI pushed to outlaw them so they could arrest mobsters.

The CA assault weapon ban only affects certain semi-automatic rifles and is based purely on cosmetic features. The AR-15 is a perfect example: it is a .223 caliber rifle and has a detactable magazine. The Mini-14 fires exactly the same round and has detactable magazines of the exact same capacity. But the AR-15 is black in color and "mean" looking (and seen in the movies a lot), so it's not allowed in CA. The friendlier-looking (wood stock instead of plastic) Mini-14 is perfectly legal, though functionally they are 99% identical (same round, same velocity, similar rate of fire, same capacity, etc).

So what does the ban accomplish? Absolutely nothing but keep certain mean-looking but identical-functioning models out of the hands of law-abiding citizens. The irony is that ban supporters whine that some gun manufacturers make "cosmetic" changes to the rifles to "get around the ban", when in fact the ban only applies to cosmetic and not functional features.

AR-15:

M-16 (airsoft, but accurate copy):

I will let you think about that for a while, and how easily a policeman could confuse the two in a fire-fight (or any other situation).

 

[1000-Oaks]

So what? The cops will know the difference the second you let a full-auto burst rip.

And if you choose to leave your illegal M-16 on semi-auto (to save ammo and be more accurate), it's functionally no different than the semi-automatic AR-15 or this CA-legal semi-automatic Mini-14:

I've shot all of the above rifles (including the M-16 in full-auto mode), and they all do exactly the same thing. The M-16 is already illegal everywhere, and even if it wasn't full-auto is typically not a good tactical choice - unless you like running out of ammo before the other guy. The M-16/M-4 on full-auto will dump a 30 round magazine in just a few seconds, unlike what you see in the movies.

 

[MikeD]

Yep. The assault weapons ban is one of the most ridiculous of many ridiculous psychological gun-control band-aids. Whether you like guns or not, when you look at it, all it does is control the physical appearance and ergonomics of certain guns.

 

[mack]

Who cares about guns? You can still rent a uhaul, fill it with kerosene and some nitrates like fertalizer and your set. The government will never be able to outlaw dangerous weapons, the whole auto assault rifle thing is like complaining that your DH bike has a chip in the downtube from a rock.

 

[sanjuro]

To be honest, I don't much about guns, and I certainly do not know anything about semi automatic assault rifles.

Now to many, this may disqualify me from discussing an assault weapon ban. However, I don't want to see a weapon which is designed only to kill other humans made easily accessible.

In the North Hollywood shootout and the recent Virginia police station killing, assault weapons were used. If they were extremely difficult to acquire, then neither crime would have happened. In either case, men armed only with pistols or non-repeating rifles would have been subdued more easily than if the bullets were flying...

 

[MikeD]

To be honest, I don't much about guns, and I certainly do not know anything about semi automatic assault rifles.

Now to many, this may disqualify me from discussing an assault weapon ban. However, I don't want to see a weapon which is designed only to kill other humans made easily accessible.

In the North Hollywood shootout and the recent Virginia police station killing, assault weapons were used. If they were extremely difficult to acquire, then neither crime would have happened. In either case, men armed only with pistols or non-repeating rifles would have been subdued more easily than if the bullets were flying...

Just to explain a bit, the assualt weapons ban doesn't ban semi-auto rifles...it bans semi auto rifles with certain military-looking features and ergonomics. There are a few specific things (pistol grips, flash suppressors, and bayonet studs among them) of which one given gun may have only (I think) two, or something as silly as that, but you can still buy a Rock River AR-15 (aka civilian M16) that's semi-automatic, accurate, and deadly as hell.

Not saying whether we should or should not be able to own such guns...again, that's a community/state decision IMHO, and I personally don't find it that objectionable, but just trying to point out why the assault weapons ban is so ridiculous.

MD

 

[sanjuro]

Not saying whether we should or should not be able to own such guns...again, that's a community/state decision IMHO, and I personally don't find it that objectionable, but just trying to point out why the assault weapons ban is so ridiculous.

MD

I understand that the assault weapons ban is ineffectual. However, is that due to stupid lawmakers or the lobby efforts of the NRA?

And now the the assault weapons ban is expired, can I trust that the gun owners and the industry will police itself to prevent assault weapons falling into the hands of suicidal kids, crankheads who have seen "Heat" one too many times, or just the average gang-banger?

 

[bjanga]

If I had the choice between being shot at by someone with an AK47 firing the weapon in fully automatic bursts and someone shooting a semi-automatic rifle, I would rather be subjected to the (less accurate) automatic fire.

I think the issue is more about the power of such rifles, rather than their rate of fire. Unless of course people with belt-fed bipod-equipped machine guns start popping out of grates from beneath sidewalks.

 

[manimal]

And now the the assault weapons ban is expired, can I trust that the gun owners and the industry will police itself to prevent assault weapons falling into the hands of suicidal kids, crankheads who have seen "Heat" one too many times, or just the average gang-banger?

your point is moot. the law didn't affect those people. they have had, and probably always will have the ability to obtain those weapons. most gun toting criminals aren't worried about what kind of gun they are caught with, they are concerned with which weapon works best for their particular M.O.

i can go buy a cheap semi-auto SKS at a gun show and for about an additional $40 kit, make it fully automatic. i can also make a semi-auto .22 plinking rifle into a full-auto assault rifle. when it comes down to it, the gun itself isn't really the issue, it's who has it and how well do they know how to use it.
i'll gladly take on a full-auto sporting thug with no idea what he's doing against my experience with my M-16 based semi-auto weapon any day. one shot. one kill.

 

[Changleen]

your point is moot. the law didn't affect those people. they have had, and probably always will have the ability to obtain those weapons. most gun toting criminals aren't worried about what kind of gun they are caught with, they are concerned with which weapon works best for their particular M.O.

i can go buy a cheap semi-auto SKS at a gun show and for about an additional $40 kit, make it fully automatic. i can also make a semi-auto .22 plinking rifle into a full-auto assault rifle. when it comes down to it, the gun itself isn't really the issue, it's who has it and how well do they know how to use it.
i'll gladly take on a full-auto sporting thug with no idea what he's doing against my experience with my M-16 based semi-auto weapon any day. one shot. one kill.

Remember you have a Noah.

 

[manimal]

Remember you have a Noah.

huh? i'm not sure what you mean by that

yes, i have kids thus the reason i train as often as i can in close-quarters combat tactics. i try and afford myself every advantage to ensure that i make it home from work everyday.
if the day comes, God forbid, that i have to put my training to the test then i hope i can put it all into action and walk away from the situation still living.

 

[Changleen]

huh? i'm not sure what you mean by that

yes, i have kids thus the reason i train as often as i can in close-quarters combat tactics. i try and afford myself every advantage to ensure that i make it home from work everyday.
if the day comes, God forbid, that i have to put my training to the test then i hope i can put it all into action and walk away from the situation still living.

That's what I mean.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

your point is moot. the law didn't affect those people. they have had, and probably always will have the ability to obtain those weapons. most gun toting criminals aren't worried about what kind of gun they are caught with, they are concerned with which weapon works best for their particular M.O.

on the point of "the bad guys will always get the guns they want".

thats a bit of a twist on the good ol´perfect solution fallacy. just because is no 100% perfect, doesnt automaticall mean it should not be considered.

plus.. every gun (or at least very close to 100% of them) starts life as a legal gun, just like every criminal was at one point a "law abbiding citizen"

 

[sanjuro]

your point is moot. the law didn't affect those people. they have had, and probably always will have the ability to obtain those weapons. most gun toting criminals aren't worried about what kind of gun they are caught with, they are concerned with which weapon works best for their particular M.O.

i can go buy a cheap semi-auto SKS at a gun show and for about an additional $40 kit, make it fully automatic. i can also make a semi-auto .22 plinking rifle into a full-auto assault rifle. when it comes down to it, the gun itself isn't really the issue, it's who has it and how well do they know how to use it.
i'll gladly take on a full-auto sporting thug with no idea what he's doing against my experience with my M-16 based semi-auto weapon any day. one shot. one kill.

There was a spree-killing in 1996 at a Scotland school with four legally owned handguns by a gun club "enthusiast". Obviously, a gun in the wrong hands can be a death sentence.

However, while someone trained with firearms will be deadly with one shot, obviously a novice's killing power will multiply with automatic weapons.

For example, the LIRR killer was subdued when he went to reload his single pistol. I should point that New York City and the surrounding areas have some of the strictest guns laws in America, and if Colin Ferguson was more heavily armed, possibly more people would have been killed.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

so, in the light of the latest news...
for you guys who defend your interpretation of the 2nd amendment, but are ok with the other amendments getting stomped in the name of the war on terror...

how do you rank the next rights, from the most valuable to the least to you???

1) right to own a gun
2) right to own a mean looking gun
3) right to own a cruise misile
4) right to due process
5) right to privacy
6) right to be inocent until proven guilty
7) right to life

 

[1000-Oaks]

If they were extremely difficult to acquire, then neither crime would have happened. In either case, men armed only with pistols or non-repeating rifles would have been subdued more easily than if the bullets were flying...

Actually full-auto rifles are nearly impossible to acquire (easier to build than buy), just asking around about getting one would probably get you put in jail for a long time. (Informants would alert the cops that you want one, then they'd set up a sting and nail you. I have family in law enforcement.)

Being ex-combat arms in the military, I have to say I'd much rather go into close-quarters combat with a pump shotgun (Mossberg 590 or special-ops Remington 870) loaded with 00 buck than a full-auto M-16. I've spent a fair amount of time with both, and I'll take the less-sexy shotgun. And for longer-range work I'll take an accurate bolt-action rifle with good optics; again not the full-auto M-16. I'm not saying the M-16/M-4/AR-15 isn't a nice piece of equipment, but rather it tries to do everything decent and thus doesn't truly excel at any one thing. "One-shot, one kill."

 

[1000-Oaks]

I should point that New York City and the surrounding areas have some of the strictest guns laws in America,

Yep, and some of the worst crime rates in the country. Coincidence? I think not...

 

[1000-Oaks]

Good job you're doing such a great job of stopping Bush pissing all over the constitution right now with all your guns eh? Well done, congratulations on all your good work.

If you think we're at the point when the citizens should take up arms against the government, there's nothing stopping you from going out and buying some guns and doing something about it. What are you waiting for?

Or, if things get a lot worse, are you going to then do something about it, or sit on your hands hoping someone else (who prepared for it) will handle the problem?

 

[MikeD]

If you think we're at the point when the citizens should take up arms against the government, there's nothing stopping you from going out and buying some guns and doing something about it. What are you waiting for?

Or, if things get a lot worse, are you going to then do something about it, or sit on your hands hoping someone else (who prepared for it) will handle the problem?

My best guess is that he'll look out at the local New Zealand terrain and go for a ride...

 

[1000-Oaks]

lol, good point, didn't check out his location...

 

[fluff]

Yep, and some of the worst crime rates in the country. Coincidence? I think not...

Apart from the fact that you have not established any form of cuase and effect surely you would not expect New York to have a low crime rate?