Bad news for the AWB supporters

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Shooter, you started a thread implying that there is little support for an assault weapons ban. I've given you evidence that at least back when the issue was up before Congress the last time, there was wide support. So if you're going to play the game of just who supports what here, accept that I can play it too.

you've given me discredited tripe engineered in the waning days of the last ineffectual ban to attempt to engineer support for it's continuation. congress kept it's peace, in the end. since then, heller has spoken, and the new congress has agreed. the way it is.

If there is overwhelming support for it among the American people, you can bet that Congress will bring this issue to vote....as hard as the gun lobby tries to kill the issue.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

New poll.

[Peikko 1,575]

Ditto to this thread FP. Carry on.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Police say they defenseless against this type of firepower.

[Ban Hammer 13,465]

Police say they defenseless against this type of firepower.

be sure to read the comments on that link.

[The_Dude 1,142]

Although, I do support an assault weopons ban, I do realize that it's not very realistic. Who is this ban targeting? Criminals. The government simply doesn't have any good mechanism to enforce this ban other than self reporting. Do you really think that criminals are just going to walk into the local police department and turn their guns in? The only people who will lose their guns are those who purchased them lawfully and registered them as they were supposed to. I think It would be great if we could wave a wand and just make all the assault weopons and handguns disappear. But, guns, and even assault rifles have been in the U.S. for far too long to effectively do anything to curb gun violence.

I just wish the NRA would stop being so pigheaded and at least look at things with a bit of reasonable logic. You don't need an automatic, or even semi-automatic weopon to defend yourself. Don't try to justify them as being hunting weopons either. Assault weopons have no purpose other than to kill human beings faster and more easily. A shotgun is good enough for home protection. You don't need a calico with a drum clip to defend your home.

Edited March 26, 2009 by Rob and Mel

[Peikko 1,575]

Although, I do support an assault weopons ban, I do realize that it's not very realistic. Who is this ban targeting? Criminals. The government simply doesn't have any good mechanism to enforce this ban other than self reporting. Do you really think that criminals are just going to walk into the local police department and turn their guns in? The only people who will lose their guns are those who purchased them lawfully and registered them as they were supposed to. I think It would be great if we could wave a wand and just make all the assault weopons and handguns disappear. But, guns, and even assault rifles have been in the U.S. for far too long to effectively do anything to curb gun violence.

I just wish the NRA would stop being so pigheaded and at least look at things with a bit of reasonable logic. You don't need an automatic, or even semi-automatic weopon to defend yourself. Don't try to justify them as being hunting weopons either. Assault weopons have no purpose other than to kill human beings faster and more easily. A shotgun is good enough for home protection. You don't need a calico with a drum clip to defend your home.

You do if you really love your family.

Sorry, good post. It makes sense, are you the Canadian in the family? (Sorry, I can't help myself)

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Although, I do support an assault weopons ban, I do realize that it's not very realistic. Who is this ban targeting?

Manufacturers, primarily.

[The_Dude 1,142]

LoL, nope, i'm American. I grew up around guns my entire life . I have also seen the tragedy of assault rifles. We simply don't need them. Only the millitary and police have any logical justification for needing them.

[Peikko 1,575]

You are one of those 'responsible' gun owners, aren't you? Tsk, tsk, we can't have that!

[Ban Hammer 13,465]

LoL, nope, i'm American. I grew up around guns my entire life . I have also seen the tragedy of assault rifles. We simply don't need them. Only the millitary and police have any logical justification for needing them.

you were in combat?

[The_Dude 1,142]

LoL, nope, i'm American. I grew up around guns my entire life . I have also seen the tragedy of assault rifles. We simply don't need them. Only the millitary and police have any logical justification for needing them.

you were in combat?

No, I was at a house party in high school. A guy I knew was with his GF when some gangsters walked up to them and started hitting on her. He said something to them and everyone around laughed at them. He was 6'4" 250 and they were much smaller, so they didn't do anything. They left the party, but came back around 2:30 when everyone was going home. As he was walking across the street to his car, they got out of his car, and opened fire with calico's. Two people dead, 4 wounded.

[mRx 16]

How does one determine what constitutes a weapon as an assault weapon? It seems somewhat paradoxical to suggest some weapons are assault weapons and some aren't. What is the criteria that determines whether a semi-automatic rifle is an AW? Pistol grip, flash suppressor, detachable magazine? These don't really make a weapon more dangerous or assaultive, do they?

Saying that "we ought to keep assault rifles off the streets of America" is very strawman.

I don't think its difficult to come up with a set of criteria to define clearly what sort of firearms should be made available to the public at retail. Whether that's constitutional is another matter of course.

I think it would be rather normative to come up with a criteria for which weapons classify as assaultive, don't you think? I doubt there is any empirical data which proves or disproves that one weapon is inherently more dangerous than another, in the modern age.

What I'm leading to is that the assaultive aspect of any weapon is always the operator. Targeting and banning weapons only really affects those who abide by the rules. There is empirical evidence of this. You can look at the correalation between the disarmament of Iraq and the drastic rise in the rate of rapes and murders.

[The_Dude 1,142]

How does one determine what constitutes a weapon as an assault weapon? It seems somewhat paradoxical to suggest some weapons are assault weapons and some aren't. What is the criteria that determines whether a semi-automatic rifle is an AW? Pistol grip, flash suppressor, detachable magazine? These don't really make a weapon more dangerous or assaultive, do they?

Saying that "we ought to keep assault rifles off the streets of America" is very strawman.

I don't think its difficult to come up with a set of criteria to define clearly what sort of firearms should be made available to the public at retail. Whether that's constitutional is another matter of course.

I think it would be rather normative to come up with a criteria for which weapons classify as assaultive, don't you think? I doubt there is any empirical data which proves or disproves that one weapon is inherently more dangerous than another, in the modern age.

What I'm leading to is that the assaultive aspect of any weapon is always the operator. Targeting and banning weapons only really affects those who abide by the rules. There is empirical evidence of this. You can look at the correalation between the disarmament of Iraq and the drastic rise in the rate of rapes and murders.

I think it's fairly straightforward that a streetsweeper is more dangerous than a bolt action mauser rifle....

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I think it would be rather normative to come up with a criteria for which weapons classify as assaultive, don't you think? I doubt there is any empirical data which proves or disproves that one weapon is inherently more dangerous than another, in the modern age.

What I'm leading to is that the assaultive aspect of any weapon is always the operator. Targeting and banning weapons only really affects those who abide by the rules. There is empirical evidence of this. You can look at the correalation between the disarmament of Iraq and the drastic rise in the rate of rapes and murders.

Public safety is the primary concern. The potential lethal power of someone using an assault rifle on a crowd could cause more deaths than a hand grenade.