"Assault" weapon ban will end tonight!

Canon EF 135mm f/2.0L USM

09/15/2004 12:53:46 PM · #27

Originally posted by Russell2566:

Originally posted by gingerbaker:
Semiautomatic "assault" weapons can be modified into real automatic assault weapons without much problem.

This is a myth, it's not easy and it's always been and will be illegal. The only things you can add to a weapon now vs 2 days are called badges. These are things that make it LOOK like th real thing. Before you could not have more than 2 or 3 "badges".

Badges?? We don't neeeed no steeeeenking badges! :D

What in the world is a badge? :D Never heard of it.

BTW, I am just being Devils advocate here, you know - trying to get both sides of the argument out in the open.

I am interested in your stats and personal advisements on this subject.

I'm not so sure about the modifying being so hard. I've read articles about it, and I used to see ads in the back of hunting magazines, etc selling the parts needed to turn semi into full auto. On some units, if I recall, there was just some simple filing down of a part or two, and Bob's your uncle. Illegal - why sure, but so is shooting at an innocent person.

I'm glad to hear your impassioned side to this. I had always thought that the TV renditions of machine gun fusillades were fiction - it is nice to see someone with credentials saying that fiction is indeed the case.

Russell2566

09/15/2004 01:12:04 PM · #28

I'll try and get this right:

The "Assault weapons" ban, made it illegal to own a gun that had more than a certain amout of characteristics shared with REAL Assult Weapons (Actual Military weapons).

These Characteristics are called badges. I'm not sure if this is a slang term of the actual legal definition, but it's how most speakers and law enforcement refer to them from my experience.

So in example. I own a M16 that is semi-auto only. It is a legal weapon. It currently has a flash suppressor (which is NOTHING AT ALL like a silencer) and a pistol grip. If I was to add a folding stock OR a knife to the front of the gun it would now be considered an Assult Rifle.

I could have any combo of those "badges" but not more than I think 2. None of those make my gun any more dangerous.

If you really want all the sources for my stats I can get them. But I'd have to re-look them all up. I just know them, I can't remember where they all came from. But if it helps almost ALL of my statistics come from law enforcement/government sources.

gingerbaker

Canon EF 135mm f/2.0L USM

09/15/2004 01:18:30 PM · #29

Badges. I get it now. Thanks, Russell!

Screechington

Canon EF 28-105mm f/4-5.6

09/15/2004 01:18:50 PM · #30

[quote=Russell2566] Your forgetting to factor in how many lives are saved by guns every day...

I have to say I am flabberghasted by that comment. I'd never heard that guns saved lives. Perhaps they are used to save kittens from trees or people from drowning. Or for precision surgery to remove tumours!!!

Getting back from fantasy land the only twisted way a gun can save a life is by disabling someone else from using a gun to hurt/kill. And as for the swimming pool comment made by someone earlier, it may not be a well known fact but maybe I have never heard of someone getting killed by a drive by drowning. or that you can now conceal a swimming pool in a pocket or under a newspaper and us it to rob old ladies.

I hadn't realised there were so many blinkered attitudes in the good ole US of A.

bdobe

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

09/15/2004 01:46:31 PM · #31

To our international friends, be glad you don't have to put up with the sort of twisted rationalization and narrow hair splitting that Russell2566 keeps on invoking. Ah, if only our founding fathers had had foresight on this issue, they would never have added the now bastardized 2nd Amendment. You know, I foresee a future where "personal mini-A-bombs" will be easily manufactured, and therefore classified as a "personal arm" (as in the 2nd Amendment's "right to bear arms") so that wannabe Rambos can run around blowing bigger cutout targets in the backwoods and deserts of our country.

By the way, here's the text of the 2nd Amendment:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. [Emphasis added.]

"Militia," as in army, and let's not forget the "well regulated" part; that's why I keep on saying, if you wanna blow shit up, join the military where such weapons and people are "well regulated."

Message edited by author 2004-09-15 13:55:20.

goinskiing

Canon EOS-6D

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

09/15/2004 01:53:27 PM · #32

Originally posted by ganders:

Just out of interest, why on earth would you want to have a weapon capable of firing hundreds of rounds a minute? I know you guys are big on overkill, but really...

Hehehe...my question is...why on earth WOULDN'T you want something like that?

(Sorry, I'm just bein' silly)

Russell2566

09/15/2004 01:53:39 PM · #33

I'm pretty sure that if our forfathers could see into the future and see how many people would purpously mis-read or basterdize the constitution they would have written it much much broader than they did.

Did you know that they didn't even want to write the 10 amendments, they thought they were implicitly implied and they were afraid that by writing it, they would be opening the doors to things like what anti-gun nuts are doing today. Go read some of their personal diaries...

For Screechington: A link I think you should read:

Guns Save Lives

Olyuzi

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7

Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH

09/15/2004 01:57:04 PM · #34

Russell, what kind of weapons do criminals use most? Are there any statistics that show what they ususally brandish?

Olyuzi

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7

Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH

09/15/2004 02:03:51 PM · #35

Also, Russell, what are the statistics for crime in the US with the assualt weapons ban in place? Was it up, down, status quo?

bdobe

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

09/15/2004 02:09:19 PM · #36

Yes Russell2566, I've read the Federalist Papers (i.e., the back and forths on the merits of the Constitution). Moreover, I seriously doubt that there's anything about the Constitution and its Amendments that I can learn from you. Besides, whether they wanted to include the Bill of Rights (i.e., the first 10 Amendments) or not, that's a moot point; because the fact is that they are there, deal with it. The question now is, how are the Amendments to be interpreted. Clearly you believe that you have an alleged right to your own personal arsenal; well, I say your friends, neighbors, fellow citizens all, have a right to "regulate" such a personal arsenal -- it's right there, in the 2nd Amendment.

I'll post the text again, as reference:

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

.......................................

Originally posted by Russell2566:

hopper

Canon EOS-80D

Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM

09/15/2004 02:09:49 PM · #37

LOL!!! That's a funny word :)

Originally posted by ganders:

I'm an asshat

09/15/2004 02:24:25 PM · #38

I'm constantly amazed at the level of paranoia exhibited by the anti-gun population. What exactly is it that makes you so vehemently opposed to a person owning a gun? Do you honestly think they are all going to go on a rampage?

hopper

Canon EOS-80D

Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM

09/15/2004 02:41:43 PM · #39

yes

Originally posted by TechnoShroom:

09/15/2004 02:43:05 PM · #40

Originally posted by hopper:

yes

Originally posted by TechnoShroom:
I'm constantly amazed at the level of paranoia exhibited by the anti-gun population. What exactly is it that makes you so vehemently opposed to a person owning a gun? Do you honestly think they are all going to go on a rampage?

Well then, here endeth the discussion. ;)

gingerbaker

Canon EF 135mm f/2.0L USM

09/15/2004 02:43:49 PM · #41

Originally posted by bdobe:

,
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

bdobe, I think the meaning of "well-regulated" and "militia" were quite different back in the day of the framers than today.

The "militia" was manned by the "regulars", plain citizens who were well-armed and well-trained, ie "well-regulated".

That the framers sought constitutional protection for the regulars to bear arms was to ensure that they could carry out a succesful rebellion, if need be! The militia was supposed to have the highest quality armaments available.

People used guns back then all the time to hunt, and to protect themselves against hostiles and animals. That folks would have the right to have a gun for these purposes was unquestioned back then.

Doubtful as to what Jefferson would think about nuclear weapons, but I would bet he wouldn't draw the line at machine guns. (I'll bet he would want to get rid of all nuclear weapons, so that war would remain personal.)

Only a tiny proportion of the guns in this country are used in crimes. Again, if we legalized drugs and got Al Capone out of the picture, 95% of gun crime would disappear, I think.

ganders

Canon EOS-40D

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

09/15/2004 03:03:19 PM · #42

Originally posted by TechnoShroom:

Not at all. But it only requires a few out of 200 million to go on a rampage and you've got a lot more dead people than if they weren't allowed guns - even if they're "only" semi-automatic.

But, like I said - it's your country. Happily the UK still has a society of a kind that doesn't require me to carry concealed semi-automatics to protect myself against the roving hoards of criminals...

Olyuzi

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7

Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH

09/15/2004 03:15:15 PM · #43

Originally posted by TechnoShroom:

***Well, not all, but a few. Militia groups like those associated with Timothy McVeigh could attack the government and try to take matters in their own hands by using these weapons against the military and law enforcement.

What has this society come to? Paranoid, fearful people that would rather confront others with force than try to promote peaceful solutions to today's ills. I don't think these weapons are defensive in nature at all.

Message edited by author 2004-09-15 15:19:12.

bdobe

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

09/15/2004 03:17:21 PM · #44

Originally posted by ganders:

Happily the UK still has a society of a kind that doesn't require me to carry concealed semi-automatics to protect myself against the roving hoards of criminals...

I love the Brits, they have a way of cutting through all the crap.

09/15/2004 03:28:35 PM · #45

Originally posted by ganders:

Not at all. But it only requires a few out of 200 million to go on a rampage and you've got a lot more dead people than if they weren't allowed guns - even if they're "only" semi-automatic.

However, as we've seen throughout history, laws do not stop crime, they only create criminals and punish. What you're talking about is a criminal act hence not going to be stopped by a law. It still sounds like paranoia to me though.

Originally posted by ganders:

But, like I said - it's your country. Happily the UK still has a society of a kind that doesn't require me to carry concealed semi-automatics to protect myself against the roving hoards of criminals...

Nor does the US. It is interesting to note that there is quite a bit of gun crime in the UK even with significantly more restrictive gun laws.

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

09/15/2004 03:41:55 PM · #46

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Laws preventing gun ownership won't prevent this sort of activity.

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

What has this society come to? Paranoid, fearful people that would rather confront others with force than try to promote peaceful solutions to today's ills. I don't think these weapons are defensive in nature at all.

This doesn't make sense, "What has this society come to?" This implies there was a more peaceful time prior. It isn't true. So by you stating guns aren't defensive in nature at all are you saying they are purely aggressive? Could there not be a third category? I own many firearms and non-firearms. I use them for neither defense nor aggression. Some are more decoration than anything else and the rest for recreational target shooting.

marbo

Nikon D5000

09/15/2004 03:42:00 PM · #47

Gun Deaths - International Comparisons

Gun deaths per 100,000 population (for the year indicated):

Homicide Suicide Unintentional

USA 4.08 (1999) 6.08 (1999) 0.42 (1999)

Canada 0.54 (1999) 2.65 (1997) 0.15 (1997)

Switzerland 0.50 (1999) 5.78 (1998) -

Scotland 0.12 (1999) 0.27 (1999) -

England/Wales 0.12 (1999/00) 0.22 (1999) 0.01 (1999)

Japan 0.04* (1998) 0.04 (1995) <0.01 (1997)

* Homicide & attempted homicide by handgun

Lets face it the yanks love a good shot-out :)

Mick

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

09/15/2004 03:45:35 PM · #48

Message edited by author 2004-10-20 02:48:24.

ganders

Canon EOS-40D

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

09/15/2004 03:49:23 PM · #49

Originally posted by TechnoShroom:

However, as we've seen throughout history, laws do not stop crime, they only create criminals and punish.

/boggle. So you're basically saying that laws have no deterrent effect, and that we have just as many rapes, murders etc as we would have in an anarchy, the only difference is that the people who commit these acts are punished??

Originally posted by TechnoShroom:

Nor does the US. It is interesting to note that there is quite a bit of gun crime in the UK even with significantly more restrictive gun laws.

I raised that because someone has already trotted out the "well we need them for defence, look at when gun law X was repealed personal crime fell X percent" nonsense.

There are only two arguments that make sense for gun ownership. Personal protection - and you've just argued that this isn't the case - or hunting, for which semi-automatic weapons seem a little... well... excessive and unsporting. Hell *I* could probably kill a deer with a semi-automatic. Where's the sport in that?

Unless you choose to bring up the tired "it's my divine constitutional RIGHT to own them", in which case there really is no hope! :-)

Mick