| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 7/9 |
| 2004/9/8 [Reference/Military] UID:33420 Activity:nil |
9/8 The thread got nuked, but I am still hoping for a defense of current
gun control (banning scary looking guns) from someone. Surely among
the faithful liberals here on soda _someone_ actually believes this,
rather than just closing one's eyes to another unsavory thing the
Democrats push through? -- ilyas
\_ Ilya, it's not a question of banning guns, or of democrats vs.
republicans. Restricting who gets guns (criminals, the insane),
making people wait a bit of time between application and permission
to buy, ensuring that people understand gun safety and handling,
and possibly, although I'm not prepared to argue either side of
this, heavily restricting fully automatic weapons ownership, are
all generally good things. -John
\_ Sure, but that's not what I was asking about. I was asking
about the bans on 'scary looking guns,' like the Dragunov for
example. Crazy people and criminals shouldn't have guns, of
course, etc. -- ilyas
\_ so why do you?
\_ Because a criminal gives up his rights by commiting a crime.
A 'crazy person' has legal restrictions on their rights,
which I think is as reasonable as restricting rights of
children (i.e. a good thing). I fall into neither category.
-- ilyas
\_ Hmmm, so someone like Marth Stewart should be banned
from carrying a gun because she's been convicted.
Interesting line of thought. -williamc
\_ I think it goes without saying that it depends on
the crime committed. It would be boring to argue
exactly where the line is, but it surely exists.
\_ This isn't an answer to your question, because I don't believe in
that sort of law and don't have a defense. I just wanted to say
that both parties have boatloads of unsavory things that they
try to push through in order to please this or that constiuency
or to raise x dollars for campaigns.
\_ I am not sure. I think DiFi isn't pleasing anyone. I think
she really believes in this stuff. -- ilyas
\_ ilyas, you may possibly be the biggest dipshit in the universe
\_ but the stars might be bigger dipshits
\_ The scary looking assault-rifle guns are easier to use and
are designed to have a higher rate of fire with magazines etc.,
making them more deadly. They may be equipped or modified to
have things like silencers, folding stocks, large mags, etc.
Barrel grips allow rapid fire without burning your hand, and
facilitate shooting from the hip. The stocks make it easier
to conceal. The idea is that they want to ban "assault weapons"
and full vs. semi auto is not the only factor there.
http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/faqs/?page=awb
\_ Yes, banned weapons tend to be easier to use. My question is,
why ban weapons that are easy to use? What favorable effect are
we looking for here? The criminals will not have easy to use
guns anymore? Do you really think ergonomics have any
effect on crime rates? Also, as I pointed out before, a
higher rate of fire does not imply deadliness, in fact it's
usually the reverse. -- ilyas
\_ The poster above gave you a URL. I suggest reading it.
\_ I am very familiar with http://bradycampaign.org. Favorite line:
"So there is a good reason why these features on
high-powered weapons should frighten the public."
Go get that soccer mommy vote! Btw, what does
'high-powered' even means? Most assault rifles fire a
smaller calibre than most hunting rifles.
\_ A high ROF entails a higher rate of stray-bullet casualties.
\_ Do you realize that the net effect of a high ROF on
fatalities is negative?
People want to ban the weapons that are seen as favored by
criminals. This included sawed-off shotguns, fully-automatic
rifles as well as very cheap pistols. Whether these weapons
are better suited for criminal vs. legitimate use is subject
to debate of course, The fact remains that they are seen by
the public as primarily having criminal uses, which makes
people want to ban them.
\_ It makes _some people_ want to ban them, but not others.
I didn't realize laws in this country were subject to
majority rule directly. Shouldn't bans be based on
principle and sound data rather than opinion polls?
-- ilyas
\_ You made precisely the opposite argument with regard
to the death penalty.
\_ We live in a democracy, not a technocracy. Deal.
\_ One-shot deadliness isn't what concerns people so much.
It's the spectre of a skilled nut shooting at many people,
or people engaging in combat with law enforcement or gang
warfare. Sure there is also some psychological comfort
going on here. I'm not what you're looking for to defend
this though, I just looked this stuff up this morning.
I don't think it's right to say this is a clear republican
vs. democrat issue.
\_ I am not a republican, but I can't think of any republican
sponsored gun control measure I didn't agree with. The
democrats, on the other hand... -- ilyas
\_ A sensible argument might be to outlaw any gun that can penetrate
a typical Type IIIA police vest. But that would really drive the
pro-gun lobby insane, since they would argue, and it is a reasonable
point, that it gives too much control to a government police force
and is overly restrictive. Then again, you don't want to make
all such weapons legal, since this would put too much power in
civilian hands. So, liberals work the periphery, making
"obvious" assault weapons illegal. Taken in this context, the
current gun-control laws make sense as to how they arose, even
if the laws themselves don't make sense (why ban "scary looking"
guns when you get can a legal one that kills people better?
Obviously liberals would like to ban those too!) in a vacuum.
Also, keep in mind that a gun being semi-automatic or automatic
makes it kill people better, in that you can kill more people
faster, but you already knew that. -liberal
\_ A full auto gun can kill faster in some situations (crowded rooms
while in others a single shot is more effective (less recoil
drift). At any rate, are you in the business of reducing net
deaths per year? Why not legislate more dangerous things like
cars instead? -- ilyas
\_ wow I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt for
a while but you are truly an idiot. cars may be dangerous
but they provide tangible economic benefit, guns
just rip large holes in people and increase our health
care costs.
\_ Economic benefits don't stop things like drug legislation
(legalized drugs would be a tax windfall). It's not about
that at all. Incidentally it shouldn't be 'our' healthcare
costs, it should be 'mine,' 'yours,' etc. If I pay for
my own doctor who are you to tell me whether I want a gun
or not. -- ilyas
\_ Are you kidding me? Liberals legislate on cars all the time.
\_ BAN SUV! RIDE BIKE! LEAVE GUNS ALONE! |
| 7/9 |
|
| www.bradycampaign.org/facts/faqs/?page=awb State Report Cards THE ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN: FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS Q: What is the status of the federal assault weapons ban? A: The federal law banning the sale of semi-automatic assault weapons, known as the federal assault weapons ban, was passed as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. President Clinton signed it into law on September 13, 1994. However, the assault weapons ban will expire ("sunset") in September 2004 unless Congress and President George W Bush renew it. That means that AK47s and other semi-automatic assault weapons could begin flooding our streets again, as the weapons of choice of gang members, drug dealers and other dangerous criminals. A: On September 13, 1994, domestic gun manufacturers were required to stop production of semi-automatic assault weapons and ammunition clips holding more than 10 rounds except for military or police use. Imports of assault weapons not already banned by administrative action under Presidents Reagan and George HW Bush were also halted. Assault weapons and ammunition clips holding more than 10 rounds produced prior to September 13, 1994, were "grandfathered" in under the law and can still be possessed and sold. The bill bans, by name, the manufacture of 19 different weapons: * Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models); The bill also bans "copies" or "duplicates" of any of those weapons. The failure to include a ban of these "copies" or "duplicates" would have opened the door for widespread evasion of the ban. Even so, some unscrupulous gun manufacturers have tried to evade the law by making minor changes to their assault weapons in order to skirt the restrictions. The 1994 law also prohibits manufacturers from producing firearms with more than one of the following assault weapon features: Rifles * Folding/telescoping stock * Protruding pistol grip * Bayonet mount * Threaded muzzle or flash suppressor * Grenade launcher Pistols * Magazine outside grip * Threaded muzzle * Barrel shroud * Unloaded weight of 50 ounces or more * Semi-automatic version of a fully automatic weapon Shotguns * Folding/telescoping stock * Protruding pistol grip * Detachable magazine capacity * Fixed magazine capacity greater than 5 rounds Q: Does the law ban all semi-automatic guns? Only semi-automatic guns with multiple assault weapon features are banned (see below). Traditional guns designed for use in hunting and recreational activities are not affected. To alleviate concerns that hunting weapons somehow might be affected, the law provides specific protection to 670 types of hunting rifles and shotguns that are presently being manufactured. The list is not exhaustive and a gun does not have to be on the list to be protected. Again, the only weapons that are prohibited are those with multiple assault weapon features. Q: What does the NRA think about the federal assault weapon ban? A: In 1996, the NRA pushed the US House of Representatives to vote to repeal the ban, but the Senate refused to follow suit. In 2002, the NRA has listed opposition to renewal of the law as one of its criteria on its 2002 election candidate questionnaire. The NRA continues to try to gut the current law and prevent its reauthorization. Q: What have the courts said about the federal assault weapons ban? A: The law has been challenged in court by the extremist gun lobby, led by the National Rifle Association (NRA), which fought against passage of the assault weapons ban in 1994 and continues to oppose it to this day. However, federal courts have rejected these legal challenges. The Circuit Court had rejected Navegar's arguments that the statute exceeded the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce and constituted an unconstitutional bill of attainder. The NRA brought its own lawsuit against the statute in Michigan federal court, but was dismissed by the court for lack of standing to sue. Assault weapon maker Olympic Arms continued the suit, which was dismissed by a federal judge in March of 2000. The appeal, argued by an NRA attorney, was heard by the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in April of 2002. The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, representing itself as well as several public health and law enforcement organizations, filed amicus curiae briefs in both cases supporting the statute. Q: What is the difference between semi-automatic hunting rifles and semi-automatic assault weapons? A: Sporting rifles and assault weapons are two distinct classes of firearms. While semi-automatic hunting rifles are designed to be fired from the shoulder and depend upon the accuracy of a precisely aimed projectile, semi-automatic assault weapons are designed to maximize lethal effects through a rapid rate of fire. Assault weapons are designed to be spray-fired from the hip, and because of their design, a shooter can maintain control of the weapon even while firing many rounds in rapid succession. Opponents of the ban argue that such weapons only "look scary." However, because they were designed for military purposes, assault weapons are equipped with combat hardware, such as silencers, folding stocks and bayonets, which are not found on sporting guns. Assault weapons are also designed for rapid-fire and many come equipped with large ammunition magazines allowing 50 more bullets to be fired without reloading. So there is a good reason why these features on high-powered weapons should frighten the public. Assault weapons are commonly equipped with some or all of the following combat features: * A large-capacity ammunition magazine, enabling the shooter to continuously fire dozens of rounds without reloading. Standard hunting rifles are usually equipped with no more than 3 or 4-shot magazines. A pistol grip also helps the shooter stabilize the firearm during rapid fire and makes it easier to shoot assault rifles one-handed. It also allows the shooter to grasp the barrel area to stabilize the weapon, without incurring serious burns, during rapid fire. The flash suppressor allows the shooter to remain concealed when shooting at night, an advantage in combat but unnecessary for hunting or sporting purposes. In addition, the flash suppressor is useful for providing stability during rapid fire, helping the shooter maintain control of the firearm. Silencers are illegal so there is no legitimate purpose for making it possible to put a silencer on a weapon. Q: What is the difference between an automatic and a semi-automatic weapon? A: An automatic weapon (machine gun) will continue to fire as long as the trigger is depressed (or until the ammunition magazine is emptied). A semi-automatic weapon will fire one round and instantly load the next round with each pull of the trigger. Semi-automatic firearms fire as rapidly as you can twitch your finger. This means that a semi-automatic fires a little more slowly than an automatic, but not much more slowly. When San Jose, California police test-fired an UZI, a 30-round magazine was emptied in slightly less than two seconds on full automatic while the same magazine was emptied in just five seconds on semi-automatic. Ownership of machine guns has been tightly controlled since passage of the National Firearms Act of 1934, and their manufacture for the civilian market was halted in 1986. However, semi-automatic versions of those same guns were still being produced until the federal assault weapons ban was enacted. Q: Why does the gun lobby say that there is no such thing as a semi-automatic assault weapon? A: Playing word games, the NRA/gun lobby often claims that semi-automatic assault weapons don't exist because the term "assault weapons" only means fully automatic weapons (machine guns - see above). Law enforcement groups disagree with the NRA on this, as did Presidents Ronald Reagan, George HW Bush and Bill Clinton, and Congress. Even the gun industry disagrees with the NRA and uses the term "assault weapons" to refer to semi-automatic, military-style weapons. In 1986, Gun Digest, considered by many to be the Bible of the gun industry, first published a book entitled, The Gun Digest Book of Assault Weapons. Here is what they had t... |
| bradycampaign.org Store 5 DAYS UNTIL THE ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN EXPIRES Call your congressional represenatatives! We need to put the pressure on Congress and President Bush to keep these dangerous weapons off our street! TAKE ACTION NOW CALL YOUR HOUSE REPRESENTATIVE: Enter your zip code here to find their contact information: Go Once you get their office on the phone, here's what to say: Urge your House Representative to sponsor HR 3831, the bipartisan bill to renew the Assault Weapons Ban. |