Republicans Will Not Extend 10-year ban on private use of assault weapons.

Instead of a direct copy of an M-16, you buy a slightly modified copy and spend $50 on the other parts. Or intead of a shotgun with a pistol grip, you buy a normal shotgun and a pistol grip separately. The law was badly written if the actual intent was to keep people from having these weapons. I suspect the actual intent was "votes," however.

How about we keep the First Ammendment, but get rid of the parts of it that cause us problems? OK? Good. OK, let's start with the internet. All that nasty kiddie porn and hate group stuff. Got your modem disconnected? Fantastic. Now, unplug your fax machines, telephones, and copy machines, because, as we all know, our founding fathers did not grant us freedom of speech with all of THAT in mind. Surely, if they'd known of the havoc that international communication has wrought, they'd have made a few, err, 'conditions,' don't you think? Me too.

xpost- ah, the joys of a gun control argument - completely irrational people on either side.

In case anyone thinks otherwise, I'm all for reasonable and useful gun-control regulations. I just don't like the assault-ban, as it didn't accomplish anything.

anyway i agree that gun control arguments are pointless.

Still, rhetoric aside, exactly what difference does it make if I own a .22 or an uzi? If I wanted to kill you, I'd do it with a slingshot if I had to.

yeah i figured it was either you or don weiner playing devil's advocate against ilx's knee-jerk liberalism.

You know that it is possible to view a poster's username at the bottom of their posts, right?

Knee jerk liberalism? Well put. Devil's advocate? Not this time. I happen to be a lifetime member of the NRA.

Phase One: The Post is Posted

Please don't get me started.
How about we keep the First Ammendment, but get rid of the parts of it that cause us problems? OK? Good. OK, let's start with the internet. All that nasty kiddie porn and hate group stuff. Got your modem disconnected? Fantastic. Now, unplug your fax machines, telephones, and copy machines, because, as we all know, our founding fathers did not grant us freedom of speech with all of THAT in mind. Surely, if they'd known of the havoc that international communication has wrought, they'd have made a few, err, 'conditions,' don't you think? Me too.

-- rodeo doh (thomasjefferso...), September 13th, 2004.

Phase Two: I take a stab at guessing from the style of the post.

is that don weiner or roger adultery posting there?
-- latebloomer (posercore24...), September 13th, 2004.

Phase Three: I check the 'show all details' setting, my suspicions confirmed.

roger adultery.
-- latebloomer (posercore24...), September 13th, 2004.

Phase Four:

wow!
-- roger adultery (vlad62...), September 13th, 2004.

Davis predicted the biggest change in his business will be the ability of manufacturers and importers to market higher capacity ammunition magazines — the removable “clip” that holds and feeds bullets through guns.

Under the 1994 ban, the maximum capacity of a magazine was set at 10 rounds. That sent the price of high-capacity magazines through the roof, Davis said, even though magazines manufactured before the ban were protected by a “grandfather” provision and could still be sold.

Now, some gun manufacturers are planning to give away high-capacity magazines as bonuses for buying their weapons. Sales of formerly banned gun accessories, such as flash suppressors and folding stocks, are also expected to take off.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blumert/mob.jpg

Wasn't me.

But the ban was trivial and only useful to the ignorant.

Nevertheless, I've decided I totally support the end of the assault weapons ban. I want people to die because some guns just don't look cool enough.

Ah, nice to see we have Roger's equally irrational counterpart.

(xpost) Hmmm. Well, it's an important enough issue for me. No sense just going on messageboards and complaining if you don't walk the talk, as they say. That's like me asking you if all those WTO protesters were 'overdoing it' - no, they weren't.

Trivial in the sense that it wouldn't stop any kind of attack. Semi-auto weapons were and are still widely available, along with all the parts to modify them into anything you wan

yeah and the current ban is proposed to be extended. trivial to the thousands of cops who oppose it? the trivial differences are important to the people who want cool-looking guns. the legal ones are too dorky.

xpost - see, he doesn't actually deal with the fact that assault-weapons ban didn't prevent the sale and use of cosmetically-altered assault weapons. Just "cops like it" and mumbling something about "cool-looking," which is a sweet little strawman given the content of this thread so far.

This is why you're being irrational. The difference in a pre-ban/post-ban AR-15 makes no difference in the killing power of the weapon.

Awesome.

ask all the major police organizations that support the ban. look at the statistics - the number of crimes involving assault weapons has dropped 2/3 since the effective date of the ban. supposedly, the cosmetic differences are sufficient that criminals are less likely to buy the ones that are legal

Sorry if I'm being dumb, but what's wrong with this? I would like it if cars couldn't go faster than the speed limit - and I have no idea about speed limits in the US, but in the UK I'd like to see 10mph knocked off them.

This is a reasonable restriction to most of the populace, outside of people who are deeply paranoid about the government knowing they own a gun.

xpost - gabbneb, "major police organizations" supporting something doesn't mean it's rational. They're also all about the PR - how would a city respond if its police force came out as "pro-assault weapons"?

http://www.awbansunset.com/effects.html - an admittedly pro-gun site, but referring to the exact report cited by the Brady group (anti-gun):

on certain types of murders that were thought to be more closely associated with the rapid-fire features of assault weapons and other semiautomatics equipped with large capacity magazines. The ban did not produce declines in the average number of victims per incident of gun murder or gun murder victims with multiple wounds." [emphasis added]

"There were several reasons to expect, at best, a modest ban effect on criminal gun injuries and deaths. First, studies before the ban generally found that between less than 1 and 8 percent of gun crimes involved assault weapons, depending on the specific definition and data source used." [emphasis added]

"Murders of police by offenders armed with assault weapons declined from an estimated 16 percent of gun murders of police in 1994 and early 1995 to 0 percent in the latter half of 1995 and early 1996. However, such incidents are sufficiently rare that the available data do not permit a reliable assessment of whether this contributed to a general reduction in gun murders of police."

"Given the limited use of the banned guns and magazines in gun crimes, even the maximum theoretically achievable preventive effect of the ban on outcomes such as the gun murder rate is almost certainly too small to detect statistically..."

It boggles my mind that anyone would argue that people who want to get a rapid-fire weapon are really put off by the lack of bayonet accessory. "Nah, man, I was going to go on a killing spree, but I couldn't get that sweet blade on the end!" The only argument here would be that they really wanted a shotgun with a pistol grip instead of rifle-stock, which is maybe another $100 and an hour at the gun store. (Not to mention that people desirous of pistol-grip pumps probably ain't shopping at Wal-Mart.)

The ban did not produce declines in the average number of victims per incident of gun murder or gun murder victims with multiple wounds.

right, it just produced declines in the number of incidents

"Murders of police by offenders armed with assault weapons declined from an estimated 16 percent of gun murders of police in 1994 and early 1995 to 0 percent in the latter half of 1995 and early 1996. However, such incidents are sufficiently rare that the available data do not permit a reliable assessment of whether this contributed to a general reduction in gun murders of police."

haha

John Lott to thread

Gabbneb, do you realize what those say? "So instead of using an illegal AR-15 they used a legal Desert Eagle."

http://www.louisiana4kerry.org/hunting.JPG

the majority that supports civil unions?

so why are men so much more pro-gun than women, anyway?

FWIW, you can get the government's approval to own a Boeing 767

Although a 767 can do a barrel roll.

http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20040906/i/r2995855762.jpg

There's a significant difference in performance there, Gabbneb.

yeah, a 767 is more lethal

John Lott, big shtar

what if we get rid of the EITC, and just give everyone eligible a Bushmaster?

and don, I have to think - no doubt you'll prove me wrong - that anyone who's not afraid of a semiautomatic assault weapon with a big-ass clip is 1) seriously fronting or 2) completely fucking insane.

like me for even posting to this thread arrrgh

p.s. i think shotguns and rifles are just fine, although i think you should have to pass a test to own one, like a driving test. i've gone on a few quail and dove hunts and it is a hell of a lot of fun, especially if you're with people who know and respect the woods and know how to clean birds properly, otherwise you're just a dipshit with a hard-on

xpost

you rang?

how many private citizens own military aircraft?

I only front for my crew here at ILX bro.

When you have kids, all your fears of them dying magnify greatly. After awhile you start to prioritize your fears so that they don't overwhelm you, or at least pay more attention to the ones you actually have control over. This book, for example, puts a lot of it in perspective. Which is why the millions spent on the assualt weapons ban strikes me as so trivial.

Depends on the kind of aircraft, but the serious shit that could outfly our jocks is probably around 100, although that's just a guess. There are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of military aircraft that can be flown by civilians (and I wonder if we should ever worry about a jock going postal in armed aircraft), and probably thousands of pilots who could get one up if they had the opportunity. But the comparative risk is minute--it's just that the damage is frightening and I'm still extremely surprised that it's even allowable by law.

As you know Gabbneb we had a lot of trouble on 9/11 getting defensive aircraft scrambled and on the scene to even try to chase a 767. I'm assuming our preparedness is much better now, but going after an F-16 would be a challenge, even with an advance flight plan unless those F-16s were being shadowed.

But we're talking about this specific ban and whether or not to extend it in current form. I have problems with laws motivated primarily by getting good press and giving yuppies and suburbanites the impression you're "tough on crime."

We've seen gabbneb's argument - "more people will die!" when the same exact weapons will be on the street and available to any psycho who wants one.

Playing on 'the ghetto' is pretty weak, gabbneb. How many robberies are committed with a 9mm vs. an 'assault weapon'?

but why not just ban handguns and assault weapons completely from civilian use? what benefits are associated with letting civilians own either of those type of guns?

In the case of handguns, self protection.

And before you keep up with those dire ghetto warnings Gabbneb, I was mugged at knifepoint in the ghetto in 1995.

Tracer, I don't view laws as a question of "why should we," but as a "why shouldn't we." If I saw evidence suggesting that banning guns wholesale would be effective, maybe. But the issue is murky - every nation that has taken that step and shown positive results also happens to have done a helluva lot more about poverty and crime in other ways. How are we going to get the millions of guns off our streets? How are you going to stop them from being smuggled across the borders (which isn't as much of a worry in England or Japan).

Gun control smacks of liberal band-aid to me. Rather than striking at the root causes of crime (ie poverty), let's ban guns and feel good about ourselves.

Classic. Glad you were there to know how that shit went down.

xpost: gun smuggling is an exponentially growing problem in England, actually. but nothing close to the US. you don't need me to bust out the country-by-country graph of handgun fatalities per capita. as for poverty being the obstacle to progress on gun control, i don't know what to say really. is arresting people for domestic violence a "band-aid" when we really ought to be improving people's marriages? are the two somehow mutually exclusive? please.

Oh, and I could have (and still can) legally carry a concealed weapon. Though I don't. And didn't. And won't.

It's not about mutual exclusivity, it's about what works. "Banning guns" without focusing on the causes of crime is going to be ineffective. Do people shoot each other because they have guns? Or is violent-crime actually tied to other causes, and guns happen to be the easiest way to do this?

I don't speak for everyone who's been robbed or mugged. Only myself. I am not as tough looking as Gabbneb, that's for sure.

Firearms are used in self defense thousands of times a year in the U.S.

In my situation, the details were such that I'm extremely confident that a firearm would have kept that predator at bay. We'll never know the answer to that, just as we'll never know whether or not the thousands of people who have used firearms to protect themselves could have achieved the same effect without firearms.

To that, what sort of self-protection should we be afforded? Should switchblade knieves be legal? Pepper spray? Should I be able to stab someone in the face with a ballpoint pen in self defense?

cause women don't have the charles-bronson-defending-my-family-with-my-trusty-glock-of-chrome-and-my-nerves-of-steel fantasy.

milo, maybe one should tackle a problem from as many angles as possible.

Cheryl Wheeler, "If It Were Up to Me"

Maybe it's the movies, maybe it's the books
Maybe it's the bullets, maybe it's the real crooks
Maybe it's the drugs, maybe it's the parents
Maybe it's the colors everybody's wearin
Maybe it's the President, maybe it's the last one
Maybe it's the one before that, what he done
Maybe it's the high schools, maybe it's the teachers
Maybe it's the tattooed children in the bleachers
Maybe it's the Bible, maybe it's the lack
Maybe it's the music, maybe it's the crack
Maybe it's the hairdos, maybe it's the TV
Maybe it's the cigarettes, maybe it's the family
Maybe it's the fast food, maybe it's the news
Maybe it's divorce, maybe it's abuse
Maybe it's the lawyers, maybe it's the prisons
Maybe it's the Senators, maybe it's the system
Maybe it's the fathers, maybe it's the sons
Maybe it's the sisters, maybe it's the moms
Maybe it's the radio, maybe it's road rage
Maybe El Nino, or UV rays
Maybe it's the army, maybe it's the liquor
Maybe it's the papers, maybe the militia
Maybe it's the athletes, maybe it's the ads
Maybe it's the sports fans, maybe it's a fad
Maybe it's the magazines, maybe it's the internet
Maybe it's the lottery, maybe it's the immigrants
Maybe it's taxes, big business
Maybe it's the KKK and the skinheads
Maybe it's the communists, maybe it's the Catholics
Maybe it's the hippies, maybe it's the addicts
Maybe it's the art, maybe it's the sex
Maybe it's the homeless, maybe it's the banks
Maybe it's the clearcut, maybe it's the ozone
Maybe it's the chemicals, maybe it's the car phones
Maybe it's the fertilizer, maybe it's the nose rings
Maybe it's the end, but I know one thing.
If it were up to me, I'd take away the guns.

'Cuz, see, my feeling is if you eliminate the cause of people shooting each other, then 'gun control' would be mostly unnecessary

Tracer, it's not about solving america's social problem, that's another strawman you created rather than respond to what I said.

I'm saying that we don't know it would "save a lot of lives." The nations you can point to where it "saves a lot of lives" have done something about the root causes of crime, where we haven't. How many nations have banned guns in situations comparable to the US? There are something like 130 million firearms in the US (maybe more). How are you going to get them? A gun ban is not, ultimately, feasible in the modern US. You might be able to stop new gun sales, but you've still got a firearm for every other man, woman and child in the US. And that pesky Constitution to deal with (the Dubya-loving Supreme Court today may not repeat 1939).

Why wait til then? Why do all the root causes have to be dealt with before their effects? Why not attack both simultaneously?

I didn't think he was when I saw him coming (he was brandishing the knife and his attire wasn't hiding anything unless it was in his sneakers. Again, thousands of Americans use a firearm for self protection every year. Does saving those lives count?

BTW, my kids weren't born back then, and had I killed anyone in self defense, it's generally legal in my state, even over property.

And yeah I'm right about military planes. You can buy MiGs from Russia and other former Soviet states (or clients), but it would be very hard to arm one inside the US. A MiG will run you at least a couple of million, but probably twice that. The guy who got the F-16 probably put $12 million into it.

Gun nuts always are picky about what they call their guns, as if they've been beating off to a Tom Clancy novel or something:

IT'S A RIFLE.

THAT'S WHERE I KEEP MY FIREARMS.

THAT'S A MAGNUM, ACTUALLY.

THAT'S A REALLY NICE PIECE I PICKED UP. FEEL THE BALANCE.

It's really weird.

How many of those thousands actually had their lives being threatened at the moment they fired?

Instead of assuming that you can't possibly be wrong, read up on the subject from a variety of sources and you'll be able to answer it themselves. It's a hard statistic to measure, actually. In fact, it's part of the the NRA conspiracy to make you fall in love with firearms.

Yes. This is why I never said anything advocating that. The root causes, whatever you believe them to be, are in all likely hood never going to be eradicated. Should we just attack the root causes of terrorism and sit idly by until our efforts show some results, which may be many years from now?

Instead of assuming that you can't possibly be wrong, read up on the subject from a variety of sources and you'll be able to answer it themselves.

hahaha you're the one assuming that i'm assuming i can't possibly be wrong. I asked a question, not knowing the answer. But yeah, I have doubts that if those thousands didn't fire their gun, they (and their families) wouldn't have survived.

i got mugged in broad daylight right the fuck on belmont ave in chicago, by a guy with a gun in his waistband. he just started walking beside me, and pulled his shirt up a little bit so i could see the gun, and asked me for my money. all perfectly casually.

-- hstencil (hstenc!...) (webmail), September 13th, 2004 11:40 PM. (hstencil) (later) (link)

er, is that an insult?

i was just referring to a scene where some guy flashes a gun in a parking lot but doesn't hold anyone up or shoot anybody. it seemed appropriate.

(that one's for s1ocki, mon ami canadien)