The Big Gun Control Rant

Remove all ads!

I still struggle to understand why Americans want guns so much.

As Silvery says, in England and New Zealand, almost nobody has a gun, and we get by fine. Seriously, the list of things you need a gun for is pretty short.

 

I'll disagree with Snook in that I think pushing to the ideological extreme is both a tactic (as it means any compromises made may be easier on your side) and a self-generating excuse. By the latter I means that once they start on that path to the extreme they have a harder time leaving it as it would mean facing that some things said/promoted have been questionable. Thus they feel forced support more questionable positions as a way to avoid taking responsibility.

There are also a wide range of people in the middle of both gun and social issues (which were mentioned). Most people wouldn't find background checks to be a bad thing nor registering with the police in relation to gun ownership. On that same note many staunch Pro-Life people make an exception if carrying the pregnancy creates a real and likely threat to the life of the mother. And many who support keeping abortion legal have little trouble with requiring parental consent/informing for abortions performed on minors.

 

The same can be said of any polarizing issue. It is the extremes that can never hope to come to an understanding, who control the debate. To use gun control as an example, where would I fall? I have no problem with anyone owning a hand gun and a rifle (or 20 hand guns and 20 rifles for that matter). Does that make me a supporter of the 2nd amendment? But I also think some regulation and restrictions on gun ownership are also reasonable. Does that make me against the 2nd amendment? The answer to both of those questions is "no". I just don't care enough about the issue and consider the people on either extreme to be nutters. I do not own a gun, I have never owned a gun, and I have no intention of even owning a gun. By the same token, I don't have a problem with other people having guns, mostly because everyone I know who owns a gun is responsible with their gun ownership. That said, I take the "better safe than sorry" approach when it comes to reasonable regulations.

 

Well first is that drew just told a bare-faced lie. Bad Drew! you're better than that.
The "assault weapons ban" AKA the "Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994" had absolutely NO provisions dealing with full auto weapons.
It dealt solely with SEMI-AUTOMATIC weapons based on Appearance & Name

Now think about that, they tried to ban something just because of it's name. Hey!, thats how to fix the auto industry, just ban all toyota, bmw, mercedes & honda imports as they are harmful to the american people.
Oh! and all those Fast-looking cars(you know that the drivers are just going to break the law) (do you not see the stupidity of that?)

The National Firearms Act of '34 dealt with full-auto weapons(later amended by the guncontrol act of '68 & again in '86) which imposed a $300 tax on what were(at the time in '34) $10-$100 weapons.
The initial bill was simply a way to make a whole new class of criminals for the recently idled members of the justice dept to go after(due to the repeal of the prohibition of alcohol). Honestly, who is going to pay a $300 tax on a $20 weapon?
The '68 act required registration & even included a grace period of 30 days where they could be registered without paying the tax. However, it also included a provision making it illegal to register one after the grace period.
If you didn't know about it, or were on vacation, or out of the country during this time, POOF! instant criminal, as you are now in possesion of an illegal firearm.
Why do you think that the weapons on the registry are so expensive, because they are a limited supply & speculators have driven up the price just like we have recently seen in the oil market.

No, thats exactly what they do drew, they allow you to shoot at night with only some impairment instead of a LOT of impairment.

If you equip a bayonet, yes, otherwise no.

Actually that isn't the primary use as most are either 3 or 6 position stocks, thus allowing people with different armlengths to properly shoulder the weapon instead of being stuck with one size fits all. Folding stocks make them easier to transport yet without the shoulder support of the stock, your accuracy is impaired.
Staying with the auto industry, how would you like it if you couldn't adjust the drivers seat to suit you?

As others have noted, it's the grenade that causes the problem & 38mm-40mm grenades are hard to make. Most civilian owners make do with the smoke, beanbag or golfball versians that are legal.

Not in semi-autos(which is what the law deals with) they serve a different purpose, providing a sheild from the hot barrel & allowing more attachment points for accessories

As we have already noted barrel shrouds DON't keep the gun from overheating. They also make the barrel profile substantially larger & bulkier, hence harder to conceal, not easier.

As far as more gun laws, we already have over 20,000, why don't we just try to enforce some of the ones we have?

 

Martaug, there's a difference between getting something wrong and lying. You of all people should know that.

Which would make a shooter more dangerous at night, correct?

Which, again, would cause, say, a highschool kid on a rampage to be a bitmore dangerous.

It absolutely isn't the primary purpose, but that doesn't change the fact that you can use it for that purpose. That said, I did just find with my M16, which didn't have a collapsible stock. (The M4 carbine is a different story, but I've never fired one.)

I'm sorry, but I just can't see legalizing grenade launchers. They serve no purpose for hunting prey, and the legal smoke ammunition could be used to make a hasty escape.

Everything I've ever read says differently. In fact, everything I've read states that the argument that the heat shield provides another gripping point (which was, sadly, made in the text of the 1994 ban) is a myth, since placing a hand on the heat shield under continuous fire would cause all that heat to transfer to the shooter's hand. Semi-auto's can fire quite quickly, and it is completely possible to overheat a barrel while firing as quickly as possible while semi-automatic mode.

All that aside, I'm all for renegotiating the assault weapons ban, but dropping it entirely because there's some bad mixed in with the good? That's bad politics.

 

I see everything you have to say, Drew, and it's all fair as far as it goes.

I can see the need for a hunter to have some form of flash suppressor, and I can see the need for a collector to have a bayonet attachment -- I doubt very much even criminals will be attaching bayonets to their weapons anytime soon.

I have to say that I agree with martaug's point about the laws already on the books -- enforce them before getting frisky with new ones.

Owning a gun shouldn't automatically make someone a crook -- a person's behaviour should be the determining factor when it comes to whether he/she is allowed to have a gun. Blanket restrictions that seriously inconvenience law abiding citizens while doing little or nothing to actually prevent crime are crap.

 

Drew, why do you think they make AFAIK every collapsible stock as a 2 or 6 position unit? To allow them to be used at different lengths.

And i informed you of your mistaken quote in a PM & you still decided not to correct it, which is the only reason i posted it here.

As far as the grenade launchers they are either a collectors item or a fun toy for use at the machine-gun shoots.

As for the "assault weapon ban"(which it wasn't) why would we want to renegotiate a law that had already had it's chance to prove it's worth & didn't do a thing.

 

Wow, something that can fire golf balls pretty hard is a fun toy? Who'd have thought it? Here's us guys in the rest of the world thinking that that could be dangerous. How silly are we?

Anyway...what's the damned point of having guns? Yeah some people use them for hunting but unless you're a farmer or a ranger (don't you Americans have those in big parks?) why do you need to go hunting?
If you want to use guns for target practice then leave them at your gun club, their security is going to be better than yours anyway.
Why would you need a gun to defend your home? The risk of there being a gun in a house is more likely to make a criminal carry a gun. There are plenty of things you can use as a weapon already in your home!

I'm going to be a little offensive now but please remember that I still love you all...
America always seems to be like the kid at school who says that his dad's bigger than your dad. American burgers are bigger, so are their cars. Is this now becoming the case with guns? 'HAH! My gun's bigger than yours!' 'Well, I've got more guns than you!'

Just stop being silly and put them away. You guys can't even play rugby without strapping on a couple of mattresses and a helmet so there's no way you should be allowed to play with guns!

 

No ****. It can also be used to make the weapon easier to store and easier to transport inconspicuously. The simple fact that collapsible stocks aren't explicitly designed to make a weapon easier to transport inconspicuously doesn't change the fact that they do exactly that. That said, collapsible stocks on their own aren't illegal. I'm more concerned about grenade launchers or the heat shields, flash suppressors, and larger magazine capacities covered by the ban, especially when features like that are coupled the fact that converting a semi-automatic weapon to fully-automatic - while very, very illegal - isn't terribly difficult to do.

And I thought I made it crystal clear that I won't be reading or responding to your PM's. You have lost that courtesy from me, and will not be getting it back.

Are you sure you want to debate this point? Several studies have been conducted on the effects of the ban. Many concluded that the ban was a success, while many others proved to be inconclusive. No study of which I am aware found conclusively that the ban didn't work, but several studies did conclusively find that it did. I'll not argue that the ban was absolutely a success (because, on balance, the studies conducted were mostly inconclusive), but if you wish to argue that the ban was a failure or that it didn't work, you're going to have to spend some time proving it.

 

Way to go, Silvery!

 

Ouch.

 

Well, mine is... or, at least was when I shot the guns on the battleship.

I don't own any of these little pea shooters everyone is arguing about. Assault weapons? Bah! Give me a gun with a 100 yard kill radius and 4,000 yard damage radius.

 

Well, I knew that the village people had guns, I just didn't know that they were that big!

Yes, that was a joke, don't start jumping on me. I have an offensive sense of humour, if you don't like you can just choke on it

 

Drew: When the hell did I ever defend such weapons in hte hands of the citizens? If you're that bad a shot that you need to put that many bullets in the air to drop something your hunting, then you should probably stick to getting your meat in the supermarket...

First, there should be laws in place requiring safe storage of firearms to keep them away from curious children. Problem 1 solved. Second, isn't that why there is some testing on would be gun owners? I know that in Canada there are MANDATORY safety courses and testing before you can even get the permit to get or own a firearm. I'm not against putting some controls in place, but I do oppose banning them outright.

The difference is intent. If someone gets a gun with intent to kill someone (as opposed to an animal for example), or to use it to commit another crime, then they no longer count as law abiding citizens.

 

Can't be born a felon?!?! have you SEEN some of the types you get in state housing? They're an advert for abortion if ever I saw one

 

AS it should be, but for those reasons, I don't want guns taken away from the people.

Because you can't buy moose meat in a store. You also can't find deer or bear meat in a store either. Wild meat is actually quite healthy because it has less fat on it.

 

Moose, Deer and Bear?? WTF??? You people are weirder than I realised!

 

You haven't been paying enough attention.

(I'm speaking generally here, not just regarding this thread.)

 

Well, most of the Village People did not know the right targets to aim for. There was a bumber sticker we sold on the battleships: Battleship Sailors Do It With Sixteen Inches. (and, no, that's not what it means -- get your mind out of the gutter)

In America the term is "Poster Child For Abortion." I've known a few.

Who cares about healthy Gnarff -- nothing beats a good ribeye. I'm not a fan of the gamey flavor you get from wild meat. Although my Brother-in-Law just got an eleven pointer today, so I guess we'll be getting some deer sausage and jerkey.

 

First you say that the reason for 3 or 6 position collapsible stocks isn't for adjustable draw lengths, however, after the stupidity of that argument is brought up you change to this :

So c'mon drew, which is it?

Nope, sorry drew but weapons that can be "readily converted" are already banned - U.S. Code Title 26, subtitle E, chapter 53, subchapter B, part 1, section 5845

Also none of the weapons on the banned list can be readily converted - BATF test as reported in the (ultra-liberal)New York Times April 3rd, 1989

As far as the larger capacity magazines, whats the big deal?
The most powerful rounds are ALWAYS going to be in revolvers(.500 S+W anyone?) & crooks don't shoot that much anyway.
The average number of rounds fired by crooks is very close, no matter if they are armed with pistols vs semi-autos(2.04 VS 2.53) - Michael Mcgonigal, John Cole, William Schwab, Donald Kauder, Michael Rotondo, Peter Angood, "Urban firearm deaths: A 5 year perspective", Journal of trauma 1993

Most crooks don't care about hi-cap mags just cops & honest citizens.

Really drew? You may need to do some more reading.
"We cannot credit the ban with ANY of the nation's recent drop in gun violence" - "An Update Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on gun markets & gun violence, 1993-2003", National Institue of Justice, june 2004

"The ban has failed to reduce the average number of victims per gun murder incident or multiple gunshot wound victims"
"The public safety benefits of the 1994 ban have not yet been demonstrated"
"The ban triggered speculative price increases & ramped up production of the to be banned models" All 3 quotes are from "Impacts of the 1994 Assault weapons ban" National Institue of Justice, 1999

The U.S government "found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of ANY of the firearm laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes" - CDC, Task force on Community Preventive Services. "First Reports Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Violence: Firearm Laws", oct 3 2003 (This was a systematic review of 51 studies that evaluated the effects of selected firearm laws on violence)

None of the attackers interviewed were "hindered by any law- federal, state or local- that has been established to prevent gun ownership. They just laughed at gun laws" - U.S. Deptartment of Justice, "Violent Encounters: A Study of Felonious Assaults on our Nations Law Enforcewment Officers" August 2006

So even the governments own studies prove that gun laws don't work because crooks don't mind breaking them!
Wow! The government needed a study to know that?