Proof That Gun Control and Gun Bans Work

[Fly Navy]

Good lord, my head is going to explode.

DEFINITIONS (I don't give a crap what Webster says, this is what the gun world says)

Assault Rifle - Select-fire rifle chambered in an intermediate cartridge designed for battle. Select-fire means you can switch between a semi-automatic mode and a burst and/or fully automatic mode of firing on the fire-control. Ala the M-16, AK-47, etc.

Assault Weapon - A term created by the Clinton administration describing semi-automatic (i.e. one trigger pull = one bullet fired) firearms with certain evil (their term, not mine) features. These features include pistol grips, detachable magazines, flash suppressors, and so on. They were banned from new production to civilians for 10 years until recently. Some states still have them banned. The actual function difference between one that was legal during the ban (2 or less evil features) and one that wasn't is NOTHING. Same damn rifle, just cosmetically different.

Ryouki, I like you, but that's the dumbest thing you've said in a while. Everything is optional about a car. You have no Constitutional right to a vehicle. You do have one for a firearm. Whether it was "made to be lethal" or not. Which by the way is completely subjective. Did you know the AR-15 (big bad evil rifle that looks like an M-16 for those not in the know) is THE most popular rifle for shooting matches? That's precision shooting... not killing people. Not sure if that's the Hawaii in you talking... not the most gun-friendly state.

titoj, I know you mean well, but that's a ridiculous statement. I'm not harping on you, because you seem ignorant. Please continue asking questions so that we may answer them for you. It seems you are confusing actual M-16s (assault rifles) for the semi-automatic AR-15 (just a regular semi-auto rifle). The news services and anti-gunners like to make them look as similar as possible. On the outside they are the same. Not on the inside. The M-16 shoots full-auto or burst, depending on the variant. By the way, machine guns are legal to own for civilians. It's just a pain in the a$$ to get them... and you need to be rich... they're expensive. As for limiting the production to the military (which is a convoluted statement due to mis-interpreted definitions), well, most criminals aren't getting their stuff legally. THere IS a black market. It's huge in Europe and it does exist here too.

I own these two (and many more). What have they done to hurt anyone? I'm a law abiding citizen. I bought the top one (AR-15) before I was commissioned. Why punish the innocent for what the criminals have done?

 

[nittany03]

Could one not make the argument that if assault weapons were made for and shipped to only the armed forces, there would be a smaller likelihood of them ending up on the streets? It's tough to get your hands on the supply when they're locked up in an armory..

One could make that argument . . . if one would like to support it with statistics saying that a preponderance of crimes are committed with so-called "assault weapons," and that this would reduce the number of crimes committed. Until then, one is making arguments based on emotion and imagination about what one thinks the world is like, rather than facts.

 

[RevnR6]

I just want to point out that in stats 101 they teach you that when collecting stats like this between countries, you must also consider the culture and backgroud of the people and stats. For instance, there are more "inner cities" here than Australia or U.K. If you compare murder rates in towns that are very similar to each other from US and AUS then you will find the stats are comparable.

 

[handjive]

Where did all the common sense go?

Isn't there some statistic out there that most crimes that are committed with a gun involve illegal guns anyways...?

This is most surely the case. My view is that prohibiting the sale of firearms will have little to no effect on gun crime in the U.S. since very few criminals purchase guns legally.

Having said that, I think crimes committed with firearms should have significantly longer and mandatory (enforced) punishments. The problem is that the pro-gun lobby and the anti-gun groups spend all of their time at each other's throats instead of working towards laws and regs that would help us all.

I think every law abiding citizen should be able to own a firearm, but why do we insist that drivers pass a test and carry a license to operate a car, but do not demand the same for "operators" of lethal weapons. If we were required to have a license to possess a firearm, it would assist in my idea of strict enforcement of illegal gun use. You used a gun in a crime AND don't have a license? Triple whammy!

Unfortunately, the anti-gunners won't rest at anything short of a complete ban of anything with gun powder, and the NRA (of which I no longer support) sees ANY concession as one step closer to confiscation of firearms. So in the end we have two whiney babies in each corner and we all suffer because of it.

 

[titoj]

One could make that argument . . . if one would like to support it with statistics saying that a preponderance of crimes are committed with so-called "assault weapons," and that this would reduce the number of crimes committed. Until then, one is making arguments based on emotion and imagination about what one thinks the world is like, rather than facts.

Point taken. My argument wasn't really based on emotion or imagination. Nor was I trying to claim a fact. Though I don't have statistics, intuition does tell me that lower production would mean lower supply on the street (over the long run, as per microeconomics). Furthermore, placing most - if not all - of the production run in the hands of the armed forces would be an additional limiting factor. That was my hypothetical argument. It was more economic than realistic, but most ideas (both good and bad) start out that way.

 

[Fly Navy]

Having said that, I think crimes committed with firearms should have significantly longer and mandatory (enforced) punishments.

Virginia does this with great effect. And they're a "free state" for guns.

The problem is that the pro-gun lobby and the anti-gun groups spend all of their time at each other's throats instead of working towards laws and regs that would help us all.

We have enough gun laws on the books that are absolutely pointless or go unenforced. Maybe if the government actually enforced its laws something would work. Let's reform what we got... not add more.

If we were required to have a license to possess a firearm, it would assist in my idea of strict enforcement of illegal gun use. You used a gun in a crime AND don't have a license? Triple whammy!

Licensing, once again, punishes the law abiding. Criminals aren't going to get licensed. All you're doing is infringing on the rights of those who have done nothing unlawful. And once again, please stop using the car analogy. [highlight]You have absolutely no right to own and drive a car.[/highlight]

Unfortunately, the anti-gunners won't rest at anything short of a complete ban of anything with gun powder

Glad to see someone who has seen the writing on the wall.

and the NRA (of which I no longer support) sees ANY concession as one step closer to confiscation of firearms. So in the end we have two whiney babies in each corner and we all suffer because of it.

That's because that's what the anti-gunners are aiming for, as you pointed out. Compromise is what got us our bad gun laws in the past. Compromise is what will get guns banned.

 

[titoj]

You're a "sucker" ??? Well then, I'm not even going to try to persuade you --- that's the beauty of the way this country is suppose to function --- it's your choice. I choose to own/shoot/pack/collect/train/protect/train others --- you choose not. La-la-la-la-life goes on ......

When your house is being broken into, give me a call and I'll come help you with my semi-auto firearm (not "assault weapon" --- get away from the big city media mindset and do a little research on your own). And here I just gave you + "rep" points on another thread ... *sniff* ... because I "chose" to ..... (AW smile lamp is still lit ... )

I appreciate the rep points, even more so because you carry an awful lot of clout around here - with good reason. That being said, I prefaced my question with the caveat that I prefer civil, intelligent discussion because I wasn't trying to start a flamewar. I've been looking for real, rational answers to the issue of assault weapons' legality - and forgive me for not being up the terminology, I don't claim to speak intelligently about things I don't know.

I also didn't say anything about handguns, rifles or shotguns, which ought to be enough to protect me when my house is broken into. You can shoot/pack/protect/train with those too. I was curious as to why people think some of the more heavy-duty guns are necessary. And I ask you all because, when it comes down to it, you're pretty much the segment of society that I trust to own such guns, if anyone has to.

 

[Fly Navy]

I also didn't say anything about handguns, rifles or shotguns, which ought to be enough to protect me when my house is broken into. You can shoot/pack/protect/train with those too. I was curious as to why people think some of the more heavy-duty guns are necessary. And I ask you all because, when it comes down to it, you're pretty much the segment of society that I trust to own such guns, if anyone has to.

Why is an AR-15, AK-47 copy, FN FAL, etc any different than a Browning BAR (not the WWII one, the hunting rifle one)? I don't think you're very familiar with these firearms. They are merely semi-automatic rifles that LOOK like their military counterpart.

 

[gregsivers]

Why do people need huge trucks when small ones work just fine? Cause they want them. If you're not going to go out and shoot up the town and rob a bank, which the people who buy guns legally are not going to do, you should be able to own whatever gun you want. And as Fly has said numerous times in this thread, its our right to own guns.

 

[eddie]

And as Fly has said numerous times in this thread, its our right to own guns.

This is the core of the issue. Now, I want to bring up some points for personal clarification.

1) The First Amendment grants us all sorts of stuff that the government can take away/limit if we do something bad (like commit a crime).

2) The Second Amendment grants us the right to a gun.

3) The government can deny your First Amendmentnt (to an extent), yes? If you commit a crime with a firearm, would it be out of character to restrict your Second Amendment and take your firearm?

4)All this only applies to criminals. So the way I see it, the liscensing of a firearm should only worry criminals. I do not see how this punishes the law-abiding gun-owner.

5)Problems with #4 arise if the government is corrupt. A twisted government may use liscenses to identify potential threats to their power and then restrict said individuals freedoms.

6)Here is my dilemma: I would like to believe that the liscensing of firearms prevents criminals from acquiring them through legal means. However, liscensing of firearms could (in extreme hypothetical circumstances noneheless) ultimately restrict our rights. What do we do? I don't know? I don't have a bachelors degree in anything, and therefore know nothing.

Please feel free to punch holes in any and all of this... I just wanna learn.

 

[Sub-moa]

Don't Tread on Me

Gentlemen, some of you are dancing around the central point of the debate, but have yet to hit it. If you read the US Constitution, you will find that nine of the first ten amendments are directed at the individual being protected from actions taken by the "GOVERNMENT". The writers had recently finished a war with an oppressive government that, among other things, had tried using gun control to subdue them.

The Second Amendment says; "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The capital A on Arms is theirs, not mine. "Shall not be infringed,” means what it says. They were talking about the ability of the individual to possess ANY arms necessary to have equality with the arms of the Government in order to defend themselves against an oppressive government. In those days, swords, rifles, and cannons. Today, M-16's, RPG's, and tanks.

The elitists in our government did and end run around the Constitutional requirement of a 2/3 majority in the Senate for treaties when they passed NAFTA. They are trying to do it again with CAFTA, which will dissolve the north and south borders of the USA. (That point was openly debated on the CNN coverage of the Presidents proposal to congress two days ago.) We may very well be facing drug-running Mexican military personnel within our own country in the near future! They are doing it just south of the border right now. Do a little research and you will find that about 30 US citizens have been kidnapped in northern Mexico in the last two months. Guess what we will need to fight the Mexican Military. Time to buy that "Assault Rifle".

 

[Fly Navy]

1) The First Amendment grants us all sorts of stuff that the government can take away/limit if we do something bad (like commit a crime).

It doesn't grant us the right. It's a God given right. It enumerates the right so that the government can not ultimately control it. God given rights are not granted by governments, they are taken away. This is a lesson throughout all of history. If you don't believe in a god... then natural rights.

2) The Second Amendment grants us the right to a gun.

Yes, in a modern day such as today, Arms means firearms.

3) The government can deny your First Amendmentnt (to an extent), yes? If you commit a crime with a firearm, would it be out of character to restrict your Second Amendment and take your firearm?

We already do that. Felons and violent misdemeanors can not purchase or own firearms.

4)All this only applies to criminals. So the way I see it, the liscensing of a firearm should only worry criminals. I do not see how this punishes the law-abiding gun-owner.

Once again, please tell me how licensing does anything more than punish the innocent? Licensing doesn't worry criminals because they're not going to gun stores and buying guns. Is this a concept that is so hard to understand? Firearms purchased legally have something like a 1% chance of being used in a crime. You tell me why there needs to be licensing? How about I license your right to speak. Your right to write. Your right to even address me?

5)Problems with #4 arise if the government is corrupt. A twisted government may use liscenses to identify potential threats to their power and then restrict said individuals freedoms.

All governments have an inherent corruption. It's not cynisism, it's an entity run by people... people will invoke corruption at some point. And you are correct, gun control is all about control and power. Ever notice how Diane Fienstein of CA wants to ban all guns, but she herself has armed body guards and bought a rifle for her son? It's about power. They're the elite.

6)Here is my dilemma: I would like to believe that the liscensing of firearms prevents criminals from acquiring them through legal means. However, liscensing of firearms could (in extreme hypothetical circumstances noneheless) ultimately restrict our rights. What do we do? I don't know? I don't have a bachelors degree in anything, and therefore know nothing.

You would like to believe? Use your head bro. You aren't a criminal until you commit a criminal act, so licensing won't stop any people thinking of doing wrong if they have a clean record. Criminals already can't own firearms. So tell me, ONCE AGAIN, what licensing will do for you?

Please feel free to punch holes in any and all of this... I just wanna learn.

Holes punched. M1 Garand style

 

[Fly Navy]

We may very well be facing drug-running Mexican military personnel within our own country in the near future! They are doing it just south of the border right now. Do a little research and you will find that about 30 US citizens have been kidnapped in northern Mexico in the last two months.

This is a no ****ter. There have been repeat incidents of corrupt Mexican police and military crossing our border and firing on land owners and Border Patrol doing drug runs. It doesn't get publicity. Why? Because it would cost everyone votes if we actually did something about the border. There is a huge investment in the Hispanic vote, and many of them have no desire to see the border controlled.

 

[eddie]

It enumerates the right so that the government can not ultimately control it. God given rights are not granted by governments, they are taken away.

Thank you for reminding me; my bad.

How about I license your right to speak. Your right to write. Your right to even address me?

Protesting liscenses exist, do they not? Nobody gets a liscense to write a letter or make a post here, and nobody liscenses a pocket knife. But organized protests and firearms, I believe, are registered. Maybe the analogy is poor; it does apply to both the First and Second.

Licensing doesn't worry criminals because they're not going to gun stores and buying guns. Is this a concept that is so hard to understand?

Yes, it is hard to understand. How do you keep a criminal from buying legal guns if legal ones are not liscensed (and therefore force them to buy illegal ones)? Aren't liscenses what ensure that most guns are "legal" and force criminals to use illegal guns, thereby protecting most owners? Also (and this is where it gets sticky and potential corruption comes in; i.e. profiling/suspecting because someone owns a gun), if someone legally buys a gun, and is suspected suspected of a crime and needs to be brought in, wouldn't it be nice for the cops to know what they might be up against if said party became hostile (something they would know through liscensing?)?

I'm not fighting you; I promise! You are exactly right; I don't understand, and am terribly ignorant (read: growing up in Southern California with anti-gun family... and silently not agreeing...).

Holes punched. M1 Garand style

You've got two more rounds; go to work.

 

[A4sForever]

.........I don't understand, and am terribly ignorant (read: growing up in Southern California with anti-gun family

Then eddie .... for your mental and physical health and well-being:

RUN, RUN, RUN FOR YOUR LIFE!!! Before the worms get you ..... I'm a proud refugee and escapee from an earlier SoCAL environment. You're not gonna' get any "smarter" in that fuzzy-think place .... AW smile lamp still lit because we care ....