DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> "Assault" weapon ban will end tonight!
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 105, (reverse)
AuthorThread
09/13/2004 12:25:08 PM · #1
The anti-gun nuts are going crazy...

CNN has articles about how crime is gonna go up and about how AK-47s and UZIs are all gonna be legal now... At all time giving the impression that some how these are all automatic weapons..

CNN, ABS & CBS are all opening their talk shows/discussions on the topic with video clips of people fireing automatic weapons...

When will these people pull their heads out of their ass and use some common sense...

I'm glad people in the Goven't are finally standing up for the majority instead of the vocal minority, but I'm also pissed that Bush said he would sign the bill back in if it did make it to his desk. He knew it would never make it there, grow some balls and say you would have vetoed it...
09/13/2004 12:35:03 PM · #2
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...
09/13/2004 12:43:12 PM · #3
Russell, I am not current on this topic and as a result, am confused by your post. What does the lifting of the assult weapons ban allow? Is it just high capacity clips? Are automatic weapons banned otherwise? And aren't AK-47s and UZI automatic, or at least capable of being automatic? Would the automatic version still be banned?
09/13/2004 12:44:20 PM · #4
Do you realize that the only difference between an "assault rifle" and a regular semi-automatic weapon is that it looks similar to a military style weapon?

This is like banning ricers because they look fast, when in fact the superfast cars the try and mock, are already not street legal...

For an example of complete stupidity just read this quote from this morning...

Originally posted by Michael Moore:

The NRA wants to put illegal military style rapid-fire assault weapons, including AK-47s and Uzis, back on our streets. Tell President Bush no way is this going to happen. The Assault Weapons Ban must be renewed. In this day and age, why would anyone want to put these killing machines back on our streets?

Tell President Bush and Congress that Americans want sane gun laws.


god he pisses me off...

Or great news titles like
Originally posted by CNN:

AK-47s, Uzis and TEC-9s legal again tomorrow


Just as a small note, anyone who has ever actualy shot a tec-9 knows its a complete POS gun that people collect because it looks cool/neat. If I had to choose between getting shot at with a stolen TEC-9 and a stolen handgun, I'd choose the TEC-9, the side of a barn probably wouldn't be scared...
09/13/2004 12:51:07 PM · #5
Originally posted by Trinch:

Russell, I am not current on this topic and as a result, am confused by your post. What does the lifting of the assult weapons ban allow? Is it just high capacity clips? Are automatic weapons banned otherwise? And aren't AK-47s and UZI automatic, or at least capable of being automatic? Would the automatic version still be banned?


The lifting or actualy the sunsetting of the "assault weapons ban" (And I put it in quotes because it's a made up word) will allow for the sale of fake AK-47s and UZI's. No they are not needed for hunting, but they are no more dangerous than any other weapon. And if people can collect worthless beanie babies, why not guns?

I'm not sure about the high cap clips... that might be seperate, but anyone can get a hold on pre-ban clips if they want them. I bought 5 of them for my GLOCK about 8 months ago. They are perfectly legal because they were made pre the ban date. It doesn't make me or my gun any more dangerous.

Yes ANY weapon that is automatic will still be illegal...

The "assault weapon" ban was born out of bull-shit double speak and useing fear to spark hatred against these guns...

It's kinda like the "cop-killer" bullets in Cali that had never actualy been used to kill a cop...
09/13/2004 01:00:32 PM · #6
One still can use a musket to kill someone...

So if I shoot 1 round or 100, a kill is a kill. So the ban is a complete waste.
09/13/2004 01:01:23 PM · #7
Some stats:
Los Angeles: A study of drive-by shootings in Los Angeles indicated that out of 583 documented incidents, in only one was an ‘assault weapon’ used. Only 3 percent of the guns recovered by police in Los Angeles in 1988 were classified as ‘assault weapons’.

San Francisco: 2.2 percent of the guns confiscated in 1988 were military style semi-automatic firearms.

Oakland: 4.3 percent of the guns recovered by police in Oakland between 1985-1990 were of the ‘assault weapon’ category, while ‘assault weapons’ involved in gun-related homicides in that city amounted to 3.7 percent in 1991.

San Diego: Only 0.3 percent of the guns recovered by police in San Diego between 1988-1990 were classified as ‘assault weapons’.

California: In California, just over 3 percent of the guns recovered from homicides, aggravated assaults and drug dealers in 1990 were ‘assault weapons’.
09/13/2004 01:02:20 PM · #8
Originally posted by Russell2566:

And if people can collect worthless beanie babies, why not guns?

I've had a quick hunt around, but I couldn't come up with any statistics on the number of accidental deaths caused by beanie babies.

Not counting the intentional deaths, of course.
09/13/2004 01:03:22 PM · #9
Originally posted by giega:

So if I shoot 1 round or 100, a kill is a kill. So the ban is a complete waste.

Well, apart from that fact that it's a lot harder to kill a dozen people with a musket. They'd probably grab you before you'd finished emptying your powder bag down the barrel.
09/13/2004 01:05:11 PM · #10
Originally posted by ganders:

Originally posted by giega:

So if I shoot 1 round or 100, a kill is a kill. So the ban is a complete waste.

Well, apart from that fact that it's a lot harder to kill a dozen people with a musket. They'd probably grab you before you'd finished emptying your powder bag down the barrel.


Nah, It would be 20 of us :-D
09/13/2004 01:06:55 PM · #11
Originally posted by ganders:

Originally posted by Russell2566:

And if people can collect worthless beanie babies, why not guns?

I've had a quick hunt around, but I couldn't come up with any statistics on the number of accidental deaths caused by beanie babies.

Not counting the intentional deaths, of course.


Well how about swimming pools... You don't NEED those. Thousands of more people die in pools than by accidental shootings. And don't get me started on statitics of gun related deaths. Having a degree in Criminal Justice, a soon to be bride with a masters in it and in the field of federal law enforcement & 15 years of studying the subject, I know oh to well the flaws and hidden adjendas in the statics used by the likes of the news media and Bowling for Columnbine.

EDIT:

BTW: with about 10 minutes on Google I found a shit load of baby deaths related to choking on or swollowing parts of beanie babies. So far my count is that more babies die from beanie babies than do guns... Of course I'm only talking 5 and under...

Message edited by author 2004-09-13 13:09:50.
09/13/2004 01:17:36 PM · #12
If assault weapons are outlawed only outlaws will kill their children accidentally with their Ak-47 with a 100 round banana clip.

Message edited by author 2004-09-13 13:18:03.
09/13/2004 01:18:29 PM · #13
Oh well, I didn't realise I was talking to someone with a degree in Criminal Justice.

I stand corrected; everything you say must be true and I'm an asshat for suggesting another opinion or that guns were somehow intrinsically dangerous.

:-)
09/13/2004 01:22:44 PM · #14
Originally posted by ganders:

Oh well, I didn't realise I was talking to someone with a degree in Criminal Justice.

I stand corrected; everything you say must be true and I'm an asshat for suggesting another opinion or that guns were somehow intrinsically dangerous.

:-)


Basically what I'm saying is that I've studied this for a very long time, and I really do know what I'm talking about...

I'm sure you giving photography advise if you had ZERO in the line of credentials or credible experience/work, would be recieved well by other members here who did...
09/13/2004 01:25:50 PM · #15
Reading this makes me kinda glad i live in England :)
Guns Suck
09/15/2004 11:12:56 AM · #16
Originally posted by marbo:

Reading this makes me kinda glad i live in England :)
Guns Suck


Same here. What the hell are you people on!! YOU DON'T NEED THEM.

Its like these guys who have their 'gun collection' cause they like to go shoot some animals or bottles in their yard. You really need a room full of guns... really?

I think it's something you have to be American to understand.
09/15/2004 11:16:35 AM · #17
People that REALLY WANT & MUST HAVE a semi-automatic or fully automatic weapon, should have the balls to join the military -- where they'll have access to all sorts of pretty guns.
09/15/2004 11:21:34 AM · #18
Originally posted by bdobe:

People that REALLY WANT & MUST HAVE a semi-automatic or fully automatic weapon, should have the balls to join the military -- where they'll have access to all sorts of pretty guns.


Good call. Maybe they might see someone get shot and realise they're not quite so fun anymore.
09/15/2004 11:37:08 AM · #19
There is nothing I can do to sway how you feel about guns... But that doesn't mean you should be able to force your opinions on me...

Also, don't forget YOU are in the minority, NOT me...
09/15/2004 11:46:05 AM · #20
Where am i in the minority exactly? In the UK?? In Europe?? Don't think so mate (didn't a US public opinion poll show that more supported the ban than not anyway??). And is that really a valid point? Who cares if more people want guns than don't? I'd say the same to everyone. Makes sense to me that the less needless killing tools are around the better.
09/15/2004 11:49:01 AM · #21
As much as it pains me - not much really, but some :D, I agree with Russell.

What the "Assault Weapons Ban" banned, was not assault weapons, but guns that LOOKED like assault weapons.

Real assault weapons can be fired like machine guns, ie FULLY automatic. Regular citizens could never buy guns like these - we could only buy SEMI automatic guns. This means you have to pull the trigger again and again for every round to fire.

So, the Ban, which just expired, only banned the semiautomatic guns which looked like the real McCoy, but could not fire bullets like the real McCoy.

HOWEVER, to be fair, there is another side to the story.

1) I think - might be wrong - that this is the same piece of legislation that outlawed the large clip sizes for pistols and rifles.

Now, while you can pick these up on the private market, they are expensive. And, NOT having them does make it a bit safer for police. Cause that is what we are really talking about here, folks. Larger clips mean you can shoot more shots without reloading. Smaller clips = safer for cops.

2) Semiautomatic "assault" weapons can be modified into real automatic assault weapons without much problem. The modifying parts, if needed for certain models, will now become legal, if I understand the whole deal correctly.

3) They are called "assault" weapons because they they are small, made to balance well with large clips, can be hidden under clothes easily, they maneuver easily. These attributes make them really useful for drive-by shootings and killing cops.

Your basic Weatherby .270 with 3-9 scope definitely does NOT do the job so well.

Evidently, the ban was succesful in removing assault weapons from criminal hands, according to some stats I heard on a (liberal) radio station.

Supposedly, cops are NOT happy the ban is over, and are fearful, at least in big cities.

I don't know - I thought that the ban was specific in the models it covered, and manufacturers simply changed the guns slightly to get around the law?

To me, the real issue is that everything is hunk-dory as long as the criminals are not spraying bullets around. And to me, the best way to eliminate that, is not to ban guns, but to legalize drugs. Voila - 95% of your crime just disappears.

Message edited by author 2004-09-15 11:49:30.
09/15/2004 11:54:17 AM · #22
Originally posted by Russell2566:

There is nothing I can do to sway how you feel about guns... But that doesn't mean you should be able to force your opinions on me...

Also, don't forget YOU are in the minority, NOT me...


I'll presume that this is partly addressed to me, so I'll respond. Having served in the military, I've shot small fire arms, m-16s, .50 cals, saws, and other more powerful weapons... I don't have a problem with guns. What I have a problem with is people getting access to guns that shouldn't have access to them. Our police forces support the band, that should count for a lot. Now, having served and having a clear understanding of the damage that such weapons can cause, I think that their use should be limited to the military; therefore, if any body absolutely want's to pretend that they're Rambo, buy all means... join the military and play Rambo all you want. You might even get the chance to use one of those weapons for their intended purpose: to kill another human and tear them to pieces. After seeing that, I don't think that shooting a semi at cut out targets in the backwoods will give you the same rush.
09/15/2004 12:16:14 PM · #23
Originally posted by gingerbaker:

I think - might be wrong - that this is the same piece of legislation that outlawed the large clip sizes for pistols and rifles.


I believe you might be right, BUT, almost all shootings invlove less than 5 bullets and I think almost all shootings of cops invlove an average of 3. Right now the max magazine (and it's mag not clip) size is 10. Making it legal for me to carry 16 (a wopping 6 more) doesn't change anything. It's just another fear tool...

Originally posted by gingerbaker:

Smaller clips = safer for cops.

I can shoot a 10 round clip reload and shoot another 10 round clips in about 10 seconds with accuracy, also read above.

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".

Unlike the movies, bad guys don't have automatic weapons, and when they do they are almost always illegally imported; and guess what, no gun laws are going to stop that.

Originally posted by gingerbaker:

They are called "assault" weapons because they they are small, made to balance well with large clips, can be hidden under clothes easily, they maneuver easily. These attributes make them really useful for drive-by shootings and killing cops.


Your definition is wrong and "assault weapons" are not used in drive bys preferably. ALMOST ALL drive by shootings are with pistols and shotguns, which are legal. ALMOST all guns used in drive bys are stolen anyway, so making guns illegal to buy won't stop that either...

Originally posted by gingerbaker:

Evidently, the ban was succesful in removing assault weapons from criminal hands, according to some stats I heard on a (liberal) radio station.

"assult weapons" are not commonly used by criminals, they are NOT choice weapons... Some guns like the TEK-9 were common only in the movies, you only think they are used alot...

Originally posted by gingerbaker:

Supposedly, cops are NOT happy the ban is over, and are fearful, at least in big cities.

THIS IS A HUGE MISNOMBER (sp?)... I have several family members that cops, several friends who are cop and I talk on a few chat boards where MANY members are cops (ie GlockTalk). Cops are not scared, cops are not working in fear... A GREAT majority of cops support gun ownership by civilians...
09/15/2004 12:28:40 PM · #24
I just found this, this is from Sand Diago Gov, not a private citizen or group with an agenda... These were released March 2004 for the precious year 2003!

Semi-automatic handgun 37%
Handgun 25%
Knife or cutting instrument 13%
Shotgun 7%
Personal (hands, feet etc.) 7%
Rifle 3%
Semi-automatic rifle 3%
Other weapon 3%
Gun, type unknown 2%
Unknown 0%
Handgun, type unknown 0%
Long gun, type unknown 0%
Other device (rope, car, etc.) 0%
09/15/2004 12:36:27 PM · #25
Originally posted by Russell2566:

Your definition is wrong and "assault weapons" are not used in drive bys preferably. ALMOST ALL drive by shootings are with pistols and shotguns, which are legal. ALMOST all guns used in drive bys are stolen anyway, so making guns illegal to buy won't stop that either...

Hang on a minute, if those guns were stolen they were presumably stolen from legal holders of them, right? So making them illegal WOULD in fact stop people from stealing them from their rightful owners, therefore reducing the total pool of guns available for people to kill other people with, no?

From your own figures, if we assume that a total gun ban only manages to remove half of gun deaths that still represents a 38% reduction in the bodycount. Still, if you guys have a psychopathic desire to run around the streets clutching your deadly toys, it's your country /shrug
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 07/23/2021 11:22:40 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2021 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 07/23/2021 11:22:40 AM EDT.