assault weapon ban again

[steve B]

I've lived and worked in a few areas that weren't great. And I've never been in a situation where a gun would have been of any use.

I'm all for ownership, probably more for it than most. But it's got to be on reasonable grounds. A panicky "I've GOT to protect myself" is exactly the sort of attitude that gets people hurt. Especially family members coming home a bit late or something.
Short of the deranged the last sort of person who should own or use any sort of firearm is someone panicky.
(Btw the panicky totally wrecks your aim)

Seriously, if your neighborhood is that bad you really need to move.

I do think that some limits on who owns what are good. Sadly by my standards a couple commenters here wouldn't make the grade, while others would likely be allowed a very free hand. You decide which group you think I'd put you in........

But outright banning something based purely on cosmetics is just silly. -the actual wording of the now lapsed "assault weapon" ban was almost purely about cosmetics- is only valid if you put it in terms of whether that sort of weapon attracts a larger percentage of people who shouldn't be trusted. (I think it does, just like sports cars attract a larger percentage of people who might just drive faster than others) I don't know of anyone that puts it like that.

No ESD the defenition wasn't " what a assault weapon is classified as a firearm that goes from semi to full auto " Full auto has been very tightly controlled since 1934 and no crimes have been comitted in the US with a legally owned full auto weapon since then. That's right, 0.

When you buy an "AK-47" all you get is a lookalike. And a pretty poor one at that. (I've handled but not shot 3 real ones and one copy. The copy was worse than the one made in Bulgaria.)

The flip side for me is that any piece of hardware is just that, a chunk of metal and plastic and maybe some other stuff.

If my contractor builds my porch wrong I don't blame the hammer. (previous weapon of choice of the nut in NY)
If a card is trimmed I don't blame the scissors.
If someone gets shot I don't blame the gun. (Except in the actually unusual circumstance of one that's defective- It happens, not commonly, but it happens.)

Steve B

[drc]

One one side of my home is a blind guy with three cats and on the other side is an elementary school teacher. Never felt the need to protect my family or property from them.

Though I must admit, if the blind guy got a gun, I might be a bit nervous.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by steve B

No ESD the defenition wasn't " what a assault weapon is classified as a firearm that goes from semi to full auto " Full auto has been very tightly controlled since 1934 and no crimes have been comitted in the US with a legally owned full auto weapon since then.

ESD is right. That is the very definition of an assault rifle - "capable of selective fire." Selective fire means it has the ability to switch from semi-automatic to fully automatic. Don't take my word for it. Look it up on Wikipedia.

[teetwoohsix]

When an individual stepped on to one of my fellow bus driver's bus and pummeled him unconcious with a 2 by 4, and left him lying in a pool of his own blood, I wished someone on that bus was a CCP holder with a loaded firearm to come to his rescue. He was lucky to live, with all of those staples in his skull.

We weren't allowed to carry ANY type of weapon, had we been able to carry SOMETHING, he may have been able to defend himself.

The only time I truly felt safe driving the bus was when I was transporting off duty security officers who were carrying a firearm.

The "assault weapon ban" is nothing but a political agenda, and has been in the works for a long time. Wake up people, damn. I'll save the history lesson, as "no one thinks those things can happen here" (but I encourage you to study countries that banned their citizens from owning firearms, and what followed).

http://www.policymic.com/articles/21...wtown-massacre

Sincerely, Clayton (an individual who does not own a gun but believes in peoples right to defend themselves any way they see fit)

[novakjr]

Great post Clayton. The attached article was a very good read as well.

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by novakjr

Great post Clayton. The attached article was a very good read as well.

Thanks David.

I just think it's a shame that they use a tragedy to push an agenda which results in taking away people's rights instead of adressing the real issue- why are people doing things like this? What is going on in society that's making people snap?

I recently read that the Columbine tragedy happened during the last "ban on assault weapons". So, of course, the "new ban" will be way more restrictive & I wouldn't doubt it if they went as far as to try to ban all guns eventually. I'm sure this is why the gun stores can't keep much of anything in stock.

I think everyone is in agreement that certain people shouldn't be allowed to own guns, and checks and balances (which are already in place, by the way) should be used when selling a firearm to someone. But I feel they should be looking at fixing the social problems in our society rather than taking away everyones rights. But they would have to look inward to do that, so it won't happen.

Sincerely, Clayton

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by teetwoohsix

Thanks David.

I just think it's a shame that they use a tragedy to push an agenda which results in taking away people's rights instead of adressing the real issue- why are people doing things like this? What is going on in society that's making people snap?

...

Sincerely, Clayton

Clayton, no offense but you missed as well. You are certain that it is NOT guns, so you then make an assumption about what the problem actually is. Others who are against guns in general, are using these events as excuses to claim that the problem IS caused by guns.

A better way to approach this would be to look at the individuals who are committing these acts, and ask "why?" I've said this so many times that my fingers are getting worn out, but eventually some of you will read it: most of these acts are perpetrated by people who are mentally ill. Not a problem with society - a problem with the perpetrator's brain.

Society as a whole does not want to deal with such problems, as they are unpleasant and costly, so in that respect it IS a problem with society. So if we aren't willing to spend more on mental illness, that really leaves us with few other choices than better security (more guns in the right hands) and gun control (fewer guns in the wrong hands). Seriously, with no increase in mental illness funding, what other solutions would your propose?

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Clayton, no offense but you missed as well. You are certain that it is NOT guns, so you then make an assumption about what the problem actually is. Others who are against guns in general, are using these events as excuses to claim that the problem IS caused by guns.

A better way to approach this would be to look at the individuals who are committing these acts, and ask "why?" I've said this so many times that my fingers are getting worn out, but eventually some of you will read it: most of these acts are perpetrated by people who are mentally ill. Not a problem with society - a problem with the perpetrator's brain.

Society as a whole does not want to deal with such problems, as they are unpleasant and costly, so in that respect it IS a problem with society. So if we aren't willing to spend more on mental illness, that really leaves us with few other choices than better security (more guns in the right hands) and gun control (fewer guns in the wrong hands). Seriously, with no increase in mental illness funding, what other solutions would your propose?

No offense taken Scott, I appreciate the response.

I also agree with you about more funding to help the mentally ill. But, not every act of gun violence is perpetrated by a mentally ill person. More acts of gun violence happen by gang members (who own guns that were bought on the black market) than by mentally ill people. This is what I mean about them exploiting "certain" tragedies over others, to push an agenda.

Chicago alone in 2012 reached 500 gun related deaths, most gang/drug related. But, instead of logical steps in fixing "the drug problem", the failed war on drugs continues and people keep getting killed by people who shouldn't own guns (isn't this a tragedy?) and don't own them legally. Yet, they sensationalize the instances that a mentally ill person uses a gun to commit a tragedy and then blame it on THE GUN; and exploit it to take away people's right to bear arms.

And the hypocrites who are calling for the new "war on guns" all use guns to protect themselves one way or another, either by CCP's or armed security. So, it's ok for them but not for the common law abiding citizen I guess.

I'm just afraid that when adressing the mental health issue, their solution will be to lock people up rather than try to help the person. I notice there's not much talk about what type of medications the shooter may or may not have been on- the focus is on guns.

The bottom line for me is if they take this right away (the right to bear arms) than we may as well kiss all of our rights away. The United Nations of America.

Sincerely, Clayton

[steve B]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

ESD is right. That is the very definition of an assault rifle - "capable of selective fire." Selective fire means it has the ability to switch from semi-automatic to fully automatic. Don't take my word for it. Look it up on Wikipedia.

The way the ban defined them was stuff like folding stocks etc.

That can also be found on wikipedia.

Selective fire is a form of full auto, and as I said has been tightly regulated since 1934. Although I don't think there were any selective fire guns made at the time.

Steve B

[esd10]

selective fire firearms are still made bye a couple of people in the usa under strict laws and regulations but its like 2 or 3 people so a very small amount.