"Harmless gun" sounds like the ultimate oxymoron to me...

I'm still waiting to see if anyone can defend the freedom to own semi-automatic rifles.

It sounds better ....(You can kill MORE with lesser effort...)

Snm, If you are attacked by 30 ruffians simultaneously, then surely your pistol CAN'T help you BUT if you ARE a good shot (and with a Uzi), you are more LIKELY to survive.

However the above may NOT work if you are attacked by 45++ idiots, in which the government would legalise a whole lot more...

I say lets bring on the Bazookas and Gatling guns for more wholesome enterainment........

snm, the editorial in today's NY Times agrees with you:



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

May 16, 2003
Save the Assault-Gun Ban

Tom DeLay, the House majority leader, chose an odd way to celebrate National Police Week. On Tuesday, Mr. DeLay publicly reassured the fanatics who run the National Rifle Association that his chamber will not renew the hard-won 1994 federal ban on military-style assault weapons — the powerful semiautomatic guns favored by criminals.

Mr. DeLay's announcement came just days after the Violence Policy Center revealed that at least 41 of 211 police officers slain between 1998 and 2001 were killed with assault weapons. Plainly, the law, due to expire in September 2004, needs to be strengthened, not abandoned.

The fate of the assault-weapons ban lies with President Bush. During the 2000 campaign, Mr. Bush made a rare break with the N.R.A. to endorse the ban's renewal. The White House spokesman, Ari Fleischer, reasserted that support this week. But he refused to say whether the president is prepared to put the heat on Mr. DeLay and his colleagues to allow House members to vote on the question.

That hedging merely fuels suspicions that Mr. Bush is trying to gain credit with soccer moms for backing reasonable gun control, while counting on members of his party to perform the dirty deed of blocking the ban's extension.

If that happens, it would be a big step backward that would endanger the lives of both the police and public. Hunters and target shooters have no need for bullet-spraying Uzis or AK-47's.

http://nytimes.com

Very good Ace, but unfortunately an Uzzi isn't going to help you against 30 ruffians since an Uzzi magazine (9 mm) can't hold 30 bullets.

I'm still waiting for someone to try a serious answer to this...

Quote:

---

but unfortunately an Uzzi isn't going to help you against 30 ruffians since an Uzzi magazine (9 mm) can't hold 30 bulle

---

Sorry about that - I squarely put the blame (for my mistake) on computer games!

(I have NEVER seen a gun (in real life) all these years - )

Cb, the NY Times agrees with me? That's almost enough to make me change my mind!

Ace, that's a good thing

Anyone want to defend assault weapons?

Chelsea,,, that should not be a surprise as almost every weapon can fall into the assault class.That does not mean it was sold illegally tho. However I still doubt it. So if you could show source I would like to take a look at it.

Snm,, if you will pull up a copy of the assault weapons bill and read it all you might be surprised at what is in it.
First thought that come to mind for an assault weapon is, it would have the capability to fire automatic. But fully automatics have been controlled since 1934. Nope, it is the semi- automatics that are regulated in this case. And it is not the lethal functionality that puts them on the list. It is cosmetics mostly. Pistol grip, flash suppressor, folding stock, bayonet lock, etc. And it is not any one of these thing either, it has to have two.
Oh and it can not look like a uzzi either. Kind of vague I think.
Many of the ban guns are identical except for looks to their legal twin.
And the number of shots. I have a pistol that hold 16 rounds. It is legal because it was sold before 93. And guess what,, mine is not the only one either. But lets just say it only hold the legal number, and a criminal want more shots. It take two second to change to a full clip.

Jax, I'm not referring to the Assault Weapons Bill in particular, I'm talking about assault weapons in general, and asking why on earth they weren't all banned years ago and why any sane person would not support banning them altogether.

I have some experience with semi-automatic rifles (mainly M-16's and Uzzis). I know how to operate them, I know how to take care of them, I know how to clean them, oil them, take them apart and put them back together, I can name the parts and explain how the weapons work (including the firing mechanisms). I've carried rifles around for months at a time, I've done guard duty with them, I've fired them in firing ranges, I've coached soldiers during target practice in firing ranges, I'm even qualified to command target practice at a firing range. So I know a bit of what I'm talking about when I speak about semi-automatic assault weapons.
And I still cannot think of a single non-military use for them.

Just a note, as I did a little searching myself over the past few days, we're talking legal and illegal methods of getting guns in the States..has anyone mentioned those gun fairs?
I mean the flea market or gun shows...in American they are heavily frequented and some of the documents, for and against, mentioned the easy accessibility to gun purchase at those fairs and the lack of checkups into anyone's background. I'm also certain that you cannot purchase a gun "legally" in other places. As it remains legal by some standards, but, it does bypass having to fill out a form if you've got a criminal record or something against the state regulations.
You know, in the States, the legal and illegal argument is starting to mean very little...let's just say that gun availability is very easy for anyone.

Another alarming stat coming up quite frequently that frightens me is the fact that the selfsame people who are holding out for the right to possess a weapon to protect their families...tend to be using them against the very same family!
I'm not saying it doesn't happen with some women gun owners, but in women's shelters the number of women who were threatened regularly with guns in their own homes is very high. It matters little to me where these were purchased, but, that the people telling us they want to protect their families..sometimes use them for other purposes but protection.

So I really doubt that guns in America that are held by normally law abiding citizens and legally, with training are always used just to protect the family from the "bump in the night".

I also take exception to the arming everyone to the teeth thing...I'll never forget one of my high school girlfriends coming home from work, shattered...as her hotel desk job was in a dicey neighborhood, and she was held up at gunpoint and she followed instructions and gave the guy her cash register contents..about fifty bucks! If she'd been armed, she'd have done what? Told him no, or she'd shoot? What are the chances of a petite young woman being able to actually shoot him before she got shot?
Are gun advocates saying that every convenience store cashier be armed, or people working night shifts...or liquor stores, or, as I myself worked as a young woman with just one other young employee, a large pizza parlor near the mental hospital..where people strolled in and required talking down and the police called about once a day? I would not have felt more self assured having a gun hidden behind the counter..and the cops came and did their job, without guns I might add, just pscychology and talking the guy back into sanity.
Are we talking the necessity of teachers packing guns because their students might go haywire and get a gun themselves or else take their parents' gun that was legally obtained and not kept safe?

The only way would be restrictions on firearms, and I've given up on that ever working in the US...theyh will accept no tests, no lengthy background checkups, no waiting periods...because if you try that, they'll just go into another State, or purchase it legally illegally, or as I mentioned earlier, semi illegally...
It's way too deeply entrenched in America, and gun advocates will never be able to see it any other way.

I'm going to take a wild guess here, and say also that most any law enforcement official I've ever met would probably much rather avoid using a weapon to stop a crime unless it is absolutely essential.

If you're aiming at the underlying causes for some of the violence, check out how well it sells...nothing like an American film...most everything gets solved by violence.

Quote:

---

I'm going to take a wild guess here, and say also that most any law enforcement official I've ever met would probably much rather avoid using a weapon to stop a crime unless it is absolutely essential.

---

The Police Federation have just done a survey in England and Wales - 78% of police officers do not want to carry guns, (compared to 79% in 1995). We only have 5,700 police officers trained to use guns in the whole of England and Wales ...

Bruyere,, You are correct, it is never a problem for a criminal to get a gun regardless of laws. But a woman may be killed by her estranged husband while waiting to get one legally. It has happened.

===================
Bonnie Elmasri
On March 5, 1991 Bonnie Elmasri called a firearms instructor, worried that her husband-who was subject to a restraining order to stay away from her-had been threatening her and her children. When she asked the instructor about getting a handgun, the instructor explained that Wisconsin has a 48-hour waiting period. Ms. Elmasri and her two children were murdered by her husband twenty-four hours later.
====================


It is all in perception. I do not see a armed police officer as a killing machine, but as a life saving servant. The gun should be used to save lives, not take lives. Course as Bruyere reminds us, we see nothing but violence and misuse of guns from Hollywood. So is it any surprise we have folks that think of the gun and violence in the same thought?
Should a connivance store clerk starting shooting at a robber? Only if they think their life in danger. More and more often it is.

Should a teacher be required to carry a gun? I think if you look at the incident numbers of children shooting others at school it is quit low and would not warrant all teachers to "Pack Heat" (Hollywood term). However, if a teacher had a gun, surly they would use it to stop killings and save lives just as a law enforcement office would do if they were there.

Did anyone ever consider what a gun in the hands of only one passenger, pilot, or flight attendant could have done on any or all of the 9/11 flights? Could have been a far different outcome.

Snm, and all those that think elimination of guns is the answer. Might want to consider this.

=================
How to encourage crime

If a total nationwide ban on the possession of firearms is supposed to curb gun crime, then why is it that the English are increasingly the victims of gun-wielding criminals?
According to a study released about a month ago and which formed the basis of a recent article in USA Today, the criminal use of firearms in the United Kingdom has increased by almost 40% in three years, to 3,685 incidents from 2,648.
Now, what makes this fact especially interesting is that three years ago was precisely when England passed a comprehensive ban on the private possession of handguns. According to the logic of gun control advocates, there should have been less, not more gun crime.
A total, nationwide ban on the possession of firearms has not kept guns out of the hands of criminals. As the study by the Centre for Defence Studies at King's College reveals, all that has been accomplished by the British gun ban is the disarming of people who obey laws.
Washington Times August 20, 2001
============

Jax, I'm not talking about handguns, I know the arguments for and against those. I'm asking about semi-automatic assault rifles, and so far no one has even attempted an answer to that one.

I guess either I didn't understand your question, or you did not understand my answer.
For sure, we have a failure to communicate. In one place you say semi automatic rifles, in another assault weapons, and in the last , semi-automatic assault rifles.
========================
I'm still waiting to see if anyone can defend the freedom to own semi-automatic rifles
Anyone want to defend assault weapons?
I'm talking about assault weapons in general
I'm asking about semi-automatic assault rifles
========================

this is from the federal code to help identify what you are talking about. Notice that no feature is ban, only if it has a detachable clip, and has at least 2 of the sinister features. And conspicuously,,, who is to determine that?
How does any of these features make it more deadly? Has nothing to do with power, or fire rate.
=============
Title 18, Chapter 44, Section 921 of the United States Code states:
The term ''semiautomatic assault weapon'' means -
(A) any of the firearms, or copies or duplicates of the firearms in any caliber, known as -
(i) Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models);
(ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil;
(iii) Beretta Ar70 (SC-70);
(iv) Colt AR-15;
(v) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC;
(vi) SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9, and M-12;
(vii) Steyr AUG;
(viii)INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9 and TEC-22; and
(ix) revolving cylinder shotguns, such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12;
(B) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of -
(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
(ii)a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;
(iii)a bayonet mount;
(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and
(v) a grenade launcher;
==============

As I have said before, the so called assault rifle is in many if not most cases, exactly like their legal hunting rifle twin, except for some cosmetic features.
Many hunting rifles are semi-automatic, simply meaning you have to pull the trigger for every shot.
But I will go on to explain that these can and are used for hunting. Shorter semi-automatic rifles are often used for defensive weapons too. Easier to handle and with greater accuracy than a pistol.

The plain facts are that in the 10 years the law has been in effect, it has not had any positive effect on reducing gun crimes.


By the way,, The DC sniper was using a gun that is not an covered by the ban.

Of the semi-automatics listed, all the ones that I am familiar with have the ability to fire in automatic mode (In fact I think that's what they mean by semi-automatic). What's more, if not looked after properly (and by that I mean cleaned and oiled every single day and checked by a specialist at least once a month) most of them have the tendency to become stuck, so that you pull the trigger in regular mode and end up spraying bullets (all it takes is a few grains of sand in the firing mechanism).

As for "cosmetic features" I would hardly call a bayonet mount, a flash suppressor, or a grenade launcher "cosmetic". The grenade launcher is pretty obvious. The bayonet mount gives you the ability to add an extra killing tool, and in any case they're outlawed by the Geneva convention. The purpose of the flash suppressor is to hide the location of the shooter. Unless you're hunting really intelligent animals I doubt that's necessary. And if you're hunting humans, well...

I think they should all be banned. I don't understand the bill perfectly, I'm not entirely familiar with the English language terminology on this subject, but I understand enough to know that there's good cause to ban all these weapons, and plenty others.

Before anyone is allowed to own a gun (and by that I mean any gun) they should be subject to a background check and psychological profiling. They should have to learn to take care of the weapon. They should know how the weapon works. They should have the gun safety laws drilled into their minds so well that they can recite them in their sleep. They should have to take tests proving that they know how to operate the weapon, how to take care of the weapon, and how to safeguard the weapon. And they should have to practice shooting at a practice target, and be able to hit the target. Guns are a responsibility.

Does anyone think people should be allowed to own Kaleshnikovs, Uzzis, Galils, or any of the other weapons on that list?

That is what most folks would think, however you would be wrong. This law covers Semi-Automatics only.
Full automatic have been banned or tightly controlled since 1934. All of the weapons that are listed on the ban list are all semi-automatics without the ability to fire fully automatic. That is what makes it so foolish.
===============
Of the semi-automatics listed, all the ones that I am familiar with have the ability to fire in automatic mode (In fact I think that's what they mean by semi-automatic).
================

I can't remember even one incident where a bayonet locked to a weapon was every used in a crime incident. And grenades are already covered by laws. So are silencers too. So what is the point?

Many of the guns which current "assault weapons" bans are targeting -- including the federal ban enacted in 1994 -- are the very guns with which the Korean merchants used to defend themselves during the 1992 Los Angeles riots. Those firearms proved to be extremely useful to the Koreans. Their stores were left standing while other stores around them were burned to the ground.

This law was written by folks that know little about firearms but a lot about politics and how to manipulate our thinking. It obviously has been successful.

Jax, maybe we're using different terminology. By "automatic mode" I mean that you pull the trigger and the weapon continues to fire until you release the trigger. By "fully automatic" I mean a weapon that can only be fired in automatic mode. By "regular mode" I mean that you have to pull the trigger once for each bullet that is fired. By "semi-automatic" I mean a weapon that can fire in both modes. Just so we're on the same page here, let me know if we're using the same terms.

===================
By "automatic mode" I mean that you pull the trigger and the weapon continues to fire until you release the trigger. By "fully automatic" I mean a weapon that can only be fired in automatic mode. By "regular mode" I mean that you have to pull the trigger once for each bullet that is fired. By "semi-automatic" I mean a weapon that can fire in both modes.
===================
No,, Semi-automatic means it only fires with each pull of the trigger, and is not capable of being firing fully automatic. Almost all pistols sold today are semi-automatic. Many rifles and shot guns are semi-automatic.

Generally speaking, and Militarily speaking, assault weapon would be one that could fire in both semi-automatic and full automatic with the flip of a switch. But this law is only about semi-automatics. The misleading name is intentional.

Quote:

---

Semi-automatic means it only fires with each pull of the trigger, and is not capable of being firing fully automatic.

---

You're wrong. The bill specifically says "semi-automatics" and all the weapons on the list that I am familiar with can fire in both regular and automatic mode (and even without the bill I know for a fact that they are called semi-automatics).

You are right,, It does specifically says "semi-automatics"

Pick up a dictionary and look up the meaning.

I don't need to look in the dictionary. I've studied some of these weapons inside and out, I've passed written tests on them, and I know they're officially designated as semi-automatics. Like I said in my previous post, I don't need the bill to tell me they're semi-automatics. I'm not exactly clueless when it comes to assault rifles.

Imagine the castle sacking that would have gone if catapults had of been made semi-automatic? If the Romans had a trebuchet that fired three shot volleys or a Mark II Ballista that had full auto mode. William the Conqueror would have had a field day!

Sorry, didn't mean to interupt the debate, just a funny thought that somehow crept inside the head...

I was just musing on how much people seemed to be enjoying gun talk myself. I'm sure if I said, "a gun's a gun" I'd be "shot" down as clearly that would reveal my ignorance in the matter. For me, it matters little the actual type of gun some kid used to shoot up his classmates, principal or teacher, nor in the end, whether it was legally or illegally obtained...just the fact that this act is much more possible in a country in which a gun is available, I don't even care what sort of gun we're talking either, than one in which is isn't.
However, I see that gun control opponents don't agree with that either.

My premise is that in a country in which guns are available, legally or illegallly, and the legislation seems ambiguous at best despite all the above debate, you can purchase a gun legally in several ways in one state and go over the border with it into another with the greatest of ease, then it's logical to me that you stand a higher chance of getting shot at your workplace or school by someone who's experiencing a period of unbalance for whatever reason.

It's starting not to matter in the least how the said person acquired his or her weapon...
Though perhaps the debate on automatic and semi automatic weapons is pertinent, I feel that it's become "academic" now because no matter what type of gun is used to kill classmates, colleagues or innocent patrons of an establishment, the more important thing is that the victims are dead.
I guess if they had weapon X, they'd have killed more people without reloading?

I do see the threat that the legislation of said weapons presents to gun control opponents as it encroaches on their "freedoms" as the definition resembles weapons they can legally possess, is that the whole point?
Whew, I'm afraid this last gun talk has further entrenched me in my opposition.

Let's see, if guns are the way to go, then I need to have one to defend my family, but against the type of weapons you are describing? Where does it stop? Bertho's right, give me a trebuchet and a canon...
I'm getting a rather grim vision though...

Bruyere, for me the issue is this: when it comes to regular guns I've heard good arguments both for and against them. I didn't even enter the discussion on the issue of regular guns, because I'm not entirely sure where I stand.

But when it comes to assault rifles that can spray almost thirty bullets in a few seconds, I know exactly where I stand: they should all be completely banned for non-military use. And I'm trying to see if anyone has a credible argument in favour of not banning them. So far I haven't seen anyone even try.

For me, I heartily agree with you, in fact it seems stark staringly obvious they shouldn't be justified. I also agree with you that the bare minimum for gun ownership is several aptitude type tests, waiting period etc. Yet, most gun control opponents are going to oppose even that bare minimum as infringement on their rights.
At least shouldn't the bare minimum be a test of the rules and regulations and laws in addition to the marksmanship and handling type exams? Shouldn't a waiting period be established and background checks performed?

I'm simply getting the whole thing back to the basic "right" of every person to have a gun in the States..which I don't agree with. And if it's impossible to prevent a gun in every house, then, at LEAST...have control over who has one.
I don't care what kind of gun it is either, makes little difference.
Needless to say these weapons you're debating with Jax, are totally out of the realm of comprehension for many of us..we simply cannot comprehend a valid use for having them..
Why not leave guns to professionals and, with proper checks, sports shooting? What would be the problem there?

BUt once again, I know my country pretty well, lived in five major areas of it for a few years in each place...I'm pretty sure that my views would be held as typically "liberal" and I'd be accused of letting the criminals go loose on the streets.
Many of the kids however perpetrating these acts of despair or horror, aren't typical "criminals" though. They are people who are in despair and frustration and able to find a weapon to act out their thoughts.
Once and for all, the entire debate here was kids going in and shooting up their principal or school (or by extension, a disgruntled worker shooting thing). I'm certain that few of these kids could be called criminals until they commited the acts they did. Many of them got their weapons from legal gun owners I'm sure.
Most of these kids just lose a wire somewhere, have serious problems and have a gun at their disposal.
We aren't even talking about them being able to get a gun of the type that you're debating..and that one is a clearcut violation of common sense and decency.

I'm idealistic perhaps, but I'm realistic too...I know you won't change the American mentality, so, the only hope that people realize the danger of this, is by appealing to logic, that logically, if you're a law abiding gun owner for some justifiable reason, then you submit yourself to as many checks as possible.

You have to fulfill fewer requirements to use a gun than a car..that's something we've heard several times here. How come? If you pick up a gun at at flea market, I'm sure there's no one checking your ID...nor anything else.

So there's no easy answer, but I don't understand why gun control opponents are opposed to stricter controls...seems they'd support it.