Issue is really about assault-style weapons.

[-..__...]

This guy obviously gets it. Why can't everyone else? :shrug:

Recently, I was asked, "How do we get assault weapons off the street?"

As I considered that question, I decided that I should first determine what the problem is before I began to solve it.

Are "assault weapons" causing a problem on the street? No. Most experts define an assault weapon as a weapon capable of fully automatic firing. Assault weapons are machine guns and submachine guns. That type of weapon is not what I was being asked to address.

Another use of the term "assault weapons" appeared in the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban where it was used to describe semi-automatic firearms that have mostly cosmetic features normally associated with military firearms. These semi-automatic weapons were called assault weapons because they "looked" bad, not because of what they could do. These semi-automatic firearms are really "assault-styled weapons" but they are not assault weapons. The term "assault-style weapons" is used by public officials, media and gun-control proponents to refer to firearms they consider inappropriate for civilian ownership.

Intended as a wedge issue

The characteristics of "assault-styled weapons" are largely irrelevant to a street crime problem. There is no epidemic of bayonetings or grenadings in Nashville. The pejorative term was likely created specifically to fit in the sentence, "Why would anybody need an assault weapon?" If so, it was intended as a wedge issue to push hunters away from the rest of the firearms community.

:applause:

Link to article

[derby378]

1. My experience is that the term "assault weapon" was coined to scare people senseless

Josh Sugarmann of the Violence Policy Center translated the German phrase Sturmgewehr into "assault rifle," from which he took "assault weapon." (Sturmgewehr 44 was the name of a German selective-fire rifle used during the latter part of WWII.)

[krispos42]

69. gewehr really does mean rifle

And "sturm" means "storm", so it literally does mean 'storm rifle', when 'storm' is used in the definition as "to move (usually in anger) quickly and noisily like a storm" or "a violent assault on a stronghold or fortified position".

"Assault weapon" can be considered an expansion of the term to include other guns that are not rifles, such as shotguns and handguns.

However, there is a certain amount of ominous connotation there, no doubt about it. For example, in military actions, a soldier does a lot of both defending and attacking. However, in any situation where an American citizens employs a weapon such as a Mini-14 or semiauto AK-47 clone, it is most likely to be solely in a defensive situation, such as in a home-invasion situation.

The mental picture the public gets is criminals swarming a bank or store or home, kicking in doors and spraying bullets into innocent people, when it fact it is probably going to be some guy in pajama bottoms and a tee-shirt guarding a staircase or hallway while waiting for the cops to arrive.

[billbuckhead]

2. False assertion. Military guns ARE causing problems in America

The USA has the highest rate of gun crime of all advanced nations and we should copy the very sucessful laws Europe, Austalis, Canad and New Zealand use to have multiple less gun death the USA.

As far military style weapons use in crime, a similar situation was once upon a time there weren't many rollover accidents with SUV's. Now that SUV's are commonplace, rollover accidents are common. Once these high performance weapons are common, their use will be more commonplace and there will be worse consequences than we had with less powerful guns just like in the wars they were designed for.

[-..__...]

4. If I had wanted European style laws...

I'd move to Europe (or Canada, New Zealand, Australia... ad nauseum).

Or put another way... I really don't give a damn how they do it in other countries.

I like my post Sept,13 2004 ex-AWB just the way it is... thank you.

[billbuckhead]

6. "Not invented here" "Our way is always better"

Typical American arrogance that has cost Americans so dearly in so many ways.

[-..__...]

8. I'll take "American arrogance" over European ignorance any day.

Their gun laws and willingness of the people to gladly accept them being two examples.

[billbuckhead]

14. Yeah, those Germans are so wrong with a 5 times lower murder rate than USA

Does but anyone but gun worshippers and Faux New watchers doubt we are less free than Europeans, Canadians or New Zealanders? The huge number of Americans in prison proves how freedom loving America really is. Is guess gay marriage, less damning drug laws, socialized medicine, etc are all ignorant to some Americans.
Hey, if guns prevented crime, we would have less murder and rape than Europe, but alas we are even behind India oin murder.

[Selatius]

17. Banning guns, while logical, simply doesn't take into account American culture

Guns are ingrained into American culture. It is a bit like asking Germans to give up highly engineered automobiles and the Autobahn. It's not something that will be accepted.

What can be done is strong regulation and gun safety/training requirements, though. Switzerland already proved that, and their tight regulations put America to shame.

Also, there's the issue of banning guns itself. If guns are banned, the criminals and gangs won't listen to the law.

[dairydog91]

29. Entering Loony Central...

The huge number of Americans in prison proves how freedom loving America really is.

Did it ever enter your mind that we have a huge prison population because we have lots of serious crimes? And that our high murder rate might have something to do with all this crime? Hmmm?

Hey, if guns prevented crime, we would have less murder and rape than Europe, but alas we are even behind India oin murder.

Absurd. We could lower our potential crime rate with gun ownership, while still have higher rates of murder and rape due to our large criminal population.

[krispos42]

33. Oh, yes, the Germans

The people with a largely homogenous population, low immigration, a strong safety net, universal health care, and solid unions? The people that work hard to keep industry in Germany, and fight the corporate global interests?

[shield20]

42. Yep - gun control worked great for them in the 30's...

unless you happened to be Jewish that is.


There is NO correlation between the number of guns and the crime rates in the US.

This 1st from an Anti-gun site:

The following chart shows the general climb of both the murder rate and firearm sales in the U.S.:
Murder rate (per 100,000) and firearm sales (millions of constant dollars),

Year Mdr Rate Firearm Sales (millions)
-----------------------------------------
1985 7.9 $1,548
1986 8.6 $1,647
1987 8.3 $1,667
1988 8.4 1,810
1989 8.7 1,777
1990 9.4 1,602
1991 9.8 1,859
1992 9.3 1,829
1993 9.5 2,095

"Since 1989, manufacturers and importers introduced an average of 3.5 million new guns into the U.S. market each year. By contrast, the U.S. resident population has grown an average of 2.7 million a year. That's roughly 800,000 extra guns a year. "
********************************

Now, they lazily, or more likely purposely, have NOT updated the figures since 1993. I wonder why? Probably because as gun sales continued to increase, crime rates steadly DECREASED:

YEAR-----TAX-----VC RATE----Mrd Rte---Murders---- Firearms
***---($,000)----(100K)-----(100K)------#----------%
-----------------------------------------------------------------
1992----139,652----757.7----9.3
1993----124,215----747.1----9.5
1994----139,990----713.6----9.0
1995----184,302----684.5----8.2
1996----157,816----636.6----7.4
1997----150,803----611.0----6.8-----15,837----67.7%
1998----158,383----567.6----6.3-----14,276----64.8%
1999----167,448----523.0----5.7-----13,011----65.2%
2000----197,840----506.5----5.5-----13,230----65.5%
2001----175,959----504.5----5.6-----14,061----63..22%
2002----205,025----494.4----5.6-----14,263----66.8%
2003----193,420----475.0----5.7-----14,465----66.9%
2004----214,987----465.5----5.5-----14,121----66%
*2005--------------469.2----5.6----
*The crime rates have gone up slightly again the last year or so, (VC=+3.7, Mrdr=+1.4).

The TAX column represents total excise tax on firearms and ammo sales, when broken out, the best indicator of total gun sales. The crime figures are from the FBI, the TAX figures from BATF.

Please notice that as firearms sales continue to rise, violent crime (VC) rates, and murder rates DROPPED steadily for 1994-2004. Also notice that the percentage of firearms used by criminals to commit murder is basically unchanged, despite the estimated "3.5 Million new guns every year".

The anti-constitution yahoos in this country must get over themselves and accept the truth: GUNS AIN'T THE PROBLEM!

[krispos42]

55. Very good numbers

Some people will argue that in 1994, we banned 'assault weapons', and that's why the homicide rate dropped, and when the ban expired, it started to creep back up.

I would argue that that the good economy and Clinton's COPS program (which ultimately put 50,000 federally-funded cops on America's streets) is what lowered the crime rate. Under Bush the Inferior, the economy has stagnated and the COPS programs was steadily defunded until, in 2005, it was totally unfunded on a federal level.

At the same time, federal and state law enforcement agencies began worring a lot more about terrorism at the cost of things like anti-gang task forces.

I have STILL not heard from anybody able to explain away why, with a semi-automatic long gun ban in 1988 and a total handgun ban in 1997, and 4.2 million police-monitored public-area security cameras, the UK homicide rate has doubled from 1967 to 2005, while ours is down 11% over the same time span.

[shield20]

64. Partly...

someone pointed out to me that the biggest effect on crime rates is the number of 15-25(??) year old indivduals in the general population.

ALso, high crime rates DIRECTLY coincide with prohibition, and the start of the 'war on drugs'. (highest levels ever)

[piedmont]

13. Disarming a populace leaves it more vulnerable to invasion and abuse of power.

Even if banning guns did reduce crime (which has certainly not been proven), the negative side-effect of this measure would be to take away the citizens' ability to defend themselves against either isolated criminal acts (such as a robbery) or systematic criminal acts such as invasion or authoritarian abuses. Though the day-to-day probability of the latter two circumstances are quite low, they do exist-- and a free society must not leave itself unprepared for them, because the consequences of either happening would far outweigh the negative consequences of civilian gun ownership. This was the exact reason for the 2nd amendment.

[Retired AF Dem]

50. During the "assault weapon" ban

and the ban on high cap magazines here in the states they could still be freely bought in Europe. I guess in some ways the Europeans are smarter than we are.

[Selatius]

12. Military guns are heavily regulated in America.

The reason why there aren't AK-47s in the poor neighborhoods like it's a neighborhood of Baghdad is because of regulation.

The problem is lack of enforcement of gun laws in terms of traditional firearms, lax safety/training requirements for owners of firearms, and poverty in America.

Switzerland per capita comes closest to the US as far as gun ownership rates go, yet their rates of violent crimes are a fraction of that seen in the US. If you want to emulate a country, emulate Switzerland.

For every 100,000 people, roughly 28 die due to violent crimes committed with guns. In Switzerland, it's closer to 5 for every 100,000.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita

[krispos42]

34. Correction

It's 2.8 and 0.5, respectively. You slipped a decimal over one too many times! :-)

[benEzra]

59. 0.0279271 * 100 is 2.79271, not 27.9271...

The more relevant stat is overall homicides, though, in which the U.S. fares much better:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita

[dairydog91]

28. Historically...

the countries you name have always had lower murder rates than the US, at least within modern memory. Give us actual evidence showing that these weapons "cause" crime. That we have more of them does not prove anything; Correlation does not imply causality.

[Irreverend IX]

31. Post STATISTICS, billbuckhead.

I'll get the ball rolling: less than 3% of gun homicides are committed with rifles of any kind. What "problems" are assault weapons causing in America? Their size and expense makes them inviable as tools for crime. I've not read a single news story or other report stating that semiautomatic rifles are common among gangs. The only crooks who would have such things would be the enforcers at the very top of the underworld food chain, and those types rarely resort to violence, and mostly target each other when they do.

Do you have any numbers or studies to show that "assault weapons" are a danger to society? The government's own commissioned report on the AWB couldn't find any evidence of a drop in crime brought about by the bill.

[krispos42]

35. Here's more

Between 1967 and 2005, Britian's homicide rate doubled. This twenty years after banning all semi-automatic long guns and ten years after banning all handguns.

In the same time period our homicide rate dropped by 11%



What's that? You want more?

Okay, the 245 million civilian-owned guns in the US compromise 38% of all guns on the planet, and 68% of all civilian-owned guns in the world.

[CarinKaryn]

49. Okeedowkee. If you say so.

The only crooks who would have such things would be the enforcers at the very top of the underworld food chain, and those types rarely resort to violence, and mostly target each other when they do.

:rofl: Ohmygawdd! The gun lovers will use ANY argument to protect their beloved guns.
Enforcers at the very top of the underworld food chain rarely resort to violence!

[dairydog91]

51. I wonder...

Ohmygawdd! The gun lovers will use ANY argument to protect their beloved guns.

They're hardly beloved. We object to moral panics, not to mention the absurdly utopian idea that we can reduce violence in America by attacking objects, instead of dealing with the human element of crime.

Perhaps, if assault rifles are the popular killing machines that you claim they are, you'll show us the statistics showing that they are used by criminals in significant numbers.

Edit - Personally, I think that it's noteworthy that you cut most of his post out. You know, "I'll get the ball rolling: less than 3% of gun homicides are committed with rifles of any kind. What "problems" are assault weapons causing in America? Their size and expense makes them inviable as tools for crime. I've not read a single news story or other report stating that semiautomatic rifles are common among gangs." Couldn't respond to these parts, perhaps.

[shield20]

41. Not really - they are...a non-issue FACTS

Facts: (per FBI UCR)

- In 1992, approx. only 3.1% of all homicides involved a rifle of ANY type, this includes ALL semi-automatics (no AWB in effect)

- In 1994, approx. only 3.2% of all homicides involved a rifle of ANY type (part of this year AWB 1 was in force)

- In 1996, approx. only 3.4% of all homicides involved a rifle of ANY type...(AWB 1 in force)

- In 1998, approx. only 3.8% of all homicides involved a rifle of ANY type...(AWB 1 in force)

- In 2000 approx. only 3.4% of all homicides involved a rifle of ANY type...(AWB 1 in force)

- In 2002 approx. only 3.05% of all homicides involved a rifle of ANY type…(AWB 1 in force)

- In 2004 approx. only 2.78% of all homicides involved a rifle of ANY type…(AWB 1 expires)

In 2005, after the 1st 10 yr unconstitutional ASW ban ended - i.e. NO semi-auto ban was in effect - only 2.97% of all homicides involved rifles of ANY type. This figure is amazingly consistent, AND LOW, despite the fact that overall crime rates were up. Notice the FACTS that show how the AWB BAN MADE NO DIFFERENCE in the percentage of homicides caused by rifles, or in crime rates. One COULD even argue just the opposite, but it is important to note then crime in general rose and fell along similar time period:
From 1984 to 1993, murder and crime rates rose consistently in the US, while the number of guns in America increased. AND from 1994 to 2004, murder rates and crime rates DECREASED*, while the number of guns in America, including so-called "assault rifles" still increased.

*murder rates - 1985 - 7.9 per 100,000; 1993 - 9.5 per 100,000; 2004 - 5.5 per 100,00

Guns in general ain't the problem, and especially not semi-suto rifles.

[Retired AF Dem]

57. Clueless

Just post one article of a crime being committed in the USofA in the past year with a legally owned military rifle and I will eat my spinach. And I hate spinach. (And remember a military rifle is select fire)

[AR15-A4223]

68. Stop being ignorant

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ysf8x477c30&mode=related&search=">the truth about "military style assault weapons"

[treelogger]

75. Crime statistics

You said "the USA has the highest rate of gun crime of all advanced nations".

Do me a favor: Take the US crime statistics, and remove the slums (Oakland, Comptom, West LA, Watts, sections of Detroit, and so on). Most advanced nations don't have such slums, or at least only to a much much smaller degree. Then run the statistics again. Then compare the US to the "advanced nations" again.

I have never done that. Nor would this be easy. Ideally, one would take the crime statistics of each country, and remove those sections of the country where the legal system and a law-abiding society has utterly failed (the favelas in Brasil, the slums in the US, the immigrant suburbs of Paris).

But I can do some of that statistics in my head, to give you an estimate. I'm in the SF bay area. Oakland (a city of about 1/2 million people) has about 100 murders per year. If you add up Sunnyvale, Cupertino, Los Gatos, Campbell, Los Altos, and Saratoga, and Santa Clara, you probably have a significantly larger number of people. And you have maybe 10 murders per year. What's the difference? The bulk of Oakland is an extremely poor, very black, drug-soaked slum, with massive gang activity. While those other cities in the south bay are wealthy suburbs filled with software engineers. I think the difference is all in socio-economic background.

Now you might claim that the rich suburbs don't have guns. Nonsense. I'm a target shooter, and I go to a league. There are lots of "software engineer" types there, many of whom have extensive gun collections. If I think about my neighbors, about every second household has some guns at home.

My thesis is: The cause of crime is not guns. It is socio-economic, indicated by the breakdown of civil society in certain places, where the vast bulk of our crime happens.

From this point of view, the US is not an "advanced nation". It is more like Brasil or Russie: A nation with many middle-class and wealthy people, but also with terrible slums, where horrible things happen.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

3. I liked Colbert's take on it.

On how the NRA is upset about how guns are being judged upon their outward appearance.

:rofl:

[derby378]

5. Did Ben West Jr. take some of his material from the Amendment II Democrats website?

Although the first semi-automatic rifle was designed and built by German-born Ferdinand Ritter von Mannlicher back in 1885, it was American gunsmith John Moses Browning who first introduced semi-automatics to the civilian market, including the Remington Autoloading Repeating Rifle, first manufactured in 1906 and renamed the Model 8 in 1911. The semi-automatic firearm has been in civilian hands longer than the fuel-injected engine, the personal computer, the microwave oven, the credit card, the television, the snowmobile, and even the humble tube of lipstick.

And, for the longest time, nobody complained.

It is true that the 1994 gun ban did not prohibit all semi-automatics, but, as we have seen earlier, a semi-auto is a semi-auto, no matter how mean or scary someone thinks a particular model is. The basic firing mechanism is still the same, and the technology is a hundred years old. So if you feel that "assault weapons" have no place in society, then you also feel that semi-automatics of any kind have no place in society. But our nation has persevered for close to a hundred years with these guns in private hands, and there appears to be no sign of fundamental social breakdown as a result.

http://www.a2dems.net/top10myths.htm

Now compare the above excerpt with the latter part of West's own article and tell me what you think. Me, I'm thinking...

:applause:

[billbuckhead]

7. These guns fire far faster than previous guns

If these guns aren't more potent, then why do want them?

And perhaps a better question is why should a civilized society want more powerful weapons on the streets?

[meldroc]

10. Hey, if the stormtroopers are kicking down my door to drag me to a REX 84 camp,

I'm going to want some decent firepower.

[razors edge]

19. The M-16

was invented in the 50's, not exactly new.

I collect high end mechanical devices like antique sewing machines, cars, and guns. Sometimes a tool is just a tool.

The most powerful standard rifle available, the .50 cal, is not cheap.

I am sure such a rifle is probably offensive to you but I don't understand why.

Not one has ever been used in a crime in the US, they typically go for three to seven thousand dollars and weigh in at thirty plus pounds, not something you drag into a 7-11 to steel 200 bucks from the register with.

There are people who can shoot a standard single action pistol from the early 1900s faster than a M-16 in fully auto, with better accuracy.

So it really is about the mind behind the trigger not the receiver it attached to, isn't it?

[Major Hogwash]

58. "There are people who can shoot a single action pistol faster than a full-auto M-16"

Now, that's pure hogwash!

[DonP]

61. Look up Jerry Miculek ... pretty close

But he cheats and uses a S&W double action revolver.

I think his record is 12 rounds, including a reload in under 2.2 seconds. And he hit a steel target with all 12 rounds.

I think Bob Munden has done 6 rounds from a SAA in way less than 2 seconds as well.

Granted, not full auto rates of fire, but still fast enough to give anti gun folks heart palpitations.

[krispos42]

70. I think I saw Jerry on "American Shooter" a couple of times

IIRC, he was able to empty his 8-shot revolver in .99 seconds (480 rounds per minute).

Also IIRC, he was able to fire six shots from a revolver, empty the cylinder, reload with ammo on a full moon clip (I guess it was a .45 ACP revolver), and empty they cylinder in less than 3 seconds. Maybe less than 2.5. Between 240 and 288 rounds per minute.

[Major Hogwash]

73. What's the rate of fire of an M-16 on full-auto?

Because the comment I replied to was totally unbelievable, Don.

[shield20]

74. M16 = 600-800 rpm

10 rnd per second.

Jerry is pretty fast too!

[spoony]

63. The accuracy part is spot on though

Plus they won't be out of ammunition in a blink :P

[derby378]

23. Now, I know you've been reading George Lakoff, too...

The term "on the streets" is a bit disingenuous. I'm talking about legal, responsible, private ownership of semi-automatic firearms. If you remember the film Canadian Bacon (directed by Michael Moore), I am not saying we need to re-enact the inept militia checkpoints across America. Especially since we aren't in a cold war with Canada. :hi:

[razors edge]

24. Lets ask chuck schumer

sponsor of the AWB if he likes his



edit:sp

[krispos42]

32. No they don't

They fire as fast as you can pull the trigger. That is the very definition of aemi-automatic.

And the guns aren't more potent. They are better designed, certainly. More ergonomic, better materials, better machining, tighter tolerences, etc. And, also, there are only a limited number of century-old Browning rifles running around.

Finally, ask yourself how a civilized society protects itself from uncivilized societies.

[benEzra]

37. Not any faster than any other self-loader...

These guns fire far faster than previous guns

If these guns aren't more potent, then why do want them?

They don't fire any faster than any other self-loader, including an ordinary revolver, a self-loading deer rifle or shotgun, or the pistol your local police officer carries on her hip.

Are you saying you want to outlaw ALL self-loaders?

And perhaps a better question is why should a civilized society want more powerful weapons on the streets?

They're not "more powerful" (a protruding handgrip doesn't affect a rifle's power, Bill).

They're also not "on the streets," per the FBI:

www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_20.html

Rifles are almost never used in homicides (less than 3% of homicides annually involve ANY type of rifle).

This type of ad hoc rationalization of nonsensical positions is why the U.S. gun-control lobby is in the sorry shape it's now in.

[Turnagain]

62. Why should civilians want guns?

During the 20th century, governments murdered slightly over 169,000,000 of their own citizens or subjects*. That number disregards military casualties of war. That is equal to the murder of 4,630 people every day, 365 days per year for 100 years. Thankfully we are now into the 21st century and no longer need fear any of the world's governments, especially not a government led by such a God fearing icon of lawful government as George W. Bush. Surely only the dimmest conspiraloon would believe that President Bush, beloved by the masses as a paragon of Christian values, would ever lie to the American people or act against their best interests. In a world led by such pillars of stability and sanity as President Ahmadinejad of Iran, no citizen can now doubt the goodwill and trustworthiness of governments of the 21st century. Surely the new nation of Aztlan can be established within the defunct borders of the US with no social friction or disorder. Yes, by all reasonable indications, its time to give those firearms to our dearly beloved leaders and settle gently into the all-knowing, all-caring arms of our benevolent government that will protect us from those awful street criminals. It will be just wonderful when only the government has guns and can really protect us. Amen.

*Death by Government. R.J. Rummel

[meldroc]

9. IIRC, the guns most commonly used in crime on the streets are...

small, cheap, easily concealable, junk handguns. Usually .22LR caliber, either stolen or obtained in pawn shops. Criminals consider them to be disposable because if they think they're about to have an encounter with cops, they'll toss 'em in the weeds or in a dumpster. Usually, they're quite lousy weapons - the caliber gives them terrible stopping power (in other words, if you're wildly shooting someone in a fight, you'll have to shoot him a dozen times before he actually goes down, while a more powerful round like a .45 will bring a person down much more quickly.) The guns are made of cheap alloys, and made with very sloppy tolerances, so they frequently jam and misfire, and sometimes will even explode.

I think this country will have better luck controlling crime and improving safety by enforcing safety regulations on gun manufacturers, sticking with the Brady Act mandated instant-background checks on gun purchasers, and stiff extra penalties for crimes where a firearm was used. That can be done without infringing on sport or self-defense rights of law-abiding gun owners such as myself.

[derby378]

11. Here's more

Furthermore, a July 1995 report by the USDoJ Bureau of Justice Statistics titled Guns Used in Crime helped to shed more light upon the actual role of semi-automatics in the commission of violent crime. Although there were 3,393 traces of "assault weapons" for 1993, those firearms represented only 8% of the total number of firearms used in violent crime for the entire year.

The BJS report also presented a list of the ten firearms most heavily traced by the BATF in 1994. Number one on the list was the Lorcin P25, a "Saturday Night Special" pistol from one of the most notorious gun manufacturers in American history. The only non-pistol firearm to make it onto the list was the 12-gauge Mossberg 500 shotgun. Not a single "assault weapon" made it onto the list.

http://www.a2dems.net/top10myths.htm

[meldroc]

15. Ah, yes, Lorcin... Meet the Ring of Fire

Along with Bryco, Jennings, Raven and Phoenix, these companies gained notoriety by producing thousands of cheap, crappy handguns that frequently found their way into the hands of criminals. Thankfully, the five companies named have gone bust, but there are other companies taking their place in the Ring of Fire.

Anyone who actually knows something about firearms will choose a weapons from a reputable manufacturer. And chances are you'll be paying several hundred dollars for a proper weapon.

[krispos42]

56. Hey, I like my Phoenix!

Have had it for about 4 years now, shot thousands of rounds through it. Works just fine.

[billbuckhead]

16. But once military style weapons are commonplace, they'll be used more

And when they're used more, then everyone will be forced to buy and carry one like the third world dystopias the gun pushers want to emulate. Just like the Turner diaries.

[Selatius]

18. But nobody is asking for a repeal of laws regulating fully auto weapons.

Those have been strictly regulated for decades now. There's a reason why most of the firearms used in the commission of a crime have not been automatic weapons, and that's because they're heavily regulated.

The problem is lack of regulation with other things like handguns, which are more often used in crimes than machine guns.

[razors edge]

21. Handgun regulation

unfortunately, doesn't work, there was a report on convicted felons interviewed for killing cops in 2005, not one of the 31 interviewed obtained his gun from a gun show or gave any consideration to the existing laws.

The type of person who will use a handgun to kill will also steal that gun from a lawful owner. If all handguns were confiscated that same person would still find a way to get one, like steal it from a cop.

[Dean Martin]

60. Correct, look at the number of weapons being stolen from FBI agents

A rash of FBI vehicles being broken into over the past several years and having their weapons stolen. Quite clearly, we need to ban FBI agents from having powerful weapons. :eyes:

[madville]

22. Full-auto assault weapons have been regulated for 73 years

Thats why only a handful of legally registered and regulated full-auto weapons have ever been used in a crime and I can't think of a specific case to mention. Handguns are the criminals' choice and we gain nothing by limiting law-abiding citizens ownership of weapons that can protect and save their lives. Freedom to own a tool that equalizes humans far surpasses the jeopardy you put many people in by limiting their ability to protect themselves.

[razors edge]

20. If we ever end up in a third would

environment, the lack of true assault weapons in the hands of the capable citizen will be a bad thing for the unarmed citizen.

But thats the way it is. A chance we take. So far we haven't had to face it and I hope we don't.

[dairydog91]

26. They will never become commonplace...

At least not for criminals. They are too large and unwieldy to be concealable. The only way that they could be "on the streets" in any noticeable quantity is if civil order is so degraded as to allow people to openly carry rifles while walking down the street. Such conditions would exist only in pure anarchy.

[krispos42]

36. Um, have you seen our gun ownership rates?

We have about 800 guns per thousand people in this country, yet very few people carry concealed.

[dairydog91]

44. Err...

We have about 800 guns per thousand people in this country, yet very few people carry concealed.

I meant "commonplace as street weapons". I don't know of any city/town in the country where you can legally walk down the street with a rifle over your shoulder. Hence, criminals preference for concealable handguns.

[krispos42]

45. True, but...

We also have 200 or 300 handguns per thousand people, yet far fewer than that rate carry concealed. Most people, even those that have the hardware, don't carry concealed.

Now, huge chunks of the country are effectively barred from legal concealed carry. California, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, Massachusettes, and Wisconsin total some 90 million people, or 30% of the country, and you are de facto barred from getting a permit.

But even in Miami-Dade County, only about 2.7% of the population has a permit. Even allowing for illegal concealed carry by criminals, it isn't very much. Mabye one percent of handguns are carried for self-defense at any one time.

This map is interesting.

[krispos42]

71. Pheasant opener in South Dakota

Safest place to be in the country is a rural gas station/convienence store at about 11am on the 3rd Saturday in October. Parking lots are chock-full of shotgun-armed hunters stocking up on supplies and gas.

Anybody tried robbing that place would have dozens of shotgun barrels pointed at them as they left the store.

Oh, and in South Dakota it is completely legal to carry a loaded, unsecured weapon in the passenger section of your vehicle as long as it is not concealed. And the waiting period for buying any long gun is the time it takes for your Visa card to clear.

[benEzra]

38. The are ALREADY commonplace...

But once military style weapons are commonplace, they'll be used more And when they're used more, then everyone will be forced to buy and carry one like the third world dystopias the gun pushers want to emulate. Just like the Turner diaries.

They are ALREADY commonplace, and have been for decades. The #1 and #2 centerfire rifle calibers sold each year, in terms of ammunition sales, are .223 Remington/5.56x45mm and .30 Russian Short/7.62x39mm.

But rifles are NOT EASILY CONCEALABLE, which is why they are rarely used in crimes. Same reason long-barreled .44 magnum hunting revolvers aren't.

BTW, just how long have rifles and shotguns been around, Bill?

www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_20.html

Still under 3% of homicides each...

[Hangingon]

47. Just throwwing this in...

Surplus military weapons have always been avail - our weapons and other peoples weapons. Look at te history of Bannerman's or Sam Cummings. They were cheap and reliable. I don't thonk surplus wepaons are suddenly going to show up. They have always been here - so what is new.

[FyurFly]

46. Turner Diaries?????

Ok, I'm going to assume you are joking, right?

[SteveM]

72. "Once they are common place?" Like it ain't here, now?

Whatever your definition of "military style weapons" may be, be aware that semi-automatic weapons in ALL power ranges have been with us for generations. And like ganja, available to a fault in the U.S.A., the rates of usage have remained more-or-less stable for 20 years. Part of the fallacies of prohibitionist thinking is speculating on phenomena in the future. The future is here. One reason "scary" guns are used so little in crime is because crims prefer easily-concealed handguns. Yet, sales of "scary" guns keep rising because the weapon is increasingly used in shooting sports and personal collections.

I don't knows about your bleak Hobbsian future, but if some para-military gang were equipped with one of the "assault rifle" clones, I still would prefer an old brush-busting Remington 742 in 30-06, a more powerful, long-range weapon used for hunting in the South and East since -- Little Anthony and the Imperials?

[benEzra]

40. My only quibble with that scenario...

I think this country will have better luck controlling crime and improving safety by enforcing safety regulations on gun manufacturers, sticking with the Brady Act mandated instant-background checks on gun purchasers, and stiff extra penalties for crimes where a firearm was used. That can be done without infringing on sport or self-defense rights of law-abiding gun owners such as myself.

My only quibble with that scenario is that the Brady Campaign/AGS/VPC call bans on protruding rifle handgrips, flash suppressors, post-1861 magazine capacities, handguns smaller than 7x5, etc. "safety regulations."

Other than that, I agree.

[johnaries]

25. Ah, excuse me, but my friends on the police force

say that they are tired of the criminals having better weapons than they have. So, obviously, they ARE a problem "on the street".

Maybe we should just issue all police fully automatic assault weapons with mounted grenade launchers?

[dairydog91]

27. Got some numbers...

...to back that up? You have to prove that they actually are prevalent, you can't just use a few anecdotes. See, we just have statistics showing that most crime guns are cheapies. Now, if you have studies that disprove this, I'd like to see them.

And we do issue police with "fully automatic assault rifles". SWAT certainly, and I've seen city police officers in DC toting around G36 rifles. I think some SWAT units even have grenade launchers, and I know some have armored vehicles.

[Irreverend IX]

30. But... but...

I thought DC was a nonviolent paradise thanks to its ban on civilian guns! Why would the cops there need automatic rifles?

[hydrashok75]

65. My brother's dept....

issues them Remington 870s loaded with 00Buck. Nasty! I'm a Mossberg man myself...but hey any shotgun with buckshot is the best combat weapon to have in a shootout. Call me up and tell me we're going to have a gun fight, and I'm bringing my shotgun every time. Handguns are for last ditch defense against unexpected attack. Once you're in a gunfight, shotguns are what you want...

And most depts let you have them.

Dan's dept. actually let's you have an AR15 in the vehicle as well if you supply it yourself and pass a cert course.

So let's can the BS about cops being outgunned. They are NOT.

That's a myth that stemmed from the LAPD North Hollywood shoot out, when the cops had to go to a gun store to commandeer some AR15s.

The irony there--if their had been an AWB that banned them totally, the cops wouldn't have been able to commandeer them! The reality is PD's everywhere are aware of that, and patrollmen have lots of 00Buckshot and rifles with them nowadays.

[benEzra]

39. If any police dept. is worse off than the criminals in terms of arms,

that's a procurement problem, not a law problem. The police have top-of-the-line handguns, and automatic weapons for SWAT, or semiautomatic carbines as patrol rifles. Civilians can't buy anything better than that without Federal permission (BATFE Form 4). Mere possession of an M203-type grenade launcher without permission will get a "civilian" 10 years in Federal prison, but police departments can buy as many as they want.

The weapons "on the streets" are almost exclusively handguns and knives, not rifles, per the FBI:

www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_20.html

[shield20]

43. Why? Why do they get special status?

Whose logic was it that said the police should be better armed then the people they are supposed to serve? I did like those perks when I was a cop, but why should I be afforded special privliges then that other law-abiding civilians can not enjoy? You think the few days of range time and semi-annual qualification really makes them better?

Your police friends, just like the rest of we, the people, should be able arm themselves with whatever it takes to stay safe. They should also keep working to put the criminals behind bars, and get the judges to make sure they stay there.

In the Summer of 1999, the New Haven Gun Project implemented several new strategies to attack violent gun crime in the City of New Haven.

The selection of strategies relied in significant part on extensive research into the specific nature and dimensions of incidents of murder, assault with a firearm, armed robbery, the unlawful firing of firearms and unlawful firearm possession. Data from this research, conducted by Spectrum Associates of Farmington, Connecticut, was presented...

Some of the data presented included:

A large percentage of offenders and victims were 15-21 years of age.

Most offenders had serious criminal histories.

One fifth of offenders had been arrested for a prior gun offense, and three-fifths had a history of drug charges.

Over one third of the offenders were on probation at the time of the new gun-related offense.

Approximately one-third of offenders or victims associated with murders and armed assaults were members of neighborhood "groups" believed to be involved in other illegal activities.

(http://www.cityofnewhaven.com/Police/Partnerships.asp#Guns)

**************************************************************

[Hangingon]

48. I live in a small village...

the cops around here are armed with high capacity 9 mm and have body armor. The car usually has a shot gun or AR. The sheriff has a swat team. The "weapons gap" is closing rapidly in my view. What is opening is restrictions on police tactics and procedures. The cities down here are arming their officers with tasers because of fears of use of deadly force.

[Show_Me _The_Truth]

54. Actaully, that last statement is slightly wrong.

The Tasers give them a level of force that is non lethal but keeps them at a distance from the suspect. If a cop has a TASER out, I guarantee you there is a cop behind him with his pistol drawn covering the subject to back him up. Nine times out of ten you don't have one wihout the other.

You will still use deadly force in the same situations as you would before.

There are even studies out that say that pistol shaped TASERS make the situation more dangerous for both officer and suspect. When an officer, who by the nature of the situation you can guarantee is in an altered mental state, reaches onto his(her) belt and feels a pistol grip, they can't tell if it is a TASER or a 9mm pistol. Sometimes you get a ZAP when you wanted a boom, and a boom when you wanted a zap.

They have had to implement specific training procedures to make sure officers carried TASERS and handguns on different parts of their belts to minimize the chance of mistaking one for the other.

[Retired AF Dem]

52. Jealousy?

Are they pissed off that the bean counters won't authorize more cool weapons?. Weapons don't win shit, it is the person behind it.

[Show_Me _The_Truth]

53. I bet you I have more friends on the police force and Fed agencies than you do.

Well MY friends on the police force don't care what kind of weapons I have. In fact, I shoot with them all the time and they like some of my cool stuff.

The fact (really a myth) that criminals have better weaponry than them is a function of the bureaucracy of a police force and the PC politicians running it, than anything else. The myth is perpetuated by police themselves in order to get more funding and more money.

Most police don't know SQUAT about guns. If you want a lesson in the myths of guns, just watch any cop show on tv where the cops are exlaining what they find in a stash. I love it when they find those infamous teflon coated "cop killer" bullets. We all know what the teflon is there for right?

By the way, fully automatic assault weapons won't be issued b/c you can't hit anything with them. I would rather them have AR's or Mini 14's in their cars. Oh wait, the ones not held up by bureaucratic BS already do.

[57_TomCat]

66. As a person familiar with LE and having been a Police chief..

in my past, the cops are worried about bad guys having superior weapons. The MOST Feared weapon out there to cops is the sawed off pump shotgun. This is a regular sporting gun where a hacksaw knocks of the barrel to be even with the magazine tube and the shoulder stock is hacked off to make a simple hand grip. To make this conversion is to commit a felony by violating the 1934 National Firearms Act. Obviously the local criminals do not consider adding an additional felony as being a big deal if they want a big gun.

Police DO by and large have superior weaponry in most cases. The US Army sells FULL AUTO M16A1 rifles by the boatload for bottom dollar to local LE agencies. In addition a 12 gauge shotgun is a common accessory to most cop cars. Purchase of semi auto rifles of many designs are common as well as manual rifles in many cases. The point is these weapons are carried to provide the cops with "Superior" firepower to the bad guys, MOST of which do NOT carry rifles or long arms of any sort.

There are rare circumstances where they (the bad guys) do carry rifles and such but not so much as to justify the wholesale abrogation of individual rights to own these same weapons.

Of course this type of reasoned logic has no support from those that would wish a socialistic setting of prior restraint to push their private or public agendas.

[Turnagain]

67. Just nit picking really, but

the shotgun to pistol conversion that you described is illegal only if the barrel is shortened to less than 18 inches and the overall length of the weapon is less than 26 inches. Pistol grips are available retail for several makes of shotguns such as Remington and Mossberg. IIRC, the shortest factory barrel available is 20 inches. Its very difficult to aim a shortened shotgun with just a pistol grip. Clyde Barrow, an accomplished shootist, left a modified stock on his 'sawed off' shotguns. Many believe that there is no need to aim a 'scatter-gun'. Not so except at contact or extremely short range. For home defense, a reliable sawed off 12 gauge pump is hard to beat.

[cgrindley]

76. It's crazy

The general population has about 5 trillion more important things to worry about than this. Half the people talking crap about so called assault rifles wouldn't recognize one if it bit them in the ass.

What the hell is the difference between a Ruger Mini-Thirty ranch rifle with an aftermarket 30 round magazine and an AK?

I'll tell you... someone shooting the Mini-Thirty will probably hit you.