+1, for Obama

whatever mods. You're just teasing us.

I'd like to see a chart or graph of any uptick/downtick of violence using these weapons over the last couple decades. I'm fine with having this law, so long as it's proved useful. If not, then forget it.

The AWB is a ridiculous law, but TFA calling it the "victim disarmament rule" is just stupid. I'm a gun owner, and there's no chance in Hell I would ever use an assault rifle for self defense. You'll kill someone a block over.

hillbillypharmacist: I'd like to see a chart or graph of any uptick/downtick of violence using these weapons over the last couple decades. I'm fine with having this law, so long as it's proved useful. If not, then forget it.

It was a POS that banned weapons without rhyme or reason, and sometimes boiled down to nothing more than appearance, e.g. "banana clips." Most of the hew and cry was over the definitions section which seemed to be drafted by someone whose firearms knowledge was limited to a collection of G.I. Joe action figures.

Nabb1: t was a POS that banned weapons without rhyme or reason, and sometimes boiled down to nothing more than appearance, e.g. "banana clips." Most of the hew and cry was over the definitions section which seemed to be drafted by someone whose firearms knowledge was limited to a collection of G.I. Joe action figures.

I'm not interested in discussing whether or not the legislators acted in bad faith or with bad information. I want to see the results.

We do have Constitutional protection for arms, and I don't like to see it rolled back without both good reason (which we have) and good results (who knows).

hillbillypharmacist: Nabb1: t was a POS that banned weapons without rhyme or reason, and sometimes boiled down to nothing more than appearance, e.g. "banana clips." Most of the hew and cry was over the definitions section which seemed to be drafted by someone whose firearms knowledge was limited to a collection of G.I. Joe action figures.

I'm not interested in discussing whether or not the legislators acted in bad faith or with bad information. I want to see the results.

We do have Constitutional protection for arms, and I don't like to see it rolled back without both good reason (which we have) and good results (who knows).

You could check the stats maintained by the FBI and the DOJ. I'd be surprised if you could track any change in violent crime to the AWB versus other factors, like the economic growth in the nineties.

hillbillypharmacist: I want to see the results

hillbillypharmacist: I'd like to see a chart or graph of any uptick/downtick of violence using these weapons over the last couple decades. I'm fine with having this law, so long as it's proved useful. If not, then forget it.

Violent firearm deaths per CDC data:

2005 29,684 Pop: 295,895,897
2004 28,685 Pop: 293,191,511
2003 29,174 Pop: 290,447,644
2002 29,237
2001 28,540
2000 27,657
1999 27,726 Pop: 279,040,181

Source: http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate.html

This number has remained pretty consistent at .0001 of the population. I know you were asking about assault weapons data, but the CDC doesn't track that independently. The foregoing data is useful because the assault weapons ban ended in September, 2004 amidst predictions of blood in the streets and a wild west environment, which, of course, has not come to pass.

One website which offers supporting data says only one in 500 crimes involve an "assault weapon":

Assault weapons are not the weapons of choice among drug dealers, gang members or criminals in general. Assault weapons are used in about one-fifth of one percent (.20%) of all violent crimes and about one percent in gun crimes. It is estimated that from one to seven percent of all homicides are committed with assault weapons (rifles of any type are involved in three to four percent of all homicides). However a higher percentage are used in police homicides, roughly ten percent. (There has been no consistent trend in this rate from 1978 through 1996.) Between 1992 and 1996 less than 4% of mass murders, committed with guns, involved assault weapons. (Our deadliest mass murders have either involved arson or bombs.)

The data is lengthy, but here's the link:
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcassaul.html

Senescent Dawn: The AWB is a ridiculous law, but TFA calling it the "victim disarmament rule" is just stupid. I'm a gun owner, and there's no chance in Hell I would ever use an assault rifle for self defense. You'll kill someone a block over.

i, on the other hand, often wander around with an assault weapon slung over my shoulder, just in case. i mean, you really never know.

Can I ask what the attract to assault weapons is?

I honestly have no idea--I'm a pacifist, I come from a gun-free household, I have no desire to ever see/hold/have one, so I don't really know why people want something that. I mean, I understand you have guns for hunting and guns for protection but would you really use an "assault weapon" for either of those thing? Why have one? Is it more fun to practice with, or is it like a status thing or what?

Seems like they forget the 1995 mid-term election so easily.

hillbillypharmacist: I'd like to see a chart or graph of any uptick/downtick of violence using these weapons over the last couple decades. I'm fine with having this law, so long as it's proved useful. If not, then forget it.

It did nothing. The Clinton administration tried, but could not come up with any benefit against criminals. The ban only affected the law abiding and gave the GOP Congress for over a decade.

Here is a good read writen by a democrat no less.

Dems and the Gun Issue--Now What? (new window)

At my local gun shop a well-made AK will set you back a grand or so...what crackhead on a budget is going to walk away from a hundred rocks of sweet, sweet crack to buy something like that?

cheshirecatsmileyface: Why have one? Is it more fun to practice with, or is it like a status thing or what?

Do you enjoy a performance car? High-quality tools? Nice clothes? Same type of thing. Quality and durability are generally appreciated and so-called "assault" weapons tend to have generally higher quality and durability than an off-the-shelf plinking rifle.

Here's a start:
Homocide rate trends-
1990 10.0
1991 10.5
1992 10.0
1993 10.1
1994 9.6
1995 8.7
1996 7.9
1997 7.4
1998 6.8
1999 6.2
2000 6.1
2001 7.1 *
2002 6.1
2003 6.1
2004 5.9

and

In the years following the enactment of the ban, crimes using assault weapons were reduced dramatically. According to the most recent statistics made by the ATF, in 1993, assault weapons accounted for 8.2 percent of all guns used in crimes; By the end of 1995, that proportion had fallen to 4.3 percent; and by November 1996, the last date for which statistics are available, the proportion had fallen to 3.2 percent.

Of course, it's impossible to assign true cause. And unfortunately, we can't see if there's an increase after 2004 when the ban expired. If there's not, who the hell knows.

KIA: cheshirecatsmileyface: Why have one? Is it more fun to practice with, or is it like a status thing or what?

Do you enjoy a performance car? High-quality tools? Nice clothes? Same type of thing. Quality and durability are generally appreciated and so-called "assault" weapons tend to have generally higher quality and durability than an off-the-shelf plinking rifle.

I guess part of my confusion is that I use my car and tools and clothes on a regular basis for a variety of tasks, so it makes sense to me to buy them.

Do you use "assault weapons" like you would any other type of gun? Or is there like a specific kind of shooting it's best for, you know, like you have hunting rifles?

cheshirecatsmileyface: Can I ask what the attract to assault weapons is?

I honestly have no idea--I'm a pacifist, I come from a gun-free household, I have no desire to ever see/hold/have one, so I don't really know why people want something that. I mean, I understand you have guns for hunting and guns for protection but would you really use an "assault weapon" for either of those thing? Why have one? Is it more fun to practice with, or is it like a status thing or what?

Can't speak for anyone else, but I keep guns in my home. Primarily for plinking and target shooting. I also have them 'just in case'. I have an AK-47 that is a load of fun to plink at 100 yards with.

It's not a status thing - especially with the AK. It's cheaper than most of my other guns. I like it because it's semi-automatic, meaning I am able to charge the gun once, than shoot 30 or so rounds without having to deal with anything else. It's really nice with target shooting.

So, I guess I don't think of my AK, or any of my guns, as "Assault Weapons". I think of them as tools. I grew up with them in my house, and I'm used to them.

neapoi: cheshirecatsmileyface: Can I ask what the attract to assault weapons is?

I honestly have no idea--I'm a pacifist, I come from a gun-free household, I have no desire to ever see/hold/have one, so I don't really know why people want something that. I mean, I understand you have guns for hunting and guns for protection but would you really use an "assault weapon" for either of those thing? Why have one? Is it more fun to practice with, or is it like a status thing or what?

Can't speak for anyone else, but I keep guns in my home. Primarily for plinking and target shooting. I also have them 'just in case'. I have an AK-47 that is a load of fun to plink at 100 yards with.

It's not a status thing - especially with the AK. It's cheaper than most of my other guns. I like it because it's semi-automatic, meaning I am able to charge the gun once, than shoot 30 or so rounds without having to deal with anything else. It's really nice with target shooting.

So, I guess I don't think of my AK, or any of my guns, as "Assault Weapons". I think of them as tools. I grew up with them in my house, and I'm used to them.

Thank you, that does make sense.

cheshirecatsmileyface - no problem.

Another reason why I like my AK is that ammo has been, up to this point, relatively inexpensive.

Crosshair: Here is a good read writen by a democrat no less.
Dems and the Gun Issue--Now What? (new window)

That guy has some good points, especially in that gun control, even if it works, is so unpopular that it should be left to the states.

But this quote makes me think he's not so smart:

Many Democrats complain about the NRA's influence in national elections. But if the national Democratic leadership would simply drop the crusade against nonhunting guns, the NRA wouldn't even CARE who won.

Bullsh*t.

Nabb1: It was a POS that banned weapons without rhyme or reason, and sometimes boiled down to nothing more than appearance, e.g. "banana clips." Most of the hew and cry was over the definitions section which seemed to be drafted by someone whose firearms knowledge was limited to a collection of G.I. Joe action figures.

So you're OK with this type of legislation, but have a problem with its ineffectual implementation?

Nabb1: I'd be surprised if you could track any change in violent crime to the AWB versus other factors, like the economic growth in the nineties.

Or Roe v. Wade.

KIA: Do you enjoy a performance car? High-quality tools? Nice clothes? Same type of thing. Quality and durability are generally appreciated and so-called "assault" weapons tend to have generally higher quality and durability than an off-the-shelf plinking rifle.

Are all cars street legal? Should all cars be street legal?

The AWB did nothing to stop crime. Putting in a new one wont either.

Law abiding citizens aren't the ones committing the crimes.

In before GaryPDX:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tossed cold water on the prospect of reinstating the assault weapons ban, highlighting Democrats' reluctance to take on gun issues.

Attorney General Eric Holder raised the prospect Wednesday that the administration would push to bring back the ban. But Pelosi (D-Calif.) indicated on Thursday that he never talked to her. The Speaker gave a flat "no" when asked if she had talked to administration officials about the ban.

"On that score, I think we need to enforce the laws we have right now," Pelosi said at her weekly news conference. "I think it's clear the Bush administration didn't do that."

Outside of the dig at the recent Republican president, that phrase is the stock line of those who don't want to pass new gun control laws, such as the National Rifle Association.

The White House declined to comment on Holder's remarks, referring reporters to the Department of Justice. The DoJ did not respond to The Hill's request for comment.

cousin-merle: Are all cars street legal? Should all cars be street legal?

All GUNS aren't legal, and you'll rarely find anyone arguing that they SHOULD be. This isn't bickering over banning belt-fed machine-guns. The definition of "assault weapon" is absurdly vague and really not at all useful as a crime deterrent.

MrBigglesworth: The AWB did nothing to stop crime. Putting in a new one wont either.

Law abiding citizens aren't the ones committing the crimes.

This is exactly why I think it should be legal for me to manufacture pipe bombs and VX gas.

Senescent Dawn: All GUNS aren't legal, and you'll rarely find anyone arguing that they SHOULD be. This isn't bickering over banning belt-fed machine-guns. The definition of "assault weapon" is absurdly vague and really not at all useful as a crime deterrent.

So you wouldn't have a problem with legislation that carries the same spirit but fixes the definitions to be less arbitrary?

And the best part?

It's being sold as a way to combat crime in Mexico.

cousin-merle: This is exactly why I think it should be legal for me to manufacture pipe bombs and VX gas.

VX gas is not the same thing as a gun with a pistol grip and a bayonet mount.

If you have a C&R FFL, you can still buy SKS' for under $100 for shooter grades.......

Didn't manufacturers pump out a bunch of clips and such prior to the ban going into effect originally since the ban wasn't retroactive?

I really don't care if it's in effect or not. As far as I can tell they want to reactivate the old law, not create a new one - and I bought guns under the old law no problem......

cousin-merle: So you wouldn't have a problem with legislation that carries the same spirit but fixes the definitions to be less arbitrary?

Frankly I don't really see the need for the AWB. I'm fine with current legislation. But seriously, how many crimes are committed with an MP5 versus a small, concealable pistol? I don't know the data, I'll grant. But I thin AWB supporters are tilting at windmills just a bit.

cousin-merle: MrBigglesworth: The AWB did nothing to stop crime. Putting in a new one wont either.

Law abiding citizens aren't the ones committing the crimes.

This is exactly why I think it should be legal for me to manufacture pipe bombs and VX gas.

Because me using an AR-15 to go target shooting is the same thing as me creating a lethal chemical poison that's ONLY PURPOSE is to murder with.

We let the public have access to demolition equipment, like your pipe bomb, but only if they have been properly trained and know what they are doing. Licensed professionals that are trained to demolish buildings/build mines etc...

Senescent Dawn: VX gas is not the same thing as a gun with a pistol grip and a bayonet mount.



Senescent Dawn: Frankly I don't really see the need for the AWB. I'm fine with current legislation. But seriously, how many crimes are committed with an MP5 versus a small, concealable pistol? I don't know the data, I'll grant. But I thin AWB supporters are tilting at windmills just a bit.

I don't really think AWB does anything either. Then again, I'm against handguns for exactly that reason.

cousin-merle: So you're OK with this type of legislation, but have a problem with its ineffectual implementation?

No, I'm not, but at the very least, if you are going to restrict firearm ownership, at least make the legislation clearly aimed (no pun intended) at the specific goal in mind, and not just throw some haphazard ban together that is best described as scatter shod.

Nabb1: I'd be surprised if you could track any change in violent crime to the AWB versus other factors, like the economic growth in the nineties.

Or Roe v. Wade.

I read that book, too. Interesting correlation, though I'm not convinced it translates into direct causation.

neapoi: ONLY PURPOSE is to murder with.

Congratulations, now you understand the thinking of someone who wants to ban assault weapons.

hillbillypharmacist: Homocide rate trends-

What is homocide? A hate crime?

Also, the general homicide rate is irrelevant to a firearms debate, primarily because homicides tend to fall during good economic times and to rise during bad economic times.

Big Red Al: If you have a C&R FFL, you can still buy SKS' for under $100 for shooter grades.......

Where?

I just bought an SKS and the cheapest I could find was $250. Retards are buying them up at $300+ everywhere I look.

cousin-merle: Should all cars be street legal?

Yes. It is up to the driver to use the tool properly.

cousin-merle: neapoi: ONLY PURPOSE is to murder with.

Congratulations, now you understand the thinking of someone who wants to ban assault weapons.

Pardon if this sounds snippy, but I just said that I target shoot with my AK. There's another purpose for the weapon! IT'S NOT JUST FOR KILLING!!!!

That's the reason why I have a hard time understanding the logic behind the AWB. Besides, It won't affect me anyways. I already have everything I want.

cousin-merle: neapoi: ONLY PURPOSE is to murder with.

Congratulations, now you understand the thinking of someone who wants to ban assault weapons.

Gee, Merle, you still didn't answer my question from the other thread:

Who is more paranoid, a gun owner who sees legislation pending to restrict sweeping categories of firearms or a gun grabber who thinks that a .0001% chance of injury from a firearm is worth spending billions of dollars to try to eliminate that miniscule threat?

KIA: Yes. It is up to the driver to use the tool properly.

Woohoo, anarchy!

Nabb1: No, I'm not, but at the very least, if you are going to restrict firearm ownership, at least make the legislation clearly aimed (no pun intended) at the specific goal in mind, and not just throw some haphazard ban together that is best described as scatter shod.

I just wanted to be clear. I hear a lot of people complain about cosmetic targets of the ban when they are against the ban entirely. For the record, I think we need to do something about guns in this country. I'm not entirely sure what, though, being a little ignorant on what laws are actually already in place with regards to guns. I'm against handguns and assault weapons, but banning them is silly. The best solution is probably to make everyone learn to use them properly at a young age. We teach our kids how to drive in school, maybe we should teach them gun safety too. Both instruments are capable of killing indiscriminately en masse.

cousin-merle: Woohoo, anarchy freedom!

FTFY

KIA: Gee, Merle, you still didn't answer my question from the other thread:

Who is more paranoid, a gun owner who sees legislation pending to restrict sweeping categories of firearms or a gun grabber who thinks that a .0001% chance of injury from a firearm is worth spending billions of dollars to try to eliminate that miniscule threat?

Once again, I'm going with the gun owner because he is the only one in your scenario that exists.

neapoi: Pardon if this sounds snippy, but I just said that I target shoot with my AK. There's another purpose for the weapon! IT'S NOT JUST FOR KILLING!!!!

That's the reason why I have a hard time understanding the logic behind the AWB. Besides, It won't affect me anyways. I already have everything I want.

Developing VX gas could have other uses. What if I were trying to make my own pesticide for use on my own property? How do you think they come up with these poisons? Who are you to tell me what I can and can't own? I'm just being responsible, trying to make a living off my crops. I don't need the government coming in and telling me what's what.

lexnaturalis: Big Red Al: If you have a C&R FFL, you can still buy SKS' for under $100 for shooter grades.......

Where?

I just bought an SKS and the cheapest I could find was $250. Retards are buying them up at $300+ everywhere I look.

I haven't looked recently (like in the past 4-5 weeks), but any of the various websites that sell to C&R folks - I know I saw at least one with 'em under $100. I don't have the list handy at the moment so I can't look it up - sorry.

Big Red Al: I haven't looked recently (like in the past 4-5 weeks), but any of the various websites that sell to C&R folks

Wish I'd realized that before I bought mine. Oh well.

cousin-merle: I just wanted to be clear. I hear a lot of people complain about cosmetic targets of the ban when they are against the ban entirely. For the record, I think we need to do something about guns in this country. I'm not entirely sure what, though, being a little ignorant on what laws are actually already in place with regards to guns. I'm against handguns and assault weapons, but banning them is silly. The best solution is probably to make everyone learn to use them properly at a young age. We teach our kids how to drive in school, maybe we should teach them gun safety too. Both instruments are capable of killing indiscriminately en masse.

The problem with banning handguns is that they have plenty of use as a self-defense weapon, when you're in an enclosed area like a hallway. Or as a concealed-carry weapon. Again, I don't know the numbers intimately, but I'd be curious to see how many bank robberies happen in Texas.

I agree that it's not fair to complain about the cosmetics banned by the AWB when I disagree with it in principle. I think we can all agree that gun bans come down to subjectivity and a matter of degree. It is my *opinion* that the AWB probably doesn't help the overall crime rate, and has the deleterious effect of starting us down a slippery slope. These aren't weapons of mass murder, one cannot kill groups of people at one time.

BTW, people who say that a gun's only purpose is murder have apparently never lived in the country where you occasionally need to put down a wounded animal, or where it would take the local police 15 minutes to find your home in the event of a burglary. The ability to kill something quickly is often useful and non-sociopathic.

If you read everything Mr. Holder said, his best excuse for banning them is so that they won't be sold to Mexico...

So he thinks making something illegal here will stem the flow of that illegal something being illegally smuggled and sold in Mexico.

what?

We are banning weapons here because the Cartels in Mexico are fighting with weapons they bought illegally from Americans - supposedly. They caught two guys with five guns a few months back and one dude with a .50 cal trying to sell it to some Mexicans for a lot more than it was worth. Six guns...

I suspect when we ban AWs here the Cartels will get the message, lay down their weapons and go back to being farmers and construction workers again.

cousin-merle:

Developing VX gas could have other uses. What if I were trying to make my own pesticide for use on my own property? How do you think they come up with these poisons? Who are you to tell me what I can and can't own? I'm just being responsible, trying to make a living off my crops. I don't need the government coming in and telling me what's what.

In that case, I suppose you could just go down to your local PPG/Co-Op/Farmers Hangout and talk with a few of the locals. They have tons of tips and tricks for your imaginary crops. Besides, I still see things differently than that. The government regulates things that would, otherwise, be devastating to the health and lives of the community.

There's a big difference between a poison gas that, when released into the atmosphere, indiscriminately kills whomever it comes into contact with - vs. a weapon that has a slightly higher rate of fire than, say, my lever action rifle.

And I very quickly concede that the Government has drawn the weapons 'line' in a very good place. The line between semi-auto and full-auto is a big line that works well for this country. Besides, most of the crimes committed with guns would not be affected by the AWB anyways.

Than, when people start using knives to kill people, we can outlaw those too - just like England.

Senescent Dawn: ...

The problem with banning handguns is that they have plenty of use as a self-defense weapon, when you're in an enclosed area like a hallway. Or as a concealed-carry weapon. Again, I don't know the numbers intimately, but I'd be curious to see how many bank robberies happen in Texas....


394 in 2006 - approx as many as all of New England. Looks like they're second only to CA. (But I just skimmed.)
FBI

cousin-merle: In before GaryPDX:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tossed cold water on the prospect of reinstating the assault weapons ban, highlighting Democrats' reluctance to take on gun issues.

Attorney General Eric Holder raised the prospect Wednesday that the administration would push to bring back the ban. But Pelosi (D-Calif.) indicated on Thursday that he never talked to her. The Speaker gave a flat "no" when asked if she had talked to administration officials about the ban.

"On that score, I think we need to enforce the laws we have right now," Pelosi said at her weekly news conference. "I think it's clear the Bush administration didn't do that."

Outside of the dig at the recent Republican president, that phrase is the stock line of those who don't want to pass new gun control laws, such as the National Rifle Association.

The White House declined to comment on Holder's remarks, referring reporters to the Department of Justice. The DoJ did not respond to The Hill's request for comment.

Bears repeating. I imagine a retraction from Holder will be forthcoming.

I'm a dirty hippy libtard and I don't want to see this thing go through.