Doom death and destruction in the US

[Peregrine]

Yep, the completely unconstitutional Assault Weapons Ban is gone as of midnight monday. Now every child can go to the local grocery store and buy an AK-47, then spray armor-piercing bullets at the poor citizens. Following this absolute disaster, crime is already up 500000%. Over 100 million Americans have been killed in the past 24 hours by these horrible unnecessary weapons of mass destruction. Already, the streets are rivers of blood, and the screams of the dying echo through our cities. And this is only the beginning! Death and destruction has come for our nation!

 

 

 

 

Oh wait, that's just in the fantasy world of the democrats. Anyone want to try to debate this now-disposed-of bit of garbage?

[Marxist ßastard]

Now, while I don't doubt that an AK-47 is not only appropriate, but necessary for hunting deer -- especially today's genetically and mechanically augmented super-deer -- there are some families of police officers killed during firefights involving assault weapons that were -- and would still be, if wasn't an election year -- banned that would probably disagree with you, along with two-thirds of the population and one-third of the NRA.

 

Yeah, I know. What a bunch of pussies.

 

But, seriously... I don't know if these are pills you're taking or pills you need to take, but snap out the rut of ignorance that caused you to post this disgrace before you embarass yourself again.

 

Oh, and the linked article is a good read -- it also talks about how true Americans like Peregrine here made the bill have little practical effect by using loopholes, the time-tested friend of conservatives and gun freaks alike

[Peregrine]

there are some families of police officers killed during firefights involving assault weapons that were -- and would still be, if wasn't an election year -- banned that would probably disagree with you.

 

Define "some" please, and with statistics not reflexive anti-gun propaganda. The weapons affected by the ban were involved in a tiny minority of crimes (less than 1%). The weapon of choice for criminals is by FAR a pistol. Take whatever side you want on gun control in general, but you can not reasonably argue that the AWB had any effect on crime.

 

And just to make it worse, the ban was of cosmetic features only. You could still buy your AK-47, as long as it was made before 1994 (such a small number of them you know). Oh, and you could buy it if it was made after 1994, as long as it didn't have too many of the "evil" features. Like the bayonets that are clearly the weapon of choice of criminals. I mean, millions of people are killed in drive-by bayonettings every day in the US.

 

But, seriously... I don't know if these are pills you're taking or pills you need to take, but snap out the rut of ignorance that caused you to post this disgrace before you embarass yourself again.

 

You might have a point, if I was the ignorant one. The amount of lying going on in support of the ban is just disgusting. As you just proved yourself, the overwhelming majority of people have no idea what the ban really did.

 

And if you think the scenario I described is ignorant, every one of those arguments has been used by supporters of the ban. Perhaps in less exaggerated form, but it doesn't make them any more true.

 

along with two-thirds of the population and one-third of the NRA

 

See above. Two thirds of the population support the ban because the majority of them don't have even the slightest idea what the ban was really about. Two thirds of the population are too lazy to bother checking the facts before they listen to the propaganda.

[surian]

Meh, I'm not really too opposed to guns. I don't own any myself and I dont' intend to but I have absolutely no problem letting people own assault rifles. With that being said, I also like to know that the guy using the assault rifle is not an insane nutcase with a motive to kill anything and everything that moves. So, I'm also in favor of some kind of background checks and safeguards (probably a little more than we have now).

 

As for the whole "Oh GOD! The world has come to an end!" thing... I don't really think it has. I don't really care if you want to have an assault rifle laying around your house. I think people get a little too uptight about this whole issue. The real problems are not that people have guns but that they are using them to kill other people, what is the root of THAT problem? That's the really important issue. Social problems, poverty, mental illness etc... THOSE are the issues that have some bearing on whether or not someone is going to kill another person.

 

To sum up:

 

1) Guns are OK

2) Just don't kill people

3) If people are being killed, let's deal with the issues that CAUSE them to do so

4) Lets have some laws limiting WHO can own guns

5) I think we can draw the line at owning anthrax and Atomic Bombs... that's just nuts.

[Marxist ßastard]

Peregrine:

 

The weapons affected by the ban were involved in a tiny minority of crimes (less than 1%).

 

I don't think it's relevant that a statistic with no source -- that may or may not be before or after the assault weapons ban was passed -- indicates that assault weapons -- a term which may or may not cover the "sporterized" versions of common assault weapons, which have minor cosmetic changes applied to them -- were rarely involved in crimes -- a term which may or may not include common crimes which involve neither guns nor murder, such as loitering or public drunkenness.

 

I think it's more important that more than forty officers were killed by assault weapons in a period of three years.

 

Violence Policy Center, in Part One of "Officer Down:"

 

Still a Threat to Police—One in Five Law Enforcement Officers Slain in the Line of Duty is Killed With an Assault Weapon

 

The gun industry's evasion of the 1994 ban on assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines continues to put law enforcement officers at extreme risk. Using data obtained from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Violence Policy Center has determined that at least 41 of the 211 law enforcement officers slain in the line of duty between January 1, 1998, and December 31, 2001, were killed with assault weapons.8 Using these figures, one in five law enforcement officers slain in the line of duty was killed with an assault weapon.

 

[...]

 

8) The Federal Bureau of Investigation data does not identify the firearm used in some instances, in those cases the type of firearm is listed as "unknown." Therefore, the number of law enforcement officers killed with assault weapons may actually be higher. (This figure does not include the 72 law enforcement deaths that resulted from the events of September 11, 2001. The foreword of the FBI's Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted, 2001 states, "Because a catastrophe such as the September 11 attacks falls far outside the normal course of police experience, the FBI has not included those fatalities in the 2001 rate, trend, or disposition tables for to do so would skew the data and render analyses meaningless.") The year 2001 is the most recent year for which complete information is available from the FBI.

[Peregrine]

Of course you'll notice a couple flaws in that statistic....

 

1) It doesn't account for non-police victims of crimes, crimes where the victim was only wounded, or crimes where intimidation was enough use of the gun.

 

2) It says nothing about the legality of those weapons. The issue here is legally owned weapons, which the ban would affect. Illegal weapons are completely outside the ban, and its presence or absence would have no effect on them.

 

3) It says nothing about the contribution to the crime given by the banned features. A pre-ban and post-ban AK-47 are identical except for the bayonet mount. How many of those deaths were a direct result of the presence of a bayonet on the rifle?

 

===============================

 

Since there seems to be some confusion here... I would like all of you, and Marxist ßastard especially, to state which of the following weapons were covered by the ban, and why each weapon was banned.

 

http://images.gunsamerica.com/upload/976288566-1.jpg

 

http://www.triplebreakproducts.com/images/...lympic/pcr6.jpg

 

http://www.seawolf.org/weapons/m60.jpg

 

http://images.gunsamerica.com/upload/976319368-1.jpg

 

http://img47.photobucket.com/albums/v143/L...ek/image001.jpg

 

http://world.guns.ru/rifle/sks_yugo.jpg (note the bayonet and the thing above it: for those of you who can't figure out what it is, it's an old style grenade launcher and sight)

 

http://images.gunsamerica.com/upload/976353511-1.jpg

[Marxist ßastard]

Look, I don't want to get into an endless statistics fight over a topic like this -- 60% of Americans know that statistics can prove anything, and, on top of that, statistics about gun violence, as we all know, are 5435.325% more malleable than other statistics. Fighting with statistics will be pointless, as will -- if experience has taught me anything -- arguing over the intent of the second amendment.

 

Before quitting this debate until a more sensible argument supporting the use of a semiautomatic weapon with an attached grenade launcher or a powerful shotgun with a rotating barrel for deer hunting comes along, I'll just get to the core logic of the issue:

 

1) The expired ban will mean many more assault weapons will be distributed by legal weapon manufacturing facilities.

 

2) These weapons will be, in the end, recieved by citizens, both those authorized to own these weapons and -- through illegal distribution and theft -- those unauthorized to have these weapons at their disposal.

 

3) Because the number of high-damage assault weapons in the possession of citizens will increase because of the ban expiration, and thus the ratio of high-damage weapons to other weapons will rise, the amount of damage that privately owned weapons will do, on average, will increase. Similarly, the amount of time it takes to damage a target will, on average, decrease.

 

4) A percentage of people will use weapons in their possession against other people -- because of what is presented in item 3, these people will be able to do, on average, more damage with the weapons they have avaliable to them, and will be able to do damage to more targets.

 

6) Because more damage can be done in violent acts involving guns, a higher ratio of deaths to injuries that result from these acts will be achieved, and because more targets can be reached, a higher number of casualties resulting from gun violence will be achieved.

 

...So there you go. You're supporting something that will, in a decade, be directly responsible for hundreds of deaths and thousands of crippling injuries. However, you can now mow down deer as if you were a God, and if, for some reason, someone broke into your house and you'd need a muzzle flash suppressor, a bayonet, or a grenade launcher attachment, you'd be prepared.

 

God bless America!

[Malchik]

I wonder how many of those are Al Quaeda sleepers.

 

My views on US gun policy are too well-known to get involved further in this debate except to say one thing.

 

Peregrine has a point in that those wanting to get weapons illegally will do so. But at least then if they are caught, they can be arrested. It seems now that you are arming your enemies legally with (for them) ever more useful weapons.

[_it_]

I wonder how many of those are Al Quaeda sleepers.

 

My views on US gun policy are too well-known to get involved further in this debate except to say one thing.

 

Peregrine has a point in that those wanting to get weapons illegally will do so. But at least then if they are caught, they can be arrested. It seems now that you are arming your enemies legally with (for them) ever more useful weapons.

gang members and like u said terrorist cells are becoming a bigger treat

 

imagine you can buy a m4 assault rifle i mean thats us special forces if you have one of these you can take out a whole police division (providing u can master it and that u have many many bullets) i think bush is making a gigantic mistake

 

btw i found a training manual that cells use to buy arms

[tyjet3]

Meh, I'm not really too opposed to guns. I don't own any myself and I dont' intend to but I have absolutely no problem letting people own assault rifles. With that being said, I also like to know that the guy using the assault rifle is not an insane nutcase with a motive to kill anything and everything that moves. So, I'm also in favor of some kind of background checks and safeguards (probably a little more than we have now).

 

To sum up:

 

1) Guns are OK

2) Just don't kill people

3) If people are being killed, let's deal with the issues that CAUSE them to do so

4) Lets have some laws limiting WHO can own guns

5) I think we can draw the line at owning anthrax and Atomic Bombs... that's just nuts.

 

Surian... for once i think you and me have the same view on a topic. I completly agree... me need to stop hiding from the problems by pecking off small laws that do nothing and go to the root.