Gun laws

[clockwork]

this is slightly off topic but thought should be posted. The U.S. Congress is trying to place a gun ban that includes semi autos to browning model 1885 single shot rifles to most shot guns please read the list of Guns in the list.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill...bill=h110-6257

[David]

Originally Posted by clockwork

this is slightly off topic but thought should be posted. The U.S. Congress is trying to place a gun ban that includes semi autos to browning model 1885 single shot rifles to most shot guns please read the list of Guns in the list.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill...bill=h110-6257

Perhaps i have misread this. I always find legalese difficult.
But this is stated very early on in the bill:

‘(3) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to--
‘(A) any of the firearms, or replicas or duplicates of the firearms, specified in appendix A to this section, as such firearms were manufactured on October 1, 1993;
‘(B) any firearm that--
‘(i) is manually operated by bolt, pump, lever, or slide action;
‘(ii) has been rendered permanently inoperable; or
‘(iii) is an antique firearm;
‘(C) any semiautomatic rifle that cannot accept a detachable magazine that holds more than 5 rounds of ammunition; or
‘(D) any semiautomatic shotgun that cannot hold more than 5 rounds of ammunition in a fixed or detachable magazine.

The list you speak of is "appendix A" so doesn't this mean that these weapons are NOT banned by this bill?

[clockwork]

basically there trying to ban all the weapons on the list which include single shot as well as black powder other wise they would not name them from my experiance. undar appendix A covers full auto as well as semi auto under the amended then it goes on to cover the restlike lever & slide then bolt action ECT.

[David]

Originally Posted by clockwork

basically there trying to ban all the weapons on the list which include single shot as well as black powder other wise they would not name them from my experiance. undar appendix A covers full auto as well as semi auto under the amended then it goes on to cover the restlike lever & slide then bolt action ECT.

Again, i might be misreading this, but it does seem to say that the weapons on the list are NOT subject to this ban. Please read the section i have cited again. That is what it says, is it not.
This is a reauthorization of an ASSAULT WEAPONS ban. I think this ban is already in place and this bill serves to renew said ban. That is why it is a RE-authorization, no? It is not aimed at these other weapons as far as i can tell.

[David]

Here is a little bit more of this bill. I have bolded certain words for better understanding.

(a) RESTRICTION- Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding after subsection (u) the following:
‘(v)(1) It shall be unlawful for a person to manufacture, transfer, or possess a semiautomatic assault weapon.
‘(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the possession or transfer of any semiautomatic assault weapon otherwise lawfully possessed under Federal law on the date of the enactment of this subsection.
‘(3) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to--
‘(A) any of the firearms, or replicas or duplicates of the firearms, specified in appendix A to this section, as such firearms were manufactured on October 1, 1993;
‘(B) any firearm that--
‘(i) is manually operated by bolt, pump, lever, or slide action;
‘(ii) has been rendered permanently inoperable; or
‘(iii) is an antique firearm;
‘(C) any semiautomatic rifle that cannot accept a detachable magazine that holds more than 5 rounds of ammunition; or
‘(D) any semiautomatic shotgun that cannot hold more than 5 rounds of ammunition in a fixed or detachable magazine.
The fact that a firearm is not listed in appendix A shall not be construed to mean that paragraph (1) applies to such firearm. No firearm exempted by this subsection may be deleted from appendix A so long as this subsection is in effect.

The first part bolded is "paragraph (1)". Please note that this entire section deals with weapons that are exempt from this bill, including those listed in appendix A.
The last part even assures us that even if the firearm is not on the appendix A list, it may still be exempt from this bill if it meets the criteria.

[Ed]

Lists of things that the government "allows" us to have makes me nervous.

The woman pushing this bill lost her husband to the nut who killed those folks on the Long Island RR some years ago. She has been persuing this since then.

The bill is ipso facto dishonest since it refers to a definition of assault rifles that is aesthetic. The gun banners in the US have been monkeying with commenly accepted terminology to demonize virtually every firearm. I have seen references to "assault pistols" for example.

This

‘(C) any semiautomatic rifle that cannot accept a detachable magazine that holds more than 5 rounds of ammunition; or

‘(D) any semiautomatic shotgun that cannot hold more than 5 rounds of ammunition in a fixed or detachable magazine.

Includes every semi automatic weapon in existence. Every one.

This is the aesthetic BS

‘(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;

These are things that are absolutely meaningless.

This

SEC. 3. BAN OF LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICES.

(a) PROHIBITION- Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, as amended by section 2(a), is amended by adding after subsection (v) the following:

‘(w)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for a person to transfer or possess a large capacity ammunition feeding device.

‘(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the possession or transfer of any large capacity ammunition feeding device otherwise lawfully possessed on or before the date of the enactment of this subsection.

suggests that one would have to trust the government enough to tell them that you have such magazines and get "permission" to keep them.

It also suggests that bad guys cannot do High School level msheetmetal work.

This is BS window dressing:

SEC. 4. STUDY BY ATTORNEY GENERAL.

(a) STUDY- The Attorney General shall investigate and study the effect of this Act and the amendments made by this Act, and in particular shall determine their impact, if any, on violent and drug trafficking crime. The study shall be conducted over a period of 18 months, commencing 12 months after the date of enactment of this Act.

(b) REPORT- Not later than 30 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall prepare and submit to the Congress a report setting forth in detail the findings and determinations made in the study under subsection (a).

They did such a thing in NJ some time ago. They found that the law did zero, nada, zilch. The law is still on the books because "it can't hurt".

I will refrain from dealing with the logical errors in this law.

Jesus. And people fall for it.

[Ed]

It's worse than I thought.

The list of firearms are those that are "acceptable" to the government. Not one surplus rifle or pistol. I estimate, what, 300 on the list. 400?

There are thousands of different firearms available.

This is confiscation and not close to being "reasonable".

[Ed]

Re reading it it seems that there are certain ambiguities.

For example, my m1 carbine is an antique (unless that definition changes) but it can (as any clip fed gun can) accept a clip > 5 rounds. So which trumps what? And for how long?

[David]

Originally Posted by Ed

It's worse than I thought.

The list of firearms are those that are "acceptable" to the government. Not one surplus rifle or pistol. I estimate, what, 300 on the list. 400?

There are thousands of different firearms available.

This is confiscation and not close to being "reasonable".

Once again Ed:

The fact that a firearm is not listed in appendix A shall not be construed to mean that paragraph (1) applies to such firearm. No firearm exempted by this subsection may be deleted from appendix A so long as this subsection is in effect.

This country has an amazingly strong gun lobby. I don't image that the government will be taking all our guns away any time soon. I am sorry, but i see no problem with the banning of assault weapons. They are not necessary for sportsman, collectors or personal protection.

[clockwork]

look at the list and u will find guns that are out lawed on the old list such as the MINI 14 and B.A.Rs also under the law any gun older than 1898 I believe is considered a courio relic and would be excempt so why put them on a list?

I have never seen a list for guns that are allowed only guns to be banned this makes no sence to me. I also noted that the bill contradict its self in a few places. be warry of this bill

Originally Posted by David

Once again Ed:

The fact that a firearm is not listed in appendix A shall not be construed to mean that paragraph (1) applies to such firearm. No firearm exempted by this subsection may be deleted from appendix A so long as this subsection is in effect.

This country has an amazingly strong gun lobby. I don't image that the government will be taking all our guns away any time soon. I am sorry, but i see no problem with the banning of assault weapons. They are not necessary for sportsman, collectors or personal protection.

[clockwork]

according to wikipeda C&R goes back 50 yrs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Firearms_License

[Ed]

Originally Posted by David

Once again Ed:

The fact that a firearm is not listed in appendix A shall not be construed to mean that paragraph (1) applies to such firearm. No firearm exempted by this subsection may be deleted from appendix A so long as this subsection is in effect.

This country has an amazingly strong gun lobby. I don't image that the government will be taking all our guns away any time soon. I am sorry, but i see no problem with the banning of assault weapons. They are not necessary for sportsman, collectors or personal protection.

Ummm I collect them.

Seriously, assault waepons are already strictly controlled. And have been for ages.

What they are saying is that hunting weapons with un-pc looks are to be controlled. That's a non-starter.

BTW, semi auto .223 weapons that are wrongly termed "assault weapons" are widely used for target shooting, varment shooting and are avidly collected.

[Ed]

Originally Posted by clockwork

look at the list and u will find guns that are out lawed on the old list such as the MINI 14 and B.A.Rs also under the law any gun older than 1898 I believe is considered a courio relic and would be excempt so why put them on a list?

I have never seen a list for guns that are allowed only guns to be banned this makes no sence to me. I also noted that the bill contradict its self in a few places. be warry of this bill

The BAR is an NFA weapon. ie. a sevective fire weapon. It is handled under a completely different set of laws. But ... maybe not.

[clockwork]

there are a cpl diffrent versions of the BAR from full auto to selective fire so it can fall under diffrent regs depending on the type that a person has. I believe that machine gun kelly used this weapon

[celtan]

I think that was Bonnie and Clyde. Stole them from a Govt. Armoury (National Guard?). MGK carried the Tommy Gun (Thompsom .45)

BTW, the BAR had been around since WWI. US Soldiers weren't provided with it cuz' our Govt. was afraid that the germans would capture one and make copies of it. Instead, they were forced to use the french Chauchat, a piece-of-crap that seldom worked, even under ideal conditions. Thousands of "Yanks" needlessly died because of that decision.

I reside in San Juan, PR. Here we have the _toughest gun-laws_ in all the US of A, and also the _worst violent-crime rates_ in the Nation, comparable to Russia's.

Any criminal in PR can buy or actually "rent" an AK-47 on the housing projects, but a honest citizen can't own a flintlock family heirloom without a license, and if he's caught in the possession of an ounce of black powder, it's an automatic 5 year felony sentence !

Yes Virginia, it's true: The only ones who obey gun laws are the honest citizens, who wouldn't misuse guns in the first place. Those who commit crimes with them don't bother with the Law, it can be the toughest gun law in the Universe, and they would still break it.

There have been studies made on the performance of the anti-assault gun laws while it was on effect, and guess what? Zilch, no improvements whatsoever. It's just window-dressing for the PC minded folk. OTOH, states that allow concealed carry have lower crime-rates. Make your own conclussions.

I am in favor of gun control laws, but only those have prioven to be effective in keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, and those unfit to own them.

Merry Xmas y'all!


: ) Manuel Luis

Originally Posted by clockwork

there are a cpl diffrent versions of the BAR from full auto to selective fire so it can fall under diffrent regs depending on the type that a person has. I believe that machine gun kelly used this weapon

[David]

Write yer congressman gentlemen. That always works.

[Atlantia]

Its such a tough issue isn't it gentlemen?
As you'll all probobly know, the gun laws in the UK are now some of the tightest in the world. I used to have strong connections with the gun owning (target range shooting) fraternity in the UK and the total ban on handguns seemed terribly draconian when it was introduced here.
Yes, some terrible crimes ARE committed with legally held guns, but of course most are committed by criminals with illegal weapons. In fact, in the UK the main 'legally held' gun that gets missused has always been the shotgun, and those remain legal because they have such a powerful lobby of users.
We now have a situation where even replica handguns are essentially prohibited.
Has it done any good?
Well, I have to say as someone who athough a lifelong weapons collector (now of course my guns are all relics) and essentially a pacifist who would never ever consider shooting a gun at anything more than a paper target, I think it has had a positive overall effect.
I think banning replicas and toys is a step too far, but I do believe that banning handguns (and nearly all semi automatic rifles) here, has made a difference. Certainly I believe it has affected their use in violent crime, for several reasons.
So was it worth the sacrifice of hobby gun owners?
Well, I would have to say that I think it was (And I say this for the UK as our situation is completely different from yours).

Although we do of course still have a problem with gun crime, it is certainly not as bad as it could be, or IMHO would be if guns were more a part of the British way of life. We have managed to move to a situation where most British kids grow up playing with toy guns, but have no experience of shooting a real one and certainly no experience of killing anything with one. Therefore, I do believe that guns are seen in a completely different way here. Obviously some people DO want to illegally own a gun, but thats a BIG step over the line, and puts you in a definate criminal category. I think this combination of fear of/lack of experience of/and criminalisation of gun ownership does mean that to most people here, the idea of having a gun or using one in anger is just not 'on the table'.

I wish there WAS a solution, simple or not for you guys. I fear that in the end there will come a moment where you have to sacrifice many of your rights of private gun ownership to begin a long term process of lessening gun crime.
I honestly can't see even the most progressive President starting such a contentious process when it will surely take many, many terms of office to show any real results.

I know I've drifted way past the subject in hand, just thought you might want to read the views of someone who spent a lot of time around guns then DID see them banned.

Sad thing is, of course its worth the sacrifce if it works! But where DO you guys start?

Peace all, don't 'shoot me down' for thinking gun control can be a good thing.

[celtan]

But that's the thing Atlantia,

Puerto Rico, Boston, New York: Extremely restricted gun controls (specially shotguns): High Crime Incidence
Britain, Spain, Japan: Extremely restricted gun controls : Low Crime Incidence (in native populations, inmigrants bring different values)
Ohio: Liberal gun laws: Low Crime Incidence
Switzerland, Finland, Sweden, likewise.
Los Angeles: Liberal Gun Laws: High Crime Incidence

So the crux is not gun control, but the local society mores behind it. In Britain, even drunkards at pubs are usually well behaved.

Draconian gun laws are not the answer. But some control is definitely needed, its only a matter of neither too much nor too little.

Best

M

Originally Posted by Atlantia

Its such a tough issue isn't it gentlemen?
As you'll all probobly know, the gun laws in the UK are now some of the tightest in the world. I used to have strong connections with the gun owning (target range shooting) fraternity in the UK and the total ban on handguns seemed terribly draconian when it was introduced here.
Yes, some terrible crimes ARE committed with legally held guns, but of course most are committed by criminals with illegal weapons. In fact, in the UK the main 'legally held' gun that gets missused has always been the shotgun, and those remain legal because they have such a powerful lobby of users.
We now have a situation where even replica handguns are essentially prohibited.
Has it done any good?
Well, I have to say as someone who athough a lifelong weapons collector (now of course my guns are all relics) and essentially a pacifist who would never ever consider shooting a gun at anything more than a paper target, I think it has had a positive overall effect.
I think banning replicas and toys is a step too far, but I do believe that banning handguns (and nearly all semi automatic rifles) here, has made a difference. Certainly I believe it has affected their use in violent crime, for several reasons.
So was it worth the sacrifice of hobby gun owners?
Well, I would have to say that I think it was (And I say this for the UK as our situation is completely different from yours).

Although we do of course still have a problem with gun crime, it is certainly not as bad as it could be, or IMHO would be if guns were more a part of the British way of life. We have managed to move to a situation where most British kids grow up playing with toy guns, but have no experience of shooting a real one and certainly no experience of killing anything with one. Therefore, I do believe that guns are seen in a completely different way here. Obviously some people DO want to illegally own a gun, but thats a BIG step over the line, and puts you in a definate criminal category. I think this combination of fear of/lack of experience of/and criminalisation of gun ownership does mean that to most people here, the idea of having a gun or using one in anger is just not 'on the table'.

I wish there WAS a solution, simple or not for you guys. I fear that in the end there will come a moment where you have to sacrifice many of your rights of private gun ownership to begin a long term process of lessening gun crime.
I honestly can't see even the most progressive President starting such a contentious process when it will surely take many, many terms of office to show any real results.

I know I've drifted way past the subject in hand, just thought you might want to read the views of someone who spent a lot of time around guns then DID see them banned.

Sad thing is, of course its worth the sacrifce if it works! But where DO you guys start?

Peace all, don't 'shoot me down' for thinking gun control can be a good thing.

[Atlantia]

Originally Posted by celtan

But that's the thing Atlantia,

Puerto Rico, Boston, New York: Extremely restricted gun controls (specially shotguns): High Crime Incidence
Britain, Spain, Japan: Extremely restricted gun controls : Low Crime Incidence (in native populations, inmigrants bring different values)
Ohio: Liberal gun laws: Low Crime Incidence
Switzerland, Finland, Sweden, likewise.
Los Angeles: Liberal Gun Laws: High Crime Incidence

So the crux is not gun control, but the local society mores behind it. In Britain, even drunkards at pubs are usually well behaved.

Draconian gun laws are not the answer. But some control is definitely needed, its only a matter of neither too much nor too little.

Best

M

Hi Manuel,

Hmmm, I (formerly) worked in nightclubs for 10 years, and the British seem to drink for sport, as if it was an Olympic event and we are in training!
But as for behaviour, it seems to depend on the city/area.
Some places I worked are fairly well behaved, like Torquay! Generally very drunk, but overall good natured.
Portsmouth on the other hand, very drunk, and like the wild west, with fights quickly getting out of hand and spreading to half the pub/club.

All the towns I worked in had occasional stabbings, drunken glassings etc.
Very rarely shootings, in fact I've never seen one with my own eyes in 10 years. There were a couple, that happened at venues I frequented when I wasn't there, but they were very rare.

Thats because they are usually the result of premeditation and not 'impulse'.
I've known people who've been stabbed, and in fact had a kinfe pulled on me once when promoting a club, I've sadly seen many, many people get their faces and even throats cut with glasses, and god only knows how many with injuries from being kicked, punched or smacked with some stool or ashtray. I'm very happy to say that none ever actually died from injuries sustained in a club I worked in, but a couple of times I think it was close, and a guy I worked with was involved in a minor exchange of words with a guy in a pub who then asked him to 'step outside' and then stabbed him 13 times, leaving him critically injured.

My point is that as there are so few guns around, people don't impulsively settle scores with them (generally). I have NO DOUBT that if the people I've seen trying to beat each other senseless or slash each other with a broken glass or bottles had been carrying guns then I'd be recalling all the shootings I've witnessed.

Of course its a bigger issue than impulse arguments, in some British cities where the drugs problem is out of control, or where the kids all think they are 'gangsters' there are regular shootings, but mostly, violent disagreements between average hot headed idiots and even minor criminals are settled with nothing more dramatic than a few punches. sometimes it goes further, like I've mentioned above, but thats not the norm.

You are of course absolutely right that its the underlying causes and peoples willingness to use violence that needs to be addressed, and social factors area to area will of course affect the figures I agree.

But so also do attitudes towards weapons and their use, and a familiarity with guns and the realisation that many others around you are probobly carrying them with no good intention must certainly be a reciepe for more shootings.
I completely agree with your comments, but would add that if guns were routinely carried by more young men in the UK for defence/offence or whatever, then that would also directly (as your figures above show) corrolate to a slight rise in shootings in the areas which already have lower violent crime and a huge rise in those areas which currently suffer from lots of muggings/stabbings/pub fights resulting in actual bodily harm.

Yes, its the intent in the heart of the person that is the problem, but the more efficient the weapon the more likely the result is to be serious, and when drugs or alcohol are mixed with anger, desperation or addiction then the last thing you want thrown into the mix is a weapon that makes anyone a 'big dog'.
So what do you do? You have to weigh up the rights of peaceful law abiding citizens to own weapons against a seeming inability to cure the social factors that mean that if those weapons are also in the wrong hands they'll get used against other law abiding citizens.

In the UK, very few people really 'need' a gun. Certainly the vast majority of pre-ban fullbore firearms were owned for target shooting.

So the ban was hard on club target shooters and collectors. Especially smallbore sports shooters (Olympic hopefuls).

But if it helps alter the attitude towards guns in general, and makes them seem more socially unacceptable, then it can do some good.

Until we can fix the causes. That might be a long way off.


Regards
Gene

[clockwork]

I would like to point out that I have carried a gun for many yrs in and out of bars. I have been in many disagreements and have never pulled it out. I normally try to talk to the person or I will just leave the bar. I have been to gun shows were there was tens of thousands of guns and ammunition and tons of people drinking and have never seen a incident. So it comes down to a persons lack of self respect for them self’s and others in my humble opion.

plus I think that it also stems from lack training in proper use and the bad stigma that the media hypes up, also plays a part of it. My whole family has been raised around them and respects them we know what kind of damage they can inflict.

[David]

Originally Posted by clockwork

So it comes down to a persons lack of self respect for them self’s and others in my humble opion.
plus I think that it also stems from lack training in proper use and the bad stigma that the media hypes up, also plays a part of it. My whole family has been raised around them and respects them we know what kind of damage they can inflict.

What it comes down to really is that there are people who want to use these weapons to cause great harm to others. Many of them are very well trained in the use of these weapons. We live in a very dangerous time, when a few welled armed men with automatic weapons can terrorize an entire city and by extension, the entire world. Mumbai is only the beginning of a new style of terrorism that we can expect to see tried again and again. Can criminals and terrorists get a hold of these weapons illegally. Depends on how far and "draconian" the laws become. Probably, but i don't particularly feel comfortable with the idea that home grown terrorists in the States (or anywhere) could just stock up for their next attack at the local gunshow. I would rather see getting these weapons as difficult a procedure as possible. I would also rather not live in the wild west where "good" citizens carrying weapons gun down the bad criminal (and god knows who else might be standing by) because a cop isn't around. Let's face it, not every "good guy" who packs a gun has the kind of training necessary to use it in a public place defending himself against crime in a manner that guarantees the safety of those innocents who might be in the general area as well. They are not trained police or military. And if you lose to the criminal you might not lose just your life, but your friend's and/or family's lives, other innocent lives around you and more than likely you could put yet another hand gun into the hands of a criminal when he takes it off your dead self. Think you are faster/stronger/better than the criminal. Hey, they do this for "a living".
I am strongly in favor of a persons right to own a gun. You hunt, you target shoot, you collect, that's fine. But i see no reason for assault weapons and automatic weapons to be in the hands of civilians. But you collect such weapons? Sorry, the world is not the place it used to be. Public safety trumps my right to own something which can fall into the hands of those who would use it to do great harm. Am i being to PC? If so i don't really care.

[Atlantia]

Originally Posted by clockwork

I would like to point out that I have carried a gun for many yrs in and out of bars. I have been in many disagreements and have never pulled it out. I normally try to talk to the person or I will just leave the bar. I have been to gun shows were there was tens of thousands of guns and ammunition and tons of people drinking and have never seen a incident. So it comes down to a persons lack of self respect for them self’s and others in my humble opion.

plus I think that it also stems from lack training in proper use and the bad stigma that the media hypes up, also plays a part of it. My whole family has been raised around them and respects them we know what kind of damage they can inflict.

And bitter experience has shown me that confrontations (especially in bars and clubs) can be extremely unpredicable.
It is often those around the disagreement who escalate the trouble.
The other person in the group who comes back from the bar or toilet and seeing a heated discussion makes a bad judgement call (based on the alcohol content in their blood) and attacks the person arguing with 'their buddy' who is taken completely by suprise. They hit you, your friends join in, their friends join in..... and you have a gun on you! Can you see where that could end up?

You are probobly a completely decent law abiding chap, but I have to tell you that when you are helping to run a club and the final responsibility for the staff and customers (which can be a vast number of people) is all or in part down to you, the thought that one of your 'well behaved' customers would bring a loaded gun onto the premesies is absolutely terrifying.

Unless you are a uniformed Policeman in a country where they are routinely armed and the circumstances you mentioned were all during the course of your duties?

[clockwork]

well I do happen to be a Police Officer. So carrying a gun is second nature to me. as for the assult rifles if U take them away from the honest person then only the criminals and the Goverment will have them and who is the bigger crook between the above mention 2. LOL All studies on gun control shows that it does not work if conducted by a truelly non biased group and there was a dept of justice survey that concluded the same thing several yrs ago.

[BBJW]

Originally Posted by David

Once again Ed:

The fact that a firearm is not listed in appendix A shall not be construed to mean that paragraph (1) applies to such firearm. No firearm exempted by this subsection may be deleted from appendix A so long as this subsection is in effect.

This country has an amazingly strong gun lobby. I don't image that the government will be taking all our guns away any time soon. I am sorry, but i see no problem with the banning of assault weapons. They are not necessary for sportsman, collectors or personal protection.

David- First off an "assault weapon" by definition capable of full automatic fire. Semi-autos are not therefore the dreaded assault weapon. I hunt with a semi-auto rifle, collect them (as well as blades), and use one to protect livestock. I do not care if you think they are necessary or not. You don't have to own one if you don't want to. If you lived in England you probably would have been all for the "assault sword" ban.

bbjw

[David]

Originally Posted by BBJW

David- First off an "assault weapon" by definition capable of full automatic fire. Semi-autos are not therefore the dreaded assault weapon. I hunt with a semi-auto rifle, collect them (as well as blades), and use one to protect livestock. I do not care if you think they are necessary or not. You don't have to own one if you don't want to. If you lived in England you probably would have been all for the "assault sword" ban.

Well it is pretty hard to kill 164 people with a sword like they did in Mumbai. Of course those were assault weapons, not semi-automatic ones, i am aware of the difference and they are indeed "dreaded".
If you really feel you "need" a semi-automatic rifle to hunt and protect your live stock that's your business, but i'm not at all interested in fighting for your right to keep them. I don't need them. I'm also not interested in fighting to take them away from you either. You don't care if i think they are necessary or not, but you see, i don't care if big brother takes them away from you, so really i think it's best if we just agree to disagree. I am sure that you are personally being a responsible citizen with you guns. I am not convinced that we can assume the same for everyone though.

[BBJW]

Originally Posted by David

Well it is pretty hard to kill 164 people with a sword like they did in Mumbai. Of course those were assault weapons, not semi-automatic ones, i am aware of the difference and they are indeed "dreaded".
If you really feel you "need" a semi-automatic rifle to hunt and protect your live stock that's your business, but i'm not at all interested in fighting for your right to keep them. I don't need them. I'm also not interested in fighting to take them away from you either. You don't care if i think they are necessary or not, but you see, i don't care if big brother takes them away from you, so really i think it's best if we just agree to disagree. I am sure that you are personally being a responsible citizen with you guns. I am not convinced that we can assume the same for everyone though.

The fact is that many of those killed in Mumbai were killed by grenades and other explosives. 10 trained and determined terrs with other rifles/pistols and pump shotguns could have done almost as much damage. ALSO the Indian police had very poor equipment. Few or no walkie talkies. No night vision or thermal imaging and some were armed with bolt action Enfield rifles. Had the Indian police had better equipment and training there would have been fewer casualties.

You may not care about my Constitutional rights, but I care about yours and have fought for them and would do so again.

bbjw

[Gonzalo G]

We all come from a very different societies. There are many motivations and obscure fears behind the gun control. I would pont the matter as follows:

* What right does a State has to impose over it´s subjects any limitation to their liberty, if it does not constitute an actual offense against the criminal law? Which is the limit of the State to make laws constraining civil and personal rights? Like the right to defend the live against a criminal activity not controlled by the same State which pretends to disarm the civil society.

In the past and in the present, the protestant societies had intended to control the personal behaviour over the basis of moral values. So it came the Prohibition. What the Prohibition did to control crime and alcoholism? Nothing. It only created an inmense and powerfull network of organized crime, and it grew to stay indifinitely in the basement of the social and political order. What does the laws against drug consuming and trafficking had made to stop the traffic and drug related crimes? Nothing, it only has created a new generation of a more powerfull organized crime, and more offcial corruption. Lets face the facts: laws must be evaluated against statistics and efficacy indexes. This prohibitions have a great economic burden over the pockets of the public, without significant results. It only maintain an inmense state police bureaucracy with few results. Meanwhile people wants drugs, alcohol or guns, they will get them at any cost, and they will be sold to enrich the organized crime, no matter prohibitions.

* What confidence would we give to political tycoons to legislate in favour of the people, when they only live to their personal benefit? Are they to be trusted? Threir personal criteria is always correct, or instead, they bend to the side of convenience?

In the catolic Latin America, gun control is exercised to mantain an overwhelming superiority od the represive organs of the State over a population exploited by an oligarchy, with their parodies of democracy, which is in fact a clientelist order permeated by an inmense corruption. In Mexico, there was no gun control until the rise of the gerrilla movement, originated on the stupid and inept measures of a deeply authoritarian government. I purchased my first own gun at Sears at 18 years old without any requirement but my money, and the criminal rate was VERY low at that time. Now, we have gun control since then, and a very high rate of gun involved homicides. Crime is not controlled with efficacy because crime is good business. The common criminal pays to the police to recive protection, and the money flows up, to the highest levels. Organized crime is a better business. They pay directly to the highest levels. And they have rocket launchers, assault rifles, machineguns, cal .50 BMG sniper rifles, armoued cars, hand grenades and so on. How it is possible, without the protection of somebody, some institutions, very important? We have a great wave of violence on the country for this reason. And meanwhile, the governments tightens the gun control over the civil and honest population, which is defenseless. So...

* The fact is that crime violence is not affected by gun control, only good citizens register their guns. The other violence, comming from psychopaths, sociopaths and unadaptated people, is generated by the same societies which suddenly are afraid of what they have created theirselves. Poverty, racism, opression and ignorance are different forms of violence, and every form of violence exercised over some people, generates an equivalent response. Just take a night trip to the hoods to see. The public cult of the violence on the media is another factor. But nobody tries to control it, because movies, TV programs and other media, are good business. You can limit the rights of the people, but don´t try to touch the big business. What we need is to change the social context. This, can limit more efectively the violence, alcoholism and drug consumption. I understand the canadians have more guns per capita than USA americans, but a very low index of violent homicides....why? Why they do not sepeak so insistently about gun control? Why in Mexico, with so few guns on the hands of the honest vast majority of the population, we don´t have a SINGLE gun store in the whole country, and all comes from the black market? Because it is good business, because it generates many money to the dealers, and their protectors, the corrupt politicians and police officers. So, you can purchase a black market pistol, and register it if it´s caliber is legally accepted by the law, without questions asked. Of course, guns are very expensive in this way, but you can get ANY gun you want, legal or not.

The entire world is now in a recession. The financial capital had used the lack of international controls to make big and unethical speculative business to the expense of the general economic stability, producing another deep cyclic crisis. We all going to suffer this situation. This, will bring more gun violence on the streets, more drug adictions and more alcoholism. But, where are the intentions to control this, more dangerous weapons? They try to give aspirins to cure a pneumonia, but they do not fight against the roots of the sickness. This is hypocrisy. We don´t need gun control. We need to control our politicians....and the too smart people. I respect the pain of the persons who had sufered a loss on the hands of the senseless violence, but this is no reason to make many other inocent people to pay for this.

Please excuse me for this protest. I am not a liberal. I am not a right wing follower. I am only a citizen tired of all this situation. More gun control is going to be a big business for some people, but useless. Today, the ban against assault rifles has expirated since 2005, I believe. The criminal statistics did not change with the ban, or without the ban. The ban has no effect over society. They only give a false and temporary sense of security. The ban only limits honest people. And the problems are not resolved with laws, though bad laws creates many serious problems...and good business for the too smart people.


By the way, Manolo, it was not Bonnie and Clyde, it was Dillinger.

Regards

Gonzalo

[David]

Originally Posted by BBJW

You may not care about my Constitutional rights, but I care about yours and have fought for them and would do so again.

The constitutional right that you speak of is open to vast interpretation. I feel not even a twinge of guilt for not stepping up and defending your right to owns guns that i personally don't believe should be in the hands of regular citizens. I also am not fighting to have them taken away from you, so why don't you just drop it and agree to disagree as i suggested. You are not going to change my mind on the subject.
I only got involved in this thread because i though Clockwork was misreading this bill and over reacting to it. In fact he was misreading the bill and thought appendix A was a ban list, not the exempt list that it actually is. I have no real interest in getting into a debate over the constitutionality of one's right to own semi-automatic or automatic weapons. That is a fool's debate and there will never be any winner.

[Atlantia]

Originally Posted by BBJW

David- First off an "assault weapon" by definition capable of full automatic fire. Semi-autos are not therefore the dreaded assault weapon. I hunt with a semi-auto rifle, collect them (as well as blades), and use one to protect livestock. I do not care if you think they are necessary or not. You don't have to own one if you don't want to. If you lived in England you probably would have been all for the "assault sword" ban.

bbjw

Its interesting you cite the 'sword ban' in the UK, as it clearly WAS an example of 'bad lawmaking'.
If we look at the figures (roughly) which led to the ban, if memory serves, we are talking about up to 60 000 incidents per year involving attacks with bladed weapons (worse case figures) in England and Wales.
However we are talking about approximately 5 or 6 actual deaths per year from attacks with the banned 'Samurai' class of reproduction swords.
That compares with many, many hundreds of deaths from 'stabbings' amongst which the preferred weapons are cheap chinese kitchen carving knives.
Statistically, more people are killed in the UK every year by: Boiled sweets, peanuts or wearing unsafe slippers.

Now for purposes of this discussion, the reason why the UK sword ban is an interesting example of lawmaking is that it is a headline grabbing attempt by a government to address a real problem with a ridiculous token law.

And introducing 'a little' gun control in the US is like the 'sword' ban here.
Like throwing a deckchair off of the Titanic.

So what do governments do?
Ours sees a problem with knife crime, and a public expectation of 'tough new laws to combat it' so is scared into banning something which will make no difference whatsoever.

Can I ask you, how many guns do you own?
If your government actually did decide to 'take the bull by the horns' and bring in large limits on gun ownership, and say for example they passed a law by which you were only allowed to own a side by side shotgun, for purposes of killing animals on your land, would you be prepared to turn in your other guns and accept government compensation? (which is effectively what was done in the UK).

Second part of the question is of course, even IF (which I serious doubt will ever happen) they did do that, and everyone legally owning guns did turn them in. How the hell would any administration tackle the millions of illegal weapons?

From an outsiders POV it sadly looks like any gun control with any chance of actually being passed into law in the States is just going to be at best a coat of paint on the golden gate?

Its obvious how strongly you feel about your 'right' to own guns, and clearly at least a sizeable minority of Americans agree with you. But by the same token, your experience of guns is going to be totally different from many other Americans. But surely nobody can argue that the US does have a huge problem with guns being used in violent crime, so from a pro-gun POV, how would you tackle it?

Regards
Gene

[clockwork]

Dave first off if you read the bill you would see that the bill contradicts it self and all the sudden there are gun on this bill that were outlawed on the old one. So do I think I miss read it not really since it was written with a bunch of attorney that double speak in every way. The Second amendment was given to the American people so that we could never be oppressed by the government and is not open to vast interpretation as you state. if you truly understand are history it is special interest groups and attorneys that have warped over the last 50 years. So I have to say that I completely disagree with you on your interpatation of are rights in this country.

Gonzalo G great write up and I agree with you completely.