Assault Weapons Ban

[Wakie]

Well, the GOP let the assault weapon ban expire.  When the ban was first put in place both Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford drafted briefs in support of it.

This is yet more proof that the Republicans are no longer the party of Reagan.

[A18]

Yes, the assault weapon ban has expired.

And guess what? The assault weapons you can buy now are no different than the weapons you could buy before.

These are all semiautomatics...regardless of which, the media now seems to have decided we're dealing with full automatics, or at least is showing rapid-fire pictures on the screen to scare people into thinking this is crazy.

Semiautomatics were and remain legal. The only thing that's changed is that a set of specific weapons with almost no unique functionality are now legal as well.

[Wakie]

So you think Reagan and Ford just didn't know what they were doing?

[David S]

The so-called assault weapons were used in only a small percentage of crimes. Banning them has no noticeable effect on crime. The real agenda of the anti-gun crowd is to ban all guns by getting one type at a time. They also want saturday night specials, and more recently .50 caliber rifles, and various types of ammo which are deemed to be politically incorrect.

[zachman]

Timothy McVeigh and the other terrorists like him would be proud.

[A18]

So you think Reagan and Ford just didn't know what they were doing?

That is correct

[David S]

Timothy McVeigh and the other terrorists like him would be proud.

McVeigh did not use assault weapons. He used a bomb made from fertilizer and fuel oil.

The 9/11 terrorists did not use assault weapons either. They used box cutters or if you prefer commercial airliners, but no firearms.

In fact the 4 biggest mass murders in the U.S. did not involve guns.

Now a question for you. If the passengers on the planes of 9/11 had been allowed to carry concealed pistols, could a bunch of guys with boxcutters have taken over the plane? Even if the terrorists had guns too, could the result have turned out any worse? If the passengers had guns they would at least have had a chance.

[??????????]

President Bush said he would sign the legislation if congress voted to renew it.

[A18]

Which they didn't, thankfully

[ATFFL]

President Bush said he would sign the legislation if congress voted to renew it.

Which was a smart move.  He knew Congress would not send it to him so he could say it safely.  NRA will still back him.

[Wakie]

President Bush said he would sign the legislation if congress voted to renew it.

Oh please.  That is such a copout.  He is the President.  His party controls Congress.  He can strongarm his own party.  Unless you think he's a wimp.

[Wakie]

President Bush said he would sign the legislation if congress voted to renew it.

Which was a smart move.  He knew Congress would not send it to him so he could say it safely.  NRA will still back him.

Isn't it sad when the President of the United States is so blatantly owned?

[Gabu]

The real agenda of the anti-gun crowd is to ban all guns by getting one type at a time.

The moment I see the word "agenda" used in an ominous, conspiratorial tone, whoever said it has immediately lost credibility in what they were saying.  I would wager that there isn't a single person on this forum who actually does have some super-secret conspiracy that he or she is a part of that will enact some evil goal.

Occam's Razor dictates that if the anti-gun crowd says that they're a proponent of the assault weapons ban because it lessens crime, the most likely reason for that is because they do believe that it lessens crime.

[Wakie]

Excellent point Gabu.  I was thinking about a sarcastic reply where I insisted that the real agenda of the pro-gun crowd was to legalize all weapons so that private collectors (such as rich oil heirs) could own their own Nuclear weapon.

[David S]

The real agenda of the anti-gun crowd is to ban all guns by getting one type at a time.

The moment I see the word "agenda" used in an ominous, conspiratorial tone, whoever said it has immediately lost credibility in what they were saying.  I would wager that there isn't a single person on this forum who actually does have some super-secret conspiracy that he or she is a part of that will enact some evil goal.

Occam's Razor dictates that if the anti-gun crowd says that they're a proponent of the assault weapons ban because it lessens crime, the most likely reason for that is because they do believe that it lessens crime.

When Diane Feinstein authored the assault weapons ban she said she would have banned them all (all guns) if she could have gotten support for it. How about this quote by Chuck Schumer
" we are going to hammer guns on the relentless anvil of legislative authority"  It doesn't exactly sound like someone who supports the second amendment.

[KEmperor]

There is not a single published academic study showing that the ban has reduced any type of violent crime. Even research funded by the Justice Department under Bill Clinton's administration concluded only that the ban's effect on gun violence "has been uncertain."

The reason for these findings is simple: There is nothing unique about the guns that are banned under the law.

Though the phrase "assault weapon" conjures up images of the rapid-fire machine guns used by the military, in fact the weapons covered by the ban function the same as any semiautomatic hunting rifle; they fire the exact same bullets with the exact same rapidity and produce the exact same damage as hunting rifles.

Despite claims that letting the 10-year-old ban on some semiautomatic weapons expire will result in a surge in gun crimes and police killings, the fact is that letting the law expire will probably just show the uselessness of gun-control regulations.   I say let stupid laws die.

[Wakie]

It is worth noting though that gun violence has dropped dramatically over the last 10 years despite being on a steady increase prior.

[KEmperor]

It is worth noting though that gun violence has dropped dramatically over the last 10 years despite being on a steady increase prior.

When those same authors released their updated report in August looking at crime data through 2000 - the first six full years of the law - they stated, "We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation's recent drop in gun violence."

[Wakie]

It is worth noting though that gun violence has dropped dramatically over the last 10 years despite being on a steady increase prior.

When those same authors released their updated report in August looking at crime data through 2000 - the first six full years of the law - they stated, "We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation's recent drop in gun violence."

That is correct, because for the first 6 years the crime rate was falling.  What is interesting to note is that for the last 4 years the crime rate has gone up whereas the amount of gun violence has continued to fall.

[John Dibble]

It is worth noting though that gun violence has dropped dramatically over the last 10 years despite being on a steady increase prior.

When those same authors released their updated report in August looking at crime data through 2000 - the first six full years of the law - they stated, "We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation's recent drop in gun violence."

One of the amazing things gun control advocates believe: The Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban, both of which went into effect in 1994 are responsible for the decrease in violent crime rates, which have been declining since 1991.

[Rules for me, but not for thee]

Yes, and why have those rates been declining? Try looking at the increase in must-issue concealed-carry laws.  When lawful, trained citizens have firearms, criminals are less likely to attack or burglarize them.  Pure common sense.

[zachman]

Timothy McVeigh and the other terrorists like him would be proud.

McVeigh did not use assault weapons. He used a bomb made from fertilizer and fuel oil.

The 9/11 terrorists did not use assault weapons either. They used box cutters or if you prefer commercial airliners, but no firearms.

In fact the 4 biggest mass murders in the U.S. did not involve guns.

Now a question for you. If the passengers on the planes of 9/11 had been allowed to carry concealed pistols, could a bunch of guys with boxcutters have taken over the plane? Even if the terrorists had guns too, could the result have turned out any worse? If the passengers had guns they would at least have had a chance.

The assaults weapon ban was what inspired McVeigh and Nichols to take radical action against the government.

If passengers had guns on planes it would be a favorite option of suiciders (another one of my favorite Bush-terms) to shoot windows and passengers. I for one certainly don't believe that guns for everyone can lead to a society fealing more secure.

[David S]

Timothy McVeigh and the other terrorists like him would be proud.

McVeigh did not use assault weapons. He used a bomb made from fertilizer and fuel oil.

The 9/11 terrorists did not use assault weapons either. They used box cutters or if you prefer commercial airliners, but no firearms.

In fact the 4 biggest mass murders in the U.S. did not involve guns.

Now a question for you. If the passengers on the planes of 9/11 had been allowed to carry concealed pistols, could a bunch of guys with boxcutters have taken over the plane? Even if the terrorists had guns too, could the result have turned out any worse? If the passengers had guns they would at least have had a chance.

The assaults weapon ban was what inspired McVeigh and Nichols to take radical action against the government.

If passengers had guns on planes it would be a favorite option of suiciders (another one of my favorite Bush-terms) to shoot windows and passengers. I for one certainly don't believe that guns for everyone can lead to a society fealing more secure.

If the assault weapons ban inspired McVeigh to blow up the Oklahoma Federal building then that disaster would not have happened if the ban had not passed according to you.

With regard to armed airplane passengers shooting out the windows; The Mythbusters tried that out to see what would happen. They used the fuselage of a scrapped passenger jet, then they pressurized it to simulate the pressure difference a plane would see at cruising altitude. Then they fired a bullet through a side window by remote control and videotaped the result. Unlike the James Bond movie the window did not blow out. The bullet just put a small hole in it. The dummy that was in the adjacent seat was unaffected. So this does not cause a disaster.

As far as shooting at other passengers goes, there is no reason why this would be more likely in a plane than elsewhere. There are about 35 states that allowed concealed carry now, my home state being one of them. No wildwest shootouts or other insanity has resulted.

But you didn't answer my question; Would the events of 9/11 have been  as likely to occur if the passengers with CCW permits were allowed to carry their  pistols on the plane?

[Lunar]

But you didn't answer my question; Would the events of 9/11 have been  as likely to occur if the passengers with CCW permits were allowed to carry their  pistols on the plane?

I would argue that 9/11 would have been less likely to occur, but many more hijackings and the sort would occur, by an order of magnitude.

[David S]

But you didn't answer my question; Would the events of 9/11 have been  as likely to occur if the passengers with CCW permits were allowed to carry their  pistols on the plane?

I would argue that 9/11 would have been less likely to occur, but many more hijackings and the sort would occur, by an order of magnitude.

Maybe not. To get a CCW permit in Michigan you have to go through an FBI background check. I think most other states have similar requirements. So its not as if your allowing just anyone to carry a gun. Also when a hijacker is the only one with a gun that gives him an advantage. But if other people are armed as well that advantage disappears.
I firmly believe that cockpit doors should be armored so that even an armed hijacker cannot get to the pilot, and pilots should be armed if they want to be.