Assault Weapons Ban

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

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?

Jesus Christ...you're actually suggesting that everyone be allowed to carry guns on planes?  Suicide terrorists would just need to shoot the pilot and everyone would be dead.  It wouldn't matter how many law-abiding citizens were on the plane.

And of course the shooting of passengers is more likely on a plane than in other situations...there are no police on a plane, and no hope of getting police or other emergency help.  And passengers are much less likely to try to physically resist terrorists on a plane because of the extraordinary power that terrorists have vis-a-vis shooting the pilot.

This sort of opinion is proof that libertarians will NEVER succeed in American politics.

[raggage]

I think that it is disgusting that this ban was allowed to lapse. You all know how I feel about these kinds of guns, and why they should be banned.

Why does an ordinary, everyday American need an assault weapon (and if anyone says "To take down an evil government" or something of that ilk, don't bother)

[John Dibble]

I think that it is disgusting that this ban was allowed to lapse. You all know how I feel about these kinds of guns, and why they should be banned.

Why does an ordinary, everyday American need an assault weapon (and if anyone says "To take down an evil government" or something of that ilk, don't bother)

Fine - to take down the few criminals who would attain them and use them against us regardless of the law.

[raggage]

I think that it is disgusting that this ban was allowed to lapse. You all know how I feel about these kinds of guns, and why they should be banned.

Why does an ordinary, everyday American need an assault weapon (and if anyone says "To take down an evil government" or something of that ilk, don't bother)

Fine - to take down the few criminals who would attain them and use them against us regardless of the law.

Ok. But you could do that with a pistol... or better yet call local law enforcement?

[John Dibble]

I think that it is disgusting that this ban was allowed to lapse. You all know how I feel about these kinds of guns, and why they should be banned.

Why does an ordinary, everyday American need an assault weapon (and if anyone says "To take down an evil government" or something of that ilk, don't bother)

Fine - to take down the few criminals who would attain them and use them against us regardless of the law.

Ok. But you could do that with a pistol... or better yet call local law enforcement?

Sure, I could use a pistol, but if these 'assault' weapons are so powerful, am I going to stand a chance? It's been said in this thread that these weapons aren't much different from others that are available legally. So what difference does it make if I have an 'assault' weapon? In fact, if attacked would you not wish to be better armed than the criminal? In a fight to the death you want every advantage possible.

As far as law enforcement goes, I'd call if I had time to do so, situation dependent, but do you expect me to nicely ask the criminal to not shoot his gun until law enforcement arrives in five or probably more minutes? By the time law enforcement would arrive, someone would likely be dead - I don't intend it to be me.

[CARLHAYDEN]

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

Actually, academic studies tend to indicate that THE most effective technique for reducing violent crime has been the increased incarceration rate for violent criminal (more of them are spending more time behind bars, where they cannot attack citizens).

[CARLHAYDEN]

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.

You really should read the results of the recently issued national crime survey.

Violent crime has NOT been increasing, but remains at a low level (relative to the level in the seventies, particularly the late seventies.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.

When it comes to Congressional Republicans, Bush has shown a decidedly wimpish tendency.  AFAIK, he hasn't  issued a singe veto so far.  Heck, FDR, JFK, and LBJ with solidly Democratic Congresses all had multiple vetoes to make.  The last full-term President to inot reach at least double digits with respect to vetoes was Abrham Lincoln.

[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?

Jesus Christ...you're actually suggesting that everyone be allowed to carry guns on planes?  Suicide terrorists would just need to shoot the pilot and everyone would be dead.  It wouldn't matter how many law-abiding citizens were on the plane.

And of course the shooting of passengers is more likely on a plane than in other situations...there are no police on a plane, and no hope of getting police or other emergency help.  And passengers are much less likely to try to physically resist terrorists on a plane because of the extraordinary power that terrorists have vis-a-vis shooting the pilot.

This sort of opinion is proof that libertarians will NEVER succeed in American politics.

You didn't read my second post. I said people with CCW permits .
Also I endorsed armored cockpit doors to protect the pilot and armed pilots as well. And you still didn't answer my question.
My own answer would be this: If I were on one of the planes involved in 9/11 I'd be much happier if I had a gun with me and happier still if a lot of other law abiding people had guns too.
The results could not have turned out worse than what actually did happen.

[Lunar]

My own answer would be this: If I were on one of the planes involved in 9/11 I'd be much happier if I had a gun with me and happier still if a lot of other law abiding people had guns too.
The results could not have turned out worse than what actually did happen.

I'd be much happier if the best weapon they can get on the plane is a pair of tweezers.

[ATFFL]

The "assault" weapon ban needed to go.  It wa sa joke that banned nothing.  It should eb replaced with a comprehensive law allowing private ownership of assault weapons with stringent ownership requirements and strict laws regulating when and how they can be carried/transported.

[bgwah]

I will be purchasing one of these fines weapons in the future! I hope someone attacks me so I can whip out my AK-47 and blow the sh**t ouf of them and not get in trouble.

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

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.

When it comes to Congressional Republicans, Bush has shown a decidedly wimpish tendency.  AFAIK, he hasn't  issued a singe veto so far.  Heck, FDR, JFK, and LBJ with solidly Democratic Congresses all had multiple vetoes to make.  The last full-term President to inot reach at least double digits with respect to vetoes was Abrham Lincoln.

Their are also plenty of conservative Democrats in Congress who would not support the renewal of the ban. So, Wakie don't give me this "copout" garbage.

[raggage]

I will be purchasing one of these fines weapons in the future! I hope someone attacks me so I can whip out my AK-47 and blow the sh**t ouf of them and not get in trouble.

I'm sure Jesus would approve.

[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.

When it comes to Congressional Republicans, Bush has shown a decidedly wimpish tendency.  AFAIK, he hasn't  issued a singe veto so far.  Heck, FDR, JFK, and LBJ with solidly Democratic Congresses all had multiple vetoes to make.  The last full-term President to inot reach at least double digits with respect to vetoes was Abrham Lincoln.

Their are also plenty of conservative Democrats in Congress who would not support the renewal of the ban. So, Wakie don't give me this "copout" garbage.

Oh ok, so you believe the Democrats would have blocked the Assault Weapons Ban?

Come back to reality StatesRights.  Sure, you'd get a few who would vote against it but there are more than enough Democrats who would support it (AND THE REPUBLICANS HAVE THE MAJORITY IN CONGRESS).

Bush had no intention of renewing the Assault Weapons Ban.  The Republican Leadership in Congress vowed that they wouldn't even let it come up for debate.  Face it, when it comes to dealing with Congress, Bush is a bitch.

[English]

Call me prejudiced, but it would be easy to stop terrorists taking over aircraft, search 'high risk' passengers thoroughly. After all, how many suicide bombers are blonde or called Joe Bloggs?

[KEmperor]

Call me prejudiced, but it would be easy to stop terrorists taking over aircraft, search 'high risk' passengers thoroughly. After all, how many suicide bombers are blonde or called Joe Bloggs?

Unfortunately, that would raise calls of Racial Profiling, and the liberals would be foaming at the mouth.

[Democratic Hawk]

Ban on assault weapons should be permament because there can be dire consequences should they fall into the wrong hands.

I believe in civil liberties as much as the next person but when it comes to the potential threat posed by assault weapons then there is a fine line between civil liberties and taking liberties. Unfortunately, there are terrorists and psychopaths who could cross that line.

Dave

[ilikeverin]

I think that it is disgusting that this ban was allowed to lapse. You all know how I feel about these kinds of guns, and why they should be banned.

Why does an ordinary, everyday American need an assault weapon (and if anyone says "To take down an evil government" or something of that ilk, don't bother)

Fine - to take down the few criminals who would attain them and use them against us regardless of the law.

Ok. But you could do that with a pistol... or better yet call local law enforcement?

Sure, I could use a pistol, but if these 'assault' weapons are so powerful, am I going to stand a chance? It's been said in this thread that these weapons aren't much different from others that are available legally. So what difference does it make if I have an 'assault' weapon? In fact, if attacked would you not wish to be better armed than the criminal? In a fight to the death you want every advantage possible.

As far as law enforcement goes, I'd call if I had time to do so, situation dependent, but do you expect me to nicely ask the criminal to not shoot his gun until law enforcement arrives in five or probably more minutes? By the time law enforcement would arrive, someone would likely be dead - I don't intend it to be me.

But think of hostage situations.  What's wrose: both living, or one dying and another traumatized (seeing the brains blown out of someone would tramatize anyone)?

[John Dibble]

But think of hostage situations.  What's wrose: both living, or one dying and another traumatized (seeing the brains blown out of someone would tramatize anyone)?

Do you honestly believe that hostage situations can't and don't occur with the criminal having only a pistol? Assault weapons don't really affect much here. And which is superior - a dead criminal and a traumatized hostage or a dead criminal and a dead hostage? "Oh no, we can't kill the murderous psychopath, that would traumatize someone!" Please.

And you forget, if a criminal wishes to attain an assault weapon badly enough, he will, regardless of any ban. Criminals, by definition, have no regard for the law, so why do you think they'll respect a law banning guns?

[ilikeverin]

But think of hostage situations.  What's wrose: both living, or one dying and another traumatized (seeing the brains blown out of someone would tramatize anyone)?

Do you honestly believe that hostage situations can't and don't occur with the criminal having only a pistol? Assault weapons don't really affect much here. And which is superior - a dead criminal and a traumatized hostage or a dead criminal and a dead hostage? "Oh no, we can't kill the murderous psychopath, that would traumatize someone!" Please.

No, I'm talking about the victim having it, then immediately shooting the hostage-taker.

Anyhoo, wouldn't it better if you could negotiate?  It's a hostage situation... the hostage-takers are obviously wanting something, so, most of the time, they won't kill their victim.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Increase cop presence.  And I could get more radical, but I'm afraid people will run away, vomit at me, or start chucking the 2nd amendment at me.

[John Dibble]

But think of hostage situations.  What's wrose: both living, or one dying and another traumatized (seeing the brains blown out of someone would tramatize anyone)?

Do you honestly believe that hostage situations can't and don't occur with the criminal having only a pistol? Assault weapons don't really affect much here. And which is superior - a dead criminal and a traumatized hostage or a dead criminal and a dead hostage? "Oh no, we can't kill the murderous psychopath, that would traumatize someone!" Please.

No, I'm talking about the victim having it, then immediately shooting the hostage-taker.

Anyhoo, wouldn't it better if you could negotiate?  It's a hostage situation... the hostage-takers are obviously wanting something, so, most of the time, they won't kill their victim.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Increase cop presence.  And I could get more radical, but I'm afraid people will run away, vomit at me, or start chucking the 2nd amendment at me.

1. Put yourself in a hostage situation - you have a possible psychopath, he may or may not have demands, he may kill one of the hostages just to have the cops take him seriously. Would you REALLY be willing to take the risk? You have no gaurantee of anything. Also, consider you don't necessarily have to kill him - you could shoot him in the arm to get him to drop his gun, or surprise him with your gun and make him surrender to you, or something else. In most cases where a criminal attacks someone and the victim brandishes a gun, the criminal will run away and a shot won't even have to be fired(this is backed by statistical evidence) - it is the one scenario with the least chance of getting killed or injured, even above cooperating with the criminal and putting up no defense!

2. If a person carries a gun around for defense, do you really think that they'll be THAT traumatized having had to kill someone? They carry the damn thing around to protect themselves, knowing perfectly well that it is a device meant to kill. If you don't want to carry a gun, fine, I don't feel I can force you to, but I'm perfectly ready and willing to kill anyone who threatens the life of me or my family - I can kill literally anyone on this planet if they give me motivation to. Also, if my father had had a gun when he was carjacked ten years ago he might still be alive today - I don't plan on being at a disadvantage if I'm ever put in such a situation.

3. You can only increase cop presence so much. Do you have any idea how many cops it would require to watch every area all the time? Unless you want a police state, it's not gonna work that way.

[CARLHAYDEN]

The media has spread a lot of lies about firearms over the years which too much of the public believes.

I've shot in competition against law enforcement officers, a well known writer of a gun magazine (he's now editor), retired 'gunnies,' and others.

The best shot I have ever shot against was a forty year old, 120 lb. soft spoken female administrator of a noted think tank.  She was a vegetarian and an incredible shot with a 1911A1.

I remember the rest of us witnesses her prowess, wondering if there might just be something to that vegetarian stuff after all.