Slashdot Mirror
Assault Weapons Ban
An anonymous reader writes "With all the Constitutional arguments that appear on /., perhaps some readers might be interested in this BBC Article about the expiration of the Clinton assault weapons ban. Both presidential candidates have spoken in favor of it, but no one is willing to vote to keep it."
This is one of those issues which wouldn't be complicated if we could sit down and work out a reasonable comprimise, but of course that's not how we work in America anymore. Gotta stick with either-or's, and the other side are a bunch of wackos or nutcases. But, even though I know it's gonna get my ass flamed, I'll take a swing at it. I'm not scared. I got my aesbestos underoos on.
Obviously guns don't cause people to shoot each other, there are more complex reasons for it. That said, however, it's the access to high-capacity weapons (like the ones that were banned) that enables these folks to go out and kill half their highschool. Preventing gun makers from building these guns obviously makes it tougher for people to get them, which is a Good Thing -- nobody has a legitimate reason for owning a 30 round clip.
But the GOP are all a bunch of whores to the NRA, who don't let reason creep in on their paranoia about pinko lefties coming to take away their guns and kick over their stills or whatever. They, combined with a few people on the extreme left who don't think people ought to be able to hunt or whatever, combine to paralyze the whole damn debate.
But then we're down to the apparently unresolvable gun control back and forth. But that's okay, 'cause I got my fireproof underoos. Flame away.
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
Commentators from both sides of the gun control debate have gone on record as saying that the Assault Weapons Ban didn't have an effect on crime. Certain guns were banned because of how they looked (folding stock, pistol grip, etc.), not because of how they functioned (all the banned guns fire the same caliber of bullets and at the same speed as ordinary hunting rifles). In addition, large rifles are not weapons of choice for committing crimes. Criminals prefer handguns.
The ban is sunsetting because it didn't really do any good and nobody is willing to risk their political career on renewing it. Even if it did come to a vote, I'm not sure Kerry would risk the swing state votes by voting to renew it. Bush would probably be forced to eat his words when it comes to signing it.
The whole thing is one great political football. The assault weapons I'm worried about are those that are being used on both sides of our failed war in Iraq, not the ones sitting in a gun collector's safe.
Yours truly,
Mr. X
...common-sense...
It seems strange that at a time when preventing terrorism is a priority that they would be willing to let weapons such as these enter circulation...
The so-called "Assault Weapon Ban" was nothing more than a feel-good measure that had nothing to do with crime or safety. All it did manage to do was annoy and/or piss-off people who buy or own guns. No appreciable benefit to any constituency, and a big downside to a rather sizeable constituency. It is no wonder that most politicians don't want to touch this issue, and Bush knew full well that it would never end up on his desk. If you ignore the Democrats in "safe States" like California, who can soapbox on this issue all day without consequences, it is a "third-rail" issue everywhere else whether you are a Democrat or a Republican.
The 1994 Congressional blood bath pretty much assures that gun control won't be touched again for a long time.
Yes, because rebellion against the US government has been so fscking effective.
Lets see:
Shay's Rebellion
Whiskey Rebellion
Fries's Rebellion
Nat Turner's Southampton Rebellion
John Brown's attack @ Harper's Ferry
Civil War
Waco
Come on people, owning a machine gun doesn't mean crap when the other guy has smart bombs.
The whole idea that we should own guns to keep our own government from opprssing us is just wishful thinking, quit dreaming of Rambo and crack a law book.
Arrogance is Confidence which lacks integrity. -- me
You could always deer hunt with an AK-47 (and variants), they are perfectly legal under the ban. Were you under the mistaken impression that the assualt weapons ban was actually effective at anything and not just political fluff with no substance?
Why do you think we *have* the Second Amendment, crispyman?
It has nothing to do with sport weapons.
It is, very simply, to avoid oppressive regimes from ever dominating the citizenry by disarming them.
A gun that could only shoot non-humans would have absolutely nothing to do with the spirit of the Second Amendment. Gun rights were guaranteed specifically so that *people* could be shot as a last ditch resort.
I have no interest in ever owning a gun -- the benefits provided by the Second Amendment are present as long as enough citizenry own guns. However, I strongly support allowing citizenry access to assault weapons.
Note that guns simply guarantee Hobbsian "rough equality" between people and soldiers -- if soldiers have assault rifles, people also need assault rifles. I do *not* support allowing people to have weapons that allow massive amplification of killing power above that of a soldier as long as they strike first -- like bombs and the like. Assault weapons? Sure, I'd say that it's pretty much essential to allow people to have assault weapons.
Take a look at Switzerland -- they have almost no limitations on the weapons civilians can have. You want a howitzer, you can have one. And if you're a male and above a certain age, you *must* own a rifle -- you're considered part of the militia. As a result (even aside from the fact that Switzerland has never been invaded) Switzerland has a low gun crime rate, much lower than the United States. It's hard to glamorize a tool that everyone has (e.g. you could stick someone in the eye with a pen, but everyone has a pen and it isn't very exciting). Furthermore, it's a dissusasive factor to someone who might consider committing a crime if most people are walking around with weapons. Sure, maybe you can pull out your gun and hold up a bank, but you're nothing special -- it'd be like doing so with a knife when everyone else has knives. Or with your bare hands when everyone else has bare hands -- you're going to be hurt by similarly-armed people.
I could *maybe* even see gun laws banning handguns. But never assault rifles. Assault weapons are the core of the Second Amendment.
May we never see th
1. The thing to remember with Columbine is none of the guns used were legally obtained by the kids using them.
2. None of the guns on the ban are fully automatic guns. Those have been illegal since the 1940's.
3. So what if some one shoots a bunch of people with a gun that looks like a hunting rifle or a military style rifle. The results are still the same.
Kill the criminals and stop attacking the guns.
This has been a very ill-conceived and widely misunderstood law, and I will be glad to see it go.
The affected weapons are mostly ones that outwardly resemble military firearms, while having nowhere near the firepower. Rather than firing bursts of ammunition like their fully-automatic counterparts, the so-called assault rifles fire one shot at a time, with less powerful ammunition than a hunting rifle. Pistols affected by this law generally had outward designs similar to fully-automatic submachine guns, but had only the same caliber and rate of fire as an ordinary handgun - with much bulkier size and weight.
A criminal would be an idiot to choose a firearm from the affected class of firearms. They would use an ordinary handgun, or if they really sought something more powerful as defenders of the legislation claim, they would smuggle in some firearms that actually WERE military grade instead of just superficially looking like it.
In practice, the only people affected by the law have been legitimate gun collectors, who disagree with the law but struggle to comply with it. What shape grips constitute a "conspicuous pistol grip"? When the law requires a barrel attachment to be "permanently affixed", do you weld it, super-glue it on, pin it, use lock-tight? Interpret the subjective phrases differently than someone at the ATF, and you become a felon.
The other major provision was a limitation on ammunition magazines ("clips") to 10 rounds. Much like 640k of memory, this might seem to be enough for anybody. But, given that those who are most in the know about defending oneself in life and death situations (police, military, federal agents, etc.) generally carry larger magazines than this themselves, even with superior training to worry less about missing their target, perhaps there is something to be said for having a couple extra rounds just in case.
The other flaw with the 10 round limit is that it was based on the arbitrary assumption that no civilian would ever need more than this to protect themself, but provided no guarantee to back this up. Why did the law not include language guaranteeing that before any civilian had fired the 10th shot in a life-and-death situation, police would had arrived on the scene and taken their attacker into custody?
There were some good details of this legislation, namely that it furthered the effort to enforce existing laws regarding background checks and waiting periods, but there were numerous loopholes.
For example, gun configurations were banned, like large-scale magazines, weapons with built-in cleaning kits, bayonets, folding stocks, etc., however the individual sale of many of these components wasn't completely restricted so in many cases you could buy an SKS or AK-47, purchase a folding stock separately, and configure the weapon on your own. It was way too easy to get around this.
The premise behind the law was sound: Who needs a "hunting" weapon that was exclusively designed for killing people in wartime? Who needs a folding stock or a 30-round magazine for hunting deer? Unfortunately, the passage of this bill didn't really reduce the availability of these weapons or their components in my opinion. I've always been able to go down the street to the gun shop and buy a cheap Chinese-made AK-47 for less than it costs to pick up a modest hand gun.
What I found most ironic about the Brady Bill and Feinstein Amendment, was that the NRA blew the consequences of this legislation way out of preportion and suggested its passage was going to take guns away from law-abiding citizens. The facts since then have indicated otherwise - the more-stricly-enforced background checks have reduced the number of firearms getting into the hands of people who were prohibited from owning them. At the same time, the proliferation of many of the assault weapons has not been noticeably diminished. Ironically, the NRA, for all its anti-commie, freedom-lovin', second-amendment protecting propaganda, vehemently pushed for the opposition of this bill which mainly would have had the most profound impact on the substantive importation of communist-Chinese-manufactured assault weapons which have been flooding the US. This is a case of the NRA agenda helping directly fund a communist regime - irony of ironies, and a talking point they never brought up in all their dialogue on this law.
Sorry I cannot spell that correctly, but I'm not German. The Germans, however, are the ones that invented and named the "assault rifle".
.30-06. The .30-06 fires a heavier slug far faster. Yet functionally identical AK's were banned, while "standard" deer rifles continued to be made and sold.
It is a small, relatively under-powered sub machine gun. Small cartridges, so more can be carried because more are wasted.
The Ban didn't effect "assault rifles", because those are already covered by the 1934 and 1968 laws.
As was stated by the people who wrote the "assault weapon" ban, they were counting on the American public being duped into thinking that the rifles effected were "assault rifles", Machine guns, Actual military hardware. What we got was pointless regulation which demonized cosmetic features and created massive confusion and cost for everyone involved.
Compare cartridge power of the dreaded AK-47, the 7.62x39, with the "standard" American deer rifle cartridge, the
Then there is the stupidity of prohibition. Every time it is tried it fails. Alcohol prohibition created the environment of criminal gangs, mafia, "organized" crime that is alive and well to this day.
Few people call for alcohol prohibition, because "it failed." Many people are calling for an end to drug prohibition, because "it's failing." Yet many of the people who believe it's stupid to prohibit peaceful drug ownership call for prohibition of peaceful gun ownership. Where is the logic in that?
There isn't any logic, of course. Any prohibition in a so-called "free" society is doomed. Either the prohibition is ignored, or the freedoms that would allow the law to be ignored are taken away.
There has been continual prohibition in the US since January 16th, 1919. Government has grown titanic, organized crime are almost peaceful compared to the jack-booted thugs who hide behind their badges. "Citizens" are tracked like cattle, allowed freedom only in limited, carefully regulated bounds, while the police kill at will.
And all because we forgot the most important part of the Declaration of Independence:
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
The existence of prohibition is, on its face, such a usurpation. The fact that there are many prohibitions right now merely demonstrates that our masters are indeed persuing invariably the same object.
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
Same muzzle velocity, same barrel length, same everything that is important ...
But no flash suppressor. Big whoop dee doo! Like I need a flash suppressor.
As for the clip ruling. You just count your shots. When you have one left (in the chamber) you drop the old clip and slot a new one. With a bit of practice, you can do this in under 2 seconds.
Also, the larger capacity clips are still legal (just as you've pointed out with the weapons themselves). But private citizens are only allowed to own ones from before the "ban".
The only thing(s) this "ban" did was:
#1. Jack up the prices on the weapons and clips
#2. Give everyone who didn't read it a warm fuzzy false sense of security and accomplishment.
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to posses arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so." -Adolf Hitler
Creative Demolition
"The premise behind the law was sound: Who needs a "hunting" weapon that was exclusively designed for killing people in wartime? Who needs a folding stock or a 30-round magazine for hunting deer?"
;), who needs an Anything?
;)
Not to pick on you in particular (except, well, that I am picking on you in particular
The idea that things not specifically "needed" (as determined by whom?) are suspect or should need to be justified for some reason has implications that I don't like, most especially when applied blithely to weapons (potentially, at least) of self defense.
Who needs plastic bags for groceries? After all, (conventional) plastics rely on petroleum, and contribute to the dissipation of natural resources. [Ignore the considerations of price, convenience, shipping convenience, reusability, etc, that might lead a person or a business to prefer them.]
Who needs more than one child? The world has enough people, and any more mouths to feed are a net loss. If you want more, too bad, others have decided you don't need any. (Forced abortions in the western provinces of China.)
Who needs more than 2000 calories a day? It's unhealthy to overeat, and people who overeat (and then develop health problems) are a burden and drain on society.
Who needs more than 10 shirts? Can't those people just wash more often? They're depleting resources and spending their money inefficiently, and hurting all of us.
Who needs sharp knives? They're dangerous in the hands of lunatics.
Who needs a computer that is powerful enough to play a significant role in designing nuclear weapons?
I wish these questions were more rhetorical, but obviously some of them are not! And of course, who needs a Xerox machine? (Illegal to have such a thing during most of the history of the Soviet Union.)
Another snide but serious answer to "Who needs a gun designed to kill people?" is, "Well, the Swiss seem to think that they do, and they don't get invaded very often." Also, the Jews of the Warsaw ghetto, when they were being rounded up for extermination camps and -- bravely but ultimately unsuccessfully -- fought back with what weapons they *did* have. I don't mean to activate Godwin's Law here, I hope I've stayed just shy of it
To further tread that line; the question is not whether governments ever grow tyrannical and oppress the people they're supposed to be serving (at least when they make the gesture of claiming to be a servant in the first place), it's how often, to what degree, and under what circumstances. The Third Reich is only one of many such in the last 100 years. Stalin and others killed either more in absolute numbers or as a percentage of their country's / dominion's population.
Cheers (uh, if that is the right closing note),
Tim
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
"You are failing to take into account the citizens in uniform. Not all and probably most american soldiers would not likely fire on an american citizen. Period."
And how would that citizen having an assault weapon affect his decision?
Is it easier for an American soldier to fire at an unarmed (and disobedient) civilian, than at an armed (and disobedient) civilian.
If you're calling a semiautomatic rifle an "assault rifle", you're stupid.
If you're calling magazines "clips", you're stupid.
If you think that the 2nd Amendment is just for protecting hunters, you're stupid.
If you think that registration won't lead to confiscation, you're stupid.
If you're that damned stupid, why the hell are you even participating in this discussion?
Well, I've got an "assault rifle". It has two 30-round clips jungle-clipped together sticking out the bottom. Ever hear of a hurricane? How about looters? That's one reason to own such a weapon. The other, of course, would be to prevent tyranny by the government (whose soldiers are quite well armed with similar but even faster-cycling weapons). The assault weapons ban was a dumb-ass law anyway. They banned guns based on how they look, not how they function. As an example, I have an AK that was imported from a former soviet bloc country. The factory that exported it just left the muzzle brake off. The US company that imported it swapped out some pins, screws, other small parts, and changed the pistol grip. Perfectly legal, now it's a "US made" gun under the law. The only thing the "assault weapons" ban ever did was drive up the price for "pre-ban" guns with flash suppressors and bayonet lugs. Now collectors pay more, but nothing else ever came of it. Stupid laws should be repealed.
Look buddy,
It's people like you that make everyone else who is literate on the planet look bad. I hate to break this to you, but the soldiers you talk about....they're your friends and family ass hole. If you seriously think average Americans, most of which just joined the military for college money, are just going to suddenly turn on everyone they know and support a stalanistic lifestyle because some idiot who knows how to kiss babies told them to, then you need to check yourself into a psych ward.
The situation that existed when the second amendment was written was during a colonial period where your "government" was a monarchy that was 4000 miles away. If you seriously beleive that anyone is capable of reverting America back to a monarchy or dictatorship, once again, seek professional help.
I've dirtied my hands writing poetry, for the sake of seduction; that is, for the sake of a useful cause. --Dostoevsky
The answer to that depends on who you are, obviously. Barring all of the Anti/Pro-Gun rhetoric, break it down to history.
If you're a regular Joe Citizen, arming everyone is in your best interests. For every asshat who goes postal, there'll be thousands who are JUST as armed and capable of stopping him.
If you're George Government (name chosen for the King of England, before anyone starts in on that) then it's in your best interests to only allow those YOU control(i.e. the military) to have weapons.
There will never be a time when NO ONE has weapons. Human nature centers around conflict. Even if the entire country, police, military and all, are disarmed, external forces will be armed. If they don't attack an obviously helpless target, then they will certainly find ways of making those arms available to the criminals within the disarmed societies, and you're back to the same lose-lose situation.