Assault Weapons

Anna Gregoline | September 9, 2004
The assault weapons ban is about to expire.

Scott Horowitz | September 9, 2004
This is stuff that pisses me off. There are people who think it is so important to have guns, because "It is in the constitution". The second ammendment as written in the constitution is "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." IMHO, this means if you are a member of the military or law enforcement , you have the right to bear arms. Why else are assault weapons made? To kill people. You can't go hunting with an Uzi. Hell, to go hunting with any automated weapon is not a good idea (too loud).

Anna Gregoline | September 9, 2004
Yeah, I'd like to hear one good argument for having an assault weapon.

Jackie Mason | September 9, 2004
[hidden by request]

Kris Weberg | September 9, 2004
I reiterate my argument that gun ownership should not be made illegal, but the manufacture of certain weapons should be heavily regulated and in some cases forcibly discontinued.

Kris Weberg | September 9, 2004
I might also argue that support of obscenity and harmful speech laws -- the yelling "Fire" in a crowded theatre example -- limit the First Amendment. Ergo, it should be possible to limit the Second Amendment.

Support for obscenity laws and opposition to gun control laws would seem to be legally inconsistent.

John E Gunter | September 9, 2004
I'm fairly conservative in my views, but there is no reason to own a working assault weapon. Now, as far as owning firearms, I see no problem in it. Any firearm that is not an assault weapon can serve the purpose of hunting.

Pistols have a problem of not being that good for hunting, but a pistol is very good for home defense. I have never had to shoot a burglar in my home, but if someone breaks into my house, they will not be leaving it if I have my way.

Plus, I don't go off half-cocked, so the chances of me shooting a family member by mistake are very small. Plus, my firearms all have safety locks on them, are not loaded, so a child will not stand the chance of being able to shoot themselves by mistake.

My big problem with those who want to get rid of guns from law-abiding citizens, it will not stop the criminals from getting them. My city's town council has had a few buy back programs where they give you $X for your firearms. About 50% of the firearms that were bought by the city were later found to have been stolen.

So hmm, that says to me that some criminals decided they didn't need these guns and sold them to the city to either get better ones, ammunition for the ones they had or something else with that money.

But back to the original point, the only individuals who need assault weapons are the police or military. Oh and the regulated militia from the constitution was the 'military' formed from the citizens of the colonies. The standing army of the time was not anywhere near what we have today, so the defense of the country as it were, fell to the common citizen, not the regular soldier like it would today.

Plus, if we ended up having some kind of military take over, any citizens with assault weapons or any weapons for that matter wouldn't stand a chance. But if we had another country try and invade us, I'd use my firearms to protect my family till I could locate part of our military and either join up, or be under their protection.

John

Kris Weberg | September 9, 2004
John, if guns were'nt in people's possession to start with, how and where would criminals steal them? If the guns in your counterexample are stolen, who are they stolen from, if not from non-criminal citizens?

Or, to use my example, if guns weren't widely manufactured, how could anyone, criminal or otherwise, obtain a gun? You can't obtain something that isn't being made at all.

Restricting weapons manufacture to heavily cross-checked, defense-only manufacturers and shipments would seem to handle the problem quite nicely.

Anna Gregoline | September 9, 2004
"My city's town council has had a few buy back programs where they give you $X for your firearms. About 50% of the firearms that were bought by the city were later found to have been stolen."

I thought these kinds of buy-back programs are usually so that the police can round up stolen firearms?

"Plus, if we ended up having some kind of military take over, any citizens with assault weapons or any weapons for that matter wouldn't stand a chance. But if we had another country try and invade us, I'd use my firearms to protect my family till I could locate part of our military and either join up, or be under their protection."

Unfortuantely, in my apoclyptic mind, I see people with guns robbing from the people without guns in this kind of crazy lawless scenario. Also, if we were being invaded (which is hard for my mind to grasp, but I'm trying), I don't think our military would take kindly to citizens trying to do their own thing. It would screw up their defensive operations.

Scott Horowitz | September 9, 2004
In terms of "home defense", 90% of people who have a gun would not be able to use it to shoot a person. I don't care who you are. Killing another human is the hardest thing you can do (unless you're sadistic). Just having an audible alarm system usually can deter most people. My problem with a "pistol" or a "hand gun" is that they are concealable. what's to stop a person from going to a public park with a handgun in their pants and start shooting. It is a lot harder to be seen with a handgun compared to a rifle.

John E Gunter | September 9, 2004
Kris, in response to your question, how do criminals in Britain obtain firearms?

John

Anna Gregoline | September 9, 2004
What I never understand is that for a handgun in the home to be useful, it would have to be loaded and near to you (presumably while sleeping), or at least have the amunition nearby. So therefore it's dangerous to others, meaning most likely family members. If it's unloaded, locked up, with amunition locked up in a separate place (which I think is the recommended safety precaution, and sounds great to me), it would be safe but un-useful in an emergency. So I don't see the sense.

I wouldn't want one for multiple reasons, but now I'm thinking back to our burglary earlier this year. My boyfriend was gone for a HALF HOUR in the middle of the day, and they took a ton of stuff from our home. My boyfriend is no hot-head, but he does get a bit angry about such things, and I still thank god that he didn't get home when they were still in the apartment. I don't like to think about what could have happened, and if my boyfriend had a gun? Well, that's even scarier. I also don't like to think about if we had a gun and it was stolen and used to commit a crime. I would feel so guilty.

Scott Horowitz | September 9, 2004
I have also heard that people with guns are more likely to have their guns used against them in a robbery than vice versa. I don't remember where I heard that though.

Kris Weberg | September 9, 2004
Same way some American criminals do -- from black markets or lax regulation in other countries. Actually, I'd guessa lot of them end up getting guns from America, at least indirectly.

The ban on manufacturing would also have to include a boost in shipment interception from outside this country. Fortunately, being metallic and all, guns are quite a lot harder to smuggle than, say drugs.

But then, I imagine that homeowners' guns would be effective mostly against unarmed criminals, but then, do you really need a gun to defend yourself against an unarmed person?. Against armed criminals, I'd imagine the result would be less a heroic ambush than a gun battle in the homeowner's own domicile.

Of course, if your underlying logic is that civilians are at war with criminals in some sense, then there's a minimal division between a potential burglary target and a battle zone anyway.

John E Gunter | September 9, 2004
The buy back programs are to remove firearms from the street, no matter how they got there.

"I don't think our military would take kindly to citizens trying to do their own thing. It would screw up their defensive operations."

Yes, the military would be very upset if ordinary citizen were doing their own thing and screwing up their defense operations. But, if the situation came up where there was no military force in the area, you don't have to worry about interfering with any military operations.

I also do not believe we will ever be invaded, but most people never thought someone would fly a plane into the Trade Center.

You are right though, if government ever broke down to a significant extent, you would have those with guns taking from those without. Hopefully, some of those without would have those with that would protect them for whatever reason.

As far as the 90% of people not being able to use it to shoot someone, you hear about the 'old' woman, I hate using the term old, but do not remember her age, shooting the burglar outside her closet? Yes, shooting a person is a very hard thing to do, but you would be amazed about what you can do when you are pushed far enough.

You ever hear someone chamber a round in a shotgun, if that’s not an audible alarm, I don’t know what is. In fact, when I first moved back home, my wife and I moved into my parents trailer. One night, someone decided to start pounding on the side of the trailer, later found it out it was a group of kids terrorizing the park. Well, I turned out most of the lights, grabbed said shotgun, loaded a round and then chambered it. No more pounding!

Handguns in the park? Well, if you don’t have a concealed weapons permit, it’s illegal to carry a handgun around in your pants. So that would mean you are a criminal and since criminals can obtain firearms from disreputable sources, then chances are, you’ll see something like that and making own a firearm illegal, will not stop that kind of activity.

John

Anna Gregoline | September 9, 2004
"You ever hear someone chamber a round in a shotgun, if that’s not an audible alarm, I don’t know what is."

This means you'd have to be awake and alert and with your gun, however. An alarm system would be much more useful. I wish we could have one. We had bars put over our window after the burglary, but I'm still jumpy. I'm glad that it happened when my boyfriend was living with me, as if I was still living alone, I would probably have moved by now. And I'm equally grateful that it didn't happen while I was home alone, although I'm sure that in that instance they wouldn't have managed to take our stuff. Get renter's insurance, is my new credo to everyone!

Kris Weberg | September 9, 2004
The (unsourced) 'old woman' anecdote is an exception -- there have been studies of trained soldiers, let alone relatively untrained homeowners, showing a remarkable timidty to fire on living targets And this is in a state of war.

Of course, statistically, a gun in the home is 3 times more likely to be used against a family member accidentally or intentionally than against a criminal. 2nd degree murderers, after all, are by definition people with weapons who are "pushed too far." And the great bulk of 2nd degree murders are gun murders, committed by people who know their victims.

Oh well, I suppose the victims should have been prepared and carried a handgun.

Anna Gregoline | September 9, 2004
I guess I still don't get your position on the criminals will still get guns thing. The buy-back program got the stolen guns off the street - which is a good thing. So by this reasoning, eliminating the legal ownership of handguns would stop them from being stolen - meaning less guns on the street.

John E Gunter | September 9, 2004
Scott,

"I have also heard that people with guns are more likely to have their guns used against them in a robbery than vice versa. I don't remember where I heard that though."

I've heard that also, but I believe that is in regards to a stick up, than a home burglary. So since I don't have a carry permit and do not carry my pistols on my person, it won't happen to me.

Kris,

As far as an unarmed burglar is concerned, if I realize he's unarmed, I'll make him wait till the police get there. Otherwise, I've got no problem with an un-heroic ambush; after all, what the hell are you doing in my house burglar?

Anna,

A loaded clip slides into a handgun really fast. You unlock the trigger lock, slide the clip in, slide the action back and are ready to go in a few minutes. The child needs to know where the key is, how to load the clip, etc. Since I keep the key on my person, I don't need to worry about the child unlocking the gun.

Plus, any children in my house know I have the firearm and know that they will receive sever punishment if I find out they have been playing with the firearm. I also have a few plastic replicas, but will not allow the children out of the house with those plastic replicas because a police officer could mistake that for a real one and shoot the child. Which would be my fault as I allowed the child to do something dangerous.

John

Scott Horowitz | September 9, 2004
And about that Old Lady thing. Look Here and Here. Most of these "stories" are urban legends with little or no factual basis

John E Gunter | September 9, 2004
Anna,

Unless you manage to stop handgun-manufacturing worldwide, anyone will have the means to obtain handguns. Plus, until you get rid of all those handguns that already exist, you'll have all the ones that are already made floating around.

Now, if they manage to stop manufacturing handguns, and make it illegal for a citizen to own them, and they get rid of all those that are already made, and get them from the criminals as well as those law-abiding citizens, then we'll only have the police and military possessing them.

John

Anna Gregoline | September 9, 2004
I wasn't trying to insinuate that you weren't responsible for your guns, John, just saying myself that logistically, it seems tough. I'm not insinuating anything about your kids either, but is the key on you when you're sleeping? I mean, there's no real good way to keep things absolutely locked up and out of reach. I don't know, it seems far too risky to me, but that's for my own life. I don't want to own the power to kill or maim another human being. The very idea makes me ill.

All this said, I want to shoot a gun really bad. I'm very anti-gun, but I want to kind of see the other side of things too. I want to use one and feel what that's like and I'm always interested in hearing what the other side has to say. I guess that's why I start so many bad arguments. = \

Kris Weberg | September 9, 2004
Some facts:

When someone is home, a gun is used for protection in fewer than two percent of home invasion crimes.

Source: Kellermann AL., Journal of the American Medical Association, 1995.

The presence of a gun in the home triples the risk of homicide in the home.

Source: Kellermann, AL, Rivara, FP, Rushforth NB, et al. "Gun ownership as a risk factor for homicide in the home." N Engl J Med. 1993;329:1084-1091.

A gun kept in the home is 22 times more likely to be used in an unintentional shooting (4 times), a criminal assault or homicide (7 times), or an attempted or completed suicide (11 times) than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.

For every time a gun is used in a home in a legally-justifiable shooting [note that every self-defense is legally justifiable] there are 22 criminal, unintentional, and suicide-related shootings.

Source: Kellermann AL, Somes G, Rivara FP, et al. "Injuries and deaths due to firearms in the home." The Journal of Trauma. 1998; 45:263-267.

In 1999, there were only 154 justifiable homicides by private citizens in the United States.

Source: Crime in the United States, 1999. Washington DC. Federal Bureau of Investigation. 2000.

A gun in the home increases the likelihood of an intentional shooting, particularly among children. Unintentional shootings commonly occur when children find an adult's loaded handgun in a drawer or closet, and while playing with it shoot themselves, a sibling or a friend. The unintentional firearm-related death rate for children 0-14 years is 9 times higher in the U.S. than in the 25 other countries combined.

Source: Centers for Disease Control, "Rates of Homicide, suicide and firearm-related death among children - 26 industrialized countries." Morbidity Mortality Weekly Report, 02/07/97; 46:5. 101-105.

Scott Horowitz | September 9, 2004
I shot an M-16 once. It was on a summer trip to Israel, and we spent a week in Gadna (Israeli Military Camp). I'll tell you, shooting it was fun. I wasn't expecting the kickback... it knocked the lens out of my glasses. I'll tell you, we spent 3 days on Gun Maintenance and cleaning before we were allowed to shoot. If you didn't listen, or fooled around, they wouldn't let you anywhere near the gun.

Kris Weberg | September 9, 2004
John, you misunderstood -- I said "heroic ambush," and argued that it was unlikely an ambush of any kind would succeed, especially when a half-asleep. terrified homeowner is trying it. Remember, even firearms accuracy training for civilians tends to take place in a shooting gallery environment, a well-lit, long-range, relatively low-stress environment. It's hardly effective training for what amounts to a police or miltary use of the weapon for self-defense.

Scott Horowitz | September 9, 2004
Just remembering. In one of the Police Academy movies (I think it was 4), Tackleberry the gun mania heard a noise, took out his gun and fired. It turned out to be his father-in-law taking some pie and milk (and he shot the milk). But, with a gun, do you grab it every time you hear a noise. I can imagine your kid reacting real well if he went downstairs to get a drink, turned on the light and saw Daddy pointing a gun at his head.

John E Gunter | September 9, 2004
Nope the one I'm talking about is the old woman hiding in her closet when the burgler was rooting around in her bedroom. She shot him several times through the closet door.

I can't find the story and I gotta get some work done, but below are some links that could be urban legends or not. Once again, I don't have time to completely check to see if they are urban legends or not.

One
Two

John

Anna Gregoline | September 9, 2004
I'd take both of those stories with a grain of salt, since they're on pro-gun websites. It would be better if they were straight news stories. But I think I remember that one with the old lady in her closet.

Kris Weberg | September 9, 2004
I'll assume they're true. Appalling stories of apparently useless police, at least int he first case, but perhaps true.

According to the FBI statistics I cited, there are 152 more stories like that out there, at least from 2000. Of course, there are apparently 22 times as many stories -- that's 3,344 -- incidents of accidental shootings, deliberate murders, or suicides using handguns int he home from that same year.

Remember, based on the studies cited in my post above, every story of a gun-totin' grandma effectively implies 22 untold tales of tragic death, death that could have been prevented by gun control.

Not exactly a compelling ratio.

Lori Lancaster | September 9, 2004
[hidden by request]

John E Gunter | September 9, 2004
Had a few moments and wanted to bring up a point, at least in my state, we have gun control, I'm also guessing that it exists in other states as well, but people are not enforcing said gun control My big fear is will further control make it any better?

With what we have now not working, I'd say no. At least for the criminal element!

In Florida, you can not legally be sold a firearm without a background check. There are exceptions,

(a) Firearms brought in for warranty replacement or repairs if picked up by the same individual who brought in the firearm.

(b) Firearms rented for a single purpose and maintained in the location of the rental agency (examples are skeet shooting, plantation hunting, etc.).

(c) Holders of concealed weapon permits issued on or before November 30, 1998 will be exempted from the FPP check only until the permit expires.

(d) A transaction involving a federally licensed firearm dealer as a buyer or when both the buyer and seller are licensed dealers.

But still criminals obtain firearms in the state. So how will further gun control prevent this?

John

Scott Horowitz | September 9, 2004
I've heard about ideas such as fingerprint imprinting (only someone programmed can use the gun), combination locks, and other things.

Anna Gregoline | September 9, 2004
"Criminals are always going to be able to aquire some kind of weapon. I agree with John. If you take away guns from the law abiding people who 'can stomach shooting others' then you are only taking away deterents from the criminals who would prey upon them."

I've heard this argument a few times now - but I keep thinking that criminals who enter homes aren't thinking about whether the owner has a gun - or at least it's not a deterrent unless you tell them - like a big sign out front that says, "WE HAVE GUNS AND WE WILL SHOOT YOU."

Kris Weberg | September 9, 2004
Except, of course, that crime statistics have been declining for years now.

Strangely, that hasn't impacted "we need to get tough" rhetoric, or the "criminals will kill us all unless we _____" lines of argument that remain popular and politically effective.

But then, fear always trumps reason, even when the fear is poorly founded.

Kris Weberg | September 9, 2004
The lighter side of the gun issue...

Jackie Mason | September 9, 2004
[hidden by request]

Mike Eberhart | September 10, 2004
John,
Just wanted to let you know that I support your stance here. I also am a gun owner, and I would have no problem shooting someone if they broke into my house and cause a threat to me or my family. I'm not the typical dumb gun owner with no training, I have a Beretta 9MM 92FS, which is the equivelant to the Beretta M9 which is used in the Air Force. That's what I was trained on down at Lackland AFB. Also, I keep my gun unloaded, with the clip out, but I can tell you, that it only take a matter of seconds for that gun to be ready to fire.

As for the assault weapons ban, it's a joke. It doesn't need to be renewed. I used to have a Chinese SKS assault rifle. I sold it to a gun shop years ago only because at the time ammunition was pretty expensive for it. Now, I want to buy another one. It's a great weapon, very accurate. They are very fun to shoot as well, it doesn't kick very hard.

Finally, if they were to ever ban firearms all together, I think this would be the start of another small civil war. I know a lot of people that have guns, and they will not part with them. I'm in that group, they will have to physically seperate me from my guns and that won't be easy. I currently have 1 9MM Beretta & 3 Springfield M1's.

Robert Phillips | September 10, 2004
Philosophically the ownership of guns is also about protecting yourself from the government. If the government tells me that I can not own guns then I need to start thinking that it is trying to put something over on me. I think it is somewhat of a duty for Americans to own guns.

Anna Gregoline | September 10, 2004
I guess I won't be fulfilling my duty then.

It's a difficult scenario for me to imagine Americans having firepower enough to fight against the entire might of the U.S. military.

Jackie Mason | September 10, 2004
[hidden by request]

Jackie Mason | September 10, 2004
[hidden by request]

Anthony Lewis | September 11, 2004
Mike, I'd like to know what kind of neighborhood you live in. Nice, tree-lined streets. Manicured lawns?

I wonder if you would feel the same way about the assault weapons ban if you lived in, say Harlem, or Bedford-Stuyvesant in Brooklyn. Or maybe if you were a cop, and going out into these neighborhoods armed with only a Glock, when you may come to face off against those strapped with HK's and Uzi's. Maybe in your part of the world, the ban is ridiculous. But in MY part of the world? Shiiiiiittt...it's friggin' necessary.

Mike Eberhart | September 11, 2004
Even in your part of the world, the ban is still useless. Those people will have those weapons regardless of the ban. Plus, where I live has nothing to do with why I want the weapons I have. If I want an AK-47, then I'm going to get one.

Jackie Mason | September 11, 2004
[hidden by request]

Anthony Lewis | September 11, 2004
Yeah, but if there are less of those weapons on the street BECAUSE of a ban, the better. I agree that if someone wants an AK bad enough, they're going to get it. But why should government make it easier????

I use the neighborhood reference not because this may be a weapon YOU would use to protect yourself. Rather, they are are the weapons of choice for drug gangs and criminals of the like...who are concentrated in these particular areas. If you don't see it, or have experienced it...then how would you know? Like I said, I'd rather let government make it harder for these people to get their hands on them.

Scott Horowitz | September 11, 2004
I personally don't see how anyone can find assault weapons a "good thing." The only use for them is mass killing whether it be murder or in a military situation. Yes, there will always be ways for people to get them, like with drugs. But by stopping the manufacture of these weapons, it will make it much more difficult to be attained, as well as more expensive.

Kris Weberg | September 11, 2004
I'd argue that for hunting purposes, assault weapons are ludicrous; for self-defense, they're overkill in the hands of a trained marksman and a recipe for frightening collateral dmaage in the hands of anyone else; ad as a purely moral argument, "we should have killing technology" is a pretty hard sell.

Again, I'll ask -- if it's Constitutionally appropriate to forbid harmful or obscene speech, why is it inappropriate to similarly regulate harmful and nonharmful forms of gun ownership? How can it be legally or ethically consistent to support limits on other Constitutional protections -- the 1st, 5th, and 6th amendments, for examples -- but not the 2nd Amendment?

Jackie Mason | September 11, 2004
[hidden by request]

Scott Hardie | September 11, 2004
Hey, let the chips fall where they may. Perhaps with these powerful weapons, the unfit mothers and homosexuals will shoot each other to death.

(Just joking of course...)

Lori Lancaster | September 12, 2004
[hidden by request]