DEMS now oppose renewed AWB???

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

retrospooty

Platinum Member
Apr 3, 2002
2,031
74
86
Originally posted by: daishi5
Originally posted by: retrospooty
I dont really care about this issue much personally, but I have to wonder why republicans are so desperately in need of assault weapons...

We are not in need of "assault weapons," we are scared of "assault weapon" bans. The reason for this is that there is no such thing as an "assault weapon" it is a fictional term that they use because you mistakenly give it a definition it does not actually have.

I am going to quote myself just because I think I need to break this out every time someone asks why we need something dangerous like "assault weapons"

Take a minute and ask if this makes any sense. I want to ban zoozoo weapons, I know they do not work any differently from normal rifles that I don't want to ban, I know they are used in less than 1% of crimes in the united states, I know they are actually less dangerous than high powered hunting rifles. However, despite all of that, those weapons look scary, and they look like the guns bad guys use in movies, and I don't want my neighbor owning a zoozoo gun.

"Assault weapon" is meaningless, it has no actual definition, and politicians just choose guns that look scary and call them assault weapons. I think this needs to be repeated again, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN ASSAULT WEAPON.

I can take a normal hunting rifle, change some cosmetic parts, and all of the sudden it becomes an assault weapon, even though nothing changed but its appearance.

I thought it meant automatic weapons like AK47 and such... Why do we need automatic weapons? I read your quote, and I stil dont get it. Regardless of appearances, or fears, why should automatic weapons be sold over the counter? There are too many psycho's out there...

What if John Hinkly had one? Reagan wold have died that day.
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
Originally posted by: retrospooty
I thought it meant automatic weapons like AK47 and such... Why do we need automatic weapons? I read your quote, and I stil dont get it. Regardless of appearances, or fears, why should automatic weapons be sold over the counter? There are too many psycho's out there...

What if John Hinkly had one? Reagan wold have died that day.

Just stop it. I don't know if you're trolling or not but you CANNOT BUY AUTOMATIC WEAPONS OVER THE COUNTER. They are extremely expensive ($20,000+), require immense paperwork, have so many restrictions it's not even funny.

For all intents and purposes you can't buy an automatic weapon. Technically you can but the requirements for you to do so are long.

An "assault weapon" is only about the look of the gun, not the performance or function which in many cases is exactly the same, using the same parts as a hunting rifle.
 

wjgollatz

Senior member
Oct 1, 2004
372
0
0
Originally posted by: ayabe


Should we just continue to do nothing? Can we not agree that far too many people in this country are killed by firearms?

More pedestrians are killed by automobiles than peopel are killed by firearms. Perhaps we should do something about that first?

 

retrospooty

Platinum Member
Apr 3, 2002
2,031
74
86
Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: retrospooty
I thought it meant automatic weapons like AK47 and such... Why do we need automatic weapons? I read your quote, and I stil dont get it. Regardless of appearances, or fears, why should automatic weapons be sold over the counter? There are too many psycho's out there...

What if John Hinkly had one? Reagan wold have died that day.

Just stop it. I don't know if you're trolling or not but you CANNOT BUY AUTOMATIC WEAPONS OVER THE COUNTER. They are extremely expensive ($20,000+), require immense paperwork, have so many restrictions it's not even funny.

For all intents and purposes you can't buy an automatic weapon. Technically you can but the requirements for you to do so are long.

An "assault weapon" is only about the look of the gun, not the performance or function which in many cases is exactly the same, using the same parts as a hunting rifle.

relax... I'm not trolling, just asking questions. I dont know a whole lot about guns (obviously).
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
Originally posted by: retrospooty
relax... I'm not trolling, just asking questions. I dont know a whole lot about guns (obviously).

Gotcha. Now you know that fully automatic weapons do not equal assault weapons and you have to jump through incredible hoops and a lot of money to own a full auto weapon.
 

bob4432

Lifer
Sep 6, 2003
11,694
28
91
Originally posted by: retrospooty
Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: retrospooty
I thought it meant automatic weapons like AK47 and such... Why do we need automatic weapons? I read your quote, and I stil dont get it. Regardless of appearances, or fears, why should automatic weapons be sold over the counter? There are too many psycho's out there...

What if John Hinkly had one? Reagan wold have died that day.

Just stop it. I don't know if you're trolling or not but you CANNOT BUY AUTOMATIC WEAPONS OVER THE COUNTER. They are extremely expensive ($20,000+), require immense paperwork, have so many restrictions it's not even funny.

For all intents and purposes you can't buy an automatic weapon. Technically you can but the requirements for you to do so are long.

An "assault weapon" is only about the look of the gun, not the performance or function which in many cases is exactly the same, using the same parts as a hunting rifle.

relax... I'm not trolling, just asking questions. I dont know a whole lot about guns (obviously).

by all means, ask away. i would much rather have you know the actual definitions and realities than believing the headline grabbing phrases the media uses all the time to sensationalize that many times have no merit, like "cop killer bullets", "assault weapons", etc :thumbsdown:
 

bob4432

Lifer
Sep 6, 2003
11,694
28
91
Originally posted by: Atheus
Originally posted by: bob4432
Originally posted by: Atheus
You know what the problem is? You make so much effort getting powerful weapons into to the hands of good citizens without making much effort to take them away from violent criminals. That situation just leads to everyone getting shot.

so ban everybody because the violent criminal is already breaking the law again by possessing the firearm (if in fact he is)? it is not like a "violent criminal" w/ felonies went into a gun shop and bought the gun legally. this is where your logic doesn't work.

you make bans and the only people who get hurt are the ones that follow the law - not the violent criminal who doesn't give 2 shits about the law.

how can you not see this? please explain that to me? is it personal? was somebody you know killed?

the effort is not to arm everybody, that is their choice and right, the effort is to not shit on the constitution so that law abiding citizens have that right.

The other problem, of course, is that obsessed people have little capacity to listen to what others say, and it is therefore impossible to engage them in an intelligent arguement. See the above poster for reference - nothing he is arguing about appears anywhere in my post.

atheus
, i am asking you for an open dialogue - i am open to hear what you say, i don't have to agree w/ it nor do you have to agree w/ what i feel/say/think, but nonetheless i would like to be able to see your angle/view of the situation.

and fwiw, yes i have been the victim of gun violence - wrong place, wrong time situation.
 

Jack Flash

Golden Member
Sep 10, 2006
1,947
0
76
Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: retrospooty
I thought it meant automatic weapons like AK47 and such... Why do we need automatic weapons? I read your quote, and I stil dont get it. Regardless of appearances, or fears, why should automatic weapons be sold over the counter? There are too many psycho's out there...

What if John Hinkly had one? Reagan wold have died that day.

Just stop it. I don't know if you're trolling or not but you CANNOT BUY AUTOMATIC WEAPONS OVER THE COUNTER. They are extremely expensive ($20,000+), require immense paperwork, have so many restrictions it's not even funny.

For all intents and purposes you can't buy an automatic weapon. Technically you can but the requirements for you to do so are long.

An "assault weapon" is only about the look of the gun, not the performance or function which in many cases is exactly the same, using the same parts as a hunting rifle.

Just curious, but how much and what guns do our soldiers use in Iraq and Afghanistan?

This is semi-off topic but I wanted to know if their guns were as expensive as they would be in the private sector. (i.e. is the $20k sticker price to discourage ownership or is it just a complex device?)
 

BuckNaked

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
4,213
0
76
Originally posted by: Jack Flash
Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: retrospooty
I thought it meant automatic weapons like AK47 and such... Why do we need automatic weapons? I read your quote, and I stil dont get it. Regardless of appearances, or fears, why should automatic weapons be sold over the counter? There are too many psycho's out there...

What if John Hinkly had one? Reagan wold have died that day.

Just stop it. I don't know if you're trolling or not but you CANNOT BUY AUTOMATIC WEAPONS OVER THE COUNTER. They are extremely expensive ($20,000+), require immense paperwork, have so many restrictions it's not even funny.

For all intents and purposes you can't buy an automatic weapon. Technically you can but the requirements for you to do so are long.

An "assault weapon" is only about the look of the gun, not the performance or function which in many cases is exactly the same, using the same parts as a hunting rifle.

Just curious, but how much and what guns do our soldiers use in Iraq and Afghanistan?

This is semi-off topic but I wanted to know if their guns were as expensive as they would be in the private sector. (i.e. is the $20k sticker price to discourage ownership or is it just a complex device?)

Clarification and a little background on automatic and semi-automatic weapons...

An automatic or select fire weapon will fire multiple rounds with each press of the trigger. Some guns have a device that may limit each 'burst' to 3 or 4 round each, but they are considered select fire.

They have been tightly controlled since 1934, and required a $200 tax stamp and an extensive background check be completed at the federal level before a civilian could purchase, as well as a form with signature from your local chief law enforcement officer. States have added controls over these types of weapons, and not all states allow them, but most do.

The Gun Control Act of 1968 created further restrictions, and no longer allowed foreign produced select fire weapons imported after 1968 to be owned by civilians. In 1986, further restrictions were imposed on select fire weapons. Any select fire weapon produced after May, 1986 is not a transferable weapon, and cannot be owned by a civilian. There is a finite number of select fire weapons in the federal registry, and these are the only weapons a civilian can own. The demand for automatic weapons is high, and with the finite number of weapons available, has made the price skyrocket.

There are other categories such as pre and post '86 dealer samples, but to buy or own one of these you have to have special licenses to deal in them...

The weapons used in the military are bought under contract, and a M4 is purchased for somewhere in the neighborhood of $500 to $800, maybe lower, the number escapes me... A similar weapon that is transferable, or able to be owned by a civilian, is anywhere between $14,000-$20,000 with many variable affecting the price. Its the demand that has caused the price to be so high...

A semi-automatic fires one round with each pull of the trigger, and while they make look identical externally, they have different components that keep them from being easily modified to fire automatically.

An AR-15 that may appear similar to an M4 can be purchased for significantly less, $800 to $2000 or higher, depends on brand, configuration, etc. While they look similar, they do not have the capability for select fire.

In 1994 there was a ban implemented that banned civilian purchase of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, as well as banning further sale of many military looking semi-automatic firearms based on appearance or certain features. The ban had a sunset clause, the only way democrats could get the bill passed, that caused the ban to expire after 10 years, and it did so in 2004.


 

Atheus

Diamond Member
Jun 7, 2005
7,313
2
0
Originally posted by: bob4432
Originally posted by: Atheus
Originally posted by: bob4432
Originally posted by: Atheus
You know what the problem is? You make so much effort getting powerful weapons into to the hands of good citizens without making much effort to take them away from violent criminals. That situation just leads to everyone getting shot.

so ban everybody because the violent criminal is already breaking the law again by possessing the firearm (if in fact he is)? it is not like a "violent criminal" w/ felonies went into a gun shop and bought the gun legally. this is where your logic doesn't work.

you make bans and the only people who get hurt are the ones that follow the law - not the violent criminal who doesn't give 2 shits about the law.

how can you not see this? please explain that to me? is it personal? was somebody you know killed?

the effort is not to arm everybody, that is their choice and right, the effort is to not shit on the constitution so that law abiding citizens have that right.

The other problem, of course, is that obsessed people have little capacity to listen to what others say, and it is therefore impossible to engage them in an intelligent arguement. See the above poster for reference - nothing he is arguing about appears anywhere in my post.

atheus
, i am asking you for an open dialogue - i am open to hear what you say, i don't have to agree w/ it nor do you have to agree w/ what i feel/say/think, but nonetheless i would like to be able to see your angle/view of the situation.

and fwiw, yes i have been the victim of gun violence - wrong place, wrong time situation.

Well okay my current thoughts on this go as follows: there are two ideals you can aim for. One is where you effectively limit the number and power of weapons overall in a country and the police force and justice system are relied upon to prevent and react to crime. If people absolutely have to fight they can do it with fists and nobody gets hurt too badly. The other ideal is where you make it easy for good citizens to get weapons and let them deter crime themselves, while the police force and justice system make it extremely difficult for less savoury people to get those same weapons. In America it's obviously very easy to get guns no matter who you are. In Britain it's more difficult to get powerful guns but it's probably actually easier to get one illegally than legally which is totally backward. Both systems fail due to the fact that, for the most part, police officers are ineffective uneducated power tripping bullies.

 

nullzero

Senior member
Jan 15, 2005
670
0
0
Originally posted by: ayabe
As everyone likes to point out most guns used in crimes were either stolen or purchased through the black market somehow.

Most recent data I can find estimates that 30% or so of gun purchases are through the black market, or unlicensed dealers.

This is the real problem.

What is the solution oh wise ones? Is there no sensible alternative to outright bans, which hurt legitimate, law-abiding owners?

Should we just continue to do nothing? Can we not agree that far too many people in this country are killed by firearms?

Far to many people are killed by bare hands... why wont we ban touching other humans while we are at it. Or how about banning all cars because they kill more people per year then firearms ever will? If you really wanted to kill a bunch of people all you would have to do is drive a truck +60mph through a crowded open area market. When there is a intent to kill people will find other ways.

Lets take a look at Japan they now ban swords because of violence with them... its almost impossible to obtain a firearm their. Whats next on the ban list? How about violent movies and kitchen knives!
 

Atheus

Diamond Member
Jun 7, 2005
7,313
2
0
Originally posted by: nullzero
Originally posted by: ayabe
As everyone likes to point out most guns used in crimes were either stolen or purchased through the black market somehow.

Most recent data I can find estimates that 30% or so of gun purchases are through the black market, or unlicensed dealers.

This is the real problem.

What is the solution oh wise ones? Is there no sensible alternative to outright bans, which hurt legitimate, law-abiding owners?

Should we just continue to do nothing? Can we not agree that far too many people in this country are killed by firearms?

Far to many people are killed by bare hands... why wont we ban touching other humans while we are at it. Or how about banning all cars because they kill more people per year then firearms ever will? If you really wanted to kill a bunch of people all you would have to do is drive a truck +60mph through a crowded open area market. When there is a intent to kill people will find other ways.

Lets take a look at Japan they now ban swords because of violence with them... its almost impossible to obtain a firearm their. Whats next on the ban list? How about violent movies and kitchen knives!

That's false logic even the greatest zealot has to draw a line somewhere. Legalize anti-aircraft missile launchers for the general populous? Thought not.
 

91TTZ

Lifer
Jan 31, 2005
14,374
1
0
Originally posted by: ayabe
As everyone likes to point out most guns used in crimes were either stolen or purchased through the black market somehow.

Most recent data I can find estimates that 30% or so of gun purchases are through the black market, or unlicensed dealers.

This is the real problem.

What is the solution oh wise ones? Is there no sensible alternative to outright bans, which hurt legitimate, law-abiding owners?

Should we just continue to do nothing? Can we not agree that far too many people in this country are killed by firearms?

Doing nothing about it is bad , but doing the wrong thing is even worse. We need to address the problem of deaths by implementing common sense programs to educate people about gun safety, do a better job of counseling people that are about to snap, and revising laws which only create a criminal underworld (such as our current drug prohibition).
 

daishi5

Golden Member
Feb 17, 2005
1,196
0
76
Originally posted by: retrospooty
Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: retrospooty
I thought it meant automatic weapons like AK47 and such... Why do we need automatic weapons? I read your quote, and I stil dont get it. Regardless of appearances, or fears, why should automatic weapons be sold over the counter? There are too many psycho's out there...

What if John Hinkly had one? Reagan wold have died that day.

Just stop it. I don't know if you're trolling or not but you CANNOT BUY AUTOMATIC WEAPONS OVER THE COUNTER. They are extremely expensive ($20,000+), require immense paperwork, have so many restrictions it's not even funny.

For all intents and purposes you can't buy an automatic weapon. Technically you can but the requirements for you to do so are long.

An "assault weapon" is only about the look of the gun, not the performance or function which in many cases is exactly the same, using the same parts as a hunting rifle.

relax... I'm not trolling, just asking questions. I dont know a whole lot about guns (obviously).

OK, people seem to be failing to answer your question. Absolutely no "assault weapons" covered by the AWB were capable of firing more than 1 round per shot. I wish I could find the bill, but assault weapons were defined by cosmetic features. For example, if a weapon had "a barrel shroud designed to protect the user from burns if he touches the barrel" (my recollection of the actual wording of the bill) "A pistol grip" and "a detachable magazine" it was an assault weapon.

I know that many places try to sensationalize this but "assault weapon" is a meaning less term. It is basically a word that you think means something, but there is really no actual set of weapons that are "assault weapons." You can buy some parts that change the look of a weapon and it becomes an "assault weapon" according to the 94 ban. Even though the gun is the exact same weapon, because it looks different it suddenly becomes an "assault weapon." I hope I made this clear, the distinction between an "assault weapon" and a "not assault weapon" are cosmetic changes, and its ability to use a magazine that can be removed.