Big guns, and lots of them.Follow

ok so it's more of a collector thing, then a "I'm gonna kill me a deer with a real big gun" thing then. That's good to know, gotta figure that most gun collector's are older (read: finacially able) and less likely to shoot me with their big scary guns.

Well that explains my husband's quick exit from our marriage. Now he can add to his enormous fire arm collection without having to keep feeding his daughter and me. What a loon.

As far as which weapon can kill more people.. its obvious that its the uzi.. but only for one reason.. its has more bullets.. but unless you have a federal fire arms license you wont be shooting more then one bullet per trigger squeeze. I think that is where people get confused. The ban didnt make it illegal to own a fully automatic weapon.. they have been illegal for some time now if you dont have a FFA

there is absolutly no reason to own any of the weapons banned in the legislation about to expire.

self defense? the best self defense weapon for the home is a shot gun. for on your person, a revolver.

hunting? shotgun or bolt action rifle, simi auto matic if you are cross eyed and cant shoot real straight.

collector? you cant collect hand grenades or land mines, why in hell do you think you should be able to collect military assult weapons?

by design, their only use is killing human beings at a high rate. same with hand grenades and land mines.

the police have a hard enough job as it is. it is thankless, it is dangerious, it is unforgiving if you make a mistake, and the pay sucks.

yet our society depends on their service. if any of you were in shouth florida after andrew, you saw first hand what happens to a society left unguarded by police for even a short time.

rioting, burning of buildings, rapes, muggings, and bold shameless looting.

why any of you would not suppport legislation that makes their job just a little bit less of a horror show is beyond me. it is bad enough to have to do things to people who dont want it done to them, be it a ticket, or an arrest, but to have to also deal with the fear and uncertainty the suspect might not only be armed, but might have a fully automatic weapon with armor piercing rounds in it too is just too much to ask.

individuals are intellegant and could handle a dangerious weapon with a good degree of responsiblility. but the masses are stupid. these weapons shold never be available to the masses. EVER.

there should NEVER be a time some idiot feels perfectly comfortable having a few drinks and going for a drive....with his AK-47 in the passenger seat. NEVER.

and there should NEVER be a time a police officer has to deal with the masses of bad guys they meet with redily available weapons that could over power them EVERY TIME they have to issue an arrest warrent.

it is stupid. there is no reasoning you can put forth to justify it. there are simply some things that SHOULD NOT be available to the masses, just like grenades, land mines, and assult weapons.

Wrong wrong wrong. The ban that was allowed to lapse did not have anything to do with fully automatic weapons.

Let me repeat that. The ban that was allowed to lapse did not have anything to do with fully automatic weapons.

Which is odd since the DoD definition of an "assault weapon", is one which can be fired in either semi or fully automatic mode.

Of course, the bill doesn't actually have anything to do with real "assault weapons" either. What it banned was weapons that *looked* like real assault weapons. See. Since it's illegal to buy a *real* UZI, people would make semi-automatic versions that were legal. Same with AK47s and so on. Of course, these guns were no more dangerous then a pistol, or a hunting rifle, but let's not let actual facts get in the way of our laws, right?...


The ban was about things that made weapons look like military weapons. That was it. It was purely cosemetic. No fully automatic weapons are now suddenly legal today.

Additionally, the ban only prevented future sales of such weapons. They did not confiscate weapons that already existed. Thus, if you bought your semi-auto UZI one day before the ban took place you could carry it around just as legally as any other weapon. You could fire it just as you could any other weapon, under the same restrictions.


The whole idea that people were less likely to "drive around with them" because of the ban is silly. The ban was on sales, not use. If it was legal for you to carry around any weapons (laws varied by state), then it was just as legal to carry around a "banned" weapon. You just couldn't buy or sell it.

Gang members didn't stop carrying them around because the cops would see them and know they were up to no good (like the cops would ignore the gang member carrying around a non-banned weapon!). The ban may have marginally reduced the numbers in private ownership, but only because they couldn't buy more. But if you wanted a gun for whatever reason, it didn't stop you, and it certainly didn't prevent a criminal from obtaining any sort of weapon he wanted.


It was a dumb ban. It was purely cosemetic. It was named the way it was specifically to make people think it had to do with fully automatic weapons instead of just normal semi-automatics that *looked* like military weapons. Obviously, that little bit of subterfuge worked perfectly on you...

Yes. Those conversion kits did exist. And they could transform some of the banned weapons into fully automatic versions (which would now be illegal to own and use). However, I don't believe a single one of the big crimes listed as justification for the ban involved such conversions. James Huberty did not walk into a McDonalds with a fully automatic UZI. He had a "legal" semi-automatic one. Same with the kids that shot up Columbine (Tec9 I think, don't feel like looking it up).

That's why it was a bogus ban. The crimes it was aimed at preventing were not affected in any way by the ban.



No. Congress got tired of getting continuous pressure from largly uniformed and ignorant voters who insisted they do something everytime they saw a news story about some nutjob shooting up an office or restaraunt. Despite the fact that every single bit of actual data we have says that banning specific sets of firearms does nothing to reduce that particular type of violence, they went ahead and passed it anyway because it was easier to just go along then try to explain the facts to their constituents.



The high capacity clips is about the only halfway logical part of the ban in relation to the bans purpose. It's still silly siimply because in every case of mass killings, the perpetrator(s) didn't just bring a single weapon with a large clip, but brought several weapons and cycled through them. Having smaller clips just means he'll cycle from one weapon to another a bit faster. Huberty had three weapons with him. He could trivially have killed anyone with his pistol or shotgun who attacked him while he was swapping clips on his UZI (or any other sort of weapon he might have carried instead).




Ban what exactly? In the 10 years since the ban was created, the companies have just switched to making different weapons with similary military style looks, but with different names and slightly different configurations. Big deal. If you really want to continue the silliness, the right way is to write a new ban that lists all the new weapons they've come up with instead of just continuing with the old ban that is doing absolutely nothing right now.

It would still be monumentally stupid and wasteful, but at least you could have some kind of inherent consistency.


How about we outlaw stupidity instead? How about we actually do something about crime and criminals instead of targetting manufacturers of objects that *could* be used for crime? You make an object illegal, without addressing the cause of why that object was being used for crime, and the criminal will just switch to a different object. You really accomplish nothing at all. Doesn't the UK have an almost universal ban on all firearms (except like shotguns for hunting)? How then did they have a mass killing of schoolchildren some number of years back? Why do you suppose that their laws didn't prevent that guy from obtaining the weapons he wanted to use to kill those kids?


It didn't prevent the Brand Davidians. It didn't stop McVeigh (should we make fertilizer illegal now?). The sad and unfortunate fact is that there are some true nutballs out there, and no amount of making material objects illegal is going to stop them from doing whatever crazy things they want to do. Sometimes you have to go after the people, and try to figure out how to stop those sorts of things before they happen. It's really easy to point at the weapons being used for violence and conclude that if they didn't have those weapons, things wouldn't have been as bad. Unfortunately, that's just not true.

I would like you to name one weapon that was banned from that legislation. I would also like for you to give me a link telling me that this weapon was not allowed to be purchased by this specific bill. The reason why you won't be able to is that no assault rifle in itself was banned.

once again... first statement is false for what reason people? no actual weapons were banned. conversion kits are illegal. But you can buy the plans on making the kits if you were able to do metal working. a weapon that fires 3 rounds is just a thing that the military wanted to save ammo. I have found no reason to use burst fire while i was at war. why use 3 rounds when you can use one well aimed shot. as far as these "banana clips" I have about 45 magazines that are all 30 round magazines for .223 or 5.56 nato that i have been collecting since 2000 when i joined the military. these magazines are all legal before and after the ban and do not say that they are "for military or law enforcement only"

thats pretty much the whole point. You can not buy a fully auto or 3 round burst weapon without a federal firearms license. people consider the AR-15/M4 an assault rifle.. which they are.. but also group in UZIs.. which are not assault rifles. the only that that wouldnt have allowed me to purchase an assault rifle before yesterday is if it had a flash suppressor, grenade launcher, bayonet clasp, and a folding but stock.

actually its the cubans and puerto ricans that are here..

my buddy that was in the army with me jumped the border in '85.. just got his citizenship recently

Actually the fire arms stated above AK-47 AR-15 exc..Are sold without many factors that make them deadly. Example the AR-15 is sold without a componsater, flash compressor, and auto/3 round military options. Some shotguns can be bought legally with pistol grips, however you cant buy a rifle or shotgun with an extendable buttstock. The legal "Asualt Rifles" you see are semi-automatic and unless you are capable of doing the gunsmithing required to adjust either the trigger housing wells, or the sear. The only way to adjust these weapons without experiance will destroy the weapon.

Edited, Wed Sep 15 15:54:41 2004 by AzrielDuordden