The Official Second Amendment / Gun Ban Thread

[FrenchThom 27]

I strongly agree what Cockatoo said !

As it is , the french nation has been very shocked by the murder of 7 persons ( with 4 children ) near an elementary school in March of this year ! I mean that the whole country had been united and concerned about this ! In my class , there were " caids " as we say in french , peoples who don't respect anything , insult the teachers and smoke and so on ... And even those " caids " made silence during the ceremony of celebrating the victims ! I NEVER saw them so respectful ! It say how the french nation was shocked !

And an other thing ! In only one year , more than 30 persons had been shot in Marseille , while we had this number in 5 years a decade ago ! Do you want to know why ? It's because of the guns in circulation ! The price of an AK-47 is dramatically falling since 2000 and it's at only 500 € by now !

So there's consequently more and more accessible guns and more means to kill !

Automatically , when there's guns , there's murders ! There is , of course , murder without guns , but with them , it's worse !

[LexusInfernus 908]

This is an opinion. It is my opinion that guns are no more "bad" than cars. They are tools towards the realization of a desired state. Nothing more.

Well, unless you think that higher homicide rates are not a bad thing, its not an opinion.

http://www.hsph.harv...eath/index.html

I suppose Duke is right though, guns are like herpes. For now no way to cure it. However, just because there is no cure right now doesnt mean one shouldnt even bother to look for one. And similar with guns, there is no quick short term solution, it will take years, maybe even decades of concentrated effort to reduce the number of guns in the US. Still sounds like a worthy effort to me if it prevents things like this from happening, or at least reducing the number of times it happens.

But hey, if everyone is to apathetic to even try to fix this, I'll see you guys at the next thread discussing some nut going on a rampage and we can all be outraged again at why the hell this couldnt have been prevented and feel deeply sorry for the families that lost their loved ones. Just know, apathy from the public is as much to blame there as the ready access of guns or the sorry state of the American mental health.

EDIT @FrenchThom you can get an AK-47 legally in France?

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

An Op Ed piece from CBC's Chief Washington Correspondent.

Fairly balanced comment with no real solution offered. Who are we to tell the U.S. how to behave at home? So we don't.

I think Niel raises some interesting points about the media, however.

[Ceafus 88 1,845]

Assault rifles should not be sold, but banning hunting rifles is against rights, and is just the same as saying cars kill people when the driver drives drunk, so ban cars, banning them will not stop these shootings in the states, it will simply create a larger black market for them, meaning more illegal activity, and these kind of things will still go on.

As an image I saw said:

If guns kill people then,

Cars drive drunk and,

pencils misspell words.

Its all the user, not the machine.

[Meg 368]

Duke is right. It is like herpes. It can't be cured; the best you can do is try to manage it.

The laws can be strengthened but laws alone will never fix this. We need to do a better job of dealing with situations like this:

Thinking the Unthinkable

In the wake of another horrific national tragedy, it’s easy to talk about guns. But it’s time to talk about mental illness.

Three days before 20 year-old Adam Lanza killed his mother, then opened fire on a classroom full of Connecticut kindergartners, my 13-year old son Michael (name changed) missed his bus because he was wearing the wrong color pants.

“I can wear these pants,” he said, his tone increasingly belligerent, the black-hole pupils of his eyes swallowing the blue irises.

“They are navy blue,” I told him. “Your school’s dress code says black or khaki pants only.”

“They told me I could wear these,” he insisted. “You’re a stupid $%&^!. I can wear whatever pants I want to. This is America. I have rights!”

“You can’t wear whatever pants you want to,” I said, my tone affable, reasonable. “And you definitely cannot call me a stupid $%&^!. You’re grounded from electronics for the rest of the day. Now get in the car, and I will take you to school.”

I live with a son who is mentally ill. I love my son. But he terrifies me.

A few weeks ago, Michael pulled a knife and threatened to kill me and then himself after I asked him to return his overdue library books. His 7 and 9 year old siblings knew the safety plan—they ran to the car and locked the doors before I even asked them to. I managed to get the knife from Michael, then methodically collected all the sharp objects in the house into a single Tupperware container that now travels with me. Through it all, he continued to scream insults at me and threaten to kill or hurt me.

That conflict ended with three burly police officers and a paramedic wrestling my son onto a gurney for an expensive ambulance ride to the local emergency room. The mental hospital didn’t have any beds that day, and Michael calmed down nicely in the ER, so they sent us home with a prescription for Zyprexa and a follow-up visit with a local pediatric psychiatrist.

We still don’t know what’s wrong with Michael. Autism spectrum, ADHD, Oppositional Defiant or Intermittent Explosive Disorder have all been tossed around at various meetings with probation officers and social workers and counselors and teachers and school administrators. He’s been on a slew of antipsychotic and mood altering pharmaceuticals, a Russian novel of behavioral plans. Nothing seems to work.

At the start of seventh grade, Michael was accepted to an accelerated program for highly gifted math and science students. His IQ is off the charts. When he’s in a good mood, he will gladly bend your ear on subjects ranging from Greek mythology to the differences between Einsteinian and Newtonian physics to Doctor Who. He’s in a good mood most of the time. But when he’s not, watch out. And it’s impossible to predict what will set him off.

Several weeks into his new junior high school, Michael began exhibiting increasingly odd and threatening behaviors at school. We decided to transfer him to the district’s most restrictive behavioral program, a contained school environment where children who can’t function in normal classrooms can access their right to free public babysitting from 7:30-1:50 Monday through Friday until they turn 18.

The morning of the pants incident, Michael continued to argue with me on the drive. He would occasionally apologize and seem remorseful. Right before we turned into his school parking lot, he said, “Look, Mom, I’m really sorry. Can I have video games back today?”

“No way,” I told him. “You cannot act the way you acted this morning and think you can get your electronic privileges back that quickly.”

His face turned cold, and his eyes were full of calculated rage. “Then I’m going to kill myself,” he said. “I’m going to jump out of this car right now and kill myself.”

That was it. After the knife incident, I told him that if he ever said those words again, I would take him straight to the mental hospital, no ifs, ands, or buts. I did not respond, except to pull the car into the opposite lane, turning left instead of right.

“Where are you taking me?” he said, suddenly worried. “Where are we going?”

“You know where we are going,” I replied.

“No! You can’t do that to me! You’re sending me to hell! You’re sending me straight to hell!”

I pulled up in front of the hospital, frantically waiving for one of the clinicians who happened to be standing outside. “Call the police,” I said. “Hurry.”

Michael was in a full-blown fit by then, screaming and hitting. I hugged him close so he couldn’t escape from the car. He bit me several times and repeatedly jabbed his elbows into my rib cage. I’m still stronger than he is, but I won’t be for much longer.

The police came quickly and carried my son screaming and kicking into the bowels of the hospital. I started to shake, and tears filled my eyes as I filled out the paperwork—“Were there any difficulties with....at what age did your child....were there any problems with...has your child ever experienced...does your child have....”

At least we have health insurance now. I recently accepted a position with a local college, giving up my freelance career because when you have a kid like this, you need benefits. You’ll do anything for benefits. No individual insurance plan will cover this kind of thing.

For days, my son insisted that I was lying—that I made the whole thing up so that I could get rid of him. The first day, when I called to check up on him, he said, “I hate you. And I’m going to get my revenge as soon as I get out of here.”

By day three, he was my calm, sweet boy again, all apologies and promises to get better. I’ve heard those promises for years. I don’t believe them anymore.

On the intake form, under the question, “What are your expectations for treatment?” I wrote, “I need help.”

And I do. This problem is too big for me to handle on my own. Sometimes there are no good options. So you just pray for grace and trust that in hindsight, it will all make sense.

I am sharing this story because I am Adam Lanza’s mother. I am Dylan Klebold’s and Eric Harris’s mother. I am James Holmes’s mother. I am Jared Loughner’s mother. I am Seung-Hui Cho’s mother. And these boys—and their mothers—need help. In the wake of another horrific national tragedy, it’s easy to talk about guns. But it’s time to talk about mental illness.

According to Mother Jones, since 1982, 61 mass murders involving firearms have occurred throughout the country. (http://www.motherjon...s-shootings-map). Of these, 43 of the killers were white males, and only one was a woman. Mother Jones focused on whether the killers obtained their guns legally (most did). But this highly visible sign of mental illness should lead us to consider how many people in the U.S. live in fear, like I do.

When I asked my son’s social worker about my options, he said that the only thing I could do was to get Michael charged with a crime. “If he’s back in the system, they’ll create a paper trail,” he said. “That’s the only way you’re ever going to get anything done. No one will pay attention to you unless you’ve got charges.”

I don’t believe my son belongs in jail. The chaotic environment exacerbates Michael’s sensitivity to sensory stimuli and doesn’t deal with the underlying pathology. But it seems like the United States is using prison as the solution of choice for mentally ill people. According to Human Rights Watch, the number of mentally ill inmates in U.S. prisons quadrupled from 2000 to 2006, and it continues to rise—in fact, the rate of inmate mental illness is five times greater (56 percent) than in the non-incarcerated population. (http://www.hrw.org/n...sons-quadrupled)

With state-run treatment centers and hospitals shuttered, prison is now the last resort for the mentally ill—Rikers Island, the LA County Jail, and Cook County Jail in Illinois housed the nation’s largest treatment centers in 2011 (http://www.npr.org/2...y-ill-prisoners)

No one wants to send a 13-year old genius who loves Harry Potter and his snuggle animal collection to jail. But our society, with its stigma on mental illness and its broken healthcare system, does not provide us with other options. Then another tortured soul shoots up a fast food restaurant. A mall. A kindergarten classroom. And we wring our hands and say, “Something must be done.”

I agree that something must be done. It’s time for a meaningful, nation-wide conversation about mental health. That’s the only way our nation can ever truly heal.

God help me. God help Michael. God help us all.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Truth told, freedom without limits is anarchy.

[catty-cb 4,412]

The gun laws in New Zealand were amended after the Aramoana massacre (Nov 1990) so you were required to have written permits to order guns or ammunition mail-order, restricted ammunition sales to firearms licence holders, added photographs to firearms licences, required licence holders to have secure storage for firearms at their homes (which would be inspected before a licence was issued), and required all licence holders to be re-vetted for new licences which would be valid for only 10 years.

Since then New Zealand has had 5 other mass killings

4 family murders (3 of them used guns) and a Hotel Arson

You can find the Firearms License here http://www.police.govt.nz/service/firearms/

The New Zealand Gun Code here http://www.police.govt.nz/sites/default/files/services/firearms/NZP-Arms-Code-R3.pdf

The Gun Code is very clear that

Self-defence is not a valid reason to possess firearms. The law does not permit the possession of firearms ‘in anticipation’ that a firearm may need to be used in self-defence.

Citizens are justified in using force in self defence in certain situations. The force that is justified will depend on the circumstances of the particular case. Every person is criminally

responsible for any excessive use of force against another person. A firearm is a lethal weapon. To justify the discharge of a firearm at another person the user must hold a honest belief that they or someone else is at imminent threat of death or grievous bodily harm.

It hasn't stopped people having firearms if they want them according to Wikipedia in 2006 we had about 230,000 licensed firearms owners who owned 1.1 million firearms between them, am not sure what it is now, but no doubt its gone up since then.

-catty

[LexusInfernus 908]

@Meg

Liza Long is such a great example of responsible parenting. She changes her son's name, but posts a nice picture of him. Way to go to keep him anonymous. And what a great expectations she has for her son when at 13 years old she is already silently arguing that he will become the next guy that murders his way through a school. Not to mention the fact that by doing so, she essentially paints a picture of people with mental issues are all deranged killers just waiting for a chance to go on a rampage. Statistically, this makes no sense since mentally disturbed people are actually more likely to be the victims of violence than being the perpetrator.

http://www.publicservice.co.uk/news_story.asp?id=19000

Maybe Im just a cynic, but that whole blog post reeks of needless attention seeking by comparing her son's situation to that of the murderer. I find that distasteful.

[Duke87 1,070]

That article has been getting shared a lot. Attention seeking? Maybe, but the point remains that there are people out there with problems who need help. Many of them are not getting it. Most of them are not potentially violent but a few of them could be.

[Meg 368]

Okay, fine. Let's say that this particular woman is just looking for attention. (I don't believe that. I believe she is truly scared and does not know what to do.) But, for sake of discussion, let's go with that.

Her point remains valid: the mental health system in this country is needs to be overhauled. There are few good options for dealing with a disturbed, violent person. Authorities can't do much unless that person commits a crime. By then, someone is either injured or dead and people moan that they saw it coming and should have done something to help.

[Easy Bakes 253]

maybe if they stop prescribing Xanex instead of finding whats actually troubling these people.

[LexusInfernus 908]

Okay, fine. Let's say that this particular woman is just looking for attention. (I don't believe that. I believe she is truly scared and does not know what to do.) But, for sake of discussion, let's go with that.

Her point remains valid: the mental health system in this country is needs to be overhauled. There are few good options for dealing with a disturbed, violent person. Authorities can't do much unless that person commits a crime. By then, someone is either injured or dead and people moan that they saw it coming and should have done something to help.

Were it so easy. An estimated 50% of people in the West will at some point in his life require mental health care for some period of time. If you catch something really bad, like the kid from the blog, proper treatment will last decades or even a life time. Which is great, if you have a lot of money to pay for a therapist once a week, for the next 20-30 years. However, given the fact that the people who are statistically most likely to become mentally ill are poor people, and America has 40 million people living in poverty, there is a large group of people who are in dire need of it. getting these people to pay for expensive therapy at least once a week for the rest of their lives is going to be a problem. Insurance companies currently already dislike paying for treatments for normal diseases, but having them include proper mental health care will make the premiums impossible to pay for most people, and I doubt any of them is willing to pay for someone who needs decades of specialized care.

It is therefor not so much about fixing mental healthcare as it is to lift 40 million people out of poverty somehow.

Whats more, this is based on the assumption that all these people who go on rampages are somehow mentally ill. That is because they are all white males. If the guy had a beard and looked arab, he would have been a terrorist, not mentally deranged. If he was black, he would have been some kind of black criminal junkie whatever, because black people arent crazy. But if its a white male, then obviously something must have been broken inside his head. A rather superficial explanation, and Im willing to bet that a good number of these people who have gone on a rampage in a school or a mall or something didnt have any kind of mental illness.

So while fixing the mental healthcare system is great and should totally be done, I remain skeptical about if it will actually help stop these kind of people from going on any rampages.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

We've been discussing stereotypes in other threads, but it seems to have leaked over here as well. Dr. King had it right. Someday the American people will listen to their state papers that they revere so much while ignoring. All men are created equal. Naked, and helpless as well. What happens after that is not necessarily the responsibility of the state, but it is the responsibility of society.

The whole social set up needs revision towards the Star Trek ideal. We know perfectly well that this is beyond the achievement of man has we know him. The seven deadly sins operate as part of the machinery, with avarice driving most of society these days. Equality sounds nice, but getting these will be a many centuries long climb.

Everyone should read or review George Orwell's Animal Farm. This is the analogy to modern society, but as a communist model.

Now, everyone get out the history books, and look at the Roman Republic. By the time that Gaius Marius became the "first man in Rome", it had sewn the seeds of its destruction and was only about a century and a half from Augustus Caesar, if that. Then take a look at the Republic of the United States of America. Friends, I see all kinds of parallels. People who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

[Duke87 1,070]

However, given the fact that the people who are statistically most likely to become mentally ill are poor people, and America has 40 million people living in poverty, there is a large group of people who are in dire need of it. getting these people to pay for expensive therapy at least once a week for the rest of their lives is going to be a problem.

I wouldn't say so much that poor people are more likely to be mentally ill as that poverty will exacerbate the condition. As a question of ability to afford treatment, sure, but also as a question of willingness to make an effort to do something (poverty and lack of initiative tend to go hand in hand), and furthermore as a matter that stress will exacerbate mental issues, and people who live cushy lifestyles have less stress.

Issues 2 and 3 can't really be helped, but issue 1 could be by increasing insurance coverage of mental issues.

Whats more, this is based on the assumption that all these people who go on rampages are somehow mentally ill. That is because they are all white males. If the guy had a beard and looked arab, he would have been a terrorist, not mentally deranged. If he was black, he would have been some kind of black criminal junkie whatever, because black people arent crazy. But if its a white male, then obviously something must have been broken inside his head. A rather superficial explanation, and Im willing to bet that a good number of these people who have gone on a rampage in a school or a mall or something didnt have any kind of mental illness.

Related article. From 11 years ago, but still relevant.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Meanwhile, the ostriches are stirring in Washington. It is all over the news media this morning that Obama has asked Joe Biden to chair a gun control committee.

[Ceafus 88 1,845]

I saw these comments on yahoo, and I agreed:

Lew, the guns in question are not really "military assault weapons". They are replicas of the military version but are not automatic weapons. So we have the President and Congress once again going after the "scary looking" guns instead of a) focusing on mental health issues; b) increasing protection in schools; and c) investigating how the Obama administration let full automatic weapons into the hands of Mexican drug cartels without any accountability

Since the NFA passed in 1968,20% of all homicides in America have taken place in New York,Chicago,Detroit and Wash. D.C.

What else do they have in common? The most restrictive gun control laws in the country.

We have lost the war on poverty, and drugs, we have children left behind, now we are off on another crusade. If they can not control the traffic in drugs illegally crossing our borders, along with terrorist and illegals, do we need another grandstand play. We can't even curb alcohol deaths, suicides, or provide adequate health care both mental and otherwise. Not even half of firearms deaths are homicides, many or suicide, or accidental, or criminals shot.

What kind of country is this that we can't protect our borders, and while we strive to increase alcohol consumption, legalize narcotics, we can only regulate the size of your soft drinks.

Our government is naught but a big tax collecting enterprise, only pretending to keep us safe when it suits their political agenda, get a reason to create more committees, and of course more and more tax money.

Lets just hope the government does decide to focus on mental health, and assault rifles instead of all guns period.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Well, the border problems are vast. The U.S. Borders between Mexico and Canada are enormous compared to the postage stamp countries in most of the rest of the world. In this set there are three borders, not counting the sea coasts. People tend to forget the border between Canada and Alaska, which is also very long and complex.

Instead of complaining about these problems, how about offering a solution? Satellite surveillance? Fine, but how about the resources to react to it?

Walls and fences are out. Capital and maintenance expenses would bankrupt everyone involved. Everybody does asbestos they can.

As for a war on this and that, why not simply stop all the grandstanding and quietly get to work and solve them? Hard problems need adroit solutions not a lot of press coverage. Governments should shut up, quit wasting money on spin, and get on with their job.

[hym 358]

I suspect that this is not a widely held opinion, but I think that assault weapons should not be banned. Several years ago, the federal government had records of 200,000 legally owned assault rifles in the US, and none of them had ever been recorded as being used in the commission of any crime. Unfortunately, this statistic is out of date and recent events have rendered it somewhat inaccurate also, but it illustrates a larger point. Assault weapons, whether they are "weapons of war" or not, are incredibly unlikely to be used in the commission of a crime. There is arguably a greater than 99.9% probability that a legally acquired assault weapon will never be used in the commission of a crime. The statistics don't support an assault weapons ban, therefore, any argument to support an assault weapons ban ultimately reduces to some sort of "it's big and scary!" argument or is otherwise based on a personal opinion.

The other reason I don't support an assault rifle ban is the same argument used for legalizing drugs. All you're doing is pushing it underground where it can't be as effectively monitored or regulated. I would much rather people be buying assault weapons with the government being aware of it than individuals acquiring them surreptitiously.

[Cobraroll 138]

Then again... why would a civilian need an assault weapon? What could he possibly use it for, that no other weapons can do just as well in a civilian role? A shotgun, while still being over-the-top, will protect his home and property just as well as any other gun. On a firing range, there is no conceivable need for full-automatic capabilities. Having to pull back the breech(?) for every shot against a dummy target won't put you at any disadvantage.

And then there are people insisting on having fully automatic .50 cal. weapons. I know it's a thorough bureaucratical mess to get one, and that few if any accidents ever happen with them, but still, what would its practical use be?

[LexusInfernus 908]

I suspect that this is not a widely held opinion, but I think that assault weapons should not be banned. Several years ago, the federal government had records of 200,000 legally owned assault rifles in the US, and none of them had ever been recorded as being used in the commission of any crime. Unfortunately, this statistic is out of date and recent events have rendered it somewhat inaccurate also, but it illustrates a larger point. Assault weapons, whether they are "weapons of war" or not, are incredibly unlikely to be used in the commission of a crime. There is arguably a greater than 99.9% probability that a legally acquired assault weapon will never be used in the commission of a crime. The statistics don't support an assault weapons ban, therefore, any argument to support an assault weapons ban ultimately reduces to some sort of "it's big and scary!" argument or is otherwise based on a personal opinion.

The other reason I don't support an assault rifle ban is the same argument used for legalizing drugs. All you're doing is pushing it underground where it can't be as effectively monitored or regulated. I would much rather people be buying assault weapons with the government being aware of it than individuals acquiring them surreptitiously.

That is a logical fallacy. Armored Personal Carriers have also never been used in a crime, so everyone should be able to own an APC. First of all, no one needs an Assault Rifle. If you want to go hunting, get a hunting rifle, if you want a gun for self defense, get a pistol. Second, once someone does actually use an Assault Rifle, it gives him or her a very powerful weapon indeed, and greatly increases his or her capacity to kill or wound a great number of people. Assault Rifle bullets do more damage, their effective range is much longer, they can be outfitted with certain sights that increase accuracy all up to a point where the greatest hindrance is basically the amount of ammo someone can carry.

Oh but you say, assault rifles that are sold to civilians arent fully automatic. That actually only makes those things more deadly. Assault rifles on full auto are inaccurate and the military uses them because their intent is not so much to shoot and kill, but to spray and suppress. Take away the full auto, and you get a weapon which is naturally more accurate as it cant spray bullets anymore, thus reducing kickback and all that. And given the fact that most of the time these killers face no serious opposition there is no use for suppressing fire anyways. Plus it, semi automatic fire saves ammo, given the killer more time to go ahead and murder.

[Jack³ 291]

I really like Frex_Ceafus's post/picture. Blame the user, not the machine. And about hunting and defense; if I'm correct, the founding fathers wanted the second amendment not specifically for hunting or defense. It was to protect The People from tyranny in the government. So if assault rifles are taken away from The People, and they were left with pistols for self defense, the second amendment is useless.

It also annoys me how the constitution plainly states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," yet some politicians seem to ignore that. Ask anyone you want, they will not deny that assault rifles are, in fact, arms; whether they like it or not. What happened to the constitution being the supreme law of the land?

Sorry about my ranting.

[AcmeSigns 97]

I'd like an APC. Hmmm...maybe I'll look into one of those decommissioned HumVees. I'd also like a tank but they won't let you drive one on city streets unless it has the rubber tread covers.

But back on topic...as was pointed out in the quote from Yahoo by Frex_Ceafus, the semi-automatic only weapons that are being used in these heinous crimes are not true 'assault weapons'. But everyone insists on referring to them as such. Why? Because it sounds scarier than saying 'Modern Sports Rifle', which is what they really are. What they are not is fully automatic. But hey, a small item like that shouldn't matter when you're talking about banning something that isn't what you're claiming it is, should it?

I've had the opportunity to fire a semi-auto .50 caliber Barrett Light 50. Fun gun. It also weighs in the neighborhood of 60 lbs. Not the sort of weapon you tuck under your jacket to go rob a liquor store with.

The wife is on her way out to buy herself an 'assault rifle' to go along with mine as I type this. Why? Because, as she said on her way out the door, 'If the Government doesn't want me to have one, then that's all the reason I need for wanting one'. Notice she said 'want' and not 'need'. There is a vast difference there folks.

Everyone is entitled to their opinions. The above are mine.

http://civilliberty.about.com/od/guncontrol/a/Assault-Weapons.htm

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/07/22/1112659/-Firearms-101-the-Assault-Rifle-Capabilities-and-the-Militia-Concept

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Oh Jack! You know perfectly well the founding fathers could never have imagined the kind of weaponry we have today. Part of "arms" in their day was cavalry sabres and officer's swords, and single shot long guns, probably muzzle loaders that took a minute at least to fire again.

The problem is that nobody ever put the limits in that are needed for proper freedom from fear. Now everyone is afraid. I don't think that was the intention of the founders.

[AcmeSigns 97]

Removed due to double post.

Redundancy is just...redundant.

[Cockatoo 2,257]

If by chance there are any here in the United States who do actually own these assault weapons, I'd like to know... what do you actually use them for? Is it for protection, do you feel unsafe in your homes/ communities? Is it for sport, are you a member of a shooting club? Do you use them for hunting?

If for any of these reasons you own one, I still fail to see the actual need for this class of weapon. I'm not sure of the specifics, but surely no body needs to kill 10 people, to shoot 10 deer or to fire at 10 clay targets in the blink of an eye. I just can't get my head around that one.

I can understand collectors wanting to have them just for the sake of collecting, but then again, as a collector, he wouldn't want to use it, rather just to have it on display. So it'd make sense to have it rendered unusable just from a safety perspective.

So then, as with cars, tools, computers, bikes, anything guys like to own... is it just a case of “mine is bigger than yours”?

As for the 'underground' argument raised by hym, here's my take on that. Regardless of a countries gun laws, whether they be as free as those in the US or as restricted as in other parts of the world, a percentage of crims will always be able to access them through the underground market. But these aren't exactly the type of crims who hold up petrol (gas) stations for $22.50 and a pack of smokes. They're most likely going to be hardcore gang members. And those types (at least where I live) almost always restrict their violence to themselves, rarely involving civilians or anyone who hasn't given them reason to involve them. In a country with very restrictive gun laws, casual criminals, someone nut-job planning to... or anyone unknown to the underworld for that matter, I believe would find it difficult to access the underground weapons market.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

That's a good point. With men at least, it may well be "mine is bigger than yours". This is, of course, irrelevant. It is knowing what to do with it. Gun training must be a priority if nothing else is done.

[Wiimeiser 452]

Read "Hail to the Cat" and you have a pretty good idea of how the US thinks Gun Control Laws will be.

[LexusInfernus 908]

I really like Frex_Ceafus's post/picture. Blame the user, not the machine. And about hunting and defense; if I'm correct, the founding fathers wanted the second amendment not specifically for hunting or defense. It was to protect The People from tyranny in the government. So if assault rifles are taken away from The People, and they were left with pistols for self defense, the second amendment is useless.

It also annoys me how the constitution plainly states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," yet some politicians seem to ignore that. Ask anyone you want, they will not deny that assault rifles are, in fact, arms; whether they like it or not. What happened to the constitution being the supreme law of the land?

Sorry about my ranting.

A TOW Missile launcher or a Javelin Missile launcher are in fact also arms so should people be allowed to get their hands guided missile systems? All because who knows, the government may need to be overthrown tomorrow because of 'tyranny' whatever that means.

And really, do you believe that 'the people' with or without assault rifles stand a chance if they attack the government because of 'tyranny' (assuming that the army remains loyal to the government). Dont make me laugh, the US spends billions on defense and has the most advanced weapons systems in the world. The army itself is highly professional and well trained. No matter how well the citizens are armed, they wouldnt stand a chance against the army.

[AcmeSigns 97]

I've never had that whole 'mine is bigger' mentality. I got my Colt Sporter just after the AWB was passed by congress but before the prices went through the roof. And, because I bought it before the ban went into effect (1994) there was no registration (it was, after all, just considered a 'long gun' at the time). Why did I buy one? Because the Government didn't seem to think that we, the citizens, couldn't/shouldn't be trusted with one. That was all the incentive I needed. And my wife, who picks hers up in 10 days, really doesn't have any 'mine is...' problems.

So what do I do with mine? I target shoot with it. I competition shoot with it (having higher capacity mags makes for a quicker 'run time' when having to hit multiple targets multiple times with less reloads). I use it for varmint abatement. In a pinch I suppose I could use it for self defense (although,within the confines of a structure, I believe my shotgun would be better suited as I'll be the one repairing any structure damage).

[AcmeSigns 97]

And really, do you believe that 'the people' with or without assault rifles stand a chance if they attack the government because of 'tyranny' (assuming that the army remains loyal to the government). Dont make me laugh, the US spends billions on defense and has the most advanced weapons systems in the world. The army itself is highly professional and well trained. No matter how well the citizens are armed, they wouldnt stand a chance against the army.

This takes in the assumption that the soldiers in the military would willingly fire on civilians. One needs to remember that soldiers are in place to defend the Constitution from enemies, both foreign and domestic, but not to protect the Government. The Constitution states that the military cannot be used against it's citizens. It is called the Posse Comitatus Act.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1385