Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Those are not my 'facts' or my arguments. Those are your strawman arguments.
I know what an assault rifle is. You are the one using the term "assault weapons". I called them "modern sporting rifles". A typical AR15 is sold as a sporting rifle. The 1994 ban happened. Whether or not you want to accept that fact, or pretend it did not happen is up to you. I do not care.
The official name of the act was "Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act".
I also do not care what politicians called them. The ban targeted certain semi auto, military looking rifles with certain characteristic. People found ways around it by modifying the stocks and other parts, but the fact remains that the ban was very real.
That ban was not "targeted" at anything other than pointless features that uneducated people thought made up a "scary" rifle.
They were not less strict 20-30 years ago, they were more strict. For example there was a ban on AR/AK style rifles.
No there wasn't, do you people know ANYTHING about firearms? Even a tiny bit? AR/AK rifles have NEVER been banned, you don't even know what Clintons bogus "assault weapon ban" actually did.
No there wasn't, do you people know ANYTHING about firearms? Even a tiny bit?
Sure, except this is not about the knowledge about firearms, but about the ban. My AR would have been banned. Pretty much every rifle used in Las Vegas shooting would have been banned. Adam Lanza's AR would have been banned. The movie theater shooters AR would have been banned. The church shooters rifle would have been banned.
Sure, people found ways to get around the ban by modifying the rifles in such way that they no longer met the feature list, but the ban was very real.
Why people pretend the law did not exist is beyond me, but it seems people just like to argue for the sake of arguing.
You're logic is fine but simplistic. No argument that all the things you mention are deadly weapons. They all have the ability to kill someone in the wrong hands. Guns just take it up notch because they can kill many more in a short period of time.
I really believe that sometimes we NEED to think "simplistic". Simple solutions are many times the best solutions, IMO. However, we have so many overeducated people running our country at all levels of government that a simple solution to a problem can not be considered. If the law isn't wordy, complex, and printed in a book instead of a page or two, it must not be what is needed. So, we end up with laws that the people who originally wrote them can't understand and don't know how to implement.
As for the "assault rifle ban", yes, it did exist. However, it proved to be totally useless. The banned scary black rifles were immediately modified to meet the exemptions provided, and some provisions proved to apply to common "sporting rifles" and had to be thrown out. It was a good thing the ban was allowed to expire.
Oh, yes, perhaps we should examine "common sense gun laws". It has been proven they don't work.
The Sunderland, TX shooter: Ignored the law, lied on the background check form (another felony for him), and the military authorities failed to make the required reports so he could be accurately vetted for a gun purchase. He was allowed to buy the gun.
The Navy yard shooter: PASSED the background check, bought a shotgun instead of the AR, then promptly went to the Navy Yard and killed people.
The Fort Hood shooter: Owned his gun legally.
The Las Vegas shooter: Complied with all applicable laws when purchasing his weapons, then went on a killing spree.
Adam Lansa: Murdered his mother, stole her legally owned guns, and went on a killing spree.
Oklahoma City: No guns or illegal substances were used.
New York: No guns or illegal substances were used.
ETC.
My "simplistic logic" tells me that a "common sense" law will do what it is intended to do, with few (if any) unintended consequences. If it fails that test, it should be repealed.
Sure, except this is not about the knowledge about firearms, but about the ban. My AR would have been banned. Pretty much every rifle used in Las Vegas shooting would have been banned. Adam Lanza's AR would have been banned. The movie theater shooters AR would have been banned. The church shooters rifle would have been banned.
Sure, people found ways to get around the ban by modifying the rifles in such way that they no longer met the feature list, but the ban was very real.
Why people pretend the law did not exist is beyond me, but it seems people just like to argue for the sake of arguing.
The reason the AR-15 became the most popular rifle in America was largely due to the 1994 AWB. After the so called "ban" people bought AR-15's, and semi auto "AK-47" clones in massive numbers. Sure they didn't have a bayonet lug, or flash hider, but they could have a muzzle brake, or no muzzle attachment at all. The AR wasn't even on my radar screen until the 1994 AWB. I bought one shortly after, sans flash hider, and bayonet lug. Grandfathered, standard capacity 20, and 30 round magazines were readily available also. So, in effect, there was no "ban".
Now many have AR-15's, and other semi-auto rifles they use for target shooting, three gun competition, hunting, and home defense. They are a normal part of many, if not most gun collections, and used safely every day, by law abiding citizens.
People used guns, not their mental health issues, to kill people in all of these mass shootings. Sorry, but claiming that guns are not part of the problem is like saying we should allow drunk drivers to keep their cars because the root of the problem is alcoholism, not a problem with the car itself.
Now, that being said, I have no problem with things like shotguns, revolvers, etc. But there are still way too many guns in this nation, and it is still too easy to get your hands on a room-sweeping weapon that can easily kill dozens in seconds. Nobody has yet committed a mass shooting with a revolver (or killed somebody with just their mental health issues), so it's absurd to claim the weapon is not part of the problem.
As for mental health issues, yes, that is also a big part of it, but I find it humorous watching Trump try to deflect the blame from guns to mental health when his party is so intent on making health care less affordable. The far-right also has a long history of pretending mental health issues don't exist and people need to just "man up!" or some ignorant crap. The hypocrisy is so glaring. They don't understand the issues and do not care about them so long as they can hold on to their guns and threaten to "shoot the bad guys" - which I guess we're to trust them to judge and execute - whenever they want. Idiots... How many of these latest American mass killers were just "shooting the bad guys" from their perspective, I wonder?
It took a good guy with a gun, to takeout the bad guy with the gun. That has transpired over and over since the first Spaniard hit the shores of the New World. Your emotions and feelings, are not going to change that. Your proactive stance, that you will not be the victim of evil, keeps evil in check.
Freedom & Liberties are scary as hell. If you cannot handle it, I suggest suicide to relive your pain.
The reason the AR-15 became the most popular rifle in America was largely due to the 1994 AWB. After the so called "ban" people bought AR-15's, and semi auto "AK-47" clones in massive numbers. Sure they didn't have a bayonet lug, or flash hider, but they could have a muzzle brake, or no muzzle attachment at all. The AR wasn't even on my radar screen until the 1994 AWB. I bought one shortly after, sans flash hider, and bayonet lug. Grandfathered, standard capacity 20, and 30 round magazines were readily available also. So, in effect, there was no "ban".
Now many have AR-15's, and other semi-auto rifles they use for target shooting, three gun competition, hunting, and home defense. They are a normal part of many, if not most gun collections, and used safely every day, by law abiding citizens.
Yes, they are very popular today, but the sales did not soar until after the ban had expired, and there was an even bigger jump after people were assured Obama was going to take our guns, or put the ban in place again.
You have to stop pretending there was no ban. There was a ban, with text that described the features which made the rifles illegal to sell. Like I have already mentioned several times, people found ways to modify the rifles in such way that they no longer met the criteria, and therefore were legal. IMO the modified rifles looked ridiculous, and not that many were sold.
AR sales by year. As you can see, the sales soared after the ban ended. When the ban ended in 2004, 95K were sold, vs 1.6 million by 2013.
What's the difference between a ban and confiscation?
The ban was related to sales, while confiscation would mean taking guns from people who already own them.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
