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.
Wow! How soon people forget! Here were some of the crimes that happened in California prior to the Assault Weapons ban:
San Ysidro, Calif. – On July 18, 1984, James Huberty, a gunman at a McDonald’s in San Ysidro, California, opens fire with an UZI, killing 21. He fires 245 rounds before he is killed by a police sniper.
101 California -- On July 1, 1993, Gian Luigi Ferri walked into 101 California Street in San Francisco carrying two high-capacity TEC-9 assault pistols. Within minutes, Ferri had murdered eight people and wounded six.
Prior to the 1994 ban, Patrick Purdy used a semi-automatic version of the AK-47 assault rifle to kill five children and wound 29 others and a teacher at the Cleveland Elementary School in Stockton, California in 1989. He shot 106 rounds in less than two minutes.
California never lifted the Assault Weapon ban. We still have it here (News flash to you Jeepejeep).
News flash: The ban was lifted years ago! It did nothing to stop any crime. According to the FBI "assault weapons" account for .001% of all violent crimes. They are a non-issue.
Actually, California's 'assault weapons ban' was not lifted years ago, or ever since its inception. It is still in full force. That doesn't mean you can't own similar weapons. What it means is that you can't own specific weapons that are listed by manufacturer and model number, and you can't own weapons that meet specific feature criteria. A semi-automatic, centerfire rifle is considered an assault weapon in California if it has a 'detachable magazine' and at least one other specified 'evil feature.' These evil features would be things such as a telescopic stock, a thumbhole stock, or a pistol grip stock, a flash suppressor, a grenade launcher, a forward pistol grip, or any magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds of ammunition. According to the law, a “detachable magazine” means any ammunition feeding device that can be removed readily from the firearm with neither disassembly of the firearm action nor use of a tool being required. A bullet or ammunition cartridge is considered a tool.
Basically, anyone in California can own a weapon that is identical to an 'assault weapon' with the only change being that it not have a 'detachable magazine.' There are many guns on the market that come fitted in such a way that the magazine does not meet the definition of 'detachable' and these guns are legal in California.
The fact remains that the use of 'assault weapons' in the commission of a crime has been, and continues to be, almost non-existent, even in California. The only memorable exceptions I recall are mentioned in UB50's post above. I would agree that they are essentially a non-issue.
Last edited by jdavid93225; 03-08-2009 at 11:53 PM..
Reason: Additional comment added.
Fact: there already are reasonable limits: background checks, its illegal for felons to own a gun, its illegal to kill somebody, there are increased or aggravated charges for using a firearm during a crime. How much more can we do?
I'm not actually against guns since I grew up around them and I know people need them in some places and they are useful for hunting and personal safety, etc. However, I live in Los Angeles and I think there are other laws that are reasonable.
I thought it was great when West Hollywood outlawed certain cheap handguns that accidentally fired when dropped. Now "responsible" gun owners have to pick a handgun off the list of approved handguns. It may not matter in the country if your gun accidentally fires when dropped, but in a city where there are people all over the place, it matters.
Secondly, I support more training for people who don't practice with their guns very often. I also support smaller bullets that don't go through multiple walls before stopping. (This would be for city-folk who buy guns for protection.)
It's a right... with limits. Just like you don't have unlimited free speech (you can't yell "Fire" in a crowded room just because you feel like it), your rights to have a gun are also subject to limits.
where are these limits outlined in the constitution? I see non except limitations on what the GOVERNMENT can do. You see, these little pesky words like "shall not be infringed" and "Congress shall make no law " actually mean something, it is outlining where the government, can and cannot set laws against. The "fire in a theater" thing happened in a trial during WWI where people were being imprisoned for speaking out against the war. it was being used as an example. Inciting public discourse or riots is indeed criminal, but yelling fire in a theater is not.
Oh, I get it! What you are saying is they ought to ban bullets since there is no mention of bullets in the Constitution! Gotcha!
passing any law that would make an amendment null and void would be against the constitutional rights. Bullets are required for arms to function, this would be struck down in a heartbeat. Actually several of these attempts at serializing and restricting ammo have been shot down in state courts. The fairness doctrine would fall under the same scrutiny
The fact remains that the use of 'assault weapons' in the commission of a crime has been, and continues to be, almost non-existent, even in California. The only memorable exceptions I recall are mentioned in UB50's post above. I would agree that they are essentially a non-issue.
What's interesting to note is that most of the mass shootings involving assault weapons took place in California prior to the ban. Since then, the shootings have been in other states -- Florida, Utah, Colorado, etc.
People still own guns that are classified as assault weapons in California. Didn't they just have to register them? Weren't they grandfathered in when the laws were passed? Anyway, I think the primary benefit of the ban is that it makes legal owners that much more careful with how they store and use these weapons.
Seriously, I live in California and I've noticed far fewer crimes involving assault weapons since we've had the assault weapon ban in place for so many years. So, maybe there is something about banning assault weapons that stops people from using them to commit crimes?
the term "assault weapon" is based purely on looks, not function. we have an Arisaka type 90 WWII era Japanese rifle that is classified as an assault rifle because of the two factors that it has. we also have a "hunting rifle" that well... it is not classified as an assault weapon but is much more powerful of a round. the only defining factor? The arisaka has a bayonet mount, in which I do not own a bayonet that would fit it. It is based PURELY on looks, not function.
Can you imagine how much more effective the Santa Claus killer would have been if he had been able to get an assault weapon? As it was, he had to build his own flame thrower and he was only able to actually shoot a few people. From what I remember, at least of a couple of people died from the fire he started.
Wow! How soon people forget! Here were some of the crimes that happened in California prior to the Assault Weapons ban:
San Ysidro, Calif. – On July 18, 1984, James Huberty, a gunman at a McDonald’s in San Ysidro, California, opens fire with an UZI, killing 21. He fires 245 rounds before he is killed by a police sniper.
101 California -- On July 1, 1993, Gian Luigi Ferri walked into 101 California Street in San Francisco carrying two high-capacity TEC-9 assault pistols. Within minutes, Ferri had murdered eight people and wounded six.
Prior to the 1994 ban, Patrick Purdy used a semi-automatic version of the AK-47 assault rifle to kill five children and wound 29 others and a teacher at the Cleveland Elementary School in Stockton, California in 1989. He shot 106 rounds in less than two minutes.
California never lifted the Assault Weapon ban. We still have it here (News flash to you Jeepejeep).
James Huberty - the morning he went to go on his mentally unstable shooting spree his wife heard him say "“I’m going hunting. Hunting humans”
perfect time for her to um..... call the cops? he suffered from severe depression.
Gian Luigi Ferri - violated federal law by using fake drivers licenses to purchase his weapons. He visited several dealers multiple times to get ahold of them. The purchase of several Tec-9's in a row from the same gun shop would raise an eyebrow to anyone that knows these guns, which suck at target practice, are horrible at hunting, they are designed to quickly empty the magazine at close range to hit multiple targets.
Patrick Purdy - You actually used this guy? A guy with many many charges on his record? a guy that had so many that he in fact left his home town because of his robbery, burglary and drug charges? This guy is the reason why legal possession and conceal carry should be legal in all 50 states. before the crime, he had been in prison.... right there... he should not have been able to purchase a gun, current laws restrict felons from purchasing a firearm.
All of these people could have been stopped if the laws on the books were enforced.
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.
