News & Politics - Semi-Automatic ban to expire

Timeo · 07-21-2004, 09:47 AM

Quote:

Guns Lobby Racks Up Legislative Gains Across U.S.
Tue Jul 20, 1:38 PM ET
By Alan Elsner

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The powerful U.S. gun lobby seems poised for victory in a high profile battle to end a ban on some assault weapons and experts say it has also been piling up numerous quiet victories at the state level.

A federal ban on certain military-style semi-automatic weapons enacted in 1994 is due to expire on Sept. 13. The Republican congressional leadership, backed by the National Rifle Association and other gun groups, seems determined to allow the law to lapse.

Gun control groups say only vigorous intervention by President Bush could change congressional minds. They concede that the chances of that happening weeks before the Nov. 2 presidential election are zero. Bush has said he would sign the extension of the law if it passed but has not intervened in the debate.

"The assault weapons ban has no chance of being extended unless President Bush gets forcefully behind it but Bush has apparently made a naked political calculation," said Jim Kessler of Americans for Gun Safety.

Gun owners make up an important part of Bush's political base. The NRA is enthusiastically backing him against Democrat John Kerry.

Earlier this month, Congress passed legislation which will allow retired and off-duty law enforcement officers to carry concealed weapons even in states that do not permit them. Bush will sign the bill into law Thursday.

Gun proponents have worked hard for 15 years and with considerable success to win the right for Americans to carry concealed weapons.

In 1986, only eight states were obliged by law to issue citizens who requested them licenses to carry such weapons. That number has grown to 38, according to the NRA.

Ohio's law took effect in January. Last year alone, New Mexico, Colorado, Minnesota and Missouri, where legislators overrode a veto by Gov. Bob Holden, passed "right to carry" laws for applicants who pass a gun training course and a background check.

"QUIET REVOLUTION"

"We have seen the normalization of the idea that Americans may carry concealed weapons. It is a quiet revolution and it will bring about a certain culture change as we become accustomed to the idea of people in urban as well as rural areas carrying weapons around with them," said Robert Cottrol of the George Washington University law school.

Statistics suggest that the number of U.S. households owning firearms has stayed stable or may even have declined slightly in recent years. The data is somewhat uncertain since surveys have produced figures as high as 49 percent and as low as 36 percent.

The number of weapons in circulation continues to rise, reflecting the fact that guns are extremely durable and can be maintained in working order virtually indefinitely.

Some believe the spread of concealed weapons laws will have little practical effect.

"These 'right to carry' laws have swept much of the country and do have great symbolic significance for proponents and opponents but they are full of sound and fury, signifying nothing," said William Vizzard, a criminal justice professor at Cal State Sacramento, quoting Shakespeare's Macbeth.

Vizzard said the number of people applying for permits was relatively low and the number of people actually carrying weapons on a daily basis even lower.

In Arizona, which recently marked 10 years since passing its "right to carry" law, around 68,000 residents have active permits. The state population last year was 5.6 million. Some proponents now want to make it easier for applicants to get the permits by reducing the mandatory training hours.

The data suggests that neither the promises of gun groups that such laws would deter crime, nor the warnings of opponents that they would cause more gun accidents, have come to pass.

Kessler of Americans for Gun Safety said his group did not even bother fighting such laws.

"They are ineffective in stopping crime but they also seem to be unharmful and have not led to mass shootings the way some on the left feared," he said.

I have one thing to say.

SKETCHY.

mh67511 · 07-21-2004, 01:41 PM

I'm not really sure why anyone needs a semi-automatic wearpon.

As far as concealed weapons go I don't have a problem with it as long as people pass a backround check and take the class so they know how to use them. I personally wouldn't carry a gun and my mom won't allow them in our house, but some people might live in dangerous areas where they might need a weapon. Unfortunantely the police can't be everywhere all the time, so sometimes you need to rely on yourself for protection.

Enigma, I.C. · 07-21-2004, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by mh67511
I'm not really sure why anyone needs a semi-automatic wearpon.

I don't either. I think it's kinda silly for a private individual to have a gun like that. What are you going to do with it, exactly? I think a 'conventional,' as it were, hunting rifle or pistol would suffice for a household. I've never understood our society's obsession with guns. They just lead to trouble.

JediBlastoise · 07-21-2004, 02:40 PM

if zombies took over the world, semi automatics would make it easier to take em down than with dinky pistols.

JohannafromIHJ · 07-21-2004, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by JediBlastoise
if zombies took over the world, semi automatics would make it easier to take em down than with dinky pistols.

So would flame-throwers. I can't believe I'm not allowed to own one! GoddamNaziGovernmentSPLORFLE!

**TheAngel** · 07-28-2004, 06:41 AM

Guys, just to let you know, all pistols and most rifles are semi-automatic. Semi means you pull the trigger once for each shot, automatic assault rifles, M-16, UZIs, machine guns, are automatic and what they're talking about. I say get any weapon you want. Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

*Lauren · 07-28-2004, 07:49 AM

So we put dangerous weapons in the hands of people who kill?

mh67511 · 07-28-2004, 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by TheAngel
Guys, just to let you know, all pistols and most rifles are semi-automatic. Semi means you pull the trigger once for each shot, automatic assault rifles, M-16, UZIs, machine guns, are automatic and what they're talking about.

That's true, but the article was talking about "military style" semi-automatic weapons...I'm sure they just got the terms mixed up, as I don't think a pistol or rifle would be considered military style. But I really don't know. I don't know much about guns, not do I care to.

**TheAngel** · 07-29-2004, 12:28 PM

By that they might mean semi-automatics that are styled after military weapons. You can buy a gun that looks just like an M-16, shoots the same ammunition, but is semi-automatic. That's the only thing I can think of.

Quote:

So we put dangerous weapons in the hands of people who kill?

People drive and they kill with cars, people have fists, they use rocks, knives, chains, swords, feet, anything even a stuffed animal can become a weapon. If someone wants to kill, they'll do it whether they have a gun or not. They're probably less likely to use a gun because it's easier to trace a gun but still, everything kills, guns don't make people kill and they don't kill people.

*Lauren · 07-30-2004, 12:02 AM

The main reason people have a car, is to get from point A to point B. Very few people use a car to kill (intentionally). Knives, while more dangerous, also have other uses, such as cooking.

Guns exisit soley to kill. There's no other thing it can do. Of course if a person is going to kill, they'll do it regardless, but why make it easier for them?

**TheAngel** · 07-30-2004, 07:48 AM

What about hunting, yeah it's killing but it's also sustaining life by giving the hunter something to eat. Also, I have a right to defend myself and my family against anyone attempting to harm them and it would be difficult to fend off a group of people with guns if I only had a frying pan. Guns don't pull the trigger, they don't pick the target, they don't choose to kill. Besides, if someone wants to kill, they're going to do it, gun or no gun.

n e r b l e · 07-30-2004, 09:58 AM

9/10/01 i would have agreed that no one really needs a semi automatic weapon. now i disagree. the reason that they made the second ammendment was b/c back then they did have people invading the country. as of quite a while back that's not been an issue. it is again now. ergo, i'll take whatever firepower i can get to protect myself, my family and yes, my country.

*Lauren · 07-30-2004, 01:32 PM

Do you need to hunt to survive? Then that point is moot.

Secondly, guns don't make a situation safer, they esculate it. What happens if a robber comes in with a baseball bat, but manages to get your gun? Becomes a whole lot worse.

n e r b l e · 07-30-2004, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by *Lauren
Do you need to hunt to survive? Then that point is moot.

Secondly, guns don't make a situation safer, they esculate it. What happens if a robber comes in with a baseball bat, but manages to get your gun? Becomes a whole lot worse.

and how many robbers use baseball bats? i've never heard of a bank being held up with a baseball bat. also, the way someone gets a gun from you w/ a baseball is if you don't use gun usually.

JohannafromIHJ · 07-30-2004, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by n e r b l e
9/10/01 i would have agreed that no one really needs a semi automatic weapon. now i disagree. the reason that they made the second ammendment was b/c back then they did have people invading the country. as of quite a while back that's not been an issue. it is again now. ergo, i'll take whatever firepower i can get to protect myself, my family and yes, my country.

So basically, you're going to defend yourself against terrorists with a gun? You don't think people had guns in NY when the attack happened?

If you want to defend yourself against terrorism, join the army and hunt down Osama. Or better yet, join a help-organisation anjd protect people from being infiltrated and seduced by terrorist leaders.


Fan Forum > General Discussion > News & Politics > Semi-Automatic ban to expire