1994 Assault Weapon Ban

[blueeyes]

Here's the best site I've seen summing up the Clinton Gun ban. (http://www.ont.com/users/kolya/) Since we have a few people here who either like big guns and a good many who don't want to be shot by one, let's see how much you know about the gun ban. There's an overview of what makes a gun banned or legal, if you aren't up to speed.


A folding or telescoping stock
A pistol grip
A bayonet mount
A flash suppressor, or threads to attach one
A grenade launcher.


So take the test : http://www.ont.com/users/kolya/AR15/awc.htm
I got all but one (the third) correct.

[Were-E-Wolf]

Sigh, by the end of the year 2500, the only legal fire arms will be the BB/pelt gun and the daringer. Might as well just cross our 2nd amendment off the list. What is this country coming to... we no longer are allowed the freedom to protect ourselves.

[blueeyes]

Don't forget the laser miniguns, which will remain legal due to loopholes as long as you pay a billion dollars and keep an FBI agent at home.

So... what was your score?

[Blazer]

Same, got all right execpt the third. The last was more of a lucky guess though.
I don't like guns and would never carry one; but should they be banned?
Over here in jolly old England we've had a gun ban since Dunblane. (http://century.guardian.co. uk/1990-1999/Story/0,6051,112749,00.htm l)

The failure of this general disarmament to stem, or even slow, armed and violent crime could not be more blatant. According to a recent UN study, England and Wales have the highest crime rate and worst record for "very serious" offences of the 18 industrial countries surveyed.

...violent crime in America has been plummeting for 10 consecutive years, even as British violence has been rising. By 1995 English rates of violent crime were already far higher than America's for every major violent crime except murder and rape.
You are now six times more likely to be mugged in London than New York. Why? Because as common law appreciated, not only does an armed individual have the ability to protect himself or herself but criminals are less likely to attack them. They help keep the peace. A study found American burglars fear armed home-owners more than the police. As a result burglaries are much rarer and only 13% occur when people are at home, in contrast to 53% in England.

When guns were available in England they were seldom used in crime. A government study for 1890-1892 found an average of one handgun homicide a year in a population of 30 million. But murder rates for both countries are now changing. In 1981 the American rate was 8.7 times the English rate, in 1995 it was 5.7 times the English rate, and by last year it was 3.5 times. With American rates described as "in startling free-fall" and British rates as of October 2002 the highest for 100 years the two are on a path to converge.
BBC article. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2656875.stm)

It's amazing that when government banned guns they never considered that criminals don't obey the law. It's practically in the job description.

[WhiteCrowUK]

Its kind of scarey!

So what is the general feeling then - that anyone should be able to have an automatic weapon?

[kat]

Its kind of scarey!

So what is the general feeling then - that anyone should be able to have an automatic weapon?
Well, I certainly don't agree with that. Owning a rifle or handgun is one thing, but you don't bloody well need to fire off 16 shots in 4 seconds a little Johnny Burglar.

[Darth Cluich]

Well, I certainly don't agree with that. Owning a rifle or handgun is one thing, but you don't bloody well need to fire off 16 shots in 4 seconds a little Johnny Burglar.

But it would be fun! :p

[blueeyes]

Sadly enough, WhiteCrow, according to current U.S. law, you could... Thankfully, though, not everyone could get the permits for one.

On the other hand, making things illegal in the way the U.S. did, it doesn't help much. When's the last time anybody was shot down in the streets by a grenade launcher? Or, for that matter, at what point does it make sense for a criminal to pull out a knife to better take out their victim?

[Zombie]

I aced that "test". Was too easy. BTW- you can legally own a honest-to-goodness grenade launcher (an M-203) if you have a class 3 permit, and about $4- $7,000.00 to send to Colt for one. And you can have anything you want on a "preban" lower reciever (ie: collapseable stock, bayo lug, "birdcage" flash suppressor etc etc). I just purchased a postban configuration M4 carbine and a 37mm flare launcher that only looks like a grenade launcher, but is only designed for flares and pyrotechnic rounds. The real grenade launcher is 40mm, so ammo is incompatable.

-Z

[GarouX]

I had the second one wrong.
Interesting though.

[WhiteCrowUK]

I can half understand the reason people would want a handgun - it delivers lethal force to a single point. Hence it would be good for home protection.

However a semi/fully automatic weapon delivers a burst of fire to an area. So why would anyone need that in truth except if they are doing something damn illegal?

I half wonder if Americans are allowed to keep their own WMD according to the consitution!?!

[Zombie]

No, semi-automatic arms shoot only one round per pull of the trigger only. If it is more than 1 round at a time, it is a class 3 weapon (machinegun), and if you dont have a class 3 permit, youre toast. (mandatory prison sentence) Now, you can rapid-fire a semi-auto with great accuracy, but full auto stuff tends to have too much muzzle jump for sustained use. Think of a plum-sized group versus a small melon-sized group. If someone wants to go through the hassle of getting a class 3 permit, purchasing the extremely expensive gun (usually a MINIMUM of $10,000.00) and feeding it ammunition (the stuff I use is $15.00 for 20 rounds) that it would eat at around 5-600 rounds per minute, then by all means, spend your money as you see fit. (there are also full-auto shooting matches around the country)

Bear in mind that a legally purchased and owned full auto has never been used in any crime.

And, here in Pennsylvania, with the proper permits, we can own anything except poison gas.

-Zombie

[blueeyes]

That's not quite true, Zombie. There was one crime involving a full automatic weapon since 1934 (the first year with records, thanks to the weapons law that came about that year.

On September 15th, 1988, a 13-year veteran of the Dayton, Ohio police department, Patrolman Roger Waller, then 32, used his fully automatic MAC-11 .380 caliber submachine gun to kill a police informant, 52-year-old Lawrence Hilema. That is the only legally owned automatic gun murder.

There are a few illegal murders, however, even in Miami (known for the volume of machine guns sold in it), less than 0.6% of all gun deaths were due to automatic weapons. That's the only place with available numbers, but it is nice to know.
More police officers were killed with non-gun implements than with automatics.
And since the new gun ban, which reduces the number of shells in a gun's mag, the number of gunshot wounds per victim has gone from 2.4 to 2.8, according to the FBI. Funny, that.

Fully automatics are mainly show-off guns; they're generally either too expensive to fire and barely more useful as a destructive force. They only benefits they have is that anyone seeing them pisses their pants, nice for both collections and security forces. Some people also like them for the feel during target practices... but those are some real rich gun owners.