Maryland Bill to Prohibit ‘Assault Weapons’ Moving

[walford]

I wanted to post this story here, because this should be the place where people should know the difference. Old issue, still kicking...

Just what is an 'assault weapon' anyway?
The following semi-auto rifles seem to me to be more effective [i.e. lethal] than the ones being banned -- but they would still be legal under the proposed law, so what is the standard?

BAR Lightweight Stalker
http://www.browning.com/products/catalog/firearms/detail.asp?value=002B&cat_id=031&type_id=008

Remington Model 7400 Synthetic
http://www.remington.com/firearms/centerfire/7400syn.htm

Ruger Mini-14
http://ruger.com/Firearms/FAProdView?model=1866&return=Y

Benelli R1
http://www.benelliusa.com/firearms/r1.tpl

http://www.gunweek.com/0210issue/maryland0210.html

A bill banning so-called assault weapons is shaping up to be the major battle over firearms in the current session of the Maryland General Assembly, with the idea getting a nod from Senate President Thomas V. “Mike” Miller Jr. and a broad swath of liberal Democratic lawmakers, according to The Gazette.

The bill, sponsored by Sen. Robert J. Garagiola (D-15th Dist.) of Germantown and Del. Neil F. Quinter (D-13th Dist.) of Columbia, would ban not only the semi-automatic Uzis, AK-47s and other guns included in the federal assault weapons ban set to expire this year, but also copycats and other firearms, such as the Bushmaster rifle used in the 2002 “Beltway sniper” murder spree.

Miller, who has criticized Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. (R) for voting against previous gun bans, stopped short of saying the bill will pass. But if Miller decides to get behind the bill, he will find breaking a sure filibuster on the issue easier now that the vote needed to end a filibuster has changed from two-thirds (32 votes) to three-fifths (29 votes). Ehrlich has long opposed gun bans, but he may not want an “assault weapons” ban hotly opposed by many Republicans to reach his desk, given that the issue has proven popular in polls in Maryland.

The gun issue could induce Miller (D-Dist. 27) of Chesapeake Beach to break his alliance with Ehrlich on slots and other issues, much as he did last year when he defeated Lynn Y. Buhl as the governor’s environmental secretary nominee.

Sen. Alexander X. Mooney (R-3rd Dist.) of Frederick, an ardent gun rights advocate, defended the firearms as “sport utility rifles.”

He said fully automatic machineguns have long been banned, and giving people guns—including semi-automatic Uzis—would make them safer. He also questioned statistics cited by anti-gun supporters that the federal ban has cut crime and assault weapon traces used in crimes. He decried the proposal as part of a step-by-step plan to ban all guns. Mooney is considering a bill expanding the right to carry guns.

Although prospects are looking up in the Senate, the bill faces a tough hurdle in the House from Judiciary Chairman Joseph F. Vallario Jr. (D-27th Dist.) of Upper Marlboro, who is skeptical of the need for new gun laws.

Vallario said he has a lot of questions about the ban, mainly about how it differs from the soon-to-expire federal ban and what impact it will have on existing guns.

Del. Carmen Amedori (R-Dist. 5A) of Westminster, a gun rights advocate, said she has always expected the House to be key in preserving gun rights once Frosh became chairman of Judicial Proceedings.

A rally for the ban held in early January at the Chevy Chase home of CeaseFire Maryland Executive Director Leah Barrett attracted a veritable mob of elected officials, from possible gubernatorial candidates Montgomery County Executive Douglas M. Duncan (D) and Del. Peter V.R. Franchot (D-20th Dist.) of Takoma Park to Frosh and US Rep. Christopher Van Hollen Jr. (D-8th Dist.) of Kensington, The Gazette reported.

Van Hollen noted that prospects of passing an assault weapons ban are better with Frosh as the Judicial Proceedings chairman than in earlier years when Sen. Walter M. Baker relished making mincemeat out of gun control proposals. Baker was defeated in 2002.

There were even a few Republicans at Barrett’s home, led by County Councilman Howard A. Denis (R-Dist. 1) of Chevy Chase. With Constance A. Morella’s defeat by Van Hollen in 2002, Denis, a former state senator, may be the most liberal elected Republican in the state.

While supporters were meeting inside at the anti-gun reception, a band of gun rights proponents protested outside.

[Ian H]

Surely the phrase 'sports utility weapon' is as silly as the phrase 'assault weapon' in legislative terms. I mean no matter what you call it a gun is designed to kill. Just because something is called a hunting weapon doesn't mean the bullet will refuse to fire if its pointed at a human.
As a Brit I have no opinion worth expressing on US gun control, just wanted to point this out.

[Operation Ivy]

edit

[ChuckThunder]

I'm really getting tired of Maryland's ****ty gun laws.

[jprichard]

Hey if these bans are passed madmen, terrorist and criminals will not be able to get these terrible weapons just like people can't get illegal narcotics now! I feel safer already! Yeah right!!!! The whole gun issue has been way overblown by the media and anti gun groups in the U.S. .
I heard that conservative estimates are that there are some 60 million handguns in this country along with 120 million long guns. A tiny percentage of guns in this country are being used for malicious purposes.
"Assault weapon" is a buzz word used to scare the general public. An UZI
is nothing more than a big 9mm pistol and the evil AK-47 is pip-squeak in
power terms compared to most hunting rifles. I wish the general public
could realize what a load of B.S. Mrs. Feinstine(author of federal assault weapons ban), Handun Control Inc, and the VPC are feeding them.

[Durandal]

I heard that conservative estimates are that there are some 60 million handguns in this country along with 120 million long guns. A tiny percentage of guns in this country are being used for malicious purposes.

Actually, it is less than 1 TENTH of 1 PERCENT...

To the forum in general...

God damn idiots. You know, I don't care if you are liberal, because on most social issues I will agree with you or at least agree to disagree midly, but this anti-gun kick that developed out of the 70's HAS to go. Fortunately, at a Federal level, most Dems realized that trying to take up the anti-gun war cry gets them less reelections...

The Federal Assault weapons ban will sunset. It has too. Anyone that helps it pass will commit poltical suicide. If you do not Maryland's gun laws, move or become an activist, but just do not sit there and hope the NRA will help you. Do somethign about it. I have found that taking out my liberal friends once a month to shoot at targets works EXTREMELY well. In the past 12 months I have easily converted about 2 dozen anti-gun types. They are no longer afraid of guns and understand why I love to target shoot..

Think globally. Act locally.

[Durandal]

And as with all things there is balance...

New Hampshire...

Senate considers repealing gun law

CONCORD (AP) – State residents would no longer need permits to carry concealed handguns under a bill considered Tuesday by the Senate Judiciary Committee.

“Society is safer when criminals don’t know who is armed,” said Norman Bernier, of Concord.

Right now, a woman who is threatened could be forced to wait up to 14 days to get a license to carry a concealed weapon, Bernier said.

Because state law allows children to be gun owners with their parents’ permission, the proposed law could allow children and teenagers to carry concealed handguns, she said

New Hampshire rocks, plain and simple. People that REALLY care will simply move from Maryland to places like this, were gun owners are not only tolerated, but encouraged. Add to that no income or State property tax and well...

Screw Maryland.

[walford]

...just do not sit there and hope the NRA will help you. Do somethign about it. I have found that taking out my liberal friends once a month to shoot at targets works EXTREMELY well. In the past 12 months I have easily converted about 2 dozen anti-gun types. They are no longer afraid of guns and understand why I love to target shoot..

Think globally. Act locally.

An interesting approach to reach narrow minds -- if you can get them to go in the first place. Perhaps while they're at the range you can tell them about the real statistical evidence showing that places having an armed citizenry are safer than ones that are not, such as in John Lott's More, Guns, Less Crime
http://www.aim.org/conservativemall/detail.php?id=592

[Durandal]

such as in John Lott's More, Guns, Less Crime
http://www.aim.org/conservativemall/detail.php?id=592

I feel that for a non-math or simple crowd, his book "The Bias Against Guns" is a much better read. Less statistical formulas, same resulting data, better read, and more interesting, relevant data.

I am a gun nerd and fairly good with statistics...more or less. I loves the first book. I could not hand it to someone and say "Here is the proof" simply because it would be boring for most.

Plus, I simply do not bother shoving it down their throat. I get more respect. I take them down, spend a half hour on gun safety, show them how to operate a dozen or so weapons, and then open the range up for them to enjoy.

I buy the ammo too. The goal is not to get them to develop shooting as a hobby, just to understand what guns are and that they CAN be enjoyable to shoot.

Not bad at all and worth every penny...

Imagine if all gun owners did that with at least one non-gun owning or anti-gun individual a year.

Oh, and I make kick-ass DVD music videos of the shooting events which people really seem to get into. Everyone that participated gets a disk. They love it.

[Haiw]

Can I come at your next birthday party? ;)

[Durandal]

Can I come at your next birthday party? ;)

Heheh, my B-Day party is even better.

And yes, you are invited.

If you ever get to the US, hell anyone on the forum, especially those of you in Europe, who ever want to have a good time, need a place to crash, and spend a day shooting, let me know. And, no, this is not your typical hillbilly shoot either...my shooting group tends to be upscale and stylish. ;)

For those of you that do not want to shoot, I can gaurantee you will have a good time aprtying.

Cheers!

[Sir Zach of R.]

I'll stop by next time I'm in Kentuky. :D

[martinexsquaddie]

is not the dedicated shooters I worry about its
billy bob who has a gun somewhere in the house and gets it out after an arguement with the wife.
idiots haveing access to firearms :(

[walford]

is not the dedicated shooters I worry about its
billy bob who has a gun somewhere in the house and gets it out after an arguement with the wife.
idiots haveing access to firearms :(

This is the classic elitist argument against law-abiding citizens owning firearms. It betrays a fundamental distrust of the general population having any power that is not subject to approval by Our Betters in Authority. The fact that Rosie O'Donnell has contempt for others being armed while her bodyguards are packing heat is illuminating indeed.

In the US, people are responsible for their own security and protection. This has been borne out in court cases wherein people unsuccessfully tried to sue the police for failing to protect them [such as not showing up when a citizen merely suspected that a threatening person was coming or taking too long to get to the scene after a 911 call, resulting in an injury or death while waiting for the police to arrive.]

The police are not security guards. They are law-enforcement officials. They would like to prevent crime by being there before it happens, but the vast majority of the time, they arrive long afterward -- putting down the tape outline and booking the perp. If you don't want that to happen to you, YOU have to prevent it. Otherwise, well, maybe you don't belong in the gene pool.

Real-world evidence shows that the small proportion of incidents involving 'Billy Bobs' who kill their wives or children who get ahold of a firearm that is unsafely stored [in contravention of NRA recommendations], or other negative consequences are far outweighed by:

- The reduction in personal crimes perpetrated in the first place, because criminals don't know who is armed

- The number of personal crimes that are foiled because the intended victims were armed [which far outnumber the negative uses of firearms -- lack of media coverage notwithstanding]

[i]The above are not unsubstantiated opinions, but facts backed by objectively verifiable statistics.

Note: Home invasion burglaries are proportionally more prevalent in the UK than they are in the US, because British burglars know that in the extremely unlikey event they are shot by a homeowner, the homeowner will be punished -- a strong deterrent against self-defense [or defence].

I've been away for awhile, have you missed me, MXQ?
p-)

[Durandal]

is not the dedicated shooters I worry about its
billy bob who has a gun somewhere in the house and gets it out after an arguement with the wife.
idiots haveing access to firearms :(

Ok, how about this counter argument. If someone kills someone else, the go to jail.

Wow, that was simple.

If Billy Bob didn't have a gun, he would probably beat his wife...with a belt or bottle or his bare hands...

Same problem different weapon...

Its a poor example anyways, domestic disputes rarely involve a firearm wielding husband.

[HappyCat]

can someone answer me why a civilian would need an automatic weapon? I like weapons, but why would someone who is not police or military need an auto. semis are good enough for hunting, target shooting are they not?

[Durandal]

can someone answer me why a civilian would need an automatic weapon? I like weapons, but why would someone who is not police or military need an auto. semis are good enough for hunting, target shooting are they not?

Who said anything about full-auto?

[mocking_loudly_died]

Civilians don't need guns - end of story.

Any argument based around "oh but the criminals will kill us with their guns" is fundamentally stupid.
The flood of illegal firearms once originated from legal factories.
Hence a lovely vicious cycle you have created.

A civilian with a firearm is nothing I look forward to in Australia and am well pleased I don't have to worry about my neighbors going crazy with them.

The whole story of American firearm ownership seems to based on perpetual fear, remove the source (yes it would take years) and live a relatively peaceful life.

Do I belive this will happen? - nope.

[Durandal]

Civilians don't need guns...

Civilians own lots of things they do not need. So what? I own LOTS of guns. They will lnever fall into a criminals hands nor will I probably ever use them defending my home.

I enjoy target shooting and collecting.

No crime there.

Oh and Mocking? Austrailia does allow gun ownership...check the laws man. They may be highly restrictive, but there are PLENTY of gun owning Aussies.

If giving up my gun meant an idealistic America where nothing bad happened I would gladly give up my guns. My personal enjoyment is worth less than no violence, no accidental deaths, and what could anly be considered a utopia.

*chuckle*

Removing guns will simply remove guns from people that collect them, target shoot, hunt, or keep them in the closet for that very unlikely event that someone mught break in. Criminals will still have them, women will still get raped, children will still drown in pools, drivers will still cause more deaths, and tabbacco products will keep on killing...

So please, save us the holier than now lectures on how a gunless society will somehow make the world a much more wonderful place.

[mocking_loudly_died]

American society is inundated with an influx of high-powered weapons – fact.
I don’t believe the average person has the self-control and intellect to carry a tool that is essentially designed to end life.

You claim that your firearms will never fall into a criminals hands, you are but one of millions of Americans – I doubt that all the people in your nation hold the same level of gun security as you claim to posses.
Please tell me where the criminals are getting their weapons from – at the end of the day the source is the gun manufacturers.
With out them the criminals couldn’t have access to hand guns, submachine guns, rifles etc.

A classic rebuttal to the gun control debate is to place me into a camp of the deluded left wing loonies that believe in an existential “utopian” bubble world.

This is far from the case, what I do claim with gun control is the level of violence in society to shift.
You can never wipe out the human intention to commit a crime – but you can limit the damage inflicted by getting rid of the weapons that aid the cause.

[ChuckThunder]

American society is inundated with an influx of high-powered weapons – fact.
I don’t believe the average person has the self-control and intellect to carry a tool that is essentially designed to end life.

You claim that your firearms will never fall into a criminals hands, you are but one of millions of Americans – I doubt that all the people in your nation hold the same level of gun security as you claim to posses.
Please tell me where the criminals are getting their weapons from – at the end of the day the source is the gun manufacturers.
With out them the criminals couldn’t have access to hand guns, submachine guns, rifles etc.

A classic rebuttal to the gun control debate is to place me into a camp of the deluded left wing loonies that believe in an existential “utopian” bubble world.

This is far from the case, what I do claim with gun control is the level of violence in society to shift.
You can never wipe out the human intention to commit a crime – but you can limit the damage inflicted by getting rid of the weapons that aid the cause.

If we were to ban firearms, there wouldn't be a difference. Thing is... people that would kill using a gun most likely wouldn't have a problem using other methods.

My dad taught me to shoot, he also taught me never to aim, even an unloaded gun, at someone/something I didn't intend on putting a bullet through. His dad taught him the same, and so on. I would like to be able to own any small arm under the sun. If someone doesn't, I don't care, they have every right not to, but to try to stop me and millions of other Americans from owning certain firearms that sound "scary" is outrageous.

[walford]

Civilians don't need guns - end of story.

Any argument based around "oh but the criminals will kill us with their guns" is fundamentally stupid...

...The whole story of American firearm ownership seems to based on perpetual fear, remove the source (yes it would take years) and live a relatively peaceful life.


This is the classic argument for the civil version of Unilateral Disarmament. "If only we, the good guys would disarm then the bad guys would see that they don't need their weapons and..." This neatly ignores the hard, objectively gathered, scientifically analyzed evidence that an armed, law-abiding citizenry reduces the incidence of gun-related crime.

Of course spouting off opinions without giving regard to the facts such as those already cited in this thread is a tactic that occurs frequently in forums such as these. Here is a discussion about that:
http://www.angelfire.com/space/usenet/

No one claimed that arms don't sometimes fall into the wrong hands. They are overwhelmingly in the right hands, however, making us all safer -- provable by hard evidence.

What is ignored is the fact that places in the US having the most stringent gun-control laws have the highest per-capita gun crimes while those that do not infringe upon the right to bear arms tend to be the safest. So much for the elitist argument that the average Joe is just too inferior to be trusted with firearms. But that would involve considering evidence wouldn't it?

Further, we cannot compare American society with others that did not have the same cultural experience with firearms. Perhaps there was a time several generations ago the the present circumstances could have been prevented, but that is so much speculation!

Disarming law-abiding citizens under today's circumstances is not the solution. The fact is, non-law abiding citizens ARE armed and we are charged in this country to protect ourselves [as was already explained and ignored by the likes of you].

No one is dragging you from Australia to come here. I'm sure that I would be joined by many other Americans to invite you to stay away from the U.S. forever [but your beautiful women are most welcome]. I certainly wouldn't think of going to your country, so let us have our own sovereign nations, thank you very much!

p-) Who's next?

[mocking_loudly_died]

I bow before the might of your isolationist rebuttal and the carefully selected “facts” at your disposal.

It’s even better when the counter claims are based on myself not being American – you really must have a weak case if you have to resort to xenophobic claims that my ignorance on the end result of firearms is based on my current location.

Looking up the word genius at the moment – sadly you don’t appear.

[walford]

I bow before the might of your isolationist rebuttal and the carefully selected “facts” at your disposal.

It’s even better when the counter claims are based on myself not being American – you really must have a weak case if you have to resort to xenophobic claims that my ignorance on the end result of firearms is based on my current location.

Looking up the word genius at the moment – sadly you don’t appear.

This is another classic technique -- when your argument is weak, resort to name-calling and other personal attacks. Not very creative...

From the link in my previous post: "Trolls who throw insults across the 'net are Confrontationalists and relish seeing any response that indicates the respondee is wound up, or aggravated by their Trolling."

[mocking_loudly_died]

That's a tad rich when you implied that my input would be invalid due to my nationality.

I can read books - we even have cars and electricity in Australia.

[California Joe]

Sometimes I build guns.

I'm bad.

[mocking_loudly_died]

Sometimes I build guns.

I'm bad.

You sir are a master criminal. :D

[Durandal]

I can read books - we even have cars and electricity in Australia.

I don't see you dissing soccer moms and electrons...

[mocking_loudly_died]

I can read books - we even have cars and electricity in Australia.

I don't see you dissing soccer moms and electrons...

Soccer moms represent a shift in American culture towards a fascist state; women of various walks of life must conform to this euro-centric (possibly communist) sport.
Those that fail to evolve into soccer moms are shunned by society, eventually kidnapped and sent to secret “re-education” camps.

Soccer moms are the greatest threat to the American way of life.

[walford]

http://www.oralchelation.com/wednesday/images/troll10.jpg

[Yard Ape]

What would this law ban? I have always seen laws that ban a specific weapon (ei: No AK47s allowed) to be stuiped as you can alsways buy another with the same features. Even bans on clones don't do much except complicate efforts to find a weapon that does the same thing but is not on the "baned" list. Anothe intelligent restriction that I have crosses was "weapons may not have more than two of the following features: bayonet lug, pistol grip, flash suppresor, folding/telescopic butt." How would this law ban weapons (by model, generic classification, or specific features /combination of features)?

This thread has revolved around the topic of firearms as protection from criminals. What about thier other uses? Hunting is a legit use, and in some places it is an essential part of life. Sport? Again I would say yes, but here curbs on firearm characteristics can be considered just another challenge of the sport.

I don't think civillians need bayoned lugs or flash suppressors. I have heard good arguments for restricting the capacity of magazines (if you need 30 rounds to defend your home from a criminal you probably are not capable of using the weapon). Rifles & shotguns are hunting & sport weapons. The penetrating power of most rifles makes them an unwise selection in an urban setting. To this end, a minimum length on Shotguns & rifles seems reasonable.

[Dennis G]

http://www.awbansunset.com/Great site to get informed on the Assault weapon ban

[Yard Ape]

Dennis G,
I have to agree with your link. It is assinine to restrict folding/telescopic butts when the rifle is still over the minimum length when the butt is folded or collapsed. I don't think it has strong arguments for the bayonet lug though. Civilians simply don't need this.

[Yard Ape]

http://globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040215.whigh0215/BNStory/International/

[Durandal]

Civilians simply don't need this.

Civilians do not need a selection of 1000 different SUVs, sports cars, computers, steak knives, and pools either...

But we like it and I imagine you do too.

If I want to have in my collection, a Romanian SKS, then I should be able to have the folding bayonet too. Without it, it is no longer the rifle it was, historically. The value decreases, because it has been modified. How many crimes are committed by a crazed dude with a rifle bayonet? Are you going to tell me that my Springfield 1873 is illegal because it has a bayonet lug AND a bayonet?

Ban 'em because some moron "thinks" someone else doesn't need it?

That is TRULY stupid. As if someone else has the "right" to tell me what I can and cannot own.

Banning a grenade capable gun (capable of attaching a grenade launcher or firing a rifle grenade) is silly also since the grenades are a controlled explosive item.

I mean, what is next? I can only own one car? I can only have one acre of property so other people can own property? How many silly ass rules do we need beuracrats making that "babysit" the nation? Think of the massive amounts of money spent campaigning for and against these laws, the cost of writing the bills and the time associated costs of the Senators and State Reps spending time on these bills.

What is worse is someone trying to rationalize it as if it actually helps better the community or the nation.

Absolute foolishness...

[Yard Ape]

Civillians are also required to register those 1000 different SUVs & sports cars. Obviously, there must be room for collectors of historical weapons. However, this flexibility need not exist for modern commercial fire arms.

[Yard Ape]

can someone answer me why a civilian would need an automatic weapon? I like weapons, but why would someone who is not police or military need an auto. semis are good enough for hunting, target shooting are they not?Semi-automatic is what this thread is about.

[Durandal]

Civillians are also required to register those 1000 different SUVs & sports cars. Obviously, there must be room for collectors of historical weapons. However, this flexibility need not exist for modern commercial fire arms.

Yard Ape, we are not JUST talking about Modern Civilian Firearms. Ask any hardcore Democratic Senator in the United States. They want to apply the same rules to ANY semi-aumtomatic rifle.

This means classics like the M1 Garand and the Lee Enfield Mk1 No. 4.

Neither of which is a Modern Commercial Civilian rifle.

These laws are simply the tip of the iceberg...if the Assault Weapons Ban sticks around, you will see more laws that are more restrictive.

Drives me nuts.

Why does this flexibility need not exist for modern commercial fire arms? You have yet to properly answer that (not that I asked really).

Because you think Civilians do not need it is not an answer. Or at least one important enough to prevent someone from owning the weapons covered by the AWB. So what are the real reasons?

[walford]

Let us not forget what the advocates of the AWB are pursuing:

First of all, the lethality of the weapon is not the true standard.
A flash suppressor certainly doesn't make a weapon more lethal. The bayonet lug, well, when was the last time anyone has heard of a criminal bayonetting a victim on the streets? I can see the point of prohibiting high-capacity magazines, but then with semi-autos, one can carry multiple magazines that can be changed quickly enough.

What the banned weapons have in common is they LOOK scary, but are not as lethal as many of the ones that are allowed [such as those linked at the very beginning of this thread].

In providing ambiguous definitions for weapons that will be banned, it is hoped that the resultant blurred distinctions will make it all the more easy to gradually expand the menu of bannable weapons.

Currying favor with the elitists amongs us, just having the government in the position as Ultimate Authority to decide what we do and do not NEED is a general goal for all things.

Ultimately we can then be conditioned to accept that we do not have rights, but instead have privileges that can be granted or withdrawn at the government's arbitrary whim. That is, instead of being able to do anything we want so long as it is not forbidden, we will only be able to do that which is permitted, with everything else by default being a power reserved by the government.

That my friends is whatever form of absolutism that you prefer, communism, fascism, theocracy, etc. All of these systems have been designed and implemented with the sincere desire [by those anointed with superior wisdom] to build a Better Society.

That topic is explored at length here: http://mason.gmu.edu/~walford/utopiatext.html

Freedom may be messy but the alternative is far worse, because the leadership is always populated by the same flawed creatures who are being ruled.

[Durandal]

*applause*

Nicely said...

[jprichard]

To those of from you from other countrys advocating more gun control in
this country consider this. Our irresponsible government does little to protect our borders. Tons of illegal drugs and thousands of illegal aliens cross our borders with little trouble. If crooks in this country need weapons someone will seize the opportunity to supply them and profit from it. Only the law abiding will be disarmed by gun laws. The founding fathers of this country wrote the Bill of Rights to ensure that Americans could live, think and communicate without goverment interference. When the government fails Americans are equipped with these rights to take care of themselves and affect positive change. When goverment fails to protect us the 2nd Amendment allows us to protect ourselves.

[Yard Ape]

Banning a grenade capable gun (capable of attaching a grenade launcher or firing a rifle grenade) is silly also since the grenades are a controlled explosive item.Recent events at the Canadian border have shown that it is not impossible to get grenades from inside the US. Restricting the weapon with the ammunition makes it that much harder for these weapons to be used. Flare launchers are very similar, but of different caliber. The only civilian uses for a grenade launcher are criminal or terrorist.

A flash suppressor certainly doesn't make a weapon more lethal. The bayonet lug, well, when was the last time anyone has heard of a criminal bayonetting a victim on the streets? I can see the point of prohibiting high-capacity magazines, but then with semi-autos, one can carry multiple magazines that can be changed quickly enough.
No, a flash suppressor does not make a weapon more lethal. However, from a military perspective, I would say a flash suppressor can provide a tactical advantage over an enemy without (although now that this is standard across the world, it would be better to say no flash suppressor is a tactical disadvantage). So, while there is not civilian use for, and the average bank-robber would not benefit from flash suppressors, they would provide an undesirable capability to terrorists, anti-government militias, and organized crime.

The flash suppressor also has value to the sniper (terrorist or lunatic) who preys on the civilian populace. The DC sniper attacks did show that people already have a hard time locating the muzzle flash from an un-suppressed barrel. So, why make it easier for these people to conceal themselves? Why make it harder for potential victims to identify & react to the threat?

The bayonet also is of little use the typical bank-robber. However, here again it has a tactical purpose from a military perspective. In close quarters, the bayonet can be used by terrorists, anti-government militias, and organized crime.

The grenade launcher, bayonet lug, and flash suppressor have no civilian use, are of limited value to bank-robbers, but would benefit minor combat activity (as few as 5 guys) of terrorists, anti-government militias, or organized crime.

I have read arguments for a stronger ban, and I believe that they are weak and entirely cosmetic based. I believe the existing ban is, at times, silly. But, I think the current ban does have merit if it were to see some revisions. Ban grenade launcher, bayonet lug, and flash suppressor. Restrict magazine size. Establish a minimum rifle/shotgun length (if there is a folding or telescoping butt, then the rifle must meet the regulations at its shortest length). Pistol grips should not be an issue.

I’ll steal some thoughts from another thread now:Originally from Buchanan bashes neo-conservative war-mongering (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?p=156559#156559)
The whole second amendment thing is really not clear cut at all. One argument is that the 2nd Amendment only deals with state militia. I don't really buy that one. The founding fathers all owned personal firearms and it seems logical to me that they meant teh individual right to have a firearm.

Teh problem is the bear arms is just damned ambiguous. Should have said own guns, or possess firearms or something clear like that. Alas, it does not.

Another argument is that the militia was the intention b/c the founding fathers took it for granted that people would own guns. Don't like that one either.

The fact is that the 2nd Amendment is what it is - an explicit protection of the people's right to bear arms. Try as I might I just can't think of a logical reason to come to any other conclusion. Bear meant own and use in 1770 so it should mean own and use today.

That being said the govt still can regulate ownership to protect the public. That was within the bounds of the original intent. The constitution has to adapt to the times and machine guns and assault rifles were unheard of in the 1770's. But more laws is not the answer, more enforcement maybe, but not more laws.

hank Hank,

I know you hate the labels, but you do come close to being a neo-conservative. Maybe "Log Cabin Republican"?

Now you do know that the framers of the constitution has assumed that people would have their own small arms (rifles, pistols). So what is this "changing with the times" bit? You obviously don't like 2nd Amendment. So write your legislature to repeal it. That will legalize the gun controls you desire. Then you can the be the first to turn your guns over to Sarah Brady.

Actually, It would be better if you just turned your guns over to Sarah Brady and not mess with everyone else's RTKBA. hold on wingnut - why do you say I do not 2nd A? I love it. I agree that it protects your right and my right to own guns. Never said otherwise. It is the 2ndA for a reason - founding fathers OBVIOUSLY thight it was a big issue. I do not want new gun laws - repeat - do not. We have too many right now and that is the problem. Too many to enforce. If it were up to me, which it is not, I would repeal them all and start fresh with one sensible policy that deals strongly with importation, manufacture and less with distribution once they are made. See my point? 2nd A doesn't say anybody has a right to make guns - just to bear. Once guns are available on the market the limitations on ownership become moot and in violation of the 2nd A. I support the whole constitution even the parts I find inconvenient or burdensome.

My point about changing times is that the difference between military arms and personal arms in the 1770's was negligible. You had a long rifle and you used it to hunt and for your military service. Not so now. Did the founding father intend for me to won an M2HB just b/c the mil has it? I do not know the answer to that and neither does anybody else. What is clear is that other personal rights - even speech - can be limited when there is a compelling public interest in the limitation AND the limitation is strictly narrowed to promote the compelling interest. Under that rationale I can understand, even if I disagree with, the idea that not everybody needs an M2HB or should be able to get it.

Teh problem with teh current situation is the extreme position of the peopl who care. NRA says NO LIMITATIONS. Stupid liberals says NO GUNS. There is no possibility for compromise or reasonable solution. Any, even reasonable, limitation gets trashed by the NRA. All guns, even useful ones, get bashed by the liberals. No win situation.

Brady legislation is stupid b/c even stupid criminals figure out how to work around them. That is the very reason why I say scrap it all and start by restricting things you can control - manufacture and importation.

Even then, though, the default position should, and must, be that people have the right to get a particular firearm or class of firearms and the government should have a substantial burden to show otherwise.

As for Brady, I don't think she would be interested in my Remington 1100 12 ga. Why don't you come to Knoxvegas and try to take it from me? That will give me the opportunity to show you haw serious I am about "bearing" arms and make milphoto.net more fun. Til then I remain

hank

[Durandal]

Recent events at the Canadian border have shown that it is not impossible to get grenades from inside the US. Restricting the weapon with the ammunition makes it that much harder for these weapons to be used. Flare launchers are very similar, but of different caliber.

I also think you prove a point. Criminals can get the grenades adn the launchers...law abiding citizens cannot. The fact that a gun, let's say an SKS can fire a rifle greande does not mean it will. A gun loses a fair amount of value if it is not in original condition, if you are a collector, which I am. You take a matching parts SKS that is 50 years old and unissued and you remove the end piece (the grenade rifle receiver) and you lose 25% or mor of the value of the gun. Flare launchers are in no way similar.

The only civilian uses for a grenade launcher are criminal or terrorist.

I use my 37mm grenade launcher (completely legal to own, I may add) to laumch smoke and dlares for the 4th of July. I do not see a criminal use here. Not only do I enjoy doing it, but the 60 or 70 people that attend really enjoy it as well...

So, why make it easier for these people to conceal themselves? Why make it harder for potential victims to identify & react to the threat?

Huh? A flash suppressor is for the person firing the weapon. It makes locating the shooter no less difficult. It does nto somehow magically hide the flash, but degrade the effects of "blinding" the shooter at dusk or at night.

The bayonet also is of little use the typical bank-robber. However, here again it has a tactical purpose from a military perspective. In close quarters, the bayonet can be used by terrorists, anti-government militias, and organized crime.

Cargo trucks can used to pack explosives and be detonated from a remote location. Let's ban Cargo trucks!

The rest of your arguments reflect little in the way of reality and more on you own fear or misunderstandings...

[Yard Ape]

A gun loses a fair amount of value if it is not in original condition, if you are a collector, which I am. You take a matching parts SKS that is 50 years old and unissued and you remove the end piece (the grenade rifle receiver) and you lose 25% or mor of the value of the gun. Flare launchers are in no way similar. I have already stated that concessions must be made for the historical collector. Yet you continue to argue this point because the rest of your argument is weak.

… Flare launchers are in no way similar [to grenade launchers].

I use my 37mm grenade launcher (completely legal to own, I may add) to launch smoke and flares for the 4th of July. I do not see a criminal use here. Not only do I enjoy doing it, but the 60 or 70 people that attend really enjoy it as well... Is your flare launcher part of a rifle?

A flash suppressor is for the person firing the weapon. It makes locating the shooter no less difficult. It does nto somehow magically hide the flash, but degrade the effects of "blinding" the shooter at dusk or at night. Yes & no. It does work both ways

The bayonet also is of little use the typical bank-robber. However, here again it has a tactical purpose from a military perspective. In close quarters, the bayonet can be used by terrorists, anti-government militias, and organized crime.Cargo trucks can used to pack explosives and be detonated from a remote location. Let's ban Cargo trucks!This is typical of nonsensical gun lobby arguments. I identify a single use item (the bayonet) and you equate it to a dual use item (in this case a cargo truck). If you want to present a good argument, show these items have legitimate civilian functions.

You prove the observations made by Hank, The problem with the current situation is the extreme position of the people who care. NRA says NO LIMITATIONS. Stupid liberals says NO GUNS. There is no possibility for compromise or reasonable solution. Any, even reasonable, limitation gets trashed by the NRA. All guns, even useful ones, get bashed by the liberals.

[Ichhabe]

Gun controle, schmun controle.

I knew it before, and I really know it not after being on this forum awhile: The culturale difference between Europeans and Americans are so huge that we have trouble with understanding eachother.

One thing I've learned: Don't fvck with the Americans right to own guns in any way or category. They just get so mad. And I don't like mad people. Specially mad people with guns. ;)

I live where I live, you live where you live. The distance is huge. So Rock on! :)

[Durandal]

I have already stated that concessions must be made for the historical collector. Yet you continue to argue this point because the rest of your argument is weak.

Because it is a compeltely valid point. When one or two crimes happen and a greande launcher is used suddenly, we, THOUSANDS of historical collectors, have to suffer? What an absurdity.

Is your flare launcher part of a rifle? Why? A flare launcher is a flare launcher. Regardless of what it is attached to. Actually, I have both, one is a H&K 26.5mm officer's signal pistol. The other is this: http://www.freewebs.com/grog/37mmr.gif

Completely legal and not a destructive device. It is capable of being quite nasty if someone wanted to break a law, but I am not one of those people. Federal and my State's laws say I can own this, so I do. I bring it out twice an year. The rest of the time it is locked away in the basement.

Yes & no. It does work both ways Not really, and what is worse you use the DC Sniper as an example. Which is reactionary..."We can't have that because this could happen."

This is typical of nonsensical gun lobby arguments. I identify a single use item (the bayonet) and you equate it to a dual use item (in this case a cargo truck). If you want to present a good argument, show these items have legitimate civilian functions.

This is typical of nonsensical anti-gun lobby arguments. If I cannot provide a rational reason for having it then I should not be allowed to own it. What reasons does a person have for owning a Shelby Cobra? Or an SUV instead of a fuel effecient vehicle? People have a choice in life. If you want to smoke cigarettes, fine, just do not smoke around me while I am eating. If you want to own a 10K square foot home even though you are single, fine, if you can afford it. You want to own a gun? Fine, as long as you use it legally. I am libertarian. I believe in controlled chaos...no infringgement on lifestyles and less government in our lives. I am tired of my government and people like YOU chiping away at freedoms my parents enjoyed.

So back to the bayonet...

First, I collect guns. Second. I wan't it. Third, I can defend my home with them. Fourth, ifI am out shooting and a wild dog happens by and I am in a situation where I cannot shoot it, but it charges me, I can use the bayonet. Two completely legitimate uses. Are the likely to happen? Probably not. They ae however, FOUR, completely legit reasons, civilian uses, to own a bayonet capable rifle...

Ultimately what it comes down too is that I do not NEED to show that they have legitimate civilian uses. If I want to own a gun (and all I do is collect and target shoot) regardless of the LEGAL reseason. If we lived in a society where we had to prove the need for a certain items or items, it would be a sad day...

You prove the observations made by Hank...

What, and you do not!?! If anything, you prove that you CAUSE this reaction. I have neither started this conversation nor said anyone that is an American should be armed. Nor have I been absolute in my arguments. I do not think just anyone should be able to own an automatic weapon. However, if you can get a CLASS III license then you have my blessings. In fact. my original point on here was fight the good fight or move out of the State of Maryland to someplace that recognizes your rights as a human being.

Ultimately, this is a government playing "babysitter" Americans have done fine over the last 300 plus years during which they have owned guns...all sorts of guns. For protection, for hunting, for survival, for sport, for collection, and for the simple reason of "just because I want to."

YOUR entire argument is based on the misconception that without need or possible threat of use by "terrorists" it should be banned from legal ownership. That is not a solution, but it is part of the reactionary fear that is the problem.

Here is the funny thing...or sad, depending on how you look at it. I am a rational adult that has safely owned firearms since he was 14 and safely shot since I was 10. I have introduced shooting to hundreds of people. Legally and safely, with an emphasis on understand safetly and their local firearm related laws. People like you will turn me into a irrational individual because you assault my lifestyle just as you propose to turn me into a criminal...with my only fault being the fact that I chose a hobby you though people should not have.

And THAT is what has pushed me over to join groups like the NRA, because they are the ONLY ones that will truly try to protect my rights.

Man I cannot wait till TED NUGENT runs for president of the NRA...

[Durandal]

I live where I live, you live where you live. The distance is huge. So Rock on! :)

That might almost be too rational. :)

[Sabre]

Guns should be in the hands of the military and relevant civillian professionals only. My opinion.

Yeah, target shooting is fun. However, any way you cut it guns are designed to kill. Is it really worth people getting killed just so you can enjoy putting holes in paper a long way away?

You (pro-gun people) have provided 'statistics' which show how it is allegedly better to live in an area with guns than one without:

Real-world evidence shows that the small proportion of incidents involving 'Billy Bobs' [I'm a NRA card-carrying 'Billy Ray' myself, by the way who respects/fears his more experienced shooting wife] who kill their wives or children who get ahold of a firearm that is unsafely stored [in contravention of NRA recommendations], or other negative consequences are far outweighed by:

- The reduction in personal crimes perpetrated in the first place, because criminals don't know who is armed

- The number of personal crimes that are foiled because the intended victims were armed [which far outnumber the negative uses of firearms -- lack of media coverage notwithstanding]

All I will say is that farmers, land owners and gamekeepers (who need a .22 rifle to kill animals) are permitted to own such weapons, for use as a tool of their trade here in the UK. Only a few other types of rifles are able to be owned/fired in the UK by private individuals (my uncle for one). We have banned all handguns after one incident (dunblane) where a gun owner shot several children.

I think the evidence speaks for itself: In the UK we have around 100-150 gun deaths per year (also included are air rifles) of which only a handfull are malicious (10-12). In the US, you have over 10,000 gun deaths (not including air weapons). Surely by 'your' logic there wouldn't be that many, as you could shoot back?

I have never heard so much drivvel as the 'shoot back' argument. Here is why it is crap:

Scenario 1: "You are being burgled by someone openly carrying a weapon."

Well, by some miracle you have woken up at night and heard this guy entering your house. You have also seen him without him seeing you (on your way to SAS levels of sneaky-beaky now!). You then can positively identify a weapon on him, justifying armed response (as with military ROE, you can only respond with appropriate force). You then succeed in going to the room where you keep your rifle, find the keys to the locker, unlock it without alerting the intruder, grab your rifle and then proceed to the other locker containing your amunition (as you would always lock your rifle and ammunition away in separate lockers, as is the law in the UK and the reccomendation of the NRA, wouldn't want a 'billy bob' incident now would we?). You unlock this and get the ammunition, load it into your rifle and make ready, all without betraying your presence to the intruder.

By the time all this is done you find the intruder has long since f*cked off and all he wanted was your DVD player, which is covered by your insurance anyway. Either that or you shoot him in the back while he's running over your lawn (a la Tony Martin).

I bet the founding fathers love that.

Scenario 2: "You are walking down the street when a 'perp' commits a 'personal crime' against you brandishing a firearm."

Phew! Good news is, you always carry a glock just in case this might happen! Your years of parranioa have paid off and you now have the chance to end someone's life over a few dollars in your wallet! Your heart fills with pride that you are so fortunate to live in a country which allows you to do this.

So, what happens? This guy has a pistol aimed at you and wants your wallet. Do you:

a) Give it to him, then file a police report afterwards. Leaving it to the professional force who get paid to deal with such situations?

b) Reach into your jacket/bag apparently for your wallet, but instead pull out your glock, load it and make ready (wouldn't want a Billy Bob incident due to an improperly stored weapon now would we?) and shoot him? If you can do all that before he gives you the bad news you need to get over to Hereford PDQ and tell our lads how to do it!

c) Let him mug you then shoot him as he runs away? Thereby circumventing the legal system; well for him anyway, you might be getting to know your new 'special friend' called Bubba in the prison showers before long.

Scenario 3: "You turn up to the office as usual one day, but the guy who was made redundant last week has come back with his new business partner, an M16."

Yet another wholesome american activity, the office shoot out! Some employers take their workforce out paintballing but others just have to go that little bit further!

If I recall correctly, an NRA spokesman or pro-gun official made a comment to the effect of the following, after such a shooting in Seattle:

'If all the employees had been armed, they would have been able to shoot back and resolve the incident.'

Genius, pure genius. By that logic, because everyone on both sides in a war have guns, fewer people will be killed! Brilliant!

Unfortunately, as we all know, even if you are armed to the teeth you can still be caught off guard; and I'm talking about military personnel on live operations! That is (sadly) why our troops sustain casualties when on patrols, despite actively looking for the enemy. Just imagine how vigilant you must need to be in order to defend yourself with a concealed, properly stored weapon against an unkown threat that might never come, whilst still trying to carry on with normal civillian life!


I think anyone wanting to use a weapon should be given one, plus a 90lbs Bergan, helmet and webbing and be made to tab around a training area for a few days, then lie in **** for hours waiting for nothing to happen, freezing their nads off; before they get to use it each time.

[Sabre]

Durandal:


So back to the bayonet...

First, I collect guns. Second. I wan't it. Third, I can defend my home with them. Fourth, ifI am out shooting and a wild dog happens by and I am in a situation where I cannot shoot it, but it charges me, I can use the bayonet. Two completely legitimate uses. Are the likely to happen? Probably not. They ae however, FOUR, completely legit reasons, civilian uses, to own a bayonet capable rifle...


Your first point, fair enough. I own a bayonet and I can honestly say that you would be much better off with a small flick knife for 'gang warfare' or muggings as they are much easier to conceal. If you have a deactivated rifle in a collection, why not have the bayonet too?

Your second point...a bit childish. I want a thermonuclear device, but the Home Secretary won't let me have one. :(

Your third point...see my previous post. ;)

Your fourth point:


WILD DOG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl

Jesus H Christ!!!!!!!!! That is the most insane thing I have ever heard!

I tell you what mate, I'll take your rifle and you take the bayonet then we'll release two wild, ravenous dogs at us and see who does best!

Do you really think you could kill a dog with a bayonet before it turned your face into a donner kebab?

Never mind that, where the hell do you get wild dogs from?

[Durandal]

Your second point...a bit childish. I want a thermonuclear device, but the Home Secretary won't let me have one.

You know, for soeone that thinks comparing a bayonet to a truck is silly, I find this argument just silly. No one is asking for a nuke. No one is asking for a 120mm tank gun. I think next time, before you attack other's comments and comparisons (ones I might add that are farm more rational) you should consider leading by example rather than following in their footsteps.

Jesus H Christ!!!!!!!!! That is the most insane thing I have ever heard!

You asked for a reason, I simply provided one. I own a 320 acre farm, I also have an acre sized private range for friends and family. People drop dogs off down there. Some survive. I have had to shoot a rabid dog on three occassions in the past six years. You asked for a reason and while you think it improbable (a point I even brought up) and silly, experience has taught me otherwise.

I tell you what mate, I'll take your rifle and you take the bayonet then we'll release two wild, ravenous dogs at us and see who does best!

Do you really think you could kill a dog with a bayonet before it turned your face into a donner kebab?

See, I unlike you, know people that have defended themselves from criminals and wild animals and have done so myself. I understand that, while not a common everyday experience, things happen...bad things. Working on a farm 8 to 10 hours a day let's you see some weird stuff, especially when close to an urban population. I was working in a field, repairing a fence line after a flood. The flood was in the autumn and a good chunk of our farmable land and wooded area is in the flood zone. It forced a great number of animals up to higher ground, behind our property. It was also a head water flood which are fast and destructive, tearing out vegitation and cover. The dog, in search of food and obviously starving started attacking our horses and our boarder's horses. I was on foot since the fence line was close to the stables and not in the Kawasaki mule, in which I carry a 12 guage Benelli Nova. So I had the choice of using my knife (whihc I always carry while I work) or running back to the carriage house and getting my gun. I figured I could probably chase it off by throwing rocks at it and so rather than risk the loss or laming of a horse, I trotted off after the dog. it decided to attack me after the second rock. I had ny knife out already and had it when the dog lunged. I kicked at the dog, which latched onto my pant leg. I hit it on the head with the rock I wa about to throw and then sank the knife into the back of its neck. It was only a 3" folding Buck and I missed the base of his skull and got him below his scruff. It dashed away and I never saw it again. I assume it died. I drove around looking for it to put it down, but I never did find it...

A rifle with a bayonet on the end would be just that more effective.

And I guess this is where we come full circle. I know people that have defended themselves using both the threat of physical violence as well as a gun. I am also familiar that the numbers of gun related defences (both reported and unreported are higher than the number of crime related gun deaths. The fact that we are arguing about a bayonet or a bayonet lug on a gun makes this all that much sillier. You have the gall to sit there and defend an ignorant law that does nothing but prevent pegal gun owners from owning something they like. It does nothing to curb violent crime and as well have seen in previous events from the past decade, criminals and terrorists will use common household and workplace items and everyday vehicles packed with common place easy to get chemicals to do violence upon innocents.

You won't ban those items, but you will ban the very ones that have killed less or never been used at all because you (dripping sarcasm) think it could be threat.

Never mind that, where the hell do you get wild dogs from?

See above you moron. When you get a clue you let us know. For now just shut the f%ck-up. Just like I tell those anti-abortion radicals...if you don't like 'em don't get one.

[Durandal]

Guns should be in the hands of the military and relevant civillian professionals only. My opinion.

An opinion, I may add, that matters little to an American, especially those Americans that believe in gun ownership.

Yeah, target shooting is fun. However, any way you cut it guns are designed to kill. Is it really worth people getting killed just so you can enjoy putting holes in paper a long way away?

Last time I checked there was no corrolation between target shooting and violent crime.

I think the evidence speaks for itself

Actually this is the best part...you are wrong.

Gun violence has been on the rise in England and Wales. Non-gun related murders (such as knives) are up...and the oddest thing...gun detsh related to airguns up 38%). England and Wales are, in a U.N report considered to have the highest level of violent crime in the 20 top Western Nations. England is not the example you want to use. Not only has illegal gun crime gone up, but gun related murders, possession cases, and aggravated violence risen.

So keep on lecturing, you are doing a fantastic job.

While oddly enough, gun related crimes and vioent crimes in general have gone down in the United States. Sure, we still have more, but on a percapita basis ti worked out to something like 5 to 1 anways, when Britain's gun law was activated in 1997.

Keep in mind also that between Sept 11, 2001 and Dec 31, 2004 gun sales have risen, nationwide, over 200%...mainly in handguns, the very weapon class most frequently used in a crime. Yet gun related crime, murders, rape, and assault...have gone down.

Now, I am not claiming that the 200% percent increase in firearms purchases has had a direct effect on violent and gun related crime (personally I think it is CCW), but wouldn't we see a direct increase in crime IF gun legal ownership effects gun related crimes and vioent crimes?

Hehehe nope...obviously something is amiss...

And it is certainly NOT the legal ownership of firearms...

[SOG]

last time i checked the US had over 11,000+ gun related deaths a year out of 290 some odd million people. that number is nearly non existent in a society that big.

then you factor in the number one cause of those deaths was self inflicted aka suicide. then you find out the 2nd leading cause of those deaths were criminal disputes aka crime killing crime. the actual use of guns used to kill innocent people was a semi small percentage.

so instead of trying to sound big the actual number of people who die from guns each year is less than alchohol, drugs and according to comercialls ciagrettes, which kill a whopping four hundred thousand a year and more in the US alone!

i guess you could say that the guns overall intent for which it was made is the scarring factor against it in the arguement since all the other things were made for recreational use but kill way more? oh, but they were made for recreational use therefore should not be looked at as harmfull?

everyone has certain liberties that kill way more than guns and just like guns are a liberty in life. the fact that cruising or "joy" driving takes more lifes in accidental auto wrecks across the US where people were driving simply to pursue material activities than guns ever will in the civilian hands.

the fact is if you dont partake in a certain liberty you seek to dismiss or squash it. i stand for peoples rights to smoke eat drink themselves to death even though i dont pursue any of those rights myself. the effects of pursuing those liberties to a extreme causes mass death, financial loss, and abuse of humans.

its sad when cities incite curfews for adults because of the post hour cruising gang crime yet they dont want to take action to stop the crime, just make another excuse to temporily lock it up.

liberty comes at a cost, it is not free and that includes on your homeground, just not soldiers fighting abroad to defend it. to curtail anothers liberties because you dont see a need for them, you can merely hope society does not flux and someday find your liberties the same.

[pinkeye]

more books, less guns...

[Durandal]

More Gun Books...

[mocking_loudly_died]

More porn.

[Sabre]

OK, there was a bit too much vitriol in my last posts.

I appreciate that you are a farm owner (one of the professions that I view as requiring a firearm) and you have been attacked by dogs. You must agree that it is not every day in th UK that someone knives a wild dog! But that is a perfectly valid reason for owning a firearm, I would much rather shoot a rabid dog from a distance than go up and knife it! (see my JOKE reference the rifle vs bayonet) So I appologise for assuming you had unfounded fears about 'dingos going for your babies'.

See, I unlike you, know people that have defended themselves from criminals and wild animals and have done so myself. I understand that, while not a common everyday experience, things happen...bad things.

Ah, that's the thing. I do know people who have had to defend themselves from 'criminals'. As you so rightly have said, violent crime in the UK is proportionally much higher than in the US, and is on the rise. Gun crime is also on the rise. This worries me, but more on that later. Many of my friends are from the less salubrious parts of the UK, and have been attacked by groups of yobs many times. But these guys don't carry weapons. Hardly anyone does here, so they got off with only a few scrapes (apart from one occasion where my mate had his leg held over the kerb and jumped on repeatedly by six blokes till it broke), still I don't think any of them would have wanted to shoot their assailants. They just found them later and beat them sh*tless.


The fact that we are arguing about a bayonet or a bayonet lug on a gun makes this all that much sillier.

I wrote:

Your first point, fair enough. I own a bayonet and I can honestly say that you would be much better off with a small flick knife for 'gang warfare' or muggings as they are much easier to conceal. If you have a deactivated rifle in a collection, why not have the bayonet too?

Never did I argue against having a bayonet, I have two! ;)


Sabre wrote:
Your second point...a bit childish. I want a thermonuclear device, but the Home Secretary won't let me have one.


You know, for soeone that thinks comparing a bayonet to a truck is silly, I find this argument just silly. No one is asking for a nuke. No one is asking for a 120mm tank gun. I think next time, before you attack other's comments and comparisons (ones I might add that are farm more rational) you should consider leading by example rather than following in their footsteps.

Please don't take humour out of context. I thought it was obvious to see that was a joke. All I thought was that the 'I want one' argument was a little childish.



But my point still stands.

We have strict gun laws, and as a DIRECT result the number of gun RELATED deaths in the UK is low.

You have more relaxed gun laws and as a DIRECT result the number of gun RELATED deaths is very, very high.

The ratio of deaths is:

US: 10,000 to 260 million = 1 to 26 000

UK: 150 to 60 million = 1 to 400 000 (including air weapons)


I can see by this exchange (and others I have had in the past) that there is little point in trying to make gun-loving americans see my point of view.

Pulling out facts and figures which claim that the only true 'gun deaths' are those where a criminal shoots an innocent are irrelevant. Is the criminal a criminal before or after he shoots the innocent? Or was he really the 12 year old brother who found his daddy's gun?

Do you think the mother of an inner city 15 year old kid who was shot during a gang shoot out feels any better because he got caught up in gang life and somehow deserved it?


You won't ban those items, but you will ban the very ones that have killed less or never been used at all because you (dripping sarcasm) think it could be threat.

If there were better transport options I would be all for banning motor vehicles. They pollute the air and kill far more people in the UK each year than firearems, but then we have already banned most weapons here.
The point is that I don't look at every truck and think some loony has packed it with explosives, but I would be slightly concerned if even one in every hundred people had a loaded firearm on them. I have seen what numpties people are with weapons before they have had full MILITARY training, god only knows what would happen if ordinary civvies were walking around with one.

Gun violence has been on the rise in England and Wales. Non-gun related murders (such as knives) are up...and the oddest thing...gun detsh related to airguns up 38%). England and Wales are, in a U.N report considered to have the highest level of violent crime in the 20 top Western Nations. England is not the example you want to use. Not only has illegal gun crime gone up, but gun related murders, possession cases, and aggravated violence risen.

Your right, violent crime (non-gun related) is up and is higher per capita than the US. Around 75% of it is drug related, yet another thing I want to clamp down on. But US gun crime is far higher than the UKs.

Yes, UK gun crime is up. This has been a recent occurance and is very closely associated with an increasingly prevalent 'gun culture' amongst mainly Black inner city gangs. Funnily enough, this coincides with a sudden popularity of Hip-hop and rap artists and 'bling bling' blah blah etc etc....

I am worried about this rise and am wondering what can be done about it. I certainly don't think the idea is to start 'deputising' the whole nation by allowing handgun ownership to return. Then all the bloody self-styled 'gangstas' will ditch their modified brococks for glocks. The answer, I think, is for a few well placed PSG-1 shots in the direction of the next youth with a confidence problem who thinks he can solve his problems by 'packing heat'.

Most people in Britain don't understand guns and have never held one. That is the way it should remain. There is no need for the majority urban population to even consider owning one. There are more important things to do in life.

Quote:
Never mind that, where the hell do you get wild dogs from?


See above you moron. When you get a clue you let us know. For now just shut the f%ck-up. Just like I tell those anti-abortion radicals...if you don't like 'em don't get one

Nice, very nice. I have got one, for your information. But it is locked away in my units armoury. I'm actually quite good at using it and have won many trophies in shooting competitions. I feel no need to have a rifle in my house, however.

As for abortions, that's in my line of work. I wouldn't want to do them as I don't really wish to be an obstetrician but I consider them necessary for certain people (though proper sexual health education would be better, as the UK also has the highest european teenage pregnancy rate, somehting I'm also not too proud of).

I suppose that coming from the background that I do (I have lived in the US for four years by the way) and in the profession that I am, I just see opposing blatent oppourtunities to reduce death as undefensible. We invest massive amounts of money in releiving suffering and death through our health service (you might understand if you had one ;) ) and sometimes it costs sh*tloads to releive suffering in only a few people, sometimes it is relatively cheap to to so for many people. But still, who is to say that the expenditure of such a vast amount of money on so few (eg 10% of inpatient care and 5% of our budget spent on diabetes care) which could be spent on other things (like paying people to issue and process gun liscences/checking gun stores and gun owners regularly etc). Surely it is worth inconveniencing some people materially to save others lives?

[walford]

I would like to take this opportunity to thank you all for your contributions to a highly informative discussion. In the back-and-forth points, a considerable amount of information on this important subject has been provided for the benefit of all, even from [especially from?] those of you with whom I strongly disagree.

Some comments:

1. Remember that it is difficult from an outsider to appreciate just how deeply ingrained firearms are into the U.S. culture. Taking our guns away is not going to 'fix' us. You can't fix everything Mr. Fixit! What may be workable elsewhere, simply is not here. Although it has been characterized as 'isolationism' by some, it is a good thing that this is a world of independent sovereign nations.

This allows for the different approaches toward government to coexist for all to evaluate the relative merits. This also allows for us to choose to live in a country that most closely matches our own value system, rather than living in some homogenized one-world Utopia -- which would most assuredly suck [because of the inescapable principle of the Lowest Common Denominator].

2. Unilaterally disarming law-abiding American citizens [in our current socio-demographic status] while so many criminals/crazies are armed would have disastrous results. Although there are many more gun-related crimes in the U.S., those uses are far outweighed by the prevention and/or foiling of crimes by law-abiding citizens. Such incidents are largely ignored by our press.

3. What in blazes does socialized medicine and abortion have to do with this issue?

[Yard Ape]

… Flare launchers are in no way similar [to grenade launchers].

I use my 37mm grenade launcher (completely legal to own, I may add) to launch smoke and flares for the 4th of July. I do not see a criminal use here. Not only do I enjoy doing it, but the 60 or 70 people that attend really enjoy it as well... Is your flare launcher part of a rifle?
Why? A flare launcher is a flare launcher. Regardless of what it is attached to. Actually, I have both, one is a H&K 26.5mm officer's signal pistol. The other is this:
http://www.freewebs.com/grog/37mmr.gif

So, just to confirm, you own a 37 mm flare launcher and not a 40 mm grenade launcher (physicaly the same except for this critical dimension).

[Durandal]

Correct. Legally allowed by United States Federal law...

I can even cut and paste the relevant legal information if you like. There are several companies that make them, some of the Ma and Pop type businesses others established firearms companies like DPMS...

It is not classified as a destructive device. Federal laws get weird at that point. You can own a 37mm flare launcher but not a 20mm rifle (Bolt Action or SAR).

If you want a legit reason for it (the most common use...for me at least) then here is one...

I use commercially available screeching noise makers to scare Canada geese out of our fields. We do not hunt and my father likes the water fowl. However, when you have 75 to 300 of them at one time, they ruin freshly planted fields in a day or two (not just a single acre or two, but dozens).

So, I have something that looks cool on my AR during the Fourth of July and I have a perfectly reasonable AND humane tool used to scare birds.

Any individual wanting to collect such items REALLY needs to make sure they understand both the Federal Laws concerning these items as well as State and local laws. Federal laws allow for one thing. A State may have more detailed laws as may a county. Then some citites have completely different laws usually a LOT more restrictive...for albeit obvious, but not neccessarily rational reasons...

Which means, gun laws can be a simple as JUST the Federal ones OR extremely restrictive. Which drives me nuts because there is nothing readily available if someone simply want to buy "A gun" that tells them. They have to research on their own, whihc might be a good thing, but I would like to see some better education on the subject.

Cheers!

[Yard Ape]

So, just to confirm, you own a 37 mm flare launcher and not a 40 mm grenade launcher (physicaly the same except for this critical dimension).
Correct. Legally allowed by United States Federal law...As it should be. However, the 40 mm, for which grenades do exist, is a different storey.

It is not classified as a destructive device. Federal laws get weird at that point. You can own a 37mm flare launcher but not a 20mm rifle (Bolt Action or SAR).Perhapse it is due to all the military natures of 20 mm ammo available. Is it a blanket ban on 20 mm weapons, or only those chambered to accept military rounds?

[Durandal]

As it should be. However, the 40 mm, for which grenades do exist, is a different storey.

But 40mm Grenade launchers can only be LEGALLY owned if you have a destructive device license. The background checks for those, especially considering Oklahoma City and the Patriot Act are severe.

Is it a blanket ban on 20 mm weapons, or only those chambered to accept military rounds?

All 20mm and larger. It way include 14.5mm as well, but I am not as well versed in that area, in part because I never decided to purchase a .50 caliber rifle.

Blackpowder and historicals ARE permitted in larger calibers...A Springfield Trap Door for instance or a Revolutionary War musket or replicas of either.

[Durandal]

A box of German made 26.5mm flares. These are 6 star signal flares. I get these at Knob Creek...not a bad selection down there.
http://homepage.mac.com/thesw0rdofroland/.Pictures/misc/26mmFlares.jpg

[Geezah]

Dennis G,
Civilians simply don't need this.

That's right!!!! they should take away what we want and only give us what we need???rofl

[Geezah]

Guns should be in the hands of the military and relevant civillian professionals only. My opinion.

Yeah, target shooting is fun. However, any way you cut it guns are designed to kill. Is it really worth people getting killed just so you can enjoy putting holes in paper a long way away?


Having been born and raised in the Communist State of Britian and now enjoying my freedom in the US, I can understand the British mentallity of guns are bad in anyones hands becuase I was the same when I moved here 8yrs ago!

I think the evidence speaks for itself: In the UK we have around 100-150 gun deaths per year (also included are air rifles) of which only a handfull are malicious (10-12). In the US, you have over 10,000 gun deaths (not including air weapons). Surely by 'your' logic there wouldn't be that many, as you could shoot back?

Please supply sources for your information??

Scenario 1: "You are being burgled by someone openly carrying a weapon."

Well, by some miracle you have woken up at night and heard this guy entering your house. You have also seen him without him seeing you (on your way to SAS levels of sneaky-beaky now!). You then can positively identify a weapon on him, justifying armed response (as with military ROE, you can only respond with appropriate force). You then succeed in going to the room where you keep your rifle, find the keys to the locker, unlock it without alerting the intruder, grab your rifle and then proceed to the other locker containing your amunition (as you would always lock your rifle and ammunition away in separate lockers, as is the law in the UK and the reccomendation of the NRA, wouldn't want a 'billy bob' incident now would we?). You unlock this and get the ammunition, load it into your rifle and make ready, all without betraying your presence to the intruder.

By the time all this is done you find the intruder has long since f*cked off and all he wanted was your DVD player, which is covered by your insurance anyway. Either that or you shoot him in the back while he's running over your lawn (a la Tony Martin).

I bet the founding fathers love that.
Pic just for you,
http://www.a-human-right.com/RKBA/s_doors.jpg

Scenario 2: "You are walking down the street when a 'perp' commits a 'personal crime' against you brandishing a firearm."

Phew! Good news is, you always carry a glock just in case this might happen! Your years of parranioa have paid off and you now have the chance to end someone's life over a few dollars in your wallet! Your heart fills with pride that you are so fortunate to live in a country which allows you to do this.

So, what happens? This guy has a pistol aimed at you and wants your wallet. Do you:

a) Give it to him, then file a police report afterwards. Leaving it to the professional force who get paid to deal with such situations?

Or take the Police at their word when they tell the public that they cannot be there 24/7 and are there to protect society not the individual, but I'm glad each home owner has a personal bodyguard in the UK now!

Scenario 3: "You turn up to the office as usual one day, but the guy who was made redundant last week has come back with his new business partner, an M16."

Yet another wholesome american activity, the office shoot out! Some employers take their workforce out paintballing but others just have to go that little bit further!

And that happens all the time here??

I think anyone wanting to use a weapon should be given one, plus a 90lbs Bergan, helmet and webbing and be made to tab around a training area for a few days, then lie in **** for hours waiting for nothing to happen, freezing their nads off; before they get to use it each time.


Now why do you sound like Wesley Clark???

I own guns because I can! because I want to protect my Family and my Home and if someone breaks into my house if the Rotts don't get them first then the 00 will but again I have freedoms over here that you do not and until you have experienced those freedoms you will never understand them.

It seems that you believe all the crap that came out of Michael Moores fat mouth?

Sheldon

[Geezah]

Posted on Tue, Mar. 02, 2004





Senate bill can end misleading debate on guns


John R. Lott Jr.

is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute

Gun-control advocates should fear the votes today in the Senate, but not for the reason that most people think.

Some claim that letting the ban on some semiautomatic weapons expire will cause a surge of police killings and a rise in gun crimes. But in fact, letting the law expire will show the uselessness of gun-control regulations. A year from now, it will be obvious to everyone that all the horror stories about banning what have been labeled "assault weapons" were wrong.

Today's votes center on reining in reckless lawsuits against gun makers, and no one seems to doubt that the Senate will grant them some immunity. The vast majority of Americans understand that Ford Motor Co. or General Motors should not be liable if a speeding driver gets into an accident and kills a pedestrian. And Americans understand that similar suits now are being brought against gun makers. No protection is being granted for sales of defective products or criminal behavior by gun manufacturers. When even Democratic Congress members such as Charles Rangel from New York vote for the bill in the House, it is hard to claim that the bill is a product of the "gun lobby."

Another question is whether the lawsuit bill will be loaded with amendments requiring more gun-control regulations. These "poison pills" may make it difficult to get the bill through a conference committee with the House. Last week, the Senate passed a provision on gun locks, and today more votes are scheduled, including whether to regulate gun shows and ban some types of ammunition.

One of the more contentious issues will be extending the ban on some semiautomatic guns. Seven states now ban certain types of semiautomatic guns, and the federal ban in effect since 1994 is scheduled to sunset this September. Yet, despite the heated rhetoric, there is not a single academic study showing that either state or federal bans have reduced violent crime. Even research funded by the Justice Department under the Clinton administration concluded merely that the ban's "impact on gun violence has been uncertain."

The federal assault weapons ban applied to semiautomatics that fire one bullet per pull of the trigger. Rebuilding semiautomatic weapons into machine guns is very difficult; completely different firing mechanisms are used. The term assault weapon simply describes cosmetic features of the gun, not the way the gun fires bullets.

Ironically, notorious "assault weapons," such as the 223-caliber Bushmaster rifle used in the D.C. sniper killings, are not even allowed in most states for hunting deer or larger animals. The reason: It is such a low-powered rifle that it will too frequently wound rather than kill the deer.

The ban arbitrarily outlaws some guns based upon brand name or cosmetic features - such as whether a rifle could have a bayonet mount, a pistol grip, a folding stock, or a threaded muzzle. Not only could someone buy some other unbanned semiautomatic gun that fired the same bullets, at the same rapidity, and with the same destructive force - but also even the banned guns can be sold under a different name or after, say, the bayonet mount was removed.

Too often the debate misleads people about the guns being banned. Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, the obvious Democratic presidential nominee, supports extending the ban because he claims that "when I go out there and hunt, I'm going out there with a 12-gauge shotgun, not an assault weapon." Yet, the ban has nothing to do with shooting birds with machine guns. The guns' names or cosmetic features make them no less well-suited for hunting.

Proponents for keeping the semiautomatic "assault" gun ban argue that 10 of the 50 police officers shot to death annually from 1998 to 2001 were killed by these guns. But the Violence Policy Center, which put these numbers together, never examined whether the guns used to kill police possessed two or more of the features defining them as "assault weapons." Rather, the guns were counted as assault weapons if it was possible that they had at least two of the banned features.

It is hard to convince some people that gun control doesn't reduce crime, but the continuing extreme claims by gun-control advocates won't be forgotten a year from now. Somehow the obvious failure of the semiautomatic gun ban will be a fitting epitaph for one of the gun-control movement's hallmark pieces of legislation.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Lott (jlott@aei.org) is the author of "The Bias Against Guns."



http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/editorial/8081743.htm

[Geezah]

Do Gun Control Activists Pad Gun Death Statistics?

Wednesday, March 03, 2004
By Wendy McElroy

Last week’s release of police documents and evidence on the April, 1999, Columbine school shootings has sparked many questions — not only on the specifics of Columbine but also on the general issue of guns.

The answers are unsatisfying on all counts.

Take, for example, the issue of how many children die each year in gun-related incidents. That question has been prompted not just by the new Columbine evidence, but by the impending Million Mom March on Washington, D.C., planned for Mother’s Day.

The first anti-gun MMM in 2000 attempted to redirect the focus of Mother’s Day from flowers and card giving to the gun deaths of children. The 2004 event continues this focus as its press release reminds us, "[W]ith memories of the horrible events at Columbine High School … people gathered [in 2000] on the Mall in Washington, D.C., to demand saner gun policies." The release quotes Mary Leigh Blek, the "president emeritus" of MMM, as saying that almost 14,000 children "have died from gun violence" since "our last march."

Where does that figure come from?

To begin with, Blek is probably referring to the 2000 MMM event. (In 2001, only about 100 people participated and the event is now virtually ignored.) This means she is stating that almost 14,000 children died from gun violence between 2000 and 2004. The figure is almost certainly an extrapolation from prior data.

The definitive source for data on injury-death in America, including gun deaths, is the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Taking relevant data for 2001, the latest year available, and multiplying the results by four should provide a figure close to 14,000.

During 2001, the CDC reported a total of 157,078 injury-deaths. On their interactive Web site, if you click "Firearm" under "Cause of Injury," the figure becomes 29,573. For deaths in children, click on <1 as the lowest in the age range and 17 as the highest. Also select the "No Age-Adjusting Requested" option. The figure becomes 1,433. Multiplied by four, this is 5,732, or roughly 40 percent of what MMM asserts.

The 5,732 includes at least two categories of death that do not clearly belong because they do not clearly support MMM’s anti-gun arguments. That is to say, MMM’s use of death statistics coupled with calls for legislative control as a "solution" unmistakably implies that the cited deaths could have been prevented by gun control. It is misleading, therefore, to include deaths that would probably have occurred whether gun laws and, in some cases, whether guns themselves — were present.

Maria Heil of the pro-gun Second Amendment Sisters comments on one of the misleading categories: "They [MMM] are not upfront that over half of those deaths are suicides. Suicide is not committed because there is a gun. Studies show that our suicide rate is on par with other industrialized nations, including ones with very strictly regulated guns."

Guns are merely one of many methods available.

The 5,732 also includes deaths that result from gang activity in which the guns are usually illegal. These deaths would not have been prevented by gun control any more than gang members’ drug use is prevented by drug laws.

The honest question for anti-gun advocates is, how many children’s deaths were "caused" by a lack of gun control?

The easiest way to reduce both suicides and gang deaths from swelling that answer is to eliminate teenagers from the data; both suicide and gang membership are overwhelmingly teen rather than "child" phenomena.

(Moreover, "child" traditionally refers to someone who is pre-pubescent, pre-teen. That’s the image invoked by MMM’s references to "children" and to "playgrounds.")

Changing the age parameters on the CDC site to register the gun deaths of children between <1 and 12 years old renders the number, 223 for 2001. Multiplied by four, this becomes 892 or about 6 percent of MMM’s asserted figure. Anti-gun advocates should be stating that, between 2000 and 2004, the gun deaths of 892 children could have been avoided through gun control or prohibition. With valid statistics that are properly used, real debate could then begin.

The figure of 14,000 child gun deaths closes off the possibility of honest debate. Indeed, the only way to arrive at that number at the CDC site is to include suicides and gang-related deaths, and to define a child as "anyone under the age of 21." In short, MMM has padded the statistics.

The death of any child is tragic and should not be diminished, but neither should it be used to political advantage. I believe this is what MMM is doing.

MMM hopes to create a groundswell of public outrage against guns. But, MMM should reconsider the inflation and skewing of statistics on dead children. As a strategy, it looks cruel and heartless and could easily backfire.

Wendy McElroy is the editor of ifeminists.com and a research fellow for The Independent Institute in Oakland, Calif. She is the author and editor of many books and articles, including the new book, "Liberty for Women: Freedom and Feminism in the 21st Century" (Ivan R. Dee/Independent Institute, 2002). She lives with her husband in Canada.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,113094,00.html

[Durandal]

Pulled from the CDC website also:

484 Children under the age of 15 died as a result of pedestrian accidents...

41, 000 People die each year from Automobile accidents. 2 in 5 are under the age of 21. 1 out of 7 is 65 or older.

In 2000, an estimated 879,000 children in the U.S. experienced or were at risk for child abuse and/or neglect. An estimated 1,200 children died from such maltreatment.

In 2000, 160 children ages 14 years or younger died from an obstruction of the respiratory tract due to inhaled or ingested foreign bodies. In 2001, an estimated 17,537 children 14 years or younger were treated in U.S. emergency departments for choking episodes.

Of course, the rather disgusting irony of the Million Mom March is that one of it's founders, Barbara Graham (aka Barbara Lipscomb) proved through her own actions that gun control does not work. She got a gun illegally, carried it illegally in the District of Coumbia, and used it illegally to shoot someone she thought was responsible for the death of her son. (note: the article never says who she was in relationship to the March. There are other articles that do, I just wanted to show the bias...)

Mother Convicted in Shooting
Attack Called Act of Misguided Revenge for Son's Death


By Donna St. George
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, February 2, 2001; Page B01

The grieving mother of a teenager gunned down on Martin Luther King Jr. Day last year was found guilty in D.C. Superior Court yesterday of trying to avenge her son's death by shooting a young man she blamed for the killing.

Jurors returned guilty verdicts on nine separate counts against Barbara Graham, 49, as she sat quietly in the courtroom, wearing a gold suit and a delicate scarf, her face devoid of the anguish that prosecutors say led her to tuck her dead son's handgun into her purse and seek retaliation two days after his funeral.

On the snowy night of Jan. 26, Graham pulled the trigger, prosecutors said -- and shot the wrong man. The attack left Kikko Smith, 23, paralyzed from the waist down. He remains in a hospital, a bullet lodged in his spine.

Throughout two weeks of trial and jury deliberation, the case offered a glimpse of one mother's rage and heartache in a city where women lose their sons with grim regularity and most homicides go unsolved.

On the first day of courtroom arguments, Graham dissolved in tears and let out a choking sob as her attorney spoke of the death of her son, Le'Pierre Clemons, and her belief that police were dragging their feet on the investigation. Jurors were led from the courtroom.

"I want my son back," she burst out. In a case filled with ironies, this was another: It was the anniversary of her son's funeral and her birthday.

Yesterday, as jurors individually stated their agreement with the guilty verdicts, Graham's three children looked on with stunned dismay but, having been cautioned by Judge Michael L. Rankin not to break down, they let out no sound at all. The courtroom was hushed.

Graham faces 15 years to life in prison on each of the three most serious assault charges. She will be sentenced Mar. 29.

Jurors could not agree on whether to convict Graham's co-defendant, Erskine Moorer, 30, her daughter's boyfriend. Moorer is accused of following Graham's lead and firing at Smith as he ran for his life. Rankin told the panel of 12 -- eight women and four men -- to try again this morning.

With one significant part of the case decided, however, the mother of the shooting victim struggled for reaction. Finally Mary Ann Smith said: "From a mother to a mother, she knew better. You can't tell the kids to stop the violence with the mothers running around like this."

Graham's attorney, Billy L. Ponds, said he was "totally surprised" by the verdict and said Graham had not yet absorbed it. "I think she's in shock," Ponds said. "I think the reality will sink in once the shock goes away."

During nearly a week of testimony and argument, jurors became acquainted with Graham's lined face and her desperation over the slaying of her youngest child. They learned about a town house complex on Elvans Road, in the Southeast neighborhood where Graham's son was killed. Here, guns were not uncommon, according to witnesses, and neither was the notion of revenge.

The trouble started one evening about 6, when Kikko Smith, then 22, was watching a wrestling show on television. His friends called for him -- by first name -- to join them in a car parked outside.

Smith walked out and was confronted by Barbara Graham, according to Smith and the two friends.

"Are you Kikko?" Smith said he thought she asked. He answered: Yes. She asked again and reached into her purse, Smith said.

Prosecutors suggested that the grieving mother probably misunderstood Smith, thinking he said the name "Teacco," a young man she blamed -- also mistakenly, prosecutors say -- for her son's slaying.

Jermaine Drummond, sitting in the driver's seat of the car, looked at the scene with alarm, he testified. The rumor, Drummond said, was that Graham wanted revenge against her son's killer.

Ponds questioned the credibility of witnesses, including Smith, who acknowledged having sold cocaine, and his two friends, who have criminal records. He focused on Smith's misidentification of Graham after the shooting. Graham, he suggested, was "working within the system" to help find her son's killer.

Graham did not take the stand. At a pretrial hearing, she said detectives lured her to the station after Smith's shooting and kept her against her will.

"Do you know you're a number-one murder suspect?" she said they asked.

Graham said police taunted her by saying her dead son had committed various crimes and insisting that she shot Smith. "How do you think that boy's mother feels?" she said detectives asked her.

"That boy's mother?" Graham said she answered. "How about me? My son is dead."

During the trial, Kikko Smith pointed out Graham and Moorer and testified that he was chased in a hail of gunfire.

The courtroom was silent as prosecutors asked Smith if he will walk again. Angry, he looked at the judge. "Do I have to answer that question?"

A day later, he told jurors: "I can't pick my kids up and take them to the basketball court. . . . I want to be there with my kids, walk with them. . . . "

[Geezah]

More people die from lawnmower accidents than firearms in the US and don't forget the accidental deaths caused by Doctors!

Sheldon

[Geezah]

http://www.a-human-right.com/RKBA/s_kitty.jpg
In the event that you do manage to ask for help, your savior may be too long in coming. When the source of danger is right next to you and the police cruiser starts from ten miles away, it isn't likely that the cops would do more than take in evidence. Counting on your neighbors is far from certain, either. Kitty Genovese and many others have learned the hard way that bystanders dislike getting involved in confrontations between strangers.

[Yard Ape]

As it should be. However, the 40 mm, for which grenades do exist, is a different storey.

But 40mm Grenade launchers can only be LEGALLY owned if you have a destructive device license. The background checks for those, especially considering Oklahoma City and the Patriot Act are severe.I wonder if we are not arguing the same thing from opposite ends. I don't see a problem with specifically restricting grenade launchers on rifles. However, I understand that a 37 mm flare launcher is not a 40 mm grenade launcher. Does the law not distiguish the two?

[Yard Ape]

The 5,732 includes at least two categories of death that do not clearly belong because they do not clearly support MMM’s anti-gun arguments. That is to say, MMM’s use of death statistics coupled with calls for legislative control as a "solution" unmistakably implies that the cited deaths could have been prevented by gun control. It is misleading, therefore, to include deaths that would probably have occurred whether gun laws and, in some cases, whether guns themselves — were present.

Maria Heil of the pro-gun Second Amendment Sisters comments on one of the misleading categories: "They [MMM] are not upfront that over half of those deaths are suicides. Suicide is not committed because there is a gun. Studies show that our suicide rate is on par with other industrialized nations, including ones with very strictly regulated guns."

Guns are merely one of many methods available.

The 5,732 also includes deaths that result from gang activity in which the guns are usually illegal. These deaths would not have been prevented by gun control any more than gang members’ drug use is prevented by drug laws.

The honest question for anti-gun advocates is, how many children’s deaths were "caused" by a lack of gun control? I have met police officers who’s own observations suggest that suicides are more successful amongst people who use firearms. What do the statistics say about total attempted suicide vs successful suicide by suicide method?

How many gang related gun deaths were caused by an individual that was given courage through having a gun. How many of these would not have happened if the individual only hand a knife & was not given the false courage? It is probably safe to assume drive by shooting deaths, while gang related, can be attributed to the firearms used. How many of the gang related injuries would have been fatal if other means of aggression were used?

At what point does this become over analyzation? Maybe there is some truth in television: You can prove anything with facts.

[Durandal]

DENIED!

The bill failed...

Just though I would update the thread even though I did not start it.

[ChuckThunder]

DENIED!

The bill failed...

Just though I would update the thread even though I did not start it.

That good or bad?

I don't have time to go through the whole thread, sorry.

[Durandal]

A very good thing! People in Maryland can still own semi-automatic rifles like the AR and SKS...

Their Constitutional Rights were upheld.

[Geezah]

Crazy thing is, the common criminal is not going to spend $900+ on an AR and commit a crime!

[Durandal]

Well, they do. It is rare though.

The more rational argument is that semi-automatic rifles are rarely,if ever (depending on the make and model) used in violent crime. They are, however commonly found in felony cases, especially those that center on drug dealing...not the pusher, not the guy in the street making the final sale, but the trafficers and growers. They may not have been used by the perp in the actual crime, but they aggravate the charges ALL the time.

But that makes it no less absurd to try to ban such rifles. Pistols and shotguns are STILL the weapon of choice for violent crime and I doubt that will change.

Common sense prevailed here, fortunately, lets hope it will this later this on Sept 13.

[Airborneranger4israel]

unfortunately the Federal weapons ban is probably going to expire. THis is because there are only a limited number of sessions left before the break. The only hope for it is if the homeland security dept forcces a vote on it.

[Pandy]

Well, were we go, I remember when they voted in the Assault Ban in 1994... they were showing in ads lots and lots of people shooting fully automatic AK47s and **** like that... and yet... nothing about the Ban itself.

Another one has to be... you can get a Hunting Rifle with, lets say, 16X scope, you can kill more people with a sniper rifle then an assualt rifle, and could get away with it. You saw how the DC snipers did more damage to the public then the 2 men who tried to rob that bank with loads of machine guns and rifles. Only if the snipers would have stopped... they would have gotten away with it.

Durandal... we should get together and have little fun ;) Also, on a side note, whenever I go to the range, the best I can do with the AR15 is pop cans from 100-150 meters... Best I can do with an M1A with an 16X Scope is pop cans from 250-500 meters (Depends on the Wind.) Some US Army Snipers during Vietnam with the M1A (M14) hit targets from 800-1200 meters out, a really good rifle and it's not an assault rifle... TAKE THAT ANTI-GUN GROUPS! :fork:

[agcsy]

A big problem i see is people confusing full auto's with "assault rifles". I remember when O'Reilly had a guy from GOA and some anti gunner on his show Bill was all "CIVILIANS DONT NEED TO OWN BAZOOKAS AND MACHINE GUNS!! WTF RAAARRRR" idiot comments like that from news heads sway people who are not informed on the issue and have very little knowledge on the subject.

Then there was the CNN clip showing a pre-ban ak vs a post ban. The pre-ban in reality was a full auto. The sheriff lit up a wall of bricks and pretty much gave off the impression that pre-bans can blow giant holes in stuff. Then the sheriff pulls out the neutered ak with its little 10 round clip and fires maybe 4-5 rounds slowly and the bricks just get tiny little holes in them. This clip proved to the stupid people out there that a 10 round mag makes a gun non lethal.

The cnn clip didnt last to long as just about every gun site on the web and the NRA jumped all over their asses and they ended up airing a retraction. Bill O'Reilly on the other hand got bombared with viewer mail but his only concession was a snide little comment something along the lines of "sheesh people i was only joking with the bazooka comments". Yes you may have been joking but your average non gun owning citizen hears this crap and believes it.

[Durandal]

unfortunately the Federal weapons ban is probably going to expire. This is because there are only a limited number of sessions left before the break. The only hope for it is if the homeland security dept forcces a vote on it.

People should WANT this ban to expire. It is simply an infringement on legal gun owners' rights, period. The law was absurd to begin with and the only proper place for it is in the history books.

Not too sure why the Homeland Security Office would "force" a vote on it. This is a domestic law aimed at reducing the amount of guns owned by law abiding Americans (since there is no impact against criminals). Are you insinuating that they somehow pose a threat to America because the could fall into the hands of terrorists?

*snort*

[Geezah]

unfortunately the Federal weapons ban is probably going to expire. THis is because there are only a limited number of sessions left before the break. The only hope for it is if the homeland security dept forcces a vote on it.

This is great news for the common law abiding citizen!
The antis are concerned that once it expires it will prove that Clinton was a waste of space and had no clue what he was signing into law! The antis will see that no new crimes or old are being commited with assault weapons, it will show that their #s were so off it's unreal. Now if there is a new ban put into place before it expires then they can harp on about how it's successful and works without the pros being given the chance prove them wrong!

[Airborneranger4israel]

Well, were we go, I remember when they voted in the Assault Ban in 1994... they were showing in ads lots and lots of people shooting fully automatic AK47s and **** like that... and yet... nothing about the Ban itself.

Another one has to be... you can get a Hunting Rifle with, lets say, 16X scope, you can kill more people with a sniper rifle then an assualt rifle, and could get away with it. You saw how the DC snipers did more damage to the public then the 2 men who tried to rob that bank with loads of machine guns and rifles. Only if the snipers would have stopped... they would have gotten away with it.

Durandal... we should get together and have little fun ;) Also, on a side note, whenever I go to the range, the best I can do with the AR15 is pop cans from 100-150 meters... Best I can do with an M1A with an 16X Scope is pop cans from 250-500 meters (Depends on the Wind.) Some US Army Snipers during Vietnam with the M1A (M14) hit targets from 800-1200 meters out, a really good rifle and it's not an assault rifle... TAKE THAT ANTI-GUN GROUPS! :fork:

yes but you have to be concealed and after a couple of shots you will probably be caught. If you go into a room filled with people and empty a couple of magizines in 2 minutes you are gonna have a larger body count. And lets face it, its body count the terrorists are looking for.

[Durandal]

yes but you have to be concealed and after a couple of shots you will probably be caught. If you go into a room filled with people and empty a couple of magizines in 2 minutes you are gonna have a larger body count. And lets face it, its body count the terrorists are looking for.

Huh? You just made no sense...

[Airborneranger4israel]

fully automatic assualt weapon= ability to hose down a ton of people at close range in a minute,

terrorists--> want to kill as many people as possible

if you snipe at people you can only kill so many before you are caught or have to leave the sceen.

[bas]

fully automatic assualt weapon= ability to hose down a ton of people at close range in a minute,

terrorists--> want to kill as many people as possible

if you snipe at people you can only kill so many before you are caught or have to leave the sceen.

First get your facts straight. So called "assualt weapons" are semi-auto, NOT full-auto. Second it is a lot harder in any country for a civilian to gain legal access to firearms than it is for criminal organisations.
Third Isreal had a problem of terrorists shooting into crowds with automatics, that was until everyone began carrying guns and started to shoot back!