Wednesday, March 26, 2008

Wow, Now This is a Surprise....

Gun Control doesn't work!!!!! I know it's hard to believe but here's the story:
In 1994 the gummint decided to reduce the number of assault rifles on the street by passing ...drum roll please.... an Assault Weapons Ban!!!
Duh duh duh DUUUHHHHH!

At the time conservatives said "Use some common sense; that won't work. Criminals, (being criminals) will still get their hands on illegally procured assault weapons."

O' course, "Wild Willie" Klinton knew better than that...he's one them thar' superior
liberals, after all. All violence will now stop thanks to Willie. Thank Gaia!

But, numbers from ATF show that between 1993 and last year, the number of AK-47s (that's an assault rifle for all the Leftards out there) increased by 749 PERCENT!!!
The ATF explains some of the increase thusly:

ATF says the increases in the first half of the 1990s are partly the result of wider usage of its weapons database by local law enforcement agencies. But after that point, the numbers reflect a real increase in tracings of AK-type guns, the agency acknowledged.

But the ATF shows only an 11 percent increase in these weapons since 2005, the year after the ban expired. Hence, the remaining 670 percent must have occurred DURING THE BAN.

Of course, libs had to "correct" the record:

2004 study by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence concluded the U.S. ban on AKs and other guns was successful.
uhhh.............yeah, r i i i I I I I i i ght

This article only mentions AK-47s, so how many other assault rifles (Steyr Aug, M16, M4, P90, etc. etc. etc.) were added to the arsenals of criminals, while ordinary citizens were restricted from obtaining the same weapons for defense against the heathen masses?

Hmmm...looks like conservatives were right again.
Imagine that.


WomanHonorThyself said...

Conservatives right?..cant be!..whatever it is..Bush did it!..the US is awful it must be to be a lefty lib! Heh :)

Brooke said...


RT said...

Criminals find ways to commit crimes (in a not so fair-and-square kind of way).

LEB said...

I'm not sure how owning a concealed handgun is going to make much of a difference against an AK-47, Bushmaster, M-16, Uzi, M60, or a 50 caliber machine gun for that matter - all of which are legal. "It's like we're carrying squirt guns" the article quotes. So I guess I'm not sure what your point is. Weak laws that have more loopholes than a shag carpet aren't really "gun control." Bans that make it a felony to import, posess, manufacture and distribute, etc., are.

I can (today, I saw an ad - it's on sale) buy a bushmaster with a sniper scope (same gun used in the VA sniper attacks a few years ago) at the local sports supply for less than $1,000. Is that a good thing? How would my owning an M-16 help protect against a nutball hiding in the trunk of a car and shooting people at gas stations 1,000 yards away?

Instead, I guess everybody follow your suggestion and arm themselves to the teeth, shoot anything that moves, even if you can't see what it is - like happened here in Texas. I thought the teen's father had a good point: "I believe in the right to bear arms," Mr. Robinson said. "But usually with a little more respect. What's worth more: private property or human life?"

When everybuddy has their own AK-47 and a few hundred boxes of ammo I suspect the US of A will look remarkably like Baghdad. We'll be able to enjoy that special, deep budda-budda-budda sound a Kalashnikov makes sittin' on the porch watching our kids playing - and dying - in the streets.

Yee hah.

In this country, a person can be thrown in jail and convicted of a felony for possessing a few grams of marijuana, or committing certain kinds of driving offenses repeatedly, like, say, driving drunk. But possessing and using a weapon designed solely to kill human beings en masse or at a stand-off distance is perfectly legal. So long as they're standing on your proppity and you have a "reasonable" sense that you have to protect yourself from them - at least, in Texas.

Who is it we're "protecting ourselves" from anyway? Other people with automatic weapons? Isn't that a self-fulfilling prophecy?



Rogue said...


Actually LEB you missed the point entirely.

Places where gun ownership is legal have LESS gun crime. The bad guys never know who's armed and who's not and so the hedonic calculus is skewed toward not committing crime.

For instance, if you read my post on Washington DC's handgun ban, you'd know that city has a murder rate that is 5 TIMES higher than the national average.

It is the deterrent effect that is most important; not the actual shootin'.

At least you got this part right:
"But possessing and using a weapon designed solely to kill human beings en masse or at a stand-off distance is perfectly legal."

Exactly -- you may use deadly force when you are in fear for your life or to prevent a felony perpetrated against you or others. What's the problem? Do you seriously think the police will protect you?

Police are a REACTIVE force, not an omnipresent MINORITY REPORT force.

LEB said...

OK, Rogue, then let's turn the argument around. What, exactly, does the 2nd amendment (at least today) gaurantee me the personal right to bear, as an "arm?," and what is a legitimate "arm" to ban?

Today, for hunting humans, we have semiautomatic pistols, machine pistols, semiautomatic assault rifles, automatc machine guns, large-caliber machine guns, chain guns, bazookas, RPGs, and mortars. We also have stinger shoulder-fired heat-seeking anti-aircraft missles (or the modern equivalent). You could probably classify Howitzers as "guns," too. I also have teflon-coated ammunition, designed solely to penetrate body armor.

All of these are "guns," more generically "arms." Does the 2nd amendment, written in a time when we had muzzle-loading muskets and ball-and-powder pistols, heavy front-loading ball-and-powder cannon drawn by horse, and nothing else, guarantee me the right to "bear" all of those so I can protect myself?

At what point do we "ban" an "arm?" When I invent a man-portable coil gun with a muzzle velocity of about 22,000 meters per second, will that be an "arm" we can ban?

Per your posting, I should be able to stop at the Circle-K on the way home and pick up a Busmaster. I don't even need to show them my ID (but I do if I buy a beer). When do we regulate arms, at least as heavily as we regulate alcohol?


Rogue said...

That's funny; I don't remember saying we can't regulate the purchase for the common good.

As it stands now, you can purchase a fully automatic weapon, but only after you submit to rigorous background checks and purchase an FFL3.

You can also possess, import, and manufacture destructive devices (such as bazookas), but it'll cost you 3 LARGE just for the license. The background check will be exhaustive.

So, yes, you do have the right to bear these arms as long as you haven't disqualified yourself through your prior activities and you can pay the freight.

Any other questions?


LEB said...

Actually, what you said, was At the time conservatives said "Use some common sense; that won't work. Criminals, (being criminals) will still get their hands on illegally procured assault weapons." But we're digressing. I'll us your words: where do we draw the line and "regulate for the common good" the sale of assault weapons?

Since the framers of the 2nd amendment didn't have the basic concept of metropolital police forces (that came later, in London in 1829), widespread use of revolvers (1835, colt), repeating rifle (1866, winchester) which gave the White Man the decisive advantage over the Injuns. Nor did they envison the development of the machine gun (1883) ensured massive casualties with little actual ground gained in World War I, and wasn't met with a tactically viable response until the development of light and heavy armor in World War II, and light personal portable machine guns, I don't think we can fall back to the Federalist Papers or baseline strict constructionist thinking to help us here.

So where do we "regulate" assault weapons - or guns?


LEB said...

Perhaps more to the point, if gun control (ban, regulate, potato, potato) won't work, why can't I have my Bazooka for free?

I don't see the difference between "infringe" and "regulate." Help me out here. My right "shall not be infringed" means no matter how much of a nutball I am, I should be able to take my RPG and go blow up green Fieros on tuesdays if I feel like it.


Rogue said...


Do you want to be able to yell "Fire' in a crowded theater, too?

LEB said...

No. On the one hand, you're arguing that gun control doesn't work, and on the other, you're saying you never said that there's anything wrong with "regulating the purchase" of certian weapons "for the common good."

I'm trying to figure out where you draw the dividing lines, that's all.


Rogue said...


There is a positive correlation between the level of lethality and regulation.

LEB said...

Translated into english from the PhD-speak (which I note you drop into when you don't want to give a straight answer to a straight question) - your statement reads "the more lethal the weapon, the more it's regulated." As a statement of fact that's certainly true. It's what your post specifically claims is a useless endeavor.

But you didn't answer my direct question.

Where do you draw the line on regulation (a ban by another name) of weaponry?

On the one hand, you opine that weapons regulations are useless. On the other, you (seem to) indicate that there's nothing wrong with regulating hyper-leathal weapons.

Which is it, regulate them or not? If we regulate them, how do we determine which ones to regulate?

A straight answer would be appreciated.


Rogue said...


I'm sorry I seemed pedantic in my response, I certainly was not trying to be. I'll try to be more responsive.

But, I believe you have confused yourself. I said BANS are useless...which they are -- (not regulations).

I am not against regulation of weapons that exceed the need for sport hunting. A .50 caliber rifle is not good for deer hunting as all it leaves is deer "paste" after it hits, however the .50 cal is good for elephant hunting. So if elephant season is pending the sale of the .50 cal does not bother me.

Above .50 caliber I don't mind regulation since there is nothing you can hunt with anything bigger, and in fact, these bigger weapons tend to go beyond the definition of firearm and closer to the term "destructive device", which the feds certainly should regulate.

Should a normal citizen be able to possess chem, bio, or nuclear weapons -- certainly not, since the inherent destructiveness is indiscriminate and so would not be useful to target a tyrannical government.

But if you think you should own one, let's hear your argument...

LEB said...

So... is an AR-15 or a Bushmaster with a scope, or a semiautomatic M60 a "hunting rifle?"

From what I've been able to determine we do, in fact, have a ban on fully-automatic weapon production for civilian purchase since 1986. You can buy guns built before that legally, and the taxes go to BATF. So we do have a ban on machine guns. Just not semiautomatic assault rifles.

Me, I'm holding out for a man-portable coil rifle. I've seen plans on the internet. They must exist somewhere :-).


Rogue said...

Not so, you can purchase a fully automatic weapon, but need the correct license.

And yes, all of those weapons you mentioned can be used for hunting.

Rogue said...

Here ya' go LEB.
Coil Gun