the ban on semi-automatic assualt rifles was lifted in 2004

[thanatos144]

Hey man dont you guys think your over reacting???? Its not like they are trying to take your Pot man!





/sarcasm for those to fucking stupid to see it.

 

[Katzndogz]

Control the guns, don't control the mentally ill. Don't control the criminals, don't control the schizophrenics, control the guns.

 

[thanatos144]

Control the guns, don't control the mentally ill. Don't control the criminals, don't control the schizophrenics, control the guns.

Fascism is a mental illness.

 

[Valerie]

Following several high-profile mass shootings and attacks on law enforcement involving military-style assault weapons, Congress enacted the federal Assault Weapons Ban in 1994. The ban expired on September 13, 2004 without any consideration or action by Congress, despite the pleas of law enforcement officials across the country. Today, our nation's police find themselves increasingly outgunned by criminals armed with sophisticated firearms and detachable, high-capacity ammuniton magazines (the manufacture of magazines holding more than 10 rounds was prohibited under the federal ban). The following timeline examines law enforcement's experience with assault weapons since the federal ban lapsed: (cont...)

What Law Enforcement Says About Assault Weapons - Coalition to Stop Gun Violence

 

[thanatos144]

Following several high-profile mass shootings and attacks on law enforcement involving military-style assault weapons, Congress enacted the federal Assault Weapons Ban in 1994. The ban expired on September 13, 2004 without any consideration or action by Congress, despite the pleas of law enforcement officials across the country. Today, our nation's police find themselves increasingly outgunned by criminals armed with sophisticated firearms and detachable, high-capacity ammuniton magazines (the manufacture of magazines holding more than 10 rounds was prohibited under the federal ban). The following timeline examines law enforcement's experience with assault weapons since the federal ban lapsed: (cont...)

What Law Enforcement Says About Assault Weapons - Coalition to Stop Gun Violence

For every cop I know that wants guns banned I know 10 who tell me I should have one.

 

[Bern80]

Why do you NEED the guns?

1) To protect yourself from crime?

How many times have you been a victim? Unless you are a courier of valuables, or incredibly oblivious to your surroundings, it's not very likely you will be the victim of ANY crime. If you're a regular middle-class guy like me, you probably don't own much of anything anyone would want to steal, and if you don't go around hassling others, I doubt anyone would want to assault you.

Everyone in the Old West was armed, and crime occured anyway. So did murders.

2) I need protection from the tyranical government

I can name many examples of people who were armed and ended up losing large in a confrontation with the government.

The Confederate States of America had ARMIES. They LOST.

This evil, tyranical government you speak of never bothers me. I haven't even talked to an on-duty cop for 25 years, except to wait on them where I work. What are you DOING that I'm not which requires them to pester you so much?

If 4 Federal agents came to your house because you did something illegal, it's more than likely you'd be carried out in handcuffs. If you turned firearms on them, you'd leave in a body bag. I guess you have the satisfaction, tho, of threatening THEIR lives.

The only people who feel they NEED guns are the ones who wish to use them out of some ridiculous fetish that it makes them more manly, or they live in some fantasy world that having one would make any diference.

Now, where's the cursing little dimwit who will call me some profane name, because he thinks it makes him Internet Tough Guy World Champion?

You're really going to go with the 'you don't need it argument'? Okay, mind if I come over to your place and get rid of all the things I don't think you need? Need has zero to do with it.

As far as why people own guns, you couldn't be more wrong. Such an opinion is out of YOUR negative bias towards guns and has nothing to do with your made up notion that all gun owners are obsessed with their firearms. Get to know a typical gun owner sometime instead of making unfounded, stupid assumptions.

Their statements are obsessive, that's why I make that assumption.

Their is no logical reason to own any firearm unless you wish to use it for legalized hunting of animals who would simply starve themselves to death without population control. People like that don't tend to go on rampages, and I haven't heard ONE pro-regulation person wishing to take their guns away. Even environmentalists realize that we've destroyed all the natural predators, and need to assume their role.

Any other reason is a paranoid, emotional responce to a threat perceived to be 100 times larger than it actually is. Unless you actually ARE a courier of valuable items. Yea, then the threat would be real.

I own 5 guitars. Yea, I guess I could go all "El Kabong" and whack someone over the head with one. But I enjoy playing them too much to ever use one in such a manner.

My "obsessive" device won't be stolen and used to kill someone else. Unless the thief really HAS a Quickdraw McGraw thing going on.

THAT'S the difference.

I wonder about this site. Why is the top of the page always saying, "Check your arrest record!"

Curious .....................................

You don't need to be obsessed with something in order to passionate about your right to have it. Take your guitars for example. While you have a few I doubt that you have some unhealthy all consuming passion for them. I doubt you obssess over them when you aren't using them or even when you are. But the second I suggest you shouldn't be allowed to have them because they certainly aren't something you need, I bet you would become pretty passionate about being able to keep them.

Or maybe your argument is that people shouldn't be allowed to have things that have the potential to hurt someone. Okay. Unfortunately if that's your criteria guns still way down on the bottom of a list of seemingly harmless items that wind up being involved in a lot of deaths. Motor vehicles of course top the list. The difference you speak of rings hollow. If some drunk broke into your garage, stole your car, and wound up killing a family of four, would your first response be that we have ban the sale of certain vehicles made by Ford? Of course not. The point is if your going to make such arguments they need to be consistent across other things that pose the same risk to people. Cigarettes kill more people. Alcohol kills more people. While they are different objects and things they all have the same end result when used by irresponsible people. Yet I bet you aren't calling for the ban of cigs and beer. So your argument is inconsistent. Meaning you may want to consider whether your argument against guns is merit based or just the result of illogical bias on your part.

 

[eflatminor]

The ban expired on September 13, 2004 without any consideration or action by Congress, despite the pleas of law enforcement officials across the country.

Bullshit. A few gun grabbing cops does not make for "pleas of law enforcement". Let's have a look at what the government had to say about the success of the so called 'assault weapons' ban.

According to the National Institute of Justice:

“We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence.”
“The ban has failed to reduce the average number of victims per gun murder incident or multiple gunshot wound victims.”
“The public safety benefits of the 1994 ban have not yet been demonstrated.”
“The ban triggered speculative price increases and ramped-up production of the banned firearms.”
“The ban … ramped-up production of the banned firearms prior to the law’s implementation” and thus increased the total supply over the following decade.
“The weapons banned by this legislation [1994 Federal Assault Weapons ban] were used only rarely in gun crimes”

After the ban ended, the New York Times concluded "Most “assault weapons” have no more firepower or killing capacity than the average hunting rifle and “play a small role in overall violent crime.”

Looking at the government statistics following the lifting of the ban, we see that in the first year after the ban was lifted, murders declined 3.6%, and violent crime 1.7% (FBI Uniform Crime Statistics).

By any reasonable measure, the ban was a outright failure.

 

[Navy1960]

I have no problem at all with closing the so called " loop hole" for gun shows and for punishing those individuals who sell guns without a background check

This means you're telling someone they cannot sell their personal property. Think about it. If someone wanted to sell an old shotgun, closing to so-called (and misleading) "gun show loophole" would mean a normal, law abiding person couldn't sell his firearm, be it at a garage sale, to a friend, to family member, or at a gun show.

Any other legally possessed items you want to tell the American people they can't sell? People are killed in cars with great frequency. Should we restrict anyone from selling a car to another individual? The alternative is telling the people they can only sell their possessions to a licensed government agent. You really want to go down that path?

...or do straw purchases

Already illegal.

The short answer to your question is yes, when it comes to guns, I personally have no issue with having to show "proof of a background check" in order to sell it. First if gives me peace of mind that the person I am selling it too is not some low life trash who doesn't need it, and second I don't see it as leading to more legislation as you have indicated . When you sell a car for example, you have to have a title to sell it from the state and that title has to be re-registered to the person you sold it to regardless if that person is a family member or not. It's not a lot to ask those who wish to sell their guns to make a little effort to make sure those they are selling too are legally able to own them no matter who they are.

As for your straw purchase, it is illegal for someone to enilst someone else to buy a gun for them at a Federally licensed dealer. However , it is not illegal for someone to make a straw purchase of "used guns " using the loophole. A lot depends on the person making the purchase in that situation, so, doesnt it make sense to just close it? If your the one who wants to legally own the gun it should be no trouble to submit to background check to buy one.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Tell me what's the difference between a semi auto "assault" rifle that shoots a .223 round and any other semi auto rifle that shoots a .223 round.

 

[eflatminor]

I have no problem at all with closing the so called " loop hole" for gun shows and for punishing those individuals who sell guns without a background check

This means you're telling someone they cannot sell their personal property. Think about it. If someone wanted to sell an old shotgun, closing to so-called (and misleading) "gun show loophole" would mean a normal, law abiding person couldn't sell his firearm, be it at a garage sale, to a friend, to family member, or at a gun show.

Any other legally possessed items you want to tell the American people they can't sell? People are killed in cars with great frequency. Should we restrict anyone from selling a car to another individual? The alternative is telling the people they can only sell their possessions to a licensed government agent. You really want to go down that path?

...or do straw purchases

Already illegal.

The short answer to your question is yes, when it comes to guns, I personally have no issue with having to show "proof of a background check" in order to sell it. First if gives me peace of mind that the person I am selling it too is not some low life trash who doesn't need it, and second I don't see it as leading to more legislation as you have indicated . When you sell a car for example, you have to have a title to sell it from the state and that title has to be re-registered to the person you sold it to regardless if that person is a family member or not. It's not a lot to ask those who wish to sell their guns to make a little effort to make sure those they are selling too are legally able to own them no matter who they are.

As for your straw purchase, it is illegal for someone to enilst someone else to buy a gun for them at a Federally licensed dealer. However , it is not illegal for someone to make a straw purchase of "used guns " using the loophole. A lot depends on the person making the purchase in that situation, so, doesnt it make sense to just close it? If your the one who wants to legally own the gun it should be no trouble to submit to background check to buy one.

What makes you think a criminal is going to abide by your background checks? You're only making it more difficult and more expensive for law abiding citizens. This, like bans in general, makes no damn sense.

What next, a new government agency to regulate garage sale transactions? It's ridiculous.

 

[eflatminor]

Tell me what's the difference between a semi auto "assault" rifle that shoots a .223 round and any other semi auto rifle that shoots a .223 round.

One looks different. Which apparently makes some feel icky.

Other than that, they operate in exactly the same manner. Even the New York Times came to this conclusion in an article entitled House Panel Issue: Can Gun Ban Work. "Most “assault weapons” have no more firepower or killing capacity than the average hunting rifle and “play a small role in overall violent crime.”

 

[Navy1960]

This means you're telling someone they cannot sell their personal property. Think about it. If someone wanted to sell an old shotgun, closing to so-called (and misleading) "gun show loophole" would mean a normal, law abiding person couldn't sell his firearm, be it at a garage sale, to a friend, to family member, or at a gun show.

Any other legally possessed items you want to tell the American people they can't sell? People are killed in cars with great frequency. Should we restrict anyone from selling a car to another individual? The alternative is telling the people they can only sell their possessions to a licensed government agent. You really want to go down that path?



Already illegal.

The short answer to your question is yes, when it comes to guns, I personally have no issue with having to show "proof of a background check" in order to sell it. First if gives me peace of mind that the person I am selling it too is not some low life trash who doesn't need it, and second I don't see it as leading to more legislation as you have indicated . When you sell a car for example, you have to have a title to sell it from the state and that title has to be re-registered to the person you sold it to regardless if that person is a family member or not. It's not a lot to ask those who wish to sell their guns to make a little effort to make sure those they are selling too are legally able to own them no matter who they are.

As for your straw purchase, it is illegal for someone to enilst someone else to buy a gun for them at a Federally licensed dealer. However , it is not illegal for someone to make a straw purchase of "used guns " using the loophole. A lot depends on the person making the purchase in that situation, so, doesnt it make sense to just close it? If your the one who wants to legally own the gun it should be no trouble to submit to background check to buy one.

What makes you think a criminal is going to abide by your background checks? You're only making it more difficult and more expensive for law abiding citizens. This, like bans in general, makes no damn sense.

What next, a new government agency to regulate garage sale transactions? It's ridiculous.

I wasn't advocating for a ban on guns, I think going down that road is punishing the vast majority of those that own guns, in fact my feelings are that the the vast majority of gun owners despise these scum that have guns that do these crimes and have no business owning them. Having said that , if it cost me a little more to make it that much harder for trash like that to get weapons of any kind, then personally I'm ok with that.

 

[eflatminor]

...if it cost me a little more to make it that much harder for trash like that to get weapons of any kind, then personally I'm ok with that.

There's the flaw in your thinking. The government imposed meddling does NOT make it harder for the 'trash'. They will simply steal what they need or buy it from the black market, a market that grows with every regulation or ban the government puts into place.

Such a law may make you FEEL good, but it does achieve your stated goal and more importantly, it puts law abiding citizens at a disadvantage, while ensuring black markets thrive. That is insane.

 

[JKVegas]

You're really going to go with the 'you don't need it argument'? Okay, mind if I come over to your place and get rid of all the things I don't think you need? Need has zero to do with it.

As far as why people own guns, you couldn't be more wrong. Such an opinion is out of YOUR negative bias towards guns and has nothing to do with your made up notion that all gun owners are obsessed with their firearms. Get to know a typical gun owner sometime instead of making unfounded, stupid assumptions.

Their statements are obsessive, that's why I make that assumption.

Their is no logical reason to own any firearm unless you wish to use it for legalized hunting of animals who would simply starve themselves to death without population control. People like that don't tend to go on rampages, and I haven't heard ONE pro-regulation person wishing to take their guns away. Even environmentalists realize that we've destroyed all the natural predators, and need to assume their role.

Any other reason is a paranoid, emotional responce to a threat perceived to be 100 times larger than it actually is. Unless you actually ARE a courier of valuable items. Yea, then the threat would be real.

I own 5 guitars. Yea, I guess I could go all "El Kabong" and whack someone over the head with one. But I enjoy playing them too much to ever use one in such a manner.

My "obsessive" device won't be stolen and used to kill someone else. Unless the thief really HAS a Quickdraw McGraw thing going on.

THAT'S the difference.

I wonder about this site. Why is the top of the page always saying, "Check your arrest record!"

Curious .....................................

You don't need to be obsessed with something in order to passionate about your right to have it. Take your guitars for example. While you have a few I doubt that you have some unhealthy all consuming passion for them. I doubt you obssess over them when you aren't using them or even when you are. But the second I suggest you shouldn't be allowed to have them because they certainly aren't something you need, I bet you would become pretty passionate about being able to keep them.

Or maybe your argument is that people shouldn't be allowed to have things that have the potential to hurt someone. Okay. Unfortunately if that's your criteria guns still way down on the bottom of a list of seemingly harmless items that wind up being involved in a lot of deaths. Motor vehicles of course top the list. The difference you speak of rings hollow. If some drunk broke into your garage, stole your car, and wound up killing a family of four, would your first response be that we have ban the sale of certain vehicles made by Ford? Of course not. The point is if your going to make such arguments they need to be consistent across other things that pose the same risk to people. Cigarettes kill more people. Alcohol kills more people. While they are different objects and things they all have the same end result when used by irresponsible people. Yet I bet you aren't calling for the ban of cigs and beer. So your argument is inconsistent. Meaning you may want to consider whether your argument against guns is merit based or just the result of illogical bias on your part.

My argument is completely consistant.

I don't need a guitar. That is true.

But my guitar won't kill 30 people in a matter of a few minutes. Used improperly, it COULD make them uncomfortable, but it wouldn't kill them.

THAT'S my argument.

You can ban cigs and alcohol if you like. I don't use the latter, and I SHOULD stop using the former.

They've banned smoking in public places in my state. Doesn't bother me in the least. If you can't go 2-3 hours without a smoke, by God, you NEED to quit.

See, the proposed ban will NOT eliminate murders, or even wingnuts. That's not the aim, at least not from my perspective. And I myself am not out to ban ALL guns. Not only is that impossible, some guns DO serve a useful purpose.

What say we reduce the body count somewhat? The toughening of DUI laws, inspired by groups like MADD, has done exactly that. But people still drive drunk and kill people. Just not NEARLY as often.

Guns are a different animal than cars, cigs or mugs of beer. Very rarely does someone get behind the wheel of a car (even blind drunk) with the INTENTION of killing someone. Happens a LOT more often with guns.

You need to make the distinction. To paraphrase:

"These guns are made for killin'
Ain't no good for nothin' else
And if you likes to drank some whiskey
You might even SHOOT yourself
So why don't we dump, all people
To the bottom of the sea
Fore some ol' fool come around here
Wanna shoot either YOU or me ......................."

 

[Navy1960]

...if it cost me a little more to make it that much harder for trash like that to get weapons of any kind, then personally I'm ok with that.

There's the flaw in your thinking. The government imposed meddling does NOT make it harder for the 'trash'. They will simply steal what they need or buy it from the black market, a market that grows with every regulation or ban the government puts into place.

Such a law may make you FEEL good, but it does achieve your stated goal and more importantly, it puts law abiding citizens at a disadvantage, while ensuring black markets thrive. That is insane.

I respect your opinion eflatminor, and understand that no law is a 100% cure to any issues, especially when it comes to crime. I agree that it's not going to stop all criminals from using guns in crimes. Having said this, I do believe that making it that much harder for those who seek to cause harm or use guns for criminal purpose is a soemthing worth doing. I for one am willing to suffer any minor inconvenience that might go along with making it harder for who trying this sort of thing too and that includes closing that loophole. I don't see it putting law abiding citizens at a disadvantage , other than save for having to wait for the guns they may want for a while longer than they may like too and cost a little but more. As I said before for me personally this is a price worth paying if it keeps them out of the hands of people they dont belong in.

 

[eflatminor]

...if it cost me a little more to make it that much harder for trash like that to get weapons of any kind, then personally I'm ok with that.

There's the flaw in your thinking. The government imposed meddling does NOT make it harder for the 'trash'. They will simply steal what they need or buy it from the black market, a market that grows with every regulation or ban the government puts into place.

Such a law may make you FEEL good, but it does achieve your stated goal and more importantly, it puts law abiding citizens at a disadvantage, while ensuring black markets thrive. That is insane.

I respect your opinion eflatminor, and understand that no law is a 100% cure to any issues, especially when it comes to crime. I agree that it's not going to stop all criminals from using guns in crimes. Having said this, I do believe that making it that much harder for those who seek to cause harm or use guns for criminal purpose is a soemthing worth doing. I for one am willing to suffer any minor inconvenience that might go along with making it harder for who trying this sort of thing too and that includes closing that loophole. I don't see it putting law abiding citizens at a disadvantage , other than save for having to wait for the guns they may want for a while longer than they may like too and cost a little but more.

Tell that to the guy that will no longer be able to afford the means to protect himself and his family.

Tell that to the woman faced with a violent stalker who must remain unarmed during the 'waiting period'. That could be the difference between life and death for her.

As I said before for me personally this is a price worth paying if it keeps them out of the hands of people they dont belong in

It won't. That's the point.

 

[JKVegas]

The only thing insane is feeling the need to own a device whose sole purpose is the fast and efficient killing of human beings.

I'll bet it pretty cool to go out to a range and fire an AK-47. Looks like it might even be fun.

Can't you have just as much fun with a single-shot rifle? That would be more challanging.

 

[eflatminor]

The only thing insane is feeling the need to own a device whose sole purpose is the fast and efficient killing of human beings.

But it's not insane to ensure only crazies and criminals have such weapons? That's what your ban accomplishes.

As I've stated previously, I encountered two armed intruders in my family's home as a teenager. They both had semi automatic firearms with large capacity magazines. I adverted a disaster and ensured NO ONE was harmed (including the bad guys) with a firearm that would be banned. I could not have done so with a single shot weapon.

You're free to remain unprepared. Don't impose your victim mentality on others.

 

[Valerie]

Control the guns, don't control the mentally ill. Don't control the criminals, don't control the schizophrenics, control the guns.

Fascism is a mental illness.

The 2nd amendment is not a National suicide pact, speaking of mental illness?


Ours is a Government by The People for The People...Far from fascism, we live in a Constitutional Republic and the 2nd amendment speaks of a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state. The right of The People to bear arms is reserved specifically toward that necessary purpose, so that we may live securely by rule of law, not die by mass mayhem...

The following timeline examines law enforcement's experience with assault weapons since the federal ban lapsed:

March 2, 2011—"There is no reason that a peaceful society based on the rule of law needs its citizenry armed with 30-round [ammunition] magazines," states Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck during a news conference." Such magazines transform a gun "into a weapon of mass death rather than a home protection-type device," Beck notes.

February 26, 2011—Referring to increasing seizures of semiautomatic assault weapons that are trafficked in from outside states, Brockton (Massachusetts) Police Department Captain Emanuel Gomes says, "We're literally outgunned. You're talking about the kind of firepower that can go through vehicles, through vests, and that can literally go through a house."


January 16, 2011—After one of his officers is ambushed by a teenager wielding a semiautomatic AR-15 and fired at 26 times, Oklahoma City Police Chief Bill Citty tells The Oklahoman, "There are just more and more assault rifles out there, and it is becoming a bigger threat to law enforcement each day. They are outgunned." Citty states that he sees "no practical reason" why a civilian would need an AR-15 or similiar military-style weapon.

November 21, 2010—Buffalo Police Commissioner Daniel Derenda states,"In my opinion, [AK-47 rifles and other high-powered semiautomatic assault weapons] exist for one purpose and one purpose only and that is to kill."


November 15, 2010—After losing his son and another officer in a shootout to sovereign citizens armed with a semiautomatic AK-47, West Memphis [Arkansas] Police Chief Bob Paudert purchases 30 AR-15s for use by patrol officers in the field. "We're going to protect our officers," he says. "Our times have changed. And we've got to change with our times. We cannot allow our officers to continue to be killed."


October 25, 2010—Ten national law enforcement organizations form the National Law Enforcement Partnership to Prevent Gun Violence. Founding members are the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies, Inc., Hispanic American Police Command Officers Association, International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators, International Association of Chiefs of Police, Major Cities Chief Association, National Association of Women Law Enforcement Executives, National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives, National Sheriffs' Association, Police Executive Research Forum, and the Police Foundation. The partnership is described as "an unprecedented joint effort by law enforcement leaders to address gun violence in an era of shrinking law enforcement budgets and rising levels of officer deaths." In their Statement of Principles, the new coalition states, "As law enforcement organizations, we believe the level and lethality of gun violence directed at police officers requires an organized and aggressive response from policy makers at the federal, state, and local levels."

July 16, 2010—Following the shooting of Philadelphia police officer Kevin Livewell by gunmen wielding two semiautomatic assault rifles (an AK-47 and SKS) with 30-round magazines, Philadelphia Policy Deputy Commissioner Richard Ross tells the media, "These are state-of-the-art weapons ... My firearms experts over here tell me that...no body armor that we have would have saved our officers from these weapons here. I mean, in fact, many of them are capable of slicing through a vehicle. This is just how deadly these weapons are." Philadelphia Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey describes the SKS rifle as "a very high-powered weapon capable of firing numerous rounds—very, very quickly and very, very deadly."

May 2010—A survey by the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) of 164 police departments serving 100,000 or more people finds that 37% have seen an increase in the use of assault weapons in street crime. 38% report seeing an increase in the use semiautomatic firearms that accept high-capacity ammunition magazines in street crime.


January 7, 2010—Disgruntled employee Timothy Hendron, 51, enters ABB Inc. in St. Louis, Missouri and opens fire on his co-workers. Armed with two handguns, a shotgun, and a semiautomatic AK-47 rifle with high-capacity ammunition magazines, Hendron fires approximately 115 rounds, killing three and wounding five before taking his own life. Patrol officers initially arriving at the scene are held back from entering the plant. St. Louis Police Chief Daniel Isom explains, "Our officers...didn't have sufficient weapon systems to engage a person with an AK-47." One of the first officers to arrive on the scene, Lt. Alana Hauck, later recalls, "I got home, and my 4-year-old daughter comes and gives me a hug ... That's when it hits you, this guy had a high-powered rifle. The worst could have happened, and I could've never got that hug."

September 13, 2009—"I'd be lying if I said it wasn't scary" to face off against someone with an assault rifle, says Columbus [Ohio] Police Department Officer Chris Billman, 34, who was among those fired at during a 2004 incident [when Al Awwal Knowles, wanted in a double shooting, began firing an AK-47 from his Jeep while officers pursued him through Columbus' North Side neighborhoods]. "Handguns are dangerous, but you have a different perspective when someone is firing rounds from an AK-47. Potentially, your vest won't stop it and your car won't stop it."

July 30, 2009—After a shootout between gangs, Boston Police Commissioner Edward F. Davis tells the Boston Globe, “[A semiautomatic AK-47 rifle] can lay down a lot of fire in an urban area where there is basically no cover from it. You can conceal yourself from these weapons, but they’ll rip through a car. They’ll rip through a telephone pole. They can rip through just about anything in an urban environment. Everybody understands when they read the morning paper that you have to push as much as you can to get these guns off the street."

July 13, 2009—After a birthday party shootout involving a semiautomatic AK-47 in which two young people were killed and 10 wounded, Miami Police Chief John Timoney tells ABC News, "For me it's a no-brainer. These are weapons of war. Under no circumstance do they belong in the cities of America. Now police officers are facing—and citizens are facing—these assault weapons. If we don't stop it now, what's it going to look like 10 years from now? Rambo becomes reality."

June 8, 2009—Criminal Christopher White ambushes Chesapeake, Virginia police officers from the back of a van with a semiautomatic AK-47, firing at least 30 rounds. Two rounds from the rifle go through Officer Sean Fleming's Jeep before piercing his bullet-resistant vest, injuring him. "[Fleming] was still seated in the vehicle when he was assaulted," Chesapeake Police Major T.D. Branch says. "Those type of weapons, depending on what kind of rounds, typically penetrate metal. They're pretty powerful."


May 11, 2009—“The fact that we have these relatively cheap, assault weapon-type firearms out there, it's not only a hazard to the public, but in particular to police officers,” said Fort Wayne Police Chief Rusty York, who declared his support for renewing the federal Assault Weapons Ban. “It's proof that they continue to get into the hands of irresponsible people … It's a weapon of war, not of sport. I'm sure it will be a political battle, but the officers are out in the street fighting that battle every day.”


May 4, 2009—Marion County sheriff's deputies Roderic Marques and Matthew Nasworth chase criminal Victor Walker for approximately one mile after he flees during a traffic stop (Walker had commited a botched armed robbery at a Burger King earlier that day). Walker comes to a stop and opens fire on the deputies in their two vehicles with a semiautomatic AK-47 rifle. Bullets tear through the front of Nasworth's vehicle and out the back, shredding everything they hit in between. Nasworth manages to get off only a single shot with his .45 caliber pistol and survives by pushing his torso under his steering wheel and behind the dashboard. Marques, who also cowered behind his dashboard, recalls, "I had two choices. I either back up or start engaging him. I remember it going through my head: 'I'm overpowered. The firepower is too much.'"


March 21, 2009—An Oakland Police Department SWAT team follows violent criminal/rapist Lovelle Mixon into his sister's bungalow apartment after Mixon shoots and kills two police officers following a routine traffic stop. Mixon lies prone in a back bedroom closet with a semiautomatic SKS assault rifle, firing through the door and walls of the closet at officers as they approach the room. He kills two more officers before being shot dead. An attorney representing officers involved in the incident, Harry Stern, describes their actions that day as "a remarkable display of heroism and gallantry in the face of unfathomable destruction."

February 5, 2009—Major John Clark of the Charleston County Sheriff's Office tells WCSC-TV: "It really makes us worry a lot, particularly when you consider the number of rounds fired during this homicide the other night. We were going up there with handguns, with Glocks. This guy has an AK-47. If a police officer had come up in that area, he would have definitely been outgunned. These are killing machines. They are not designed for recreational use." The sheriff's office announces that some of its deputies have received permission to patrol carrying their own semiautomatic assault rifles.

December 29, 2008—In a press release, the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund notes, “2007 was a wake-up call for law enforcement in our country, and law enforcement executives, officers, associations and trainers clearly heeded the call, with a renewed emphasis on officer safety training, equipment and procedures. The reduction in firearms-related deaths is especially stunning, given the tremendous firepower possessed by so many criminals today.” The release states that one reason for the decline is "more officers wearing bullet-resistant vests over the past 20 years—vests have saved more than 3,000 law enforcement lives."

August 27, 2008—Regarding the trend of North Carolina law enforcement recovering more military-style assault weapons at crime scenes, Franklin County Sheriff Pat Green tells WRAL-TV, "I've been in this business 25 years, and it's just getting worse."

June 1, 2008—Gunman David Delich (described as having "severe mental problems") leads Tucson police officers on a crosstown car chase after firing more than 80 rounds from an assault rifle at several residential houses. During the chase, Delich kills officer Eric Hite with a shot to th head and wounds two Pima County sheriff's deputies. When Delich surrenders and investigators search his car they find three assault rifles and two handguns. "He had dozens of magazines fully loaded and thousands of rounds," says Rick Kastigar, the Pima County Sheriff's Criminal Investigations Chief.

June 10, 2008—The Fort Lauderdale Police Department purchases 100 Colt AR-6520 rifles “to provide officers adequate equipment to effectively resolve violent incidents.”

May 17, 2008—Hundreds of officers with the Washington, D.C. Police Department are issued AR-15 rifles. The D.C. police department's decision to arm patrol officers with semiautomatic rifles is promoted by commanders as a way to stay ahead of criminals. "We want to be prepared," says D.C. Police Chief Cathy Lanier. "I want officers to have what they need to be safe."

May 6, 2008—Thomas Krajewski, Sr., who held Sergeant Stephen Liczbinski of the Philadelphia Police Department in his arms after he was shot and mortally wounded by a semiautomatic SKS assault rifle, tells the Philadelphia Daily News, “There is absolutely no reason that anyone should be carrying around military-style assault weapons. I mean, we saw what a weapon like that did to a human body. I mean, I own guns and my sons and I hunt as well, but I don’t have assault rifles or anything. There’s no need for it.”

April 3, 2008—The Associated Press reports that since 1993, the year before the federal Assault Weapons Ban took effect, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has recorded a more than sevenfold increase in the tracing of 7.62x39mm guns (which includes semiautomatic AK-47s) from crime scenes. The number of AK-type guns traced rose from 1,140 in 1993 to 8,547 in 2007. From 2005 (the first full year after the ban's expiration) through 2007, ATF recorded an 11% increase in such tracings. "We're in an arms race," says Chaska, Minnesota Police Chief Scott Knight, the Chairman of the Firearms Committee of the International Association of Chiefs of Police.

April 3, 2008—Days before the ambush of Miami police officer Jose Somohano, who is shot and killed with a semiautomatic AK-47 on September 13, 2007, Miami Police Chief John Timoney agrees to let patrol officers carry assault rifles to help counter the use of such weapons by criminals. John Rivera, president of the Dade County Police Benevolent Association, pleads for the same for officers in the Miami-Dade Department, which protects more than 1.4 million people around the city. "It's almost like we have water pistols," he says.

March 16, 2008—“It doesn’t matter what body armor you wear,” says ATF Special Agent Tom Mangan about the ammunition fired by a semiautomatic AK-47 rifle. “That round is going through the door, through the vest and right out the other side … It’s just like a hot knife through butter.”

January 15, 2008—Miami Police Chief John Timoney tells the Miami Herald that semiautomatic assault weapons have become "the weapon of choice among gangs here." “They’re everywhere,” he says. “At $100 or $200, everyone can afford one of these killing machines.”

December 15, 2007—The Gainesville Police Chief announces that it will be considering arming all patrol officers with semiautomatic rifles such as the AR-15 or Mini-14. "When we get into a situation where the bad guys are carrying heavy weaponry, then we start to worry that we don't have enough firepower," says Gainesville Police Lt. Brian Helmerson, the commander of the agency's Operational Skills Unit and Advanced Law Enforcement Rifle Team . "We would need something to at least equal or surpass their weapon capabilities. They have greater firepower than we do."


November 8, 2007—Miami-Dade County police union chief John Rivera tells the Miami Herald that while he supports the right to bear arms, "I do not believe there's a place in society for certain assault weapons. An AK-47 is one of them. It was blue-printed for war.'"

November 6, 2007—"It's not nice we have to arm ourselves like the soldiers in Iraq," says Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office Sergeant Laurie Pfeil, who carries a semiautomatic AR-15 rifle (the civilian verison of the military's M-16 rifle) as part of her road patrol duties. "We are like soldiers. It is a war."iacp 2007 report

April 9-11, 2007—The International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) releases a report following its 2007 Great Lakes Summit on Gun Violence. The report makes the following recommendation: "Anecdotal evidence from law enforcement leaders around the country suggests that military-style assault weapons are increasingly being used against law enforcement and by drug dealers and gang members; unfortunately, current restrictions on the release of ATF trace data make it impossible to know how often these firearms are being used in crimes. Law enforcement officials, municipal officials and public health and safety officials should support and promote an effective ban on military-style assault weapons."


Feburary 19, 2007—An informal survey by the International Association of Chiefs of Police of 20 police departments across the country finds that since the expiration of the Assault Weapons Ban in 2004 all of them have either added assault weapons to officers' patrol units or replaced existing weaponry with semiautomatic, military-style firearms.

February 2007—Analyzing accounts in the news media, the Violence Policy Center documents 64 incidents in which law enforcement officers were confronted by gunmen with semiautomatic assault weapons between March 1, 2005 and February 28, 2007. In 16 of these incidents law enforcement officers were shot; four times fatally.

August 24, 2006—San Francisco police tell ABC-7 that they are now seizing 100 guns from crime scenes every month, many of them semiautomatic assault weapons such as Mac-9s, Mac-10s, AK-47s, etc. San Francisco Police Deputy Chief Morris Tabak says that about five percent of the firearms seized are assault type weapons, adding, "These are what could be described only as anti-personnel weapons." San Francisco Police Officers Association President Gary Delagnes says, "Just about every crook you run into out there is a drug dealer or a gang banger's got one of these weapons. And it's putting our officers' lives at risk."

August 5, 2006—Dade County, Florida law enforcement reports seeing more assault weapons being used in crimes. Miami homicide detective Lt. John Buhrmaster explains the trend in the following terms: "Inflicting fear with power. That's a big factor why those assault rifles are being used." Citing the expiration of the federal Assault Weapons Ban, Miami Detective Delrish Moss says, "The fact that it is easier to obtain them legally is a problem because they end up in the hands of criminals." "There was nothing positively gained by the lifting of the ban on assault weapons by the government," adds Miami-Dade Police Director Robert Parker.


June 7, 2005—The Chicago Police Department reports a 10% increase in the number of assault weapons seized from crime scenes since the federal Assault Weapons Ban expired. Chicago Police Superintendent Phil Cline states, "These are guns that can shoot up to 30 rounds with a couple pulls of the trigger and it puts our police in grave danger out there. So we’d like still to see some kind of ban, either by the state or federally."

August 9, 2004—States United to Prevent Gun Violence gathers a list of over 1,900 police chiefs, sheriffs, and county prosecutors who support "renewing and strengthening" the federal Assault Weapons Ban. Some of the names on the list include Chief John Wilson of Montgomery, Alabama; Chief Randy Henderlite of the Glendale, Arizona Police Department; the Greenwood, Arkansas Police Department; Cam Sanchez, president of the California Police Chiefs Association; the Daytona Beach, Florida Police Department; the Cicero, Illinois Police Department; Baltimore City, Maryland Police Commissioner Kevin Clark; Colonel Tadarial Sturdivant of the Michigan State Police; the East Rutherford, New Jersey Police Department; the Nassau County, New York Police Department; the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Police Department; and San Antonio, Texas Police Department Chief Albert Ortiz.

June 2004—A study commissioned by the Department of Justice finds, "Attacks with semiautomatics—including assault weapons and other semiautomatics equipped with large capacity magazines—result in more shots fired, more persons hit, and more woundeds infliced per victim than do attacks with other firearms." The study also reports, "Assault weapons account for a larger share of guns used in mass murders and murders of police, crimes for which weapons with greater firepower would seem particularly useful."

April 27, 2004—Standing with other law enforcement leaders from across the country to demand renewal of the Assault Weapons Ban, Los Angeles Police Chief William Bratton states, "There is a reason that these [assault] weapons are so appealing to criminals. They are designed to be easily concealed and kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible. Congress must act and act now to protect the American public and our police officers from these deadly weapons. This is about public safety and law enforcement."



What Law Enforcement Says About Assault Weapons - Coalition to Stop Gun Violence

 

[Bern80]

Guns are a different animal than cars, cigs or mugs of beer. Very rarely does someone get behind the wheel of a car (even blind drunk) with the INTENTION of killing someone. Happens a LOT more often with guns.

You need to make the distinction. To paraphrase:

"These guns are made for killin'
Ain't no good for nothin' else
And if you likes to drank some whiskey
You might even SHOOT yourself
So why don't we dump, all people
To the bottom of the sea
Fore some ol' fool come around here
Wanna shoot either YOU or me ......................."

Don't know who wrote that, but it's simply not correct. Guns aren't made for killing. Guns are made for shooting bullets. What the individual points the bullets at is entirely up to them. And compared to the number of guns and gun owners out there the truth is extremely few of them pick one up with the intent of shooting someone. You just don't have the evidence to support that statement. You can't quantify what someone intended to do. Gun owners are as diverse in mentality as people that own guitars or cars.

My experience is that one's perception of guns depends mostly on their life experience with them. If you grew up in a city your main experience with guns is probably going to be human on human gun violence (I still don't find it logical that one's solution to that would be to ban guns as some cities have done) but I can understand it somewhat. I on the other hand I grew up in the country. But believe it or not I bet there were more guns than people in a square mile and probably more than a city square mile. Hunting is a fairly commone activity where I grew up. There were probably a dozen guns in my home at any one time. I was also aware that several of my neighbors had multiple firearms. Honestly it never even occured to me to be afraid of all these people with guns. I never had a need to. Despite this incredibly high concentration of guns there has NEVER been a violent crime in my life time. I wouldn't care if my neighbors owned an Uzi. I know them well enough to know all they're gonna do with it is go down to the rifle range from time to time to pop off a few rounds. The point is Vegas, the difference is not the object with which an act is committed. The difference is the people who used them.