I'm going to get a bit into detail here about a possible assault weapons ban. I plan on laying forth my knowledge of the guns in question, and presenting a few facts and videos.
To begin with, what is the difference between these two guns?
If you guessed absolutely nothing, pat yourself on the back. You haven’t been fed a line of crap by the media.
In fact there is NO difference in these two guns except for one is made of wood the other is made of black synthetic kydex. The bipods do not make the second gun more dangerous, nor does the plastic stock or scope. Not even the bayonet lug… name the last time you heard of a drive by stabbing. Well the pistol grip looks scary… again nothing to make it more dangerous. The Ruger-Mini 14 on top is a semi-automatic firearm that generally shoots a .223 caliber cartridge. The second firearm is one of many kinds of AR-15’s. It also shoots a .223 caliber cartridge. They are the same firearm, except for a few cosmetic differences.
Also I would like to point out automatic firearms have been banned since 1986. Automatic assault weapons ≠ semi-automatic assault weapons. There is a big difference in how they work.
Back to what I was saying previously, I could take that top Ruger Mini 14 and make it look big black and scary like the bottom one.
Yet I’m still willing to bet if I set these two firearms in front of people and asked them which one should be banned, I would bet my paycheck on the fact that they would pick the big black scary one, all because it looks scary. Never mind the fact that both firearms are the exact same thing.
I’d also like to share the fact that there are far deadlier guns out there then the wimpy .223 Mini 14. Try my 8mm Mauser that could put a hole in a steel plate from 200 yards away, or my 12 gauge pump shotgun. With the right slugs I could rip right thru the body armor of any advancing force. Yet these guns are legal in all 50 states, not true with the “Big black scary guns” remember this is the only reason they are banned in states such as New Jersey and New York… its purely cosmetic and fear.
Not even a member of our own congress knows why she wants to ban these.
These are the following features they want to ban.
* A folding or telescoping stock - How does this make a gun dangerous?
* A barrel shroud - All this does is keep you from burning your hands on a hot barrel.
* A pistol grip - My handgun has a pistol grip, it doesn't make it dangerous, it helps you hold it.
* A bayonet mount - I've never heard of a drive by stabbing.
* A flash suppressor, or threads to attach one - This is going to make a gun less deadly how?
* A grenade launcher - Purely cosmetic as live grenades (for the launcher) are class 3 items and are hard to obtain legally.
Now that we have established the fact that the ban on these guns is purely cosmetic and looks, lets look at crime rates.
Usually crime rates with assault weapons are low. Under 5% and as a Washington Post editorial said after the last AWB:
"No one should have any illusions about what was accomplished (by the ban). Assault weapons play a part in only a small percentage of crime. The provision is mainly symbolic; its virtue will be if it turns out to be, as hoped, a stepping stone to broader gun control".
Here are some points about the last assault weapons ban and how it has failed in every state it has been implemented in. Link to source
* California. In 1990, "assault weapons" comprised thirty-six of the 963 firearms involved in homicide or aggravated assault and analyzed by police crime laboratories, according to a report prepared by the California Department of Justice, and based on data from police firearms laboratories throughout the state. The report concluded that "assault weapons play a very small role in assault and homicide firearm cases." Of the 1,979 guns seized from California narcotics dealers in 1990, fifty-eight were "assault weapons."
* Chicago. From 1985 through 1989, only one homicide was perpetrated with a military caliber rifle. Of the 17,144 guns seized by the Chicago police in 1989, 175 were "military style weapons."
* Florida. Florida Department of Law Enforcement Uniform Crime Reports for 1989 indicate that rifles of all types accounted for 2.6% of the weapons used in Florida homicides. The Florida Assault Weapons Commission found that "assault weapons" were used in 17 of 7,500 gun crimes for the years 1986-1989.
* Los Angeles. Of the more than 4,000 guns seized by police during one year, only about 3% were "assault weapons."
* Maryland. In 1989-90, there was only one death involving a "semiautomatic assault rifle" in all twenty-four counties of the State of Maryland.
* Massachusetts. Of 161 fatal shootings in Massachusetts in 1988, three involved "semiautomatic assault rifles." From 1985 to 1991, the guns were involved in 0.7% of all shootings.
* Miami. The Miami police seized 18,702 firearms from January 1, 1989 to December 31, 1993. Of these, 3.13% were "assault weapons."
* New Jersey. According to the Deputy Chief Joseph Constance of the Trenton New Jersey Police Department, in 1989, there was not a single murder involving any rifle, much less a "semiautomatic assault rifle," in the State of New Jersey. No person in New Jersey was killed with an "assault weapon" in 1988. Nevertheless, in 1990 the New Jersey legislature enacted an "assault weapon" ban that included low-power .22 rifles, and even BB guns. Based on the legislature's broad definition of "assault weapons," in 1991, such guns were used in five of 410 murders in New Jersey; in forty-seven of 22,728 armed robberies; and in twenty-three of 23,720 aggravated assaults committed in New Jersey.
* New York City. Of 12,138 crime guns seized by New York City police in 1988, eighty were "assault-type" firearms.
* New York State. Semiautomatic "assault rifles" were used in twenty of the 2,394 murders in New York State in 1992.
* San Diego. Of the 3,000 firearms seized by the San Diego police in 1988-90, nine were "assault weapons" under the California definition.
* San Francisco. Only 2.2% of the firearms confiscated in 1988 were military-style semiautomatics.
* Virginia. Of the 1,171 weapons analyzed in state forensics laboratories in 1992, 3.3% were "assault weapons."
* National statistics. Less than four percent of all homicides in the United States involve any type of rifle. No more than .8% of homicides are perpetrated with rifles using military calibers. (And not all rifles using such calibers are usually considered "assault weapons.") Overall, the number of persons killed with rifles of any type in 1990 was lower than the number in any year in the 1980s.
This is proof that the ban is 1. Because of cosmetic features and 2. Not because of crime.
So this leaves the argument that citizens should not have military style weapons. I can't remember the exact Federalist paper, but I remember reading it. It may not have been a Federalist paper, but it was written by George Mason. He stated that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to make sure that citizens are armed with the same type of weaponry that a common foot solider of the time would have (or equivalent). Sure the founders didn't envision AK-47's, but they did know times would change. I'm sure they never envisioned mass media and internet, but the 1st Amendment still applies today like it did back then. The same is true for the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment is not about hunting, it's about being able to defend yourself from tyrannical government. How good is that going to work if you have inferior weapons the the government? Thus why citizens should be allowed assault rifles.
A single shot rifle is not going to do you any good when the shit hits the fan. I would rather have the best, most reliable, highest ammo capacity firearm to defend myself (and my property) against hoards of looters, rioters or gestapo police busting in my door at 2am with no regards for my rights. The 2nd Amendment (guns) is the one right that protects all the other rights. The gun is what keeps the free American citizen from becoming a pion under the boot over over oppressive government. Without it, we would have nothing to stop over oppressive government if need be. The assault rifle is the most effective in doing so...
This leaves one last reason... people don't like them. Control freak much?
No comments:
Post a Comment