Ban on assault weapons

[Becky Davis]

What do you think of the ban on assault weapons due to expire Monday at midnight?
The NRA is against the ban...I hear President Bush has said he is for it. However, he has done nothing to renew the ban. Speculation is he is waiting to get an endorsement from the NRA before taking any action.

[Another Texan]

The Stockton schoolyard massacre - On January 17, 1989, Patrick Purdy killed 5 small children, and wounded 29 others and 1 teacher at the Cleveland Elementary School in Stockton, California, using a semi-automatic version of the AK-47 assault rifle imported from China. That weapon had been purchased from a gun dealer in Oregon and was equipped with a 75-round "drum" magazine. Purdy shot 106 rounds in less than 2 minutes.[4]

The San Francisco Pettit & Martin shootings - On July 1, 1993, Gian Luigi Ferri killed 8 people and wounded 6 others at the San Francisco law offices of Pettit & Martin and other offices at 101 California Street. Ferri used two TEC-DC9 assault pistols with 50-round magazines. These weapons had been purchased from a pawnshop and a gun show in Nevada.[5]

The CIA headquarters shootings - On January 25, 1993, Pakistani national Mir Aimal Kasi killed 2 CIA employees and wounded 3 others outside the entrance to CIA headquarters in Langley, VA. Kasi used a Chinese-made semi-automatic AK-47 assault rifle equipped with a 30-round magazine, purchased from a Northern Virginia gun store.[6]

The Branch-Davidian standoff in Waco, Texas - On February 28, 1993, while attempting to serve federal search and arrest warrants at the Branch-Davidian compound in Waco, Texas, four ATF special agents were killed and 16 others were wounded with an arsenal of assault weapons. According to a federal affidavit, the cult had accumulated at least the following assault weapons: 123 AR-15s, 44 AK-47s, 2 Barrett .50 calibers, 2 Street Sweepers, an unknown number of MAC-10 and MAC-11s, 20 100-round drum magazines, and 260 large-capacity banana clips. The weapons were bought legally from gun dealers and at gun shows.[7]

http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/faqs/?page=awb

[This message has been edited by Another Texan (edited 09-09-2004).]

[RWhite]

I'm one of those rare "liberals" who doesn't support the "assault rifle" ban. I think it is a "smoke and mirrors" law designed to make people think politicians are actually solving a problem while it accomplishes little. For instance, the semi auto version of the AK-47 is banned, the FULLY automatic version is not. You can legally buy a .50 cal, belt fed heaving machine gun, but I can't get a twenty round magazine for my .22 cal rifle. I hate to break it to you, but most of the criminals I have prosecuted and defended don't follow the law. I think gun laws need to focus on who can acquire them, not the object. By the way, I generally don't agree with the NRA on most of these issues. But, if you want a feel good law than has people thinking they are safer, it's no big deal. Criminals will still have whatever weapon they want and the law abiding citizens with comply and find something else to do.

[C-mo]

The ATF agents in Waco were responsible for that mess, not the Davidians.

As a direct result of the ATF fiascos in Waco and Ruby Ridge, Timothy McVeigh blew up the OK city federal building.

We often hear that our government will not change because of terrorist acts. Look at what they do, not what they say. The government apparently learned a lesson from the OK city bombing, because it stopped its overzealous pursuit of gun nuts.

If they'd only look inward to discover the true reason behind 9/11, and try to change policies, we'd be much better off.

[Another Texan]

So basically you are saying that it is just a "feel good" law? A problem identified, action called for, no real solution but a new law on the books, politicians can say look we did something, citizens can say thank you thank you for protecting us??

Found another site it looks at many high profile shooting incidents. Goes into how the weapons were acquired. http://www.vpc.org/graphics/where.pdf

[S. Jones]

http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/...n/massmurd.txt


On Nov. 1, 1955, Jack Gilbert Graham blew up a United Airlines
plan on route from Denver to Seattle to collect insurance he had
bought for dear old mom, whose luggage he checked. He killed 44
persons, precisely twice the number from Luby's in Killeen,
Texas, and there is still no ban on checking luggage (although
too many patrons seem to impose one on themselves) nor searches
of checked luggage for bombs.

On March 25, 1990, Julio Gonzalez set fire to the Happy Land
social club in the Bronx, killing 87 persons, almost precisely
four times the number killed in Killeen (the largest mass murder
with a gun) -- although the Alternative News Network, as
reported in Gun Week of April 17, 1992, says six more later died
of burns, for as total of 93 -- and the miscreant has been
sentenced to 25 years to life (on each count, but the sentence to
be served concurrently), so Julio ought to be out of prison a
couple of years after the Feinstein bill is set to sunset. So he
was sentenced to a few months per victim, New York's gov being
big on banning "assault weapons" but weak on punishing murderers.
(The social club, for code violations, got its owner convicted
and sentenced to $150,000 fine and 50 hours of community
service.)

Virtually all serial killers -- Juan Corona, John Wayne Gacy, Ted
Bundy, et al. -- prefer to commit their crimes without guns,
although their victims would have been willing to beg for the
relatively instant and painless death by gunfire to the torture
serial killers inflict, with most killing more persons over time
than even the most vicious of mass murders with firearms.

The Puerto Rico hotel fire, set as part of a labor dispute on
December 31, 1986, reportedly killed 96 persons in the Dupont
Plaza Hotel in San Juan. Three persons pled guilty in the Puerto
Rico fire. One was sentenced to 75 years for obtaining the fuel
with which the fire was started. One was sentenced to 99 years
for inciting to start the fire. And the third was sentenced to
two concurrent 99 year terms for actually starting the fire.

At the time of one of the mass murders, I did a check with FBI
data, and found that, pretty much however one defined mass murder
(say, Jamie Fox's over five, or five or more in one incident --
without Jamie's little exclusion of arson), the plurality weapon
of choice was fire, not handguns, nor rifles, etc.

And this means that just two mass murders by arson during the
past ten years have killed more persons than the total who were
killed with "assault weapons" in virtually every widely
publicized multiple homicide, including San Ysidro (even
pretending that the Uzi killed the 21, rather than that only 6
died from Uzi fire), Stockton, Killeen, the 'Frisco law office,
the Long Island train, the printing plant in Louisville (?), the
shopping center in Florida, the recent Hasidim on the bridge in
NY, etc. Indeed, the number killed in those two fires probably
exceeds the number killed or wounded in all of those other widely
publicized slayings.

One can't be sure of the precise count, but counting fire, smoke
inhalation, suffocation, and unknown etc. as fire, but deleting
gunshot, knife, and blunt object, there were about 52 killed by
fire in the Branch Davidian compound on April 19, 1993. The
killer remains at large (in the DOJ's biggest office). If
they're dead, it counts as murder by arson (even if there's some
dispute about who the culprit is or was).

So the total for just three cases of felonious arson in the past
decade is 235 dead (or roughly the estimated total for the annual
number of homicides associated with all "assault weapons" --
based on the 1% figure).

Throw in Jim Jones (I believe the killer there was sentenced to
hell), and none of the five leading mass murders by Americans
were committed with firearms (although firearms were used
tangentially in two), and each killed a minimum of twice the
number in the greatest mass murder by firearm in American

[RWhite]

If your question is directed at me AT, yes, that's what I'm saying. The problem is not assault weapons, the problem is that there is something in our society that creates people who will use a weapon to inflict harm on others, even those they don't even know. I concede that the more weapons that are available, the easier it is for these people to acquire one (legitimately or criminally). However, a ban on the weapon doesn't deal with the root cause of the criminal behavior. I've got news for you, you want to cause a 6 o'clock news massacre, you can do a lot more damage in a confined space with a 12 gauge pump shot gun than with a semi-auto assault weapon. If taking away firearms would stop violent crime, I'd surrender mine in an instant. But until we attack the root causes of the behavior instead of using politically expedient feel good band aid laws, we're all just lying to ourselves so we feel more secure.

[arjay]

Originally posted by RWhite:
until we attack the root causes of the behavior instead of using politically expedient feel good band aid laws, we're all just lying to ourselves so we feel more secure.

Thank you RWhite for telling it like it is.

A two year old with a book of matches is inherently more dangerous than all my preban "assault" weapons and high capacity magazines put together. Let this piece of bad legislation sunset, and promote firearm safety education and personal responsibility/accountability.

"Fear the government that fears your guns."

[Another Texan]

"Fear the government that fears your guns."

Reasonable enough, I guess, but I fear guns in the hands of the unstable and those with criminal intent. Lifting the ban will make weapons designed for combat more accessible. Whether they are stolen or bought, legally or not, more deadly weapons is not what this society needs.

Anything can be turned into a weapon by those that intend harm, but there are some items that their whole design is to cause destruction. Do we really need more of these things available?

If the logic is to allow law abiding stable individuals to use these weapons for personal pleasure or defense why stop at assault weapons? Allow folks to purchase anything; grenade launchers, land mines, surface-to-air missles, heck if they can afford the fuel let them buy tanks. But if their weapons are lost or stolen hold them responsible for not securing the weapons properly.

Take a minute and read the summaries of the crimes on this site, most of the weapons used were purchased legally and by the person that used them to kill or injure.
http://www.vpc.org/graphics/where.pdf

[RWhite]

Actually AT, you can legally buy a tank. The stricter limits apply to the rounds for the main gun, as explosive devices are rather strictly controlled. My point is that the assault weapon law is not a solution, it's a ruse. If you believe that banning assault weapons will solve the problem, the law isn't nearly strict enough to do the job. What sense is it to ban me from buying a 20 round magazine for my .22 cal rifle but allow me to buy a 300 round belt of .50 cal ammunition for my fully automatice heavy machine gun. There isn't any consistency in the law. Ban them or not, it won't really affect me. I haven't fired any of mine for several years. I'd just like to see a little truth in legislation.