Has there been an assasination attempt since that nut shot Reagan?

[wasteofo2]

Yes, I am obsessed with violence and politics, and no, I don't plan on killing/harming any govt. officials.

Anyway, I was thinking, such great men as JFK, Martin Luther King, Theodore Roosevelt, Robert Kennedy, Abraham Lincoln etc. were either killed or had attempts on their lives, these guys are the kinds of people who go down in history as great men, with pretty much everyone agreeing that they were great, regardless of skin color/party affiliation etc.

What strikes me as curious isn't that such great men were killed or someone tried to kill them for political reasons, but that (as far as I can tell, maybe I'm just missing something), no president has had an attempt on their life go as far as a guy shooting at them since that nutjob who shot Reagan. And it's not like he did it because he thought Reagan was a bad president or had some anti-Reagan agenda, it was because he was trying to impress Jodie Foster. Does anyone have any idea as to why Americans seem to have calmed down as far as trying to kill national leaders they don't agree with?

On a semi-related note, wouldn't it be ironic if some guy went out and legally bought an UZI or AK-47 in a few days when the assault weapons ban lapses, and used it to assasinate some Republican Senator who voted against it?

 

[member 5645]

Well the forseeable end of a Presidential Career is one point. 8 years max, and the guy is out of office, no matter how big a nut job you think he is.

On a semi-related note, wouldn't it be ironic if some guy went out and legally bought an UZI or AK-47 in a few days when the assault weapons ban lapses, and used it to assasinate some Republican Senator who voted against it?

And no, that wouldn't be.
Uzi's are already legal to purchase as a semi automtic. AK-47's are automatic, and thus have nothing to do with the Assault weapons ban. Automatics ('machine guns') are not covered under the bill.

I wish that people would atleast not push the propaganda.

 

[wasteofo2]

Well the forseeable end of a Presidential Career is one point. 8 years max, and the guy is out of office, no matter how big a nut job you think he is.

Yeah, but JFK wasn't going to be president more than 8 years, Robert Kennedy hadn't even been elected President yet...

And no, that wouldn't be.
Uzi's are already legal to purchase as a semi automtic. AK-47's are automatic, and thus have nothing to do with the Assault weapons ban. Automatics ('machine guns') are not covered under the bill.

I wish that people would atleast not push the propaganda.

Would you care to give me a cerebral scrub and tell me which weapons truly are banned under the assault weapons ban that's going to lapse? And are you saying that average joe who's of legal age to buy guns and has no criminal record can just go into a gun store and buy an Uzi or AK-47?

 

[member 5645]

Yeah, but JFK wasn't going to be president more than 8 years, Robert Kennedy hadn't even been elected President yet...

Point taken. I'll leave this for someone else then. Maybe we need a revolution after all ;)

Would you care to give me a cerebral scrub and tell me which weapons truly are banned under the assault weapons ban that's going to lapse? And are you saying that average joe who's of legal age to buy guns and has no criminal record can just go into a gun store and buy an Uzi or AK-47?

There's a ridiculous amount of stuff. Tons on google. In some cases, an identical weapon is legal because it has a wooden stock (I will cite actual guns later if you wish, it's late right now and I don't feel like digging up pics).

What I'm saying is the average joe can buy a semi-automatic Uzi. And why not, do you know why an Uzi is anymore dangerous than another 9mm that no one is looking to make illegal?? Of course not. The Uzi just is known to be some badass gun, and that's what the law is about.
I'm saying that the fully automatic version (including multiple round bursts) of ANY gun is illegal regardless, without a license, due to the national firearms act of 1934.
The pundits and supporters have gone on and on talking about 'MACHINE GUNS' which have nothing to do with the assault weapons ban.
The assault weapons ban focuses on looks, large capacity clips, and things like flash supressors. If a gun has bayonett clips, it's illlegal. So the gun is legal, the knife at the tip? illegal

The whole thing is so arbitrary. I support the ban on large capacity clips (30 rounds and stuff like that) and I OWN such clips (they only come to the shooting range with me anyways). However, I am against the bill as a whole.

 

[Gokul43201]

I think there ought to be a ban on all automatics with more than 12 round clips. Why would you need something like that unless you want to shoot up a classroom full of students or a donut-shop full of cops ?

Surely, you don't need an large capacity automatic to handle an intruder.

I really don't know enough about this issue, and my reading on the matter is mostly limited to Tom Clancy.

Out of curiosity (I guess the NRA maintains statistics about things like this), to what use does an automatic mostly get put ? Would it be hunting ? <honest question - I'm not particularly fond of hunting, and as a result know little about it >

 

[wasteofo2]

Point taken. I'll leave this for someone else then. Maybe we need a revolution after all ;)




There's a ridiculous amount of stuff. Tons on google. In some cases, an identical weapon is legal because it has a wooden stock (I will cite actual guns later if you wish, it's late right now and I don't feel like digging up pics).

What I'm saying is the average joe can buy a semi-automatic Uzi. And why not, do you know why an Uzi is anymore dangerous than another 9mm that no one is looking to make illegal?? Of course not. The Uzi just is known to be some badass gun, and that's what the law is about.
I'm saying that the fully automatic version (including multiple round bursts) of ANY gun is illegal regardless, without a license, due to the national firearms act of 1934.
The pundits and supporters have gone on and on talking about 'MACHINE GUNS' which have nothing to do with the assault weapons ban.
The assault weapons ban focuses on looks, large capacity clips, and things like flash supressors. If a gun has bayonett clips, it's illlegal. So the gun is legal, the knife at the tip? illegal

The whole thing is so arbitrary. I support the ban on large capacity clips (30 rounds and stuff like that) and I OWN such clips (they only come to the shooting range with me anyways). However, I am against the bill as a whole.

Ok, I'm not a gun owner, but what I originally thought was semi-automatic weapons were ones that re-loaded by themselves, all you had to do was take your hand off the trigger, and fully automatic weapons were ones you held down the trigger and fired continuously until they were out of ammo. I also thought Uzi's and AK-47's were of the ilk that you just held down and they fired continuously (from playing videogames like James Bond, i never came across an AK-47 that I had to click the a button each time I wanted to fire). Could you clarify that for me? If I'm wrong, what are the differences as far as the time between rounds fired for semi-automatic Uzi's and AK-47's and their fully automatic counterparts?

Why are you against the bill as a whole, when 2/3 of violent crimes that used to be perpetrated with weapons that were banned don't happen anymore since the bill was put into effect?

 

[member 5645]

Ok, I'm not a gun owner, but what I originally thought was semi-automatic weapons were ones that re-loaded by themselves, all you had to do was take your hand off the trigger, and fully automatic weapons were ones you held down the trigger and fired continuously until they were out of ammo. I also thought Uzi's and AK-47's were of the ilk that you just held down and they fired continuously (from playing videogames like James Bond, i never came across an AK-47 that I had to click the a button each time I wanted to fire). Could you clarify that for me? If I'm wrong, what are the differences as far as the time between rounds fired for semi-automatic Uzi's and AK-47's and their fully automatic counterparts?

Why are you against the bill as a whole, when 2/3 of violent crimes that used to be perpetrated with weapons that were banned don't happen anymore since the bill was put into effect?

Your definitions are right. That's what they are.

The AK-47 IS automatic, in every instance I have ever seen it.
The Uzi comes in both semi and auto models. In Semi, it's just a very rugged, 'mean' (apparently by the bill), looking 9mm.

The time differences are ridiculous. You'd have to look them up. I know some about guns, but I'm not much of a gun nut. Let's just say that our PRESENT M16 in the US military fires 800 round per minute in full auto, and in semi auto fires 45-50 (however fast you can pull the trigger).

I am against the bill as a whole because I am against demonizing things that don't need to be. If the want to ban FUNCTIONAL problems, go ahead. Large clips, grenade launchers, okay. Ban a gun because it has a pistol grip, but is weaker than another legal gun? It's just arbitrary at that point because of LOOKS. We are banning guns on LOOKS? Why not get to the heart of the problem.
If you could cite the statement you just made. I'll respond then :)

 

[member 5645]

I think there ought to be a ban on all automatics with more than 12 round clips. Why would you need something like that unless you want to shoot up a classroom full of students or a donut-shop full of cops ?

Surely, you don't need an large capacity automatic to handle an intruder.

I really don't know enough about this issue, and my reading on the matter is mostly limited to Tom Clancy.

Out of curiosity (I guess the NRA maintains statistics about things like this), to what use does an automatic mostly get put ? Would it be hunting ? <honest question - I'm not particularly fond of hunting, and as a result know little about it >

There is already a ban on automatic weapons (of any size clip), and the licensing process to is ridiculous to get one! I don't think I could even get one if I wanted to. But again, that's not what the Assault weapons ban is about! Even today, with is repealed, ALL AUTOMATIC WEAPONS are still BANNED WITHOUT A LICENSE, and the licensing process DOES NOT change at all with the bill being repealed. They have nothing to do with each other.

Automatics are usually bought by police and collectors. Youd have to be a moron to think it'd be a good weapon to protect your house with. Spraying a clip full of rounds down your living room wall isn't exactly a good way to keep your family safe.

 

[Gokul43201]

Guess it's time to do some reading up...thanks for the info.

 

[LURCH]

What I'm saying is the average joe can buy a semi-automatic Uzi. And why not, do you know why an Uzi is anymore dangerous than another 9mm that no one is looking to make illegal?? Of course not. The Uzi just is known to be some badass gun, and that's what the law is about.
I'm saying that the fully automatic version (including multiple round bursts) of ANY gun is illegal regardless, without a license, due to the national firearms act of 1934.

I think the perceived problem with a weapon like the Uzi is that it is originally produced as a fully automatic. As I understand it, the weapon is made "semi-auto" by the removal of the spring that holds the loading chamber open between rounds if the trigger is held down. So buy an Uzi, replace that spring, and you're ready to roc-n-roll. Now, I imagine it's a bit more complicated than that, but not much. So the Uzi, the M-16, and other assault rifles are prefab automatic weapons; just add a few simple components. It's like selling someone a kit to build an automatic firearm.

The situation seems (to me) to be similar to the selling of poison gass. It's illegal to sell poison gass, but you can sell chlorine, and you can also sell amonia. You can even sell the two to the same customer. But, if you try to sell a package that contains a one-litre bottle of chlorine, a one-litre bottle of amonia, and an empty two-litre glass container, you'd probably get busted.

 

[russ_watters]

Its not much more complicated than that, Lurch. Changing 2 or 3 parts in a lot of sem-auto guns will make them automatic. The M-16 even has a selector switch to switch between different modes (it no longer offers full-auto).

I am ambivalent about this issue for the reasons phat listed - its largely a cosmetic issue.

 

[member 5645]

I think the perceived problem with a weapon like the Uzi is that it is originally produced as a fully automatic. As I understand it, the weapon is made "semi-auto" by the removal of the spring that holds the loading chamber open between rounds if the trigger is held down. So buy an Uzi, replace that spring, and you're ready to roc-n-roll. Now, I imagine it's a bit more complicated than that, but not much. So the Uzi, the M-16, and other assault rifles are prefab automatic weapons; just add a few simple components. It's like selling someone a kit to build an automatic firearm.

The situation seems (to me) to be similar to the selling of poison gass. It's illegal to sell poison gass, but you can sell chlorine, and you can also sell amonia. You can even sell the two to the same customer. But, if you try to sell a package that contains a one-litre bottle of chlorine, a one-litre bottle of amonia, and an empty two-litre glass container, you'd probably get busted.

I am not aware of the process on an Uzi, as I do not have any intention of making one fully automatic.
However, the AR15, the semi version of the M16, is manufactured in such a way as to stop it from being made automatic in any sense.
You'd have to show me that such a process isn't the case with the Uzi.
And now, at that point you hit the fact that semi-auto weapons that DO NOT have automatic cousins can be made auto too. That is illegal, but does that mean you should make the original weapon illegal on that basis? I don't think so.

 

[wasteofo2]

Phatmonkey my source for the 66% reduction in the weapons which were banned being used:
"The On Target study and other studies have demonstrated that, since the Act became law, assault weapons banned by name in the Act have declined from almost 5% of guns traced to crime in the pre-ban period to only 1.6% in the years following the ban - a decline of 66%. The absolute number of named assault weapons traced to crime also has declined, even though the absolute number of crime gun traces has steadily increased. Moreover, even if copycat guns are included, assault weapons have declined from almost 6% of traced guns to about 3% - a decline of 45%. Therefore, the Federal Assault Weapons Act has contributed to a substantial reduction in the use of assault weapons in crime, despite the industry's efforts to evade the law through the sale of copycat assault weapons."
- http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issues/?page=aw_renew

From what I've read, the pistol grip isn't just cosmetic and arbitrary to ban, and it was actually designed to give greater aiming stability while rapidly firing multiple rounds, which sounds like a bad thing to me, especially on a gun specifically designed to kill people.

The AK-47 was a gun banned by the act, and now that the act's repealed, it can be imported and produced in the USA, right? Are you for this, becuase it would be a headache to get the liscence needed to get one?

And you really don't think that guns which can be easily converted to automatic should be banned, because it would be illegal to do so? Wow, that just flies in the face of logic to me. I will bet you I can find a guide on the internet on how to make several different guns into automatic, just as you can find a lot of illegal things on the internet.

 

[member 5645]

man, I just typed out a long reply, and the forum gave me a forbidden message. eessshhh, I'll try again later, my morale is shot right now ;)

 

[wasteofo2]

I know the feeling...

Another forum I visit that uses this software has a thing where if you type a post that's too long, it won't delete any of your content, maybe we could see about lobying the mods for that?

Here's a screenshot of the magic:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v294/wasteofo2/postalert.jpg

 

[member 5645]

No, this wasn't a vbulletin problem. It was a problem with permission to newreply.php Then I was out of the forum fully for about 5 minutes before I could get back in

 

[Smurf]

Didnt saddam try to assassinate Bush senior?

 

[wasteofo2]

Didnt saddam try to assassinate Bush senior?

Ha! That's right, go figure!

Anyone know how far it actually got? Was it just like Saddam said "I want Bush dead", or did he actually hire a guy to do it and he got in the USA and was stopped by someone?

 

[member 5645]

Ha! That's right, go figure!

Anyone know how far it actually got? Was it just like Saddam said "I want Bush dead", or did he actually hire a guy to do it and he got in the USA and was stopped by someone?

I would have mentioned this, had you not been focused on internal Americans.
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/content/?020930fr_archive02
Read your history young grasshopper. Car bomb in Kuwait

 

[JohnDubYa]

The On Target study and other studies have demonstrated that, since the Act became law, assault weapons banned by name in the Act have declined from almost 5% of guns traced to crime in the pre-ban period to only 1.6% in the years following the ban - a decline of 66%.

So the criminals used a 9mm carbine instead? How does that really help?

 

[wasteofo2]

So the criminals used a 9mm carbine instead? How does that really help?

It's not like crime rates have stayed constant between the time the law was passed and now dude. A larger percent of legal guns are being used for crimes, but the amount of violent gun crimes as a whole has dropped, along with crime as a whole.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/09/12/crime.rate.ap/
http://www.kci.org/publication/white_paper/falling_crime/toc.htm

I'm sure you could find tons more info on the falling crime rate if you cared to. Of course it's not all due to the banning of assault weapons, but the amoutn of violent gun crimes has indeed dropped since this legislation was passed.