Assault weapons ban lifted...good thing?

[Endor5]

I'm a college student and attend a school in a very liberal area of Ohio. I've had countless arguments with various gun-haters (especially since the CCW past earlier this year) and I've almost always gotten them to consent to at least some of my pro-gun views. That is until the assault weapons ban was lifted. I just cannot seem to convince anyone of the average citizen's need to own an uzi or, in general, the benefit to making assault weapons legal and more readily available to all. The criminals will have them anyway( i say), but increased numbers are sure to fall to the wrong hands (say my gun-fearing friends). This inability to convert is admitedly due to my limited knowledge of law enforcement problems relating to the increases ofthese types of weapons. I need some feedback from officers (active or retired) or from anyone with knowledge regarding law enforcement and assault weapons. Please help!! The fight for the 2nd must go on!

[shaggy]

The best defense is a good offense.

You, my friend, have fallen into the anti's trap of playing defense and trying to justify yourself and your "need". Don't. Make them defend their position instead. Why do you "need" an assault weapon? You don't, and you can admit you merely "want" one. There's many things we want but don't need. No one needs an SUV the size of a main battle tank, but soccer moms all over the country are driving them while blabbering on the cell phones they don't "need". No one "needs" a 36" TV, but we do like having them. Similarly, you don't "need" an assault weapon, but you'd like to have one. (And it should also be noted that you don't "need" the right to worship or speak as you please - many countries don't allow you these freedoms- but we as Americans like our Bill of Rights and our Constitution and the rights and freedooms enumerated therein.)

The Constitution enumerated certain rights; the right to keep & bear arms among them. Those rights can be restricted and regulated (and if you don't believe me, we can get into a lengthy discussion of legislation under the Commerce Clause and its Constitutionality as applied to a right enumerated in BoR). Currently though, the law of the land allows us to buy and sell them. So you "want" an assault rifle to exercise your God-given and Constitutionally recognized rights.

The usual counter of the anti is that the framers of the Constitution didn't have modern assault rifles in mind when they wrote the Constitution and didn't intend to protect such things. Maybe, but the Constitution is a living document and we apply the principles embodied therein to modern times. The internet, broadcast TV & radio, and the mass media were not in existence when the Constitution was written, but we do apply the principles of the First Amendment to modern things such as the internet. Ask them if they'd like the first Amendment's free speech protections to only apply to materials written on antique printing presses or things writen with a quill on parchment.

Then they will counter with the old cliche that someone may use it for something criminal. We already have laws regarding murder, assault, robbery, etc. Merely possessing a gun does not harm anyone. If someone were to use it in a criminal fashion they've crossed a line. If it gets stolen and used in a crime, the criminal has alrewady shown his disdain for the rule of law by stealing in the first place. Would you think he would care about laws proscribing his possession of an assault weapon if they were outlawed? Should we outlaw possession of certain common household chemicals because someone might use them to make an explosive device? Should we outlaw possession of gasoline outside a vehicle's gas tank because someone might use it to make a molotov cocktail?

Ask them to provide the number of federal criminal convictions under the 1994 Assault weapons ban that was suppossed to be so damn successful that it desperately needed to be renewed. (The fact is, assault weapons as defined under federal law are used only in about 3% of all gun crimes).

Ask them to define an assault weapon which they would ban, and then point to examples of commonly used hunting and sport rifles that use the same action which would also be banned. Blur the already vague lines between "assault weapons" and hunting rifles and make the anti's try to distinguish one from another and where the line between assault weapon and hunting rifles is. In 1994 Congress and the US Senate had a very difficult job of it (which is why the law was mostly unsuccessful); my guess is that your anti friends will to.

I could write more, but I think you can see where I'm going...

[Johnny Guest]

Endor5, I believe you came to a good place to seek information. Reading your initial post, I began mentally composing a reply, and was gratified to see that shaggy has already covered practically each point I would have made.

As to your question concerning the feelings of current or retired law enforcement officers - - I personally prefer the concept of Peace Officer - - That those entrusted with special responsibilities by their community are or should be Officers of the Public Peace. In recent years there has been a trend toward the militarization of civil police personnel, including municipal police, constables, sheriffs and deputies, state police, and other non-military persons with statutory power to enforce local and state laws and to make arrests. Non-military federal agents are, in my mind, a somewhat different matter . . . .

I feel I have standing to express my opinions on this topic having over 35 years service with municipal and county agencies, all in Texas. My response is filled with first person opinions and the pronoun “I,” but you asked - - -

I think the “danger” to peace officers posed by any particular class of firearms is highly overstated. “Assault” is a behavior more than a descriptor of type. Let’s use the term “Assault Rifle” properly, to refer to a selective fire or full automatic arm firing an intermediate-power cartridge. This is distinct from the submachine gun (mostly using pistol cartridges) and military battle rifles (using full power cartridges.) This type arm usually has certain cosmetic features: A pistol style gripping area for the strong hand and a “high capacity” magazine. As most of the type originated for military use, they can usually accept a bayonet.

Without regard to what the law should be, the “Assault Weapons Ban” had nothing to do with full automatic firearms. It merely addressed the visual features - - long magazines, pistol grips, bayonet lugs and so forth. Possession, sale, and manufacture of fully automatic firearms have been federally regulated since 1934. The AWB did NOT deal with machine guns at all, and the expiration of this law did not legalize a single machine gun. All it did was regulate those who wished to have a civilian-legal version of a military rifle - - For WHATEVER purpose.

As to use of full auto guns in commission of crimes, I make two observations. As possession of an unregistered machine gun is illegal, a criminal is liable for arrest merely for having one. The gangsta risks incarceration for simple possession, his choice. I worry far more about one of our deputies being taken under fire by someone with a bolt action hunting rifle than a full auto sound effects gun. The guy with a lever action or bolt action deer rifle probably realizes he must take aim. A single aimed round from a high powered rifle is far more dangerous than an indiscriminate spray of lower powered, short range pistol bullets. Or, forget high powered deer rifles - - a cool headed kid with a scoped .22 rabbit rifle can be a problem for an infantry squad! Give me a thug with a sloppily converted AK or Uzi any day of the week. IF his weapon works, we’ll solve the problem while he’s fumbling around trying to reload after the sound effects are done.

The proper use of a full auto weapon requires a lot of practice, and preferably good training. Few criminals bother practicing with conventional firearms. Far fewer want to draw attention to themselves by firing off illegal full automatic guns.

As a hobbyist, I participate in occasional full auto shoots with a group of guys (and a couple of gals) that enjoy machine guns. You’d be hard put to find a more law-abiding group, or one more mindful of firearms safety. Just as with individuals who lawfully carry handguns, legal machine gun shooters in this area tend to be pillars of the community. These people are probably less danger to society than sports car enthusiasts, skate boarders, or dirt bike owners.

Must go now - - Good luck in your quest for knowledge.

Johnny

[nbk2000]

You're using the anti's terminology of 'assault weapon'.

No such beast exists outside of the armed forces and maybe some class 3's.

What you're referring to are semi-automatic rifles with features that make them more reliable in inclement weather and that need reloading less frequently.

Perfect for hunting! Whether the prey has four legs or two...

[shaggy]

FWIW, I do know there's a technical distinction between true selective fire assault rifles and what was defined under federal law as "semi-automatic assault weapons"; I own both types.

That said, I don't think you'll win what is inherently a debate on gun control, freedom, and Constitutional rights by bogging down in a technical discussion and semantics over whether an "assault rifle" is full automatic or semiautomatic. Both types are legal and available in the US, and your anti-gun friends are not going to say "Oh, its only semi-automatic not full automatic? Well that changes everything." Not going to happen. They know what an AK47 looks like and whether its semi or full, or whether you call it an AKM, AK47, AKS, or an RPK, its still just a big scary gun to them. You could call it a "semi-automatic ham sandwich" if you wish, but they'll still only see 'big scary gun' and ask why you need a "semi-automatic ham sandwich".

[MeekAndMild]

Endor, FWIW I bought an Uzi machine gun when Bill Clinton was president. I bought it over the internet and paid for it with a credit card...then waited 8 months for the government paperwork to clear for steps from the manufacturer to the FFL to me. But it WAS an internet purchase which happened in the midst of a Democratic regime and in the midst of the AWB!

An Uzi machine gun is as much the same as an Uzi carbine as a NASCAR race car is the same as your grandmother's Ford Taurus. It looks the same on the outside, but the inside is different, different sizes, different shapes, different parts. Sure you could make a race car from your granny's car but it would end up that all you'd have the same when you finished would be the outline of the vehicle in 3-d space.



Concerning your argument, I once had a similar argument with my barber, a guy I'll call Joe. I told him I'd give him a thousand dollars if he brought me one single news report of a citizen using a legal Uzi to commit a crime. He tried but never could, because the only one occurred a long time ago, 1983 if I recall correctly.

Uzis were popularized as being eeevvviiiilllll rifles in a very weird way. Either Emilio Estives or Charlie Sheen, I forget which one, appeared on the Johnny Carson show back in the late 70's or early 80's. (I forget the specific details, being an old f*rt, but I saw the show.) The kid spent about fifteen minutes talking about a drunken fight he'd had with his brother which involved death threats and either waving or shooting an Uzi at the other. Of course the press ignored the propaganda potential of spoiled children of Hollywood stars shooting at one another but they latched onto the idea that the Uzi was some sort of instrument of death from the bowels of Hell.

[Indy_SIG]

The best part of the so-called assault weapons ban being lifted for me is the availability of full-capacity magazines. Unfortunately, all the major players are waiting to see how long the ban is gone before they invest in producing a bunch of new ones.

[progunner1957]

The AW ban's death seems to have had not much of an effect on the availability of normal capacity AR-15 and M1A mags - prices and availability are about the same as they have always been.

The big difference seems to be in autopistol mags - I bought normal capacity mags for my Glock 21 (45ACP) used for $13 each from Lone Wolf as opposed to the $100-125 they cost before the ban died.

Stock up on pistol mags while you can - just in case! Who knows what ay come at us down the road.

[Hkmp5sd]

This is an "Assault Weapon" as defined by the '94 AW ban


This is NOT an "Assualt Weapon" as defined by the '94 AW ban


The Assault Weapon ban was the equivalent of banning all cars painted Red because they look like they go faster than other cars of the same make.

[MeekAndMild]

That's a pretty scary black rifle.

Maybe if you got a pink stock for it?

[jefnvk]

Spoilers are on race cars, right? Therefore, they should not be put on Honda Civics, because that would make them a race car, and anyone with a race car is obviously going to race down streets filled with children. Therefore, we must ban all spoilers on Civics immediately, to save the children.

Thats about the logic that the AWB had.

[Solidsheep]

We have the same problem about the assault weapon, but in France there is no time limited ban.
If a text is published it's forever.

[ProactiveReactionary]

i did some looking around and i was amazed at what was banned and WHY.

it LOOKS like a m-16 so thats the reason to ban it? it holds 30 round and not 15 so we should ban it?

this is basically feel good legislation. its the equivalent of turning on the light to scare away the monsters under your bed. it didnt really do anything at all.

i dont understand the point in taking a 15 round clip and reducing it to a 10 round clip. you just reload more often but ISNT going to keep a person from killing other people if they choose to. again, feel good legislation.

the people this "ban" effected the most was law abiding citizens. it didnt do squat to reduce crime and didnt do squat to keep firearms out of criminals hands.

doesnt matter if its a .22 or an ak-47, its still in the wrong hands if held by a criminal.

[Gothiq]

well the awb feature that was DESPERATELY needed and now we are horribly vulnerable to is.. the BAYNOET LUG omg!!! i cant believe they are going to allow bayonet lugs again!!! do you people realize that being bayoneted would REALLY HURT? who cares if the only illegal bayonetings recoded in the last 150 years can be traced to govt troops who are exempt from weapons bans anyway! geez just tha thought of horde of gangbangers driving by at high speed whilst bayoneting innocent people scares the dickens out of me!


"A study in sarcasm"

[SIG-Fan]

can one of u guys tell me, why anyone should get a fully automatic gun? these typ of guns aren't for any pursose then killing (people).
u can't shoot precisely in FA (so no need for sports)
u just might harm your buddies while going hunting with a FA gun, a good hunter needs just one or two shots. period.
defense with FA sucks, cause u probably kill many inocent people near you with bullets missing their target.
plinging/fun shooting - ok but that's already it.
i don't think the authors of the constitution wantet anyone to have the right to bring many others in danger (eg. by shooting around you while hoping to hit a direct thread). as most of u probably know, in the constitution the text says arms not guns, therefore do u think anyone should get a nuclear bomb for homedefense, since its some kind of arm, as well?

-SIG-fan

[Kordyte]

All of you guys are completely right... Why the heck is it that the people who don't know guns and criminals are the ones who try control them? I saw this quote on the TFL forum in somebody's signature:

from MAFIA INFORMANT SAMMY "THE BULL" GRAVANO
Quote:
"Gun control? It's the best thing you can do for crooks and gangsters. I want you to have
nothing. If I'm a bad guy, I'm always gonna have a gun. Safety locks? You will pull the
trigger with a lock on, and I'll pull the trigger. We'll see who wins."

All of that is simple logic, its all true.

[shaggy]

can one of u guys tell me, why anyone should get a fully automatic gun? these typ of guns aren't for any pursose then killing (people).
u can't shoot precisely in FA (so no need for sports)
u just might harm your buddies while going hunting with a FA gun, a good hunter needs just one or two shots. period.
defense with FA sucks, cause u probably kill many inocent people near you with bullets missing their target.
plinging/fun shooting - ok but that's already it.
i don't think the authors of the constitution wantet anyone to have the right to bring many others in danger (eg. by shooting around you while hoping to hit a direct thread). as most of u probably know, in the constitution the text says arms not guns, therefore do u think anyone should get a nuclear bomb for homedefense, since its some kind of arm, as well?

Whats that cliche about engaging in a battle of wits with an unarmed man?

Sig-Fan, as the owner of quite a few machineguns, let me address your points one by one.

why anyone should get a fully automatic gun? these typ of guns aren't for any pursose then killing (people).

This is bull****, plain and simple. There are over 100,000 transferable machineguns registered to civilian owners in the US and since the enactment of the National Firearms Act under which MGs are regulated in 1934, there have only been one or two incidents in which a legally owned machinegun has been used in a crime. If their only purpose is killing, they are either poorly designed as they're doing a very poor job at it, or machinegun owners are far more law abiding than most people.

Conversely, pistols, shotguns, and rifles not regulated under the NFA are responsible for most of the 30,000 deaths each year. Perhaps you would prefer all rifles, pistols, and shotguns to be reclassified and regulated under the NFA?

And while we're on the subject of intended purpose, did you know there are many competitive events throughout the US in which machineguns are used every year? NOt for killing, but for fun. Just like your beloved Sig pistol when you go to the range. Of course they can also be used for defense, but I'm not going to use a $14,000 HK machinegun to stop an intruded unless I have absolutely no other alternative. The cops are certainly not going to treat my prized $14,000 gun as nicely as I would.

BTW - how much did you pay for your pistol? The cheapest machinegun I own is about $3000; the most expensive about $40,000. Do I sound like the kind of guy who is going to buy a $40,000 gun to knock over the local Quickie mart for the chump change in the register?

Are you even aware of the process for obtaining an NFA weapon? I've submitted more copies of my fingerprints to the FBI than I can count...as well as pictures and all of my pertinant personal info.

u just might harm your buddies while going hunting with a FA gun, a good hunter needs just one or two shots. period.

Most states prohibit the use of full auto for hunting. Of course, like any gun, you should be sure of your backstop and surroundings before firing. How many hunting accidents are committed with machineguns every year? Compare that to those with just your average shotgun and hunting rifle.

defense with FA sucks, cause u probably kill many inocent people near you with bullets missing their target.

Practice my friend, practice. Just like using any handgun; you have to know the capabilities of the weapon and your own capabilities first. Of course, full auto is a bad choice for defense against a home intruder - would you like the cops seizing your $14,000 weapon until the investigation is complete? I'd much rather use a handgun or shotty I can afford to lose.

plinging/fun shooting - ok but that's already it.

Now you're getting it. Some people like yachts, some people like fancy cars. Some like fast guns.

i don't think the authors of the constitution wantet anyone to have the right to bring many others in danger (eg. by shooting around you while hoping to hit a direct thread)

The mere possession of a machinegun brings danger to no one. If I use it in a criminally reckless or negligent manner, than it may, but there are laws regarding use. You have no more right to use your Sig pistol in a criminal, reckless, or negligent manner than I have to use my M16. Of course, I'd just love to hear you present some facts to support your assertion the Founding Father felt differently.

as most of u probably know, in the constitution the text says arms not guns, therefore do u think anyone should get a nuclear bomb for homedefense, since its some kind of arm, as well?

Actually, the Supreme Court has addressed the issue in US v. Miller. According to Miller, any weapon of military utility is protected by the 2nd Amendment. However, its important to note that Miller is an old case and probably of dubious significance today.

[alan]

Endor5:

The people that you "cannot convince" are likely the same people who, in fact, haven't the proverbial clue about what an "assault weapon" in the ASSAULT RIFLE sense of the term actually is. I doubt that the facts of the matter, which they likely have never had any real contact wth, would make any real difference to such types.

By the way, the term "assault weapon" is meaningless, while the term Assault Rifle is a TECHNICAL TERM that has a quite specific definition, and meaning as with the following. Assault Rifle: Selective fire weapon, chambered for an intermediate power cartridge. A U.S. Military issue example of the above would have been the M-2 Carbine, of Korean War fame, a selective fire weapon, of rifle configuration, chambered for an intermediate power cartridge.

This goes back to when the 30-06 was the Service Rifle Cartridge, and the Service Pistol fired the 45 ACP. The M-1/M-2 Carbine round fell between the above mentioned re power and size, being that intermediate power cartridge.

Getting back to the people you cannot convince, one can lead a horse to water, but one cannot make the creature drink.

In conclusion, you mentioned "need" in your post. I submit that "need" doesn't even begin to enter into things. For example, regarding the thousands of SUV's bring driven on the public roads, how many of the people who own these vehicles "need" them, as opposed to the number of people who, for one reason or another, simply "want" them?

[SIG-Fan]

hi shaggy,
of course there are less incidents with FA guns, cause there are less of these possed by civilians in comparison to shotguns, ect. thats also why there are probalby no accidents with FA guns while hunting, since its prohibited in most states to hunt with FA. but especially the hunting example was supposed to show, thats there no real porpuse of a FA gun in civilian hands.
i mean, u can use a sg for hunting, homedefense, plinging as well as for sports, but FA is just eventually for fun.
however, u can't be serious to tell me, that a proper defense w/o harming your environment with a FA is posible. just imagine, at the time when 2-3 bullets of a handgun are on there way a FA has already passed 30 rounds...i think 30 bullets flying around you its far more dangerous then 3. especially if you considder, that controlling a gun while using FA mode is far more difficult to the average! civilian than handling a semi-auto. therefore the chance of missing and harming others is far higher.

since im not quite familiar with american presedence (is that how u write it?)
cases therefore if no idea about miller vs. state. what was the result of the case?

greetings from germany... sig-fan

[shaggy]

Sig-Fan

You've obviously never had any experience with a full-auto weapon before if you think full-auto means necessarily spraying 30rds all over the place. My M16 is set up for auto, not a 3rd burst. Many submachineguns, however, have a 3rd burst limiter, so each pull of the trigger only yields 3 shots, not 30. Even on those weapons without a burst setting (like my M16's) it is quite easy to limit yourself to two or three rounds per pull of the trigger. Even with weapons with a relatively high rate of fire such as a MAC type submachinegun, you can easily limit yourself to 2-3 rounds per pull of the trigger. Its called trigger control; those of us who own and use these kinds of weapons learn it rather quickly. If your experience of automatic weapons is limited to what you see in the movies and on television you probably have little or no concept of it.

And if you think machineguns are particularly ill-suited for defense, why do many law enforcement agencies use them? Why does the military use them? I'm sure the folks carrying machineguns for diplomatic and nuclear security would be stunned to find out how inneffective their weapons are.

Is it possible to load up a machinegun and dump all 30rds in one pull of the trigger? Absolutely. But is just as possible for you to quickly pull the trigger on your pistol until its empty. Neither is particularly effective, and both can be just as dangerous if done irresponsibly or recklessly.

So tell me, how much experience have you had shooting machineguns?

Do you know what the average machinegun costs in the US? The people that can afford machineguns here in the US are very careful about them - they are very expensive and there is a far more extensive background check than for any other type of weapon. Do you have any idea what is involved in acquiring a full auto weapon?

[Irishmtnmn2001]

Let's face it..........99% of the idiots I arrested with guns were packing garbage! Cheap Raven .25 autos and off-brand .380's. Your average criminal buys junk.

The law was enacted by people who aren't gun owners.....trying to get the votes of other non-gun owners.

It is a great thing that the political climate during the election prevented the renewal of the ban.

Unfortunately, my high capacity Glock Mags and Pre-ban AR-15 Match aren't worth CRAP anymore. Oh well, a small price to pay for freedom!!!

[alan]

SIG-Fan:

I believe that your understanding of America, it's laws and traditions, as well as your understanding of automatic weapons is unfortunately sparse. Years ago, I worked in what was then West Germany for a while, Weisbadden, please pardon my possible misspelling, so I knew, or had learned something of Germany, at least at that time.

Regarding automatic weapons, in the 70 years since the enactment of the National firearms Act of 1934, there is no record of the illegal use of a legally owned machinegun in this country. American machine gun owners seem to be particularly law abiding types, possibly due to the expense, the time and the effort expended in legally acquiring examples of the genre.

I noticed that you had mentioned "Miller v. state". Actually it was Miller v U.S., heard in the U.S. Supreme Court in 1939. It dealt with the possession and transportation across state lines, of an unregistered "short barreled shotgun". Automatic weapons or machine guns weren't involved at all. In the original case, two gentlemen, Miller and Layton thought to have been operating an illegal whiskey still, were found in possession of a short barreled shotgun which had been transported across state lines. They were charged with violation of the 1934 Act. At District Court level, the case was dismissed, the trial judge having found the 1934 law unconstitutional. The federal government appealed to Supreme Court, the highest court in the land. The court ruled that a short barreled shotgun was not a "militia arm", therefore posession of such was not constitutionally protected. Strange to note, tis finding flew in the fact of historical fact, for short barreled shotguns had been issued by the military, to U.S. troops and had seen service in World War 1, as well as other military acctions between WW 1 and WW2. Such fact, if brought to the attention of the court might well have caused them to reject the governments case. Interestingly Miller neither appeared before the Court, nor was he represented by legal counsel before The Court. The court heard only from government attorneys, people who clearly would not bring to the courts attention, evidence that would weaken or possibly destroy the case they were presenting. Therefore, The Court lacked "offical legal notice" as to historical fact, and individual members of the court, men who had possibly had military service, chose not to consider what they themselves might have seen or personally experienced. The 1934 Act was upheld, though argument about what the court actually meant carries on to this day.

Respecting your reference to "spraying the countryside with bullets", while I myself am not a machine gun owner, I have fired light automatic weapons, including the MP-5, the Thompson Sub Machine Gun, and the U.S. M-16, selective fire service rifle, one of such is owned by a friend of mine. I fired it once, first with a "short magazine", 5 rounds, for familizarition, with selector set on semi-automatic. After that I fully loaded a 20 round magazine, put the selector on automatic and fired 5 bursts from one 20 round magazine, an average of 4 rounds per trigger press. The countryside was hardly sprayed with bullets.

Finally, one hears a great deal of comment to the effect that "nobody needs those things". Re this, I submit that "need" doesn't even come close to entering the equation. What is involved re automatic weapons is desire to own the things, the abilityand willingness to pay quite high prices, and the ability of the individual to obtain government clearance for the purchase of such arms.

Porsche automobiles are high performance vehicles, some models capable of attaining speeds in excess of 150 MPH, correct me if I'm wrong. How many people "need" to own such automobiles, racing drivers excepted, and they usually drive rather than own the cars. Anyone who can pay the price can buy one, no? "Need" is simply not a factor, same as is the case where the individual or individuals lawfully acquire machine guns. "Need" plays no role whatever, though wants or desired obviously do.

When next you find the odd moment, consider the foregoing. Meanwhile, seasons greetings to you and yours. By the way, one needs to remember that the laws and traditions in one country will differ from those of another country. This is not to say that one set is superior to the other, but rather to note that they are "different". Let others determine or argue as to which is "better", for the final decision there depends on how one spells "better".

[SIG-Fan]

hi allan and shaggy.

@shaggy
your arguments seem quite convincing, if you consider the barriers of a regular civilian in order to get one of these guns. (permission+high costs)
but what about an mac10 or m16 with FA. anyone could afford one of these things...
however, you are right, never shot a FA gun. things are handled different over here, if you are not in the army or a police officer or a collector you won't ever come close to one of these things. during the time i spent in maryland (2001-2002) i didn't get the opportunity to shoot any gun. as far as i know, theres a 10round restriction in MD, so there wouldn't have been any sense in FA guns, anyway...

@alan. i certainly think the german way of handling guns is the better one. not because the FA guns, but because of the regular semis, awailable to everyone. i mean think about it, if u considder there where 250 gun murders in 2000 while 11000 guns murders in us (refering to michael moore). ok, the us is three times as big as germany, but this still just would be 750 gun murders (therefore less than 10% of the us gun crimes...)
i mean, what's the big deal of a permission for guns like in germany? i think that's a good way and a good compromise between gun-owners and gun-haters...
...i allmost forgot it. i live 20 miles away from Wiesbaden. that the capital of the state where i live, named Hessen.

[SIG-Fan]

something to add:

i neither "need" a gun, i WANT to have one. therefore i never referred to the word "need" in any of my posts...

[PMDW]

but what about an mac10 or m16 with FA. anyone could afford one of these things...

Mac 10s are around $3,000 now. M16s go for around $11,000 and up.

That's 4,432 and 16,251 marks, respectively.

As for the murder rate, I'm willing to bet that at least 95% (assuming that number was for murders in which a firearm was used, and not the total U.S. murder rate) of those crimes were committed by people who purchased their firearms illegally, or stole them. Meaning more laws aren't going to stop them from purchasing more firearms illegally. All they do it disarm the people who legally purchase firearms (among other reasons) in order to protect them and their families against those who purchase them illegally for use in crimes. What good is it to have people have to get government permission to obtain a firearm, when the gang banger down the street doesn't have to, because he buys them illegally out of a guy's trunk, or steals them.