my law teacher is letting us do our final paper on anything related to law so i will do it on the awb. i need your guys' help. post all of the legitimate links dispelling the awb and even gun control in general. books are also gladly welcomed. so far i only have oleg's site and the book unintended conequences because i get most of my knowledge directly from the forum.
i need all of the AWB and gun control sources you guys have
- Thread starter buy guns
- Start date
- Status
Pilgrim
Member
Ahhh, what kind of law course/law school is this?
Pilgrim
Pilgrim
Gabby Hayes
Member
Don't forget [ http://www.awbansunset.com/ ].
Harry Tuttle
Member
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2003
- Messages
- 3,093
10 Ring Tao
Member
http://www.livejournal.com/community/guncontrolnow/ (includes common points of debate from both sides, make sure to go back through several pages using the link at the bottom, as there are multiple entries on the AWB)
http://www.livejournal.com/community/oustudents/126418.html (includes links to other sources of info, including other journals with well written primers)
In both of those links, I am 'doctorogenki'.
Go to http://gunfacts.info and download the latest pdf file, in it is a section on the AWB. It has an excellent and well researched myth/truth format with complete references.
http://gunfacts.info/AWBrief.pdf Also with references.
http://www.livejournal.com/community/oustudents/126418.html (includes links to other sources of info, including other journals with well written primers)
In both of those links, I am 'doctorogenki'.
Go to http://gunfacts.info and download the latest pdf file, in it is a section on the AWB. It has an excellent and well researched myth/truth format with complete references.
http://gunfacts.info/AWBrief.pdf Also with references.
http://www.guncite.com
http://www.saf.org/AllLawReviews.html (there are over a dozen on the AWB -- search the page for "assault")
http://www.thehighroad.org/library/const.html
What's your thesis?
http://www.saf.org/AllLawReviews.html (there are over a dozen on the AWB -- search the page for "assault")
http://www.thehighroad.org/library/const.html
What's your thesis?
First, read the law. It is still in the books and on legal web sites. Understand what it really says, not what someone (pro or anti) says it says. Read the rhetoric, pro and anti, surrounding the AWB when it was first passed (most of the pro-AWB writing is nonsense) and when it expired. You will likely become ill after thousands of repetitions of "millions of lives will be saved" and "the evil NRA terrorist organization", but stick it and try not to throw up.
Many comments, pro and con, on the AWB are exercises in semantics. When the law was nearing expiration, anti-gun groups claimed that it had reduced crimes committed with "assault weapons." It did, simply because "assault weapons" were banned. But semi-auto rifles that were identical in all but cosmetic features were never banned, and the crime rate with those remained low, as it always had been. As an example, the DC area "beltway sniper" did NOT use an "assault rifle" because his Bushmaster did NOT have any of the features that defined an "assault rifle" under the AWB.
So, if you ban car makers from painting cars blue, you can claim that the law has reduced accidents involving blue cars, and we are all safer. Never mind that the accident rate has gone up or that millions of people who want blue cars have been frustrated, or that millions of dollars have been spent registering and licensing blue spray paint. Pure semantics and pure nonsense.
Jim
Many comments, pro and con, on the AWB are exercises in semantics. When the law was nearing expiration, anti-gun groups claimed that it had reduced crimes committed with "assault weapons." It did, simply because "assault weapons" were banned. But semi-auto rifles that were identical in all but cosmetic features were never banned, and the crime rate with those remained low, as it always had been. As an example, the DC area "beltway sniper" did NOT use an "assault rifle" because his Bushmaster did NOT have any of the features that defined an "assault rifle" under the AWB.
So, if you ban car makers from painting cars blue, you can claim that the law has reduced accidents involving blue cars, and we are all safer. Never mind that the accident rate has gone up or that millions of people who want blue cars have been frustrated, or that millions of dollars have been spent registering and licensing blue spray paint. Pure semantics and pure nonsense.
Jim
benEzra
Moderator Emeritus
Rational Basis Analysis of Assault Weapon Prohibition [20 J. of Contemp. L. 381-417 (1994)].
Also do a comparison between a civilian Uzi lookalike (9mm) and a Glock 17 (9mm). They are functionally and ballistically identical (and 33-round Glock mags were, and are, freely available, to boot); the main difference is that the Uzi lookalike is so much less concealable...
To dispel the myth that these guns are uber-powerful, find precise kinetic energy figures for the following rounds (perhaps at remington.com; I have the figures on my other computer):
Uzi lookalike (9mm) ~450 ft-lb
AR-15 (.223 Remington) ~1300 ft-lb
AK-47 lookalike (7.62x39mm) ~1500 ft-lb
.30-06 hunting rifle ~2900 ft-lb
.300 Winchester Magnum hunting rifle ~???
.375 H&H hunting rifle ~???
The .223 is arguably the LEAST powerful of all common centerfire rifle calibers.
Regarding Kerry et al's "weapons of war" rhetoric, point out that the ban (1) banned practically all firearms holding over 10 rounds and (2) didn't ban ANY military AK-47's, military Uzi's, and so on. All the covered guns are CIVILIAN guns.
Another good point--if over-10-round guns, long guns with pistol grip stocks, etc. really "have no other purpose than to kill large numbers of people without reloading," blah blah blah as the prohibitionists claim, then why does your local police department issue over-10-round handguns and/or equip patrol rifles with pistol grip stocks? (Research to see what guns your local PD actually uses.)
Also do a comparison between a civilian Uzi lookalike (9mm) and a Glock 17 (9mm). They are functionally and ballistically identical (and 33-round Glock mags were, and are, freely available, to boot); the main difference is that the Uzi lookalike is so much less concealable...
To dispel the myth that these guns are uber-powerful, find precise kinetic energy figures for the following rounds (perhaps at remington.com; I have the figures on my other computer):
Uzi lookalike (9mm) ~450 ft-lb
AR-15 (.223 Remington) ~1300 ft-lb
AK-47 lookalike (7.62x39mm) ~1500 ft-lb
.30-06 hunting rifle ~2900 ft-lb
.300 Winchester Magnum hunting rifle ~???
.375 H&H hunting rifle ~???
The .223 is arguably the LEAST powerful of all common centerfire rifle calibers.
Regarding Kerry et al's "weapons of war" rhetoric, point out that the ban (1) banned practically all firearms holding over 10 rounds and (2) didn't ban ANY military AK-47's, military Uzi's, and so on. All the covered guns are CIVILIAN guns.
Another good point--if over-10-round guns, long guns with pistol grip stocks, etc. really "have no other purpose than to kill large numbers of people without reloading," blah blah blah as the prohibitionists claim, then why does your local police department issue over-10-round handguns and/or equip patrol rifles with pistol grip stocks? (Research to see what guns your local PD actually uses.)
- Status