Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Gun Culture - 1994 vs 2014

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by eocoolj, Nov 7, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. siglite

    siglite Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2007
    Messages:
    1,234
    Location:
    Charleston, WV
    Outstanding. I have some reading to do. Thanks.
     
  2. threefeathers

    threefeathers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2003
    Messages:
    1,176
    Location:
    AZ
    The 94 hit me by surprise. I immediately took a loan out and bought an HBAR. I had a 40 witness and S&W 915 as my only high cap guns. Mags for all of these went out of sight. I had 4 for the Witness and 5 for the 915. I had 5 twenty round mags for the HBAR that I had brought back from ADuty. I still have the and the work today. I had only 2 thirty rounders until my son 'left; some when he was home on leave from the 82nd,
    I carried a 1911 for CCW and fired Service rifle comp with the HBAR. Around 1997 I got a nice High Power with 3 mags and an M1 carbine that included 4 Issue 30 round mags.
    On 9/11 I helped patrol the bridges on I-10 near the border and carried the HBAR and 1911, and my buddy had a British Jungle Carbine with AP rounds and a Colt Commander.
    By that time high cap mags were selling for triple their normal price,
    The day the ban ended I bought a Bushmaster M Forgery, and a SIG 229 with 5 mags. I haven't stopped. I now have 7 AR's of different types and at least 15 mgs per gun.
     
  3. Owen Sparks

    Owen Sparks member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2007
    Messages:
    4,524
    This is why any new ban would be innefective. Too many people own too many modern rifles and high capacity magazines compaired to 20 years ago.
     
  4. chicharrones
    • Contributing Member

    chicharrones needs more ammo

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2010
    Messages:
    4,429
    Location:
    Galveston Bay is an Hour Away ©
    That is my memory as well. I just didn't see near as many in the gun stores or at the range back then. The military pattern rifles I saw were nearly all mil-surps back then.
     
  5. chicharrones
    • Contributing Member

    chicharrones needs more ammo

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2010
    Messages:
    4,429
    Location:
    Galveston Bay is an Hour Away ©
    All I had was what most civilians had. Gun magazines and newspapers. The newspapers carried some of the political stories and the NRA magazines carried our side of it.

    I remember taking my SKS out back then with people publicly telling me it was "illegal" even though I bought it legally from the local sporting goods store. Regular uneducated shooters at that time seemed to think anything with a gas tube was military only.
     
  6. benEzra

    benEzra Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    8,577
    Location:
    Down East in NC
    Yes. They were very much an enthusiasts' gun, and there weren't very many good options for optics either. The most common configuration I saw was 20" HBAR boat anchors mostly limited to iron sights only unless you wanted a low-powered traditional scope in a gooseneck mount. Aftermarket pistol grip stocks had hit the market for the SKS and Ruger mini-14, so you occasionally saw those (and I wanted one badly for my mini pre-1994 but never made it a financial priority) but guns with traditional looking straight wooden stocks dominated at the range.

    Owners of modern-looking rifles were sometimes subjected to snide comments by older or more traditional shooters at the range, too, showing just how successfully the media had propagated the "black gun = evil gun" meme. I remember talking to people who had been approached by random strangers at the range and criticized for owning a gun "like that". Never mind an AR was and is functionally identical to a Ruger mini-14...plenty of shooters who should have known better were as emotionally wrapped up in black-rifle hysteria as the media were.

    Fast forward to now, when the AR isn't just in the mainstream but *defines* the mainstream, and probably 50 million gun owners collectively own half a billion full-capacity magazines for various guns, and there is simply no way a ban could fly now, either politically or logistically.
     
  7. gfanikf

    gfanikf Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2011
    Messages:
    866
    Location:
    PA
    Honestly I never even knew ARs existed, it was all AKs that would be talked about.

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 2
     
  8. 22-rimfire

    22-rimfire Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2005
    Messages:
    11,400
    Location:
    TN
    I remember the George H W Bush import ban in, 1989 (I believe). For me there was little warning. I bought an Uzi Mini-carbine immediately. But really didn't like shooting it much, so I sold it after owning it a few months. It simply did not seem to be accurate enough for me for a rifle.

    The 1994 AWB was something that I was fairly familiar with. But information was not timely and was gained mostly from reading gun magazines. I was attending gunshows frequently between 1989 and 1994. But it was at this time that my financial situation changed and I bought very very few firearms for the next 10-years.

    Grandfathering existing guns would make a new ban in effective relative to reducing crime if that is the justification for the legislation. Our President said something significant about taxation during the campaign... he basically said that he wanted to tax people earning 250K or more at a higher rate because it is "right". A gun ban would likely be sold in the same way and the facts or the reality relative to law enforcement would not matter. Hence it is about people control for our "own good" just like Obama Care.

    A ban would only be effective from an anti-gun supporter perspective if the actual guns are moved to the NFA catagory or banned outright. There would be a problem of definition just like during the '94 AWB time.

    A magazine ban is another matter entirely. The government (if passed legislatively) could in fact make it law that use of magazines that exceed 10-rounds is illegal. Shooting ranges would have to comply. You would still see the occasional person wandering around the woods with his 30-round mag, but in general a ban would end it. This is what I am afraid of. As a civilian. I personally don't care for box magazines that hold more than about 20 rounds. But everyone is different. It is not for me to say that I am right and someone else is wrong with regard to something like a detachable magazine.

    That is pretty much my take as well. I saw lots of SKS and AK clones but few AR-15 or clones at that time.

    I recall my father and I discussing the "assault rifle" issue. His point was that he saw no utilitarian purpose for them. He lived through the Depression and there was no attempted overthrow of the governent then. So why would anyone justify owning one of these rifles for "self defense" when a handgun or most any rifle would adequately fulfil the civilian need. My point was mostly about freedom. Why should the government be allowed to control ownership or sales of rifles when the owner was not a felon? People shoot them for fun. Some hunt with these rifles.

    He also looked at it from a cost point of view... how can any normal working person afford to plink away hundreds of center fire rounds on any regular basis? He didn't know about military surplus sources and was comparing the cost to normal center fire ammunition. He felt the same way about shooting away with almost all handguns except 22's. Who could afford it?

    Yes, they do seem to be mainstream now which is probably why you see people using them for criminal pursuits more than in the past.

    Gun legislation politically is one thing, but logistically is an entirely different matter. Like the illegal alien issue, it is physically impossible to enforce a ban or deport 12 million people. So it would be selective enforcement where LE would be influenced by their prejudices.

    I just hope that we don't have to deal with this. No new laws!
     
  9. benEzra

    benEzra Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    8,577
    Location:
    Down East in NC
    Actually, people are *not* using them for criminal pursuits more than in the past. Rifle crime now is AFAIK as low as it has ever been in the history of the United States. In any given year, less than 3% of U.S. homicides involve any kind of rifle ("assault weapon" or not), and rifle crime has decreased significantly since 2004.

    FBI Uniform Crime Reports 2010, Murder, by State and Type of Weapon

    Sum the columns in Excel and compare the total in the "Rifles" column to handguns, shotguns, knives, fists/feet, and blunt objects. Rifles are consistently least misused of *any* class of weapon in this country, bar none.
     
  10. -v-

    -v- Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Messages:
    1,217
    I think this post on vuurwapen blog summed it up nicely: http://vuurwapenblog.com/2012/11/07/sporting-purposes-how-hk-really-does-not-suck-or-hate-you/
    Basically, the gun world of the US at that time said "Yeah, ban AK's, FALs, AR15s and the like. They have no purpose. Now, even hinting that there might not be a reason to own X gun will get you internet lynch-mobbed.
     
  11. hq

    hq Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2011
    Messages:
    1,138
    Location:
    Finland
    For a good reason. The choice to use virtually whatever gun for a legal purpose is personal. Bans based on cosmetics, irrelevant technical details or other people's opinions have never accomplished anything, they just undermine the freedom of choice.

    I can't even remember how many times someone has told me that my 11" AR15 isn't suitable for hunting. I beg to differ, I've used that particular rifle successfully since the 80's and I have literally hundreds of downed game animals to prove it. After all, it's my business what I hunt them with.

    Live and let live.
     
  12. MagnumDweeb

    MagnumDweeb Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2008
    Messages:
    1,344
    Location:
    Central Florida
    As long as either the House or the Senate is made up of a majority of red states we're fine. Plus too many Democrats are scared of having the issue backfire on them. And now with gun companies being as strong as they are and gun issues being litigated with some measure of success. I think the gun companies would take a shot at legally fighting a ban on certain models of firearms and magazines if it meant a nationwide attack on their profit margins.

    Some might say they never fought any of the liberal states policies, but those states weren't really a profit loss. But lose the entire country, and you are taking about tens of millions if not hundreds of millions of dollars in lost profits. Whose going to buy an AR they can only get ten round mags for. Used goods would become the premium ticket and gun companies don't make any money off of the private sale of used goods.

    With the AR15 being as popular as it is and the money that stands to be lost if the mag ban were to happen again. I think someone would want to fight it. It's too big of a business not to. What is the justification going to be on limiting magazine capacity when folks can just tape mags together. Yes some rate of fire would be lost, but not a ton.

    I love capitalism, it's perfect justification for telling the government to back off.
     
  13. 22-rimfire

    22-rimfire Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2005
    Messages:
    11,400
    Location:
    TN
    Many Democratic legislators do not support a ban of any kind on firearms. But the Democrats seem to be much better at creating a solid voting block as compared to the Republican members. That said, I don't see any legislation passing both houses for the next two years unless there is some sort of dramatic event which propagates such action. The "event" that comes to mind is not a shooting in a school or movie theater, but rather some sort of organized rebellion that is geographically widespread inside the US. I would think it too late at that point and I don't support such a scenario.
     
  14. Old Guy

    Old Guy Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2005
    Messages:
    903
    Location:
    Florida
    Over the last 20 years, when ever the subject comes up "Will you go and collect legal guns from Citizens" Canada, or the US of A. Question to Police.

    Politically correct statements emerge. But as a Domestic Violence call is the most dangerous patrol call at this time. It would be nothing compared to trying to collect the 70 year old former Marines M1. The Mil Spec 3006 would make a mess of the Fords and GM vehicles. "Get off my lawn" would be epidemic.

    The biggest comment in the Police Stations? "You have to be kidding!"
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page