Assault Weapons Cartoon

from the brilliant Mark Fiore

Comments

Doesn't that cartoon show the ban was ineffective?

They list the Stockton shooting, and Columbine as involving 'assault weapons'. Since these occured while the ban was in force does that not mean the ban is useless.

Res ipsa loquitur.

Re:Doesn't that cartoon show the ban was ineffecti

Well, yes, and so were the Ten Commandments. Back to Mt. Sinai and back to the drawing board.

AK-47s and UZIs

The cartoon mentions AK-47s and UZIs. These are fully automatic machine guns. The 1934 National Firearms Act makes these weapons illegal. They are illegal today without the assualt weapon ban in place. Gun control opponents need to learn their guns and the laws. It is hard for me to support a group that does not even understand what they are banning.
Also in regards to the cartoons attempt to implicate Bush for the assualt weapons ban going away, did Senator Kerry propose legislation to continue the ban?

Re:AK-47s and UZIs

FYI, BBC report on Kerry's position on assault weapons.

Re:Doesn't that cartoon show the ban was ineffecti

That was the funniest thing I have read in ages. I am sitting at the reference desk giggling.

So much for a nice quiet library.

Re:AK-47s and UZIs

The link you provided does not work.

Re:AK-47s and UZIs

It should. Try it again.

Chiming in

The cartoon is cute, but either erroneous or dishonest. Just to confirm what Bibliofuture noted, the rifles noted in the background of the pictures of Mullah Omar and Osama are without doubt fully-automatic (and hence "true") assault rifles. These are illegal in the U.S. for anyone not holding a Class III Federal Firearms License (and that excludes most gun dealers, much less private citizens).

In the interest of balance, I thought I would offer links to some Flash animation from a different perspective--not as witty as the Fiore cartoon, but perhaps edifying and amusing nonetheless.

I think it is important to ask about the reasoning behind any legislation or government regulation. If no good reason for a law or rule can be adduced, that law or rule should be abandoned. I am still waiting to hear a cogent argument for the assault weapons ban. It has not proved to reduce crime or deaths and injuries involving firearms. Since it brings no benefit of this sort, the only reason I can see for it is that "it is a step in the right direction," namely in the direction of banning all private ownership of firearms. Perhaps there is some other reason for promoting that law, but I don't see it.

birdie, I am completely sincere when I say this: I want to understand your reasons for favoring this law. I am not baiting you. I am not trying to convince you of the rightness of my position (though if as a by-product I do convince you, then, well, great ;-). You aren't obligated to give me a reason, either. But I do hope someone will help me understand what benefit the law confers. If you do see it simply as "a step in the right direction", then please say so forthrightly. I don't own an assault weapon under the definition of that law, but if I did, I would use it if necessary to defend your right to your opinion :-)

Re:AK-47s and UZIs

Not illegal, just a pain in the arse to get. Clinton raised the fee for a class III FFL ( the kind needed for an automatic weapon).


The application for a NFA classified weapon (Naional Firearm Act of 1934) is a pain in the neck,you have to meet all the other requirement for owning a gun and then get the police chief to sign your form, submit fingerprints and photos, prove you are not under indictment or nuts, pay $200 per weapon.

So no, I don't own any automatic weapons. But then again if I can't get you with the first few shots then I shouldn't be using a gun.

Re:Chiming in

Thank you Chuck B for defending my right to my opinion (not at the point of a gun please).

I am in favor of the most COMPREHENSIVE assault weapons ban possible (which the recently lapsed bill was not) to keep those weapons out of the hands of those who would use them for their own destructive purposes...not in self-defense or in warfare. The police (who uphold the laws that we pass) want them banned too. They should have the support of the citizens they protect.

The gun lobby (NRA) is historically so well entrenched in this country; chances are that their aims and goals will never be defeated. Our country, presumably the leader of the free world, has the absolutely worst record in the world regarding gun violence, homicide and suicide by guns...some of them assault weapons.

It is difficult to find up to date statistics and information comparing and contrasting gun violence rates from country to country (those studies are not well funded as compared to the NRA studies), but here's some background:

  • Johns Hopkins,
  • firearms law center,
  • Brady Campaign
  • IANSA
  • plu.edu.

    If LISNews readers want to contribute some additional sources, it would be appreciated.

    Chuck, you know and I know that the gun manufacturers and retailers are deleriously happy that the assault weapons ban has lapsed. They're thrilled to be able to send their wares out to the gun shows and the gun shops, internet dealers and chain store retailers...they want to make a buck doing what they do best. Many of them don't even care if their income is legal....or illegal. Hey, it's a living.

  • Syndicate content