Chill,

As a closet fan of the circus and right-wing nut-job, I thought it was my duty to clear this up, lest you misguide several readers:

The ban on 'assault weapons' has nothing to do with automatic weapons or submachine guns. Automatic weapons are still illegal.

The ban which just expired only applies to the magazine size, the barrel and stock length, and handle type of a particular gun. The ban essentially tried to make certain types of guns (i.e., semi-automatic rifles such as the AR-15) illegal by targeting certain features which such guns tend to have.

The expiration of the ban will only allow gun owners to have shorter barrels, collapsable stocks, pistol grips, and high capacity magazines. Trust me, if they made submachine guns legal, I'd be on the first plane back to the states.

Signing off from a land where not even the bobbies carry...

Cheers,
-Nick

Not only did the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 ban guns with the following features:
-Collapsible stocks
-Rifle barrels below a certain length (10 inches? That sounds right)
-Pistol-type grips
-Magazines of 15 rounds or more
-Frangible bullets

It also banned certain weapons by name, including the Tec-9 (a favorite of urban street gangs), the AK-47 (banned because of the incredible power with which it propels its ammunition), and a few other guns by name.

The three features above make high-powered weapons, such as the ones named in the bill, more useful for people-killing. If you obey the law, you don't need those features. If you believe the government is out to get you, you don't need those features - an bushmaster with a solid stock works just as well at removing the threat posed by rogue militar agents of the New World Order just as well as an AK-47.

The reason those weapons were banned is because they carry a certain aura around them that seems to encourage illegal violet behavior. Yeah, you can still kill Officer Smith with a .38 special, but it wouldn't feel the same as gunning him down with a Kalishnikov.

I'm with Chris - sometimes, a society doesn't need certain things.

Nick, still in jollye olde Englande I see. As a self-avowed gun owner, I'm curious to hear your take on how the UK's gun culture compares to ours. Do people feel more or less safe because the coppers aren't packing? Are there fewer gun owners there, and if so are criminals roaming the streets (or just soccer stadiums)? Watch for another gun-related post either tonight or tomorrow...

Brian,

It is important to note that the gun ban only prevented a *combination* of the aformentioned features, which you correctly identified, save the barrel length and the magazine capacity. The ban:

-restricted magazine capacity to 10 rounds
-set a minimum barrel length of 16 inches (I'm fairly certain of this)

As such, the tech 9 is still legal, even under the ban (in fact, I almost bought one a little over a year ago). What makes a tech 9 illegal is its use with a high-capacity magazine. Guns under the gun ban are legal if they have less than two of the restricted features. The tech 9 has a pistol-style grip, so its use with a high-capacity magazine makes it illegal. The tech 9 has no stock, so the collapsable stock is not applicable. Likewise, barrel length is not an issue as the tech 9 is essentially a pistol.

That said, it seems naive to think that the ban has prevented gangs from using their favorite weapon. The gun itself is still legal - do you think a law preventing a high capacity magazine would prevent someone who is planning a drive-by from carrying out their plans with such a magazine? Moreover, do you think a gang would be using a legal firearm anyway?

As for the AK-47, your statements are simply untrue. The ban's application to the AK has nothing to do with the caliber of the firearm or "the incredible firepower in which it propels ammunition" - let's face it, the .223 (5.56mm NATO) is no slouch. Like I mentioned in my first comment, the banned guns were targeted solely by the restricted features.

And, last but not least, the fact that firearms with these features have a "certain aura around them that seems to encourage illegal violet behavior" - I don't even know how to respond to this - it's just a silly statement. I own an AR-15. Getting a collapsible stock and shortened barrel isn't going to make me want to go out and kill "Officer Smith". If I really wanted to do that, I probably wouldn't be bothered with a weapons ban, because I probably wouldn't be doing it with a legally purchased gun in the first place. There, I'm done.

Chris,

Yes, still in England for another month, and then back stateside. Good to hear your southern roots are still there - didn't know you owned a gun. As for the gun culture - there really is none. Unless you are a farmer with a need to protect your livestock from predetors, or are a member of a hunting or shooting club, you can't have a gun - and in the latter cases the gun has to be kept at the club. A friend of mine is a policeman in Blackpool (a fairly rough area) and says that sometimes he wishes he was able to carry. That said, police carrying guns in England is an entirely different matter to police carrying guns in America because the populace don't have them, there aren't as many around, etc. Gun crime is on the rise here though. ... and football hooligans are only a problem if you're rooting for the wrong team ;).

Sorry for the rant, these things tend to get me excited.

Keep up the good work on the circus.

-Nick

Nick, I believe you misunderstood. You were the self-avowed gun owner, my wording was a bit confusing (after work, it's amazing I don't write my posts in C#). Although 'tis true I am from the south, I try to save my shooting for Bond games.

it seems as though for many, at least in the south, gun ownership is portrayed as a celebration of southern culture and tradition. but if this is the case, why the interest in new-fangled modern weapons? shouldnt a southerner celebrating his roots seek a more traditional gun?