Is Bush's Lax Gun Control Policy Putting the 'Homeland' at Risk?

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Gza
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the implications of the lapse of the assault weapons ban during George W. Bush's presidency, particularly in relation to national security and gun control policies. Participants explore the potential risks associated with the availability of assault weapons and the motivations behind political decisions regarding gun legislation.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that the lapse of the assault weapons ban increases the risk of gun violence, suggesting that easy access to weapons like the AK-47 could lead to more shootings.
  • Others contend that the responsibility for the ban's lapse lies with Congress rather than Bush, noting that he would have signed a renewal if it had been presented to him.
  • There are claims that the previous law was ineffective, primarily based on cosmetic features rather than actual functionality, and that the focus should shift to creating more sensible gun laws.
  • Some participants question the actual threat posed by assault rifles compared to other types of firearms, citing historical data on political assassinations and the types of weapons used.
  • Concerns are raised about the effectiveness of security measures, such as those employed by the Secret Service, in preventing potential political assassinations.
  • There is speculation about the number of assassination attempts that may occur and whether they are thwarted by security measures.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the implications of the assault weapons ban's lapse, with no clear consensus on the effectiveness of the law or the best approach to gun control. Disagreements exist regarding the significance of assault weapons in relation to national security and the motivations behind legislative decisions.

Contextual Notes

Some arguments hinge on the interpretation of the effectiveness of the previous assault weapons ban and the definitions of terms like "assault weapons." There is also uncertainty regarding the actual availability of certain firearms for purchase and the implications of their use in violent incidents.

Gza
Messages
446
Reaction score
0
It seems that Bush, under the pressure of pro-gun groups allowed a ban on assault weapons to lapse. This seems to be rediculous, given his militaristic determination on "homeland security." Now, how exactly will the "homeland" be safe when any loony over 18 can go out to a store and buy an AK-47? Expect to see more shootings in the news with these easily accessible weapons of mass homicide.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,10764381%255E1702,00.html

Thanks a lot Bush. We'll be seein you out the door in 2004.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Well, the things Bush does inside the USA are not about security for the people. They're about security for the people in power.
 
Gza said:
It seems that Bush, under the pressure of pro-gun groups allowed a ban on assault weapons to lapse.
Not to get all factual on you or anything BUT it wasn't up to Bush to stop the ban from lapsing, it was up to congress. They obviously chose not to. Furthermore, Bush also publicly stated that he would sign it and stop the bill from sunsetting if congress were to put it before him. Congress obviously did not put it before him, therefor...it was allowed to set softly upon the western horizon. :wink:
This seems to be rediculous, given his militaristic determination on "homeland security." Now, how exactly will the "homeland" be safe when any loony over 18 can go out to a store and buy an AK-47? Expect to see more shootings in the news with these easily accessible weapons of mass homicide.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,10764381%255E1702,00.html

Thanks a lot Bush. We'll be seein you out the door in 2004.
It was a bad law, based mostly on cosmetics. Certified loony's as well as Felons still are not able to go out and by any weapon and if ak-47's are eligible for purchase (nobody has shown me they are, sor far) then they would still have to be limited to semi-automation. As semi-automatics on the whole were never banned, of what real relevence is that? Other then clip size, there is really no change except for allowing weapons who have cosmetic differences to be back on the market.
All of the ranters and ravers would do better to push for a more sensible law instead of crying about the loss of this one.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Assault weapons = ugly = threat to national security
 
How many assassinations in the USA were committed with assault rifles? How many with single shot rifles and pistols?
 
For Presidents:

Lincoln: Pistol
McKinley: Pistol
JFK: Single shot rifle
Ford: Pistol on both occassions
Reagan: Pistol

Frankly, I would be more worried about pistol-grip, short-barreled shotguns.
 
It was a bad law, based mostly on cosmetics. Certified loony's as well as Felons still are not able to go out and by any weapon and if ak-47's are eligible for purchase (nobody has shown me they are, sor far) then they would still have to be limited to semi-automation. As semi-automatics on the whole were never banned, of what real relevence is that? Other then clip size, there is really no change except for allowing weapons who have cosmetic differences to be back on the market.
All of the ranters and ravers would do better to push for a more sensible law instead of crying about the loss of this one.

If that's true then I guess I have some research to do, before I can talk about this any further. Thanks Kat :smile: .
 
I've always been amazed that there are not far more political assassinations. It's very easy to put a bullet in something the size of a head from several hundred metres away, and there are a lot of frustrated people out there.
 
I've always been amazed that there are not far more political assassinations. It's very easy to put a bullet in something the size of a head from several hundred metres away, and there are a lot of frustrated people out there.

The secret service is an amazing organization. Anywhere the president will be in public sight, they will pretty much figure out every single location concealed sniper fire can come from and secure it. It really isn't as easy as one would think. The relatively few assasinations of presidents supports this.
 
  • #10
The current world record for a 0.50 calibre is 2.4 kilometres, by a Canadian army sniper. That's a lot of area to cover.

I wonder if there are actually many attempts, which fail due to the SS, or there aren't many attempts.
 
  • #11
Adam said:
The current world record for a 0.50 calibre is 2.4 kilometres, by a Canadian army sniper. That's a lot of area to cover.

I wonder if there are actually many attempts, which fail due to the SS, or there aren't many attempts.

But in an urban environment, there aren't that many sight lines, while in an open area, the possible locations for a sniper are few and thus controllable. I think the prevention of sniper fire is difficult but doable if you have only specific sites (such as transfer to and from vehicles) to control. Modern "bulletproof" and opaque vehicles solves the other part of that problem. I would think they'd worry a lot about the possibility of shooting down aircraft, though.
 
  • #12
JohnDubYa said:
For Presidents:

Lincoln: Pistol
McKinley: Pistol
JFK: Single shot rifle
Ford: Pistol on both occassions
Reagan: Pistol

Frankly, I would be more worried about pistol-grip, short-barreled shotguns.

Dubya, you forgot about Garfield :eek:..ummm, nevermind. :rolleyes:
 

Similar threads

News Bush Honest & Trustworthy Until How Many Lies?
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
13K