Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Bush and self-contradiction

  1. Sep 14, 2004 #1


    User Avatar

    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 [Broken]

    Thanks a lot Bush. We'll be seein ya out the door in 2004.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Sep 14, 2004 #2
    Well, the things Bush does inside the USA are not about security for the people. They're about security for the people in power.
  4. Sep 14, 2004 #3


    User Avatar

    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:
    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: May 1, 2017
  5. Sep 14, 2004 #4
    Assault weapons = ugly = threat to national security
  6. Sep 14, 2004 #5
    How many assassinations in the USA were committed with assault rifles? How many with single shot rifles and pistols?
  7. Sep 14, 2004 #6
    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.
  8. Sep 14, 2004 #7


    User Avatar

    If that's true then I guess I have some research to do, before I can talk about this any further. Thanks Kat :smile: .
  9. Sep 14, 2004 #8
    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.
  10. Sep 14, 2004 #9


    User Avatar

    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.
  11. Sep 14, 2004 #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.
  12. Sep 14, 2004 #11


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    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.
  13. Sep 14, 2004 #12


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Dubya, you forgot about Garfield :eek:..ummm, nevermind. :rolleyes:
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook