This is What Happens...

... when you write about something you have no experience with:

A Ban on Assault Weapons in the US must go ahead

Even if a new ban fails to put a dent in gun crime, there must be attention drawn to the issue and the legislation should be symbolic and a beacon for common sense and civility. How, on earth, can anyone possible argue the case that it is a person's right and indeed his or her need, to own a machine gun? The type you see in Die Hard or Boys 'n' the Hood. They make a lot of noise, they cause a hell of a lot of damage, though in reality, they work like they do in the not-so-unrealistic A-Team...in that it is virtually impossible to hit the people you aim for. Your clip runs out and all you've done is put a shit loads of holes into two dozen cardboard boxes and a nearby Lincoln.

Seems our over-the-pond friends watch too many Hollywood movies. That, and they don't know the difference between a machine gun and semi-automatic rifle that looks cool/scary/kinda military-like. Extra (un)cool points for the A-Team reference.

I jest, as the consequences of using such weapons are potentially horrific. They cause absolute carnage and put everyone else's safety at risk. The notion of being allowed to possess an M-16 is an absolute farce. The fact that in the States you can currently get hold of arms like this beggars belief.

That fact that you don't know the difference between an M-16 and an AR-15 doesn't beggar belief. Many people don't. What beggars belief is you writing about it. Pretending to know anything about guns (which you plainly don't) is an absolute farce. Your use of the term "allowed" speaks volumes.

Funny enough (surprise, surprise) the pathetic and disgusting decision to NOT re-enforce the ban was because of George Bush's actions. Or should I say, inaction.

Oh, really? It's Bush's fault? I thought it was Congress' responsibility to write laws, not the President. Say what you want about the President saying he's sign an extension of the Ban, the fact of the matter is it never reached him because the people of the United States wanted the ban to go away. That's the way we do things here.

Here's an article from USA Today dating back to 2004 when the ban expired:

Here is the article that I'm not gonna bother to read. Why not? Because the picture says it all.

A Boise Gun Co. gunsmith holds a Ruger mini-14 rifle, which has been illegal since the assault weapons ban went into effect 10 years ago.

News for you, sunbeam, never reference a story that can't even get the facts straight on it's photo caption. The Mini-14 was never banned. You'd have to replace the stock (you know what a stock is, right?) with a pistol grip/folding stock variety before it would fit "assault weapon" criteria.

The final paragraph speaks volumes:

A ban, should it transpire, may not cause a dent on gun crime, simply because most crimes are committed with small guns, like Glocks and other hand guns. Yet it is a step forward and symbolic more than anything. It will keep the momentum up for the anti-gun lobby (the fact there needs to be a lobby for this is a joke in itself) and keep the cause in the media. I only hope for the sake of our cousins o'er the pond that one day, sanity will reign true, and something is done to crush the prevalence and legality of gun ownership.

If these guns are not being used in crimes, why ban them? If banning guns is a good thing, why is your violent crime rate skyrocketing? Why is gun crime on the rise? You gonna blame Bush for that, too?

And what's with this whole "symbolic" thing? What that says to me is "We know these weapons aren't really a danger, but ban them anyway."

Hey, if you're scared of guns, fine. Stay away from them. Just don't try to foist your fear on those of us who choose to take responsibility for both our actions and security.

.