Palin vs. Biden: For And Against Assault Weapons
People often disagree about how best to keep dangerous people from getting dangerous weapons, but very few argue we should have no gun laws at all.
By large majorities, Americans continue to believe that policies like criminal background checks on all gun sales, waiting periods, strong police crack-downs on illegal guns, handgun registration, and restrictions on access to military-style assault weapons, are common sense ideas we should enact into law.
Take the assault weapons example. Since the 1990's, opinion surveys have shown strong and consistent public support for restrictions on access to military-style semi-automatic assault weapons - about 70% of Americans, depending on the survey. This support helped lead to a national law strictly regulating their sale and possession between 1994 and 2004.
Sen. Joe Biden was a leader in drafting that law and getting it passed, and police were grateful for it. During the ten years it was in effect, the law helped reduce the number of specified assault weapons traced to crime by 66% compared to the pre-ban rate.
To put it another way: approximately 60,000 more assault weapons might have been traced to crime between 1994 and 2004 if it weren't for the Assault Weapons Ban. Unfortunately, Congress and President Bush allowed it to lapse.
Was the law perfect? No, but it had a clear, measurable impact on assault weapons traced to crime, and law enforcement wanted - and still wants - restrictions on access to those weapons.
To take one example, after the ban expired, Miami-Dade Police reported a 400% increase in the number of assault weapons used between 2005 and 2006. And in September of last year, Miami-Dade Police Officer Jose Samohano was shot and killed with an assault weapon that a new and stronger assault weapons law might have taken off the streets.
Yet when Charlie Gibson asked Gov. Sarah Palin last month whether she agreed with 70% of the American people who support a ban on semi-automatic assault weapons, she replied, "I do not."
There wasn't a lot of time in that interview to probe exactly why she disagrees. It would be a useful part of tonight's debate if we could find out.
(Note to readers: This entry, along with past entries, has been co-posted on bradycampaign.org/blog and the Huffington Post.)
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I've been on the road the last few days with limited internet access, so this post is running a bit behind the times! But, here goes:
Keli, you recently wrote: “Your most recent comment makes me wonder why you are against both national controls & those of states, where it concerns firearms? You repeatedly bring up the state of NJ with respect to a semi-auto model 'Marlin 60' (& I'm assuming it's many, many variant) ~ which is considered even by some gunowners as not the most practical assault rifle for hunting (eg., it's "overkill").”
There’s an old saying which goes: “It’s better to remain silent & be thought a fool than to open your mouth & remove all doubt.” It’s advice that you should have taken! This post removes all doubt!
Your ignorance on just about everything gun-related is frightening! You wouldn’t know a Mauser Broomhandle from a Mauser Gewehr 98K (those are firearms) or a 5.45X45 from a 7.62X51 from a 12.7X99 (these are types of ammunition!). Nor would you know the Four Basic Rules of Firearms Safety. And it’s not for lack of folks trying to inform you. Truthfully, folks here have been far nicer to you that you deserve! In your arrogance, ignorance and elitism, you have rejected everything factual ever presented you and clung fast to your myths, lies, ‘special insights’ and ‘feelings.’
To be continued!
Old SF MJT
Pt. 2
Try for some honesty! You’ve taken a position: you don’t like guns! You don’t want to own one. You don’t want to use one. You don’t want to even touch one! They scare the crap out of you! Great! Nobody else wants these things for you either! But, your position on guns is purely emotional. It has absolutely no basis in fact and has been refuted here too many times to count. Still, it’s yours and you’re entitled to it. That’s your right.
Here’s the rub: Your rights end where others’ begin! And you have NO RIGHT to attempt to deprive someone else of their God-given right of self-defense & defense of family & home. You can freely drink of the Helmke/Horowitz/Sugarman koolade if you wish. Just stop trying to shove it down our throats. Stop trying to deny other citizens their rights.
Old SF MJT
Fishyjay is correct on the point that compromise is important on this issue. A good basis for compromise is to make sure the compromise is Constitutional (defined as broadly as possible), tightly focused on the population that is the problem (felons and those with serious mental issues), and it must be effective. The Clinton AWB fails on all 3 points.
Actually DJK I must humbly disagree. I believe that we have allowed the inmates to run wild for long enough. I think the Brady/Soros/Joyce foundation is patently un-American and in fact a dangerous cabal of groups looking to completely change the society that our fathers and grandfathers fought and bleed for.. So I say no further. The line is drawn and I will write all my congress people and senators as well as state representatives and let them know that any vote for gun control of any kind and I will post signs, write to editors and do all I can to make sure they are defeated in the next elections. I am through being PC. I am calling a spade a spade. The modern Democratic Party is a bunch of socialists and wants nothing more then to destroy this great country. There are differences between the blue dogs and I am going to write all of them that I have corresponded with and ask why they do not leave this farce of a party and make a new one.
drgn1--that is why I said the laws must be focused on the felons--including keeping them in prison, and I have no problem with reserving the cells for the prisoners that are behaving themselves and working hard--those that want to cause problem--they get stuck in the yard in tents--no cable, no TV etc
Folks. I don't know about you, but I find it not only rich but hypocritical for Kelli to remind us that no one is above the law while she is flat out ignoring the supreme law of the land (namely the Constitution) and advocates the suspension of the Bill of Rights. She also pretends the 2nd Amendment is old news and boring. The only reason why she want to pretend that the 2nd amendment is boring is because per Heller and Miller, the laws she so desperately wants passed are flat out unconstitutional and HIGHLY UNPOPULAR. The only way these laws will pass and survive the inevitable challenges is if Kelli, Paul Helmke, Josh Sugarman, and the Brady Campaign/VPC keep lying to scare people and find a way to circumvent the 2nd Amendment.
Look fellow ... I follow the laws. Period. And, I'm not party to groups with pro-gun agendas that could be seen as detrimental to our public health (esp. in certain populations). I'm also not among those here who keep complaining about having to obey laws & bans in my own homestate, or in other states, just because it prevents me from getting all of the firearms I want.
It's very clear to me that you have a highly skewed & biased view of organizations that are not in league with the NRA.
Kelli--the Constitution is the supreme law of the land--and per Heller the RKBA is an individual right and therefore laws that infringe upon that right are ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL--so what you are advocating is ILLEGAL. By logical extention of Heller through incorporation--that makes the laws in Chicago, the AWB in Kali and the Sullivan act in New York unconstitutional and ILLEGAL. Your support for the ILLEGAL firearm confiscation in NOLA show again your support for ILLEGAL activity if it involves the lawful owners losing their guns. Your claim to follow the laws is demonstrably FALSE.
Second attempt=Kelli--your support for laws that ban firearms that clearly pass the tests in both Heller and Miller show your total disregard for the law, as does your support for the ILLEGAL firearms confiscations in NOLA after Katrina as does your support for suspending the BOR
Shedances around the subject:
Claiming that the Marlin 60 is 'overkill' to hunters, she refuses to provide any support for said assertion.
Why are you avoiding providing evidence for your claim?
Because there is no evidence that supports her position
Honestly, when I entered gun control discussions more than a year ago on the Post, I thought there would cetainly be some intriguing discussions & exchanges on how to better regulate firearms and prevent gun violence problems that were recent in everyone's minds. In addition to learning a great deal from some HP blog authors, including the Brady Campaign, and a select few posters ... I found my experience here more of a bombardment of negative-sounding posts that bordered easily on gun-fanaticism from a familiar group of names who used to comment (also negatively) at the old BC blogs. Indeed, much more than I bargained for ~ or even desired ~ when I signed up ... but still a valuable learning experience. Yet, such negativity isn't good to remain in all the time. So, time to change hats & move onto political discussions involving the much-anticipated debate this evening. I look forward to Paul Helmke's next topic! Thanks.
And once again she plays "Top of the post" to distract from her unsourced and blatantly false allegations made below.
I see only your name at the top.
Enjoy the debate!
Shedances, I think the problem was that you were hoping to find fellow anti-gun people who agreed with everything you had to say (even if it wasn't true). Instead, you found a bunch of people who actually own firearms and use them on a regular basis. Because of this, we actually know false propaganda when we see it. Rather then instantly dismiss us as "gun nuts", maybe you should consider our points about guns and conduct some more research into finding out if what we are saying is true. This would involve going to a shooting range and firing the weapons, as well as reading opinions from true firearms experts.
However you feel about us, it is indisputable that we know more about guns then you (you have admitted you've hardly ever fired guns before), so don't be afraid of knowledge. Research into our points about guns, even if only for the purpose of disproving them. You might be surprised at what you find.
(cont'd 2) ~ there's more ...
(B.) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of: a folding or telescoping stock; a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon; a bayonet mount; a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and a grenade launcher;
(C) a semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of: an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip; a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer; a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned; a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; and a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm; and
(D) a semiautomatic shotgun that has at least 2 of: a folding or telescoping stock; a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon; a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds; and an ability to accept a detachable magazine.
Why Congress Refused to Renew the Federal “Assault Weapon” Ban
A study of the ban mandated by Congress concluded, “the banned guns were never used in more than a modest fraction of all gun murders” before the ban, and the ban’s 10-round limit on new magazines wasn’t a factor in multiple-victim or multiple-wound crimes. A follow-up study found “gunshot injury incidents involving pistols [many of which use magazines that hold more than 10 rounds] were less likely to produce a death than those involving revolvers [which typically hold five or six rounds]” and “the average number of wounds for pistol victims was actually lower than that for revolver victims.” Crime reports and felon surveys showed that “assault weapons” were used in only 1-2 percent of violent crimes before the ban; crime victim surveys indicated the figure was 0.25 percent. In the 10 years before the ban, murders committed without guns outnumbered those with “assault weapons” by about 37-to-1. Also, most crimes committed with such guns could be committed with other guns, and some could be committed without guns.
(cont'd) ~ There is a comprehensive, strong ban on assault weapons (HR 6257) that I support. For those interested readers (besides the gun extremists here), there's an excellent (amended) defn. of 'semi-automatic assault weapons' which includes "any of the firearms, or copies or duplicates of the firearms in any caliber," known as Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models); Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil; Beretta Ar70 (SC-70); Colt AR-15; Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC; SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9, and M-12; Steyr AUG; INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9 and TEC-22; and revolving cylinder shotguns, such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12 ...
And yet you support the ban that includes the Marlin 60 as an "assault rifle" that is "overkill" for hunting.
Basically admitting you really have no idea what this bill is about as long as it bans scary sounding guns.
"As I scroll through declarations made by pro-gun advocates and unarguably gun-obsessive types that were, BTW, also made numerous times this past year, I can't help but wonder ... what makes them feel they are always 'in the right' (over others) on firearms dangers,"
OK kelli, let's talk about 'obsession'.
We are standing up for our constitutionally guaranteed right to own firearms for our proection, and that of our families , and you are advocatring total surrender to anyone who you perceive to be 'in charge'.
You believe it is wrong to protect your own children with a firearm. You believe it is wrong to throw off the yoke of opression, by an illegal, tyrannical government which usurps power, with a firearm.
I put it to you that YOU are obsesseed with coddling criminals, and making honest, law abiding people helpless against them, and that your interest is personal.
If your adopted brother's victims were armed, you might be minus one adopted brother.
"I can't help but wonder ... what makes them feel they are always 'in the right' (over others) on firearms dangers,"
Because you don't know a damned thing about firearms, that you didn't learn from the BC. That's like getting medical advice from a plumber.
Laws, inc. gun laws, are necessary for society to function reasonably OK. In fact, there's a wise old quote that says, 'Be you never so high, the law is above you," by Thomas Fuller. In other words, no one is above the law.
As far as "assault weapons" are concerned, the '94 ban spearheaded by Sen. Feinstein, did help reduce violent crimes (involving assault weapons) "by more than 60 percent," according to the Justice Dept. Also, there were 140,000 more gun-related incidents in 2005 after the ban expired; & in recent years, 20 percent of the murders of police officers nationwide have been from assault weapons use, according to the JD.
You are wrong on so many things in your post, mike102; but I haven't the time or desire to correct all the mistakes (esp. those related to my views or what ifs with respect to my brother, Matt).
Gun control isn't a dirty word or phrase ... it's absolutely necessary to safeguard all Americans (not just those with private guns).
Kelli--I find it rich that you claim no one is above the law when you absolutely place yourself above the 2nd amendment and the Supreme Court. Your attempts to disarm law abiding citizens is flat out unconstitutional, BTW--I don't oppose laws aimed at disarming violent felons and keeping said felons in prison--despite your earlier attempt to pretend I oppose ALL gun laws--just the ones that you advocate disarming law abiding citizens.
"the '94 ban spearheaded by Sen. Feinstein, did help reduce violent crimes (involving assault weapons) "by more than 60 percent,""
I'm sure they said exactly that. Just like hunters think .22 cal rifles are 'overkill'.
Funny thing is, the Feinstein law easily TRIPLED the number of "assault weapons" in private hands between 1994 and 2004. Sales of AR-15 type rifles, civilian AK's, etc. skyrocketed in 1994 and stayed high ever since. (I personally bought mine in 2003.) Yet rifle crime did not increase.
It didn't increase after 2004, either. Look at the FBI Uniform Crime Reports, Murder, by State and Type of Weapon, for the years 2005-2007. No change in the absolute numbers, and even a small per-capita decrease.
And police-officer gun deaths are now the lowest they've been since 1960.
Rifles were not commonly used in murders in 1980, not in 1992, not in 1998, and not now.
"As far as "assault weapons" are concerned, the '94 ban spearheaded by Sen. Feinstein, did help reduce violent crimes (involving assault weapons) "by more than 60 percent," according to the Justice Dept."
Let's see a link, because from what I can see, no such thing happened.
Once again, where is the evidence? You claim you are citing the justice department study, but provide no links. Also it's interesting you continue to ignore the JD study that shows citizens use guns for self-defense tens of thousands of times per year. Why don't you consider this study significant?
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/hvfsdaft.txt
"Gun control isn't a dirty word or phrase ... it's absolutely necessary to safeguard all Americans (not just those with private guns)."
It's only necessary if it targets criminals while leaving everyone else alone. The 1994 AWB targeted lawful gun owners and they were the only ones effected by it. It did not safeguard anyone. This is why it died a very natural death.
Second attempt--Kellli--in terms of why I think I am entitled to own a Glock or ANY OTHER QUALITY HANDGUN regardless of whether it is a semiauto, revolver, boltaction or single shot, or any long arm--be it semi auto, bolt or lever action, or single shot--the answer is really quite simple and basic. I am entitled to any firearm in the above list because in the Heller case--the Supreme Court says I absolutely have that right and it is protected by the 2nd amendment-- and I really do not give a creeping crawling crud if Kelli shedances approves or not (and it fact , your hysterical response makes it more enjoyable)
NJ bans .22 plinkers as "military style assault weapons" such as the Marlin Model 60 and the Remington 552
CA bans bans several firearms that don't exist because they went through a gun catalog and picked out the scary looking guns to put in their legislation. Including typos such as the non-existent "ENCOM CM-55' and "H-93"
CNN got fooled into claiming that the '94 AWB regarded machineguns
All the expanded "Assault Weapon Bans" ban firearms by name that fit none of the generic descriptions of an "assault weapon" ie the Dragunov rifle. No grenade launcher, 10+ rounds, or 'designed to be 'spray fired'.
Sugarmann admits to using the public's misconception (re-enforced by the Brady Campaign et al) that ""anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun".
The BATFE, DOJ, FBI, and CRS have all stated that 'trace data' cannot be used exclusively to generate statistics or make claims of criminality.
Your most recent comment makes me wonder why you are against both national controls & those of states, where it concerns firearms? You repeatedly bring up the state of NJ with respect to a semi-auto model 'Marlin 60' (& I'm assuming it's many, many variant) ~ which is considered even by some gunowners as not the most practical assault rifle for hunting (eg., it's "overkill").
sheedances: "You repeatedly bring up the state of NJ with respect to a semi-auto model 'Marlin 60' (& I'm assuming it's many, many variant) ~ which is considered even by some gunowners as not the most practical assault rifle for hunting (eg., it's "overkill")."
Would it be too much to ask for you to present some evidence of this?
Your opponents (including Mike and I) oppose the gun control laws (whether national, state or local) that you mindlessly advocate for because said laws are not only unconstitutional but totally ineffective. I am sorry Kelli--there is no way in h-ll that the laws you want are going to pass muster with the Supreme Court.
Also Kelli--we keep mentioning the Marlin 60 because it is a semiaut rifle in 22lr with a TUBULAR magazine (you know the type of magazine in lever action rifles) so said rifle absolutely is not an "assault" anything
And which 'gunowners' would consider it "overkill" in hunting?
Care to name some?
How many 'variants' does it have?
"'Marlin 60' (& I'm assuming it's many, many variant) ~ which is considered even by some gunowners as not the most practical assault rifle for hunting (eg., it's "overkill")."
I just spit coffee all over my keyboard. Did I read this right, did Kelli just say that a 22LR is "over kill" for hunting.
Kelli, have you ever even heard the term "ballistics", let alone read any such figures?
How about this Kelli?
The most common hunting round is the 30-06 so lets use that as our "Ideal" hunting round and compare it the .22LR
The 30-06:
Bullet Weight: typically 150 grain - 200gr
Velocity: 2700 - 3100 feet/sec
Energy: 2700 - 3300 ft-lbs
http://www.handgunsmag.com/ballistics/30_06.html
The 22LR (std velocity)
Bullet Weight: 36-60 gr
Velocity: 950 - 1150 feet/sec
Energy: 85 - 120 ft-lbs
http://www.handgunsmag.com/ballistics/22_longrifle_stndrd.html
The 22LR (high velocity)
Bullet Weight: 30-60 gr
Velocity: 1200 - 1750 feet/sec
Energy: 130 - 190 ft-lbs (w/ outliers of 59 ft-lbs and 533 ft-lbs)
http://www.handgunsmag.com/ballistics/22_longrifle_hivel.html
Only in Kelli's world does the 22LR equate to "overkill"
As I scroll through declarations made by pro-gun advocates and unarguably gun-obsessive types that were, BTW, also made numerous times this past year, I can't help but wonder ... what makes them feel they are always 'in the right' (over others) on firearms dangers, simply because they seek to own them? And, why should they have access to the same types of modern firearms features that law enforcement requests (eg., Glock model, etc.)?
And, turning back the clock ...
What makes anyone believe it was OK, when firearms manufacturers got around technical restrictions, by making easy 'cosmetic changes' (eg., removing fire suppressors & bayonet lugs, etc.)? If anyone has forgotten ... the majority of Americans supported renewal of the AWB, and for good reason (eg., '90s killer Buford Furrow ~ a former federally-licensed gun dealer, BTW ~ was said to have Uzis in his possession, along with an arsenal of firearms, after his hate-crime rampage against a Jewish community center in LA).
Of course, gun control isn't the end all, be all.
But it can (& does) approach gun-related violence, not by going around the problems ... but, by dealing with them straight-on, as is obvious in the numerous bold, honest recommendations by the Brady Campaign/Paul on specific issues like laws, straw purchasers, gun shows, firearms capabilities & manufacturing, assault weaponry, etc.
Top of the post, top of the post, we can all play top of the post.
The only one right now playing a game here appears to be you, 3rd.
Shedancesaroundtheissues says-
"...what makes them feel they are always 'in the right' (over others) on firearms dangers, simply because they seek to own them?
One word, Kell. STATISTICS. As in statistics have proven time and time again that the same weapon being demonized is not (or at best, marginally) responsible for violent crime. Criminal recidivism is.
Oh, and.....
"And, why should they have access to the same types of modern firearms features that law enforcement requests (eg., Glock model, etc.)?"
You mean the technology which allows a gun to go bang with the trigger is pulled? Or were you talking about something more sophisticated?
Precious. What an astounding display of ignorance. What is a "Glock Model?
"What is a "Glock Model?"
Those really hot girls they hire for the shows to display their products.
And, for those who are inclined to ask: As far as which Uzi model & parts, etc. that killer Furrow was said to have owned ... I can't answer that. I didn't delve that deeply into his former gun arsenal online.
And finally, among some gun-rights advocates ... there are those who believe that the weapon[s] used to commit a crime, should be the same ones used for stopping it (by a civilian, that is). I don't agree with that line of thinking, and I understand that it comes dangerously close to untrained civilians trying to play police without the qualifications, training, or accountability ... but with the firepower.
So you would have felt perfectly secure under the 'protection' of the Chicago SOS unit?
By the way Kelli--you are conveniently forgetting that it was ALREADY ILLEGAL for Edward Furrow to own a gun--and it is a known that he avoided at least 2 places here in L A because of the presence of armed personnel on site.
Furrow killed the mail carrier with an ordinary pistol, not an "assault weapon" of any sort.
He reportedly used a non-automatic civilian Uzi lookalike when shooting up the community center (functionally an ordinary 9mm pistol or carbine, not an automatic weapon) and killed NOBODY. Which hardly helps your allegations of supernatural lethality. FWIW, importation of Uzi lookalikes ended over a decade ago.
The real issue here was that Furrow was at some point a mental ward of the state, and as such would have presumably been adjudicated incompetent to so much as touch any firearm, under existing law---just like the VT shooter. That is the issue you could find common ground on, were you interested in doing so.
Ah, still stereotyping all lawfull gun owners as "untrained", are you sheedances? Look, I know you're not a big fan of presenting actual evidence, but I'll ask anyway: Do you have any evidence whatsoever that the majority of gun owners are "untrained"? If not, why are you making such claims?
Furthermore, owning an effective firearms doesn't require someone to "play police". Gun owners don't pretend to be cops. We don't go looking for criminals to fight and we don't use our weapons unless we are personally attacked or witness someone else being attacked in an area of close proximity. That being said, we still want the best weapons possible to defend our lives if we ever need to do so. Why is that unreasonable and why do you find that so hard to understand?
Well, there are, and have been, people all over the country carrying guns for many years.
Now, show us an example of "untrained people" running around "playing police". And you don't approve of the training anyway (center of mass), so all of this complaining about an imagined lack of training is just another strawman.
The "assault weapon" meme isn't about fighting violence; they're rarely involved in violence. It is about (1) sticking it to lawful gun owners ("assault weapon" owners outnumber hunters), and (2) creating a scary bogeyman for fundraising and PR purposes.
Why do I feel that I am "in the right" on this issue? Because I am. Check it out for yourself, if your mind is open enough to do so:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/data/table_20.html
http://www.nleomf.com/TheMemorial/Facts/2008_MidYear_Report.pdf
http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel08/leoka051208.htm
http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel07/leoka051407.htm
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wbardwel/public/nfalist/nfa_faq.txt
http://www.tribtalk.com/showthread.php?t=16466
Rifles of ANY type are not a crime problem in the USA and never have been, as your own Pete Shields once observed.
You have indicated that you once worked as a journalist. Switch that journalistic skepticism back on, apply it to BOTH sides of this issue, and see where it takes you, if you have the courage to do so.
In answer to your unsolicited (but okay) advice, Ben: Yes, my radar has been up, so-to-speak, & for some time now. It serves me well. Also, you must understand that it's not important to me, whether you agree with me or not & vice versa. What is important, is that gun violence is dealt with appropriately & despite pressures from the NRA ... and not continued to be looked upon by gunrights advocates as an acceptable (societal) loss.
"In 2007, offenders used firearms in 68.0 percent of the Nation’s murders, 42.8 percent of robberies, and 21.4 percent of aggravated assaults. (Weapon data are not collected for forcible rape offenses.) (Based on Robbery Table 3, Aggravated Assault Table, and Expanded Homicide Data Table 6.)..." This above data comes from one of the Tables in your FBI source.
How many people have to die or be seriously injured ~ via a gun ~ for you to consider it a crime worth preventing, BenE?
One addl. point/question:
You speak of statistically insignficant deaths, for lack of a better phrase, from firearms. If you believe this to be the case, then why do you think it is? I mean ... couldn't it be due ~in large part to ~ both laws/bans & the efforts of law enforcement (the latter of which your gunrights friends claim is largely ineffective due to response time, etc.)? And when looking at the handgun violence stats alone ... if bans have prevented more violence, what do you think will happen in the next several years following DC's fallen ban (& perhaps, successful challenges to several others). I think unfortunately, that those numbers will rise ... not fall, as they ought to! Thanks for reading. Shedances out.
Good Afternoon, Keli.
Speaking of "bold, honest recommendations," why don't you give me your "bold, honest recommendations" on how many rounds of ammunition my wife should be allowed to have in her pistol as she defends our grandchildren, like I asked you last week over on Paulie's previous post? It really is such an easy question! Just give us a number! 2? 5? 13? 15? 20? 4680?
Surely someone as educated and intellegent as yourself can answer this simple question!
Old SF MJT
Because you've asked this near exact same question probably half a dozen times now, on the same blog, I'll answer ... but only once. So, be sure & listen up, oldwhatever.
I'm not interested in talking about your wife's guns or your children's introduction to guns or your neighbor's guns, or your specific guns (which several of you compare notes about & advice on here), etc. It interests me NOT one iota, and I think it's an obvious misuse of the blogs. Clear enough? If not, then may recalling what Barack Obama said will help you understand where I'm coming from on this ...
... in heated political discussions, 'families are off-limits.'
K
Another thing I'd like to point out is the BC's demonization of "Pistol Grips" is particularly disturbing since it implies support for a ban on handguns. Obviously, all pistols have pistol grips, so banning pistols grips would wipe out all pistols. Of course, I suspect that's what the BC really wants. But oh, wait, that's right, I shouldn't worry because the BC says they are not "anti-gun". Wow, I feel so re-assured.
Well that's all I have to say about this. I eagerly invite sheedances to come along and use her vast knowledge of firearms to refute my position. Maybe she can even enlighten me on the dangers of evil Barrel Shrouds (a.k.a "The Shoulder Thing that Goes Up")
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ospNRk2uM3U
BC claim: "Pistol grips on assault rifles and shotguns help stabilize the weapon during rapid fire and allow the shooter to spray-fire from the hip position"
The truth: A pistol grip has no bearing on the performance of a weapon. Regardless of the type of grip, all guns can be fired from the hip. All full sized rifles and shotguns are made to be fired from the shoulder.
BC claim: "Barrel shrouds on assault pistols protect the shooter's hands from the heat generated by firing many rounds in rapid succession."
The Truth: A barrel shroud is a SAFETY feature on a gun, yet the BC wants to ban it. So much for their claim of supporting gun safety. Maybe they should make a new slogan: "Burned hands save lives". Furthermore, a person could just wear heat resistant gloves to get around this problem.
BC claim: "A folding stock on a rifle or shotgun sacrifice accuracy for concealability and for mobility in close combat."
The Truth: A folding stock just makes the gun more easier to transport. It has no bearing whatsoever on the performance of the weapon.
BC claim: "Far from being simply "cosmetic," these features all contribute to the unique function of any assault weapon to deliver extraordinary firepower. They are uniquely military features."
The Truth: Far from being "unique military features", these features are extremely common on all types of guns and have no effect whatsoever on the function of any firearm.
Still sticking with the "pistol grips allow for easier spray firing from the hip" myth, here's an offer:
If any anti-rights activist living near the Eastern PA area wants to accompany me to the rifle range, I will provide all the ammo and gear for you to try your hand at shooting rifles with both pistol grips and "regular" stocks. And then you can tell me which one is "easier ot spray fire from the hip(tm)."
Because of the ergonomics of these two distinctly differnt stock styles, there is NO WAY shooting a rifle with a pistol grip is more comfortable/easier to shoot from the hip than a rifle with a fixed stock. Think about it. Think about where the wrist position is with each shooting style when firing from the hip.
And if you CAN'T picture this scenario, then that only proves further that sheeple only believe what they are told, but what they know from personal experience.
The pistol grip myth is a ridiculous assertion about the lethality of weapons which function identically, but are cosmetically different.
High-end freestyle target rifles almost always have vertical grips---either separate pistol grips, thumbhole stocks, or extreme Monte Carlo stocks---because such grips conform better to human forearm anatomy when shooting from the SHOULDER.
Anschutz European bolt-action target rifle, with pistol grip:
http://www.potfire.com.au/rlist/ans2013.jpg
Another bolt-action smallbore European precision rifle, with pistol grip:
http://www.eberlestock.com/2006%20red%20sm.jpg
So often we hear the anti's say that pro-gunners are nothing more than paranoid insecure rednecks with war or combat fetishes. That we NEED our guns to stop the impending government tyrrany, or that we NEED our "Assault Rifles(tm)" because we're on the precipice of engaging in close quarters combat with a militant burglar.
But look at the arguments being used by the anti's to SUPPORT their demonization and regulation of "Assault Rifles(tm)."
"Pistol grips on assault rifles and shotguns help stabilize the weapon during rapid fire and allow the shooter to spray-fire from the hip position. Barrel shrouds on assault pistols protect the shooter's hands from the heat generated by firing many rounds in rapid succession. A folding stock on a rifle or shotgun sacrifice accuracy for concealability and for mobility in close combat. Far from being simply "cosmetic," these features all contribute to the unique function of any assault weapon to deliver extraordinary firepower. They are uniquely military features, with no sporting purpose whatsoever."
http://www.bradycampaign.org/issues/assaultweapons/nramyths/
This is in the same vein of the BC claiming that the DC gun bill would allow snipers on rooftops, armed vehicles cruising the streets, and schoolkids walking around w/ machineguns.
Please, don't forget the Pick-up truck-mounted .50 cals. That one is the clincher. With imagry like that, we should be questioning who exactly are the extremist coming up with these combat scenarios.
for shedances: would you please define in your own words..not paul helmkes..not josh sugarmans..not the discredited college professors..what an "assault weapon" is? i am asking for your opinion on what constitutes an "assault weapon"..my fellow "gunloons" and "guncrazies" would have greatly differing views between ourselves on the definition..i have seen shotguns loaded with rock salt used very effectively to "assault" the occasional vicious stray dog..as well as a slingshot using steel ball bearings..as for "president obama"..what actually could he do that would not be overturned in court or by the people? you seem to forget that we did not let the king of england tell us what to do..we did not let santa anna tell us what to do..we even had a whiskey rebellion because they wanted to raise the tax a half cent..and you think we are just going to up and surrender our guns because the president says so?
Good luck getting a response twogunmojo. I can't even get Kelli to respond to the simple question of why (e.g. what makes it the case) so called "assault weapons" are too dangerous for average citizens.
Funny, her inability to define what makes these "assault weapons" too dangerous for average citizens doesn't keep her from continuing to make that claim.
Fishyjay's support for compromise further down raises some very good points--namely to try and solve the violence problem plaguing this country--both sides need to compromise (which means both sides have acknowledge a quid pro quo--something for something). The Brady Campaign does not seem to understand this--their idea of compromise is to leave as little of the right to keep and bear arms useable as possible--no semi auto firearms because semi autos are evil military style assault weapons, no evil military style sniper bolt action rifles, no handguns because they are either too lowpowered and inaccurate or too easily concealed or too dangerous or too evil, no lever action or slide action for some other bogus reason; it is this kind of horrifically bad faith which is why I am unwilling to compromise with the VPC, Brady Campaign or Kelli. Another good example of Brady bad faith happend after the 1994 crime bill--when gun makers took off features like bayoneet lugs to comply with the law--the Bradybots screamed bloody murder about how the law was being circumvented (how is precisely complying with the law "circumventing" it--I will never know.
The thing is, rifles are almost completely irrelevant to the violence picture, a fact that AWB proponents studiously ignore, both in the broader discussion and in this thread.
The "assault weapon" issue isn't about fighting criminal violence; it is about sticking it to lawful gun owners.
But as Aldous Huxley wryly observed, ignoring facts does NOT make those facts cease to exist.
Inconvenient truths:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/data/table_20.html
http://www.nleomf.com/TheMemorial/Facts/2008_MidYear_Report.pdf
http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel08/leoka051208.htm
http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel07/leoka051407.htm
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wbardwel/public/nfalist/nfa_faq.txt
http://www.tribtalk.com/showthread.php?t=16466
The anti-gun crowds' idea of "compromise" is to "give in" and accent receiving only half of the new anti-gun measures they are pushing for at the time, then coming back later for that over half alter. I can't remember the anti-gun ever allowing "compromising" in such a way as to allow a pro-gun measure to pass.
The anti-gun crowds' idea of "compromise" is to "give in" and accent receiving only half of the new anti-gun measures they are pushing for at the time, then coming back later for that over half. In fact, I can't remember the anti-gun crowd ever "compromising" in such a way as to allow a pro-gun measure to pass.
I know--that is why I said the Brady campaign negotiates in bad faith and should lose its place at the table-and Kelli's support for suspending the BOR and the theft of firearms in NOLA by LEOS makes her completely ineligible for a role.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
