Assault rifles don't have impacts on violent crimes

[thomas82]

http://www.thebatt.com/news/2004/09/06/Opinion/Mail-Call.Assault.Rifles.Dont.Have.Impacts.On.Violent.Crimes-711070.shtml

Original article:

http://www.thebatt.com/news/2004/09/03/Opinion/Live-Or.Let.Die-710141.shtml

According to state reports from Florida, California and a number of other states, before the 1994 gun ban was put in place, assault weapons were used in approximately 2 to 3 percent of all crimes. A police chief in New Jersey said that his men were more likely to face a tiger on the street than a criminal with an assault rifle. The National Institute of Justice and the Justice Department recently completed a study in which they could find no correlation between the assault weapon ban and crime reduction. With these facts in mind, Mr. Blakley's claim that assault weapon-related crime was reduced is meaningless.

Mr. Blakley said that this ban is not an effort to curtail Second Amendment rights. The purpose of the Second Amendment was to guarantee that the people always be armed to be able to defend themselves against all enemies and to prevent tyranny in this country. For this reason, the idea of a standing army was rejected by many of our Founding Fathers, because a standing army could easily become a tool of the government in enslaving the people. Apparently, Mr. Blakley does not trust his fellow Americans with their rights as citizens.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. What are assault weapons good for?

Please enlighten me. I'm not being sarcastic. I like black powder weapons. I think target shooting is fine, and I enjoy the venison from hunting. But each one of these types of weapons take a certain amount of skill to operate. From what I understand about automatic weapons, they don't require skill. Are they ever allowed at a target shoot? Is there any state that allows them for hunting?

I don't see them as being weapons used by sportsmen-so why have them at all?

[FeebMaster]

2. The assault weapons ban

has nothing to do with automatic weapons. The AWB affects semi-automatic weapons only. Also, your view of automatic weapons is laughable. You've seen too many action movies.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

10. I don't watch action movies

I don't like action movies. Please answer my question, revised:

1. What target sports allow semi-automatic weapons?

2. What states allow hunters to use semi-automatic weapons?

[FeebMaster]

15. Sure.

1. What target sports allow semi-automatic weapons?

I guess it would depend on how you define target sports, but I'd have to say all of them that aren't limited to single shots and bolt actions.

2. What states allow hunters to use semi-automatic weapons?

All of them, as far as I know.

[enfield collector]

95. CMP-civilian marksmanship program. sponsored by the gov

is for 30 and 22cal rifles. most competitors use m14 semis or ar15s. also has classes for bolt action rifles. CMP is about the most respected target sports association there is.

[tridim]

3. Assault weapons are good for mass murder

and making small genitalia feel larger. That's about it.

[FeebMaster]

4. Pure genius.

Did you think that up all by yourself? You folks are really out in force today.

[tridim]

5. What are they good for then?

and what do you mean by "you folks"?

[FeebMaster]

6. They're good for

the same things most other guns are good for self-defense, target shooting, hunting, and plinking.

By you folks I mean people who have nothing to offer but penis references. There sure are a lot of you today.

[tridim]

8. Hunting with an assault weapon is just stupid

It's like fishing with dynamite.

Are you saying you can't defend yourself and target shoot with a .22 or a shotgun? Why do you need a semi-auto assault weapon to do that?

[FeebMaster]

9. Why?

What's wrong with hunting with an assault weapon? What's the difference between hunting with a semi-auto FAL in .308 and a Browning BAR semi-auto in .308? For that matter, what the difference between hunting with a semi-auto FAL with a flash suppressor and bayonet lug and hunting with a semi-auto FAL without a flash suppressor or bayonet lug?


Are you saying you can't defend yourself and target shoot with a .22 or a shotgun? Why do you need a semi-auto assault weapon to do that?

That's clearly not what I said. You asked what they were good for and I answered.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

13. Sorry, but I don't see any skill involved

in hunting or target shooting with semi-automatics. I have more respect for someone who can shoot a bull's eye or bring down a buck using black powder weaponry or even arrows, because I feel that there is more skill involved.

[FeebMaster]

18. What you can't see isn't my problem.

Hunting with a semi-auto is no different than hunting with any other gun. See the animal, take aim, fire. Not that complicated.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

21. Not all guns are the same

Ask a black powder hunter. There's a reason they have a different season than other hunters in many states.

[FeebMaster]

22. Who said all guns are the same?

What does black powder hunters having a separate season have to do with anything?

[minavasht]

28. There was that movie

were a guy chased an elk on foot and killed it with his knife.
Now thats a skill to respect!

[Trashman]

31. Have you ever shot a semi auto?

Most cartridge feed rifles that I have shot, are more accurate and dependable than the black powder rifles I have shot or own. Better accuracy means more hits. :) I have many one shot kills with my semi's. Sometimes I want to shoot more than one animal. Ever flush a covey of quail and get more than one with your black powder? I've done it with my semi auto shotgun. Or maybe, try to shoot two deer, rabbits, or coyotes?

Categorizing people with semi autos as such with "spray and pray" or just point and shoot, is as stupid as saying that all scantily clad women are whores, or are begging to get raped. Some may, but I don't believe it in all cases. Some idiots may say that all men with sports cars or SUV's have small genitalia too.

There are many competitions that use AR15's. The old DCM or CMP service rifle matches for example. The old 1903 Springfield bolt actions are still used. They are fine rifles. But the majority of the marksmen and women are using an AR15 now days in these matches. There must be a logical reason for this, or they would be using the outdated rifles. They shoot for score, "most hits in the bull eye" for those unfamiliar.

The AR15 rifles are used by many ethical hunters. They can be light weight, easy to maintain, easy to shoot, very wieldy because of there shortness, and easy to get parts for.

Also: Who the hell do some of these people think they are that say "myself or anyone else doesn't need this or that"? Do you have some supreme knowledge above all others? Are they the self appointed morality police. Some want to remove the 2nd amendment. Are there any other rights you want to remove? How about freedom of speech. You realize many people are hurt by others words?

The facts show that the AWB doesn't work, any better than prohibition did.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

11. Target shooting with a semi-automatic?

Hunting with a semi-automatic? Where is the skill in that?

[FeebMaster]

12. Same skill as with any other gun.

Take aim and fire. What's the difference between using a semi-auto for hunting and a lever or bolt action?

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

14. You obviously

have never used a black powder weapon or you'd know.

[FeebMaster]

16. What are you talking about?

So you're saying when you hunt with your blackpowder rifle you don't see the animal, take aim, then fire like other hunters with other weapons do?

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

20. There's a lot more to it than that

You have to measure the charge and make sure you don't use too much powder or you may get a flash in the pan. Anyone using modern weapons simply load in bullets. Then there's the whole deal about aiming, which is different for smoothbores than rifles. Check with your local reenactors and you can find out more about the differences.

[FeebMaster]

23. Oh please.

How many people hunting with black powder are using flint-locked smooth bores compared to a rifled weapon with some sort of percussion ignition system, be it modern or traditional.

[tridim]

17. Bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang

As opposed to: Cock, aim, bang.

Duh.

[FeebMaster]

19. Hahahahahaha.

That is hilarious. Really. I mean... Really.

Actually, with a semi-auto, it'd be more like: Cock. Aim. Bang. But hey, if you want to sound ignorant, knock yourself out.

[tridim]

24. I know how a semi-auto works.

You pull the trigger it goes bang, you pull the trigger again, it goes bang. Why are you deliberately trying to mislead? Sounds like you have an agenda.

[FeebMaster]

26. Sure you do.

Why are you deliberately trying to mislead?

Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang!

Yeah. I'm clearly the one trying to mislead. As if I'm the one trying to claim hunters with semi-autos just run around shooting without aiming.

Sounds like you have an agenda.

So? Are you trying to say you don't?

[beevul]

27. Heh...

"You pull the trigger it goes bang, you pull the trigger again, it goes bang."

That would be after cocking and aiming, right?

You can't possibly believe that semi-automatic firearms have no need of being cocked before they're initially fired.

Hey, I have to compliment you though, at least you know the difference between semi-automatic and fully automatic. Thats more than I can say for alot of pro-AWB folks.

[tridim]

29. Uh yea.

Cock once and fire until the clip is empty. The point is, you can unload the clip as fast as you can pull the trigger.

The other guy is apparently claiming you have to cock semi-autos after every shot. His goal is to mislead DU'ers as to what a Semi-automatic weapon is.

[FeebMaster]

30. That's clearly not what I claimed.

[UpsideDownFlag]

83. you know what's ignorant? trying to defend the ownership of

assault weapons. with the money you spend on those, you could invest, make a down payment on a car, donate to the kerry campaign, or any other number of things. is it worth it though, to have your big shiny guns to protect you?

[FeebMaster]

84. Hardly.

There's nothing wrong with owning an assault weapon.


with the money you spend on those, you could invest, make a down payment on a car, donate to the kerry campaign, or any other number of things. is it worth it though, to have your big shiny guns to protect you?

As I've mentioned several times, I'm not a gun owner.

[skippythwndrdog]

93. Ok now what?

My home is paid for. My cars are paid for. I have no debt whatsoever. I donate the maximun allowable by law to several campaigns. I donate a sizeable amount to several charities each year, my favorites are Christian Childern's Fund in particular and other relief agencies in general. I give to my church. I don't work anymore because I worked my ass off so I could quit early.

You were saying about money for hobbies?

[UpsideDownFlag]

82. very good, simple arguments work best.

[FeebMaster]

85. Simple arguments only work best

when the person making them has a clue what they're talking about.

[skippythwndrdog]

25. Come to Knob Creek, KY for the machine gun shoot

There's more fun and skill involved than you might think. It happens every April and October.

[Lefty48197]

7. Unless you consider the right wing seditionists to be "criminals"

In which case, I'd say arming yourself, and planning for the violent overthrow of the next Democratic President is in fact, A CRIME.

[library_max]

32. In the year of the AWB, assault weapons were involved in 8.4% of gun crime

The most recent statistic is less than two percent.

As for a standing army, we have one, a rather large one, in case you haven't noticed. The Founding Fathers had a lot of ideas about this country that didn't pan out. They didn't expect slavery to be abolished, they didn't expect women to get the vote, they didn't expect men without property to get the vote, etc. etc.

[FeebMaster]

33. We've been over this library_max

Do you still not understand why it would be 8% before the ban and 2% after?

[library_max]

35. I understand perfectly. The ban reduced the number of assault weapons

used in crimes.

[FeebMaster]

37. Sigh.

Of course it did since none of the weapons manufactured since the ban was passed have bayonet lugs and flash suppressors and are therefor not assault weapons.

[library_max]

38. Hey, the numbers are what they are.

If you have an alternate explanation, perhaps you'd like to support it with some facts.

[FeebMaster]

39. It's been explained to you numerous times.

I'm sorry you don't understand it, but I'll try again.

If in 1994 8% of car accidents involved Chevrolet Monte Carlos would you be surprised if in 2002 only 2% of car accidents involved Chevrolet Monte Carlos manufactured before 1994?

[library_max]

40. Do you have numbers regarding how many assault weapons

were in circulation each year of the ban? You seem to be asserting that the ban caused there to be fewer assault weapons available to potential criminals, therefore fewer assault weapon crimes. And actually, I still don't see how that refutes my point. But even if it did, do you have any facts to support it?

[Zynx]

41. You are being dense

What he is saying is that there WAS NO DEFINITION OF AN ASSAULT WEAPON PRIOR TO 1994.

After 1994, you have defined assault weapons (banned) and every thing else, of which a lot are still functionally identical to assault weapons.

This also means that the requirements for the police to call something an assault weapon are a lot tighter after 1994 than before the ban. Then (before the ban) they could call anything they wanted an assault weapon and pretty much did if it looked military or had an external clip. I'm certain this included the SKS series, because the police hate them, and would certainly consider them "assaults". The same would be true for hundreds of other types.

With the ban, you are dramatically cutting the definition class of "assault weapon" to a dozen or so specific types, most of which are not used in crime anyway, and requiring that new manufactured semi-automatics not have "assault" characteristics. Thus, they would *not* be counted as assault weapons because according to the 1994 bill's text, they are not.

It would be like if police said 10% of all crashes were caused by people driving "souped-up" cars, with the designation being assigned to anything the police officer who dealt with the offense felt was "souped-up". A law is passed that defines "souped-up" as having nitro boosters. Suddenly there are a lot less souped-up cars involved in accidents, because everything without nitro boosters is not being counted as "souped-up."

Understand?

[library_max]

43. All the numbers refer to the same weapons.

Also, the numbers stairstep down nice and gradually, not the sudden dropoff you'd expect if the difference was in the definition and not the actual facts.

[FeebMaster]

42. What is so difficult to understand about this?

It doesn't matter how many assault weapons were in circulation. Assault weapons stopped being manufactured in 1994, of course the ratio of them vs other guns used in crime is going to go down. The ratio of assault weapons owned vs other guns owned is going to go down too. The ratio of assault weapons sold vs other guns sold is going to go way down.

Look at it this way.

Say Gun Crimes involving AWs is A and Gun crimes involving post-ban weapons (which aren't legally assault weapons) is B

Before the ban: A = 8% and B = 0% so A+B = 8%

After the ban: A = 2% and B is some other number higher than 0%, so you can clearly see that A+B is going to be greater than 2%.


You should really read the damn AWB. This would make a lot more sense to you if you did.


It's sort of funny really. When the gun grabbers want to pretend the AWB is working, they only count actual legal assault weapons, but when they want to pretend the AWB isn't strong enough and we need a stronger ban they count AWs and post-ban weapons.

[library_max]

44. But you're making up your numbers.

Do you have facts, or just speculation on how you think the thing works?

Here's my speculation. Assault weapons were used in a disproportionate number of crimes before the ban. So after the ban those specific weapons are less widely available. They decrease as a proportion of the total guns in circulation. And they decrease as a proportion of the guns used in crimes. But, since they were involved in a disproportionate number of gun crimes before the ban, the fact that there are fewer of them available is actually having a chilling effect on the total number of gun crimes. Of course, this is merely speculation, because there's no way to separate that factor from any of a jillion other factors affecting gun crimes as a whole.

[FeebMaster]

45. My God.

It's like beating your head against a brick wall, only more painful.

Do you have facts, or just speculation on how you think the thing works?

I have common sense. Plus I've read the AWB, that helps.


"Here's my speculation. Assault weapons were used in a disproportionate number of crimes before the ban. So after the ban those specific weapons are less widely available. They decrease as a proportion of the total guns in circulation. And they decrease as a proportion of the guns used in crimes. But, since they were involved in a disproportionate number of gun crimes before the ban, the fact that there are fewer of them available is actually having a chilling effect on the total number of gun crimes. Of course, this is merely speculation, because there's no way to separate that factor from any of a jillion other factors affecting gun crimes as a whole."

Here, let me fix that and you'll have it:

So after the ban those specific weapons are less widely available. They decrease as a proportion of the total guns in circulation. And they decrease as a proportion of the guns used in crimes.

Get rid of that disproportionate crap and you've basically got it.


On edit: What numbers have I made up? I'm using your numbers 8% and 2%. Now granted, maybe they're made up, I don't know, I'm only discussing the most likely reason why it dropped from 8% to 2%. If you'd like to show me more specific numbers on what weapons are being counted in that 8% and 2%, I'd be happy to discuss it.

[library_max]

46. Why is it I always have to be the one to come up with facts?

You asserted that weapons just like assault weapons but not subject to the ban must necessarily have made up any difference in the crimes not committed with assault weapons as defined by the ban. But you present no factual numbers at all. You go into this A+B=8% jive, but you have no factual basis for assuming that B ever equaled anything at all. And then you demand that I show you facts to refute your utterly fact-free speculation.

Common sense indeed. Do keep beating your head against that brick wall. It's making your posts longer, anyway.

[FeebMaster]

49. What is so hard to understand about this?

You asserted that weapons just like assault weapons but not subject to the ban must necessarily have made up any difference in the crimes not committed with assault weapons as defined by the ban.

Are you claiming that no post-ban weapons were sold in the last 10 years or that any of them sold weren't used in crimes?


"But you present no factual numbers at all."

The only numbers I've used are the numbers you provided. They're the only numbers needed. I'm not claiming they're factual or accurate or anything. I'm simply trying to explain why those numbers dropped from 8% to 2%.


"You go into this A+B=8% jive, but you have no factual basis for assuming that B ever equaled anything at all."

A+B=8% was the number you provided for before the ban. B=0% because there were no post-ban weapons before the ban. Clearly B=0% before the ban, there is no disputing that. It's a fact.

Clearly after the ban, B is equal to something, I didn't say what because I don't know. So while A=2% after the ban, A+B= greater than 2%, unless you're claiming that no crimes were committed with post-ban weapons in the last 10 years.


And then you demand that I show you facts to refute your utterly fact-free speculation.

I haven't demanded any new numbers from you. We're discussing the original numbers you provided, 8% and 2%. I've simply been trying to explain the most likely reason that 8% dropped to 2%.


Common sense indeed. Do keep beating your head against that brick wall. It's making your posts longer, anyway.

No one reads my long posts. It's a shame really, they're so full of useful information on how to ban guns.

[library_max]

52. You say that's the most likely reason, but you can't back it up.

So my speculation is as good as your speculation.

[FeebMaster]

54. Back to where we started I see.

Are you claiming that no post-ban weapons were used in crimes in the last 10 years?

[library_max]

56. I'm claiming you have no facts to support your arguments. /nt

[FeebMaster]

58. My facts are contained in the text of the AWB.

Try reading it.

[library_max]

60. GTOTAR. /nt

[FeebMaster]

62. What does that mean? (nt)

[library_max]

63. Give The Old Taunts A Rest. /nt

[FeebMaster]

65. It's not a taunt.

You aren't going to understand why the numbers, assuming they're accurate, dropped from 8% to 2% until you read the AWB. It's not very long. I'm sure plenty of people here will help you with any parts you don't understand.

[library_max]

66. GTOTAR. /nt

[FeebMaster]

68. It's not a taunt.

How can you discuss the effects of a law if you don't even know what the law says?

[library_max]

69. GTOTAR. /nt

[FeebMaster]

71. It's not a taunt.

You should really give up this ignorance is strength method of argument. Sure it might be easier than the alternatives, but it doesn't really get you anywhere.

All you have to do is read the AWB and you'll have your answer as to why the 8% dropped to 2%.

[library_max]

72. GTOTAR. /nt

[FeebMaster]

74. It's not a taunt.

Until you understand the difference between an assault weapon and a post-ban weapon, you aren't going to understand why the numbers dropped from 8% to 2%.

[library_max]

76. Sucks, don't it,

when you keep getting the same irrelevant one-size-fits-all non-answer, no matter what you say?

Well, I don't like it when you do it, either.

[FeebMaster]

77. That's nice

but I haven't done it. Have you taken the time to read the AWB yet? Do you understand the difference between an assault weapon and a post-ban weapon now? Do you understand why the numbers would drop from 8% to 2% now?

[library_max]

78. GTOTAR. /nt

[FeebMaster]

79. It's not a taunt.

You see those 8% and 2% numbers include semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines and more than one of the following features: a pistol grip, a threaded barrel or flash suppressor, a collapsible or folding stock, a bayonet lug, or a grenade launcher. Since after 1994 they stopped putting bayonet lugs, flash suppressors or threaded barrels, grenade launchers, and collapsible or folding stocks on the weapons all they had was one feature, the pistol grip and were no longer considered assault weapons. We call them post-ban weapons, they are not assault weapons and not counted in those 8% and 2% numbers. If you would just read the AWB, you'd see for yourself. You don't have to take my word for it.

[Columbia]

86. Holy smokes, just answer the question!

Have you read it or not?

[library_max]

88. Post a link to it, then.

If I find anywhere in it numbers indicating the percentage gun crims committed with post-ban semiautomatic longarms for each year between 1994 and the present (this is what Feeb and I were actually talking about), I will write a $100 check to any organization you or Feeb might care to name.

What do I get if those numbers aren't in the text of the AWB anywhere? Recognition at least that it was an irrelevant diversionary tactic?

[Columbia]

126. Here you go

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/921.html

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/faq2.htm#o

Enjoy.

[library_max]

127. Thanks for the links.

But neither of these seems to be the text of the AWB. The first one is a section of the US Code that I have already read and quoted from, at which time I was haughtily informed that I was not quoting from the AWB and had completely the wrong information (I will leave it to you to guess who that respondent was).

And the second one is an FAQ from the ATF on semiautomatic assault weapons and large capacity ammunition feeding devices. Again, thanks, and I'm sure that will shed much light on the issue for my personal edification, but I know that I don't dare quote that source as the actual AWB either. People are extremely picky about such things around here. I think it makes up for the lack of real support for their arguments.

Oh, and I didn't find any figures in either about the percentage of gun crimes committed with post-ban semiautomatic weapons. But then, I didn't really expect to.

[FeebMaster]

129. That's because the section you quoted wasn't the AWB.

You were talking about destructive devices or something at the time and pretending that you were talking about the AWB. Try searching for "assault weapon" or scroll down until you see the (30).

[goju]

34. Surprise!

Oh wait, I think we were warned of this BEFORE the AWB went into effect. These so called "assault weapons" are NO different than any other semi auto. NO more power, NO more dangerous, and used in ALOT less crime than other guns. We knew that going into this regulation scheme.

Im actually surprised to still here people defending this absurd ban. I can understand the desire to strengthen it (ie make it effective) but I cant understand why even the most ardent supporters of the complete revocation of the 2nd amendment they advocate still supporting a laughably inept law. I just do not get it.

[library_max]

36. You're putting a lot of stock in an opinion piece

by a college student at one of the most right-wing public universities in the US (I know, I work in the Texas A&M system). The national figures are that the percentage of gun crimes involving assault weapons dropped from more than eight percent to less than two percent during the ban.

And since assault weapons made up less than two percent of all privately-owned firearms when the ban was put in place, I think it's dubious to argue that assault weapons were used less in crime than other kinds of guns - certainly they were used more often in proportion to their total numbers.

But then, I suppose the opinion of some unnamed New Jersey police chief carries more weight than the actual numbers . . .

[Columbia]

47. Run for your lives!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

[library_max]

48. And then of course there is the sober, mature RKBA side of the argument.

:eyes:

[FeebMaster]

51. Yup. They say a picture's worth a thousand words

and Columbia's picture sums up this whole 8%/2% thing quite nicely.

[library_max]

53. Except that it doesn't.

Four words, worth more than that picture.

[FeebMaster]

55. Well, if you would just read the AWB

the whole 8%/2% thing would become clear to you.

[library_max]

57. Well, if you would just give the old taunts a rest

JPS would be a lot quieter.

[FeebMaster]

59. It's not a taunt.

You're discussing a law you've obviously never read. Your whole side of the 8%/2% argument is basically "I don't know what an Assault Weapon is." Basically it's an unbeatable argument.

[library_max]

61. Yes, many people think that taunts are unbeatable arguments.

My niece and nephew go to school with many of them.

[FeebMaster]

64. I'm sorry, I think you misunderstood

the unbeatable argument is this ignorance is strength game you're playing with you 8%/2% numbers. Telling you that you should read a law you clearly haven't read but seem insistent on discussing the effects of isn't a taunt.

[library_max]

67. GTOTAR. /nt

[FeebMaster]

70. It's not a taunt.

All you have to do is read it and you'll understand why your numbers dropped from 8% to 2%.

So are you just going to refuse to respond and post the same crap until this thread gets locked? Real original.

[library_max]

73. GTOTAR. /nt

[FeebMaster]

75. It's not a taunt.

This is less stressful than trying to explain to you that obviously fewer assault weapons were being used in crime since everyone was buying newly manufactured post-ban weapons.

[Columbia]

80. You mean factual side

[library_max]

90. I mean the side that addresses the issues without resorting to cheap gags.

[FeebMaster]

92. Yes. The RKBA side. (nt)

[mosin]

96. I'm not sure...

Is constantly posting meaningless acronyms over and over considered a "cheap gag"?

[library_max]

101. I was just giving Feeb a taste of his own medicine.

He likes to respond with irrelevant all-purpose taunts when he has run out of things to say.

[FeebMaster]

102. It's not a taunt.

You're discussing a law you haven't even read. If you'd read it, you'd understand why that 8% dropped to 2%.

[library_max]

107. See what I mean, mosin? /nt

[FeebMaster]

50. OH THE HUMANITY!!!!!

[goju]

87. Dubious indeed

The reason the numbers dropped is because post ban configurations were not considered "assault weapons". Im guessing you either know that and would prefer to simply ignore it, or you didnt know it and probably should have read more before putting all your stock in the VPC propaganda.

[library_max]

89. You have evidence of this?

Or are you just speculating? Because my speculations are as good as yours, or Feeb's for that matter.

[FeebMaster]

91. It's not speculation.

It is common sense and blatantly obvious. If they stopped manufacturing weapons that are classified as assault weapons in 1994, do you think crimes involving those particular weapons manufactured before 1994 are going to go up?

[library_max]

100. Your saying so doesn't make it so.

Without numbers or facts it's speculation, whether you think it is or not.

[FeebMaster]

103. Numbers aren't needed.

At least not beyond the 8% and 2% you provided. There are plenty of facts available, though. They're in the AWB, you'll have to read it to find them. Speculation has nothing to do with this. It's as simple as understanding what is legally classified as an assault weapon and what isn't.

[library_max]

105. Your saying that doesn't make it so, either. /nt

[FeebMaster]

108. As I've said before

you don't have to take my word for it. Just read the AWB and you'll see for yourself.

[library_max]

111. As I've said before,

post a link to it. If the numbers to back up your arguments, numbers that indicate what percentage of gun crimes were committed with post-ban semi-automatic weapons in years 1994 to present, are in the text of the AWB, then I will send a check for $100 to any organization you name. What do I get if those numbers aren't in there? Because those numbers are what we're talking about.

[FeebMaster]

112. What are you talking about?

There are no numbers in the text of the AWB about how the AWB has affected guns used in crime. If you'd read the AWB you'd know that.

I'm not referring to any numbers other than the ones you provided, 8% and 2%. If you would just read the AWB or at least figure out the difference between assault weapons and post-ban weapons you'd understand why those numbers dropped.

[library_max]

114. You speculate a reason for why the numbers dropped.

To support that speculation, you'd have to have numbers indicating the percentage of gun crimes that were committed with post-ban semiautomatic weapons per year from 1994 to present. Without those numbers, it's just speculation, no matter what the definitions in the AWB say or don't say.

[FeebMaster]

116. The numbers aren't needed.

Besides you keep claiming the numbers don't exist.

If you can't understand that fewer gun crimes are going to be committed with the weapons that aren't being manufactured each year as more weapons that are being manufactured enter the marketplace, then nothing I'm going to say is going to convince you. It is so obvious to everyone else as to be laughable. There's probably a name for it in economics. Maybe it's called the blatantly obvious law of new shit replacing old shit.



no matter what the definitions in the AWB say or don't say.

If you'd read the AWB you'd know what the definitions said.

[library_max]

118. Your saying so doesn't make it so. /nt

[FeebMaster]

122. You're right.

It's so without my saying it's so.

[goju]

94. The Bans Success...Has Been Mixed

"The decline in the use of AWs has been due primarily to a reduction in the use of assault pistols (APs), which are used in crime more commonly than assault rifles (ARs). There has not been a clear decline in the use of ARs, though assessments are complicated by the rarity of crimes with these weapons and by substitution of post-ban rifles that are very similar to the banned AR models."

http://www.sas.upenn.edu/jerrylee/jlc-new/Research/Koper_aw_exec.pdf

[library_max]

104. No numbers, but at least an authoritative report.

Which concludes exactly what the subtitle you quoted implied - that the results are mixed. Not that the ban has accomplished nothing, but that there are different ways of looking at the results. I would certainly encourage everyone on the thread to open the link and read that report.

This is the meat of it:

"Following implementation of the ban, the share of gun crimes involving AWs declined by 17% to 72% across the localities examined for this study (Baltimore, Miami, Milwaukee, Boston, St. Louis, and Anchorage), based on data covering all or portions of the 1995-2003 post-ban period. This is consistent with patterns found in national data on guns recovered by police and reported to ATF.

"The decline in the use of AWs has been due primarily to a reduction in the use of assault pistols (APs), which are used in crime more commonly than assault rifles (ARs). There has not been a clear decline in the use of ARs, though assessments are complicated by the rarity of crimes with these weapons and by substitution of post-ban rifles that are very similar to the banned AR models.

"However, the decline in AW use was offset throughout at least the late 1990s by steady or rising use of other guns equipped with LCMs in jurisdictions studied (Baltimore, Milwaukee, Louisville, and Anchorage). The failure to reduce LCM use has likely been due to the immense stock of exempted pre-ban magazines, which has been enhanced by recent imports."

Fortunately, the problem of the "steady or rising use of other guns equipped with LCMs" would be solved by HR 2038/S 1431.

[goju]

109. "Different" ways of looking at the results?

What do you mean. Different ways of "reporting" it, yes. Different interests involved in those reports, absolutely. Different langauge in those reports, without a doubt. But what "different ways" are you referring to?

The bill, and the subsequent reports on its efficacy, are cloaked in misinformation. The VPC has NO intention of informing the public that their manufactured claim of officers killed in the line of duty with "assault weapons" (41 of 211 in a 3 year period) is misleading, and deliberately so. They even admit that the trace data collection they use is sporadic and unreliable yet they cherrypick from those numbers to enhance their propaganda. Ridiculous and very transparent, for those willing to see it.

[library_max]

113. Different ways of looking at the results.

Relatively hard numbers are given for the decline in crimes involving banned ARs and APs. The statement that those crime numbers were "offset throughout at least the late 1990s" by other similar weapons is not substantiated, at least not in the report you posted.

As for the bill, it addresses the concern about duplicate weapons. It restricts weapons based on the design of the weapons that are restricted by definition. Your accusations about the arguments used in support of the bill are a matter of opinion, to put it politely.

[goju]

120. Ignore facts, repeat propaganda?

Is that what you said?

How can you possibly suppose that post-ban "assault weapons" would be included in trace reports on "assault weapons"? They are NOT assault weapons, by their own "definitions". Either the reports are misleading, or they failed to add a new category for "post-ban assault weapons", for some unknown reason :shrug:.

[library_max]

123. I said what I said.

I don't invent stuff and say that you said it. Please show the same courtesy.

You will have to explain what you are talking about regarding trace reports. Here again, you are accusing me of making statements that I have not made.

[goju]

124. Read

I can carry you only so far; at some point you will have to take the initiative and read up on the matters that you purport to have some knowledge of.

[library_max]

128. Insults are not a substitute for argumentation.

Not even if they're all you have left.

I read the same report you did. I quoted more of it than you did. It says plainly that the results of the ban appear to be mixed. Not useless - mixed. Whatever point you were trying make in #120, you're going to have to either make it or abandon it. Calling me ignorant because I can't decipher gibberish isn't an argument and proves nothing.

[goju]

132. Sorry

I was cranky last night.

"You will have to explain what you are talking about regarding trace reports."

Trace reports are submitted by law enforcement "sometimes", when a gun is used in a crime. They attempt to find the original owner of the weapon and trace its path back to the crime.

They are not required to submit a trace request at all. If a gun isnt recovered from the scene, they can not file a trace request and are left to speculate about the type of gun and configuruation. And, since we are talking about the AWB, if the gun is a post-ban "assault weapon", the trace report will NOT report it as an "assault weapon".

That explains why there was a drop in "assault weapons" recovered at crime scenes during the years studied.

[library_max]

133. Well, it's a theory.

But it's just a theory. You're assuming that post-ban "assault weapons" made up the difference in the percent of gun crimes no longer recorded as involving assault weapons, but you don't have any numbers or other solid facts to back that up. As you say, it could well be, but it isn't necessarily so.

[goju]

134. Well, what changed?

what really changed with the AWB? Definitions, that is it. The AWB didnt make that "type" of gun illegal, it only created 2 categories of that type of weapon: post-ban, and pre-ban. Whats more, it made "pre-ban" weapons more valuable. (Not in direct dollar value right away but in speculative value by collectors and gun owners). And, as we saw in the DC shootings, a post-ban Bushmaster, same as a pre-ban for all intents and purposes, CAN NOT be classified as an "assault weapon" in any trace reports. Doesnt it follow then that fewer legally defined "assault weapons" would be recovered and reported in crime scenes?

Numbers would be nice but, they dont collect data on post-ban weapons. They are rightfully classified "rifles" or "semi autos" or "undefined". To ask for actual figures is an impossible request.

[library_max]

135. So the facts we need aren't there.

Which means we can only speculate. I'm not demanding that you produce figures that don't exist. I'm only pointing out that in absence of those figures, all one can do is speculate.

Anyway, it should cheer you to know that HR 2038/S 1431 stands poised to correct the problem of the AWB being only about definitions.

[goju]

136. Poised to fail

and rightfully so. Again I say, spend the legislative effort on actually reducing the cause of gun crime: drugs, gangs, substance abuse, education, poverty, and inmate rehab. We can make a "reasonable" speculation that the AWB did far less in curbing "assault weapons" crimes than the Clinton economic boom did in curbing overall gun crime. Chasing guns is only going to cost us votes and waste money.

[library_max]

138. Poised to fail if the Republicans retain control of Congress? Probably so

In the context of your "reasonable" speculation, "reasonable" clearly means "helpful to my argument" or "in accord with my personal opinions."

As for drugs, gangs, etc., this is an interesting area for discussion. Obviously many things motivate people to commit crimes involving guns - drugs, gangs, poverty, greed, rage, jealousy, hatred, fear - the list goes on and on. And one approach to curbing gun crime would be to remove all the causes; to abolish drugs and gangs and poverty and greed and rage and jealousy and hatred and fear and the rest.

We could try to solve the problem by legislating Heaven on Earth. Or we could try to solve the problem by eliminating the guns. Somehow, the second one seems more workable to me. The first one almost seems like a disingenous attempt at distracting argument from the real issues.

[goju]

144. Funny, I was thinking the same thing

"disingenous attempt at distracting argument from the real issues"

That about sums up the gun control argument. I actually cant believe that you would refer to ending the drug war and addressing gangs, poverty, and education issues as being a "disingenuous attempt at distracting argument from the real issues". But if by "real issues" you mean abolishing our 2nd amendment rights, then I can understand your vitriol.

You find that addressing the root causes of gun violence to be akin to moving "heaven <AND> earth", so that idea is out of the question completely. So why even suggest it right? After all, you have pointed out time and time again that we citizens have no power, so why even discuss such a "disingenous attempt at distracting argument from the real issue, (whatever "those" issues might be according to you)? The scotus is the final authority on laws and rights, the legislatures are the only ones who can pass a law, so we are left to watch the drama unfold, quietly and without recourse. I find your cynicism counterproductive to being truly progressive.

On to your issue of chasing guns. Rather than go after the cause of gun violence, you would instead take the easy and almost politically feasible route of confiscating tools. Why not just cut to the chase and lock up all 12-44 year old males, hispanic and african americans specifically? That will be the end result anyway if we dont address the underlying social constructs that lead to crime/violence. Why waste time chasing grandpa's shotgun? Much easier to just get rid of the "real" tools of violence, right? If we dont address the CAUSES of violence, it WILL manifest itself regardless of the tools used.

Shifting the blame, and our crime reduction efforts, from guns to the actual causes of crime will not only reduce gun crime/violence, but it will create opportunity and prosperity in communities/groups that have been deprived of it for too long. This WILL have a snowball effect on later generations and will be a permanent solution to this ongoing problem.

Or, we could just continue chasing guns and watching gangsters and drug dealers kill each other while their communities suffer from poverty, lack of adequate education, ever-increasing drug trafficking, and all the other goodies that go along with it. Does that sound "workable" to you?

[library_max]

145. England, Canada, and Australia have not abolished drugs, crime, etc.

They've just controlled the guns. And their murder rate is a third of ours per capita or less.

Gun control works, when it's allowed to work. Rhetoric about addressing the causes of crime has never worked. Reducing poverty and ignorance and the other ills you mention is important in its own right. I've never argued that it wasn't, and indeed I support Kerry and the Democratic Party because I want to see the social safety net repaired, education improved, etc. etc. But none of those things will reduce the murder rate or the gun crime rate. They never have before, why should they start now? The Great Society programs, which I would dearly love to see reinstituted and updated, didn't reduce the rate of gun crime or murder, for example.

Regarding vitriol, I haven't been the one calling names. I haven't been the one making accusations about locking up "all 12-44 year old males, hispanic and african americans specifically" (by the way, you should capitalize Hispanic and African American). I haven't accused you of being ignorant or ignoring facts and repeating propaganda. I think it's possible that you're projecting on the vitriol issue.

[goju]

146. Any facts on that?

You are stating opinion. Do you have any facts that support your assertion on the drug trafficking, gang membership, and substance abuse issues in those countries?

Englands homicide rate has gone steadily up in the past 30 years, despite their gun control measures, while the US homicide rate has been dropping since the 90's. Violent crime in the UK have also sky rocketed. Homicide rates in Australia have been climbing since 2000 and again, violent crimes have been steadily rising. Although homcide rates in Canada have fallen in the past, they are flattening out while the US rates continue to drop. And again, violent crime rates are on the rise. We have always had a higher homicide rate than any of those countries, but they are catching up. I wonder what is causing the change?

http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/admin/books/files/FailedExperiment.pdf

[library_max]

147. England has had strict gun controls since 1920.

You're cherry-picking your start and end dates to get the results you want from the statistics. Why start in 2000 in Australia? Gun controls were instituted there in the late 1980s. Why 30 years in England? Crime rates in the US are dropping to the extent they are because the population is aging.

Anyhow, no matter how much the homicide rate does or doesn't go up or down in any of those countries, it never approaches even half of ours per capita. They are as urbanized as we are or more so. They also have drug problems and drug laws. They are culturally the most similar countries to ours on the globe (if you don't think so, name a country more like us). They have strict gun control laws. We don't. You can speculate other differences but you can't support them. All you can do is demand that I prove a negative, which is ridiculous.

[UpsideDownFlag]

81. yeah, sure.

:puke:

[skippythwndrdog]

97. Numbers don't lie.

The only effect the AWB has had on crime is that it has made more criminals - most of them unintentionally. With every new law, bad or good, people will forget or make mistakes until they get used to it.

Thankfully, we'll have no need to stay accustomed to this little liece of PC/PR apeasement.

[thomas82]

98. It doesnt matter because in 5 days...

It will be history.
Tom

[skippythwndrdog]

99. Thankfully. n/t

[library_max]

106. What numbers?

You make a lot of assertions here, but you don't support them.

[goju]

110. Let me ask you

Would you believe it dishonest if you found that the "definitions" used in reporting those numbers were manipulated? In other words, if the gun stayed the same, aside from a few cosmetic changes like no folding stock and no flash hider, but the "definition" changed from "assault weapon" to "rifle" in the trace reports, would you find that unreliable information in terms of actual AWB efficacy?

[library_max]

115. I would say that once again you are trying to treat your opinions as facts

You are accusing people of lying because they say things you don't agree with, because their opinions differ from yours. But your opinions aren't facts, and therefore the VPC or anybody else is entitled to have different opinions or interpretations without being called liars.

[goju]

117. Whoa nellie, I think you have that backwards

What opinion are you replying to? What facts did I assert?

I think, and correct me if Im wrong, but you "assumed" I was stating fact, or opinion, when in fact I was asking a simple question. Much like the AWB, you must read my post before commenting on it. You continually throw the charge around that people are stating opinions as facts, but it seems as though YOUR opinions are actually what is getting in the way here.

I never stated a fact, or opinion. I asked a question. Believing otherwise doesnt make it so, no matter how much you want it to. The question stands.

[library_max]

119. Oh, I see. Very funny. It was a push poll.

"What would you think of Joe Green's candidacy if I told you that he worships Satan and eats babies every morning? What? No, I certainly did NOT claim that Joe Green worships Satan and eats babies! How dare you make such a dastardly accusation?"

Sheesh.

[goju]

125. Well

In light of what has been said ad nauseum on the subject of AWB crime stats, at some point I have to wonder whether or not you actually would disavow the tactics the gun grabbers are clearly employing. You certainly havent given me any reason to think you would.

[library_max]

130. Interesting style of argument you've got there.

First you make a pile of untrue accusations that you can't support. Called on that, you then pretend that they weren't accusations at all, just innocent questions. Called on that, you proceed to pretend that your own unethical tactics are actually the tactics of the "gun grabbers," again (big surprise) without supporting that statement in any way. What next, I wonder?

[skippythwndrdog]

121. A lot of assertions?

I only said that numbers don't lie! I figure the numbers regarding what weapon was used for what crime have been done to death in previous threads. We've gotten them from left sources, right sources, and government agencies.

If I really need to look up links - aw heck. I'm too trifling to go through it again.

[library_max]

131. Well, you said numbers and you didn't give numbers.

If your whole point is that numbers don't lie, I don't think it's so very unreasonable to ask you what numbers you are talking about.

In 1994, assault weapons accounted for more than eight percent of gun crimes. The most recent number is less than two percent. Are those the numbers you meant, the ones that don't lie?

[skippythwndrdog]

137. That brings us back to the definition of an assault rifle.

We've gone through that a ton also. Please tell me those aren't Brady or VPC numbers. Those two are as credible as a white supremacist group is for the opposing view.

Where did that 8% number come from? I've not seen it that I recall except possibly in reports that incorrectly lump all semi-autos in with AW's

[library_max]

139. I got the numbers from slackmaster.

Somehow I doubt that he got them from the Brady Center or the VPC.

[slackmaster]

140. If you're still discussing use of AWs in crime, I got them from the VPC

The VPC uses a proxy measure (gun trace requests) to estimate the number of both pre-bans and post-bans used in crimes. They haven't ever defined unambiguously what they mean by post-bans (actually they use the term copycat), but the numbers show pretty clearly that use of pre-bans in crime has dropped steadily since 1994. This should come as no surprise to anyone since post-bans are scarce and therefore valuable.

They say (surprise!) the number of post-bans used in crimes has gone up and up and up since 1994.

“Copycat” assault weapons as a percentage of crime guns traced increased 88 percent when comparing the periods 1990-1994 to 1995-2001....

And they conclude (another surprise!) that the numbers prove the ban should be renewed and strengthened.

See http://www.vpc.org/graphics/AWAnalysisFinal.pdf

It's one of the VPC's better pieces IMO. They do address the fact that the overall number of trace requests has steadily increased, and they acknowledge the weaknesses of their proxy measure, but they are still clinging to a fantasy that eliminating one type of gun or another can affect overall gun-related crime, even though they have no evidence to show that.

[FeebMaster]

142. I think you got pre-ban and post-ban backward. (nt)

[slackmaster]

143. Whoopsie, right you are.

I think I fixed it.

I still have trouble telling the difference between a pre-ban and a post-ban anyway. With the federal ban out of the way there won't be any such distinction any more. My registered California AWs will be legal in any non-NFA configuration.

Thanks!

[skippythwndrdog]

141. 'nuff said n/t