GITN SPECIAL REPORT - POST ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN BLOODBATH WATCH

[21stcentprogressive]

Hopefully we are all braced for the bloodbath beginning now that the ban is expired and banned weapons are flooding the streets. Please post the many stories that are likely to occur regarding the coming massacre to this thread. Rules are below, slightly modified from the usual GITN.

1 - Post only stories where the weapon used to commit the blood-bath is an assault weapon as defined by the recently expired assault weapons ban and is legally transferred to a civilian after September 12, 2004; the story must be clear in the configuration of the weapon and the transfer date to determine it was indeed at one point banned; news stories are not always clear on this point, as in the case of the DC area snipers who used a weapon that was not banned, so please use caution; the definition of assault weapon under the ban was:
Any on this list
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 ;
revolving cylinder shotguns such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12.
Any firearm produced with more than one of the following features
Rifles
Folding/telescoping stock
Protruding pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Threaded muzzle or flash suppressor
Grenade launcher
Pistols
Magazine outside grip
Threaded muzzle
Barrel shroud
Unloaded weight of 50 ounces or more
Semi-automatic version of a fully automatic weapon
Shotguns
Folding/telescoping stock
Protruding pistol grip
Detachable magazine capacity
Fixed magazine capacity greater than 5 rounds
2 - Feel free to add any CURRENT stories to this thread by replying to this message. In order to be considered current, stories should have been originally posted on the Internet within the previous 24 hours, or provide follow-up to a story that was previously posted on the J/PS board. EXCEPTION: On Mondays (since many people do not log in to DU over the weekend), stories can be posted from Saturday, Sunday, or Monday.
3 - Bear in mind that any links to intentionally pro-control sites (such as the VPC or the Brady Campaign) are not considered reliable sources by many DU-ers. If at all possible, try to find a link for your story from a more mainstream source, such as a general-circulation newspaper or magazine site. If you choose to use a slanted site, be prepared for any negative feedback you may receive.
4 - Please try whenever possible to provide links to web sites that do not require you to subscribe to the site to read the story. If a subscription site is the only source you can find for a story, please note that fact in your message so people can decide whether they want to follow the link to read the entire story.
5 - Do not change story titles. In other words, if the Oskosh Gazette's web site runs a story titled "Two Killed in Holdup", the title of your message should read "Two Killed in Holdup". Don't change it to "Gun Owner Kills Two People", or anything else that changes the meaning of the story.
6 - If it's not clear from the title where the story occurred, add the city, state, or country in parentheses after the title.
7 - The person adding a news story to the "GITN" thread is allowed (and encouraged) to comment on that story, indicating their position on the topic being discussed. These comments can appear either at the beginning or end of the post; if possible, place comments in a different typeface so readers can separate the comments from the story. Others who wish to comment on a posted story can do so by replying to that story; this allows other readers to follow the comments by scrolling through the subthread.
8 - Please direct your comments to the story, rather than attacking the person posting the story or any person responding to the story. In accordance with DU rules, any message that appears to be a personal attack against another DU-er or a violation of any other DU rule will be reported to the moderators.
9 - If you object to these guidelines, do everyone else a favor and go to another thread.

[21stcentprogressive]

1. note to moderator

I could not edit yesterday's post, so I created a new one that I do not need to edit, can we please make this one the running link?

[Wickerman]

4. fair enough

[DarkPhenyx]

7. Another note to the moderator

Doesn't this thread violate a rule about all caps in your thread title though?

[Wickerman]

9. That rule has not been effect since the primaries

And I believe it was GD specific, though I can't swear...

Hardly anyone in the Gungeon would reconize a rule that old. :)

[DarkPhenyx]

16. True.

Sad that the rule went away. Ah well, who are we to question.

[21stcentprogressive]

11. What other amendments do you have a problem with?

Looks like you are against the first and second,

[DarkPhenyx]

13. Oh that is just so cute.

Thank you for lowering the level of this discussion even further.

So please point out why I am against the 1st and 2nd. With reference directly to something I said about being against tehm preferably.

If you can't please apologize for saying otherwise.

[21stcentprogressive]

2. DAY 2, and no stories yet. Must be the calm before the bloodstorm(nt)

nt

[Renaissance]

3. No blood flood spotted yet.

Nor have I seen the river of bayonet lugs and folding stocks. I must be in the wrong area.

[DoNotRefill]

5. Blood spilled in the kitchen at DNR's HOUSE!!!

I was using the chef's knife/ FAL bayonet when I cut my finger this morning whilst mincing cilantro for our breakfast omlette. That would have NEVER happened, except I was thrown off balance due to the 8 pound rifle being attached to the knife.

I don't have a link, because it wasn't reported, but here's the pic of the dastardly weapon:

[Wickerman]

10. Please only post stories with links

this isn't Free Republic, we need lib'rule media verification of spilt blood.

[DarkPhenyx]

6. Hey wow look!

Lovely intelligent post from the gun crowd. Everyone look and see the well thought out and rational post from the pro-gun crowd. :roll:

Tragically sad. Fortunately I really didn't expect any better from either side. They both tend to be equally stupid and annoying.

[el_gato]

8. It's called satire

[DarkPhenyx]

14. The entire argument against the AWB was satire.

I guess this thread shouldn't be any different then. Thanks for reminding me.

[FeebMaster]

21. If the entire argument against the AWB was satire

what would you call the argument for the AWB?

[21stcentprogressive]

12. This thread is perfectly rational and on point, not sure about...

your response, though.

This thread is certainly rational and relevant to the issue, as the Brady Center, MMM, VPC, and media, and some of the anti-RKBA voices on this board have told us repeatedly over the past years that a great bloodbath would occur if the AWB expired. Now that the ban is gone, you seem to think we should just forget all the lies we have been told and move on?

[DarkPhenyx]

15. Reducing a discussion to the level of the inane and insipid...

...does not constitute a rational well thought out argument. This goes for the idiots against the AWB as well as those who support it.

[DonP]

17. You're right

"Inane and insipid"

It would be much better if we just called the AWB a "Pantload" and the people that supported it and cost us the house in '94 (according to WJC at least, but what the hell does he know) "desperate fuckwits".

That would have raised the level of discourse.

[DarkPhenyx]

18. and if we called those opposing it...

..."neo-Nazi fascists" and "brain dead morons"? *sadly shaking head* Yeah, it's obvious ya'll are just smarter than the average zelot.

No rational for calling it a pantload. No defense of it's being allowed to pass. Just name calling and rhetoric. Sounds a lot like those peopel supporting the invasion of Iraq, or calling for Row v. Wade to be struck down, or a hundred other RW causes. Very interesting.

[library_max]

56. Correction.

WJC said that the NRA cost us the house in '94. Not the AWB, the NRA. Please get it straight. This is rapidly becoming an urban legend.

[FatSlob]

20. Proponents of the expired ban were pretty good at it.

I'm sorry that you feel upset that we are mocking the lies of the Authoritarian crowd.

[el_gato]

22. You are so right FS, it's all about the worship of authority

how dare anyone not bow down to those in control!

[DarkPhenyx]

23. Na, it's the lies, distortions and half truths...

...you use in the process that is bothersome.

[Unperson 309]

19. Mobettah, Go to alt.tasteless on Usenet

and search on terns such as "apeshit pool" "apshittage" and "apeshittery".

The tasteless denizens of that fetid swamp keep running tallies of every gun crime with more than two victims. "Apeshittage" is a term used when someone goes haywire and offs a number of bystanders, ex-cow orkers or relatives in a spectacular or brutal way.

Much fun is had by all.

309

[21stcentprogressive]

24. Police Chief Sees No Impact From Weapons Ban

Still no bloodbath, this is a lot more boring than we were promised.

Check this guy out, he is really out of touch with his peers in the Police Chief community

[Romulus]

27. more like

his city council that hired him is out of touch with the "thousands" of city councils across the U.S.

Asking a police chief for an opinion on a politicized law enforcement issue is like asking John Ashcroft for his opinion on a politicized law enforcement issue.

You get what the handlers want to be said.

[21stcentprogressive]

25. The Marietta Times: Assault weapons ban not to have much effect

The police sergeant in this story might want to check with his chief, who certainly must have a different opinion

[21stcentprogressive]

26. Myrtle Beach OL: Expired weapons ban brings no rush to buy assault rifles

What, no line of terrorists and criminals to pick up their weapons?

[skippythwndrdog]

28. They're all waiting for the Tuesday stock truck at Wal Mart

[hangar18]

50. When are people going to get it throught their thick skulls...

that you can't buy an "Assault Rifle" without getting an automatic weapons license from the BATF.

[slackmaster]

65. The side that controls the language controls the debate

It's a famous saying and I'm not sure who deserves the credit for it, but it's surely true and it surely applies to the "Sport-Utility Firearm" debate.

Another famous saying whose author is well-known: "If you're explaining, you're losing." That was said by the late Lee Atwater, a fine guitar player and father of the long-dead Big Tent of the Republican party. When he passed away so did any chance of moderates keeping control of the GOP. The religious conservatives, hardcore right-wingers, and other assorted wild-eyed fruitcakes took over.

Those whose agenda includes incrementally banning all firearms understand well how to apply those principles: Divide, define one subset as a pariah, demonize using every means available including giving it a scary name, then propose a ban. Whatever you want to get rid of, call it something that nobody in the vast uncommitted middle could possibly like, e.g. "partial-birth abortion" or start telling people that God hates it, then banning it becomes easy.

[slackmaster]

66. This story couldn't be true

Nobody in Myrtle Beach shops at Wal-Mart.

The ONLY place to go in that town is the Waccamaw Factory Shoppes, formerly known and coloquially still referred to as Waccamaw Pottery.

http://www.waccamawfactoryshoppes.com/

[21stcentprogressive]

29. DAY 3 OF THE SPECIAL REPORT, STILL NO BLOODBATH (nt)

n t

[anonymous44]

32. THE FIRST AWB VICTIM

you're wrong. today i was driving and the whole street was flooded with ak's and uzi's. i had to swerve to avoid hitting them. so i hit a pole and cut some skin against my wheel. so there you have it. im already a bloody mess. ugh those ak's

[21stcentprogressive]

30. kick

nt

[skippythwndrdog]

31. Still waiting

http://www.newsenterpriseonline.com/articles/2004/09/15/news/news02.txt

<snip>The end of the decade-long federal ban on assault weapons probably won't create any substantial new risks for police here, officials said Tuesday.

"We have more trouble with small handguns than anything else," said Hardin County Sheriff's Office Maj. Bobby Baker. "These assault weapons have never been a big issue here."

Baker and proponents of letting the law die said the guns that were already in the public's hands had never been removed, rendering the ban useless.

"It's just like drugs, only those who did it illegally were the problem anyway," Baker said. "Anyone who is a registered gun owner and abides by the law isn't of concern to me."

[anonymous44]

33. Here this is not a joke. THE FIRST VICTIM

Someone got this drive-by on video. This is horrible.

www.unifac.com/altorfer/bayonet.wmv

[skippythwndrdog]

34. Absolutely horrific!

What else can I say?

[MrSandman]

35. Gun law lapse not a worry to local police(MT)

"Honestly, I don't think (the ban) was all that effective," Liedle said. "If guns are used in a crime, they're dangerous across the board. It doesn't matter what kind they are."

Capt. Mike Anderson of the Helena Police Department had a similar take on the situation.

"We're in agreement that the assault weapon ban didn't have an effect on our violent crime while it was in effect," he said, adding that law enforcement officials have no reason to believe they will see an increase in gun-related incidents now that the ban has been lifted.


http://www.helenair.com/articles/2004/09/15/helena_top/a01091504_04.txt

[21stcentprogressive]

36. DAY 4 OF THE SPECIAL REPORT

and still nothing but stories of police chiefs saying that the ban really did not have an impact after all. I am starting to think that the anti-RKBA crowd was lying to us about the Assault Weapons Ban, I wonder what else they might be lying about (what else is under their sheet?)

[21stcentprogressive]

37. DAY 5 OF THE SPECIAL REPORT, AND WHERE IS THE BLOODBATH

ANYONE heard ANYTHING? Certainly SOMETHING has happened, we were told for so long by the anti-RKBA crowd that terrorists and criminals would be walking the streets mowing down children, and we know they are never wrong...

[21stcentprogressive]

38. Sioux Falls Assault Weapons Sales

It's been nearly three days since the lifting of the assault weapons ban. But KELOLAND gun shops haven't seen a rush of customers who want to buy weapons that were forbidden under the ten-year-old federal law.

Sioux Falls Assault Weapons Sales

[21stcentprogressive]

39. End of gun ban drawing little attention (OR)

Klamath Falls Police Chief Jim Hunter said most people who own assault weapons in the county do so lawfully, and restricting the sale probably didn't accomplish much.

Klamath County Sheriff Tim Evinger agreed.

"I think the only impact is (assault rifles) would be maybe a little bit more readily available for the rare individual who does commit crimes with them and tries to outgun law enforcement," Evinger said. But, "it's been our experience that criminals don't obtain their weaponry legally anyhow."



End of gun ban drawing little attention

[enfield collector]

49. but I thought all police wanted the ban extended because

it was the only thing keeping assault weapons off the streets?

[library_max]

57. You are breaking the rules of your own thread.

The rules you yourself made. You restricted posted stories to those describing a bloodbath that involved a previously banned assault weapon. If it's okay to post any story involving anyone's pissant opinion pro or con the AWB, then that's not the thread you originally described.

[skippythwndrdog]

40. I went to my usual gun shop this A.M.

I asked the owner about his increases in sales of mags, stocks, pistol grips, etc.

He said that the only increase in sales since the expiration of the ban was for deer, waterfowl, and turkey guns. That is a normal annual increase because all of those seasons will be starting within the next few weeks.

I guess everyone else did what I did: got all their stuff before the AWB took effect or ordered from folks who had the foresight to build inventories of the grandfathered items.

[21stcentprogressive]

41. Elapsed assault weapons ban won't be missed by some (MO)

Sedalia police and gun dealers were "ho-hum" that an expiring assault weapons ban that was not renewed Monday.

Sedalia Police Chief Ted Litschauer said he thought the debates about whether to renew the ban had been "much ado about nothing."

He said the ban was symbolic, at best. "The real fully automatic assault weapons are still banned by federal law," he said.

Elapsed assault weapons ban won't be missed by some

[21stcentprogressive]

42. DAY 6 OF THE SPECIAL REPORT, STILL WAITING

and waiting and waiting

[az_canis]

43. Pretty clear

this thread has'nt gone the way the orginator had hoped....

[E. Tackleberry]

44. I hope..

...your not holding your breath while you wait. ;)
-------------------------------------------------------------
21stcentprogressive (109 posts) Sat Sep-18-04 08:39 AM
Response to Original message

42. DAY 6 OF THE SPECIAL REPORT, STILL WAITING


and waiting and waiting

[library_max]

76. Holding your breath is much easier when you've been tombstoned.

Another RKBAer gets his "wings."

[21stcentprogressive]

45. DAY 7 OF OUR SPECIAL REPORT, ONE WEEK, NO BLOODFLOOD

where is the catastrophe Sarah Brady and the VPC promised us?

[skippythwndrdog]

46. I found a used band aid in the parking lot a Cracker Barrel yesterday.

Does that count?

[E. Tackleberry]

47. GASP........

.....not a band aid skippy?!?!

Was it drenched in blood and in the vicinity on spent assault rifle cases??


;)

....Tackleberry

[skippythwndrdog]

48. It looked to be from a drive by bayonetting. n/t

[21stcentprogressive]

51. DAY 8 OF THE SPECIAL REPORT

certainly SOMETHING has happened.

[21stcentprogressive]

52. Most Agree the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban Wasn't Effective (FL)

While banning assault weapons remains a controversial issue nationwide, Polk gun enthusiasts and law enforcement officers said the 1994 law had little effect here, and they don't expect the law's demise to make much of an impact either.

Local law enforcement officials disagree that another assault weapons ban would make communities safer.

While enacting another ban would keep guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens, it wouldn't keep criminals from getting guns, said Col. Gary Hester of the Polk County Sheriff's Office.

"The problem we have in law enforcement is criminals using firearms," Hester said. "When we catch criminals with firearms they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law."

Jack Gillen, public information officer for the Lakeland Police Department, said the previous ban hadn't worked in Polk County.

"The ban didn't put less guns in the hands of criminals," he said.

Most Agree the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban Wasn't Effective

[21stcentprogressive]

53. Assault weapons ban gone, but few can see difference (WI)

The ban did not create the reduction in gun violence police would like to have seen, (Sheriff) Heuer said, and he doesn't expect a dramatic increase in crime because it expired.

"Most people who purchase these weapons are collectors," he said.

Assault weapons ban gone, but few can see difference

[MrSandman]

54. Assaulting common sense (PA editorial)

One of the most absurd gun-grabber advertisements opposing the end of the assault weapons ban featured Osama bin Laden with the caption "Terrorists of 9-11 can hardly wait for 9-13."
<>
Bin Laden probably had every "i" dotted and every "t" crossed on his application forms to purchase the guns. He probably spent the night before the ban ended camped out outside a gun store to be first in line to exercise his re-won Second Amendment right.

How stupid do they think we are?

http://pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/opinion/columnists/vassilaros/s_252609.html

[21stcentprogressive]

55. Assault rifle ban expires quietly (MI)

Port Huron police Capt. Neal Rossow said he doesn't foresee the expired ban affecting law enforcement

Assault rifle ban expires quietly

[21stcentprogressive]

58. DAY 9 OF THE SPECIAL REPORT, STILL NO NEWS, WERE WE DECEIVED?

Is it possible that the Brady Center, VPC, and others in the anti-RKBA lied to us about the AWB? I am starting to wonder.

Why would they lie?

[21stcentprogressive]

59. Sheriff: weapons ban ineffective (FL)

Jacksonville’s sheriff said he won’t miss the national ban on assault weapons that expired last week. In the national debate that followed the ban’s sunset, John Rutherford said he agreed with those who thought the law was poorly crafted and ineffective.

Sheriff: weapons ban ineffective

[library_max]

60. Advocates Decry Expiration of Assault Weapons Ban

as 1994 Law Sunsets on Bush's Watch; Over 1,900 Police Chiefs, Sheriffs Across US Called on Bush to Renew, Strengthen Federal Assault Weapons Ban

9/14/2004 8:01:00 AM


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To: National Desk

Contact: Bryan Miller, 856-371-3038 or Andy Pelosi, 917-587-4108

WASHINGTON, Sept. 14 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Despite overwhelming support for a strengthened assault weapons ban from nearly 2,000 police chiefs and sheriffs and a September 6, 2004 poll by the Annenberg Public Policy Centre that found that 68 percent of Americans wanted the ban extended, the Federal Assault Weapons Ban has sunset on President George W. Bush's watch.

A letter listing Police Officers and Sheriffs who have signed on asking for a strong and effective ban was delivered to all 535 Members of Congress and the President, but even such broad support from the nation's police chiefs didn't prompt action from the White House.

Military-style semiautomatic assault weapons pose a grave risk to law enforcement officers. One in five law enforcement officers slain in the line of duty between January 1, 1998, and December 31, 2001, was killed with an assault weapon according to a study of FBI data, by the Violence Policy Center.

Continued here

[library_max]

61. Kerry on attack over weapons ban.

The powerful National Rifle Association lobbied against the ban
The US Democrat presidential candidate has attacked President Bush for failing to push for the renewal of a 10-year ban on private use of assault weapons.

John Kerry accused his rival of placing gun lobby interests above those of police and gun crime victims' families.

The law expired at midnight on Monday after Republican legislators refused to make time for a vote to extend it.

The move means that ordinary citizens will now be allowed to keep powerful assault weapons in their homes.

President George W Bush has said he supports the ban but he has not pressured Congress to extend the prohibition.

The ban was passed by President Clinton in 1994 after a series of shootings in US schools and fast food restaurants.

Lifting the ban has been a key aim of the powerful, pro-Republican gun lobby and its demise comes just weeks before the US presidential election.

Polls show the majority of Americans support the ban and several police chiefs have expressed concern over its repeal.

Mr Kerry has vowed to make it an election issue

Continued here

[FatSlob]

63. The ONE GOOD THING that Bush did...

Was to let the AWB expire. It is very ironic that a President known for restricting freedoms was also responsible for the biggest restoration of freedom in the last number of years. I must give credit to the shrubbery for his ONE GOOD DEED as President. Now, back to our regularly scheduled program of kicking the shrubbery's political ass.

[library_max]

83. It's interesting, though, that you never talk about things Bush has done

that you object to. It's always this "one good thing" (being pro-gun) that keeps coming up. That probably explains the totally unfair impression you make of being pro-Bush, despite protestations to the contrary.

"Methinks the lady doth protest too much." Shakespeare

[FatSlob]

160. Seeing as how we are in the gungeon, it makes sense, doesn't it?

Read elsewhere, and you'll see us out of the context you are used to seeing us in.

[library_max]

183. Since you suggested it, I made a search of your posts in other forums

over the last two weeks. Here's one in which you call communism a "scourge." Nothing Republican about that. :eyes: Here are some anti-Palestinian posts in the Foreign Affairs forum, including one in which you gloat over a resistance fighter apparently having been killed by the Israelis. Here's one where the OP asks how much support Kerry might lose because of the debates and you ask why there's no 100% option, and one where you defend Bush's performance at a recent press conference.

Ah, here's a thread you started by posting a link to a right-wing anti-Kerry attack site (wintersoldier.com) while adding commentary indicating that you yourself do not agree with the material on the site. What right winger would ever do a thing like that? Here are some posts of yours in the Ohio forum. Some purely nonpartisan, about vote fraud, and one in which you declare that you are "appalled" that former felons can vote even after the OP explained that keeping former felons from voting is a method used to inhibit the Black vote in Ohio. And another one in which you explain away an apparently political (to the OP at least) flexing of Bush Administration military muscle as purely legitimate security practice.

I do see a couple of "yay Kerry" posts with no text and no details. And on JibJab's "What do you admire most about John Kerry" thread, you managed to say that "he isn't GWB."

So, nothing but criticism in this forum, where the overwhelming majority of your posts appear, but posting of right wing sites, defenses of Bush, and lukewarm generic expressions of sort-of support for Kerry. Gee, however could I have doubted your progressive credentials?

Oh, and by the way, that site you promote in every single message you post, www.AWbansunset.com? The progressive folks on that site are urging readers to get out and vote against John Kerry. Check it out - look under "Senators."

[21stcentprogressive]

62. DAY 10 OF THE SPECIAL REPORT, WHY WOULD THE BRADY CENTER LIE TO US?

Why would the VPC lie to us?

[MrSandman]

67. Sunset of the AWB sets their cause back 10 years...

Literally.

VPC is as aware as anyone of the political capital expended and the consequences of that expenditure.

Is it likely that we will see such again in the near future?

That is the reason the VPC would mislead and those in favor of the RKBA would fight so hard to defeat the repeal of the sunset.

The VPC and their allies will carry their fight to the courts. This administration has demonstrated how the Federal judiciary can be used to usurp the will of the people as expressed through the electoral and legislative process.

[NorthernSpy]

78. just ten?

VPC is as aware as anyone of the political capital expended and the consequences of that expenditure.

Absolutely! The way I see it, the antis are FAR worse off than they were ten years ago. Back then, there was good momentum was on their side (and had been throughout the the seventies and eighties). That's all changed now. The campaign they waged to keep the AWB was far more feeble than even I had expected it would be. Theirs is a movement that clearly has peaked, and has steadily lost prestige ever since. The consensus that they used to enjoy from the center-right to the center-left of the political spectrum has decayed into apathy, and the passion and confidence of the few remaining true believers have soured into rancor as they are forced to wage rearguard actions to keep from losing even more ground.


I think you're right about a shift away from a legislative-based strategy and toward litigation.


Mary

[MrSandman]

79. How about ...

Ten years literally and 20 years politically...How many CCW states since '94?

[library_max]

73. Why would RKBAers lie to us?

Why would the NRA lie to us?

There's as much support for those statements as for yours.

[21stcentprogressive]

64. BAN ENDS WITHOUT BANG (SC)

Assault weapons prohibition lifted, but no rush for guns or crime increase expected, locals say

The U.S. ban on assault weapons has ended with more of a whimper than a wallop.

The decade-long ban expired this past week, but locals say they don't expect to see an increase in crime or gun sales to result.

"I really don't believe the expiration of the ban will adversely affect the law-abiding citizen, who used it (a banned weapon) in an appropriate manner," Orangeburg Department of Public Safety Chief Wendell Davis said. "But the person who obtained it illegally wouldn't have been concerned with the law anyway."

BAN ENDS WITHOUT BANG

[MrSandman]

68. THE TRUTH ABOUT RIFLE STATISTICS (NY,NY)

September 20, 2004 -- N EW YORKERS are at least four times as likely to be punched to death than to be killed with an assault-style rifle, unpublished state crime statistics show.
The eye-opening figures — obtained by The Post from the state Division of Criminal Justice Services — reveal that New Yorkers are also at least twice as likely to be clubbed to death than shot dead by an attacker wielding one of the semi-automatic rifles previously covered by a federal government ban that expired last week.

The most recent statewide statistics — murder-by-weapon-type figures from 2002 — also show that New Yorkers are at least five times as likely to be stabbed to death with a knife than they are to be shot with an assault rifle.

http://www.nypost.com/commentary/30555.htm

[skippythwndrdog]

69. Now you've done it.

The lunatic asswipes are gonna go on a rampage to get the numbers back up where the VPC and Brady say they are.

[MrSandman]

70. LOL...nt

[library_max]

74. Never use "the truth" and "The New York Post" in the same paragraph.

Are you not familiar with the Post? Rupert Murdoch's fun tabloid that reports on Elvis sightings and bat babies? So imagine the credibility they deserve when they report on "unpublished state crime statistics." I guess it looks a little classier than "crime statistics we just made up," but there's no actual difference.

[21stcentprogressive]

71. DAY 11 OF THE SPECIAL REPORT, WHAT ELSE ARE THE GUN-GRABBERS LYING ABOUT?

What else is the anti-RKBA crowd lying about?

Here is the list of other potential lies off the top of my head, please feel free to add:

1) Guns cause crime
2) No individual RKBA
3) Threat of .50 caliber weapons
4) That they do not want all guns banned

What is their agenda?

[Romulus]

72. Hey! Keep it on topic! (n/t)

[library_max]

75. WHAT ARE THE GUN NUTS LYING ABOUT?

Obviously, that eleven days is plenty of time to judge the long-term consequences of the lapse of the AWB.

Here is the list of other potential lies off the top of my head, please feel free to add:

1) More guns less crime
2) US court decisions don't mean what they say they mean
3) Every dumkopf private citizen needs first strike capability
4) They aren't helping criminals get guns

Why do they think it's okay to push Republican agendas on a Democratic board?

[skippythwndrdog]

77. I won't try to speak for the others, but

I'm still waiting for the storm surge of shootings with those evil (former) AW's we were promised when the AWB expired.

[library_max]

80. Within the first two weeks? Does the word "disingenuous" ring any bells?

[skippythwndrdog]

118. Nope. None at all.

That's why the BITS thread. We're still waiting.
I will promise you this: When the murder rate with (former) AW's reaches even 10% of all murders in the U.S., I'll never say another word except, "I was wrong." I honestly believe that we'll have us a snowball fight in Hell before I have to say that.

[library_max]

119. Well, considering they're only between one and two percent of all guns

in circulation, I guess you'd be pretty safe with your 10% figure. If they even got up to 5% of gun crimes, though, it'd be highly disproportionate to their presence in the marketplace. And that's about where they were before the AWB was passed.

[library_max]

148. Oops, my mistake. They were over 8% of the guns used in crimes.

So maybe that 10% figure isn't all that safe.

[slackmaster]

161. Make up your mind max

Unless you stick with ONE definition of assault weapon and ONE measurement standard your posts will continue to look inconsistent.

[skippythwndrdog]

166. Thanks, Max.

It takes charachter to correct oneself. It's refreshing.

[FatSlob]

163. Max, you are fully aware that the banned features...

had nothing to do with crime. Specifically speaking about rifles and carbines, please tell us which of the following features added to an AR, AK, or FAL style rifle will cause an increase in crime:

1. Barrel threads
2. Adjustable stocks
3. Flash reducers/redirectors
4. bayonet/bipod lug/attachment point

You can't. It is as plain as the stench of a sewer plant that the ban had no effect.

[library_max]

167. The numbers went down, FatSlob.

How do YOU explain it?

[library_max]

81. Election-year tactics doom continuation of successful legislation

The Desert Sun
September 14th, 2004

Congress and the President of the United States used poor judgment in allowing the sun to set on the federal assault weapons ban. The 10-year ban, adopted in 1994, expired Monday without so much as a last gasp attempt by lawmakers to breathe new life into this fading legislation.

The ban, part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, halted the manufacture of 19 military-style assault weapons, assault weapons with specific combat features, “copy-cat” models, and certain high-capacity ammunition magazines of more than 10 rounds.

The best part -- this legislation actually did what it was intended to do. Government statistics show that the incidence of assault weapons used in crime fell 66 percent since the ban was put in place.

Isn’t this a good thing? The International Chiefs of Police and the National Sheriff’s Association think so. These are the people we should be listening to -- they’re the ones out on the street, up against these insidious weapons of destruction.

Continued here

[slackmaster]

84. Pretty disingenuous on every level

The AWB defined an arbitrary set of objects as stigmatized and banned their manufacture and sale, then AWB supporters use the inevitable consequences of the scarcity of those items as "proof" that their silly ban achieved a desirable effect. But the real intended effect, which should have been a reduction in violent crime or mortality or injuries caused by violent crime, isn't evident.

It's like saying that General Motors' decision in the late 1970s to stop making convertibles improved public safety because now there are fewer car crashes involving GM convertibles.

The ban... ...halted the manufacture of... ...“copy-cat” models..."

Yeah sure. That's why the VPC and others are whining at full volume about how the gun makers "evaded" the ban by making copycat models. :eyes:

What a bunch of nonsense. At least THIS hit piece doesn't dwell on all the heinous "assault weapon" crimes that happpened in spite of the ban. For that I give them the courtesy of a C- on content to go with their D on logic.

[library_max]

88. Well, that's an opinion.

However, disagreeing with your opinion does not automatically make The Desert Sun "disingenuous."

There has been a reduction in violent crime per capita since 1994, from 7.1 per thousand population to 4.9 per thousand, with accompanying reduced mortality, etc.; but of course they weren't able to control all the other variables, so it isn't scientifically "proven."

All I'm really trying to do here is show that there are progressive publications that object to the expiration of the AWB, since 21stcentprogressive is showing us all the conservative publications that are cheering its passage. Equal time, y'know.

[slackmaster]

90. It would be really easy to control the variables

Are the AWB proponents afraid of what the results might show?

Oh yeah, it's the big conspiracy to keep the data from being published.

:tinfoilhat:

However, disagreeing with your opinion does not automatically make The Desert Sun "disingenuous."

Maybe it just makes them misinformed.

[library_max]

95. What are you talking about? I gave you the data!

Violent crime went down from 1994 to 2002 (latest available figures) from 7.1 per thousand to 4.9 per thousand.

Now explain to me how it would be "easy to control the variables" that affect crime in this country.

[slackmaster]

99. You have never connected that drop with the AWB

There is no nexus.

[library_max]

103. What "nexus" do you need?

We already went over the precipitous drop in assault weapons as a percentage of the total number of guns used in crime. I remember that you had an excuse for that too. But what's this bull about a nexus? They said violent crime would drop, and it dropped. What exactly do you want here in the way of evidence? Do you want them to have controlled all the variables?

[slackmaster]

104. Look it up in your Funk & Wagnell's

:spank:

We already went over the precipitous drop in assault weapons as a percentage of the total number of guns used in crime.

Yeah, as long as you use the defunct official legal definition of "assault weapon" that's just as true as my statement about GM convertibles being involved in fewer accidents than when they were being manufactured.

Just as true, and just as meaningless.

Keep grasping at straws. Maybe you'll find a really nice one some time.

[library_max]

106. So you've got nothing. What a surprise.

Sneers are not arguments. And I didn't "use" any definition, legal, defunct, or otherwise, of "assault weapon." I just quoted an article. If you have a quarrel with their use of terminology, I suggest that you write a letter to the editor.

[FatSlob]

165. It dropped because of concealed carry.

Do I have proof? No, but neither does your position.

[library_max]

168. Never said I had proof.

Your side is the side that claims to have all the answers and to be infallible.

[FatSlob]

164. Perhaps the reduction was due to legalizing of CCW in most states. n/t

[library_max]

219. Perhaps it was due to crop circles and pixie dust.

We can play "perhaps" all night.

[library_max]

82. ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN LIFTED

PRESIDENT PROCLAIMS "FREE AT LAST, FREE AT LAST, THANK GOD ALMIGHTY, WE'RE FREE TO MINCE BAMBI INTO KIBBLES 'N BITS WITH AK-47'S AT LAST!"
Proclamation by the President

THE PRESIDENT: Ten years ago, my predecessor Bill Clinton took it upon himself to gut the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution by imposing a ban on so-called "assault weapons." Sadly for America, he wasn't talking about that rapid-fire jizz howitzer he keeps in his trousers. No, he was talking about the rapid-fire personal weapons of medium destruction that our Founding Fathers so clearly foresaw each time they spent five minutes hand-packing single-shot lead balls into six foot iron muskets.

Today, the United States can be proud to have a President who understands that quite the contrary to Bill Clinton's interpretation, the Second Amendment is the ONLY part of the Bill of Rights we really need. A President who proudly ignores the fact that over 70% of his constituents want the Assault Rifle ban extended, but has the conviction and sense of leadership it takes to flip the bird to all those crybaby pussies. And yes, I am that President, and I understand that in these terrifying times, an UZI and M16 in every pot are what's needed – for a few very important reasons:

Continued here

[slackmaster]

86. Let me be the first to say...

And yes, I am that President, and I understand that in these terrifying times, an UZI and M16 in every pot are what's needed...

An M16 is a machinegun, not an assault weapon.

The AW ban had nothing to do with automatic weapons.

[library_max]

89. There's no semi-automatic version of the M16?

I'm pretty sure there are some semi-automatic Uzis.

So, was that the biggest nit you could find to pick in an article that was intended satirically anyway?

[slackmaster]

91. If they mean a semiautomatic they can damn well use the right terminology

It's called an AR-15. And the AR-15 came first, so technically the M16 is a selective-fire version of the AR-15

If someone says M16 when they mean AR-15 there are only two possible reasons:

A) They're hopelessly misinformed, or

B) They're deliberately trying to blur the distinction between semiautomatic weapons and machineguns.

Either way they're wrong.

[library_max]

94. All hail the masters of gun porn and gun arcana.

We lowly progressives must bow our heads and avert our eyes as they pass. For it is they and only they who have the right to an opinion about gun controls.

In a pig's eye. It's a free country, buddy. You can sneer all you want, but large numbers of intelligent people (almost all of them progressives) disagree with you, and they have a right to disagree with you whether they use the "correct terminology" or not.

[slackmaster]

97. Pretty funny to see you posting all this regurgitprop this evening

You're recycling the same BS that failed to save the precious AWB when there was still a chance, and now most people know the Emperor has no clothes.

You can sneer all you want, but large numbers of intelligent people (almost all of them progressives) disagree with you, and they have a right to disagree with you whether they use the "correct terminology" or not.

I'm going to respond the same way every time I see intentionally misleading misuses of terminology.

You can't stop me. Your strategy has failed.

Neener, neener.

:spank:

[library_max]

105. "Neener, neener." " You can't stop me."

Oh, the maturity level of the RKBA side of the argument.

The reason for all this "regurgitprop" ought to be obvious, and I've already pointed it out once: as 21stcentprogressive has massively broken his own rules for the thread and festooned it with conservative Republican RKBA articles ridiculing and condemning the ban, I've posted articles I could find supporting the ban in the interest of equal time.

"Most people" supported the AWB, and you know it. Of course, those are the people you dismiss as "uninformed." And as for stopping you, why should I want to? You make an excellent example of the RKBA mindset, and that's a plus for our side.

[slackmaster]

159. Your "movement" has been set back a whole decade

Just as the side that wins a war has the prerogative of naming the war, I am in a position to gloat here. Something I've been fighting to see for 10 years has become a reality: A pointless restriction on personal liberty is dead.

21stcentprogressive has massively broken his own rules for the thread...

Take your complaints to 21stcentprogressive or the moderators. It's not my problem.

"Most people" supported the AWB, and you know it.

I don't deny it and I don't care. Most people are ignorant about the issue.

[library_max]

169. Yes, it's hard to move progressive reforms forward

when Republicans control the White House, both houses of Congress, and the judiciary. After the next election, we'll see if some things don't turn around. Don't forget, Kerry is pushing for S 1431. I guess if Bush wins in November, you'll have even more to gloat about. The Bushification of this country must be a real treat for you.

BTW, it is possible to gloat like a grownup. But I guess that'd be asking too much.

[library_max]

85. Assault on Weapons Ban (Mother Jones)

The national ban on semi-automatic assault weapons, signed into law by President Clinton in 1994, is set to expire Monday unless Congress acts to extend the ban. That looks unlikely, with neither house of Congress nor President Bush advancing the issue.

The assault weapons ban - which applies to 19 types of weapons, as well as ammunition clips holding more than 10 rounds – has been touted by supporters as a success, with gun murder rates having fallen dramatically over the past decade (though it’s unclear how much of that is directly tied to the weapons ban). While gun manufacturers have used loopholes to create legal "knockoffs" of banned weapons - including the kind used by the D.C. snipers – and the NRA has aggressively lobbied against the ban, it remains popular with the public. According to a poll released Monday by the National Annenberg Election Survey, two-thirds of Americans want the ban extended – including about 57 percent of those with guns in their home.

http://www.motherjones.com/news/dailymojo/2004/09/09_504.html">Continued here

[slackmaster]

87. Old news

The national ban on semi-automatic assault weapons, signed into law by President Clinton in 1994, is set to expire Monday...

NEWS FLASH!

The ban expired a full 10 days ago, at midnight the morning of Monday September 13 2004, and amazingly the sky still has not fallen!!!

Blah blah blah another silly biased survey says a majority of uninformed people say blah blah blah...

[library_max]

92. Yes, it is old news that progressives and progressive publications

support the AWB, just like conservatives and conservative publications oppose it.

Blah blah blah another RKBAer, on the basis of no evidence, dismisses people who don't agree with him as "uninformed," blah blah blah...

The ban has been gone a whole ten days and so far no bloodbath. This is like the guy who jumped off an eighty-story building and, while passing the sixty-seventh floor, said "So far, so good."

[FeebMaster]

93. So how long are we going to have to wait?

Is this going to be like the whole concealed carry thing where we're going to be having the pro-control folks saying "any day now" ten or more years later?

[library_max]

96. Why not wait a whole actual month

before you spout off about "ten or more years later"?

[FeebMaster]

98. What difference is a month going to make?

What difference has ten and more years of states passing concealed carry laws made?

[library_max]

107. Why don't you try it and see?

It's ridiculous to make grandiose predictions about ten years' worth of statistics based on ten days' worth of news.

[FeebMaster]

110. No it isn't.

It's ridiculous to make grandiose predictions about ten years' worth of statistics based on ten days' worth of news.

You see, I read the law at some point during the ten years it was in effect. I know exactly what the law did, so I'm quite comfortable in making predictions on what the sunset of the law will do. There's nothing ridiculous or grandiose about it.

[library_max]

112. Oh I see. You've made up your mind, so the case is closed.

Your opinion being the only one that matters, and all. Nothing ridiculous about that, nossir, uh uh. :eyes:

[FeebMaster]

113. My opinion has nothing to do with it.

[library_max]

114. That's very true, but I'm surprised to see you admitting it. /nt

[FeebMaster]

116. Admitting what?

[slackmaster]

100. And some progressives see through the BS

Sorry you feel so badly about this.

[library_max]

108. Yes we do, which is why I'm posting these articles.

And I'm not the one who has to resort to sneers, insults, and snarky smilies to get my point across, so I'm not sure why you assume that I "feel badly" about it.

[slackmaster]

158. No sneers or insults, eh?

Like this one?

Did you also manage to get your shoes on the right feet the first time you tried?

No, you've just attempted repeatedly to poison the well by implying that all true "progressives" are of the same mind on this issue.

You failed. Nice try.

[library_max]

170. You were bragging about not having killed anyone at your last target shoot

I was pointing out that that is not a particularly impressive achievement.

You brag and gloat because Bush and the Republican Congress managed to kill the AWB, and then you get all hurt and affronted when it is suggested that perhaps your sympathies are more with the Republicans than is entirely appropriate for DemocraticUnderground? Well, gee, I'm so sorry I hurt your tender feelings.

[MrSandman]

172. Some Dems voted against the AWB in '94 and '96....

The AWB was killed in 1994 when sunset clause was accepted.

(1) I support the RKBA.

(2) I believe that gun control is the means for our party to fail to regain control of the Executive, Legislative, and worse, the Judiciary will swing RW from the top down.

[library_max]

175. "Some Dems"? Who? Zell Miller?

You've got a right to support anything you want. But please spare us the eternal fraud that RKBA is a progressive or Democratic issue. The NRA is going to spend every dime and tell every lie they can against us, no matter what John Kerry or any other Democrat says or doesn't say about gun control. The fact remains that the force behind gun control is a progressive and Democratic force, and the force behind RKBA is a conservative and Republican force. The political excuse is a good one right now - what are you going to come up with after the election is over?

[MrSandman]

181. I didn't check on Zell...

The WV House delegation.

The political excuse will be as relevant in 05 as it was in 94. Not only did the crime rate go down since 94, completey unlinkable to the AWB, but the representation by Democrats in the House went down also. Not completely attribuatble to the AWB, but the President did attribute some losses to pro-AWB votes.

[library_max]

185. If you mean Clinton, he attributed those losses to the NRA.

And in case you've forgotten, the NRA always backs Republicans over Democrats, no matter what they say about gun control.

What I was getting at re: the political excuse is that either Bush or Kerry will win. If it's Kerry, he'll continue to push for S 1431. If it's Bush, gun control laws will continue to erode. So it looks like you'll only be able to be happy if Bush wins.

[MrSandman]

191. I think any federal gun control ...

Will have to pass the House whoever is at 1600. So I will be ecstatic if Kerry and Rahall win.

BTW, what was it that got the NRA all lathered up? Bush 41's import ban?

On edit: The effect of AWB or NRA or whatever on House races lend credence to the postulation that gun control is a wedge issue to be used against the party in elections decided on a level below the national level...such as the Electoral College...s

[library_max]

196. So it's okay with you if Kerry wins, so long as the GOP keeps the House.

Good to know, good to know.

The NRA has been part of the Republican attack machine for decades, in case you hadn't noticed. And refresh my memory - did they support Bush 41 or Dukakis? Bush 41 or Clinton?

And again, that wedge issue stuff only covers your ass in an election year. Once the election is over, it won't fly. If the Dems win and push gun controls, you'll either be happy or you won't. If the Reps win and repeal gun controls, you'll either be happy or you won't.

[Columbia]

203. The NRA did not endorse Bush the Elder in 1992

But they did in 1988. When he showed his true colors as Gun Grabber Extraordinare, they refused to endorse him in 1992.

[library_max]

207. Just did some reading up - GHWB very publicly resigned his NRA membership

Didn't give them a lot of choice, I guess. But they still didn't support Clinton. Do you think GWB is likely to publicly renounce his NRA membership? Because otherwise, it looks like the NRA will be a perpetual honeypot for him.

[Columbia]

210. I don't know if the chimp is a member of the NRA

He probably learned a lesson from what happened to his father in 1992. But don't worry, I'm sure if he wins another term, he will show his true gun grabbing colors just like his father did.

[MrSandman]

214. I said that where?

I can vote in only one House race. It will be for a pro-RKBA Democrat. Ask me if it is ok, accusations are uncalled for.

[library_max]

215. Post #191. /nt

[MrSandman]

227. Wrong answer.

Look, Rahall is a Democrar. A <gasp>pro RKBA Democrat. Without quotation marks.

http://clerk.house.gov/members/inter_mem_list.html?statdis=WV03

And if he is not a real Democrat, well, he will help "real" Democrats control comittees.

He voted against the AWB in 94 and for repeal of the AWB in 96. He also stated that he would vote against repeal of the sunset provision if it had come up in official correspondence.

[library_max]

101. Assault weapons ban works: Plug holes and let law live (USA Today)

By any measure, the 1994 federal ban on assault weapons errs on the side of permissiveness. A gun can't have both a grenade launcher and a bayonet mount, but it can have one of those attachments. It can't be sold with an ammo clip holding more than 10 rounds unless the clip is one of hundreds of thousands made before the law took effect. It can't be one of 19 specified weapons — unless it, too, was around before 1994.
Now, as the law marks its 10th anniversary, President Bush and Congress have a novel idea for dealing with these gaping loopholes: Let the law expire entirely. That will happen Monday if they don't reverse current plans.

In spite of a drop in gun deaths since the ban was enacted and despite new fears of terrorism, Bush and Republican leaders in Congress seem more concerned about courting favor with the powerful gun lobby than allowing weapons of mass mayhem back on the nation's streets.

[slackmaster]

102. It works but it doesn't work but it works but it doesn't work

I wish they'd make up their minds.

:spank:

...weapons of mass mayhem...

OOOOOH! A new dysphemism to add to the list.

Meanwhile I used my AR-15 for target shooting all afternoon, it's even got a bayonet lug now, and NOBODY GOT INJURED OR DIED!

[library_max]

109. HEADLINE: "Assault weapons ban works"

Whaddya know, they made up their minds!

I'm glad you didn't kill anybody while target shooting (today). Did you also manage to get your shoes on the right feet the first time you tried?

[slackmaster]

157. Nice argumentum ad hominem, max!

Did you also manage to get your shoes on the right feet the first time you tried?

Very original, topical, and clever.

:toast:

[library_max]

200. You were bragging about not having killed anybody at target practice.

I was just pointing out that that's not a particularly impressive accomplishment. For it to have been argumentum ad hominem, I would have to have attempted to use your feeble boast to impugn the credibility of your argument, which I didn't. I refuted your argument by pointing out that the article did, in fact, "make up its mind" about the AWB, in the headline no less.

[library_max]

147. Sorry, somehow I left the link out of post #101.

Here it is

[library_max]

111. Politics and the assault weapons ban

By Thomas Oliphant, Globe Columnist | September 9, 2004

WASHINGTON As any trained terrorist or criminal knows, Sept. 13 is a banner day this year, the moment when assault weapons will once again be legal after a decade of government controls on these weapons of choice.

The National Rifle Association, which hates government control above all, will also be celebrating the apparently inevitable expiration of a ban that has worked.

Unlike desperate demagogues like Dick Cheney this week, I wouldn't dream of taking the obvious cheap shot of linking my ideological opponents to terrorists and criminals (as Cheney did by saying that the wrong vote in November could set the stage for another attack on the United States). It's more accurate to say that the NRA's antigovernment ideology along with terrorists and criminals have a coincidental but identical hope where the 10-year-old assault weapons ban is concerned.

Continued here

[FeebMaster]

115. Only 68% support for it in this one?

I thought it was 80%.

[library_max]

117. Hey, do you think it's possible that there has been more than one poll?

If there was, maybe the results were different. Maybe one came out 68% in favor and the other came out 80% in favor. Either way, the overwhelming majority were in favor. So, what else ya got?

[FeebMaster]

120. Oh I'm sure there have been lots of polls.

Here's some other good gun polls, but I'm guessing these are more meaningless than the ones that show support for the AWB.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1547604

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=2163980

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1878635

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1561283

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1445497

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=86079&mesg_id=86079

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=541677

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=542884

[library_max]

124. If you can't distinguish between a scientific poll and an online poll,

it's no wonder your opinion has nothing to do with anything. But I strongly suspect that you do know the difference, you just want to fudge in favor of polls that reflect your opinion.

[FeebMaster]

126. Oh, all these polls supporting the AWB were scientific.

Well then, who am I to argue?

[library_max]

128. Glad to see you're finally getting it.

Who, indeed?

[FeebMaster]

131. Of course, there's still no blood in the streets.

[library_max]

136. Goddamn, that was a short month! /nt

[FeebMaster]

139. A month. A year. A decade.

Not going to make a difference.

[library_max]

143. Thank you, Nostradamus. So, who's going to win the Super Bowl? /nt

[FeebMaster]

149. I don't care for football.

In any case, that has nothing to do with any future "assault weapons" (as defined by the former AWB) bloodbath. You should really just read the thing if you're going to keep pretending the sunset is going to change anything. You're embarrassing yourself.

[library_max]

150. Oh, so you're only omniscient regarding subjects you care about?

Good to know, good to know.

And, much as I hate to disagree with he who sees all and knows all regarding assault weapons, you can't make any credible prediction about what the effects will or won't be on the basis of ten lousy days.

[FeebMaster]

151. Weren't you complaining about sneery posts or something?

The length of time doesn't matter. The AWB didn't change anything while it was in effect, other than maybe making post-ban weapons real popular, so it's certainly not going to change anything by sunsetting.

Why don't you explain to me exactly how the AWB's sunset makes an assault weapon driven bloodbath more likely?

[library_max]

152. While the AWB was in effect,

violent crimes dropped from 7.1 per thousand inhabitants in 1994 to 4.9 per thousand in 2002. Over the same time period, assault weapons went from 8.7% of the guns used in crimes to 1.4% of the guns used in crimes. This is all from the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports. So "The AWB didn't change anything while it was in effect" turns out to be false.

Regarding sneery posts, if you just keep repeating an unsupported and arrogant prediction, what am I supposed to do? I can't keep up your side of the argument and mine too. You have to contribute something.

[FeebMaster]

153. OK

"While the AWB was in effect, violent crimes dropped from 7.1 per thousand inhabitants in 1994 to 4.9 per thousand in 2002."

Are you claiming the AWB played a part in this? If so, exactly what part of the AWB caused this drop? If not, why mention it at all?


"Over the same time period, assault weapons went from 8.7% of the guns used in crimes to 1.4% of the guns used in crimes."

This has been explained to you at least a dozen times at this point. Even assuming those numbers are accurate, it's obvious that "assault weapons" (as defined by the former AWB) were going to be used in fewer crimes each year since "assault weapons" (as defined by the former AWB) stopped being manufactured in 1994.


"So "The AWB didn't change anything while it was in effect" turns out to be false."

Right. I guess I should have said the AWB didn't change anything of consequence. Instead of being sold with flash suppressors and bayonet lugs, rifles were sold without them. How exactly does that account for that big drop in violent crimes? How is the sunset of the AWB going to result in an assault weapon driven bloodbath?



"Regarding sneery posts, if you just keep repeating an unsupported and arrogant prediction, what am I supposed to do? I can't keep up your side of the argument and mine too. You have to contribute something."

Oh, so it's OK if you do it. Well anyway, my prediction is supported by the text of the former AWB. That you refuse to read or acknowledge things that don't support your view doesn't mean that I'm not contributing.


Once again, since you apparently missed it the first time and just in case you missed it the second: Why don't you explain to me exactly how the AWB's sunset makes an assault weapon driven bloodbath more likely? Or you could just explain what portion of the former AWB was holding that bloodbath in check.


ps. I'm going to sleep. Don't expect a reply for eight hours or so, although I expect this thread will probably be locked by then.

[library_max]

171. Hey hansberry, what are you doing using FeebMaster's username?

Oh, and thanks for another repetition of the "big lie" that you guys have won these arguments with me sometime in the distant past and so you don't have to trouble yourselves to bring out your devastating facts and logic a second time. Everyone who believes that would have to be an RKBAer.

You have your opinion about the probable consequences of the AWB sunset and I have mine. You like to pretend that you can prove yours, but you can't. I don't pretend that I can prove mine, although I do have figures to trot out when you demand to see figures. The only way we're really going to know for sure is to wait and find out; but then, patience is an adult virtue.

[FeebMaster]

182. Sigh.

"Hey hansberry, what are you doing using FeebMaster's username?

Oh, and thanks for another repetition of the "big lie" that you guys have won these arguments with me sometime in the distant past and so you don't have to trouble yourselves to bring out your devastating facts and logic a second time. Everyone who believes that would have to be an RKBAer."

What "big lie" are you talking about? I suppose you're referring to your continued and baffling refusal to understand the simple concept that "assault weapons" (as defined by the former AWB) were going to be used in fewer crimes after 1994 since they stopped manufacturing "assault weapons" (as defined by the former AWB) in 1994. Obviously I haven't won that particular argument, since it's been a fairly one sided discussion. Would you even call it an argument really? What would you call it when one person patiently explains something a dozen times while the person he's explaining that something to sticks his fingers in his ears and yells "lalalalala". I don't think I'd call that an argument.


You have your opinion about the probable consequences of the AWB sunset and I have mine. You like to pretend that you can prove yours, but you can't. I don't pretend that I can prove mine, although I do have figures to trot out when you demand to see figures. The only way we're really going to know for sure is to wait and find out; but then, patience is an adult virtue.

Yes. Yes. Your wonderful and magical figures which baffle and amaze us all. Well, some of us, anyway. You just wait and find out, then. I'm sure you'll be shocked and amazed when assault weapons crime starts climbing from 2% back up to 8% while regular old hunting rifle and plain old pistol crime drops a combined 6% or so. I'm sure it will have nothing to do with the fact that "assault weapons" (as defined by the former AWB) started being manufactured again in 2004.



Oh. I asked a question in my last couple of posts. You must have missed it. Here it is again: Why don't you explain to me exactly how the AWB's sunset makes an assault weapon driven bloodbath more likely? Or you could just explain what portion of the former AWB was holding that bloodbath in check. Surely, being the expert on the former AWB that you are, you could explain it to me.

[library_max]

186. Ooo, it's got a new taunt!

What's that, four of them you've got now? Well, I guess you make up for the lack of variety by the frequency of repetition.

[FeebMaster]

189. Speaking of lack of variety

were you ever planning on answering any of these questions or were you going to just keep trolling it up with accusations of sneering and taunting while offering nothing to the discussion but sneers and taunts yourself?


Exactly what portion of the AWB was holding this possible future "assault weapon" (as defined by the former AWB) driven bloodbath in check?

[slackmaster]

162. FBI Uniform Crime Reports?

Please show us where the UCR ever distingushed between "assault weapons" and other kinds of firearms.

[library_max]

173. Okay, maybe I misattributed.

I originally got those figures from you, so I don't think you burnish your credibility much by sneering at them. Where did you get them from?

[Columbia]

132. Are those like the polls

That show Kerry edging out Bush one day, and Bush up 10+ pts the next?

[library_max]

137. Probably.

When the data are very close, you get this way / that way results. There's a margin of error. However, when the variation is between 68% in favor of the AWB and 80% in favor of the AWB, you can be pretty sure that a solid majority is in favor of the AWB.

[Columbia]

138. What I would really like to know

Is how many of that 68-80% think the AWB banned machine-guns.

Now, THAT would be a VERY interesting poll.

[library_max]

144. Go tell Harris or Zogby or someone.

Maybe they'll run it for you. Until then, you're free to speculate.

[Columbia]

156. Doubt they would care much

Since the ban is gone now anyway.

[library_max]

174. Probably didn't care much before, either

Since the distinction and the significance thereof existed only in the RKBA imagination anyway.

[Columbia]

177. So you don't think it is significant

Whether people fully understood a question before being polled?

[library_max]

188. You guys aren't satisfied unless they understand it YOUR WAY.

You'll forgive me if I'm not impressed with the fair-mindedness of that attitude.

[Columbia]

194. I'd be satisfied if they knew the truth

That's all.

[library_max]

197. And "the truth" would be Columbia's opinion. Right?

If they don't agree with you, what the hell right have they to their own opinions? and even worse, to express them on a poll?

[Columbia]

199. Max, get a grip

I said, "What I would really like to know is how many of that 68-80% think the AWB banned machine-guns."

How in the world is them knowing that the AWB affected machine-guns my opinion?

You really need to slow down before jumping to these conclusions. We are not fighting a war here. It's a discussion. Please calm down.

[library_max]

202. You presume that people who disagree with you are ignorant.

You have no evidence for that presumption, but you presume it anyway. Any poll which comes out in favor of the side you oppose must have something wrong with it. Hence the need for a follow-up poll to "prove" that the original poll was invalid.

You can squirm all you want, but that's the logic of what you've been saying. As for getting a grip, project much?

[Columbia]

205. Oh boy

I've got plenty of evidence that many, many people believed the AWB covered machine-guns. Just look how many people here on DU thought they could go out and buy a full-auto AK or Uzi on the 14th. There were numerous news articles that spoke of it covering machine-guns. Even the BBC did it. So yes, those people are quite ignorant of the specifics of the AWB.

[library_max]

208. Maybe they just use terminology loosely.

Guns and gun terminology aren't the be-all and end-all to most Americans. Too much time in the Gungeon might distort this fact, but it remains true nonetheless.

[Columbia]

211. I'm sure they did

However, it is quite simple for people to associate "Assault Weapons" with the types of scary firearms they see on TV. With such a pervasive basic misconception in the media and public, I'm not surprised at all that the polls are the way they are. However, I am encouraged that even with this misconception in place, that many people were just fine with what they thought were machine-guns being freely available to the public.

[library_max]

213. "Just fine" with it?

Or maybe with a Presidential election, hurricanes bouncing off Florida and the Gulf coast, the war in Iraq, terror warnings, the economy, and the many and various details of their private lives, most people who are not gun nuts just didn't put it at the top of their priority list.

I guess we'll see if Kerry wins. There's no reason to think he'd drop support of S 1431 if elected.

[Columbia]

217. Huh?

I'm speaking of people who thought the AWB covered machine-guns, but were still against it being renewed. There were several posters on DU who were such. In fact, the prospects of another 4 years of this administration have driven many DUers to become quite pro-gun. Probably not as much as myself or Feebmaster, but enough to consider them more pro-gun rights than anti.

[Columbia]

122. All your stories are old

And are not within the rules of this thread.

[library_max]

125. 21stcentprogressive made those rules and shamelessly broke them

all up and down the thread. So don't expect me to give a shit about them.

[Columbia]

129. Looks like they were within 24 hours to me

"21stcentprogressive made those rules and shamelessly broke them all up and down the thread. So don't expect me to give a shit about them."

Two wrongs make a right? Or the end justifies the means? I gotta bookmark this one.

[library_max]

134. In politics, when you're attacked, you have to hit back.

Sound familiar? It's the advice that's being screamed at John Kerry all up and down DU.

21stcentprogressive (why oh why do I keep thinking "Holy Roman Empire"?) is not a moderator and has no right to actually make rules. So my not respecting them isn't really a "wrong." However, his making them and then breaking them egregiously smacks strongly of hypocrisy, which was "wrong" the last time I checked. So while two wrongs don't make a right, one wrong that I didn't perpetrate isn't my fault.

[Columbia]

140. Sometimes misplaced retaliation makes your side look worse

Up to you though.

Personally, I think Kerry is doing the right thing. He is rebutting as necessary, but still keeping the moral high ground. The attacks may be working against him in the short term, but as people grow weary of the incessant noise from the SWBL and others, he will recover with a vengeance.

[library_max]

146. So far, the responses I've got from your side make our side look better.

Denying facts, deliberately misconstruing posts, "Neener neener." Yep, I'm pretty happy with the crop you guys are giving me so far.

[Columbia]

155. Not in my view

[library_max]

176. Can't do much to help your "view" - is there a faith healer in the house?

[Columbia]

178. I have plenty of faith

Just not in your arguments.

[library_max]

180. We were talking about your "view," not your faith.

Maybe an optician, then, eh? Might help, who knows?

[Columbia]

184. You were the one who said faith, not me

[library_max]

121. Expiration of Assault Weapons Ban Thrills Gun Shop Owners, . . .

Worries Some Police
09/14/2004

By Heather Hollingsworth, The Associated Press
Gun shop owners don't expect much to change now that a 10-year federal ban on assault weapons has expired.

For one thing, they say, manufacturers were able to keep many weapons on the market simply by changing the guns' names or altering some features.

"The idea that this is opening up the floodgate to a wave of violence is stupid," said Jeff Neumann, manager of The Bullet Hole in Overland Park, Kan.

But not everyone is so sure. National police organizations such as the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the International Brotherhood of Police Officers and the Fraternal Order of Police supported renewing the ban, which expired Monday.

"We have some concerns, and we share them with many law enforcement agencies across the nation," said Kansas Highway Patrol spokesman Lt. John Eichkorn. "Truly, what can be gained by having those weapons on our nation's streets? The safety and security of Kansas is our priority, and taking away the ban concerns the patrol."

Continued here

[Columbia]

123. Another old one

Did you read the rules?

[library_max]

127. A week old - so what? It's after the ban expired.

As for the rules, if the guy who made them can crap all over them, so can I. If you think I'm not playing fair, Alert.

[Columbia]

130. Play all you want

Just wasn't sure if you were aware of the thread rules or not.

[library_max]

133. Also, I didn't have to go to Rupert Murdoch and other right-wing sources

for my articles, the way 21stcentprogressive did (btw, why does that name remind me of the "Holy Roman Empire"?). I know, there was nothing in his rules about not quoting conservative, Republican sources, but I think there might be something about it in the DU rules.

[Columbia]

135. Right-wing? The Marietta Times? The Sedalia Democrat?

I have no idea what the leaning of all the diff sources the poster used, do you? You must have some kind of magic memory to know which town paper is right-wing or not.

Also, there is this rule for this thread as it is with every GITN thread:

"3 - Bear in mind that any links to intentionally pro-control sites (such as the VPC or the Brady Campaign) are not considered reliable sources by many DU-ers. If at all possible, try to find a link for your story from a more mainstream source, such as a general-circulation newspaper or magazine site. If you choose to use a slanted site, be prepared for any negative feedback you may receive."

[library_max]

141. Here's the Marietta Times, singing the praises of Fox News.

"Unbiased television coverage of the news is only available in this area if you have extended cable service since the basic does not carry Fox news. Many did not know that Sen. Zell Miller, a Democrat, was a keynote speaker at the Republican convention. There is so much that is not known by the voting public because it is not publicized. Miller says he wants President Bush to remain commander-in-chief for another term. With Iran having the ability to produce the nuclear bomb within the year, his leadership is needed."

And here's the link

Can we agree that Rupert Murdoch's New York Post is a right wing rag, or do I have to demonstrate that one too?

[Columbia]

142. That's a LTTE, not a news story or article

And I don't see the NY Post referenced anywhere in this thread.

[library_max]

145. On doublechecking, you're right about the LTTE.

Most of these sites don't archive their editorials, so it's really hard to know. That's why I tried to use well-known progressive publications such as Mother Jones.

And the New York Post was quoted in post #68.

[Columbia]

154. Well, you should not have made such an accusation then

The poster in question did not post #68 either.

[library_max]

179. No, but it was your side and it was on this board, when you said it wasn't

You may have no trouble swallowing the idea that all those anti-AWB, pro-guns-for-everybody editorials came from progressive or mainstream media sources, but then John Lott is a scholar to you people.

[Columbia]

187. You people? That is real nice.

You accused the poster of posting right-wing sources when he was not and now you are trying to move the goal-posts again. Pretty scurrilous.

[library_max]

190. I can't prove that sites that said right-wing things are right-wing sites

and that's the best argument you can come up with? Sad. And I suppose you've already forgotten the fact that you claimed that post #68 wasn't anywhere in this thread.

[Columbia]

193. So why did you say it then?

Seems pretty baseless to me.

And I was looking at the sources referenced by the poster in question because that is what you accused him of.

"Also, I didn't have to go to Rupert Murdoch and other right-wing sources for my articles, the way 21stcentprogressive did"

Remember? I think you owe him an apology.

[library_max]

198. You said "anywhere in this thread."

So much for "moving the goalposts."

I maintain that sources which say right-wing things are right-wing sources. They don't archive their editorials, so I can't find any smoking guns, but that doesn't mean they're not right-wing sources. You act as if you know for a fact that they aren't, but you don't know any such thing.

[Columbia]

201. Fine, I should have been more clear

I apologize.

Yes, a small-town papers like one named the Sedalia Democrat are so right-wing to print the opinions of their sheriffs... :wtf:

[library_max]

204. Thanks for the apology.

I'm glad I didn't have to pressure you into making it. It's so much more sincere this way.

Are you really going to ask me to believe that the mere fact that a newspaper has the word "Democrat" in its name makes it a progressive newspaper? Are you familiar with the Sedalia Democrat? Who did they endorse for President in the last election?

[Columbia]

206. I'm as familiar with it as you are

That is to say, not at all. But certainly I would not accuse someone of posting right-wing sources when you can not tell they are.

[library_max]

209. Right.

I can't prove that sources editorializing on the right-wing side of gun control are right-wing in general, so I'd better not say it. You can't prove that people who tell pollsters they support the AWB are ignorant about what it did and didn't restrict, but you still have every reason to know that you're right and to say so as often as you like. Yes, yes, the inspiring sense of fair play we've come to expect and enjoy from the RKBA side of the argument.

[Columbia]

212. I never said that I knew what they were all thinking

Only that it would be interesting for these polls to indicate whether they were fully aware of what they were voting for.

I sure wouldn't be surprised if they did believe the AWB covered machineguns due to what I listed above.

I think it is plenty fair to not accuse someone of posting right-wing sources when you don't know if they have or not.

[library_max]

216. But it's perfectly okay to attack me for posting from progressive sites

if I don't follow the "rules" that the person who made them also didn't follow.

[Columbia]

218. Where did I attack you?

I don't think saying it is unfair to make a false accusation is an attack.

If you think I was attacking you please hit alert.

[library_max]

220. Posts 122, 123, 129, and 130.

And your wordplay is very cute, but every attack is not a "personal attack" according to the very specific definitions in the DU rules.

[Columbia]

221. Please alert those posts then

What else is an attack? You can attack an idea, an issue, or a position, but not a person. You specifically said, "But it's perfectly okay to attack me," which surely connotes a personal attack. Thus, I implore you to alert those posts.

[library_max]

222. I already answered that particular cheap debaters' point.

So I guess you really are all out of arguments.

[Columbia]

223. If you say so

[library_max]

224. Found something - not much, but something.

A site which lists the Presidential endorsements of newspapers in the 2000 election.

www.gwu.edu/~action/natendorse5.html

The only two sources of 21stcentprogressive's that are on that list are the Marietta Times (Ohio) and the Lakeland Ledger (Florida). Both endorsed George W. Bush. The others must be too small or too new or something. None of them was listed as endorsing Al Gore.

So while that's not solid proof, at least it's an indicator.

[Columbia]

225. You are really stretching

library_max, if you are seriously checking each and every source he posted for 2000 Presidential endorsements, I think you should stop. I doubt the poster put as much effort as you in determining which way every single newspaper leaned before posting.

There are more worthwhile things to do with your time, I'm sure.

Anyway, this thread is entirely too long for me to continue. I usually have a personal policy of not posting on ones that are over 100 posts long, and I've broken that many times over.

So, until the next thread, good night.

[library_max]

226. So now you're going to give me orders on how I can post on DU.

Did you even look at the link? I went and found some of the facts you were demanding and now that means that I'm "stretching."

Typical no-win RKBA argument. No matter what I do, I'm wrong because I don't just give in and agree with you.

And yes, there probably are more worthwhile things I could do with my time. But I took on five of you guys all by myself and won, so I don't count it as a complete waste of time.

[library_max]

192. By the way, thanks for being so "gracious" about my correction.

But then, it'll be a long cold day in hell before you ever admit a mistake you made, so you probably can't see any reason to be decent about it.

[Columbia]

195. You're welcome

I think I have been quite nice in this thread. If you think I have been indecent about anything, please hit alert.

[DoNotRefill]

228. I'm still waiting for the bloodbath....

man, i hope my heart holds out long enough...