Political Crossfire Forums

[stix]

[Wolverine]

Are you impling that those point laws actually had an effect?

Quote: MYTH # 5 — Guns Are Always Bad for Us

America is notorious for its culture of gun violence. Guns sometimes do cause terrible harm, and many kids are killed every year in gun accidents. But public service announcements and news stories make it seem as if the accidents kill thousands of kids every year.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, however, fewer than 100 kids 15 and under are killed in gun accidents every year. Of course that's horrible, and I understand why demonstrators say we need more gun control.

But guess what? The Centers for Disease Control recently completed a review of studies of various types of gun control: background checks, waiting periods, bans on certain guns and ammunition. It could not document that these rules have reduced violent crime.

The government wants to say regulations and laws like the Brady Gun Control Law are making a difference, but they aren't. Some maximum security felons I spoke to in New Jersey scoffed at measures like the Brady law. They said they'll have no trouble getting guns if they want them.

A Justice Department study confirmed what the prisoners said. But get this: the felons say that the thing they fear the most is not the police, not time in prison, but, you, another American who might be armed.

It's a reason many states are passing gun un-control. They're allowing citizens to carry guns with them, it's called concealed carry or right to carry. Some women say they're comforted by these laws.

But many people, including Rev. Al Sharpton, are horrified at the idea of concealed carry laws, and predict mayhem if all states adopt these laws.

But surprise, 36 states already have concealed carry laws; and not one reported an upsurge in gun crime. http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=123606

Fact: In 1994, before the Federal assault weapons ban, you were eleven (11) times
more likely to be beaten to death than to be killed by an “assault weapon”.2

Fact: Nationally, “assault weapons” were used in 1.4% of crimes involving firearms and
0.25% of all violent crime before the enactment of any national or state “assault
weapons” ban. In many major urban areas (San Antonio, Mobile, Nashville, etc.) and
some entire states (Maryland, New Jersey, etc.) the rate is less than 0.1%3

Fact: Even weapons misclassified as “assault weapons” (common in the Federal and
California assault weapons confiscations) are used in less than 1% of all homicides.4

Fact: Police reports show that “assault weapons” are a non-problem:
For California:
• Los Angeles: In 1998, of 538 documented gun incidents, only one (0.2%)
involved an "assault weapon".
• San Francisco: In 1998, only 2.2% of confiscated weapons were "assault
weapons".
• San Diego: Between 1988 and 1990, only 0.3% of confiscated weapons were
"assault weapons".
• “I surveyed the firearms used in violent crimes...assault-type firearms were
the least of our worries.”5
For the rest of the nation:
• Between 1980 and 1994, only 2% of confiscated guns were "assault
weapons".
• Just over 2% of criminals that used guns used “assault weapons”.

Fact: Only 1.4% of recovered crime weapons are models covered under the 1994
assault weapons ban.6
1 Department of Defense Small Arms Identification and Operations Guide
2 FBI Uniform Crime Statistics, 1994
3 Gary Kleck, “Targeting Guns”, 1997, compilation of 48 metropolitan police departments from 1980-1994
4 FBI Uniform Crime Statistics, 1993
5 S.C. Helsley, Assistant Director DOJ Investigation and Enforcement Branch, California, October 31,
1988

Fact: In Virginia, no surveyed inmates had carried an assault weapon during the
commission of their last crime, despite 20% admitting that they had previously owned
such weapons.7

Fact: Most “assault weapons” have no more firepower or killing capacity than the
average hunting rifle and “play a small role in overall violent crime”.8

Fact: Even the government agrees. “ . . . the
weapons banned by this legislation [1994 Federal
Assault Weapons ban] were used only rarely in gun
crimes”9
Myth: One out of five police
officers killed are killed with
“assault weapons”10

Fact: This “study” included firearms not on the
Federal “assault weapons” list. Including various
legal firearms11 inflated the statistics almost 100%.

Fact: Only 1% of police officers murdered were killed using “assault weapons”. They
were twice as likely to be killed with their own handgun.12
Myth: Assault weapons are favored by criminals

Fact: Only 8% of criminals use anything that is classified (even incorrectly) as an
assault weapon13, though fewer than 1% claimed to use these firearms when
committing crimes.14

Fact: Criminals are as likely to carry single shot (derringer) handguns than they are to
carry assault weapons.15
7 Criminal Justice Research Center, Department of Criminal Justice Services, 1994
8 Philip McGuire, Handgun Control, Inc., April 7, 1989, Mohr C. "House Panel Issue: Can Gun Ban
Work." New York Times. April 7, 1989. P. A-15
9 “Impacts of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban: 1994-96.”, National Institute of Justice, March 1999
10 This claim was made by the anti-gun Violence Policy Center in their 2003 report titled “Officer Down”
11 The “study” included legal models of the SKS, Ruger Mini-14, and M1-Carbine, which were all in
circulation before the federal “assault weapons” ban and which were excluded from the ban.
12 “Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted”, FBI, 1994
13 Bureau of Justice Statistics, “Firearm Use by Offenders”, November 2001
14 Ibid.
15 Ibid
"No one should have any illusions about what was accomplished (by the ban). Assault weapons play a part in only a small percentage of crime. The provision is mainly symbolic; its virtue will be if it turns out to be, as hoped, a stepping stone to broader gun control."
Washington Post editorial September 15, 1994

Fact: "Assault rifles have never been an issue in law enforcement. I have been on this
job for 25 years and I haven't seen a drug dealer carry one. They are not used in
crimes, they are not used against police officers."16

Fact: "Since police started keeping statistics, we now know that assault weapons
are/were used in an underwhelming 0.026 of 1% of crimes in New Jersey. This means
that my officers are more likely to confront an escaped tiger from the local zoo than to
confront an assault rifle in the hands of a drug-crazed killer on the streets."17
Thoughts: “Assault weapons” are large and unwieldy. Even misclassified handguns
tend to be bigger than practical for concealed carry. Criminals (who incidentally
disregard concealed carry laws) are unlikely to carry assault weapons.

Myth: Assault weapons can be easily converted to machine guns

Fact: Firearms that can be “readily converted” are already prohibited by law.

Fact: None of the firearms on the list of banned weapons can be readily converted.18

Fact: Only 0.15% of over 4,000 weapons confiscated in Los Angeles in one year were
converted, and only 0.3% had any evidence of an attempt to convert.19
Fact: Recall the Rodney King riots in that anti-gun city of Los Angeles. Every major
news network carried footage of Korean storeowners sitting on the roofs of their stores,
armed with “assault weapons”.20 Those were the stores that did not get burned to the
ground, and those were the people that were not dragged into the street and beaten by
rioters. "You can't get around the image of people shooting at people to protect their
stores and it working. This is damaging to the [gun control] movement."21
Myth: Assault weapons are used in 16% of homicides
Fact: This figure was concocted to promote an “assault weapons” bill in New York. The
classification scheme used encompassed most firearms sold in the U.S. since 1987
(center fire rifles and shotguns holding more than six cartridges, and handguns holding
more than 10 rounds). By misclassifying “assault weapons”, they expanded the scope
of a non-problem.
16 Deputy Chief of Police Joseph Constance, Trenton NJ, testimony before the Senate Judiciary
Committee in Aug 1993
17 Ibid
18 BATF test as reported in the New York Times, April 3, 1989
19 Jimmy Trahin, Los Angeles Detective, Congressional testimony, Subcommittee on the Constitution of
the Committee on the Judiciary, May 5, 1989, 101st Congress, 1st Session. May 5, 1989. Washington,
DC: US Government Printing Office. p. 379
20 Washington Post, May 2, 1992
21 Josh Sugarmann, executive director of the Violence Policy Center, Washington Post, May 18, 1993
Gun Facts Version 4.0 Page 4

Myth: The 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban was
effective

Fact: “ . . . we cannot clearly credit the ban
with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun
violence.”22

Fact: The ban covered only 1.39% of the
models of firearms on the market, so the bans
effectiveness is automatically limited.

Fact: "The ban has failed to reduce the
average number of victims per gun murder
incident or multiple gunshot wound victims.”23

Fact: "The public safety benefits of the 1994 ban have not yet been demonstrated.”24

Fact: "The ban triggered speculative price increases and ramped-up production of the
banned firearms”25

Fact: "The ban … ramped-up production of the banned firearms prior to the law's
implementation”26 and thus increased the total supply over the following decade.

Fact: The Brady Campaign claims that “After the 1994 ban, there were 18% fewer
assault weapons traced to crime in the first eight months of 1995 than were traced in
the same period in 1994”. However they failed to note (and these are mentioned in the
NIJ study) that:
1. “Assault weapons” traces were minimal before the ban (due to their infrequent
use in crimes), so an 18% change enters the realm of statistical irrelevancy.
2. Fewer “assault weapons” were available to criminals because collectors boughtup
the available supply before the ban.
Myth: Nobody needs an “assault weapon”
Fact: There are many reasons people prefer to use these firearms:
• They are easy to operate
• They are very reliable in outdoor conditions (backpacking, hunting, etc.)
www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gu...Screen.pdf

[stix]

damnit damnit DAMNIT, i hate the shadow of doubt you cast sir, DAMN YOUR WITCHCRAFT TO HELL.

get me a few more sources, ones less biased than gunfacts.infomajig and you may have enlisted another supporter. QUICK THOUGH, before i find more evidence to support my side

[stix]

wait, wait wait a sec, why is it almost all of your facts only focus on the assault weapons ban? what about the brady bill?

[Wolverine]

stix wrote: damnit damnit DAMNIT, i hate the shadow of doubt you cast sir, DAMN YOUR WITCHCRAFT TO HELL.

get me a few more sources, ones less biased than gunfacts.infomajig and you may have enlisted another supporter. QUICK THOUGH, before i find more evidence to support my side
It is common knowledge that "assault weapons" are used in very few crimes. Biased or not, you should be getting 1%-2% of the total firearm crimes.

Edit-

This is a good read, it is very accurate, an "assault weapon" is a demonized semi-automatic rifle.



Assault weapons are not the weapons of choice among drug dealers, gang members or criminals in general. Assault weapons are used in about one-fifth of one percent (.20%) of all violent crimes and about one percent in gun crimes. It is estimated that from one to seven percent of all homicides are committed with assault weapons (rifles of any type are involved in three to four percent of all homicides). However a higher percentage are used in police homicides, roughly ten percent. (There has been no consistent trend in this rate from 1978 through 1996.) Between 1992 and 1996 less than 4% of mass murders, committed with guns, involved assault weapons. (Our deadliest mass murders have either involved arson or bombs.)


http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcassaul.html

[Wolverine]

stix wrote: wait, wait wait a sec, why is it almost all of your facts only focus on the assault weapons ban? what about the brady bill?
Because the ABC atricle covered that.

[stix]

hmm, heres a thought, those that are going to kill in a fit of rage dont' care whether they have a gun or not, they will kill anyways. generally, these are people that would otherwise be relatively peaceful, so if they had a gun, would go through the proper procedures.

those that are violent, and want guns for violence would get a gun, and not ever deal with any legislation. these are the ones that contribute to the high murder rates this nation has, (maybe, not factchecked) so legislation has no affect on them.

those that legislation does have an affect on may use a gun in a fit of rage, but like i said, they would kill anyways.

hmm, me thinks new gun legislation should be similair to driving requirements. take a class, pass a test. take the test once a year to renew license. hmmm

[Wolverine]

stix wrote: hmm, heres a thought, those that are going to kill in a fit of rage dont' care whether they have a gun or not, they will kill anyways. generally, these are people that would otherwise be relatively peaceful, so if they had a gun, would go through the proper procedures.

those that are violent, and want guns for violence would get a gun, and not ever deal with any legislation. these are the ones that contribute to the high murder rates this nation has, (maybe, not factchecked) so legislation has no affect on them.

those that legislation does have an affect on may use a gun in a fit of rage, but like i said, they would kill anyways.

hmm, me thinks new gun legislation should be similair to driving requirements. take a class, pass a test. take the test once a year to renew license. hmmm
A license implies a privilege, while owning weapons is a right. I doubt you would want to be forced to take a cless before voting, speaking, protesting, ect.

Since you agree that criminals will get guns anyway, what will a safety class do to change things? Is the arms dealer on the street going to offer one? :lol:


Sort of unrelated, but I wanted you to see the half-truths, and out right lies that the leftist gun control advocates use.
Page down a little bit, and you will see a series of weapons pictured. They fail to tell you that the Street Sweeper is a [i]destructive device[/b], and must be registered as one. It is no longer imported, as all. They also fail to tell you that rifles like the FNC, Galil, Styer AUG, have not been imported since their importation was banned. So all those available rifles are already pre-94. I figured you may want to take a look.
http://www.senate.gov/~feinstein/booklets/Assault_Book.pdf#search='assault%20weapons'

[stix]

do you believe that the second ammendment gives you the right to own a heat seaking missle? if not, you have just forfeited everything the 2nd ammendment guarantees.

aside from that, those classes would prevent accidental shootings and promote gun safety to prevent suicide etc

[Wolverine]

stix wrote: do you believe that the second ammendment gives you the right to own a heat seaking missle? if not, you have just forfeited everything the 2nd ammendment guarantees.
I am consistent with my views stix.

Quote: aside from that, those classes would prevent accidental shootings and promote gun safety to prevent suicide etc
I have 14 guns ranging from .22's to "assault weapons", been collecting since I was 13, and never once have I taken a safety course. And never once have I had an accident. So no, I do not believe that the 762 accidents are year are enough to justify mandatory safety courses.

Are you willing to take a class before voting, speaking, protesting, ect.? I doubt it.

Since when was suicide a firearm accident? :?

[lilwolf]

As a (BH) bounty hunter I never gave it much thought but I have only had 4 maybe 5 guys over the past 6 or 8 years that had assault weapons. I think most all had pistols and the like. I did have numerous with knives and baseball bats and a couple of shotgus. Oh yes - the one lady (79 years old) that I went to pick up for skipping bail. That little old broad shot me with a 22 derringer. I was indeed wearing a vest that day and have ever since. I look at it now and think it was all funny but I was told by numerous cops they are more worried about pistols that assault weapons. Brady I don't think did alot of good. Wolverine I really like all of the facts you have. Truly outstanding.

[Gremlin]

stix wrote:


gotta love them half truth charts.

[Lucky Luke]

Gremlin wrote: stix wrote:


gotta love them half truth charts.

The Brady bill is about handguns.

Quote:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/weapons.htm

So it should be.

:-D
:-D

[Blinky]

Wolverine wrote: stix wrote: do you believe that the second ammendment gives you the right to own a heat seaking missle? if not, you have just forfeited everything the 2nd ammendment guarantees.
I am consistent with my views stix.

Is that a "yes"? I'm not having a go, just clarifying...

[stix]

Lucky Luke wrote: Gremlin wrote: stix wrote:


gotta love them half truth charts.

The Brady bill is about handguns.

Quote:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/weapons.htm

So it should be.

:-D
:-D
o.O nice

[stix]

Blinky wrote: Wolverine wrote: stix wrote: do you believe that the second ammendment gives you the right to own a heat seaking missle? if not, you have just forfeited everything the 2nd ammendment guarantees.
I am consistent with my views stix.

Is that a "yes"? I'm not having a go, just clarifying...
this is an important question, what is your ansewr?

[Wolverine]

stix wrote: Blinky wrote: Wolverine wrote: stix wrote: do you believe that the second ammendment gives you the right to own a heat seaking missle? if not, you have just forfeited everything the 2nd ammendment guarantees.
I am consistent with my views stix.

Is that a "yes"? I'm not having a go, just clarifying...
this is an important question, what is your ansewr?
Yes.

Can you please answer the qeustion?

Are you willing to take a class before voting, speaking, protesting, ect.?

[OneZero]

stix wrote: damnit damnit DAMNIT, i hate the shadow of doubt you cast sir, DAMN YOUR WITCHCRAFT TO HELL.

get me a few more sources, ones less biased than gunfacts.infomajig and you may have enlisted another supporter. QUICK THOUGH, before i find more evidence to support my side

The CDC would appear to be rather unbiased.

Your AWB argument is so flawed it's funny. Not only did the Justice Department (Clinton's DOJ, no friend to gun owners) conduct a study that concluded that the AWB did not affect crime, but the AWB expired, so it's rather a moot point.

[perdidochas]

stix wrote:

While those may appear to be related, correlation doesn't imply causation. The CDC couldn't find any statistical relationship between gun laws an crime, based on the available evidence. It's more likely that other factors (namely demographic) had more to do with that change than did the gun laws.

[TNBiologist]

Lucky Luke wrote:
The Brady bill is about handguns.


As bad as I hate to back up Lucky, he is correct that the Brady bill delt with handguns. It was passed in 1993 and went into effect in 1994. It is the bill that required a mandatory waiting period when buying handguns. This law was made null in 1997 or 1998 when the FBI instant background check system came into being. Now you can buy a gun, the dealer calls the insta-check system and you are either cleared or denied. If cleared you walk out of the store with a handgun 10 minutes after purchase. If denied, you don't get the gun. I believe what you are referring to as the Brady bill is actually the 1994-2004 Clinton Assault Weapon Ban. That baned a weapon if it had more than 3 of the following features : semiautomatic, detachable magazine, flash suppressor, bayonet lug or pistol grip.