Editorial in Newspaper, need help with writing a good reply..


PDA






cracked butt
September 15, 2004, 09:30 PM
Editorial: Renew weapons law
From the Journal Sentinel
Posted: Sept. 14, 2004
The powerful gun lobby fights to make as weak as possible the rare firearm regulation that gets by that interest group - all the better to claim later that the measure is ineffective. The National Rifle Association and its like-minded compatriots followed that familiar script with the federal law to ban military-style, semiautomatic weapons.

Advertisement

Thanks to the lobby, the 10-year-old ban featured gaping holes and an expiration date, which came this week. The Republican Congress refused even to bring up renewal of the ban for debate and a vote. President Bush says he backs the law - as do most Americans, according to opinion polls - but he lifted not a finger to keep it from lapsing.

Foes of gun control are quick to note that the ban didn't stop legal trafficking in semiautomatic assault weapons - an outcome, however, that reflects their success in keeping the ban anemic. Their conclusion - that the law should be scrapped - is wrong. Rather, the law should be strengthened.

The law prohibited the manufacture, sale or possession of 19 firearms by name, as well as semiautomatic weapons with certain features. It also barred the sale or possession of ammunition feeding devices that could hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

The evasions were predictable. Crafty manufacturers renamed their weapons and redesigned them cosmetically. The law is so weak that the Violence Policy Center, which backs reasonable gun regulations, estimates that more than 1 million assault weapons have been manufactured since the ban's passage in 1994.

And that's just the half of it. A grandfather clause exempted from the ban weapons and ammunition feeders made before it went into effect. So guess how gun makers ensured a ready supply of large magazine clips and other large feeding devices during the course of the ban. Right. They overproduced in the days before the prohibition began.

A more effective law wouldn't permit such shenanigans. Congress ought to pass such a law.

No, assault weapons aren't the most popular firearms among crooks; handguns are. But assault weapons are popular with mass murderers and cop killers. The Violence Policy Center's analysis of FBI data found that an assault weapon felled one of every five American law enforcement officers (41 of 211) slain in the line of duty from 1998 through 2001.

Congress should plug the gaping holes in the expired law and renew it. Bush should lead the way


http://www.jsonline.com/news/editorials/sep04/258807.asp

If you enjoyed reading about "Editorial in Newspaper, need help with writing a good reply.." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
cracked butt
September 15, 2004, 09:33 PM
But assault weapons are popular with mass murderers and cop killers. The Violence Policy Center's analysis of FBI data found that an assault weapon felled one of every five American law enforcement officers (41 of 211) slain in the line of duty from 1998 through 2001.

Most of the editorial is nothing but baseless rhetoric, which can be answered easily, its just a matter of finding a place to start. What I want to key in on is the portion quoted above. We all know that statistics lie, but statistics from VPC are usually absurdly bad. Does anyone have any sources of stats that support our side that I could use, maybe something from Gary Kleck?

Thanks in advance.

Mad Man
September 16, 2004, 12:37 AM
The evasions were predictable. Crafty manufacturers renamed their weapons and redesigned them cosmetically.


Manufacturers weren't evading the law, they were complying with it. They did so by removing the features -- bayonet lugs, flash hiders, and folding stocks -- that the authors of the ban demanded to be removed.

But assault weapons are popular with mass murderers and cop killers.

Which is why the police were exempt from the ban -- because they needed to murder large numbers of people in short periods of time.


The Violence Policy Center's analysis of FBI data found that an assault weapon felled one of every five American law enforcement officers (41 of 211) slain in the line of duty from 1998 through 2001.


I don't have time to go into detail on this, and it's been rebutted elsewhere. But you can find a copy of the FBI's Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted near the bottom of this web page http://www.fbi.gov/publications.htm

nico
September 16, 2004, 12:52 AM
The above FBI report will definitely help. But I'm almost certain that in the vpc's "study" they defined an "assault weapon" as any semi-automatic gun (which is to be expected since one of their stated goals is to outlaw all semi-auto guns).

It's kinda like deciding that moon rays kill people, so you conduct a study (that's not peer-reviewed and will be published by you) that claims to investigate causes of death. Only, you define "moon rays" as "something." So, since something eventually causes the death of everyone, you conclude "MOON RAYS WILL EVENTUALLY KILL EVERYONE!" Someone think of the children!:eek:

Mad Man
September 16, 2004, 12:59 AM
Exactly so.

Be explicitly clear that you are defining "assault weapon" as defined by the authors of the assault weapon ban, and then compare that list to the weapons in the FBI report.

jke456
September 16, 2004, 01:29 AM
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But assault weapons are popular with mass murderers and cop killers. The Violence Policy Center's analysis of FBI data found that an assault weapon felled one of every five American law enforcement officers (41 of 211) slain in the line of duty from 1998 through 2001.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Most of the editorial is nothing but baseless rhetoric, which can be answered easily, its just a matter of finding a place to start. What I want to key in on is the portion quoted above. We all know that statistics lie, but statistics from VPC are usually absurdly bad. Does anyone have any sources of stats that support our side that I could use, maybe something from Gary Kleck?"""



I was interested in this enough awhile back to do a study of my own

these stats are true or pretty damn near close to being true

problem with them is they are cherry picked and not necessarily all classified as assult weapons as defined in the 1994 ban

the reason they picked 1998-2001 was the abnormal number of these weapons used to kill officers in these four yrs

cherry picked numbers

during the same period 1 in 5 officers were killed with their own handgun(not suicide)

I have yet to see a link by anyone but the vpc who has studied this and didnt follow up on all the information as I am on dialup and was looking through several hundred pages .......was just to time consuming to me

if anyone interested in what links I have for this scattered info pm me and ill get them to you if you wish to follow up on it


jon

Gunstar1
September 16, 2004, 11:30 AM
I did what mad man did.

This is a link to my personal research into various claims made by anti gun groups.

VPC's 1 in 5 deaths debunked (http://www.wiztechs.com/gunlies/debunked/vpc/officerdown%202%20vpc.htm)

Just in case you want to debunk the assault weapons traced claim
why trace data does not represent real world use (http://www.wiztechs.com/gunlies/natpol/gun_tracing.htm)

If you enjoyed reading about "Editorial in Newspaper, need help with writing a good reply.." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!