NYT Opinion: Save the Assault-Gun Ban


PDA






gun-fucious
May 16, 2003, 12:27 PM
------------------------------------------------------------------------

May 16, 2003

Save the Assault-Gun Ban

Tom DeLay, the House majority leader, chose an odd way to celebrate National Police Week. On Tuesday, Mr. DeLay publicly reassured the fanatics who run the National Rifle Association that his chamber will not renew the hard-won 1994 federal ban on military-style assault weapons — the powerful semiautomatic guns favored by criminals.

Mr. DeLay's announcement came just days after the Violence Policy Center revealed that at least 41 of 211 police officers slain between 1998 and 2001 were killed with assault weapons. Plainly, the law, due to expire in September 2004, needs to be strengthened, not abandoned.

The fate of the assault-weapons ban lies with President Bush. During the 2000 campaign, Mr. Bush made a rare break with the N.R.A. to endorse the ban's renewal. The White House spokesman, Ari Fleischer, reasserted that support this week. But he refused to say whether the president is prepared to put the heat on Mr. DeLay and his colleagues to allow House members to vote on the question.

That hedging merely fuels suspicions that Mr. Bush is trying to gain credit with soccer moms for backing reasonable gun control, while counting on members of his party to perform the dirty deed of blocking the ban's extension.

If that happens, it would be a big step backward that would endanger the lives of both the police and public. Hunters and target shooters have no need for bullet-spraying Uzis or AK-47's.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/16/opinion/16FRI3.html

If you enjoyed reading about "NYT Opinion: Save the Assault-Gun Ban" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Jeff White
May 16, 2003, 12:35 PM
Mr. DeLay's announcement came just days after the Violence Policy Center revealed that at least 41 of 211 police officers slain between 1998 and 2001 were killed with assault weapons. Plainly, the law, due to expire in September 2004, needs to be strengthened, not abandoned.

There were 148 police officers killed in the line of duty last year. I haven't seen the breakdown for officers killed by firearms, automobiles etc. yet, but 41 of 211 between 1998 and 2001 is really cooking the books. IIRC it's been around 140 officers killed in the line of duty for the past several years (2001 being higher because of the World Trade Center attacks).

I would bet if one looked at the stats, he would find that that number is absolutly meaningless.

Like the New york Times has any more credibility then the VPC these days anyway.

Jeff

Chaz
May 16, 2003, 12:37 PM
Hunters and target shooters have no need for bullet-spraying Uzis or AK-47's.

So then I guess columnists have no need for word proccessors.

gun-fucious
May 16, 2003, 12:40 PM
FBI lists deaths of officers in 2002
Jerry Seper
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published May 13, 2003

A total of 56 law-enforcement officers nationwide were slain in the
line of duty during 2002, according to preliminary statistics released
yesterday by the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) program.
Another 76 officers were accidentally killed on duty last year, the FBI
said.
The UCR report the states that of the 56 deliberate killings, 25 were
in the South, 12 in the Midwest, nine in the West and five in the Northeast.
Another five officers also were killed in Puerto Rico.
By circumstance, the report said, 14 officers were slain in ambush
situations; another 10 were murdered answering disturbance calls, 10 during
traffic pursuits and stops, 10 during arrest situations and eight while
investigating suspicious persons or circumstances. Four officers were slain
by assailants said to be mentally deranged.

Firearms were used in 51 of the 56 murders, the report said. Handguns
were used in 38 cases, rifles in nine, and shotguns in four. Four victim
officers were slain with vehicles and one with a knife.

continues:
http://dynamic.washtimes.com/twt-print.cfm?ArticleID=20030513-32522300

tiberius
May 16, 2003, 12:41 PM
"All the cr*p that's fit to spew"

If that happens, it would be a big step backward that would endanger the lives of both the police and public. Hunters and target shooters have no need for bullet-spraying Uzis or AK-47's.

So I guess we'll start seeing a crime spree with thugs armed with those ridiculous 15" barrelled semi-auto Uzi's that the auther is so scared of.:banghead:

tiberius
May 16, 2003, 12:42 PM
If that happens, it would be a big step backward that would endanger the lives of both the police and public. Hunters and target shooters have no need for bullet-spraying Uzis or AK-47's.

I just reread The Constitution, I could NOT find any reference to "Hunters and target shooters", I must be missing something:banghead:

Shaggy
May 16, 2003, 01:07 PM
Mr. DeLay's announcement came just days after the Violence Policy Center revealed that at least 41 of 211 police officers slain between 1998 and 2001 were killed with assault weapons.

This is a complete fabrication. Somebody show me the VPC's methodolgy for saying that these officers were killed by "assault weapons" Here is the source used for VPC's claims.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm

Scroll to Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted.

Nowhere in these reports does it say what type of weapons the killers used other than to describe them as Rifle, Handgun or Shotgun. Nowhere does it give a statistic for semi auto rifle, assualt weapon etc.....

VPC is taking the killings by rifle and making a conclusion that they are assault weapons.

The NYT did'nt learn it's lesson about fabricating stories or printing fabrications did they? Somebody needs to take them and the VPC to task on this BS.

Edit: I did find some refrences to Assault weapons in the sections that describe the circumstances of the officers deaths. What I would be interested to know is who wrote the stuff. Some of it reads like a newspaper story. Some just say assailent shot the officer with a 7.62X39 semi automatic rifle. One of them in the part that describes the weapon says the assailant stood up and shot the officer with a rifle of unknown caliber. Did that one count as an assault weapon? Probably....

gun-fucious
May 16, 2003, 01:10 PM
VPC counting 101:

If the handgun used to assault an officer had a preban high cap mag
that was banned by the "assault weapon ban"
then by the VPC counting method, the pistol was an assault weapon

Nightfall
May 16, 2003, 01:24 PM
If that happens, it would be a big step backward that would endanger the lives of both the police and public.

The LEO that I know and myself are trembling in fright. :rolleyes:

2dogs
May 16, 2003, 01:25 PM
VPC counting 101:

It was an assault, and a weapon was used, hence :assault weapon.

Really, can't you people understand these simple things.;)

Don Gwinn
May 16, 2003, 01:31 PM
I don't even bother to fact check VPC anymore. I read everything they published for years, and not once in my experience have they published a single report that was not riddled with outright, deliberate falsehoods like that one. Most are based entirely on false premises.

This is not hyperbole; literally, not a single report that did not include at least a few outright lies. That's VPC's record. There is simply no point in checking to see if they're lying. If it came from the VPC, it's not true. Period.

clange
May 16, 2003, 01:54 PM
Wish there was an author listed for that pile of crap. :cuss:

Kharn
May 16, 2003, 01:57 PM
NYT Opinion: Save the Assault-Gun Ban

Kharn's Opinion: Save the ink; quit printing half-truths, lies and out-right fabrications.

Kharn

Shaggy
May 16, 2003, 02:04 PM
An even greater point.

If we let these people win this battle based on "we are banning these guns because it reduces crime" what will happen when they actually use the argument to ban the guns actually used in crime.

56 LEO killed in the line of duty in 2002. 51 dead by firearms.

38 or 75% were killed with HANDGUNS

9 or .176% by rifles. I bet less than that by semi auto AK's

4 or .078 by shotgun.

Now if we allow the argument that this ban is OK because of crime or dead police. *** are we going to say when they start to ban handguns? My guess, handguns are used in 90% or all gun related crime.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not for banning anything, just making a point that maybe we could make to the what do ya need that fer crowd.

UnknownSailor
May 16, 2003, 02:37 PM
Right from the first paragraph the "writer" laid on the manuer thick and heavy. Might as well be a media statement issued by the VPC and The Brady Bunch.

I would think that recent events at the NYT would make it painfully obvious that anything printed by same is worthless for anything other than wiping my a**.

longeyes
May 16, 2003, 03:25 PM
I read this embarrassing blather this morning and thought it was about time for the NYT itself to buried in one of those time-capsules. As for the anonymous author of this drivel, I thought Jason Blair had been suspended...!

Master Blaster
May 16, 2003, 03:30 PM
If a Liar quotes a Liar it must be the truth.

Its liberal Math.


Just like -1 X -1=1


Say a lie often enough and it becomes the truth.

general
May 17, 2003, 07:13 PM
letters@nytimes.com (<letters@nytimes.com>)
Dear Sirs,
Regarding your editorial stance on "assault weapons", I was wondering if you were aware of the actual numbers recently released by the FBI, not the VPC? It turns out that the term "assault weapon" can't be found in relation to Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted on the FBI's own list. The raw numbers are as follows...
56 LEO's killed in the line of duty in 2002. 51 dead by firearms.
38 or 75% were killed with handguns.
9 or .176% by rifles. (I bet less than that by semi auto AK's)
4 or .078 by shotgun.
Additionally, the weapons affected by this ban are not fully automatic weapons, as some would like us to believe, but ordinary semi-automatic rifles that are no longer allowed to have certain cosmetic features. Really, scare tactics like "Hunters and target shooters have no need for bullet-spraying Uzi's or AK-47's." are so passé. Is that all you've got?
I guess you haven't learned anything from the firing of Jason Blair. You need to start telling the truth about the issues, not promoting your liberal agenda as news. The Grey Lady is truly dead.
Cordially,
xxxxxxxx
:cuss: :banghead: :fire:
Shaggy: bummed your numbers - Hope that's OK.

If you enjoyed reading about "NYT Opinion: Save the Assault-Gun Ban" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!