The NYT speaks on retention of assault weapons ban. Yours truly responds.


PDA

alan
May 16, 2003, 12:12 PM
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.

Posters response.

Editor:

The following commentary was the lead in to the above mentioned opinion piece.

OPINION | May 16, 2003
Save the Assault-Gun Ban
(NYT)
President Bush must reassert his support of the 1994 federal ban on military-style assault weapons, the powerful semiautomatic guns favored by criminals.



Re this, might I offer a few points/facts, even at the risk of "raining on your parade"?

1. The proper definition for/of "assault weapon" is as follows, this from The Dept. of Defense, The U.S. Army and standard reference texts that deal with small arms. Assult weapon: Selective fire weapon, usually of rifle configuration, chambered for an intermediate power cartridge.

2. None of the roughly 200 rifles, not the 19 advertised, that were effected by the so-called "Assault Weapons" ban had this feature, selective fire capability, as they were offered for commercial sale in this country. If they did have this feature, they would have fallen under the purview of The National Firearms Act of 1934. They didn't.

3. Regarding your reference to "military-style assault weapons", would thosew be any of the slinky, black off the shoulder numbers that one used to see at Hatties?

4. As to allegations pertaining to the so-called "assault weapon" being "favored by criminals", "after action" police reports blow this contention right out of the water, for it turns out that these so-called "assault weapons" are little used by criminals. As to your reference to the "powerful semi-automatic guns", remember item 1, and the reference to "intermediate power cartridges", they being cartridges that are less powerful than the service rifle cartridge, but more powerful than the cartridge fired by the service pistol?

In conclusion, while I do hate to bother you with factual material, might I suggest the following. If you insist in walking in the rain, don't forget your umbrella.

If you enjoyed reading about "The NYT speaks on retention of assault weapons ban. Yours truly responds." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
TechBrute
May 16, 2003, 12:30 PM
The New York Times is seldom caught up with things so trivial as facts.

PATH
May 16, 2003, 05:25 PM
The New York Times....all the fiction that is fit to print! That lefty paper has a serious credibility problem. We know at least one reporter made stuff up and they let it go for months as he continued to lie.

The people on staff at the Times live in la-la land!

Monkeyleg
May 16, 2003, 05:51 PM
"We know at least one reporter made stuff up and they let it go for months as he continued to lie."

Nope. He was just the one who got caught. The others liars are still on the editorial board.

Pendragon
May 16, 2003, 06:48 PM
As if those BGs would not have shot the cops with some other gun if they did not have the AW.

also - VPC admittedly stretched the definition of AW when they came up with that stat - so if you used a BHP with a 13 round mag to shoot a cop, they might have been an AW...

alan
May 16, 2003, 06:52 PM
Re comment on the NYT ands liars hidden there, read the following piece by Ann Coulter. The old gray liar.

I believe it was on www.wnd.com, however I came upon it in a local paper, www.tribunereview.com

Hkmp5sd
May 16, 2003, 07:10 PM
According to the FBI, in the 4 years of 1998-2001, there were 224 law enforcement officers feloniously killed. Of that number, 49 were killed with "rifles" (type of rifle not listed). And this is many years after the AW ban had been in effect.

The FBI says that during the 4 years prior to the assault weapon ban taking effect, 1990-1993, 44 law enforcement officers were feloniously killed with "rifles."

So much for the assault weapon ban saving law enforcement officer's lives.



Federal Bureau of Investigation - Uniform Crime Reports (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm)

Waitone
May 16, 2003, 08:00 PM
NYT is the standard for journalism.

Was the editorial written by the "journalist" who spent 4 years lying through his teeth and commiting fraud? Or was it his bosses who knew he was bad news yet kept promoting him.

Perhaps the editorial was written it its screaming Marxist editor. Maybe is it was written by the other two "journalists" who are under investigation for making up the news.

Oh, I know! the editorial was written by the author of the story that clearly stated US forces in Iraq have a "shoot to kill" order against looters.

So who ever wrote the editorial: did you ever think to fact check the statistics coming out of the VPC? Surely you understand the principal that if you are willing to lie you must assume others will lie to you.

You people are beneath contempt.

Standing Wolf
May 16, 2003, 09:34 PM
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.

If the "Violence Policy Center" says it's so, you can safely bet your last nickel it's not.

gun-fucious
May 16, 2003, 11:10 PM
Assault Weapons and Homicides of Police Officers

We focused our investigation on all makes and models named in Title XI and their exact copies. We also included our selected features test guns (Calico and Feather models), although we did not make a systematic assessment of all guns which may have failed the features test of the Crime Act as produced by their manufacturers. 95 Using these criteria, our estimate is that 20 officers were murdered by offenders using assault weapons during this period. (In some of these cases, it appears that the same weapon was used to murder more than one officer). Of these cases, 3 involved Intratec models, 6 were committed with weapons in the SWD family, 3 involved AR15's or exact AR15 copies, 2 cases involved Uzi's, and 6 cases identified AK-47's as the murder weapons. 96 97 These cases accounted for about 7% of all gun murders of police during this period. This 7% figure serves as a minimum estimate of assault weapon use in police gun murders. A more accurate estimate was obtained by focusing on those cases for which, at a minimum, the gun make was reported. Overall, 10% of these cases involved assault weapons, a figure higher than that for gun murders of civilians. 98

All of the assault weapon cases took place from 1993 through 1995 (see Table 6-6). For those three years, murders with assault weapons ranged from 6% of the cases in 1993 to 12% in 1994. Among those cases for which firearm make was reported, assault weapons accounted for 8% in 1993 and 16% in both 1994 and 1995. All of these cases occurred prior to June 1995. From that point through May of 1996, there were no additional deaths of police officers attributed to assault weapons. This is perhaps another indication of the temporary or permanent decrease in the availability of these weapons which was suggested in Chapter 5.

In sum, police officers are rarely murdered with assault weapons. Yet the fraction of police gun murders perpetrated with assault weapons is higher than that for civilian gun murders. Assault weapons accounted for about 10% of police gun murders from 1992 through May of 1996 when considering only those cases for which the gun make could be ascertained. Whether the higher representation of assault weapons among police murders is due to characteristics of the weapons, characteristics of the offenders who are drawn to assault weapons, or some combination of both is unclear. However, there have been no recorded murders of police with assault weapons since the early part of 1995. 99

These findings have important ramifications for future research on the impact of the assault weapons ban. The relatively high use of assault weapons in murders of police suggests that police gun murders should be more sensitive to the effects of the ban than gun murders of civilians. That is, if the disproportionate representation of assault weapons among gun homicides of police is attributable to the objective properties of these firearms (i.e., the greater lethality of these firearms), then a decrease in the availability of these guns should cause a notable reduction of police gun murders because other weapons will not be effective substitutes in gun battles with police. At this point, however, it is not clear whether the high representation of assault weapons among police murder cases is due to the greater stopping power of assault weapons (most assault weapons are high velocity rifles or high velocity handguns and thus inflict more serious wounds), their rate of fire and ability to accept large-capacity magazines, some combination of these weapon characteristics, or simply the traits of offenders who prefer assault weapons. A variety of non-banned weapons may serve as adequate substitutes for offenders who engage in armed confrontations with police.

As more data become available, we encourage the study of trends in police gun murders before and after the Crime Act. Furthermore, we believe that research on these issues would be strengthened by the systematic recording of the magazines with which police murder weapons were equipped and the numbers of shots fired and wounds inflicted in these incidents.

http://www.urban.org/Template.cfm?NavMenuID=24&template=/TaggedContent/ViewPublication.cfm&PublicationID=6178

Impact Evaluation of the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act of 1994

Monkeyleg
May 17, 2003, 05:35 PM
"Assault weapons accounted for about 10% of police gun murders from 1992 through May of 1996 when considering only those cases for which the gun make could be ascertained."

Wow! What percentage of the total number of police murder reports show the gun make? 50%? 10%?

Isn't it incredible that the VPC can use incomplete datasets to arrive at conlusions?

While driving to the supermarket today, it seems like half the women I saw were blonde. Therefore, half of the women in Milwaukee are blonde.

Leatherneck
May 17, 2003, 06:24 PM
At one time, the lead editorial of the Times was known as "The Hammer of Thor."
I nominate it a new nickname:
"The tinkle of the Tooth fairy." :barf:

TC
TFL Survivor

If you enjoyed reading about "The NYT speaks on retention of assault weapons ban. Yours truly responds." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!