[gun-fucious]

http://www.senate.gov/~schumer/SchumerWebsite/pressroom/press_releases/PR021
51.pf.html

SCHUMER: NEW ATF DATA PROVES THE 1994 ASSAULT WEAPON BAN IS WORKING

Rate of banned assault weapons used in crime is down by nearly two-thirds
since passage of the 1994 law – Assault weapons ban is set to expire in one
year

Senators also announce broad coalition in support of renewing Assault
Weapons Ban

The proportion of banned assault weapons traced to crimes has dropped by
almost two-thirds since 1995, according to new data from the Department of
Justice. The newly released data, obtained by Senators Dianne Feinstein and
Charles Schumer from the ATF, is the first to show the long-term impact of
the 1994 law sponsored by the two lawmakers. The law banned the manufacture
of 19 military-style assault weapons, including the civilian versions of the
Uzi and Mac-10 and also banned the manufacture of copycat weapons.

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it," Schumer said. "To let the assault weapons
ban expire just as we are realizing its benefits would be a major setback in
the success we've had in reducing crime over the last decade. The fact of
the matter is that there is no legitimate use for these weapons. That was as
true in 1994 as it is today. The bottom line is that the assault weapons ban
is working and we are safer because of it."

In 1995, the first year that the ban went into effect, assault weapons
represented 3.57 percent of all crime guns recovered from crimes. By 2002,
assault weapons represented only 1.22 percent of the number of guns used in
crimes. The Justice Department data shows a steady decline of criminal
firearm traces in which the 19 banned assault weapons were used. Assault
weapons were nearly three times as likely to be recovered in a crime in 1995
than last year:

Year----- Percentage
1995----- 3.57%
1996----- 2.53%
1997----- 2.02%
1998----- 1.80%
1999----- 1.91%
2000----- 1.59%
2001----- 1.30%
2002----- 1.22%
(Source: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives)

“We are definitely seeing a reduction of firepower in the hands of street
criminals,” said Harold L. Hurtt, the police chief for Phoenix, Arizona and
president of the Major Cities Chiefs of Police, one of several law
enforcement organizations endorsing the Feinstein-Schumer bill. “We support
renewing the ban because police should never be outgunned by criminals.”

President Bush has said he would support the re-authorization of the current
ban. The President has also made it clear that he supports banning the
importation of high capacity ammunition clips. If Congress does not take
action, the ban will expire on September 13, 2004, and manufacturers would
once again be able to make the assault weapons that have been banned for
almost 10 years.

Although the assault weapons ban remains controversial in Congress, it is
widely supported by gun owning and non-gun owning voters. According to an
October poll conducted for Americans for Gun Safety, voters support renewing
the ban by a margin of 77-21% (66-30% among gun owning voters).

Feinstein and Schumer also unveiled a broad coalition of supporters backing
the re-authorization of the ban, which is set to expire in September 2004.
Coalition members include police organizations, more than 100 mayors,
teachers unions, religious groups, county officials, and several major gun
safety advocacy organizations.

"The broad support we've accumulated for renewing the ban underscores the
fact that people recognize that this law hasn't resulted in a single
law-abiding hunter losing the right to hunt, or homeowner losing the power
to defend his home," Schumer said. "In fact, it shows that the Second
Amendment can thrive while we take reasonable measures to protect Americans
from gun violence."

Coalition members in support of re-authorizing the assault weapons ban
include:
Americans for Gun Safety
Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence United with the Million Mom March
National Education Association
NAACP
National League of Cities
United States Conference of Mayors (including more than 100 letters from
individual mayors)
National Association of Counties
International Brotherhood of Police Officers
Major Cities Chiefs of Police
International Association of Chiefs of Police
Hispanic American Police Command Officers Association
American Probation and Parole Association
Church Women United, Episcopal Church – USA
American Academy of Family Physicians
American Public Health Association
Family Violence Prevention Fund
National Coalition Against Domestic Violence
National Network to End Domestic Violence
National Association of Public Hospitals and Health Systems
Physicians for a Violence Free Society
American Association of Suicidology
Mothers Against Violence in America
Child Welfare League of America
Alliance for Justice

[Mark Tyson]

Really? Than why are they trying to expand the ban, rather than just renew it?

[tyme]

lemme guess...

assault weapons vs AWs cosmetically modified so as to no longer be AWs
Year----- Percentage AWs ---- percentage non-AWs but nonetheless AW-like
1995----- 3.57% --- 1% (arbitrary base figure)
1996----- 2.53% --- 2.04%
1997----- 2.02% --- 2.55%
1998----- 1.80% --- 2.77%
1999----- 1.91% --- 2.66%
2000----- 1.59% --- 2.98%
2001----- 1.30% --- 3.27%
2002----- 1.22% --- 3.35%
(sum of each row is 4.57%)

:banghead:

There's no difference in danger between AWs and non-AWs. Nobody's keeping track of AW-like firearms used in crime, so it's impossible to say what the actual effect of the AW ban is. The grabbers have it easy on this argument - there's no way to refute them because the stats that might actually show what's going on don't exist.

[MeekandMild]

Danger of both to citizens is minimal.

[Monkeyleg]

Those numbers are incredible! Why didn't we know this before?

Let's see: in 1994, the named "assault weapons" accounted for .0018% of all weapons used in crimes in New Jersey. Here in Wisconsin, only one "assault weapon" was used in any of the 1200+ murders committed from 1989 to 1994.

Now we're being told that the numbers jumped? Who's lying? Further, why are we letting "Americans for Gun Safety" get away with being described as a non-partisan, impartial and "moderate" organization? We all know that they're the same rabid anti's, but this time around they're dressed up in disguise.

[Hkmp5sd]

You gotta love the reasoning of politicians. In regards to the AW ban, the antis base the success of the ban on how many of the banned firearms are recovered following crimes. Since fewer "pre-ban" AW weapons are being recovered following crimes, the ban must be a success. Using that logic, since there are no legally registered machineguns being recovered following crimes since the enactment of the 1986 machinegun ban, yet some illegally owned machineguns were used in crimes, the 1986 machinegun ban is ineffective and needs to be repealed.

Still, the antis need to get a new crystal ball because their data is wrong. Back in 1989, when the AW ban was the hot topic among democratic gun grabbers, the Director of ATF reported that the total number of "semi-automatic assault weapons" as defined by the proposed law, constituted less than 1% of all guns used in crimes in the United States.

And according to someone that actually crunched the numbers...
"What is possibly more surprising is the impact of the assault weapons ban on murder and robbery rates. My results find an increase in the average murder rate after a state enacts a ban on assault weapons. It is difficult to say why banning certain guns that are functionally identical to other still legal weapons should have such a large impact.

No evidence exists that a ban reduces crime, whereas there is some weak evidence that the opposite is true."

- John Lott, The Bias Against Guns: Why Almost Everything You've Heard About Gun Control Is Wrong

[Standing Wolf]

If Upchuck Schumer says it, you can be sure it's a leftist extremist lie.

[Sodbuster]

recovered from crimes
Is that different than used in crimes?

[Mark Tyson]

Didn't they change the numbers by applyingthe term assault weapon to all guns that can accept a +10 round mag?

[Hkmp5sd]

Is that different than used in crimes?

They are counting the number of AWs that are recovered/confiscated by law enforcement agencies while investigating crimes. Since fewer of the pre-ban AWs are being taken by the police, they claim the AW ban is working. Of course, it probably never occured to them that with the price increase the ban caused, BGs can make more money selling a pre-ban AW and getting a different gun than using the AW in crimes.

Didn't they change the numbers by applyingthe term assault weapon to all guns that can accept a +10 round mag?
Nope. It is still defined as a semiautomatic firearm that accepts detachable magazines and has any two of the listed evil features. One evil feature = good, two evil features = bad.

[AZRickD]

My guess is that there are more semi-auto rifles now than ten years ago, and at least the same per capita back then. Not to mention post-dealer sample machine guns.

So how does Chuckie rationalize this AW crime figure?

Just a few weeks ago, the only think Senator Feinstein could cite for the success of the AW ban was that it drove the price up so that fewer people could buy them.

Anyone have a figure on semi-auto ownership?

Rick

[MAKOwner]

And yet VPC is over there saying how "assault weapons" are killing 1 in 5 cops and we need to strengthen the ban... They use a loose definition of an "assault weapon" for that, to include "post bans" and regular handguns with hi-cap mags. Schumer here used a strict definition for his, to show that the use of strictly pre-ban, pre-89/94 weapons went down. It's all playing with the numbers. The truth is they weren't used in much crime before the ban, and they aren't used in much crime now. It's a big fat ineffective pile of dung either way (the AWB that is).

[Geech]

Actually, it's not even guns recovered, it's just guns traced.

The proportion of banned assault weapons traced to crimes has dropped by almost two-thirds since 1995, according to new data from the Department of Justice.

Yeah, I know they say otherwise lower down in the article, but look at it this way: why would the DOJ have stats on recovered guns that weren't traced? If only I can remember where I heard that 'Assault Weapons' are more likely to be traced than other guns...

What's the address of that page about the AWB? I thought it was something like awsunset.com.

[jimpeel]

Thar ya are. That's the magic word -- traces. They call every gun traced a crime gun even if it was merely being recovered as lost or stolen but never used in a crime.

[CaesarI]

K... I got some of their "polls" and they're BS. They ask loaded questions in Fax studies, that require the participants to spend money to fax back their answers.

We just need to do our own polls, with our own loaded questions, and see the end results to counter this BS.

example VPC/AGS poll question:
"Given that 'Assault Weapons' have no sporting purpose, and the law has shown a decrease in their use in crime after the law passed, do you believe the law should not expire?"

example GOA/NRA Poll question that we SHOULD ask:
"Given that the weapons banned by the 1994 law are no differen functionally, but only cosmetically from other weapons, should the law be allowed to expire?"

in both cases a "yes" answer (the answer people taking polls are most likely to give) is the "correct" answer. In both cases extra information is given to the person taking the poll that will bias them in the direction they want them to be biased towards.

Further, it would be a GOOD IDEA to mention that the polls are very, very likely biased to your middle of the road congress-critter.

-Morgan

[PeteyPete]

They can create and manipulate any numbers they want as long as they can define an AW w/ the numbers they want to have already in mind. An AW can be fully auto rifles, pre-ban semi-autos, handguns w/ high capacity mags, etc...

Who the hell knows what constitutes an AW to Smuck Schumer.

[Grey54956]

To Schumer, and gun is an AW.

But, I just wanted to point out something...

I love how he mentions hunter's rights, and that AWs have no legitimate purpose. I think the hunter's rights are wrapped into that whole 'life, liberty, and happiness' thing, as starvation is generally contrary to life and happiness, just like tyrany is contrary to liberty. And when it comes down to it, military-type weapons are legitimate in checking the growth of tyrany. That would seem a pretty legitimate purpose to me.

Just a little quote from another document put together by the Founding Fathers, and possibly more important than the Constitution itself:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

This is the purpose that many of our leaders want to dismiss as illegitimate and unnecessary.

[Waitone]

Facts schmacts.

Schumer's press release is now in the public and free to be batted around. It will be used on news broadcasts in 10 second pieces where there will be no questioning of the source, definitions, or interpretations.

It will be used as the source of questions on the various talking headshows. It will assumed to be gospel by the like of Tim Russert and used to pummel any pro-RKBA talking head. To demonstrate the untruths of Schumers piece the talking heads will have to interview someone like John Lott who will put the listener to sleep with his technically correct analysis.

Schumer's piece will generate an AP story consisting of 250 words which will then be picked up by hundreds of newspapers and used as filler for back pages. Major rags such as USAToday will do a more "indepth" story using Schumer's piece as the basis. USAToday will interview the usual anti-second amendment suspects who will all play off Schumer's piece. A token RKBA quote will be used perhaps from someone in the NRA which will immediately be followed by a dismissive quote from an anti.

Meanwhile back at the alternative media the deceptions of Schumer's piece will evenually become known. John Lott may well be interviewed and he will get a few facts out. The NRA will write a counter piece which will be embraced by the choir. GOA and JPFO will get their analysis in as will any number of pro-RKBA.

Schumer's press release will have precisely the effect it was designed to have. It is a starting point for the media blitz in the run up to the sunset of the AWB. We are focused on the sunset. Schemer et al are interested in expanding the ban. We are not fight over the same objective. I fear the pro-2nd side will be successful in preventing the passage of another AWB bill, yet fail in stopping another more onerous bill.

Once again the pro-RKBA side is playing defense while the anti-second amendent side is playing offense. No war was ever won playing defense. When will we learn.

[rick_reno]

This is just one of many press releases we'll see before next Sept.

How many still think this ban won't be back in place before the 2004 elections? The Bush poll numbers (http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/11/08/bush.poll/index.html) aren't looking good - "In the Newsweek poll, 50 percent of registered voters who were queried said they do not want to see Bush re-elected, while 44 percent said they do."

[TarpleyG]

Funny thing, statistics.

They will usually show exactly what the person gathering the data wants them to show, don't they?

GT

[4v50 Gary]

That set aside, continue writing your Congress critter not to support a renewal. If your congresscritter is anti, then write them about some other matter to distract them. Keep 'em busy fighting many fires.

[Langenator]

See How to Lie with Statistics by Huff and Geis.

Schumer and the ATF are just picking and choosing his data.

I'd be willing to be if you looked at actual shootings-not including justifiable homicides-with semi- or full-auto, magazine fed weapons that featured magazines of 20 round or greater capacity (this should eliminate most of the 9mm pistols with high-cap mags), the numbers have probably remained fairly steady. Possibly with a slight downward trend, following the overall downward trend in violend crime.

Further thought: anyone know what the actual raw numbers are that he's using? I'm sure the number is pretty low to start with, and small sample sizes have a tendency to skew stats pretty badly.

[Mark Tyson]

If your congresscritter is anti, then write them about some other matter to distract them. Keep 'em busy fighting many fires.

Hey that's a pretty good idea. With regard to guns, no laws are good laws for the most part.

[Nightfall]

NEW ATF DATA
What a surprise... the ATF supplying ‘information' that will aid in further hampering the RKBA. Surely, this is a sign of the apocalypse. :rolleyes:
...banning the importation of high capacity ammunition clips.
Only if we get to keep our normal cap magazines. :neener:

[CaesarI]

Feinstein posted it too:
CA Version (http://feinstein.senate.gov/03Releases/r-assaultwepsrate1.htm)

-Morgan

[NY Patriot]

4v50 Gary...
That set aside, continue writing your Congress critter not to support a renewal.

Wise words, friend. To this end, I direct everyone interested in helping to make a difference to... The Essential "End the AW Ban" Contact List & Sample Letter Thread! (www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=39429)

[makarov1]

Schumer is not just evil, he is a complete idiot and a dolt. Just like the director of the ATF, making a reference to "semi-automatic assault weapons." This is just a matter of semantics and the so called "gun experts" at the ATF. The day Chuckie Schumer and the dumbasses at the ATF can show me a select fire feature on my SKS is the day I'll start taking all this talk about banning "assault weapons" more seriously.

This "assault weapons" ban is just a political power grab, pure and simple,
It is prudent to disarm your political opponents. Chuckie Schumer wouldn't and most of his buddies at the ATF wouldn't know an assault weapon if they were hit upside the head with one. We're letting the "gun experts" at the VPC, The Brady Bunch and the ATF redefine what an assault weapon is every few years. Clearly the authorities at the ATF should know better, but they don't. I've heard some on this forum define their "semi automatic assault weapons" as "homeland security rifles", but we gun owners have to continuously find ways to communicate to the sheeple the fact that semi-auto sporters are very different than select fire or full-auto military weapons. Terrorists have NO desire to pay a premium for semi-auto sporters from US gun markets, when they can get full auto AKs from Middle East arms dealers. Whenever a liberal politician suggests that terrorists may be shopping for "assault weapons" at U.S. gun shows, he should be publicly embarassed by the conserative media (what little we have ) and made to look like the idiot that he/she is. Occasionally this happens, and I find it frustrating that a liberal dolt can make such a statement and get away with it with little or no scrutiny.

[Waitone]

As I typed until my fingers turned blue:

The Second Amendment War is a war fought over definitions.

[Skunkabilly]

“We support renewing the ban because police should never be outgunned by criminals.”


Yeah, Chief. Or citizens, right? :banghead:

Wow...I bet there's more crime committed by minorities since they let 'em start voting, too! :banghead:

[Old Fuff]

The 1994 ban grandfathered the guns made previously so they remained in circulation with a new name, "pre-ban."

Then manufacturers added to this total of what anti-gunners call "assault weapons" by making minor cosmetic changes (such as removing bayonet lugs and flash hiders). This had no practical effect, and while they were usually shipped with 10-round magazines, larger capacity ones were available. Literally hundreds of thousands had been made before 1994 and they too were grandfathered.

So during the last eight years the number of firearms that meet their description of "assault weapons" has increased progressively year after year.

Yet at the same time, according to their statistics, criminal use (or at least ATF&E traces) have gone progressively down.

The only way the ban could have effectively impacted on the downward course of ATF&E traces is if it had caused a reduction in the number of available guns by (1) confiscating all or most of the pre-1994 guns, and (2) prevented any further manufacture of substantially equal arms. In fact, the ban did neither.

[Harold Mayo]

I wondered when the left would come out with some statistics to support their position. Amazing, isn't it, that statistics such as these just came out of nowhere at a time when they were needed? Amazing.:rolleyes:

BTW...Schumer IS evil. What he is NOT is a dolt and an idiot. He knows full well what he's doing and doesn't give a crap about the rights of the American people. Just look at the shifty eyes and rat-like expression on the guy...:fire:

[Mark Tyson]

So they're only counting pre ban guns in stats to show that involvement in crime is going down . . . but they're crying about post ban guns being functionally identical to pre bans? Do I have that right?

[Delmar]

It's a big fat ineffective pile of dung either way (the AWB that is).
No.....the Senator is.

[Don Galt]

Since after the ban, the banned weapons immediately became "pre-ban" and thus much more valuable, all this data shows is that criminals don't waste money when buying weapons.

:banghead:

[Langenator]

As Delmar said: No...the Senator is (a big fat ineffective pile of dung )

Actually, he's a fairly effective pile of dung. That's why he's a problem. If he were ineffective, we wouldn't have to worry about him.

[Sam Adams]

As has been mentioned several times here, statistics are an incredibly effective tool for lying. Let's look at what Schumer said. He indicated that the number of pre-'94 guns traced in crimes has declined from 3.57% to 1.22%. Putting aside for the moment (and this is a BIG concession to him) the validity of the 3.57% starting figure, it seems quite logical that the figure would decline, for a couple of reasons:

1) The number of pre-ban guns has remained essentially static (it has actually declined, as some are destroyed, worn out, etc., but the decline is miniscule). However, the number of functionally identical guns has increased dramatically over the last 9 years. Hence, it would be an expected result that the percentage of pre-ban guns traced in a crime has declined.

2) The word used to describe these guns changed repeatedly during the article. First, it was guns "traced," then "used," and then "recovered." Well, which is it? Nothing like comparing apples to oranges to come up with a dishonest set of statistics.

3) Quite clearly, the supply of pre-ban guns is fixed and declining (albeit slowly), while there are more and more people every year. One not be a PhD in Economics to figure out that this will (and has) caused the price of pre-bans to skyrocket, such that old and heavily used guns are (contrary to any logic) worth far more than those that are functionally identical, but newer and far less (if at all) used. Guess what?: criminals may be pretty stupid as a group, but not so much that they'll ignore such a fact. If they get their hands on a pre-ban (i.e. steal it), they sell it. After all, they're in the business of maximizing profit, and doing this and using a cheaper post-ban gun is perfect for maximizing profits. Hence, there are less of the pre-bans used in crimes now as a percentage of the total than before the ban.

Schumer and company are nothing but a bunch of lying sacks of dung - but no less dangerous because of this. We need to combat these lies at every turn.

[Langenator]

Concur with what Sam said. Folks, watch your local papers to see if and when any coverage of Shumer and Feinstein's lies appear. Then fire up those word processors and send in those letters to the editor, along with letters to your Senators and Reps.

This thread has supplied good points for showing that Schumer is wrong. I'm sure GOA and the NRA will soon have more on their sites.

[foghornl]

You can always tell when Up-Chuck Schumer is lieing....some part of him is moving.

[CaesarI]

Yes... You are absolutely right. The number of post-ban weapons, which are functionally identical has increased in use, but we've proven, that if their future manufacture were made illegal, that their use in crime would decline. Therefore, we should EXPAND the ban.

-Morgan

[makarov1]

First of all, The AK (or any other so-called "assault weapon" is not the criminal's weapon of choice, or even 2nd choice for that matter. 99.9% of "assault weapons" are purchased legally by recreational shooters, not by gang bangers. Since the post-ban assault weapons are functionally the same as pre-ban, the availability of pre-ban weapons does not matter much. In a nutshell, with the vast quantities of post ban weapons in existance, who cares about pre-ban? COLLECTORS might care, but not gang bangers, who are about as gun saavy as the Brady Bunch. Let's get real here, gang bangers don't know jack about guns, and anyone who thinks that they do is giving them way too much credit.


That piece of s**t Schumer is just barely smart enough to realize that gang bangers are not cruising pawn shops and gun shows looking for rare pre ban "assault weapons" to commit crimes with, so he manufactures "statistics" to back his communist agenda. AS pre ban weapons get scarcer, the few criminals that use "assault weapons" DO NOT CARE about pre or post ban, because they both function the same, hence there are fewer pre-ban weapons used in crimes.

[makarov1]

The one thing Schumer's statistics prove, more than anything else, is that so called "assault weapons" ARE NOT BEING USED IN CRIMES. If this is the best Chuckie can do, he better not quit his day job of actually representing his constituency. Since Chuckie's "statistics" are telling me that assault weapons are RARELY used in crimes, my question to Chuckie would be, why go through so much trouble for a ban? Since assault weapons are rarely recovered from crime scenes, what is Chuckie's motive for pushing a ban?? Whatever Chuckie is up to I'M SURE ITS FOR OUR OWN GOOD.

[Ironbarr]

Well, since numbers can say anything you want them to say, how about this:

Of an assumed 100 (traces, uses, recoveries, whatever) in any year

This means -
1995----- 3.57% - 3.57 AWs
1996----- 2.53% - 2.53 "
1997----- 2.02% - 2.02 "
1998----- 1.80% - 1.80 "
1999----- 1.91% - 1.91 " ** Increase. Real or typo? 1.61 looks right
2000----- 1.59% - 1.59 "
2001----- 1.30% - 1.30 "
2002----- 1.22% - 1.22 AWs

And that means -
1995----- 94.43 "Other shooting systems" were traced, used, recovered
2002----- 98.88 " " " " " " "

First, the AWs don't seem to be in any kind of scary number (IMO)
Second, you can see what the real targets are - "Other shooting systems"

I wonder what the "Other..." list looks like.

-Andy