Recent Gov't study shows gun laws ineffective. Duh.

Status
Not open for further replies.
K

kitiara

Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2003
Messages
17
Location
Missoula, MT
I'm trying to ease back in to THR after a few years of being a slacker, so please bear with me, folks. I did a quick search and didn't see that this article has been posted, and it would seem to be highly relevant to this week's news of a new proposed Assualt Weapons Ban bill.

In December, Force Science news published an article summing up a "just published, 5-year FBI study" on cop attackers and their weapons. The entire article is here and is quite interesting. But the kicker 'for t3h w1n' excerpt is here:

Predominately handguns were used in the assaults on officers and all but one were obtained illegally, usually in street transactions or in thefts. In contrast to media myth, none of the firearms in the study was obtained from gun shows. What was available "was the overriding factor in weapon choice," the report says. Only 1 offender hand-picked a particular gun "because he felt it would do the most damage to a human being."

Researcher Davis, in a presentation and discussion for the International Assn. of Chiefs of Police, noted that none of the attackers interviewed was "hindered by any law--federal, state or local--that has ever been established to prevent gun ownership. They just laughed at gun laws."​

Their own research indicates gun laws are ineffective. And yet...

Of course, I think we all always knew it wasn't about crime at all.
 
the laws aren't strong enough.

Local option prohibition fails because people can just
buy booze across the county or state line. What is
needed to make prohibition work is a national prohibition
law.
 
Tallpine, I'll probably take you up on that. We go to Billings a few times a year, usually to take shooting classes from Pat Goodale.
 
Although the focus was on Florida, "Under the Gun" by Wright, Rossi & Daly (Univ. of Fla Press, 1985) came to the same conclusion a good while back. :)

In testimoney before Congress in 1994, the feds said that "assault weapons" represented about two percent (2%) of the firearms used in crimes.

Of criminals' acquisitions of firearms, the same two percent (2%) was the number estimated by the feds' testimony.

Art
 
Since when have facts been an impediment to the goals of the gun grabbers.
Facts are at most a minor annoyance to the antis. The true blue antis in power know the facts. They could care less about crime. To them it's about control of their subjects. They use the unthinking emotionally driven masses to do their bidding and support them in their efforts to overthrow the Constitution and rule us. 10% of the antis know the facts and could care less, the other 90% cannot understand facts, they can only feel and thus are
willing sheep to be led by the nose.
 
kitiara,
Welcome back!
Say hi to Willard ;)

Thanks for another link/ article.

Art shared a great study.
Gary Kleck is another person whom researched and came up with conclusions to support responsible firearm ownership and refute the gun grabbers.

If one were to go back, look at all these studies, take note of the number of states with CCW, reciprocity of CCW among states, number of CCW [CWL etc] permits/ licenses and then track forward - more studies saying the same thing, more anti-gun garbage and increase in CCW, states, permit/ license holders...etc.

Gun Grabbers "don't get it". Like criminals they are not "receptive" to "getting it".
We should not get complacent, instead work harder and ever watchful.

Nice thing about Internet today compared to a just a few years ago, Real Time.
In a matter of minutes, WE The People can refute, with cites, to back up our position and clear our name to -who knows how many persons on Internet - that just a few years ago could not gain the truth with the limited resources and the control of Media.

ah yes , let the games continue...


Steve

waves to Willard
 
Some times facts are a minor annoyance to the pro gunners too. Ever hear of the ninth amendment?

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Click to expand...

Which menas that the 2nd amendment doesn't strip the people who are anti gun of the right to a redress of grievances. Which means that every time some gun weilding lunatic goes on a rampage, he is putting the 2nd amendment rights we have in jeopardy. Same goes for every gang banger on the street doing a drive by.

Believe it or not, people have the right to move about freely, without living in fear of being brought down by assualt weapon type rifles. They don't see what the pro gunners see. They see maniacs with rifles that look like military rifles with some parts changed, mowing down innocent people, and they get upset. They go to the Government, and say, look what these maniacs are doing. And they are wrong? No, they are not wrong.

The way the Government reacts is what is wrong. What the Government proposes as a solution is wrong. Why the people who seem to be pro gun have no sympathy for the people who are afraid of this type of thing happening is a mystery to me. Are we supposed to advocate this kind of violence, or ignore it?

While people who are pro gun are critical of the laws that are being made and the changes proposed, they are offering up no clear alternatives. The simple fact is that the many are being made to pay for the sins of the few. There's no doubt about that. But what would you suggest the Government do about the situation? What do you think the answer is? What do you think will stop the violence, and why?

If you don't want your rights taken away, then maybe you need to have something to say if it hits the table. You're right about one thing, the last AWB didn't do all that much. Better have some good suggestions is all I have to say.

It may also be time to let the people who are anti violence know that yes, we are on their side too. We are anti violent as well. Liking carrying, and choosing to defend ourselves with firearms doesn't make up pro violent. I think above all, we need to drive that point home, instead of sitting around calling them names like "sheeple". If they were posting in this forum it wouldn't be allowed. It shouldn't be allowed in their absence.
 
Some times facts are a minor annoyance to the pro gunners too. Ever hear of the ninth amendment?


Quote:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Which menas that the 2nd amendment doesn't strip the people who are anti gun of the right to a redress of grievances. Which means that every time some gun weilding lunatic goes on a rampage, he is putting the 2nd amendment rights we have in jeopardy. Same goes for every gang banger on the street doing a drive by.
Click to expand...

The 9th Amendment doesn't allow us to nullify the 2nd Amendment. It just expands on the powers that we the people have. The 9th Amendment doesn't support the argument you're trying to make.
 
Last edited:
Strechman
While I agree with your analysis the problem goes much deeper and there will never be a simple answer to ending violence. It is simply not possible to legislate morality. People do evil thing whether with a handgun or an automobile or with a plane full of people. We have proposed an alternative, CCW and it is rejected out of hand by the opposition. The problem with people today is they have come to expect the government to take care of them when on the other hand most people on this board are comfortable with taking care of themselves. In the end the constitution prevails and because the majority may fears guns and the people who use them does not and will never give them the right to disarm us. There will come a day when they will forcibly come to disarm us and I hope for us and our children’s sake it does not come to that because it will truly be bad for those remaining.
 
Some times facts are a minor annoyance to the pro gunners too. Ever hear of the ninth amendment?

Quote:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Which menas that the 2nd amendment doesn't strip the people who are anti gun of the right to a redress of grievances. Which means that every time some gun weilding lunatic goes on a rampage, he is putting the 2nd amendment rights we have in jeopardy. Same goes for every gang banger on the street doing a drive by.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I agree with that connection. Redress of grievances is one thing but seizure of private property (guns in this case) because of an emotion (fear or prejudice) as many of our opposition seem to want is a completely different matter.

Believe it or not, people have the right to move about freely, without living in fear of being brought down by assualt weapon type rifles. They don't see what the pro gunners see. They see maniacs with rifles that look like military rifles with some parts changed, mowing down innocent people, and they get upset. They go to the Government, and say, look what these maniacs are doing. And they are wrong? No, they are not wrong.
Click to expand...

In bringing "the right to move about freely without living in fear" into this dialog you risk creating what is known as a "straw man" argument. Fear is an emotion and can not be regulated by laws (though God knows it seems like everybody is trying). Decisions based on emotion have no place in setting -any- sort of policy. So are they wrong? When people react in such a knee-jerk fashion while emotions are running high I think that yes, they are wrong.

Why the people who seem to be pro gun have no sympathy for the people who are afraid of this type of thing happening is a mystery to me.
Click to expand...

I can't speak for others but I personally have little sympathy for irrational decisions made in the "heat of the moment". Something bad happens the the FIRST thing I hear people screaming about is removing/banning/eliminating the one thing that (at this time) is my best personal protection. Because someone else is afraid is NO REASON to embark on what amounts to an assault upon me (and other stable, law-abiding, citizens), especially when I have committed no crimes or threatening acts.

Are we supposed to advocate this kind of violence, or ignore it?
Click to expand...

No, we are supposed to make sure that any response to this sort of violence is ACTUALLY TARGETED AT THE CAUSE, namely the person(s) who choose to commit these acts. The tools they use are, largely, irrelevant. But it's -hard- to catch criminals, they do all these sneaky things and even when caught it's hard to hold up a criminal and say "look at this evil thing!". Guns, as inanimate objects, are much easier to target because a gun can't do a thing about it only the owners can (see, on either side it's about the people not the tools).

While people who are pro gun are critical of the laws that are being made and the changes proposed, they are offering up no clear alternatives.
Click to expand...

Okay, that is just wrong. I don't know if you are misinformed or what but you really need to do more research. If nothing else check out the grassroots level work by the VCDL.

The simple fact is that the many are being made to pay for the sins of the few. There's no doubt about that. But what would you suggest the Government do about the situation? What do you think the answer is? What do you think will stop the violence, and why?
Click to expand...

1) Many being made to pay for the sins of the few... Yes, this is nothing new. But the damage (to all sides) can be minimized by removing the overly emotional and hoplophobic from the policy setting process.
2) What would you duggest the government do... Obey the Constitution, enforce the laws that actually target the criminals, stop creating laws and programs as PR tools so they look good.
3) What will stop the violence... First we need to move from fantasy to reality. We will never "stop the violence" there will always be some kind of violence because there will always be some segment of bad people out there. I don't think we can STOP it entirely, we need to learn how to minimize it and prevent repeats WITHOUT punishing those who never did anything wrong.

If you don't want your rights taken away, then maybe you need to have something to say if it hits the table. You're right about one thing, the last AWB didn't do all that much. Better have some good suggestions is all I have to say.
Click to expand...

As mentioned earlier, a lot of us who are pro-rights DO have something to say and are often saying it at the tops of our lungs (and getting called kooks, rednecks, bubbas, gun-nuts, and far worse). If you think we're all silent then you have a LOT of reading to do.
Some examples...
Virginia Citizens Defense League
Armed Females of America, LLC
CCRKBA
Gun Owners of America
Pink Pistols
Alaska Machine Gun Association
Hollow-Point Defense
Firearms Coalition of Colorado
Rocky Mountain Gun Owners
Georgia Firearm Owners Defense League
Kansas Sportsmens Alliance
Kentucky Coalition to Carry Concealed
Community Association of Firearms Educators
Maryland Shall Issue
Montgomery Citizens for a Safer Maryland
Wrentham Sportsman's Association
Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Owners
Shooters' Alliance for Firearms Rights
Gateway Civil Liberties Alliance
Western Missouri Shooters Alliance
New Jersey Coalition for Self Defense
Firearm Owners Against Crime (FOAC)
NY State Rifle and Pistol Association
Genesee Conservation League
Grassroots North Carolina
NCGUN
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Oregon State Shooting Association
Johnstown Rifle and Pistol Club
Menoher Sportsmen's Club
Cambria County Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs
Grassroots South Carolina
Gun Owners of South Carolina
Tennessee Firearms Association, Inc.
Gun Owners of Utah
Utah Shooting Sports Council
Roanoke Rifle and Revolver Club, Inc.
Virginia Chapter Second Amendment Sisters
Virginia Citizens Defense League
Virginia Gun Owners Coalition
Washington Arms Collectors
Beckley Gun Club, Inc.
Allegheny County Sportsmens League

Have I made my point?

It may also be time to let the people who are anti violence know that yes, we are on their side too. We are anti violent as well. Liking carrying, and choosing to defend ourselves with firearms doesn't make us pro violent.
Click to expand...

My personal experience has been this. When someone who is anti-gun is rational and willing to discuss the topic with me as a PERSON not with me as a gun-owner, then we can usually find a common ground for dialog. The fact that I am anti-violence comes through very quickly and even if wind up agreeing to disagree in the end some mutual understanding is usually formed.

However

When someone who is anti-gun bases their entire viewpoint on pure emotion, religious conviction, or is genuinely hoplophobic then the only thing they see me as is this icon labeled "GUN" with all their pre-set notions and prejudices. I have never been able to find any common ground with that type because, to put it bluntly, they don't want to find one. That type will NEVER believe that someone can own a GUN and yet be a non-violent person. It just doesn't fit into their mental image of the world.

<small snip> instead of sitting around calling them names like "sheeple". If they were posting in this forum it wouldn't be allowed. It shouldn't be allowed in their absence.
Click to expand...

You know, on this point I have to agree. "sheeple" and similar comments are NOT "high road" and we shouldn't sit down in the gutter with those who bash us in the same way. To my own shame I am guilty of "sheeple" and other comments here and there (usually in a fit of pique) so I think that I will take this specific opportunity to apologize publicly to all for that behavior. It is embarassing and childish and I need to stop doing it.
 
Stretchman, even in the USSR days, KGB and all, bad guys had guns. So, given their police state condition, what could be better, here? There is no way for a law to stop bad guys from having guns. All any law can do is create a means to punish.

Regardless of means, murder is against the law. Forget guns; there are screwdrivers, kitchen knives and fists/feet. All that our laws can do is create a means to punish. No prevention is possible.

You, yourself, can be pure as the driven snow. Pass any test for requirements to own and possess a firearm. All of that is meaningless if there is some change in your mental condition. As example, I offer Charles Whitman. Ex-Marine, married college student with adequate grades, boy scout troop leader. Sociable and friendly. Then came headaches, followed by the UT tower escapade.

Have you ever had a headache?

Art
 
"Under the Gun" by Wright, Rossi & Daly (Aldine, 1983) came to the
conclusion that gun control measures have no measurable impact
on crime. (The 1985 Florida State U edition with focus on Florida
is credited with helping passage of the 1987 Florida R-T-C law.)

Don B. Kates in "Restricting Handguns" (North Side Press, 1979)
mentioned a late 1970s study at U of WI financed by the Carter
Administration which came to the same conclusion: no impact
from gun control laws on criminal behavior.

More recently, both the Centers for Disease Control CDC and
National Academy of Sciences NAS did surveys of existing
academic studies and found that there is no measurable impact
on crime by gun control laws.

I will repeat what I have written since the 1960s: from the
neighborhood I grew up in, I have known as neighbors and
acquanitances criminals and cops alike: both sides of the law
have told me criminals usually get their guns black market
and no restriction on legal sales--including total bans--will
stop them.

forcesciencenews.com/home/detail.html?serial=62
sounds like someone is just trying to confirm what I have
known for forty-odd years now.

Anything you can do wrong with a gun--murder, assault,
robbery, protecting illegal activities--is already against the
law. Laws aimed at guns are more likely to misfire against
gun owners who do not commit illegal acts against people.
 
ZeSpectre, excellent post.

I am one of the evil progressive types - but I am also a 40-year gun owner and CCW holder. Because of my other political beliefs, I hang out at (OK, everyone shudder now :evil: ) at Daily Kos, and post under the same handle there.

And you know what, any time I get a chance, I engage the liberals in rational discussion about gun ownership, CCW, et cetera. I, and a few other dedicated folks of similar mind there, have made a difference. Since I am a long-time poster over there, with well-established credentials, it isn't easy for the ignorant (and I mean that not as a perjorative) to just dismiss my opinions and defense of gun ownership.

Like I said, it has made a difference. When approached rationally, by someone on their side of the political spectrum, they can be brought around to understanding that it is a good thing for us to have the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. No, you're not going to persuade the dinosaurs like Kennedy or Clinton to give up gun-grabbing, but you can blunt their effectiveness by targeting the younger Dems, or supporting those Dems who are already pro-RKBA. And yes, there are more of those folks than you might realize.

I've argued before on this and other gun forums that my fellow gunnies make a mistake in turning gun rights into a Left v. Right or Dem v. Repub battle. That just feeds into the power of the pols. If we make gun rights a universal American value again, then we take the risk of losing those rights off the table - and can engage in other arguments about politics.

7
 
Well said, Shadan...

It will be by turning the Left to our way of thinking, and then waiting for the old guard to go away, that our rights will be restored. You, and I (Leftie Gunner on DKos), Kos himself, and many others are working this problem now, and we will win.

It's already happening. The worm has turned, although the tail hasn't passed the head yet. If we can hold what we've got for 10 years or so, this argument will be over, and we will have won it.

Of course, for those who use gun issues to elect Republicans, that's not a happy thought. Form the perspective of elected officials, social issues in general are much better talked about than solved. If you solve them, you can't use them to motivate donors and voters.

--Shannon
 
Well, like many things...

...the organizations which benefit from having a conflict will resist settling an issue, if allowed to do so. You see it in a lot of areas, not the least of which is gun control.

I think you're quite right, Tube_ee/Leftie Gunner - the worm has turned. The experience we've had with CCW in most of the states has changed a lot of minds. Seeing what can happen during times of civil disorder changed a lot more. The new crop of progressives/Dems who embrace the notion that we should support the entire Bill of Rights is a measure of this, and why we need to keep fighting the fight. The old guard may not like it, but all we have to do is wait them out and not let any more absurd laws like the AWB through, and the issue will be all but dead.

I know many here don't believe that you can be both liberal and pro-RKBA. Skepticism is warranted, I just ask that they don't make the fight more difficult by demonizing all progressives blindly - really, guys, we're on your side in this, and there are a lot more of us than you might realize.

7
 
ZeSpectre and Shadan---WHAT THEY SAID!

In working on the fringes of the legal arena, it's obvious to me that whatever we're doing in the punishment/containment arena isn't working.

Deterrence depends upon swift, sure and appropriate punishment. It's called justice in the world I grew up in.

When the criminal can look forward to his immediate rewards versus unlikely capture, even less likely prosecution and less likely yet, punishment befitting his crimes, it's an easy decision.

When criminals are imprisoned in circumstances usually much better than they had "outside"; are coddled with TVs, exercise rooms, law library access; state-provided attorneys to support their suits against the state while the state has to likewise provide the defense; these and numerous other "rights" lead to no fear of punishment.

Where is the justice in umpteen years on death row for a convicted murderer?

This will likely get me jeers, but I'm reminded of what an old sheriff once said; "The vigilantes may have hung an innocent man from time to time, but they damned sure put a slowdown on horse thieving."

We need to prosecute and punish the evildooer appropriately and swiftly. This is the only deterrence they will understand.

ElZorro
 
I ran searches for this in several areas. Before today I would swear I found a source to purchase a complete copy of this but that is not coming back today.
Found this in a free republic post.
Violent Encounters: Felonious Assaults on America’s Law Enforcement Officers is available from the UCR Program Office, FBI Complex, 1000 Custer Hollow Road, Clarksburg, WV 26306-0150 or by calling 888-827-6427. Readers who wish to discuss the topic of officer safety but do not want to request copies of Violent Encounters should contact Mr. Charles E. Miller III, head of the Officer Safety Research and Training Program, at 304-625-2939.

( Posted in the End Notes of: FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin , January 2007, Volume 76, Number 1 )

I am looking for a complete copy and the status of library copies seem to be fluctuating.
http://libcat.widener.edu/search/o?SEARCH=77275713
 
Violent Encounters: Felonious Assaults on America’s Law Enforcement Officers is available from the UCR Program Office, FBI Complex, 1000 Custer Hollow Road, Clarksburg, WV 26306-0150 or by calling 888-827-6427. Readers who wish to discuss the topic of officer safety but do not want to request copies of Violent Encounters should contact Mr. Charles E. Miller III, head of the Officer Safety Research and Training Program, at 304-625-2939.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I've been looking for that and really appreciate the post.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

L
  • Locked
interesting abstract of new FBI study
Replies
22
Views
2K
swingset
S
D
  • Locked
Study Disputes Claim of 20,000 U.S. Gun Laws
Replies
13
Views
2K
Viking6
V
C
  • Locked
CDC studying the effectiveness of gun laws (merged thread)
2
Replies
41
Views
1K
2dogs
2
C
  • Locked
"Boots More Harmful Than Weapons In Street Violence, Study Shows"
2 3
Replies
73
Views
3K
Art Eatman
A
C
  • Locked
Gun control doesn't reduce crime, violence, say studies
Replies
1
Views
529
Chipperman
C
Back
Top