Quantcast
The Assault Weapon Myth - THR
THR  

Go Back   THR > Social Situations > General Gun Discussions

Welcome to THR
You are currently viewing our site as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions, articles and access our other FREE features. By joining our free community you will have, access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!


If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please visit the help section.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old September 12, 2014, 09:42 PM   #1
Speedo66
Member
 
 
Join Date: May 31, 2008
Posts: 1,955
The Assault Weapon Myth

The title of this thread is also the title of an article in today's NY Times. It's focus is that it's not assault weapons causing the carnage in the US, it's handguns. And the article is not anti handgun, it just illustrates how ineffective assault weapon laws are. It also goes into how African-Americans make up only 6% of the population, but are the victims and perpetrators of approx. 50% of gun murders, which are currently approx. 11K per year.

It goes on to quote justice dept. studies that show the US assault weapon ban did nothing because rifles were barely used in crimes to begin with. Another study said if they reimposed the ban, the difference in crime statistics would be negligible.

Very good article, although somewhat strange to find it published in the NY Times.

Some quotes:

"More than 20 years of research funded by the Justice Department has found that programs to target high-risk people or places, rather than targeting certain kinds of guns, can reduce gun violence."

“Should it be renewed, the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement,” a Department of Justice-funded evaluation concluded."

"A closer look at the social networks of neighborhoods most afflicted, he says, often shows that only a small number of men drive most of the violence. Identify them and change their behavior, and it’s possible to have an immediate impact."

I guess it's easier to target "assault weapons" than to try and change certain peoples behavior.

Here's the complete article, it's worth a read:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/su...an-region&_r=0
Speedo66 is offline  
Old September 12, 2014, 09:51 PM   #2
Huskerguy
Member
 
 
Join Date: June 9, 2012
Location: Central Kansas
Posts: 161
I just read an article recently about this same subject. They finally looked at the data and realized they were going after the wrong thing. They got caught up in the high profile shootings and it seemed like an easy target but the stats were not in their favor. So they have fallen back and are not going after tighter laws for purchasing a firearm. That is where they want to put their time and money.
Huskerguy is offline  
Old September 12, 2014, 10:02 PM   #3
dunno556
Member
 
 
Join Date: May 20, 2014
Location: PA
Posts: 33
Geez, it only took 20 yrs to figure that out. Pretty much anyone around here could have told them that... and for free

**Sarcasm alert**
Wonder if that info will make it into a Bloomborg commercial
__________________
NRA Life Member

Got any 7.62x39 BRASS you don't need? Berdan or boxer? PM me ;)

"That rifle hanging on the wall of the working class flat or labourer's cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there."
George Orwell

You might be a gun control activist if...
http://www.ammoland.com/2014/09/you-...#axzz3DVl71x3a
dunno556 is offline  
Old September 12, 2014, 10:10 PM   #4
RustyShackelford
Member
 
 
Join Date: April 27, 2006
Posts: 2,387
Red on red.....

The unspoken reality is the fact(documented in nearly every large urban area of the USA) that most gun deaths are "red on red".
Situations where one violent criminal kills another "victim"(who has a extensive prison record or history of drug/gang/crime).
Anti 2A advocates & anti gun groups want to portray gun violence "victims" as tragic figures but many are violent, mean, repeat offenders.

I saw a interesting video by The Yankee Marshal(TYM) on Youtube.com a few months ago. Most of his channel clips are light or funny but in that case, he was serious. TYM explained how many "youth gun deaths" are flawed & include youth who are 16/17/18/19.
These deaths involve guns, true but they also include gangs/drugs/street crime.

It's unfair to compare a child who fires a gun at a family member or by-stander and a gang member who guns down a rival.
__________________
If you don't practice, you don't deserve to win.

Andre Agassi
RustyShackelford is offline  
Old September 12, 2014, 10:41 PM   #5
Cee Zee
Member
 
 
Join Date: August 23, 2012
Posts: 1,833
Unbelievable. I see light at the end of the tunnel. We may have finally made it snow in heck. The NYT got it right. Who'da thunk it????
Cee Zee is offline  
Old September 12, 2014, 11:06 PM   #6
lxd55
Member
 
 
Join Date: April 1, 2014
Posts: 193
I mean to sound cynical. I/we know this. but to listen to the chatter on this board sometimes makes me wonder if you understand what you are listening too.
lxd55 is offline  
Old September 12, 2014, 11:08 PM   #7
J-Bar
Member
 
 
Join Date: November 24, 2010
Location: Springfield, MO
Posts: 1,522
We will know things have really changed when Hollywood starts portraying hunters and recreational shooters as heroes. (I had to watch "The American President" again during of a social outing; hard to watch Michael Douglas being so admired for "going after the handguns" in the closing scene, so I am still feeling the effects of that experience...)

I'm glad the NY Times published the piece, and I'm glad it was noted here, and like everyone else I remain hopeful.
J-Bar is offline  
Old September 12, 2014, 11:08 PM   #8
Leanwolf
Member
 
 
Join Date: March 25, 2006
Location: Idaho
Posts: 1,839
Quote:
CEE ZEE - "Unbelievable. I see light at the end of the tunnel. We may have finally made it snow in heck. The NYT got it right. Who'da thunk it???? "
I disagree. The New York Times has forever been in the forefront of demanding the banning and confiscation of all firearms. This is just a ploy to show that handguns need to be banned now. Then they'll go after the "sniper" rifles, then the "deadly" shotguns, then the "assault" rifles, etc.

Step by step by step by step by step. Remember, the Marxist Socialists never, ever, disengage. They just come at you from different directions.

L.W.
__________________
Always go straight forward. If you meet the devil, cut him in half and go between the pieces. (Wm. Sturgis, clipper ship captain.)
Leanwolf is offline  
Old September 13, 2014, 01:28 AM   #9
1911 guy
Member
 
 
Join Date: May 5, 2005
Location: Garrettsville, Oh.
Posts: 5,142
I kinda go with leanwolf on this one. The general population has become so brainwashed with the "assault weapon" thing, that the NYT is just moving on to a new target, the first being already accomplished.
__________________
I wish I believed in reincarnation. Where's Charles Martel when you need him?

http://forums.bobdunsire.com/forums/index.php
yes, I play the bagpipes. No, I don't wear a skirt. It's called a kilt.
1911 guy is offline  
Old September 13, 2014, 01:41 AM   #10
Cee Zee
Member
 
 
Join Date: August 23, 2012
Posts: 1,833
Quote:
The New York Times has forever been in the forefront of demanding the banning and confiscation of all firearms.
Duh! I don't expect the NYT to start a campaign of advocacy journalism for the NRA. But the fact that they printed this piece at all is a big step for them. They often do print different points of view just so they can keep up the pretense of objectivity but not usually on an issue so near and dear to the hearts of progressives. It would be like MTV suddenly suggesting that Christianity isn't a bad idea after all. They just don't do that. But the NYT did in this situation and that is shocking no matter what their motive.

Journalism is my business friend. So is history. I know the significance of this article. It's most likely a trial balloon but believe it or not there are people even at the Times that would like to see things improve. And some of them might actually recognize a good idea once in a while. And addressing the cultural issues behind America's murder rate is the place I would want to start in trying to end that murder problem we have.

So I'll go on hoping it's a sign of better things to come but I'm not going to buy a subscription any time soon. The NRA does get my dues but the NYT has a long way to go before I open my wallet and give them my support. Again it is a big step for them to ever mention this at all. It's contrary to everything PC they have endorsed for the past 40 years or more.
Cee Zee is offline  
Old September 13, 2014, 02:36 AM   #11
lxd55
Member
 
 
Join Date: April 1, 2014
Posts: 193
use their rhetoric against them. go to a movie whether or not you like it, if it has guns in it complain to any that ask and to the management about all the guns involved.
they make it up, you gripe and ...........

I just wished I had the opportunity to hold, hell 1/3, of what they show!
lxd55 is offline  
Old September 13, 2014, 06:57 AM   #12
Pilot
Member
 
 
Join Date: December 29, 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 5,968
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leanwolf View Post
I disagree. The New York Times has forever been in the forefront of demanding the banning and confiscation of all firearms. This is just a ploy to show that handguns need to be banned now. Then they'll go after the "sniper" rifles, then the "deadly" shotguns, then the "assault" rifles, etc.

Step by step by step by step by step. Remember, the Marxist Socialists never, ever, disengage. They just come at you from different directions.

L.W.
This is accurate. They are promoting the turn away from the made up term "assault weapon", and are going after handguns which most people use, legally for self defense, target shooting, and recreation.
__________________
Pilot
Pilot is offline  
Old September 13, 2014, 07:26 AM   #13
hso
Moderator
 
 
Join Date: January 3, 2003
Location: 0 hrs east of TN
Posts: 39,455
That's impressive that he points out what we've been saying for years - the data doesn't match the rhetoric.
__________________
SAF Life Member/NRAILA Contributor
******************
Please Read The Forum Rules

TheHighRoad exists to provide a higher grade of discussion than is found on some other gun forums so antis and undecideds can see that gun owners and RKBA advocates are not the reckless misanthropes they tell everyone we are. Personal attacks, group stereotyping, macho chest-thumping, and partisan hackery are low road and hurt all of us.
hso is offline  
Old September 13, 2014, 07:41 AM   #14
jerkface11
Member
 
 
Join Date: October 27, 2005
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 4,737
Who wants to bet that the rhetoric continues next week ?
__________________
we can work together to enact commonsense improvements—like reinstating the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole—so that guns do not fall into the hands of those irresponsible, law-breaking few. DNC party patform.
jerkface11 is offline  
Old September 13, 2014, 07:55 AM   #15
Sam1911
Moderator
 
 
Join Date: October 22, 2007
Location: Central PA
Posts: 28,280
Quote:
This is accurate. They are promoting the turn away from the made up term "assault weapon", and are going after handguns which most people use, legally for self defense, target shooting, and recreation.
Going after HANDGUNS? That train sailed decades ago. Look at the animated growth of CCW map and see the changes that have come about regarding guns you CARRY ... IE: handguns.

That would be very much the same strategic ploy as trying to reintroduce Prohibition. Hard to pick a "cause" with LESS popular support than banning handguns at this point.
__________________
-- Sam

"...with liberty and justice for all." (Must be 18. Void where prohibited. Some restrictions may apply. Not available in all states.)
-D. Stanhope

Sights Practical Shooters -- IDPA

My Knife Showroom
Sam1911 is offline  
Old September 13, 2014, 10:33 AM   #16
Tirod
Member
 
 
Join Date: May 24, 2008
Location: SW MO
Posts: 2,744
Maybe, but they did a pretty good job making the LG&T issue on marriage appear as onerous as slavery. So, states are now recognizing same sex marriages.

By targeting the actual high risk groups, they focus on what they see right in their backyards, literally. "Handguns in the gangsta hands are the problem." What to do? Well, in Chicago, they are resisting the entire concept of having handgun stores in the city, right? If you sell guns to honest citizens, it means there are more guns, and more guns means more to steal, or take away, which means more gangsta with guns.

I see it the printing of the article as the first step in a counterattack, to keep large Metros from allowing CCW where it is now becoming possible. Is the NY Times hearing something in the air about NYC? It could be a potential threat/possibility that their ban gets overturned? The continuing federal level decisions to allow the citizen their exercise of a constitutional right isn't going unnoticed in those circles.

Or, maybe the editorial staff just screwed up and it got into the paper without their purview. It's happened before.
Tirod is offline  
Old September 13, 2014, 11:06 AM   #17
p2000sk
Member
 
 
Join Date: February 24, 2007
Posts: 358
http://www.assaultweaponwatch.com
__________________
The doctrine of creeping incrementalism dictates that you go after the fringes first. Once those are banned, you go after the next fringe item.
p2000sk is offline  
Old September 13, 2014, 11:19 AM   #18
jerkface11
Member
 
 
Join Date: October 27, 2005
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 4,737
I'm keeping an eye on camera #3 that HK looks shady.
__________________
we can work together to enact commonsense improvements—like reinstating the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole—so that guns do not fall into the hands of those irresponsible, law-breaking few. DNC party patform.
jerkface11 is offline  
Old September 13, 2014, 11:29 AM   #19
Dframe
Member
 
 
Join Date: February 21, 2013
Location: Central Illinois
Posts: 634
The radically left NYT?!?!?!? Somebody cue the "Twilight Zone" music. Rod Serling must be giving a monologue somewhere!
__________________
Detectives, and Cobras, and Agents!
Oh My!
Dframe is offline  
Old September 13, 2014, 11:43 AM   #20
MedWheeler
Member
 
 
Join Date: June 14, 2008
Location: SouthEastern FL
Posts: 3,531
It's more or less an editorial on crime reduction, something gun control has never been about. It's almost an unrelated story, but he uses the gun control issue to show why "crime control" tactics passionately pitched to the public have failed.

Gun control will come up again later, when crime control isn't involved.
__________________
If you're not picking out your wife's sewing machine, hair dryer, slow cooker, or shoes, why are you picking out her gun?
MedWheeler is offline  
Old September 13, 2014, 12:32 PM   #21
AlexanderA
Member
 
 
Join Date: February 27, 2011
Location: Virginia
Posts: 2,140
The same article was republished on the Huffington Post this morning.
AlexanderA is offline  
Old September 13, 2014, 05:44 PM   #22
Kynoch
Member
 
 
Join Date: September 19, 2010
Location: Central Coast of California
Posts: 1,105
The fact that this article is part of the Sunday New York Times is a big deal.

And no, it's not a matter of them finally looking at the data. Clinton/Obama/et. al. knew the truth. It just didn't serve their agenda is all.
Kynoch is offline  
Old September 13, 2014, 06:02 PM   #23
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator Emeritus
 
 
Join Date: December 26, 2002
Location: Texas
Posts: 13,604
First of all, the NYT, WSJ, Propublica, and a couple of other places are all running variations of this story. The story is originally spurred/based by a study from the Center of American Progress that reached the conclusion that pushing an AWB was making it harder to achieve registration. The study was authored by a former Bloomberg deputy and MAIG honcho.

The same study also recommends making semi-auto weapons NFA weapons, with an emphasis on CLEO sign-off (we know what that means in practice).

As tomorrow is the 20th anniversiary of the Assault Weapon Ban, I think Bloomberg has finally realized that you can't sell registration and "nobody wants to take your guns" at the same time you are telling people what guns you want to ban. The purpose of these stories isn't to signal that they are giving up on bans; because they are not. Instead, the purpose is to get their base on message and mollify their opponents. They are starting to grasp that bans upset gunowners and create a lot of backlash - and with November elections coming up and many of their Senate allies on gun control in danger, they are trying to create the impression that bans are not a goal - so no reason for gunowners to get all upset and vote those bastards out.
__________________
Texas gunowners should belong to TSRA.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old September 13, 2014, 07:23 PM   #24
BLB68
Member
 
 
Join Date: May 18, 2008
Location: WA
Posts: 553
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bartholomew Roberts View Post
First of all, the NYT, WSJ, Propublica, and a couple of other places are all running variations of this story.
Actually, the author is a Propublica writer.

Also agree with everything you said there. This article is merely a call to switch tactics.
BLB68 is offline  
Old September 13, 2014, 07:34 PM   #25
chemist308
Member
 
 
Join Date: March 28, 2007
Location: Pocono Area, PA
Posts: 461
I'd say she runs closer to the conservative line as writers go:
author profile
chemist308 is offline  
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:53 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
vBulletin Optimisation by vB Optimise.
This site, its contents, Shooting Reviews, and its contents are Copyright (c) 2010-2013 Firearms Forum, Inc.
IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER
Although The High Road has attempted to provide accurate information on the forum, The High Road assumes no responsibility for the accuracy of the information. All information is provided "as is" with all faults without warranty of any kind, either express or implied. Neither The High Road nor any of its directors, members, managers, employees, agents, vendors, or suppliers will be liable for any direct, indirect, general, bodily injury, compensatory, special, punitive, consequential, or incidental damages including, without limitation, lost profits or revenues, costs of replacement goods, loss or damage to data arising out of the use or inability to use this forum or any services associated with this forum, or damages from the use of or reliance on the information present on this forum, even if you have been advised of the possibility of such damages.