Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

NYT Opinion: Save the Assault-Gun Ban

Discussion in 'Legal' started by gun-fucious, May 16, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. gun-fucious

    gun-fucious Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,977
    Location:
    centre of the PA
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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
     
  2. Jeff White

    Jeff White Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    19,606
    Location:
    Alma Illinois
    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
     
  3. Chaz

    Chaz Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    134
    Location:
    The birthplace of speed, FL
    So then I guess columnists have no need for word proccessors.
     
  4. gun-fucious

    gun-fucious Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,977
    Location:
    centre of the PA
    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
     
  5. tiberius

    tiberius Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2003
    Messages:
    1,125
    Location:
    UK temporarily
    "All the cr*p that's fit to spew"

    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:
     
  6. tiberius

    tiberius Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2003
    Messages:
    1,125
    Location:
    UK temporarily
    I just reread The Constitution, I could NOT find any reference to "Hunters and target shooters", I must be missing something:banghead:
     
  7. Shaggy

    Shaggy Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    74
    Location:
    Ohio
    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....
     
  8. gun-fucious

    gun-fucious Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,977
    Location:
    centre of the PA
    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
     
  9. Nightfall

    Nightfall Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2003
    Messages:
    1,817
    Location:
    WA
    The LEO that I know and myself are trembling in fright. :rolleyes:
     
  10. 2dogs

    2dogs Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    1,865
    Location:
    the city
    VPC counting 101:

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

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

    Don Gwinn Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Messages:
    6,385
    Location:
    Virden, IL
    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.
     
  12. clange

    clange Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    786
    Wish there was an author listed for that pile of crap. :cuss:
     
  13. Kharn

    Kharn Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    3,999
    Location:
    Maryland
    Kharn's Opinion: Save the ink; quit printing half-truths, lies and out-right fabrications.

    Kharn
     
  14. Shaggy

    Shaggy Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    74
    Location:
    Ohio
    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.
     
  15. UnknownSailor

    UnknownSailor Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    595
    Location:
    Bremerton, WA
    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**.
     
  16. longeyes

    longeyes member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    7,227
    Location:
    True West...Hotel California
    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...!
     
  17. Master Blaster

    Master Blaster Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    4,908
    Location:
    Delaware home of tax free shopping
    If a Liar quotes a Liar it must be the truth

    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.
     
  18. general

    general Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2003
    Messages:
    442
    Location:
    Safely tucked into the shadow of NORAD
    always respond to bias

    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.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page