Schumer: New Atf Data Proves The 1994 Assault Weapon Ban Is Working

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
“We support renewing the ban because police should never be outgunned by criminals.â€
Click to expand...

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

Wow...I bet there's more crime committed by minorities since they let 'em start voting, too! :banghead:
 
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.
 
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:
 
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?
 
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:
 
As Delmar said:
No...the Senator is (a big fat ineffective pile of dung )
Click to expand...

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

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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

J
  • Locked
I need taller boots!
Replies
9
Views
879
foghornl
F
C
  • Locked
USA: "Durbin cites local shootings in call for weapons ban"
Replies
9
Views
880
Jeff White
J
2
  • Locked
Sign the petition to Reject Renewal of Feinstein-Schumer Gun-Control Act
Replies
0
Views
421
2dogs
2
F
  • Locked
America Wants the Assault Weapons Ban
2
Replies
41
Views
2K
greyhound
G
H
  • Locked
lcav: Battle for Strong Assault Weapon Ban is not Over
Replies
16
Views
1K
Sindawe
S
Back
Top