The Assault Weapon Myth

[Speedo66]

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/s...n-region&WT.nav=c-column-top-span-region&_r=0

 

[Huskerguy]

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.

 

[dunno556]

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

 

[RustyShackelford]

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.

 

[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????

 

[lxd55]

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.

 

[J-Bar]

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.

 

[Leanwolf]

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.

 

[1911 guy]

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.

 

[Cee Zee]

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.

 

[lxd55]

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!

 

[Pilot]

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.

 

[hso]

That's impressive that he points out what we've been saying for years - the data doesn't match the rhetoric.

 

[jerkface11]

Who wants to bet that the rhetoric continues next week ?

 

[Sam1911]

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.

 

[Tirod]

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.

 

[p2000sk]

http://www.assaultweaponwatch.com

 

[jerkface11]

I'm keeping an eye on camera #3 that HK looks shady.

 

[Dframe]

The radically left NYT?!?!?!? Somebody cue the "Twilight Zone" music. Rod Serling must be giving a monologue somewhere!

 

[MedWheeler]

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.

 

[AlexanderA]

The same article was republished on the Huffington Post this morning.

 

[Kynoch]

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.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

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.

 

[BLB68]

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.

 

[chemist308]

I'd say she runs closer to the conservative line as writers go:
author profile