The Assault Weapon Myth

[BLB68]

I'm not seeing anything but affiliations with left-leaning organizations in her bio. I'll read some more of her articles 2A issues and see what it looks like.

Edited to add: Just scanning this list of headlines/summaries for "The Best Reporting on Guns in America," which she shares a byline on isn't promising:

http://www.propublica.org/article/the-best-reporting-on-guns-in-america

Scanning some of her other articles, she gives the impression of someone trying to project objectivity, but the content is pretty far from pro 2A, IMO.

I'm not going to beat the subject to death, but my first impression hasn't changed: Approach with caution.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

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

Doubtful; but she is certainly anti-gun based on her past articles.

 

[Justin]

Mid term elections are coming up, and the DNC strategists know that gun control is a loser.

All of these articles read to me like an attempt to tell their base to shut up and play it cool, so as not to rile up the gun rights folks, who may very well be able to swing a number of important elections.

 

[Kynoch]

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.

Yep and it crashed and burned. "Handgun Control, Inc." failed so miserably that it has to be renamed "The Brady Campaign" and it had to find something else to focus on, namely modern sporting rifles.

 

[Kynoch]

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.

I could certainly believe the DNC is doing that through this avenue but Bloomberg and Company have no place to go. If they followed the DNC's lead they would effectively be out of business.

This letter, as factual and widely distributed as it is, will definitely take the wind out of Bloomberg & Co.'s sails -- but I see no way they can tack. All they really can do is keep plodding along.

 

[herkyguy]

Good article. Happy to see it. The NYT still carries enough weight to trigger conversations. ...

But I'm still not getting a subscription. One article doesn't undo the rest of their agenda.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

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.

I honestly don't think Bloomberg had any such epiphany. He didn't get to where he is financially by underestimating people or failing to understand what he was doing along the way, and I don't believe he has any such failings with respect to his gun control agenda either.

He has long term plans and goals, meaning plans and goals which are mapped out decades in advance dealing with political power that is generational, not short term.

Hitting hard and heavy on some goal, with subsequent backing off, is nothing more than strategy meant to gain more ground over time. It's used in sales and politics all the time. Knowing when to push hard and when to ease up is all part of the game to people like him, and he's quite adept at it. When he's in a position of power, he'll wield that power accordingly and take all he can get. When his power base diminishes or is seriously threatened, he'll chage tactics to mitigate that, setting himself up for a return to greater power...and when his power base solidifies again, he'll be right back at it, full throttle.

We see it all the time in the election cycles. We see it all the time with businesses as the economy changes.

Those behind the gun control crowd don't give up their long term goals...they simply modify their short term goals and actions according to the prevailing climate.


Thanks a bunch for the history behind this particular article.

 

[AR-15Nutt]

good article.., may i add this: http://www.assaultweapon.info/

it just buggs the heck out of me when people refer to our AR-15's as "ASSAULT" weapons, and believe it or not, some of the worst offenders are in our own community ! grrrrr !!

 

[Justin]

Those behind the gun control crowd don't give up their long term goals...they simply modify their short term goals and actions according to the prevailing climate.

Well said. This CAP report is a perfect example of modifying short-term goals for a long-term impact, as well as a good example of them attempting to use standard divide and conquer tactics, which they've been doing for years with attempts to ban handguns, cheap pistols, "assault weapons," and splitting the gun culture apart by giving preferential treatment to the deer 'n' duck crowd while ignoring or outright denigrating anyone who wants to have a gun for personal protection.

That said, there's some pretty terrible stuff in the proposal, but it's all wrapped up in marshmallow to try to make it appealing. I'll address my issues with it in subsequent posts.

 

[Justin]

The anti-gun set are well aware of the Heller case, and know that they have to make proposals that work in a less friendly legal atmosphere, and wrap those proposals up in such a way as to appear non-threatening to voters, even pro-gun voters, if they are to have a chance at succeeding.

This is why you see them pushing "universal background checks" so hard. It's difficult to justify opposition to them, especially in a soundbite-driven news cycle.

While all six of their proposals should be of grave concern to anyone who's interested in preserving safe and legal gun ownership, two of them should be mightily opposed:

Requiring a permit for ownership of a so-called "assault weapon."

In the paper, CAP makes two proposals for how this should work, and both of them are heinous, with one being slightly less odious than the other.

The first proposal would basically relegate semi-automatic rifles and shotguns to being classified as NFA-regulated guns.

In essence, you'd have to jump through the same hoops to buy an AR15 sporting rifle and a fully-automatic M16.

Anyone who's ever gone through that process knows that it's a pretty serious hassle, one that requires you to take time off of work to submit paperwork, get finger printed, and make sure everything is in order before submitting the paperwork (along with a $200 tax) and waiting to hear back from the BATFE.

This is a pretty transparent attempt to regulate guns out of common use simply by making people conform to a byzantine bureaucratic paper chase, thereby relegating people out of the market by making ownership inconvenient.

The second proposal is one modeled on state-level concealed carry permitting systems. CAP suggest requiring training courses similar to the ones needed for a carry permit. They fail to mention that there is generally a financial requirement here; most carry permits require the payment of some sort of fee (usually more than $100), as well as renewal on a regular basis.

If the average person walks into a gun shop wanting to buy a rifle or shotgun, and it turns out he can pick up a pump-action shotgun or bolt-action rifle with a lot less hassle than a semi-auto shotgun or rifle, s/he will likely opt for the manually-operated gun out of sheer convenience.

There are a couple of big problems with this model. The first, and most obvious, is that it is a transparent attempt to create a gun registry, especially in the case of moving these firearms into NFA territory.

The other big problem is a long-term one. Per Heller, one of the litmus tests for the legality of owning a particular kind of gun is the common usage test. The argument goes that if a gun is in common usage, then the hurdles to regulate them are much higher.

What CAP is proposing here is a permitting system that gives preference to manually-operated firearms over semi-auto ones. The long-term outcome of such a preferential permitting system would result in semi-automatic firearms no longer being in common use, and therefore making it much easier to prohibit their ownership, or engage in outright confiscations.

 

[theotherwaldo]

This is just an attempt to take gun control off of the table until after the election.

Then it'll be back - until some time in 2016... .

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

While all six of their proposals should be of grave concern to anyone who's interested in preserving safe and legal gun ownership, two of them should be mightily opposed:

Requiring a permit for ownership of a so-called "assault weapon."

In the paper, CAP makes two proposals for how this should work, and both of them are heinous, with one being slightly less odious than the other.

The first proposal would basically relegate semi-automatic rifles and shotguns to being classified as NFA-regulated guns.

In essence, you'd have to jump through the same hoops to buy an AR15 sporting rifle and a fully-automatic M16.

I wanted to make two observations regarding this:

1. While the rest of the paper is meticulous in making a distinction between handguns and longguns, the recommendations for licensing use only the word "assault weapons." I would note that in the past MAIG has conflated semi-auto handguns with a capacity of greater than 10rds with "assault weapons." My guess is that in actual implementation, they mean to place many handguns back into NFA; perhaps not initially but as soon as they can muster the political capital.

2. A savvy reader just found the proposed ATF Form 5320.23 (for those who are unaware, this is the form the ATF will require of non-individual entities such as trusts, partnerships, LLCs). This form will require EVERY single person in such entity with access to the firearm to fill out photographs, fingerprints, and obtain the sign off of the Chief Law Enforcement Officer (CLEO). Accordingly, no type of NFA weapon, or future proposed NFA weapon, will be obtainable without the permission of your local CLEO. In practice, this has already greatly limited the possession of NFA weapons. Only the uses of trusts or corporations allows the possession of NFA weapons in Dallas county. With this new regulation, nobody who does not have the approval of their CLEO will be allowed to legally own these firearms.

 

[Sunray]

This insanity will go on until all inanimate objects are arrested for their evil deeds. Might as well round up the vehicles too so the carnage on the roads is ended.
Up here, the Socialist Rectal Orifi took .25 and .32 calibre handguns(including 4 figure, Olympic grade target pistols, at first) along with anything with a 4" or less barrel off the market saying they were the primary choice of criminals. Created a huge market for stolen and smuggled 9mm and .40 calibre pistols.

 

[Deaf Smith]

It's focus is that it's not assault weapons causing the carnage in the US, it's handguns.

Just the old liberal switcheroo.

Next article will show the 'need' to ban handguns and how handguns are by definition, 'assault guns'.

Deaf

 

[Justin]

Did your post disappear?

It was off-topic.

Please carry on with the topic at hand, instead of debating the merits of failed economic systems.

 

[Justin]

1. While the rest of the paper is meticulous in making a distinction between handguns and longguns, the recommendations for licensing use only the word "assault weapons." I would note that in the past MAIG has conflated semi-auto handguns with a capacity of greater than 10rds with "assault weapons." My guess is that in actual implementation, they mean to place many handguns back into NFA; perhaps not initially but as soon as they can muster the political capital.

You know, that's an extremely good point, especially in light of the fact that much of the rest of the paper spends time advocating for an equalization of the laws governing handguns vs. long guns- for instance, they propose extending the ban on interstate purchases of guns from an FFL from just handguns to also rifles and shotguns.

 

[Cee Zee]

All of these articles read to me like an attempt to tell their base to shut up and play it cool, so as not to rile up the gun rights folks,

I can certainly buy that. But that's a big switch from them thinking and promoting the idea that gun control is a winner. Not so long ago our fearless leader was making the claim that 90% of the public favored stricter gun control. Now they're trying to turn their own base off of the idea at least until the elections are completed. I have no doubt they haven't given up their zeal to get rid of all guns. But this is a big step for them and a big sign that our side is winning at least for now. They've had to admit that pushing gun control is a loser for them. They've had to admit that the EBR isn't the cause of our gun violence too. That's something we've all known all along. Now they have begrudgingly admitted it. That's a step in the right direction and a big one IMO. What they really want more than anything is power. They figure they can get power then do whatever they want. Kinda like "you can keep your doctor" only now it's "EBR's are not the boogey man's weapon of choice". As soon as they tell enough lies to get enough power they will try again to take our guns. I have zero doubt about that. But the fact they have to back down is a light at the end of the tunnel. It's still a long tunnel and it's a small light. But it's there.

I just watched "part" of an episode of Law And Order Special Victims Unit where they had the whole cast looking like an amen corner for the totally wacky idea that anyone who has seen gun violence is "infected with a virus" that makes them far more likely to kill (it's funny how soldiers who have seen combat don't kill people at the same high rate black gang bangers do). That's their true form. They aren't pushing that in this election cycle. They had to back down and that is something they don't like to do. But they will lie about what they think and about what they will do. They will try to take our guns again. That's almost a certainty. But now at least some people have read that article and will be swayed by it. That's a good thing even if the writer is full of it. I don't believe for a second they are truly backing away from their goals. I just think they had to step back in hopes of keeping at least some of their power. That's big IMO.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

I can certainly buy that. But that's a big switch from them thinking and promoting the idea that gun control is a winner.

You'll note that the article NEVER says that gun control is not "a winner". It only says that gun control on "big, scary military rifles" (itself a falsehood in an article titled "The Assault Weapon Myth") didn't produce it's advertised effect on criminal behavior because such firearms are only used in a tiny fraction of crimes.

There's no evidence that there's a "big switch from thinking and promoting the idea that gun control is a winner" in that article.

 

[lxd55]

the only goal is to disarm you. there is no debate on their side, why is there one on ours?
I know some will say we need to talk, this is not true.

 

[MikieG]

Wow. Who woulda thunk it? 6% of the country accounting for 50% of gun murders and 80% of all prisons!
Not these peaceful, honest, educated, hard working, productive citizens. Surely this article must be wrong. After all, this sounds like racism. And just how does one go about "changing" their behavior?
The appropriate course of action needed is as illegal as it is to call the offending group by name. As long as they kill each other and the bad guys get whacked, i am in favor.

 

[Cee Zee]

There's no evidence that there's a "big switch from thinking and promoting the idea that gun control is a winner" in that article.

Actually I was agreeing with the "theory" from another post that they were trying to get their supporters from making an issue of gun control during this election cycle. I thought it "might" be something they were trying. I never made any claims that they were changing their desire to control gun ownership. Please address what I actually say instead of what you think I said. I plainly said many times that I do not think this represents a huge change in their thinking. It only represents a change in their strategy. They have at least temporarily started bashing handguns instead of assault weapons. THAT is a change. And the fact that they gave any credence whatsoever to the actual facts is also a huge tangent from their previous direction. I've never seen them admit the facts in any publication of this nature. I'm talking MSM, left wing, arm of the Democrat Party news outlets like the New York Times. They just don't ever back off the notion that assault weapons are bad. At least they didn't until this article. That alone is huge no matter what the motivation. That much is very obvious. It's just not something they have ever done before.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Please address what I actually say instead of what you think I said. I plainly said many times that I do not think this represents a huge change in their thinking. It only represents a change in their strategy.

I only addressed the aspect I cited. However, I think your post here very clearly clarifies what you meant.

'nuff said!

 

[Shovelhead]

According to recent local news stories, a civilian with a semi-auto AR platform is carrying an "Assault Weapon with an extended magazine", while a Police Officer with a full auto M-4 and a 30 round mag is carrying a "Long Gun".

 

[digsigs226]

According to recent local news stories, a civilian with a semi-auto AR platform is carrying an "Assault Weapon with an extended magazine", while a Police Officer with a full auto M-4 and a 30 round mag is carrying a "Long Gun".

Oh come on now, there is a clear distinction here. ALL law enforcement officers are HIGHLY trained and know how to use their weapons properly.

 

[Tommygunn]

Oh come on now, there is a clear distinction here. ALL law enforcement officers are HIGHLY trained and know how to use their weapons properly.

2nd photo of LEO equiped with an AR with an Eotech mounted backwards.
I have to ask if the officers so equiped ever notice that the little red dot and its circle is missing.

I once saw a photo of a female officer with an AR in which the magazine had somehow been inserted backwards ..... ..dunno how that happened; couldn't make it happen in my M4orgery.
Maybe it only happens in MILSPEC guns....