Fighting The Assault Weapon Ban the right way

[bossy22]

Pro-gunners are in a continuing fight to prevent the return of the AWB...but we don't use the right tools. Too many times all we do is scream "it violates our rights" Though that might be true we sound like little children. The AWB should be fought against with logical, statistics, and reasoned arguements. I turn on the TV and whenever there is a debate about assault weapons (usually involving the NRA) all our side does is say "well it violates our second amendment rights"- i think this defense hurts us- we should show how the assault weapons ban is a bait and switch- how they ban guns on cosmetic features. If we argue like that we can get the American Public to see that the AWB is a phony piece of legislation

[DangerDave921]

1. Agreed

No. 1: The term "assault" weapon is scary and designed to appeal to opponents of guns. I mean really, who is in favor of assaulting someone?

No. 2: There is no agreed-upon definition of what an assault weapon is. It is based largely on cosmetic appearance, i.e., if it's black and scary-looking, it's an assault weapon.

No. 3: Guns are demonized past the point of rational thought. We always hear about how many thousands of kids are killed with guns. But if you take out teenagers (who are not kids), and gang crimes, and the drug trade, you realize that very few children are killed by guns. In Maryland, the CDC lists one death of a child under 12 by firearm in the last several years (at least last time I checked).

I don't own a gun myself, but recognize the value of the 2nd amendment.

[bossy22]

2. so true

many sites like the VPC included individuals up to the age of 27 under the category of "kids". I think they claimed they could do that because at 26 many individuals are still in school. though id hardly consider a 4th year medical school student a "kid"

[DangerDave921]

3. Interesting

I've never seen 27 year olds listed as kids. But it's very common to list people up to age 19 as kids because they are technically still in their teen years. Very misleading stats when you do that, which is the point.

The CDC has great statistics on cause of death. You can search by means of death, by state, by specific age groups. Fascinating stuff. If our national goal is to prevent accidental deaths of kids, we better start banning cars and swimming pools and bicycles. Because they are more dangerous than guns are.

[gorfle]

4. BenEzra has already done this.

BenEzra has shown using the FBI's statistics that all rifles account for half as few murders as hands and feet.

Rifles just aren't a crime problem. There is no need to get into debates over functionality or cosmetics. All rifles, including "assault" rifles or whatever other bad name you'd like to give them, are hardly ever used for crime.

[benEzra]

5. Here are those stats, from the FBI...

2005 data:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_20.html
Total murders............................14,860.....100.00%
Handguns..................................7,543......50.76%
Other weapons (non firearm, non edged)....1,954......13.15%
Edged weapons.............................1,914......12.88%
Firearms (type unknown)...................1,598......10.75%
Shotguns....................................517.......3.48%
Hands, fists, feet, etc.....................892.......6.00%
Rifles......................................442.......2.97%

2006 data:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_20.html
Total murders............................14,990.....100.00%
Handguns..................................7,795......52.00%
Other weapons (non firearm, non edged)....2,158......14.40%
Edged weapons.............................1,822......12.15%
Firearms (type unknown)...................1,465.......9.77%
Shotguns....................................481.......3.21%
Hands, fists, feet, etc.....................833.......5.56%
Rifles......................................436.......2.91%

It gets even more interesting at the state level. For example, Illinois is fighting tooth and nail to outlaw popular small-caliber rifles, using "the sky is falling" rhetoric. Check out the FBI stats for Illinois, 2006:

Illinois stats:

Total murders...............................487.....100.00%
Handguns....................................380......78.00%
Edged weapons................................46.......9.45%
Other weapons (non firearm, non edged).......35.......7.19%
Hands, fists, feet, etc......................14.......2.87%
Shotguns......................................6.......1.23%
Rifles........................................4.......0.82%
Firearms (type unknown).......................2.......0.41%

More stats, from the Department of Justice (thanks to krispos42 for finding these):





And overall trends:

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bossy22]

11. fight fire with fire

http://treas.gov/press/releases/reports/report.pdf

Looks like many CRIME guns in this city are not AK-47's


Whatever way you look at it, Long Guns are not used in crime often

[bossy22]

12. actually i think im going to use water

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/guic.pdf

here is a more comprehensive nationwide statistic on crime guns- doesnt look like the AK-47 is really up there

[gorfle]

13. Please do step up to the plate!

and maybe someday, BenEzra will demonstrate a little integrity and intellectual honesty and stop pretending that homicides are the only firearm-related problem in a society...

BenEzra has demonstrated the level of use of rifles in committing murder are very low. This has been very germane to the discussion of assault weapons bans because invariably the "10,000 murders a year" keeps being thrown out for justification.

You seem to wish now to change the scope of discussion from not just murders, but to other "firearm-related problem(s) in society". You seem to be making the assertion that rifles are used for other bad things besides murder at a rate alarming enough to warrant restrictions on them.

Do you have any data to support your assertion?

[iverglas]

16. hack hack

You seem to wish now to change the scope of discussion from not just murders, but to other "firearm-related problem(s) in society".

No, I don't seem any such thing -- not even to a blind pig in a snowstorm.

This has been very germane to the discussion of assault weapons bans because invariably the "10,000 murders a year" keeps being thrown out for justification.

That's nice. Something to do with me, is it?

You seem to be making the assertion that rifles are used for other bad things besides murder at a rate alarming enough to warrant restrictions on them.

Do I? Got any data to support your assertion?

Can you take a look at the various news reports in the thread I linked to, and tell me what the rifles in question were being used for?

Itemized list, if you would.

[gorfle]

17. No such thing...

No, I don't seem any such thing -- not even to a blind pig in a snowstorm.

Well, it certainly seems that way to me.

You said:

and maybe someday, BenEzra will demonstrate a little integrity and intellectual honesty and stop pretending that homicides are the only firearm-related problem in a society...

This reads to me that you are saying that BenEzra is has no integrity or intellectual honesty because he is pretending that homicides are the only firearm-related problem in society.

Which sounds to me like an assertion that firearms are used for lots of bad things besides homicide. And since it is rifles presently under discussion, one would logically assume you mean rifles are used for lots of bad things besides homicide.

That's nice. Something to do with me, is it?

No, I was just reminding you that this discussion was about homicides with rifles so you wouldn't try and broaden the scope to all firearms.

Can you take a look at the various news reports in the thread I linked to, and tell me what the rifles in question were being used for?

I'm afraid your post has been deleted, but I'm assuming you offered some number of news cases about bad things done with rifles. This is what is called "anecdotal evidence". It is not a statistically valid way to state your case, which I am still understanding to be that rifles are used for lots of other bad things besides homicide.

[iverglas]

19. go remind yourself

No, I was just reminding you that this discussion was about homicides with rifles so you wouldn't try and broaden the scope to all firearms.

Now try reading the OP.

Dreadfully sorry, but no: you actually don't get to frame the discussion.


Which sounds to me like an assertion that firearms are used for lots of bad things besides homicide. And since it is rifles presently under discussion, one would logically assume you mean rifles are used for lots of bad things besides homicide.

Gosh fucking darn. Do you really imagine that's what I was saying? My my. How perceptive of you.


I'm afraid your post has been deleted

Well, I'll just have to say it again: if BenEzra would DEMONSTRATE a little integrity and intellectual honesty (nope, I am not saying and did not say that BenEzra is has no integrity or intellectual honesty; I'm looking for some EVIDENCE of it), he would stop pretending that homicide is the only harm associated with rifles, or that the harm associated with rifles or firearms in general can be measured by counting homicides.

So here's your link:

... well actually, this is a different one, but you can play with this one -- and others in this thread -- too:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=146101&mesg_id=146111

Here we are:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=145074&mesg_id=145126

You'll want to read several posts in each of those threads.

And then tell me that the rifles in question were being used to practise for a spot on the Olympic team. And that nobody should be the least bit concerned about what they really WERE being used for.

[iverglas]

20. just so's we're clear

Here's another instance of BenEzra's use of the lovely homicide tables:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=158352&mesg_id=158391

and here's his comment:

As I said, rifles are not a crime problem and never have been, particularly in Illinois.

Seein' it? How B just doesn't quite follow from A?

Statistics on homicides prove that there is no crime problem associated with rifles.

I think not.

And just to be perfectly clear: statistics on *crimes* would not prove that there is no crime problem associated with rifles -- because it is perfectly clear from the many reports I cited elsewhere that rifles like these are used by a particular class of criminal, not to hold up convenience stores, but as part of a course of well-organized criminal activity, in which they actually appear to think possession of these weapons plays a role.

Or they just keep them as pets. I dunno.

[bossy22]

21. my stats

show that rifle crime is not that "big of a deal"

"but as part of a course of well-organized criminal activity, in which they actually appear to think possession of these weapons plays a role."
umm...no....the primary weapon weapon in organized criminality is still the handgun- if criminals were smart and did their homework- the gun they would use would be an M1A- not an AK-47.

[gorfle]

22. Yeah, I'm seeing it.

Seein' it? How B just doesn't quite follow from A?

I'm seeing it all right. Rifles are hardly ever used in murder. I suspect thus they are also hardly ever used in crime in general.

Check back with me when you have some statistics instead of anecdotal evidence. But until then, please, go on clutching at straws.

[benEzra]

25. You and I have had this conversation before...

and as I pointed out, the rifle homicide stats set the upper bound for rifles as a fraction of guns used in violent crime.

To get rifles to be involved in significantly more than 3% of nonfatal assaults with a firearm, you have to make the assumption that rifles are overrepresented in nonfatal firearm assaults compared to fatal firearm assaults.

Think about that hypothesis for a minute. To postulate even 10% of firearm-related victimizations to involve rifles, the nonfatal/fatal victimization distribution would have to be more than THREE TIMES the distribution for handguns; i.e. rifles would have to be less than one third as lethal as rifles on a per-incident basis for them to account for even 10% of nonfatal victimizations. You want to push that number higher than 10%, you have to start making up some pretty silly numbers (i.e., rifles would have to be only 1/10 as lethal as handguns on a per-incident basis for them to account for even 30% of nonfatal assaults). And if you do that, then you've just shot your argument in the foot; were your conjecture true (which it's not), you'd be wiser to push the market toward rifles and therefore drastically cut the murder rate. In fact, the data cut in the opposite direction; rifles are more lethal than handguns on a per-incident basis, meaning that the actual use of rifles in nonfatal violent assaults is even LOWER than 3%.

Gun trace data doesn't offer any support for your conjecture, either. In fact, there is no data that supports the position that rifles are overrepresented in nonfatal violent crimes compared to violent crimes. I am sure that more than 3% of violent criminals own rifles (after all, the ownership rate among the population at large is easily ten times that), but rifles are almost never carried or used in violent crimes. Unless, of course, you are talking about rural teenagers vandalizing dirt-road signage with .22's, in which rifles are certainly involved in more than 3% of incidents...LOL...

It is indeed is a fact that rifles are not a crime problem in the United States and never have been.

[iverglas]

26. and about as usefully

and as I pointed out, the rifle homicide stats set the upper bound for rifles as a fraction of guns used in violent crime.

To get rifles to be involved in significantly more than 3% of nonfatal assaults with a firearm, you have to make the assumption that rifles are overrepresented in nonfatal firearm assaults compared to fatal firearm assaults.

Uh huh, so we're going to expand to "violent crime", i.e. "nonfatal assaults with a firearm".

So I guess I'm right. All those AK-47ish thingies in all those reports I cited from Florida, in that short timeframe and that location alone, were being kept as pets.

Because there's no in between -- either they were used in "nonfatal assaults" or they were just pets. Or home decor. Or acquired and possessed so that their drug-dealing, criminal owners could shoot a little skeet of a Sunday morning.

http://www.cisc.gc.ca/annual_reports/annual_report2004/firearms_2004_e.htm

* Crime groups, in particular street gangs, often use illicit firearms in public displays of violence in relation to criminal or personal disputes.

... One illicit firearm can pose an ongoing threat to the public and law enforcement until the weapon is seized by law enforcement or disposed of by the criminal. These firearms are used by criminals for their protection, enhancement of their status, and the commission of crimes including intimidation, assaults and homicides. All organized crime groups are involved in varying illicit firearm activities and gang members often possess numerous firearms of various types. Across Canada, the problem of illicit firearms and violence is particularly concentrated within urban centres that have a significant organized crime or street gang presence. In these centres, gangs increasingly possess illicit firearms, particularly handguns, that are used in acts of intimation and violence.

Criminals really don't keep firearms around as pets or to hang over the mantelpiece. Their mere possession of the firearms -- including long arms, which many of them, particularly those in the bigger time in terms of organization and intensity of their criminal activities, appear to choose to acquire -- is a signficant factor in their very ability to carry on those activities.

I'd say duh, but hey, maybe there really are some who can't grasp this.

[benEzra]

27. Indeed.

I'd say duh, but hey, maybe there really are some who can't grasp this.

Keep on saying "duh," then. Because it is a demonstrable fact that rifles are not commonly being used by criminals, either in fatal assaults or nonfatal assault (which would encompass both "intimidation, assaults, and homicides" as well as "public displays of violence in relation to criminal or personal disputes"). As I said, I would not be surprised to find that criminals (both violent or nonviolent) OWN rifles at rates comparable to that of general public. But whatever you want to ascribe to their owners regarding motive, the fact is that rifles are vastly underrepresented in gun misuse statistics, both fatal and nonfatal, regardless of what slice of those statistics you wish to look at. Even if John Q. Criminal owns a rifle because it makes him feel empowered, its impracticalities lead him not to actually use it, hence the very, very low rates of rifle misuse seen in the hard data.

FWIW, gun seizure data doesn't support the contention that rifles are a crime problem, either. I have referred repeatedly to the BATFE Youth Crime Gun Interdiction Survey, which speaks to precisely the allegation that you are trying to make (i.e., guns owned/possessed by criminals at the time of arrest).

So I guess I'm right. All those AK-47ish thingies in all those reports I cited from Florida, in that short timeframe and that location alone, were being kept as pets.

Because there's no in between -- either they were used in "nonfatal assaults" or they were just pets. Or home decor. Or acquired and possessed so that their drug-dealing, criminal owners could shoot a little skeet of a Sunday morning.

Well, they're sure as hell not routinely used in either murders or nonfatal assaults. Which pretty much proves my point that rifles are considerably underrepresented in violent crime compared to their very widespread ownership. You are talking about some of the most popular firearms in America, after all.

FWIW, the "AK-47" in my gun safe isn't a pet, either. Nor is it home decor, or for "shooting skeet." I do enjoy shooting it, and if I lived in a dangerous area I'd probably keep it loaded and handy while at home. But it's bulky, nonconcealable on the person, and very difficult to transport discreetly, which makes it pretty darn impractical for something you want to have with you while out and about. Which is very likely why rifles are so underrepresented in criminal gun misuse.

[facepalm]

33. rifles one third as lethal as handguns?

Isn't that the complete opposite of reality? A rifle is easier to point and aim, easier to hit something with at greater range and more likely to kill when it strikes the torso. It seems more likely that the reason rifle homicides are low is because criminals don't use them much at all.

The assault weapons ban was just an attempt to get people used to arbitrary government interference with the right to own guns.

[benEzra]

23. Rifles are used in nonfatal assaults at an even lower rate than they are used in murders

as is easily demonstrated by the BATFE Youth Crime Interdiction Survey data and the FBI UCR assault data, as I have repeatedly done, and you have repeatedly ignored.

The murder data are the worst case stats for rifle-related violent crime. And the worst case stats show that rifles are statistically not a problem at all.

[gorfle]

24. Thank you BenEzra!

You da man.

[radioburning]

31. iverglas, aren't you from Canada? Why are you even in this forum?

P.s. I honestly don't think I've ever seen you make an actual good point, or statement here. Seriously. I've seen you attack people with sarcasm. I've seen you try to tear people down for poor grammar, their choice of words, or their background. I've seen you wave off valid points people make with verbal abuse and irrational subject changes. But, I have yet to see you make an actual, good argument for your point of view. Are you lonely? Bitter? Or is this the highlight of your life, ruffling feathers? If that's the case, I feel sad for you. You're anti-guns? Cool! That's great! Maybe you could just come up with a valid argument one of these days, instead of just shitting on people you don't comprehend. It's a big world-there's room for all of us here...

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

38. hark! more buzzing!

Won't last long this time, anyhow.

[iverglas]

37. do I hear buzzing?

I think I do.

[radioburning]

44. Come on! Is that the best you can do?

Seriously, you're slippin' in your old age! Ha,ha!

[damntexdem]

6. Yes, the ban needs to go far turther.

But STARTING with assault weapons is just fine with me.

[benEzra]

7. My wife and I will keep our guns, thanks.

You are free to choose not to own them.

FWIW, the 1994 Feinstein law cost at least 20 House seats in Nov. '94, and it didn't even ban anything. Care to speculate how an actual ban on the most popular civilian rifles in the United States would go over?

And what Son of Patriot Act measures would you pass in order to actually enforce something like that? And for what?

[DangerDave921]

9. The heck with the Constitution!

Are there any other personal freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights that you'd like to give away? Maybe the right to free speech? Or the right to a jury trial?

[bossy22]

10. for the children

....i remember all the mobsters who got off murder raps because jury's were intimidated, or legal manuevering was used to get them out. If we didnt have juries this wouldnt have happened- think of all the lives we can save when all the criminals are locked up and can't go free on stupid technicalities

[old mark]

46. You mean...

...like their "rights"?


mark

[gorfle]

14. Why?

Yes, the ban needs to go far turther. But STARTING with assault weapons is just fine with me.

Why do you feel this way? All rifles murders annually account for about half as many as hands and feet, and less than knives or clubs. Assault rifles account for even less.

[SteveM]

15. Ummm (smack)... More prohibition. Such a WONDERFUL public policy instrument.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[radioburning]

32. What is far turther?

I don't even know what that means. Is that pro, or against?

[old mark]

28. What is an Assault Weapon, anyway?

Basic problems with this legislation:
1. Good, working definition of an assault weapon. Seems mostly to come down to,"Everybody knows what they are", kind of like art and pornography, I guess. Gotta know what you're banning...

2. Why? Has there been a large number of "assault weapon" shootings recently? Rapid increase in crime since the AWB went away? Could this law be mainly for increasing publicity for certain politicians?

3. Did the first AWB actually "ban" anything? Not really-changed configuration of a few imported semi-auto rifles for a few years, drove up prices for those made/imported "pre-ban".

4. Would it be Constitutional if the Supremes support the individual right to bear arms? Have to wait and see...

5. More BS from lazy politicians afraid to attack the drug problem or getting too much money from drug importers ?

Just my opinion.
Have a great day.

mark

[spin]

34. Video of a police officer expaining an assault weapon...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysf8x477c30

[radioburning]

29. I agree, and would like to also add...

Maybe we could find a way to organize people on this board, and other boards, to spearhead concentrated attacks on specific legislations. Rhetoric on message boards only goes so far(as in "not very"). I know we have a lot of pro-gunners here, and if we could concentrate a little effort from each of us towards letting certain politicians know we're tired of the B.S. they're spewing they might think twice about trying to bring the same stupid law into existence again. I'm new here, so I can't start any posts. But, I'm not afraid to call or email the office of a politician and let them know there will be political consequences to their actions. These AWB's are not founded on any actual crime statistics, and are therefore irrational and unnecessary. The only reason they went through is because we didn't stop them.

[radioburning]

30. This was the state of Assault Weapons before they were banned

This is from a report from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) on guns used in crimes in the U.S.
"In the 1991 BJS Survey of State
Inmates, about 8% of the inmates
reported that they had owned a
military-type weapon, such as an Uzi,
AK-47, AR-15, or M-16. Less than
1% said that they carried such a
weapon when they committed the
incident for which they were incarcerated.
A Virginia inmate survey conducted
between November 1992 and
May 1993 found similar results:
About 10% of the adult inmates reported
that they had ever possessed
an assault rifle, but none had carried
it at the scene of a crime."
Wow, it's a good thing we made the world a safer place by getting all these assault weapons off the streets...

[Mercracer]

36. Urban Gun Haters

The root of our gun rights really does begin in the constitution. The practical reality is that most gun owners across our great nation are also hunters. The other reality is than many voters are not hunters and may even be against hunting rights. The gun grabbing legislation initiates in concentrated urban areas where guns are more often used in crime than in legitimate recreation. These small areas are not representative of the majority of our country but the emotions generated travel outside of these concentrated areas due to media reports of gun violence.
The American Public needs to see that there are more reasonable responsible adults who own actual legal machine guns and semiautomatic firearms than criminals who use them in violence. The American Public needs to realize that they are penalizing law abiding citizens far more than restricting criminals by enacting more gun control legislation.

[iverglas]

39. damn, you march to a different drummer, doncha?

The practical reality is that most gun owners across our great nation are also hunters.

Any minute now, a dozen regulars will descend on your post to tell you that this is completely false.

I mean, they certainly would if you were a Democratic candidate ...

[Mercracer]

40. Candidates

You know what is funny? Both Democratic and Republicans who are looking to reasure voters that they are not trying to take their guns away spout off about how they believe in hunting and love to hunt..... They get their pictures taken with a shotgun dressed in camo or a scoped rifle dressed in blaze orange... Hillary embellishes stories about hunting as a child. Both parties are out of touch with those who are actually concerned and looking for some reasurance that they are not gun grabbers....

[gorfle]

42. Certainly.

Both Democratic and Republicans who are looking to reasure voters that they are not trying to take their guns away spout off about how they believe in hunting and love to hunt..... They get their pictures taken with a shotgun dressed in camo or a scoped rifle dressed in blaze orange... Hillary embellishes stories about hunting as a child. Both parties are out of touch with those who are actually concerned and looking for some reasurance that they are not gun grabbers....

Of course they do. Hunting is the most neutral reason for owning a firearm. Hey, we all eat, right? You may get some politicians to even back self-defense with firearms.

But you almost never, ever, find a politician that gets up on the podium and describes the real intent of the second amendment, and it has nothing to do with hunting or personal self-defense.

The second amendment is about replacing or countering federal military power. Hell, you can't even get the NRA to speak directly to that!

[Testament]

43. Couple notes

As for the NRA speaking on that, listen to Cam and Company on nra.org 9pm-12am M-F. They went over this last night and what Cam said was that the 2nd amendment implicitly covers many reasons for owning arms, some people will own them for hunting, others for self defense, others for sport, others still to fulfill the right of the people to revolt in the face of tyranny. People benefit from the 2nd amendment for all of those reasons, although some may not own guns for all of them. That's ok, different strokes and all.

As for the Candidates, none are progun. Obama and Hillary have lengthy anti-gun histories, and while McCain isn't quite at that level, with his attacks on private sales of guns outside of the federal authority to regulate interstate commerce, without even going to the 2nd amendment yet, which would enable the feds to compile a complete registry of guns, he is no friend of RKBA. We need people like Bill Richardson and Mark Warner (thank God he's at least running for the US Senate seat of VA to replace anti-gun Republican, John Warner. John is retiring) up at the plate.

[gorfle]

41. This is false.

The practical reality is that most gun owners across our great nation are also hunters.

As BenEzra has provided data in the past, comparing the estimated number of firearm owners with the number of hunting licenses sold demonstrates that most firearm owners are in fact not hunters.

[old mark]

45. How does anyone estimate the number of firearm owners?

I think that would be a difficult task.
Nearly every gun owner I know owns more than 1 gun. I own 15 guns of various types, and I would say maybe 3 would be useful for hunting where I live. The remainder are for shooting at a range, for carry for self defence or just for my personal/historical interest (WWI handgun).
# of my rifles could be considered assault rifles by some people, although only 1 would fit most of the requirements. All three are autoloaders, none capable of full auto fire.
(I have a semi-auto FAL and 2 Chinese SKS's.)
I do ususlly purchase a hunting license, but don't hunt much any more, and I'm considering not buying a license this yearbecauwse of the expense.

Any idea how this number was determined ?

mark