Attorney General Eric Holder listens to his wife on RKBA but he doesn't understand.

[jody]

Holder: We're 'closer to the dream'

SELMA -- People here on Sunday witnessed an unimaginable site as the daughter of former segregationist George Wallace, Alabama's governor during the civil rights movement, introduced the nation's first black attorney general.

And there is another connection between Peggy Wallace Kennedy and U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder. His sister in-law, Vivian Malone, was the woman then-Gov. Wallace tried to block from entering the University of Alabama in 1963.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

Holder, whose wife is from Mobile, said he thought about his late sister-in-law as he stood in line to vote last year. She was one of the first two black students to enroll at the University of Alabama and the first black graduate.

He said his wife, who was young at the time, still remembers her brothers taking turns protecting their house with a shotgun.

Why is Holder having so much trouble understanding the reason law-aiding citizens demand that government not infringe upon their natural, inherent, inalienable/unalienable right to keep and bear arms for self-defense?

Doesn’t Holder listen to his wife who "still remembers her brothers taking turns protecting their house with a shotgun."

What part of his wife’s simple message doesn’t Attorney General Eric Holder understand?

[Tim01]

1. Oh this is easy, just an unpleasant truth.

When there was a discussion going on here sometime in the past one of the non-gun guys said something to the effect of
"well, hunting shotguns are ok I guess, but those black police shotguns with the pistol grips scare the crap out of me".
And there is the emotional response that some people have. They will not change, they will never believe guns are not evil. And if they are a politician with that attitude, we have a problem.

[sandnsea]

2. Did he propose banning shotguns?

I missed that. Link please.

[X_Digger]

3. Only shotguns with certain features..

The '94 AWB covered scary looking shotguns, too.

Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:

* Folding or telescoping stock
* Pistol grip
* Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
* Detachable magazine

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

[sandnsea]

5. Ah, not one like the Malones had

People would still be able to have any number of shotguns, right?

[X_Digger]

6. Per the '94 AWB, yes.

Not sure any past or proposed law has suggested limiting the number of guns a person can have at one time. Some have limited the number _purchased_ in some time frame (like 1 per month, etc)

[FudaFuda]

10. Until the next infringement.

The strategy is death by a thousand cuts, until the tide is so forceful against gun owners that the wave can crash. Look at the history of gun control in the UK.

[X_Digger]

15. *nod* much like Chitown's proposed regulations.. (2007)

If the net effect is a ban, it's all the same to them.

Just weeks after its gala grand opening, the Cabela's superstore in Hoffman Estates, IL is facing closure by the Cook County (IL) Board. This impending action stems from a pair of proposed county ordinances prohibiting the retail sale of firearms at a location 15 miles or less from any other federally licensed firearm dealer. The proposals further prohibit retail sale of firearms within one mile of any school, church, place of worship, nursing home, homeless shelter, public housing, or military installation. With respect to these restrictions, Cabela's Hoffman Estates store loses on all counts - as does every other federally-licensed gun dealer in Cook County.

"Oh look, we're not banning gun sales, just some 'reasonable restrictions' on their sale." Riiight.. Pull the other one and it plays 'Yankee Doodle'.

[sandnsea]

17. The strategy is saving children

by getting guns off the streets. That's all.

[FudaFuda]

22. Getting the criminals off the street would be more effective at reaching that goal

since guns are inanimate objects

[bossy22]

13. so if we ban the use of newspapers

it would be okay since we would still have TV, radio, books.....etc

the new AWB is much more stringent, it applies a one feature test banning most of the semi-auto tactical shotguns out there

the second amendment protects commonly possessed firearms (or firearms that would be commonly possessed for lawful purposes) and tactical shotguns fit that description.

[sandnsea]

16. Child pornography is banned

Banning the worst guns, the ones most commonly used in crime, to save children's lives is similarly acceptable.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

18. Only the AWB did not do that.

[sandnsea]

20. It targeted guns used in gang crime

Where innocent bystanders were regularly shot by stray bullets. It most certainly did.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

21. Sorry you are wrong. Rifles of any type are only used in 5% or less of all homicides.

Handguns account for over 70% of all murders.

David

[sandnsea]

26. I said gang crime

and you twisted it to a different set of statistics. The AWB ban was completely about trying to reduce gang crime and drive-by shootings.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

32. The DOJ seems to disagree with you.

from the Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault
Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and
Gun Violence, 1994-2003

page 15 and 16

Similarly, the most common AWs prohibited by the 1994 federal ban accounted
for between 1% and 6% of guns used in crime according to most of several national and
local data sources examined for this and our prior study (see Chapter 6 and Roth and
Koper, 1997, Chapters 5, 6):

• Baltimore (all guns recovered by police, 1992-1993): 2%
• Miami (all guns recovered by police, 1990-1993): 3%
• Milwaukee (guns recovered in murder investigations, 1991-1993): 6%
• Boston (all guns recovered by police, 1991-1993): 2%
• St. Louis (all guns recovered by police, 1991-1993): 1%
• Anchorage, Alaska (guns used in serious crimes, 1987-1993): 4%
• National (guns recovered by police and reported to ATF, 1992-1993): 5%11
• National (gun thefts reported to police, 1992-Aug. 1994): 2%
• National (guns used in murders of police, 1992-1994): 7-9%12
• National (guns used in mass murders of 4 or more persons, 1992-1994): 4-13%13


Although each of the sources cited above has limitations, the estimates
consistently show that AWs are used in a small fraction of gun crimes. Even the highest
estimates, which correspond to particularly rare events such mass murders and police
murders, are no higher than 13%. Note also that the majority of AWs used in crime are
assault pistols (APs) rather than assault rifles (ARs). Among AWs reported by police to
ATF during 1992 and 1993, for example, APs outnumbered ARs by a ratio of 3 to 1 (see
Chapter 6).

The relative rarity of AW use in crime can be attributed to a number of factors.
Many AWs are long guns, which are used in crime much less often than handguns.
Moreover, a number of the banned AWs are foreign weapons that were banned from
importation into the U.S. in 1989. Also, AWs are more expensive (see Table 2-1) and
more difficult to conceal than the types of handguns that are used most frequently in
crime.

http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf

[sandnsea]

36. Drive. By. Gang. Crime.

1980s. I know why this law was passed and if you are over the age of forty - so do you.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

37. The statistics don't bear that out.

[sandnsea]

40. What people saw with their eyes

and what they were concerned about - does. If you have a better idea to fight gun crime, then get about the business of doing it. But don't bully and intimidate people who are trying to reduce deaths and the culture of violence in this country.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

42. Demonstrating that you are incorrect is not bullying you.

[sandnsea]

43. You haven't demonstrated anything

You can't demonstrate that people were sick of drive-bys with crime statistics. It doesn't work that way. The means by which the NRA has manipulated, minimized and ridiculed people's concerns - is bullying. If you engage in their tactics, then you are part of the problem.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

45. Who here has bullied you?

[sandnsea]

48. You're doing it right now

And you know it.

Topic. AWB was supported by the majority due to gang violence. Lying about it and insinuating that other people are stupid if they believe it - IS bullying. Pretending that you aren't bullying - is another form of bullying.

Honesty would be welcome.

The AWB was supported by the majority due to gang violence. That's why those "scary" guns were selected. Gang members chose them specifically because they were "scary" and that's why they were likely to be the guns that killed kids walking down the street.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

50. When did I accuse anyone of stupidity?

You wrote, "That's why those "scary" guns were selected. Gang members chose them specifically because they were "scary" and that's why they were likely to be the guns that killed kids walking down the street."

Your assertion has been shown time and time again to be false. Confronting your assertion with facts is not bullying.

David

[backwoodsbob]

91. dont bother

statistics and facts are BULLYING

Laws and evidence are BULLYING

Just dont bother.

Gun grabbers dont care about facts...what they want to believe is all the facts they need.

[Caliman73]

92. Dave, you cannot argue logically against fear. Yet I guess we still try.

We know that it is a tragedy when ANYONE is killed, innocent people especially. Logically we know that it is not the object that is to blame for the crime, but the criminal. For people who are gripped by fear, it usually seems easier to take away the object associated with the fear than to tackle the underlying problems that cause the violence. I own firearms, but would never seek to use them except as a last resort to defend my life or the life of my loved ones. My firearms are always secured per the laws in my community. I know that following these laws renders my firearms useless for defense so it is a struggle between the law and common sense.

To decrease violence we need to:

Eliminate poverty, Increase people's connection to their community, Give people hope in a future, Increase educational opportunities, remove the stigma and improve mental health services, and many other things that will cause people to think twice and decide not to use firearms aggressively.

Banning guns will do just as much good "keeping people safe" as Prohibition did in reducing the rate of alcohol use and abuse in the 1920's and 30's

[LuisCipher]

51. Do you have a comprehension problem?

You are shown EVIDENCE that assault weapons were and are not used in the majority of crime -- yet you keep harping that they are. Then you accuse others of being dishonest. Truly unbelievable.

[benEzra]

77. Except they weren't, of course...

Gang members chose them specifically because they were "scary" and that's why they were likely to be the guns that killed kids walking down the street.

Except they weren't commonly used by gangs outside of the silver screen and TV dramas. The FBI murder-by-type-of-weapon statistics that you are so studiously ignoring demonstrate that fact incontrovertibly.

Only 3% of murders involve rifles, and that statistic has been pretty steady for decades. Rifles are simply not a major contributor to gun violence in the United States and never have been.

[LuisCipher]

46. No YOU are part of the problem

By focusing your efforts on passing laws that have ZERO effects in reducing crime and death in this country. If you cant handle the truth -- dont go looking for it.

[benEzra]

38. The "assault weapon" fraud wasn't even invented until 1988,

when Josh Sugarmann wrote his little strategy paper Assault Weapons and Accessories in America that ironically ended up shattering the U.S. gun-control lobby.

The primary excuse for the AWB restrictions wasn't drive-bys, but the Stockton, California school shooting in 1989 in which a nut killed 5 children with a civilian AK lookalike (the same number Gang Lu killed a year later with a .38 revolver, FWIW). The MSM did occasionally invoke drive-by's, terrah, and People Who Are Different From Us Might Get Them as reasons, too, but mass shootings were the primary excuse, however contrived.

I have a big file of the news clippings, including the USA Today editorial "Ban Heavy Weapons to Protect the Public" (1993). Want me to scan them?

[sandnsea]

41. Yes. It. Was. Drive-Bys.

You can deny it all you want, but people were sick to death of babies being killed in the streets by stray bullets. The various other shootings contributed to the MAJORITY supporting regulation, just like we regulate other armaments.

[bossy22]

56. yes

cause gangs were using steyr augs everyday to cause mayhem on the street

give me a break...show some stats and maybe we would believe you.

[benEzra]

75. Most drive-bys were, and are, perpetrated using ordinary HANDGUNS.

If you have ever handled a rifle in a car (I have), you'd know why.

Again, the term "assault weapon" did not even start being used by the gun-control lobby until 1988, when Sugarmann wrote his screed, and did not gain any traction whatsoever until the Stockton shooting in 1989. That is a demonstrable fact.

THIS is what the gun-control lobby was saying about rifles and shotguns in the early 1980's:

"(O)ur organization, Handgun Control, Inc. does not propose further controls on rifles and shotguns. Rifles and shotguns are not the problem; they are not concealable."

--Nelson T. "Pete" Shields, head of what is now the Brady Campaign 1978-1989, Guns Don't Die--People Do, Priam Press, 1981, pp. 47-48 (emphasis added).

That statement is no less true now than it was then--and when he wrote that, the AR-15 had been on the market for two decades and the M1 carbine for four.

You've been spun, and badly.

[TheWraith]

68. What makes you think that rifles are used in drive-by shootings?

A rifle is a terrible weapon for a gang member. It's huge, hard to aim, hard to conceal, and not very deniable. You can't claim you were carrying it for self defense. Gang members want pistols.

[tanngrisnir3]

87. I'm over 40, and know gangs from a cop's perspective in CA. You're wrong.

Sorry, it was not intended to effect nor has it effected drive-by shootings.

[HALO141]

81. Bullshit. n/t

[LuisCipher]

24. You have no idea of what you're talking about.

Seriously !

The most commonly used guns in crimes are cheap throw away revolvers and pistols. NOT THOUSAND DOLLAR RIFLES. Most rifles that are on the "ban" list cost thousands and thousands of dollars. The most common rifle on the "ban" list goes for about $1600 right now. You simply have no idea of what you talk of if you are under the impression that these rifles are used in crimes. They are almost NEVER used in crimes. As a matter of fact,I challenge you to find me ONE....just ONE crime that's been cause with any of these rifles that are currently on the "evil" ban list:

FN SCAR: http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=123924004
Steyr AUG: http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=124270471
FAMAS: http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=124162204
Sig 551: http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=124444965
FN PS90: http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=124239258
HKPSG-1: http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=124596690
HKsp89: http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=124550196

...now I ask you, If you cant find any crimes being caused by these firearms. Would that not mean -- BY DEFINITION, that crime will NOT be affected AT ALL if they are banned? CAN SOMEONE EXPLAIN TO ME THE FASCINATION THAT GUN GRABBERS HAVE IN BANNING THINGS THAT ARE BY DEFINITION NOT USED IN CRIMES? YEEEESH!

[paulsby]

64. bingo

and furthermore, as mentioned - cheap guns are more frequently used in crime.

would we want to then ban cheap guns?

well sure, if we want to enact policies that disproportionately affect vulnerable minorities, the elderly, etc. both of whom have less disposable income to spend on guns.

i've been in law enforcement a long time. i see the guns used in crimes. they are garden variety semi-autos, and occasionally revolvers.

they are rarely AW's, as defined by the AWBan. and that was true BEFORE the AWB, during it, and since it expired.

[beevul]

25. Such blatant dishonesty...

Iether on your part, or on the part of the people that sold you that line of bull, or both.

You say "getting guns off the street", yet support legislation (so far as anyone hereabouts can tell) that will in the end, remove from the law hands of the abiding what would otherwise be thier own legally owned property.

That goes just a shade farther than "getting guns off the street", and it is just plain dishonest to characterize it as such.

I suppose if I were supporting a ban that would piss millions of people off, I might be afraid to call it anything more accurate that "getting guns off the streets" too. I keep getting that image from the first starship troopers movie in my head...at the end, Neil Patrick Harris puts his hand on the brain bug and says "its afraid".


And you claim "It targeted guns used in gang crime...Where innocent bystanders were regularly shot by stray bullets. It most certainly did."

Thas like claiming after nuking something, that "that nuke targeted that shack. It most certainly did".

Even less honest than that.

It - the AWB - targeted guns used by a FEW gang members, but mostly NOT used for nefarious purposes, just like any and every type and kind of legally ownable gun in America.

And you well know it.

300-ish million guns, in the hands of 80-ish million people, and yet you have 30-ish thousand gun related deaths annually, with half-ish being suicides.

Why do you continue to pretend otherwise, and worse, to mislead others along that same path?

[sandnsea]

27. Drive-bys, AWB ban was all about drive-bys

and gang shootings. I'm not the one being dishonest or rewriting history.

[LuisCipher]

29. You simply are ignorant of the facts

...yet continue to stand by them. How very sad. I refuse to argue with people that dont have any idea of what they speak of.

[sandnsea]

30. No. I remember. That's all.

I know exactly why people were pushing for a ban on certain semi-autos. Because they were popular guns in drive-bys and similar type gang crime. YOU and the NRA are the ones who concocted a set of talking points that are completely irrelevant to what was done and why. Deaths of tens of thousands of kids are on your heads.

[LuisCipher]

31. WOW..you are something else.

Let me type this in small sentences. I want you "sandnsea" to please answer the following about the list of firearms I gave you a minute ago.

1)How can banning firearms that almost HAVE NEVER been used in crimes possibly affect crime statistics? If a firearm has almost NEVER been used in a crime would that not -- BY DEFINITION -- make zero impact on lowering crime?

Now, I gave you a very specific list of "banned" rifles...even gave you model and maker so you could Google you little fingers to try to find me a list of crimes they have been used in. Can you find one for me? Please? If you cant, would that not make your pathetic argument moot?

[bossy22]

34. the most common?????

If i recall correctly i think handguns fit that catagory. The AWB was brought upon by a few highlighted incidents involving guns with military styling.

Gangs have almost always used handguns for almost all of their "work".

and even if we assume you are correct, banning those guns wont do anything. Correlation does not equal causation. If you did a study on speed related deaths in automobiles and found out that cars that are colored red are most likely to be in a speed related accident...then you banned red cars....do you think you would honestly be significantly lowering speed related deaths.

may i remind you that the most deadly mass shooting in US history was done with a handgun that many police agencies considered "too weak" to be used for regular service (i personally thing the 9mm is an effective cartridge but recently many agencies dropped the 9mm in favor of 40 or 45 for increased stopping power.

to reiterate...GANGS USE HANDGUNS....like most other criminals

the AWB is a symbolic political move, it wont protect anybody and is probably unconstitutional. These weapons are most prevalent in law abiding hands...maybe 20 years ago you could make a case that these weapons arent common...but not today.


also there is a gun on that list called the Steyr Aug....for your information only one reported usage of it in a crime was ever recorded between 1980 and 1990....so ask you this...how can this weapon be one of those most used by criminals?

[benEzra]

35. "Deaths of tens of thousands of kids"?

All rifles combined account for less than 500 murders annually, from all age groups combined. "Kids" account for a small fraction of that number, and "assault weapons" only a fraction of that.

Of Illinois' 463 murders in '07, rifles of ANY type accounted for 4. Of Maryland's 553 murders in '07, rifles accounted for 9. Care to justify your "tens of thousands" number, or explain how removing muzzle threads and bayonet lugs from civilian rifles would reduce it?

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/data/table_20.html

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

39. So we are expected to rely on your memory instead of hard evidence?

[sandnsea]

44. Hard evidence of what?

You have no hard evidence of why the vast majority supported the AWB.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

47. I have given you evidence that the problem though small was a legitimate concern...

the fix however did very little to address the problem and did not target the weapons that were commonly used in drive by shootings. It targeted scary looking weapons that are very rarely used in crime.

David

[sandnsea]

52. That is not what I said at all

Quit manipulating. It is an intimidation tactic.

The 1980s. Gang violence. Drive-bys. Kids getting hit by stray bullets.

That is why the AWB was implemented and you know it. All the other crapola in this thread is irrelevant. Those particular guns were targeted for the same reason sawed off shotguns were targeted. They were a particular gun used in particular crime and they needed to be removed. It was in no way EVER a solution to ALL murder or ALL crime.



The growing use of increasingly lethal weapons in gang assaults has been driving gang homicides for the past 10 to 15 years. From 1987 to 1990, virtually all of the increase in Chicago's gang-motivated homicides appears to be attributable to an increase in the use of high-caliber, automatic, or semiautomatic weapons (Block and Block, 1993, p. 7). The Blocks found that gang homicides increased during a period in which there was no increase in street gang assaults, indicating that the lethality of weapons (deaths per incident) accounted for the greater number of homicides (see also Zimring, 1996). In Los Angeles, the proportion of gang-related homicides involving firearms increased from 71 percent in 1979 to 95 percent in 1994 mainly because of the increased use of handguns, particularly semiautomatic handguns (Hutson et al., 1995).

Fourth, the growth in youth gang homicides over the past decade is driven by increased access to and use of firearms and, particularly, more lethal weapons (automatic and semiautomatic firearms). The proportion of youth gang homicides committed with a firearm has been increasing; currently almost all of them involve firearms.

Other gun control strategies appear to be promising. These include the restriction of access to guns by potentially dangerous individuals (Cook and Leitzel, 1996); supply reduction (Koper and Reuter, 1996); compensation for information leading to confiscation of illegal guns (Blumstein and Cork, 1996); use of metal detectors in schools (Kamin, 1996); parental permission for warrantless searches (Rosenfeld and Decker, 1996); and undercover purchases of firearms from adolescents, control of the supply channels, creation of ammunition scarcity, bilateral buyback agreements, and nonuse contracts with financial compliance incentives (Zimring, 1996).

http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/jjjournal/jjjournal1297/gang.html

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

53. From your own link.

the proportion of gang-related homicides involving firearms increased from 71 percent in 1979 to 95 percent in 1994 mainly because of the increased use of handguns, particularly semiautomatic handguns (Hutson et al., 1995).


Doesn't sound like assault weapons were the problem.

David

[sandnsea]

54. That's what happens when lobbyists get in on the act

They should have been included.

Doesn't change the fact that gang violence IS the reason those particular guns were targeted, and that the REST of the article backs up what I said. "Increasingly lethal weapons" was driving gang violence.

That is what the entirety of the AWB was about, along with cops on the streets and midnight basketball.

Reducing Gang Violence.

So all of these other statistics is just pure bullshit. 19 guns. 19. Probably another 10 semi-auto handguns that should be included.

That's what you're sacrificing kids' lives over.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

55. So you accuse me of sacrificing lives, It's clear who the bully is, pot meet kettle.

[sandnsea]

58. Avoidance. Another manipulation tactic

to intimidate your opponent into shutting up.

Kids' lives are being sacrificed while the NRA lobby distorts and distracts. That's a fact, not bullying.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

59. So only facts I use are bullying, okay I got it.

You said that I was sacrificing lives. You are just being dishonest now. It's clear you don't want to have an honest debate.

David

[sandnsea]

60. You never presented any facts

related to the enactment of the AWB and gang violence. You just twisted and cherry-picked and avoided and manipulated and stone-walled.

I don't know why you're still arguing with me. The AWB was about gang violence. It's clear. The end.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

61. I posted facts before you did. Your links confirmed my point.

[sandnsea]

62. Post #20

"It targeted guns used in gang crime"

WTF?

You posted a bunch of shit that wasn't related to that at all.

I was right, I knew I was right, you knew I was right, the facts are there to prove it, and now you need to admit it.

If we want to do a study to see how each specific gun that was banned, and not banned, relate to the reduction of gang crime, we can. But we can't argue what the AWB was about and that it didn't do anything to infringe on the right of anybody to own a gun. There were still plenty to chose from.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

63. The link you provided directly contradicts your statement.

[sandnsea]

71. No it doesn't

The one comment you picked out, which referred to LA, does not contradict the rest of the article that says gangs were acquiring more lethal guns during the time period in question.

I really don't know why it is so hard to acknowledge reality. And you wonder why people say you don't care about anything but your gun addiction?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

78. More of the bullying, you are a real class act.

Your parents must be proud. :sarcasm:

David

[TheWraith]

69. So then you should be able to prove that there was a huge surge in drivebys since 2004.

Right? After all, if rifles cause gang crime, then it should have shot up the second they were legal again. No?

Sorry, but even the Clinton Justice Department, which supported the AWB, admitted that it made basically NO difference at all in crime rates.

Gang members don't want, and can't afford, high-quality rifles. They want the cheap, POS $100 pistols manufactured by Bryco, Jennings, et al. They can buy a dozen of those for the price of one really, really hard to conceal rifle.

[sandnsea]

70. 2004 has nothing, nothing, nothing

whatsoever to do with the 80s or 90s. NOTHING.

Whether it worked or not - has nothing to do with the reason the AWB was implemented. NOTHING.

What is so hard to comprehend about that little statement?

If I can't get you to acknowledge something as simple as that, why would I bother to debate anything else?

[TheWraith]

72. So in other words, you admit that the premise you're pushing is false.

Either huge, expensive rifles are the preferred weapons of gang members or they're not. If they are, then drive-by shootings should have spiked again once the ban expired--it's not like the gang problem in this country has gone away. Quite the opposite. If they're not, then the fact is that the tenuous thread of reasoning linking the ban of certain expensive rifles to gang crimes that used cheap handguns is just a lot of bunk.

Why don't you ask any of the objective sources? Bill Clinton in his autobiography. The Clinton DOJ's report in 1998 on crimes involving a gun. The 2003-2005 violent crime stats. They'll all tell you that the Assault Weapons Ban had all the effect on crime of a fart in a high wind, because those weapons weren't being used in most crimes. Gang crimes are committed primarily with $100 handguns manufactured by Raven Arms, and its successor companies: Bryco Arms, Jennings Firearms, and Jimenez Arms.

Despite the hype by people looking to create a panic, semi-auto rifles never had that much to do with real gang crimes. There were a few instances of actual automatic weapons used, which had been smuggled into the country--and done so illegally because auto weapons are tightly regulated and have been since 1934. But despite the availability of the evil rifles California, gang capital of America, had 1,374 murders in 2007 by handgun, and 51 by rifle. More people--74--were killed with shotguns.

[sandnsea]

74. No, I don't

I said if I can't get you to admit the very simple fact that the AWB was due to gang violence, then there's no point in debating anything else with you.

2001. Half of all murders in L.A. were gang related.


The drop in the murder rate between 1993 and 2000 was substantial.

http://safestate.org/documents/local%20level,%20no.%203.pdf


The AWB worked. I don't care how many twisted up piles of statistics you want to toss around, it worked. Gun crime was down, and now it it's going back up.

Woohoo! Let's go shoot us some bad guys!

[benEzra]

76. And practically all gang-related murders involve HANDGUNS, NOT RIFLES.

In the state of California in 2007, there were 2,249 murders. All rifles COMBINED accounted for 51, or 2.2%, per the FBI.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/data/table_20.html

And if all those gang members are shooting people with rifles, how come there were only 4 rifle murders in the entire state of Illinois in 2007, out of 463 murders overall?

"Gang shooting" and "rifle shooting" are rarely synonymous. You appear to have confused the two.

And BTW, how do you think the AWB reduced rifle crime, considering that it (A) didn't ban civilian AK's, AR-15 type rifles, SKS's, etc., (B) didn't affect rifle magazine capacities or prices, and (C) INCREASED, not decreased, sales of AR's and civilian AK's 1994-2004 as compared to 1993 and prior?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

80. Your link this time is about LA where you admitted that assault weapons weren't the problem.

So apparently something other than the AWB decreased the murder rate in LA.

David

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

83. Your own link never mentions the AWB as a contributor to the decrease.

It does give credit to a successful program that had nothing to do with gun bans.


However, given that so much of the violence involves gangs, one might consider a
“pulling levers” strategy first developed by Boston’s Operation Ceasefire (also known as the Boston Gun Project.)
This nationally renowned intervention, implemented to address Boston’s youth gun violence problem during the
mid-1990s, exploited the social structure of gangs by making it known that if a gang continued to commit acts of
gun violence, then any member of that gang would receive increased attention from the criminal justice system by
stepping up such activities as probation/parole searches and the enforcement of non-felony warrants. At the same
time, the community and social service providers stood ready to offer their services and guidance to those youth
ready to eschew a violent lifestyle. The results were remarkable, with youth gun homicide rates falling to nearly zero
for an extended period of time.

page 18

http://safestate.org/documents/local%20level,%20no.%203.pdf

If you weren't so blinded by your fear and hatred of inanimate objects then maybe you could see the truth.

David

[friendly_iconoclast]

73. "The sun DOES TOO revolve around the Earth!"

Look, if all the statistics from multiple sources that have been quoted here are wrong, you need
to demonstrate exactly how instead of getting all pouty and acting put-upon when people question you.

You are asking us to believe you, and not published research from several sources (including
the FBI, the Justice Department, and an ex-President of the United States, among others).

I'd say the onus is on you to prove your thesis.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

79. You've accused people here of sacrificing lives so apparently "now" does have something....

to do with it. You can't have it both ways.

David

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

86. You are wrong, Bill Clinton, the DOJ and the FBI all say so.

[HALO141]

85. heheheh... Dude...

That was clear by the third post. ;)

[LuisCipher]

49. Wrong again.

You buddies at the gun control special interests HANDED the republicants a sweeping victory in the '94 election based the publics dislike of the so-called ban. Even Big Dog himself, Clinton admitted this:

Although initially heralded as a victory for Clinton and Democrats in congress, it proved costly. The bill energized the NRA and Republican base, and contributed to the Republican takeover of both houses in the 1994 mid-term elections. Many Democrats who had supported Clinton's gun control measures were ousted, including Speaker Tom Foley. Clinton acknowledged that he had hurt Democrats with his victories.

* Clinton, Bill. My Life. New York: Knopf Publishing Group, 2004.

[paulsby]

66. the vast majority supported invading iraq too

doesn't mean they were right.

now, that the evidence is out, minds changed.

even if the "vast majority" supported the AWB, it does not therefore follow that GIVEN the metric assloads of evidence that the AWB was a bunch of feel good legislation accomplishing nothing except harass law abiding gun owners, the intelligent thing to do is assess based on available evidence.

the majority is quite often wrong.

hth

[one-eyed fat man]

82. simple.............

...........you cannot deny the power of STUPID PEOPLE IN LARGE NUMBERS.

After all Galileo was vilified and ridiculed because EVERYONE knew the earth did not orbit the sun. Evidence to the contrary notwithstanding, you perception of gang-banger weapons sounds like you have been watching too many reruns of "Miami Vice."

[friendly_iconoclast]

57. You've been massively duped, you're lying, or the stats you've been given are cooked.

And if the stats that several people have shown here are false, give us some evidence of it.

Otherwise you are either naive in the extreme or perpetuating 'pious fraud'.

[paulsby]

65. i love the way this poster keeps accusing people

of being manipulated by the NRA and their talking points.

people fighting for gun rights are no more manipulated by the NRA and their talking points, then people fighting for reproductive freedom are being manipulated by NARAL and their talking points.

it's the same specious logic.

[benEzra]

33. You've been had.

The AWB ban was completely about trying to reduce gang crime and drive-by shootings.

...

Drive-bys, AWB ban was all about drive-bys and gang shootings. I'm not the one being dishonest or rewriting history.

You've been had. The "assault weapon" fraud was conceived as a way to build momentum for a ban on handguns, not because rifles of any description were a crime problem.

Chicago has a lot of gang problems, yes?

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/data/table_20.html

There were 463 murders in the entire state of Illinois in 2007. All rifles COMBINED accounted for 4 (yes, four) of them. That's zero point eight six percent. More state breakdowns:

Alabama, 385 murders in 2007; 7 with rifles.

Colorado, 150 murders; 0 with rifles.

Louisiana, 577 murders; 31 with rifles.

Maryland, 553 murders; 9 with rifles.

Michigan, 672 murders; 29 with rifles.

New York, 800 murders, 12 with rifles.

North Carolina (my state), 555 murders, 17 with rifles.

Oregon, 72 murders, 2 with rifles.

South Carolina, 349 murders, 6 with rifles.

Texas, 1419 murders, 58 with rifles.

Washington, 170 murders, 5 with rifles.


See a pattern here?

[yay]

89. obvius troll is obvious

[benEzra]

28. No, it most certainly did not. All rifles COMBINED account for only 3% of murders.

Twice as many people are murdered annually with shoes and bare hands as with all rifles combined.

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%
Hands, fists, feet, etc......................892............6.00%
Shotguns.....................................517............3.48%
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%
Hands, fists, feet, etc......................833............5.56%
Shotguns.....................................481............3.21%
Rifles.......................................436............2.91%

I haven't tabulated the 2007 UCR yet, but the rifle percentage is steady at 3%. Revolvers and pistols are the weapons of choice of criminals, NOT long guns, even though more Americans own so-called "assault weapons" than hunt.

[virginia mountainman]

19. You do realize, the most common crime guns

Are old .38 revolvers, and cheap .380, .25, and .22 pistols???

So called "assault weapons" that are the "chic" gun controler's wet dream, are rarely used.

[FudaFuda]

23. that' s because the govt. isn't concerned with pedestrian gun crime

it's the eradication of any potential for armed resistance that they want to accomplish.

ironically, the same motivation started the Revolutionary War at Lexington and Concord.

[itsasecret]

99. stupid

"the worst guns" and "the ones most commonly used in crime" are very different. Handguns are overwhelmingly the weapon of choice for criminals. They are also explicitly protected by DC vs Heller. By "the worst ones", I assume you mean "assault weapons". They are rarely used in crimes. All rifles account for something around 3%. Banning them won't have a significant effect on crime one way or the other (that was a principle reason Congress chose not to renew the '94 ban). If you believe "assault weapons" are commonly used to commit crimes, you've been duped and need to pull Paul Helmke's ass off your head.

[zipplewrath]

4. Different Point of View

His wife sees it as "proteccting their house". He is probably of the point of view that it was an exercise in futility, that if they had been attacked, the gun would have been far too little for the job. There is the "better than nothing" philosophy for some. Holder may see it more from a "it was the other guys with the guns" that was the problem. In the end I suspect Holder's positions are far more rooted in politics, than functionality.

[gorfle]

7. You'd be amazed.

He is probably of the point of view that it was an exercise in futility, that if they had been attacked, the gun would have been far too little for the job.

You'd be amazed the size of a crowd that suddenly becomes far less enthusiastic when a 12-gage barks.

[zipplewrath]

8. Yes, it's all in the assumptions

Presumptions about the utility of a weapon are heavily dependent upon the assumptions about the targets and their motivations.

[paulsby]

67. there are more than a few

shopkeepers in LA who saved their stores and lifetime's investment by possession of a simple 12 gauge.

[virginia mountainman]

14. HA HA!! WHAT DO YOU MEAN?!?! Too little for the job??!!?!?! ROFLMAO

A good 12 gauge shotgun, is just about the "PERFECT" weapon for home defence.

Anyone who has basic knowledge about how to use one, can hold off a large group of home invaders, rather easily with it.

[jeepnstein]

84. Good Point.

Have you ever tried to get someone out of a building who really doesn't want to go? It's even harder when they've got a shotgun. It doesn't have to be a "good" shotgun. Any piece of junk will do if that's all you've got.

If the Klan was coming for me you can darn well bet that I'd be digging in hard and make them earn it. That's the reason many gun laws were passed in the South. The hillbilly in me understands all too well that there are times when you have to protect your own because nobody else values them much at all.

The wonderful thing about being in America is that not too many people "need" a gun anymore. Most of them sit unused for years and years waiting for that trouble that never comes. It is our right to keep them, though, and I'm not in a mood for giving away any of my rights.

[yagotme]

98. Early gun control

You are correct, jeep, as many 1860's and later gun control laws in the South were designed to keep firearms from the black population, so's "whitey could have his way", so to speak.

[Tejas]

93. I agree

Holder doesn't "get it" because of (as you stated) his position being rooted in politics instead of functionality (ie: reality).

I would assume Holder is not stupid, does he think we (including his wife) are?

[jody]

94. RE "does he think we (including his wife) are?" IMO yes and that's what happens when sovereign

individuals give up their inalienable/unalienable rights to an all powerful central government.

There is never a shortage of candidates for offices giving them the power to dictate what's best for the common man/woman.

For those who want to dictate to me every act I perform, I have one simple reply,

[Xela]

9. Ouch...

...that's a great catch jody, thanks for sharing.

Xela

[C......N......C]

11. Guns lose elections

I believe that the Republican Congressinal win in Clintons era and Bushes first victory were because of the Clinton Gun Stand. Why do they want to mess with that again ?

[Iktomiwicasa]

12. Politicians are

basically dumb fucks. That's why they don't, you know, have real jobs.

[dashrif]

88. your facts are wrong benEzra please update to this

Total murders.............................14,860..........100.00%
Handguns...................................7,543...........50.76%
Other weapons (non firearm, non bayonet)...1,954...........13.15%
Fixed bayonet on assault weapons...........1,914...........12.88%
Firearms (type unknown)....................1,598...........10.75%
Hands, fists, feet, etc......................892............6.00%
Shotguns.....................................517............3.48%
assault weapons..............................442............2.97%

So the real total for assault weapons is 15.85% we must do something bayonet charges will rise with the price of ammo going nuts. Please we have to stop this before some nut has a bayo rampage and takes out a whole mall, it is to deadly for anyone to have. You my ask me why because it never needs reloading and a full speed charge with lots of screaming can defeat body armor.

old usmc training vid http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eI2Ef7sH8c
redneck improved bayonet my god no we are so doomed http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-ScV2jFiUg
proof on how deadly a fixed bayonet can be in trained hands watch the buttstroke to the head http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDeyGrUV-CI

Please sign my petition to outlaw bayonet lugs on assault weapons if gangs found out about them entire cities would perish overnight

1.Dashrif
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

[C......N......C]

90. Remember this.

Anti gun people don't like a few types of guns. They don't want you to have any guns at all. Attacks on sensational weapons or events are openings to attack and remove all guns. WOES

[one-eyed fat man]

95. Sixty-five Democrat House Members...........

respectfully tell Eric Holder to "piss up a rope."

Congessional Open Letter to Eric Holder

[jody]

96. Obama was forced to concede when every major veterans organization opposed his plan for the

"(VA) health care system to bill a veteran’s insurance for the care and treatment of a disability or injury that was determined to have been incurred in or the result of the veteran’s honorable military service to our country."

When will Obama bow to the inevitable and tell voters, "I will veto any bill that renews the assault weapons ban and I've removed from the White House web site the statement that offends over 80 million gun owners, i.e. Obama and Biden 'support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent'"

"Dear President Obama:" don't mess with disabled veterans.

The American Legion
1608 K Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20006
[phone]
www.legion.org

AMVETS (American Veterans)
4647 Forbes Blvd.
Lanham, MD 20706
[phone]
www.amvets.org

Blinded Veterans Association
477 H Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20001
[phone]
www.bva.org

Disabled American Veterans
807 Maine Avenue, S.W.
Washington, DC 20024
[phone]
www.dav.org

Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America
308 Massachusetts Ave NE
Washington, DC 20002
[phone]
www.iava.org

Jewish War Veterans of the USA
1811 R Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20009
[phone]
www.jwv.org

Military Officers Association of America
201 N. Washington Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
[phone]
www.moaa.org

Military Order of the Purple Heart
of the U.S.A., Inc.
5413-B Backlick Road
Springfield, VA 22151
[phone]
www.purpleheart.org

Paralyzed Veterans of America
801 18th Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20006
[phone]
www.pva.org

Veterans of Foreign Wars
of the United States
200 Maryland Avenue, N.E.
Washington, DC 20002
[phone]
www.vfw.org

Vietnam Veterans of America, Inc.
8605 Cameron Street, Suite 400
Silver Spring, MD 20910
[phone]
www.vva.org

[Iktomiwicasa]

97. Why be respectful about it?

Anyone who wants to strip constitutional rights deserves no respect.