Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Charlie Foxtrot

NYT Admits to the the Assault Weapon Myth

Recommended Posts

But at least somebody did something at one time or another......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But at least somebody did something at one time or another......

 

Assault weapons bans are the Kardashians of the gun nuts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

But at least somebody did something at one time or another......

Assault weapons bans are the Kardashians of the gun nuts.

 

It's like blaming the high beam switch for drunk driving deaths......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

But at least somebody did something at one time or another......

 

If it saved just one child, it was worth it

 

'Cause every right-thinking apparatchik knows that all those years of lying to the American people has been totally worth it.

 

BTW: Happy Constitution Day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

But at least somebody did something at one time or another......

Assault weapons bans are the Kardashians of the gun nuts.

 

It's like blaming the high beam switch for drunk driving deaths......

 

Ever since they moved it off that big galvanized button on the floor it's pissed me off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The last part of the article is going to make jocal's head explode:

 

 

Mr. Landrieu and Mayor Michael A. Nutter of Philadelphia are founders of Cities United, a network of mayors trying to prevent the deaths of young black men. “This is not just a gun issue, this is an unemployment issue, it’s a poverty issue, it’s a family issue, it’s a culture of violence issue,” Mr. Landrieu said.

More than 20 years of research funded by the Justice Department has found that programs to target high-risk people or places, rather than targeting certain kinds of guns, can reduce gun violence.

 

 

But what does the Justice dept know??? Better to concentrate on banning Barrett .50 cal sniper rifles from being sold at Walmart than doing anything like was is suggested in the article - right joe?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ban was just another triumph style over substance.

 

That might explain its continued popularity...

 

 

Majority of Americans support a ban on assault rifles.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

Oh, now you've done it; Randumb is foaming at the mouth, and 505 is plotting a sneak spam attack.

 

Is that what he does?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I try to do is to present facts, actually.

 

One solid evidence-based fact about the AW ban is that even though it had been gutted and it had accepted loopholes, some success is reflected in the absence of the anemic "ban".

Va. data show drop in criminal firepower during assault weapons ban

By David S. Fallis and James V. Grimaldi

Washington Post Staff Writers

Sunday, January 23, 2011; 9:17 AM

The number of guns with high-capacity magazines seized by Virginia police dropped during a decade-long federal prohibition on assault weapons, but the rate has rebounded sharply since the ban was lifted in late 2004, according to a Washington Post analysis.[...]

Last year in Virginia, guns with high-capacity magazines amounted to 22 percent of the weapons recovered and reported by police. In 2004, when the ban expired, the rate had reached a low of 10 percent. In each year since then, the rate has gone up.

 

"Maybe the federal ban was finally starting to make a dent in the market by the time it ended," said Christopher Koper, head of research at the Police Executive Research Forum, who studied the assault weapons ban for the National Institute of Justice, the research arm of the Justice Department.[...]

 

The pattern in Virginia "may be a pivotal piece of evidence" that the assault weapons ban eventually had an impact on the proliferation of high-capacity magazines on the streets, said Garen Wintemute, head of the Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of California at Davis.

"Many people, me included, were skeptical about the chances that the magazine ban would make a difference back in 1994," Wintemute said. "But what I am seeing here is that after a few years' lag time the prevalence of high-capacity magazines was declining. The increase since the ban's repeal is quite striking."

The analysis by The Post is possible because of a little-known database of guns seized in Virginia. The database, called the Criminal Firearms Clearinghouse, has information on more than 100,000 firearms recovered by more than 200 local police departments since 1993. A federal law in 2003, known as the Tiahrt Amendment after the congressman who sponsored it, banned the release of federal data on guns recovered in crimes.

Last year, The Post mined the database to pierce the secrecy imposed by Congress on federal gun-tracing records. The analysis found that a fraction of licensed dealers in Virginia sell most of guns later seized by police. The vast majority of the guns in the database were confiscated because of illegal-possession charges. But thousands were swept up in the wake of assaults, robberies and shootings.

 

Tom Diaz on the weak 1994 AW Ban

The 1994 assault weapons ban was so compromised that it amounted to almost nothing. The law was meaningless. All this political capital was expended. It didn't work and now it's expired. We wasted ten years.

 

Assault weapon bans have been proven to be effective

The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban was effective at reducing crime and getting these military-style weapons off our streets. Since the ban expired, more than 350 people have been killed and more than 450 injured by these weapons.

  • A Justice Department study of the assault weapons ban found that it was responsible for a 6.7% decrease in total gun murders, holding all other factors equal.
  • Source: Jeffrey A. Roth & Christopher S. Koper, “Impact Evaluation of the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act of 1994,” (March 1997).


  • The same study also found that “Assault weapons are disproportionately involved in murders with multiple victims, multiple wounds per victim, and police officers as victims.”

  • The use of assault weapons in crime declined by more than two-thirds by about nine years after 1994 Assault Weapons Ban took effect.



  • Source: Christopher S. Koper, “An Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003” (June 2004), University of Pennsylvania, Report to the National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice.


  • The percentage of firearms seized by police in Virginia that had high-capacity magazines dropped significantly during the ban. That figure has doubled since the ban expired.


  • Source: David S. Fallis and James V. Grimaldi, “In Virginia, high-yield clip seizures rise,” Washington Post, at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/22/AR2011012204046.html



  • When Maryland imposed a more stringent ban on assault pistols and high-capacity magazines in 1994, it led to a 55% drop in assault pistols recovered by the Baltimore Police Department.

  • Source: Douglas S. Weil & Rebecca C. Knox, Letter to the Editor, The Maryland Ban on the Sale of Assault Pistols and High-Capacity Magazines: Estimating the Impact in Baltimore, 87 Am. J. of Public Health 2, Feb. 1997.


  • 37% of police departments reported seeing a noticeable increase in criminals’ use of assault weapons since the 1994 federal ban expired.


  • Source: Police Executive Research Forum, Guns and Crime: Breaking New Ground by Focusing on the Local Impact (May 2010).

aamoneyofthegunlobby_zps82bd3410.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

More Than Half of Mass Shooters Used Assault Weapons and High-Capacity Magazines

Congress considers banning weapons that have caused carnage in shopping malls, schools, and city streets.

—By Mark Follman, Gavin Aronsen, and Jaeah Lee

| Wed Feb. 27, 2013 3:01 AM PST

 

[...] Using this criteria we found:

  • 42 guns with high-capacity magazines, across 31 mass-shooting cases
  • 20 assault weapons, across 14 mass-shooting cases
  • 33 cases involving assault weapons or high-capacity magazines (or both)

A total of 48 of these weapons (accounting for the overlap between the two categories) would be illegal under the new legislation.*

Feinstein's Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 isn't just about mass shootings, of course. By far the most common weapons used in these cases are semi-automatic handguns—the type of weapon also at the heart of the daily gun violence plaguing American communities. Banning high-capacity magazines may be especially key with regard to these guns, not only because they're popular among mass shooters, but also because they tend to increase casualties in street violence, as a veteran ATDick metcalfF agent explained to us in a recent interview.

The devices have appeal on the streets. A Chicago high school student recently described his preference for 30-round magazines to a reporter for This American Life: "They got the most shots. You can shoot forever. Let out 15. Run back to where you going. Somebody else come out and let out five more. There you go."

Don't miss our yearlong investigation into gun laws and mass shootings. And click here for the full view of the below data set.

Pasted from <http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/02/assault-weapons-high-capacity-magazines-mass-shootings-feinstein

 

 

aakingkongress_zps3d01ac2e.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of my old 'tenants'. She could suck the (as)salt out of a Lollipop.....

 

 

 

1410111870.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

SPAM alert ^^^^^^^^^^^

Got it let him cling to whatever ideology he draws comfort from...

 

If It weren't for Johnson. ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I try to do is to present facts, actually.

 

One solid evidence-based fact about the AW ban is that even though it had been gutted and it had accepted loopholes, some success is reflected in the absence of the anemic "ban".

 

So do you think we need a non-gutted one without loopholes?

 

Which loopholes were objectionable, anyway? The one that let people keep existing guns perhaps? What's the alternative to letting people keep their guns? Try to answer without using the "b" word or the "c" word or any synonyms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

 

What I try to do is to present facts, actually.

 

One solid evidence-based fact about the AW ban is that even though it had been gutted and it had accepted loopholes, some success is reflected in the absence of the anemic "ban".

 

So do you think we need a non-gutted one without loopholes?

 

Which loopholes were objectionable, anyway? The one that let people keep existing guns perhaps? What's the alternative to letting people keep their guns? Try to answer without using the "b" word or the "c" word or any synonyms.

 

hmmmm wonder what his rebuttal is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If history is any guide, a bunch of copy/pastes from the VPC all stuffed into one unreadably long post, none of it related to my question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If history is any guide, a bunch of copy/pastes from the VPC all stuffed into one unreadably long post, none of it related to my question.

 

I'll put $5 on that exact scenario. Any takers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

What I try to do is to present facts, actually.

 

One solid evidence-based fact about the AW ban is that even though it had been gutted and it had accepted loopholes, some success is reflected in the absence of the anemic "ban".

So do you think we need a non-gutted one without loopholes?

 

Which loopholes were objectionable, anyway? The one that let people keep existing guns perhaps? What's the alternative to letting people keep their guns? Try to answer without using the "b" word or the "c" word or any synonyms.

 

 

Classifing "AR"s (however they may be defined) as "any other weapon" under the GCA of '68 would satisfy your criteria. If there's been a felony conviction involving a violent crime with a registered Class III device, I'm unaware of it.

 

Fruitless speculation, though. Unless or until something as large as an insurrection occurs there won't be any movement on the issue. This period reminds me of the late 70's to mid 80's apocalyptic, survivalist movements. "Prepare for the End Times"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

What I try to do is to present facts, actually.

 

One solid evidence-based fact about the AW ban is that even though it had been gutted and it had accepted loopholes, some success is reflected in the absence of the anemic "ban".

So do you think we need a non-gutted one without loopholes?

 

Which loopholes were objectionable, anyway? The one that let people keep existing guns perhaps? What's the alternative to letting people keep their guns? Try to answer without using the "b" word or the "c" word or any synonyms.

 

I won't use the "badgeless" word as soon as you get a badge.

And I won't use the "choir" word when your demagoguery is silenced.

 

Hmmm, here you seem to be defending assault weapons in a gun-torn society, in the name of libertarian principle.

Yet the indiscriminate CCP guns you propose deny others the due process of justice, on our streets.

 

 

 

 

thebullettbutton_zpsfc186f41.jpg

 

 

 

 

Once upon a time LBJ gathered Peter Lawford's Hollywood cronies, including Frank Sinatra and Dean Martin, to cobble together the Gun Conrtol Act of 1968.

It was gutted so badly before passing that the principals involved were demoralized at the final product.

 

In a similar way, there were myriad challenges made to the AW ban in '94. The major concessions? Off the top of my head: the 10-year time limit, a list of only 19 particular weapons to be banned, the grandfather clauses on both weapons and high-capacity magazines, the forgiving definitions of "cosmetic" features, and on how many such features were allowed.

 

The "successful passing" of the "Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act" was a tragic stream of mis-deeds; it would make good comedy except for the human damage done on several levels.

 

You pretend high expectations of the gutted ban, eh? You expect "dry" in the middle of a bathtub, when you filled both ends of the tub.

 

 

TheCaliforniare-load_zps10572d7f.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

What I try to do is to present facts, actually.

 

One solid evidence-based fact about the AW ban is that even though it had been gutted and it had accepted loopholes, some success is reflected in the absence of the anemic "ban".

So do you think we need a non-gutted one without loopholes?

 

Which loopholes were objectionable, anyway? The one that let people keep existing guns perhaps? What's the alternative to letting people keep their guns? Try to answer without using the "b" word or the "c" word or any synonyms.

 

.... there were myriad challenges made to the AW ban in '94. The major concessions? Off the top of my head: the 10-year time limit, a list of only 19 particular weapons to be banned, the grandfather clauses on both weapons and high-capacity magazines, the forgiving definitions of "cosmetic" features, and on how many such features were allowed.

 

So if you don't grandfather in existing weapons and magazines, what do you do with them instead?

 

Try to answer without using the "c" word or any synonym.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

 

 

 

 

What I try to do is to present facts, actually.

 

One solid evidence-based fact about the AW ban is that even though it had been gutted and it had accepted loopholes, some success is reflected in the absence of the anemic "ban".

So do you think we need a non-gutted one without loopholes?

 

Which loopholes were objectionable, anyway? The one that let people keep existing guns perhaps? What's the alternative to letting people keep their guns? Try to answer without using the "b" word or the "c" word or any synonyms.

 

.... there were myriad challenges made to the AW ban in '94. The major concessions? Off the top of my head: the 10-year time limit, a list of only 19 particular weapons to be banned, the grandfather clauses on both weapons and high-capacity magazines, the forgiving definitions of "cosmetic" features, and on how many such features were allowed.

 

So if you don't grandfather in existing weapons and magazines, what do you do with them instead?

 

Try to answer without using the "c" word or any synonym.

 

 

Jocal is swimming in a river from Egypt. Like many, many others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish some smart liberal would tell me what an assault weapon is. We really need to know this so we can ban them and protect the public.

 

The judge in the NY SAFE act teed off on the definition of AW's, then commented it was little problem.

It's amusing that 50% of the Wiki article on that act is a pro-gun rant.

The court examined the nature of AW's, then examined their place in society.

 

 

...But Plaintiffs later argue that the banned features increase the utility for self-defense — which is just another way of saying that the features increase their lethality.

...There thus can be no serious dispute that the very features that increase a weapon’s utility for self-defense also increase its dangerousness to the public at large.

Here, New York has met that burden; substantial evidence supports its judgment that the banned features are unusually dangerous, commonly associated with military combat situations, and are commonly found on weapons used in mass shootings. […]

The State points to other evidence as well. It suggests that it should come as no surprise that assault weapons produced carnage in Aurora and Newtown, as The Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms found that these weapons “were designed for rapid fire, close quarter shooting at human beings” — or, as the report called it, “mass produced mayhem.” In other words, evidence suggests that the banned features make a deadly weapon deadlier.

And while there is not (and cannot be) a dispute that the outlawed features make semiautomatic weapons easier to use, New York identifies purposes of these features that are particularly unnecessary for lawful use. Of course, several of the banned features, like a grenade launcher, bayonet mount, or a silencer, require no explanation. Indeed, Plaintiffs do not explicitly argue that the Act’s regulation of firearms with these features violates the Second Amendment.

 

 

aacharltonhestonluckovich_zps9c280fda.jp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just banning new ones won't protect the public. You also have to do something with the ones in circulation. That something shouldn't be to grandfather them in. It should be something else. Still waiting to hear what else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just banning new ones won't protect the public. You also have to do something with the ones in circulation. That something shouldn't be to grandfather them in. It should be something else. Still waiting to hear what else.

 

I'm still waiting to find out what an "assault weapon" is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

What I try to do is to present facts, actually.

 

One solid evidence-based fact about the AW ban is that even though it had been gutted and it had accepted loopholes, some success is reflected in the absence of the anemic "ban".

So do you think we need a non-gutted one without loopholes?

 

Which loopholes were objectionable, anyway? The one that let people keep existing guns perhaps? What's the alternative to letting people keep their guns? Try to answer without using the "b" word or the "c" word or any synonyms.

 

.... there were myriad challenges made to the AW ban in '94. The major concessions? Off the top of my head: the 10-year time limit, a list of only 19 particular weapons to be banned, the grandfather clauses on both weapons and high-capacity magazines, the forgiving definitions of "cosmetic" features, and on how many such features were allowed.

 

So if you don't grandfather in existing weapons and magazines, what do you do with them instead?

 

Try to answer without using the "c" word or any synonym.

 

 

Meh, word games.

Edit. But in time their purchase and ownership needs to be re-considered.

 

Actually, Tom, easy on the commands, you have a few substantive questions I've asked which you are avoiding.

 

1. For one, you need to address the denial of a perp's civil liberties when one of these CCW's gets used.

We used to have laws and courts to dispense such justice; street justice by gunfire is not a constitutional advancement.

You need to cover the moral overtones for me wrt a basic: Thou Shalt Not Kill.

 

2. Next, you have the nerve to cite MLK as a cause for shall issue, thus you are quick, repeatedly, with such a race card. Explain why you are promoting guns in the black community, but I can cite that their own leaders want fewer guns.

 

3. And you seem to be dancing around some solid points I raised about both Gary Kleck's numbers

and his claims that illegal gun use was driving his DGU theory. You cited his numbers as your DGU justification, so man-up.

I gathered and presented 20 sources refuting the "More guns, less crime" theory. Do you get my point there? Care to match me?

No comment? Seriously?

 

4. You were fibbing about researchers in general, too, and maligning Dr. Kellerman as a failed scientist.

Can you cite any credible evidence to back that up? Did he cook his numbers in those Emergency Room treatises he wrote, too?

 

5. Can you explain why the "anti's" somehow have only crooked scientists, but the pro-rights side has no scientists?

How does that work?

 

 

 

Tomadvocacyandabignose_zps1252a248.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Just banning new ones won't protect the public. You also have to do something with the ones in circulation. That something shouldn't be to grandfather them in. It should be something else. Still waiting to hear what else.

 

I'm still waiting to find out what an "assault weapon" is.

 

Then you are a child, NGS. With childish thoughts, and a childish level of communication.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

What I try to do is to present facts, actually.

 

One solid evidence-based fact about the AW ban is that even though it had been gutted and it had accepted loopholes, some success is reflected in the absence of the anemic "ban".

So do you think we need a non-gutted one without loopholes?

 

Which loopholes were objectionable, anyway? The one that let people keep existing guns perhaps? What's the alternative to letting people keep their guns? Try to answer without using the "b" word or the "c" word or any synonyms.

 

.... there were myriad challenges made to the AW ban in '94. The major concessions? Off the top of my head: the 10-year time limit, a list of only 19 particular weapons to be banned, the grandfather clauses on both weapons and high-capacity magazines, the forgiving definitions of "cosmetic" features, and on how many such features were allowed.

 

So if you don't grandfather in existing weapons and magazines, what do you do with them instead?

 

Try to answer without using the "c" word or any synonym.

 

 

Meh, word games.

Edit. But in time their purchase and ownership needs to be re-considered.

 

And when purchase and ownership gets reconsidered, what then?

 

Go ahead. Man up, own your own views, and use the "c" word. It's not that hard and I'll only embarrass you a little bit about your repeated claims that no one wants to confiscate guns.

 

Oops, I used the "c" word and let your cat out of the bag.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, Tom, easy on the commands, you have a few substantive questions I've asked which you are avoiding.

 

1. For one, you need to address the denial of a perp's civil liberties when one of these CCW's gets used.

We used to have laws and courts to dispense such justice; street justice by gunfire is not a constitutional advancement.

You need to cover the moral overtones for me wrt a basic: Thou Shalt Not Kill.

 

2. Next, you have the nerve to cite MLK as a cause for shall issue, thus you are quick, repeatedly, with such a race card. Explain why you are promoting guns in the black community, but I can cite that their own leaders want fewer guns.

 

3. And you seem to be dancing around some solid points I raised about both Gary Kleck's numbers

and his claims that illegal gun use was driving his DGU theory. You cited his numbers as your DGU justification, so man-up.

I gathered and presented 20 sources refuting the "More guns, less crime" theory. Do you get my point there? Care to match me?

No comment? Seriously?

 

4. You were fibbing about researchers in general, too, and maligning Dr. Kellerman as a failed scientist.

Can you cite any credible evidence to back that up? Did he cook his numbers in those Emergency Room treatises he wrote, too?

 

5. Can you explain why the "anti's" somehow have only crooked scientists, but the pro-rights side has no scientists?

How does that work?

 

1. Perps who have threatened someone's life have given up their own right to life in doing so.

 

2. Gun control has always been racist, and still is today with policies like "stop and frisk" and "may or may not issue" permits. Quit advocating that our officials be allowed to use race to dispense our rights and I will quit complaining about your advocacy of racist policies.

 

3. If you're going to try to get me to defend the "more guns less crime" thing I'm going to again ask you where I said that. Again, you'll have to admit that I did not.

 

4. Was Kellermann right about that "43 times myth" or not? You know he wasn't. He later cut the number in half after his research was criticized. The fact that I did not paste the whole thing here does not mean it didn't happen.

 

5. You must be addressing someone else, as I never made either claim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JokeAwf distrusts all of the FBI's stats. He only trusts those from psuedo intellectuals who wear cordaroy jackets with elbow patches, have never gone outside in their lives and come up with 'studies' by picking up the phone in the middle of the day and calling two dozen lonely, unemployed housewives and asking them their views on gun control......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JokeAwf distrusts all of the FBI's stats. He only trusts those from psuedo intellectuals who wear cordaroy jackets with elbow patches, have never gone outside in their lives and come up with 'studies' by picking up the phone in the middle of the day and calling two dozen lonely, unemployed housewives and asking them their views on gun control......

 

I would suspect that the dropoff in violent crime would be more related to CCW than assault rifles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

JokeAwf distrusts all of the FBI's stats. He only trusts those from psuedo intellectuals who wear cordaroy jackets with elbow patches, have never gone outside in their lives and come up with 'studies' by picking up the phone in the middle of the day and calling two dozen lonely, unemployed housewives and asking them their views on gun control......

 

I would suspect that the dropoff in violent crime would be more related to CCW than assault rifles.

 

Oh, oh......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone know if Biden and Quayle are related? .....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone know if Biden and Quayle are related? .....

 

Quaile couldn't spell. Joe believe in premature 12Ga ejaculation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then you are a child, NGS. With childish thoughts, and a childish level of communication.

 

Tomadvocacyandabignose_zps1252a248.png

 

Ummm, childish? Really?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

JokeAwf distrusts all of the FBI's stats. He only trusts those from psuedo intellectuals who wear cordaroy jackets with elbow patches, have never gone outside in their lives and come up with 'studies' by picking up the phone in the middle of the day and calling two dozen lonely, unemployed housewives and asking them their views on gun control......

I would suspect that the dropoff in violent crime would be more related to CCW than assault rifles.

Legal abortion has also played a big part in violent crime dropping the last 20 years

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Then you are a child, NGS. With childish thoughts, and a childish level of communication.

 

>Tomadvocacyandabignose_zps1252a248.png

 

Ummm, childish? Really?

 

 

What Tom is quoted as saying is not the truth.

The rest is imagery and sense of humor, eh?

Like this one:

 

 

EpicJeffbignosetoo_zps86be97f7.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

TheCaliforniare-load_zps10572d7f.png

 

Given that the definition of an assault weapon is cosmetic, what do you expect?

 

Bumper sticker crap, Saorsa.

 

These "cosmetics" are designed for human slaughter. They are dangerous, and marketed (at a buck a shot) directly at weak minds and the dangerous side...of fine men.

 

The plus side of AW's in a civilized society, on a broader human scale, is quite debatable.

Let's add that they are not a social positive if their image is levered to foster insurrection and to jack up treasonous trains of thought.

 

There are no zombies out there. Just sayin'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish some smart liberal would tell me what an assault weapon is. We really need to know this so we can ban them and protect the public.

 

I'll bite.

whatisanassaultweapon_zps44464355.jpeg

 

MeetDavidKeene_zpse3c2af87.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I wish some smart liberal would tell me what an assault weapon is. We really need to know this so we can ban them and protect the public.

 

I'll bite.

whatisanassaultweapon_zps44464355.jpeg

Removing which of those would make the gun safe?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I wish some smart liberal would tell me what an assault weapon is. We really need to know this so we can ban them and protect the public.

 

I'll bite.

whatisanassaultweapon_zps44464355.jpeg

Removing which of those would make the gun safe?

 

The magazine? Other than that - I don't see how the rest of the stuff matters, except for looking scary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I wish some smart liberal would tell me what an assault weapon is. We really need to know this so we can ban them and protect the public.

 

I'll bite.

whatisanassaultweapon_zps44464355.jpeg

Removing which of those would make the gun safe?

 

The magazine? Other than that - I don't see how the rest of the stuff matters, except for looking scary.

 

Check the chamber before making that conclusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When manufacturers made semi autos that removed all those features under the Clinton era AWB, it was called a loophole or circumventing the law.

 

People are already calling this a loophole in the NY law

 

http://troydefense.com/troy-sporting-rifle/

 

It is not even a semi auto, but a pump action. It does physically resemble an AR15 though, and for the ignorant that is all that matters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I wish some smart liberal would tell me what an assault weapon is. We really need to know this so we can ban them and protect the public.

 

I'll bite.

whatisanassaultweapon_zps44464355.jpeg

Removing which of those would make the gun safe?

 

The magazine? Other than that - I don't see how the rest of the stuff matters, except for looking scary.

 

Yes, it's that 11th round that can be fatal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wooden stocks reduce lethality & save lives....

 

They do look prettier. This'n couldn't hurt nobody.

 

ar15_wood.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wooden stocks reduce lethality & save lives....

The wood ones are too easy to cut off with a saw though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wooden stocks reduce lethality & save lives....

 

Sometimes... I don't think the wood stock on the AK47 I just bought is going to make any of em feel better. People have seen terrorists and bad guys with wood stocked AKs, so those are evil as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Wooden stocks reduce lethality & save lives....

 

They do look prettier. This'n couldn't hurt nobody.

 

ar15_wood.jpg

 

Waitaminute - the selector switch on that rifle is missing a position!

 

Mebbe it's not marked

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

What Tom is quoted as saying is not the truth.

The rest is imagery and sense of humor, eh?

Like this one:

 

 

EpicJeffbignosetoo_zps86be97f7.png

 

Wow - you are like Sol's Pitchers on Steroids. Got a lot of time on yer hands?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fact-Checking Feinstein

The Democrat senator relies on a 1997 study to declare her gun ban a success–but that study’s findings have been discredited by more recent studies.

 

...

 

One of the authors of the study Feinstein cited even said the results were only preliminary and have since been superseded by more recent research. ...

 

“The weight of evidence that was gathered and analyzed across the two reports suggested that initial drop in the gun murder rate must have been due to other factors besides the assault weapons ban,” Koper said.

 

After losing the NY Times and the main researcher she's been quoting, it takes a special kind of devotion to fantasy to continue pushing the idea that her mean looking weapons ban was a good idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JokeAwf distrusts all of the FBI's stats. He only trusts those from psuedo intellectuals who wear cordaroy jackets with elbow patches, have never gone outside in their lives and come up with 'studies' by picking up the phone in the middle of the day and calling two dozen lonely, unemployed housewives and asking them their views on gun control......

I nominate this for POTW. Well said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I wish some smart liberal would tell me what an assault weapon is. We really need to know this so we can ban them and protect the public.

 

I'll bite.

whatisanassaultweapon_zps44464355.jpeg

 

O FUK ME! I tried to pass on this one but I just can't let this go.

 

OK, jojo - no more cunt-n-pastes and childish pics. I want an answer in your own words.....

 

1. How does a "flash-hider" enable the slaughter of humans? How many mass shootings have been at night? Have you seen how effective an AR-15 FH is at night? Its still a big fucking flash.

 

2. How many people have been bayoneted in the US in the last 100 years? How many crimes have been perpetrated because there was a lug to attach a blade to the rifle?

 

3. We've beat the mag thing to death, so don't bother.

 

4. So again, what does the pistol grip, in YOUR MIND, bring to the fight that makes the rifle more dangerous than one without? Your little shit picture says its to control recoil and makes it easier for people with little hands. Which is it? Do you even know how much recoil an AR-15 has has? Maybe I could see the pistol grip ban if we were under sustained attacked by terrorist midgets.

 

5. Telescoping stock - WTF? How many mass shooters snuck a rifle into school under the jacket? An AR-15 shortens by less than 4 inches. Now granted that's longer than your dick.... but do you really think that's going to change the concealability?

 

So again, in your own words - please explain how this gun is perfectly safe and not menacing and dangerous

 

ar15_wood.jpg

Yet this gun is a menace to society:

cmmg_AR15_M4_LE.jpg

 

Edit to add: Back to the silly bayonet lug.... One thing no one thinks about on a civilian version AR-15 is that the barrel length is 16" and the mil version is 14.5". The bayonet attaches to the barrel and then the but of the bayonet clicks into the lug. Bayonets made for Mil std M-4s will not work on a civilian version of the AR-15. The bayonet would have to be 1.5 inches longer to fit on an AR15. I suppose you could get a fake bayonet that would fit. But again.... WTF would you want to bayonet someone???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to avoid parsing the details of these battlefield-designed weapons.They are what they are. An AW is like porn, you kinda know it when you see it. But culturally edifying, assault weapons are not.

 

Based on features (I suppose), AW's are used widely in mass shootings (significantly, in something like 32 of 64 mass shootings, according to Mother Jones). They are just not a plus in our society.

 

Because mass shootings have more than doubled in the past six years. This study came out a few days ago.

 

 

Mass shootings have occurred in the United States with increasing frequency over the past 14 years, with 486 people killed in 160 incidents, according to an FBI analysis released on Wednesday.

 

There were an average of 16.4 active-shooter incidents from 2007 through 2013, more than double the 6.4 average from 2000 to 2006, the report found.

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-mass-shootings-fbi-report-20140924-story.html> http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/24/us-usa-shooting-fbi-idUSKCN0HJ2E820140924?feedType=RSS> http://abcnews.go.com/politics/wirestory/fbi-releases-report-mass-shootings-us-25728229>

 

 

Which exposes the extremism and social irresponsibility of this statement. (Tom's big gun here is some very early, non-intrinsic study in 1997. This cherry picking can be easily challenged, Tom.)

 

Tom Ray, Post 64, above: After losing the NY Times and the main researcher she's (Feinstein's) been quoting, it takes a special kind of devotion to fantasy to continue pushing the idea that her mean looking weapons ban was a good idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So after due consideration of these undesirable weapons, what do you want to do instead of grandfathering in existing guns in the next ban?

 

 

I mean, you know that was an objectionable loophole and you've done all this research... No conclusion?

 

If you ban them and prohibit people from keeping existing ones, what happens to those existing ones instead?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

What Tom is quoted as saying is not the truth.

The rest is imagery and sense of humor, eh?

Like this one:

 

 

EpicJeffbignosetoo_zps86be97f7.png

 

Wow - you are like Sol's Pitchers on Steroids. Got a lot of time on yer hands?

 

This poster will ALWAYS be a favorite of mine. It exposes the rotten mental fabric employed by Jeff, and by others.

It re-iterates my beef about the lack of integrity of the pro-gun apologists.

Honesty has become another casualty in the pro-gun influence on modern culture.

WTF? You guys no longer seem to feel you need to stand on the facts.

 

Let the facts (and let the poster art) show: Jeff was blaming black street gangs as the dominant force in U.S. violence, long after he knew better.

This fact, that about 85% of gun homicide victims know their attacker, sheds a different light on gun ownership.

The good news: Jeff's repeated fibbing (for five months) got that fact aired out repeatedly.

Thanks, Jeff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So after due consideration of these undesirable weapons, what do you want to do instead of grandfathering in existing guns in the next ban?

 

 

I mean, you know that was an objectionable loophole and you've done all this research... No conclusion?

 

If you ban them and prohibit people from keeping existing ones, what happens to those existing ones instead?

What I'd like is an honest assessment of the devastation of these guns, and other guns, in our society.

I think a time will come when society will see through the current dishonesty in play, and will choose to relinquish guns.

Meanwhile, I'd sure like for someone to turn off the dishonesty machine.

 

Guns are not freedom per se.

Confiscation is not imminent, it is a fearmonger juke.

Gathering facts is knowledge; obstructing the gathering of facts is ignorance.

 

I've looked pretty hard into the post-1974 developments of your philosophy. I haven't formulated solutions (after wading through your volume of 24-7 misinformation), but I see an ugly direction in which guns are taking us.

 

I wouldn't accept your take on this matter, O Badgeless One, as far as I could throw a Greyhound Bus.

 

fingersinearsgunresearchbandoesntexist_z

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

 

So after due consideration of these undesirable weapons, what do you want to do instead of grandfathering in existing guns in the next ban?

 

 

I mean, you know that was an objectionable loophole and you've done all this research... No conclusion?

 

If you ban them and prohibit people from keeping existing ones, what happens to those existing ones instead?

 

What I'd like is an honest assessment of the devastation of these guns, and other guns, in our society.

I think a time will come when society will see through the current dishonesty in play, and will choose to relinquish guns.

Meanwhile, I'd sure like for someone to turn off the dishonesty machine.

 

Guns are not freedom.

Confiscation is not imminent, it is a fearmonger juke.

Gathering facts is knowledge; obstructing the gathering of facts is ignorance.

 

I've looked pretty hard into the post-1974 developments of your philosophy. I haven't formulated solutions (after wading through your volume of 24-7 misinformation), but I see an ugly direction in which guns are taking us.

 

I wouldn't accept your slant on this matter, O Badgeless One, as far as I could throw a Greyhound Bus.

 

fingersinearsgunresearchbandoesntexist_z

 

Sol must be proud of you.

 

Pitchers with words.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody cares about your partisan, politically-motivated, junk science, Jokeawf. Nobody.

Nobody gives a ratfuck what you think.

 

There was a conversation about guns in America which took place about 250 years ago. The result of that conversation was the 2A. Your type lost.

 

Get over it. Go away. Go home. Find another outlet for your obsessive desire to impose your will on others. You are psychotic.

 

I have a simple, direct message for you and other illiberals who exhibit this kind of social pathology.

 

Leave other people alone.

Leave their stuff alone.

Keep your fucking hands to yourself.

Mind your own business.

 

Do you understand this? If you do, we will get along just fine.

 

We don't need 'really smart' liberal tyrants like yourself armed with thousands of reasons and intellectual justification for violating our civil rights, telling us all how to live, how to protect our nation, our families or ourselves. You have no more right to interfere with our the right to bear arms than the right of free speech or free religious practice or our voting rights.

 

If you don't follow those rules, you will likely find out why Americans believe in and keep the 2A as one of the most cherished of all civil rights, the protector of the other freedoms we hold dear.

 

We have the 2A to protect us from people like you.

 

Molon labe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're sounding a little rough there,NGS.

 

"Mind my own business?" Your guns are not happening in a vacuum. They recently entered my National Parks, State Parks, City Parks, and libraries; too often they are carried by people who make poor choices.

These are once-peaceful places of my re-creation, Bubba.

Hmmm, this is now a pressing social and cultural issue.

You should have left your stupid guns at home.

 

These knee-jerk, absolutist claims based on the second amendment are sad. So is the lack of solution-oriented dialogue.

Molon Labe, NGS, is laughable. It is your sub-culture's dead giveaway that some armed idiot has run out of intelligent talking points.

 

images3_zps58f1ee32.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a less selective, more comprehensive look at the study Tom quoted. Positive effects were documented in many areas. Selectively clipping Mr. Koper's comments doesn't change the modest, but measurable, outcome...of a bill which was well-gutted by the gun lobby.

 

Cook, the Duke public policy expert, told ProPublica that the “weak results” of the 1994 ban “should not be interpreted to mean that in general bans don’t work.” <http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/did_the_assault_weapons_ban_really_work_senator_feinstein_claims_20140925>

 

In 1997, the Urban Institute published the results of the first study of the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban (Roth and Koper 1997). The first study was a short-term follow-up that found the law had little effect on assault weapon purchases. However, this was not evidence that a ban on such weapons would be ineffective. Rather it noted shortcomings in the law, itself:

  • The law, as enacted, grandfathered all assault weapons manufactured prior to the ban, meaning such weapons could be legally possessed;
  • There were large increases in assault weapons sales prior to the Ban taking effect, further exacerbating the effects of the grandfather clause; and
  • Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of guns that were manufactured prior to the Ban were legally imported into the US during this period.

Because the study was limited statutorily to a brief follow-up period, none of these factors had worked through firearms markets at the time the first study was completed.

Clarifying the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban

The second study by the same researchers was published at University of Pennsylvania (Koper, Woods and Roth 2004) and showed the Ban’s broader effects on violence over time. These two federally funded studies are by far the most comprehensive tests of the effects of the Assault Weapons Ban.

Before describing those results, we should clarify what the goals of different parts of the legislation were. The two main provisions of the bill — a ban on weapons with at least two military style features, and a ban on large capacity magazines — have been misconstrued in today’s debate.

Then, as now, military-style assault weapons were rarely recovered from street crimes and large reductions in street violence were not expected to result from the Ban. However, assault weapons were (and are) disproportionately more common in mass shootings and shootings of law enforcement officers.

At the same time, the ban on large capacity magazines was intended to have a more direct effect on street crime, since as much as a quarter of gun crimes involved a weapon, generally an automated pistol, with a large capacity magazine.

Finally, it’s important to note that the federal requirement that a weapon have two features causing it to resemble a military-style assault weapon meant that it was relatively easy for manufacturers to re-engineer a weapon to comply with the law without fundamentally changing the firearm.

For instance, Intratec, the manufacturer of the Tec-9, simply changed the barrel of the Tec-9 and renamed it the AB-10 (“After Ban”) to comply with the law. Thus, unlike New York’s SAFE Act which bans weapons with a single military-style feature, the 1994 federal law prevented the sale of relatively few firearms.

Measures and Findings of the 2004 Study of the Assault Weapons Ban

The 2004 study used three measures to examine the effects of the Ban:

  • Was the market place for assault weapons and large capacity magazines altered such that prices increased and production decreased?
  • Were fewer assault weapons and large capacity magazines used in the commission of a crime? And,
  • Were the consequences of use less severe (i.e. Were there fewer murders and injuries)?

Major findings of the law on assault weapons:

  • Effects of the Ban on assault rifles is inconclusive with respect to prices and production;
  • Prices of assault pistols were increasingly higher than comparable handguns;
  • Production of assault pistols declined much faster than comparable handguns;
  • The number of recovered assault weapons declined by 70 percent between 1992-1993 and 2001-2002 (from 5.4% to 1.6% of recovered weapons that were traced by The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives at the request of local law enforcement.);
  • Throughout most of the post-ban period (particularly 1995 to 2001), the share of assault weapons among weapons recovered from crime scenes declined, as assault weapons traces either increased less or declined more than total traces (Table 6-1, columns 2 and 3), a pattern that is also consistent with a decline in the use of assault weapons relative to other guns (Koper 1995: 44);
  • Assault weapons’ share of crime guns declined between 17% and 72% when looking at all guns recovered in the following cities: Boston (72%), Miami (32%), St. Louis (32%), Baltimore (34%), Milwaukee (17%) and Anchorage (40%) (range of dates, mainly compares early 90s to early 00’s):

Major findings of the Assault Weapons Ban on large capacity magazines:

  • Prices of large capacity magazines increased 80 percent from 1993 to 1998. This price increase was for primarily for magazines used in assault pistols, not assault rifles;
  • The use of large capacity magazines in crimes is more difficult to study as ATF does not trace large capacity magazines. However:
  • In Baltimore, large capacity magazine gun recoveries were 24% lower in 2002-03 than in 1995 (this is almost entirely due to a large reduction in large capacity magazines for pistols);
  • In Anchorage, large capacity magazine handgun recoveries were 16% lower in the 1995-2002 period when compared to 1992-1993;

Studies have also consistently found that more shots are fired when a semi-automatic pistol is used than when a revolver is used. In mass shootings, and average of 29 shots are fired in automatic weapon/large capacity magazine cases compared with 15 in non-automatic weapon/large capacity magazine cases.

Finally, when a large capacity magazine is involved in a gun crime, there is a higher probability of a shooting victim. This may be due either to the discharge of more rounds or a greater tendency on the part of someone with a large capacity magazine to shoot it.

The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban had important, positive effects. Those effects were just beginning to take root when the Ban expired in 2004. Given the trends shown in the data, if the Ban had been reauthorized in 2004, today’s debate would be about whether to extend the Ban again next year. And, even with the very limited restrictions it put in place, the data used to inform that debate would almost certainly show important declines in violence.

Pasted from <http://blog.metrotrends.org/2013/03/correcting-myths-assault-weapons-ban-research/>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So after due consideration of these undesirable weapons, what do you want to do instead of grandfathering in existing guns in the next ban?

I mean, you know that was an objectionable loophole and you've done all this research... No conclusion?

If you ban them and prohibit people from keeping existing ones, what happens to those existing ones instead?

What I'd like is an honest assessment of the devastation of these guns, and other guns, in our society.

I think a time will come when society will see through the current dishonesty in play, and will choose to relinquish guns.

Society doesn't own the guns we are talking about individuals do. What I'm asking about is what to do with the guns of individuals who don't share your vision of civilian disarmament? You say confiscation is not imminent, which is reassuring unless you mean it should happen after passage of the loophole-free law of your dreams. Is that what you mean?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Joke-awf's posts = CREEPY

 

CREE

 

PEE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

So after due consideration of these undesirable weapons, what do you want to do instead of grandfathering in existing guns in the next ban?

I mean, you know that was an objectionable loophole and you've done all this research... No conclusion?

If you ban them and prohibit people from keeping existing ones, what happens to those existing ones instead?

What I'd like is an honest assessment of the devastation of these guns, and other guns, in our society.

I think a time will come when society will see through the current dishonesty in play, and will choose to relinquish guns.

Society doesn't own the guns we are talking about individuals do. What I'm asking about is what to do with the guns of individuals who don't share your vision of civilian disarmament? You say confiscation is not imminent, which is reassuring unless you mean it should happen after passage of the loophole-free law of your dreams. Is that what you mean?

My best suggestion would be to follow Connecticut, a state that had gun reform legislation in place, but not passed, before Sandy Hook.

 

Register the damn things, and at least keep track of them. Ideally, set higher standards for those who may buy them: license their users for finite periods. Limit their magazine capacity. Mandate the immediate notification of loss or theft. In general, get ahead of their possible mis-use, not behind it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Joke-awf's posts = CREEPY

 

CREE

 

PEE

I think repeatedly blaming black street gans for U.S. gun violence, when one knows better, is creepy. And that it is counter - productive.

Model gun owner, indeed.

 

................................................................

 

 

In the last few days, fifteen kids were shot up at a Miami nightclub. One witness mentioned kids running around the venue with AK-47's.

This behavior was and is predictable. The reason AW's are not acceptable consumer products is pretty obvious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AK-47's? You gotta cite for that? 'Cuz I just read four different news stories about this.....and none of them mentioned the firearm(s) used in this incident. .....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Joke-awf's posts = CREEPY

 

CREE

 

PEE

I think repeatedly blaming black street gans for U.S. gun violence, when one knows better, is creepy. And that it is counter - productive.

Model gun owner, indeed.

 

................................................................

 

 

In the last few days, fifteen kids were shot up at a Miami nightclub. One witness mentioned kids running around the venue with AK-47's.

This behavior was and is predictable. The reason AW's are not acceptable consumer products is pretty obvious.

Was that ISIS or AQ shooting up the nightclub?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

 

 

 

 

So after due consideration of these undesirable weapons, what do you want to do instead of grandfathering in existing guns in the next ban?

I mean, you know that was an objectionable loophole and you've done all this research... No conclusion?

If you ban them and prohibit people from keeping existing ones, what happens to those existing ones instead?

What I'd like is an honest assessment of the devastation of these guns, and other guns, in our society.

I think a time will come when society will see through the current dishonesty in play, and will choose to relinquish guns.

Society doesn't own the guns we are talking about individuals do. What I'm asking about is what to do with the guns of individuals who don't share your vision of civilian disarmament? You say confiscation is not imminent, which is reassuring unless you mean it should happen after passage of the loophole-free law of your dreams. Is that what you mean?

My best suggestion would be to follow Connecticut, a state that had gun reform legislation in place, but not passed, before Sandy Hook.

 

Register the damn things, and at least keep track of them. Ideally, set higher standards for those who may buy them: license their users for finite periods. Limit their magazine capacity. Mandate the immediate notification of loss or theft. In general, get ahead of their possible mis-use, not behind it.

 

What??

 

Seriously do you even comprehend what you are writing?

 

CT's had a ban on 'assault weapons' since 1994 - as have New York and Massachusetts.

 

Apparently that didn't do any good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

So after due consideration of these undesirable weapons, what do you want to do instead of grandfathering in existing guns in the next ban?

I mean, you know that was an objectionable loophole and you've done all this research... No conclusion?

If you ban them and prohibit people from keeping existing ones, what happens to those existing ones instead?

What I'd like is an honest assessment of the devastation of these guns, and other guns, in our society.

I think a time will come when society will see through the current dishonesty in play, and will choose to relinquish guns.

Society doesn't own the guns we are talking about individuals do. What I'm asking about is what to do with the guns of individuals who don't share your vision of civilian disarmament? You say confiscation is not imminent, which is reassuring unless you mean it should happen after passage of the loophole-free law of your dreams. Is that what you mean?

My best suggestion would be to follow Connecticut, a state that had gun reform legislation in place, but not passed, before Sandy Hook.

 

Register the damn things, and at least keep track of them. Ideally, set higher standards for those who may buy them: license their users for finite periods. Limit their magazine capacity. Mandate the immediate notification of loss or theft. In general, get ahead of their possible mis-use, not behind it.

I get it now. We should all carry knives and cut peoples heads off. You know, back to the fucking bronze age. Yeah, that's the ticket. That is so much more civilized. Yep finally I understand your point of view. Let me guess, the next phrase out of your mouth is "Convert or die."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

... hence the MRAPS and the machine guns for local police. It's their World Order.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites