weapons banned by the 1994 "Crime Bill" were used in less than 1% of all
gun related crimes
This is from Spider, on 3/23/96
The Assault Weapon Ban - A Crime Fighting Measure?
FBI and Justice Department data shows that the weapons banned by the 1994
"Crime Bill" were used in less than 1% of all gun related crimes in America
over the last several years.
Some of the weapons banned have virtually NEVER been used to commit any
crime of any kind.
Most of the weapons banned were long guns (rifles). FBI and Justice
Department data shows that more people are killed each year with HANDS and
FEET than are killed with long guns.
Most of the weapons banned are large, bulky, and heavy - far too much so to
ever be concealable or convenient. Concealability and convenience are
mandatory qualities for criminal weapons. These weapons cannot be
significantly shortened, because shortening the barrel on a semi-automatic
rifle will prevent the gas cycling mechanism from working properly.
Several of the weapons banned are very expensive. H&K, Styer, Galil, etc.
weapons cost well over $1000, many over $2000. Criminals do not use $2000
guns to commit $50 and $100 crimes.
Several elements of the ban were totally ridiculous and without merit. Guns
were banned based upon:
Threaded Barrel, upon which a flash suppressor, muzzle brake, or silencer
could be mounted. a) A flash suppressor has no practical effect whatsoever
outside of nighttime military field use; b) Criminals couldn't care less
about muzzle brakes; and c) Silencers have not been a factor in crime AT
ALL as they have been banned by federal law for many years.
Bayonet Lug, upon which a bayonet could be mounted. When was the last time
you heard of someone being bayoneted?
Pistol Grip. a) A pistol grip on a rifle makes the rifle even bulkier than
it already is, therefor even less concealable; b) The pistol grip does not
make the gun any more or less dangerous; c) When used on a rifle without a
stock, aiming ability is poor, and effective range is reduced to the point
where a handgun is vastly preferable; and d) A pistol grip may actually be
preferable to hunters and sporting shooters, as it allows a more natural
positioning of the hand - this is evidenced by the growing popularity of
"thumbhole" type stocks for custom rifles (perhaps tradition is largely
responsible for the continuing popularity of conventional type
riflestocks).
Gun control proponents claim that the only purpose of these guns is "to
kill a lot of people as quickly as possible". If that were true, then why
does every police department in the country have a stockpile of these
weapons? When does any police department have a need to "kill a lot of
people as quickly as possible"? The truth is that the police select these
weapons because they are the best built and most accurate weapons
available.
Further, these guns were claimed to have "no legitimate sporting or hunting
purpose. The Colt AR15 is very popular among competition shooters, due to
it's durability, low recoil, and marvelous accuracy. There are people who
use SKS rifles to hunt deer - the ballistics are close to the popular 30-30
cartridge, and the rifles are very inexpensive, durable, and remarkably
accurate for the price. Many of these weapons have been used by homeowners
and shop owners for defense of life, limb, and property. In fact, due to
their size and weight, THEY ARE FAR MORE SUITED TO HOME DEFENSE THAN TO ANY
CRIMINAL USE.
The 1994 gun ban was never about fighting crime. It was a foot in the door,
a nose under the tent. It set a precedent for banning guns based upon hazy,
arbitrary definitions and aesthetics. A first step towards Schumer & Co.s
ultimate goal of banning ALL guns. The definitions used in the 1994 ban can
easily be expanded to many, many other weapons, and can (and will)
eventually include all semi-autos, bolt actions, lever guns, revolvers, and
finally the single shots (nearly every gun in existence traces it's roots
to military development and applications). Remember - the ink wasn't dry on
the Brady Bill when Brady II was drafted. Schumer & Co.s end goal is to ban
everything, and this Divide and Conquer strategy can be very effective.
First it's the "Assault Weapons", then the "Saturday Night Specials",
whatever those are (oh yeah, they're what ever Schumer SAYS they are), then
the "Non-Sporting Calibers", and on and on until they're all gone. Make no
mistake about it - it's Divide and Conquer, and it WILL work, slowly but
surely, unless it's very basis - the classification of "good" guns vs "bad"
guns, is eliminated.
To answer your "poll", I have never shot anyone in the past, but I have
used a gun (Colt Govt 45 auto) to defend myself from a wanted criminal in
my home. I, like just about every other gun owner, hope and pray that I
never have to shoot anyone, ever, but realize that the day might come where
the only way to protect myself, my family, and my home, is with a firearm.
A criminal, obviously, would be who I might shoot in the future. A relevant
point here is that no law enforcement agency at any level accepts
responsibility for defending any individual citizen (except certain
government officials). Who then is left to defend the individual? Only the
individual himself has that responsibility (those that choose to accept
it). Therefor, the individual has the right to arm himself appropriately.
By the way, I also enjoy plinking, target shooting, and hunting. Those are
also legitimate reasons for people to own firearms.
One final note - I don't see how you can claim that your "50 Year Plan"
would not violate the Second Amendment. It's a clear infringement on the
right to keep and bear arms.
Thank you Spider, you make many good points about that assault weapon ban.
The cosmetic effects on weapons are being blamed unfairly. That law was a
kind of test case for incrementally tougher gun control. The 50 Year Gun
Control Plan does not take guns away from people. It just changes the rules
for getting more guns. The right to bear arms is not affected by a cutoff
in the supply of new guns and ammo. There is already a surplus of guns in
stock.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Giving the government the ability to disable your firearm at any time
would be an infringement."
This is the second message from Spider, on 3/26/96. This is a continuation
of the debate started in the previous message:
Regarding your claim that the "50 Year Plan" doesn't violate the Second
Amendment, I would first recommend that you re-read the Second Amendment.
It says "...the right to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".
Banning the manufacture of arms and ammunition would be an infringement.
Requiring costly (and non-existant) "remote disabling" devices which would
make guns unreliable, ineffective, and prohibitively expensive, would be an
infringement. Giving the government the ability to disable your firearm at
any time would be an infringement. The operative word here is "infringed".
While you could argue the measures you prescribe are not an outright ban,
they are clearly infringements. The same would be true of other plans to
tax guns and ammo out of existance, or put so many safety requirements on
them that they become impossible to manufacture. Any of these measures
would be clear infringements, and are therefore unconstitutional.
The word "infringed" is not a stronger word than illegal, unconstitutional,
shall make no law, or other words in the bill of rights. It is just flowery
language to break up the style. Your claim of "clear infringements" of
proposed taxes or safety requirements would need to be decided by the
Supreme Court. They could disagree with all of your points. Or they could
confirm your opinions. Gun control is a matter of degree, not absolutes.
Each right in the Bill of Rights has exceptions, judgement calls, balances,
and degrees of freedom. Is the Second Amendment infringed by registration
of machine guns? If you cannot buy a howitzer, is it infringed? A tank? A
bomber jet? It is a matter of degree of gun control, not absolute
infringement or absolute freedom.
The right to bear arms is not the right to buy arms. Gun technology changes
over the decades. You would not have to buy the new guns with remote
deactivation, you could keep an old gun and ammo ready for your imagined
shootout.
You mention the "infrastructure of violence that has accumulated for a
hundred years". Don't you mean the last thirty years?
No, 100 years. Most guns are less than 100 years old, but few guns older
than 100. You want to change the time spans involved to fit into your
following discussion:
The tremendous surge in violent crime has not been a steady climb over the
last century. You can trace the rising crime rates to the "liberalization"
of our criminal justice system. The initiatives that started in the 60's
and have been continued to this day are what is largely responsible for our
escalating crime rate. Decreased prison sentences for violent crime (and
non violent crime), and the use of "alternative punishment" such as
probation, counseling, etc, have been the real culprits here, not an
increasing number of firearms.
You want to change the subject to fit your rigid, anti-liberal
preconceptions. Instead of discussing the 100 years of gun stockpiling, you
want to talk about the last 30 years. The Rush Limbaugh dittoheads have
selected "the sixties" to blame for many of today's problems. You apply
statistics to try to prove something that could be caused by several
effects. You say the increased crime is caused by "liberalization". That is
one boogy-man you see in every problem, when there are other reasons for
bad things to happen. One such reason is the population increase. As people
are packed more closely together, competing for dwindling jobs, more crime
will occur. The baby boom fits into your 30 year mold nicely. Another
reason for increased violence could be the change in the nation's character
into a violent war machine since 1942. The VietNam war and other violent
crimes helps persuade citizens that "might makes right". People began
emulating the government's violence level and its crimes. Personal empire
building emulated US empire building. When the government uses guns to try
to solve its problems, and patriotic propoaganda romanticizes murder, many
people believe in it too. Television fits in your 30 year theory. Increased
viewing of fictional crime produces a culture of murder, where guns are
deified, made into icons, and are shown to children to be more useful than
toothbrushes and books.
The following points back this up.
1) The rate of firearms ownership has not changed in the last hundred
years. In 1900, about 40% of all Americans owned firearms. That percentage
remained within a point or two through 1920, 1940, 1960, 1980, and the
present. The percentage has not increased along with crime rates.
But the number of guns in America has increased as gun owners buy multiple
implements of destruction.
2) The functioning of firearms has not changed appreciably in the last 100
years. Viable semi-automatics were invented in the 1890's, and fully
automatic weapons came shortly thereafter. One of the most famous semi-auto
pistols in the world, the Colt Government Model, is also known as the 1911,
after the year in which it was introduced. While some improvements have
been made in terms of accuracy and reliability, the basic functioning of
semi-automatic weapons has not changed. Likewise, other types of firearms
(revolvers, lever guns, et al) have remained virtually unchanged during
this century.
That supports my use of the 100 year figure, earlier, as a time span for
discussion. Guns have improve greatly in the last 100 years. These
improvements are not available to the general public. The small arms that
Americans buy legally have not changed much, but the more powerful weapons
of war have changed a lot. The gun controls on those weapons prevent most
people from buying them. If you try to buy a stinger missile, you may get
one legally, but you would have to be investigated. Most gun buyers do not
want to attract attention to their arsenals, so they do not even inquire
about purchasing advanced, modern weapons. Most people are satisfied with
small arms, which, as you say, have not changed much in 100 years.
3) Crime rates have demonstrably increased with reduced sentencing and
other "liberal" changes to the criminal justice system starting in the
60's. Texas is a classic example. Federal judge William Wayne Justice
essentially took over the Texas prison system in the early 1970's after an
"inmates rights" case. Under Justice's rule, Texas prisons were allowed to
fill to only 95% capacity (while at the same time, federal prisons were
filled to 170% capacity). The result - Texas crime rates soared while
incarceration rates plummetted. The revolving door allowed violent and non
violent offenders back on the streets after serving out as little as 10% of
their sentences. By the mid 1980's, the average time-served for a murder
conviction in Texas (including all the legal definitions of murder) was two
and one-half years. Texas has finally escaped from Justice's control -
murder convictions now carry an average time served of over seven years,
and the murder rate is falling.
You see a cause and effect relationship between liberals and crime. Please
consider that there can be other explanations for the crimes besides your
simplistic description of those evil liberals. Consider the evils of
automation, which have been descibed for centuries. As workers are made
obsolete by machines and computers, they are idled. Idle hands are the
devil's gunshop.
In a radio report last week the announcer told of the first arrest in Texas
related to its new concealed weapon law. After a minor traffic accident, a
man shot and killed the other driver in a violent outburst. He claims it
was self defense. When guns are commonplace, shootings are commonplace.
Yesterday on ABCs 20/20 the jouralist said that for every time a gun is
used to shoot a burgler, there are 43 times that a family member is shot.
4) The Florida "Right To Carry" reform. All of the "wild west" scare
mongering, the "shootouts at every intersection", "gunfire with every
argument", has turned out to be absolutely untrue. Florida's violent crime
rate has dropped since the law was passed, and the upper eschelon of the
law enforcement community there, the ones who opposed the law initially,
have had to admit that it hasn't caused any of the problems they feared.
More guns "on the street" did not bring about more killings.
You see a cause and effect again between one gun reform and a crime
decrease. Maybe you do not know of the other efforts to reduce crime that
took place over the same set of years. To you, guns are a cure-all. Guns
are your focus. Look around you. Please consider the other causes of crime
rate changes.
5) When New York City and Washington DC implemented their stringent gun
control measures, their crime rates soared. These measures were far from
complete - they did leave many guns on the street and there were ways to
beat the bans, but they did do what most gun control activists said they
were supposed to do - make it harder for people (supposedly criminals) to
obtain firearms. In reality, criminals were not deterred by the new laws
(they ignored the new laws just as they ignored the old laws), and
continued their careers of carnage, now safe in the knowledge that their
victims would be unarmed. Fewer guns "on the street" did not translate into
fewer killings - in fact, they brought about more.
There are a vast number of guns in New York City. Making them illegal does
not prevent many "law abiding citizens" from carrying concealed weapons.
Gun control measures are just words. They do not stop people from getting
guns, carrying them illegally and using them in self defense. If everyone
in New York City carried concealed weapons, I expect the crime rate would
increase. If everyone carried water balloons lots of people would get wet.
There is no simple way to prevent all crimes. Guns are not the answer, they
are just one part of a complex, eternal tragedy. We can try to reduce the
crime rate in many ways, but this is just fine-tuning our civilization. I
believe we can reduce crime more by gradually improving our employment
traditions, our entertainment culture, our immigration policy, our
education, our distribution of land and wealth, and by the government
setting a good example by not attacking foreignors for two years in a row.
Greed and poverty are two reasons why crimes are committed. There are other
reasons. The fear of guns by criminals does deter some criminals, but that
is only a small factor in the crime rate. Most gun owners do not have a
loaded gun in a handy location when that 20 seconds comes up when a
criminal makes his move. That person who is attacked has had many decades
without attacks. It was impractical for him to always have a holster on his
hips. Attacks are so infrequent that gun owners do not have their guns
ready for instant use. People who keep a gun under their pillow, over their
front door, under their car seat, and on a holster, are sick people. Guns
are seldom there when you need one. There is never a cop around when you
need one. There will be crime. I would not be surprised if you, Spider,
have committed some crime in the past. Maybe you made a right turn on red
without stopping. Maybe you carried a concealed weapon illegally. Your
(possible) crimes are committed along with a billion other crimes every
day, that are not reported. Guns are just an ornament for the emotional
sickness that has been with our brothers and sisters since the beginning of
life.
Get your own Free Home Page