Lebell

Why do I do it?

Why do I keep posting articles on the Assault weapons ban?

As one member put it,

So why?

Honestly, because the same lies are told over and OVER again and they can be shown to be lies.

Because people still think Bowling for Columbine was a "good documentary".

Because these same freedom loving people think that it's ok to restrict my freedoms to own guns because it is for the "public good" even when the statistics don't back them up...and when this is pointed out to them, it is ignored or worse, they retreat to emotion: "Yeah, but I still think (i.e. feel) that guns are bad..."

So yes, here is another article on the AWB with my commentary following.

See if you can point out the inconsistencies of logic combined with the outright falsehoods and political PANDERING before I do at the end...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


LINK (registration req'd)


GOP likely to let assault weapons ban die

Kevin Diaz and Rob Hotakainen, Star Tribune Washington Bureau Correspondents

March 12, 2004 GUNS0312

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Less than two months before Election Day, the 10-year-old ban on assault weapons is scheduled to expire unless Congress acts.

But with Congress at loggerheads over gun legislation, it's likely that Republicans will let the Clinton-era ban expire on Sept. 13.

There's widespread agreement that the ban is flawed, but supporters of the ban argue that it should be strengthened, not dropped.

Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., voted to end the ban last week. In an interview Thursday, he called it "more dressing than substance."

Sen. Mark Dayton, D-Minn., voted to uphold the ban, saying the guns' only purpose is "to slaughter indiscriminately human beings."

Coleman's vote represented a change from his position as a candidate two years ago, when he said he would support the ban as long as it did not extend to semi-automatic hunting guns.

Coleman said the difference is studies questioning the ban's effectiveness. "All the studies come to the same conclusion -- little or no impact," he said.

Although most Senate Democrats supported the ban, there were exceptions. Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold sided with the Republicans, saying the ban is more symbolic than effective.

But the symbolism of the issue is sure to make it a hot topic in the presidential race.

"As the deadline for expiration comes closer, there will be a lot more focus on this," said Kristen Rand, legislative director for the Violence Policy Center in Washington, D.C.

While Americans remain deeply divided on gun control, polls show wide support for the assault weapons ban. A University of Minnesota survey last year found that 75 percent of Minnesotans supported strengthening it.

19 weapons banned

President Bill Clinton signed the 10-year ban on the sale of semi-automatic assault weapons in 1994. It also banned the manufacture of 19 different weapons.

"Nineteen kinds of assault rifles that have been kept largely out of our country ... for the last decade are going to be back in circulation full force in September unless something else happens," Dayton said Thursday.

Coleman said that while Congress is unlikely to revisit the issue this year, he expects to hear more about it as the election nears.

"There will certainly be those who will try to make hay of it and try to raise fear," he said. "But the reality is, very few criminals use assault weapons."

Several police organizations, including the International Association of Chiefs of Police, have urged Congress to extend the ban, citing a Justice Department study showing that the proportion of assault weapons traced to crimes has dropped 66 percent since the ban took effect.

Nearly 200 sheriffs and police chiefs from 15 states, including Minnesota, signed a letter to Congress last month urging an extension of the ban. Among the signatories were Minneapolis Police Chief Bill McManus and Bloomington Police Chief John Laux.

Despite objections by the National Rifle Association (NRA), the Senate voted 52-47 for an amendment to extend the ban for 10 years. By a vote of 53-46, the Senate also approved an amendment that would have required criminal background checks on all sales at gun shows.

But when supporters attached those amendments to a bill that would have given gun manufacturers immunity from lawsuits, the NRA objected and urged its backers to reject the entire package. The immunity bill was rejected 90-8.

Coleman, one of the top recipients of campaign contributions from the NRA in 2002, supported the group's positions. He voted against extending the ban, against background checks and against the overall bill.

Coleman received $9,900 from the NRA during his Senate campaign, and the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action spent another $7,558 on a direct mailing in support of Coleman.

Dayton, who self-financed his Senate campaign, voted to extend the ban and for background checks. He voted against the bill to give immunity to the gun industry. Both sides plan to use the votes in this year's elections.

"The U.S. Senate had its vote. ... Law-abiding gun owners will have their turn to vote in November," NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre and Chris Cox, the group's chief lobbyist, said in a statement.

Kerry knocks Bush

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, said that Americans have "no right to have access to the weapons of war in the streets of America." He criticized President Bush for not doing enough to promote an extension of the ban.

"When he ran for president in 2000, President Bush promised the American people he would work to renew the assault weapons ban," Kerry said. "But now, under pressure, he is walking away from that commitment."

Republicans said that while Bush supports extending the ban, he wanted a gun immunity bill devoid of controversial amendments so that it could pass the House.

While the debate continues, manufacturers have found ways to make minor changes in commercial models, such as the AK-47 and the AR-15, so that they can be bought in the United States. "The ban won't change anything either way," said Mark Koscielski, a Minneapolis gun store owner.

One practical effect of the ban, Koscielski said, is that the market value of higher-capacity "pre-ban" weapons and magazines has dramatically increased. He predicted a drop in their value if the ban expires.

"God bless those left-wingers," Koscielski said. "Because they've made a lot of people rich."

Some gun-control advocates are pushing for separate House legislation that would create a stronger assault weapon ban modeled on California law.

"I know it's an uphill battle," said Rebecca Thoman, executive director of Citizens for a Safer Minnesota. "But it really is a no-brainer for the public."

Some point to "post-ban" types of assault weapons that have been used in high-profile crimes, such as the Hi-point carbine used in the 1999 Columbine massacre and the Bushmaster rifle that was used by the Washington, D.C.-area snipers in October 2002.

Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., whose husband was killed in 1993 by a man firing a semiautomatic weapon on a Long Island commuter train, said that whatever the defects in the ban, scrapping it is not the answer.

"Do we actually want on September 14 for anyone to be able to go into a gun store and buy an assault weapon?" she asked. "Is this what this nation is coming to?"

Washington Correspondent Greg Gordon contributed to this report.



----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ok, point 1)

Anti-gun argument 1: Attacks w/ "assault weapons" went down in the nineties, therefore the AWB works.

Comment: This is a common argument that Dianne Fienstein and the crowd over the Violence Policy Center (formerly Handgun Control Inc.) use all the time. It ignores of course the fact that ALL crime went down in the 90's, that the rate of homicides in the US is at its lowest since the 60's (when rifles could be bought mail order) and is in direct contradiction to the next argument they use:


Anti-gun argument 2: Manufacturers have used "loopholes" to get around the Assault Weapons Ban, therefor the law should be strengthened.

Comment: Ok, so first the AWB got these terrible guns off the street and crime went down, but now we learn that these terrible guns are not really off the street...but crime went down?

Consider this in context of the quote by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y at the end of the article:

But of course, assault weapons still need to be banned, because that's what the DC snipers used.

I'm sorry, but the logical disconnect here is mind-boggling.


Anti-gun argument 3 (brought to you by the Democratic presidential nominie):

This, THIS is the friggin' scare mongering that Michael Moore should have been referring to and it represents pandering at its worst.

Any grunt can tell you that he doesn't carry an AR15 in the field. He carries a select fire M16.

The difference is that the AR15 (the "assault weapon" that you can still buy RIGHT NOW) is NOT a fully automatic weapon. It is a semi-automatic weapon (one trigger pull, one shot) just like many hunting rifles.

But this is the "weapon of war" Mr. Kerry is refering too. (The same is true of ALL the "assault weapons" in the ban, but they won't tell you that.)

No, they count on the ignorance of the American public when pushing for these bans:

This quote, by Josh Sugarmann of the Violence Policy Center, can still be found on their website (link)


Anti-gun argument 4) 1 in 5 Police are killed with Assault weapons.

Comment: Straight off the VPC homepage, and in direct contradiction to the argument that crimes have gone down with these weapons.

Also, dig a little deeper.

You'll eventually find that the Justice department statistics they quote don't specify the types of rifles used. Sometimes accompanying story lines will tell you, but oft times they don't.

So what the VPC did was they took all the statistics for all rifle murders and called them "assault weapons" murders because they might have been, not because they are.


So this is why I keep posting: misconceptions, misdirection, logical fallacies and out right lies.

But I encourage everyone, do your own research.

Look up death rates, historical trends, definitions of "assault weapons" and what was banned yourselves.

Definitely look up the histories and backgrounds of those backing the ban, especially "quotes" and you'll see for yourself that the AWB was just a stepping stone and a disingenious one at that.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!