"Candidates Confused on Gun Ban"

[jhfenton]

Here's a well-written op-ed from MrBenchley's favorite author on his favorite new web site. Try to actually rebut some of the facts without making any references to "Mary Rosh," Ted Nugent, Larry Pratt, or John "AshKKKroft."

Candidates Confused on Gun Ban

By John R. Lott Jr.

A new career awaits Democratic presidential candidates: offering advice to hunters.

<snip>
The law never had any effect on crime. Banning a few percent of semi-automatic guns when otherwise identical guns are available only changes the brand criminals use. The law didn’t even stop the criminals from getting these guns. Even President Clinton, who signed the “assault weapon ban” into law, complained in 1998 how easy it had been for gun manufacturers to continue selling the banned guns simply by changing the guns’ names or by making the necessary cosmetic changes.
<snip>

Candidates Confused on Gun Ban

[Superfly]

1. Flood gates are now wide open.....

get ready, man.

[demsrule4life]

2. Lott and Fox

Boy you are in a heap of trouble now. :)

[DonP]

3. Oooh, you posted John Lott!

Let me go first.

Mary Rosh, Mary Rosh, Mary Rosh! Aiieee!!!!

Just thought I'd get the inevitable out of the way. Now if you had only posted Bellisle's data tables, it might be different, if only his dog hadn't eaten them. Then people around here would know you were using only totally honest data sources.

Ha!

Don P.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

4. By quoting John Lott...

You just rendered yourself unworthy of serious consideration.

How does it feel?

[MrBenchley]

30. John "Mary Rosh" Lott

is synonymous with academic fraud...

http://www.whoismaryrosh.com/

[jody]

5. Now you've stirred up the gun-grabbers by citing an article with facts.

Gun grabbers are like poor little Chihuahuas.
They yap and crap, shiver and shake, and hide from their shadows.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

7. Not a gun grabber...

But John Lott spews more bovine-sourced organic effluent than an army of John Deere Manure Spreaders powered by blown and injected Keith Black Hemis burning 95% Nitromethane.

Besides, your posts are generally silly and hysterical. IMHO.

[jhfenton]

10. Oh, we have a new name caller in our midst.

Welcome. MrBenchley will appreciate the company.

I find jody's posts serious and well-reasoned, but then I'm probably just silly and hysterical too.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

15. BWAH!!!

Risable.

[MrBenchley]

39. Yesterday it was Newsmax

Today Fox News...

And then the RKBA crowd pisses and moans because their posts aren't taken seriously.

[demsrule4life]

67. Just wondering again

On the main forums today I have seen links to posts from newsmax and none of the posters said anything about it. I guess the only morals police we have are down here.

[CO Liberal]

69. Percentage-Wise....

...how many Newsmax links do you see in the main forums? And how many do you see in pro-gunner posts here in J/PS?? They can't compare.

[MrBenchley]

74. Furthermore...

What do you want to bet that the Newsmax links up in other forums are all about what a dishonest pile of crap Newsmax is?

[MrBenchley]

73. Really? Show us one, dems....

Let's see you back THIS wowser up....

[CarinKaryn]

80. Tand - didn't call anyone names

He said someone's posts were xxxxx.
Jody, on the other hand, calls "gun grabbers" scared little dogs - seems like she's not following the rules while Tand is.

[MrBenchley]

86. Shhhhh....

Don't you realize that this hysteria and dishonesty is all the RKBA crowd has to go on?

Notice here we are being instructed to seriously discuss the writings of one of America's most famous crackpots, while being told that it is unfair to point out that the guy is one of America's most famous crackpots.

And Koresh forbid that we should also point out that this loon is a racist to boot (and not particularly shy about it).

[jody]

23. Please read the article and cite a single statement meant as fact

that is wrong. Don't come back with conclusions made by Lott or the author, but stick to statements that are supposed to be fact.

I'll be very surprised if you can, but go to the Brady Campaign or VPC and you can find plenty of lies they assert as fact.

[Trajan]

11. Insults against the 'crapping gun grabbers' ....

are A ok ...right ????

But tell a 'gun nut' he is a gun nut on THIS: the proudest LIBERAL/PROGRESSIVE forum on the internet ... and the rush to the local moderator to have such comments stricken from the thread will leave your head spinning....

WHy is this ???

WHY the double standard ???

WHY are the 'gun aficiandos' (notice I didnt say gun nut) in Justice/Public Safety allowed to STIFLE progressive expression against overly permissive gun laws and rightist Second Amendment philsophies, even as those SAME 'gun aficiandos' trip over themselves as the insult the left in our very own home ????

WHO is the moderator in this forum ????

WHY does he seem SO ...... rightist ????

WHY does he continually expunge my anti-gun-nut commentary whilst permitting liberals to be insulted like this ... QED ?

[Liberal Classic]

17. I think we should ban anyone who advocates weapon ownership

Censorship is the only progressive thing to do.

(sarcasm)

[jhfenton]

20. "Double standard"

I have never complained privately about or alerted any moderator about a post. It's not worth my time or energy. I'd much rather respond personally.

[1a2b3c]

110. Really?

Please read post #57. and the rush to the local moderator to have such comments stricken from the thread will leave your head spinning....

[MrBenchley]

53. Jeepers....

"hide from their shadows"
Which poster on here is hiding behind "ignore," do you suppose?

[el_gato]

54. that would be CO liberal

your buddy said so himself

[CO Liberal]

57. Not Me!!

I HAD you on "Ignore", el_gato, but I took you off a few days later. We'll let the moderators decide whether your post above is a personal attack.

[el_gato]

59. how could pointing out the facts be an attack?

you admit to something I said you did and now you want to call it a personal attack. How funny.

[CO Liberal]

62. You Jump Into The Middle of an Exchange and Call Me Out By Name

Sounds like a personal attack to me......

[MrBenchley]

63. Gee, I guess one of gato's "facts"

is that you are ignoring him? Ho-kay.

[CO Liberal]

64. And If I Was.....

...I wouldn't have responded to him now, would I???

:-)

[el_gato]

70. you were and you admitted it

ha ha

[CO Liberal]

71. I WAS, el-Gato.....WAS

You're the one who made an accusation against me.

Ha-ha-HA!!!!

[el_gato]

81. it was a statement of fact

so why did you take me off ignore?

couldn't handle it eh?

ha hah ha ha

[MrBenchley]

75. Real FACTS are such pesky things...

No wonder the RKBA crowd avoid them so....

[el_gato]

78. i guess that's why you run from them so often

[MrBenchley]

79. Not me, gato

I'm not the one pretending racist asswipes don't run the gun owners groups or spout "gun rights" rubbish publicly....that would be you and the rest of the RKBA crowd.

[el_gato]

83. ha ha ha ha

all gun owners are ted nugent loving klan members

I seem to keep forgetting that one.

[MrBenchley]

87. Well, should anyone forget

you can always count on someone citing a racist imbecile like Mary Rosh here so that we can be reminded what sort of scum peddle this bogus argument in public.

[el_gato]

93. i've never even heard of mary rosh

but that doesn't stop your guilt by association theme

[MrBenchley]

97. Gee and yet you jumped into this thread

to defend Mary....that's so cute.

[madddog]

82. I haven't been here long

but I have yet to see you put up ANY facts to support any of your positions.

I think we should have a daily pool here on DU...everybody could try to predict how many times Mr.Benchley uses the phrase "RKBA crowd" every day. We could have an over/under, bet on each thread...how cool would that be? We could get Jimmy Kimmel to offer his predictions...we could do a weekly/monthly/yearly total...the possibilities are ENDLESS lol.

[MrBenchley]

89. Gee, dog....

I certainly backed up that Lott was sticking up for that racist imbecile Rush Limbaugh. But then cconsiderinng what the RKBA crowd thinks ARE facts, maybe I should be damn glad I ain't got any.

"everybody could try to predict how many times Mr.Benchley uses the phrase "RKBA crowd" every day"
The pool is already going about when the first honest member will show up from that bunch...and so far its unclaimed.

[el_gato]

94. so that would be two more

[demsrule4life]

60. One of several

Chihuahua eaters I have

German CH Scholwoods Second Amendment
AKA Sako
Like that name? :)

[beevul]

99. ROFL! The other half and I

have a 110 pound lab/pit, but shes a big baby.
We also have a maltese, (another baby)
We have 11 cats though, one of which is a pixie bob (american bobtail), and would OWN a Chihuahua if ever attacked by one.
Hes like 18 pounds of lean mean cat. Huge paws, tufts on the ears,
and he makes the oddest noises...sounds like anything from a clucking chicken to a crying baby. Hes a nice cat though, and darn near as soft as a chinchilla.

Well, I guess we have 12 cats if you include our pomeranian(thinks hes a cat). Hes a little scrapper too, guaranteed to scare the bejezuzout of ANY Chihuahua. Hes a nice dog, but when he gets upset,
he looks downright vicious.

[demsrule4life]

101. I have thirteen of them

had fifteen at the beginning of the year but lost two to cancer. I had some group shots but the disc isnt working. I asked a friend that has the group pics to email back and will post when I get them.

[beevul]

102. Cats I assume?

or Pom?

In any case, my condolences, I have had to bury 3 kittens in the last 2 months from 2 separate litters. Unauthorized inbreeding, leading to stillbirths. Verry hard to deal with mentally. I mean, you look at their little faces...Ok, not going there. At a hair over 6 feet, and 230 pounds, I look silly balling my head off.

On a positive note....If you have never seen an american bobtail, do yourself a favor, and look them up. They are extrordinary animals! They fetch, and chase games back and forth with me and our pom...UNBELIEVABLE animals.

[demsrule4life]

109. Mrs demsrule4life

says who needs guns..
but she is still hell of a shot.

[CO Liberal]

6. NOTHING by John "Cook-The-Books" Lott is Well-Written

He's an ignorant asshole, and anyone who looks to that cretin as a reliable source is sadly mistaken.

[jhfenton]

8. John Lott

No serious academic has made a dent in John Lott's findings. The attacks on Lott are thinly-veiled retaliation for outing that confirmed darling of the gun-banners, Michael Bellesiles, as a liar. The attacks on Lott are petty and trifling.

I've met John Lott, and I was impressed with his intelligence and character.

[CO Liberal]

9. I've Seen Him On Faux News

And the impression I got is that he's an asshole with an agenda.

[Superfly]

13. Aren't we all?

Aren't we all assholes to some and don't we all have an agenda?

[Wild Bill]

16. hey!

that's exactly what I was going to post

[CO Liberal]

19. I Guess

But the rest of us are not revered like that asshole Lott is.

[jhfenton]

26. Speak for yourself. (eom)

[jhfenton]

14. The funny thing is that he didn't have an agenda until

his work was so dishonestly attacked by the gun banners. He started out researching a question asked by a student in a class. He ended up becoming the poster child for the pro-RKBA side in the CCW debate.

After writing two books, and enduring vicious personal attacks on his character, can you blame him if he now has an agenda?

[MrBenchley]

31. Yeah, surrrrrrre.....

The guy is a nutcase deluxe.

[madddog]

18. And Sarah Brady ISN'T?

you just like her agenda better...I guarantee you she couldn't rebut anything Lott says with facts.

And speaking of assholes w/ agendas, whatever happened to your boy Bellisiles?

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

12. Define...

"serious academic". While you are at it, perhaps you would like to address the fact that his posits dont seem to be able to pass peer review?

Oh, I know: Jealousy and agenda.

[madddog]

21. what peer review?

post it if you got it...

[jhfenton]

25. "serious academic"

I'm still waiting from someone to honestly disprove his results using science, not red herrings about "Mary Rosh" or lost data relevant only to one tiny number in an entire book.

I have read a few alternative statistical analyses, but the best any of them have done is claim that the numbers are inconclusive to draw the conclusions John Lott drew. None of them actually say John Lott is wrong.

And those alternative analyses are not the basis on which John Lott has been repeatedly attacked. They attack secondary issues which have no relevance to the validity of the original statistical studies.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

34. I made a mistake above:

He has not submitted his work for peer review. Ergo, it is to be safely regarded as anecdotal, a step or two away from fiction. That is, of course, until such time as the validity of his work rises or falls on the basis of the findings of peer review.

But hell, go ahead and attach yourselves to John Lott's quite damaged star. It's the credibility of 2nd Amendment "defenders" that is at stake. Makes no real never-mind to me.

[jody]

37. Sorry but he has articles published in peer reviewed journals eom

[CO Liberal]

38. In the "Humor" Sections

:-)

[jody]

42. Sorry but he has peer reviewed articles published in

QUOTE
Journal articles (author or lead co-author) on firearms-related topics:
* Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns, Journal of Legal Studies.
* The Concealed Handgun Debate, Journal of Legal Studies.
* Deterrence, Right-to-Carry Concealed Handgun Laws, and the Geographic Displacement of Crime, American Economic Review.
* Do Concealed Handgun Laws Save Lives?, American Journal of Public Health.
UNQUOTE

[MrBenchley]

43. You'll notice

that every bit of the "fact" behind the RKBA argument is either openly fraudulent like Lott's, or utterly dishonest, like AshKKKroft's revisionist history.

But on the other hand, it is being pushed publicly by some of the scummiest specimens in public life (Trent Lott, Tom DeLay, Sean Hannity, David Duke, etc., etc., etc.)

[demsrule4life]

95. Or the scummy Brady bunch fake

NRA black list. Received my second email today asking for money.

[MrBenchley]

98. So, dems, are you going to produce all those threads

seriously quoting Newsmax in other folders?

[demsrule4life]

100. Use your search button and prove me wrong.

[MrBenchley]

104. In other words your claim was a pile of hooey

just as we said.

[demsrule4life]

105. Is it really that tough for you to use a search button?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=732094

[MrBenchley]

106. Who are you trying to kid?

This is a thread about what a right wing piece of shit Zell Millerr...and the fact that he's authored a piece on Newsmax is accepted as proof of that.

Nobody in that thread is being asked to accept what Zell says as fact, or Newsmax as anything but a sewer.

[MrBenchley]

35. By "serious academic"

they mean that the gun industry has been able to get a chair for him at some universities...none of which will let him near students.. There's a limit to what blood money will buy.

Now he's lodged at the Heritage Foundation, home of right wing crackpots.

[madddog]

24. you could say the same about the Brady Campaign and the VPC

except THEIR stuff isn't even well written...it's absolutely the worst yellow journalism I've ever seen, and they seem to be forever bereft of facts. Some of the stuff, like the whole "bullet hose" thing, is stupid beyond belief...I mean, YOU couldn't really believe that, could you?

They are the News of the World in the gun control debate.

[Superfly]

22. Although I know nobody is going to try to debate the article...

here's my take on the AWB.

It is entirely superfulous legislation that serves no purpose other than to be a "rally point" for anti-gun activists. The ban does absolutely zilch, yet sounds good to the politicians who support the AWB "for the children." After all, keeping mean-looking guns off the street is a good thing, right?

:puke:

I cannot wait to see the AWB die a quick and painful death.

[StuckinBuffalo]

27. Civilian ownership of guns should not be allowed, PERIOD!

[el_gato]

56. so you worship the corrupt government

you are totally anti-freedom

[MrBenchley]

28. Mary Rosh?!?

Hahahahahahaha.......

[jhfenton]

29. Thank you for the predictable response. (eom)

[MrBenchley]

32. No, thank YOU

for putting up another racist idiot as an "authority".

What nonsense is up next from the RKBA crowd...Ann Coulter's rubbish about her defensive gun use?

[jhfenton]

33. Oh, so now he's "racist."

Evidence please.

[MrBenchley]

36. Who are you trying to kid, fenton?

Who produced a "study" "proving" minority police officers cause more crime?

Who produced a "study" "proving" that black voters weren't disenfranchised in Florida during 2000 due to Jebbo's dirty tricks but due to their own "ignorance"?

Who just jumped into print a few months ago to defend Rush Limbaugh's flatulent yap?

Mary Rosh, that's who.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=15811

[madddog]

41. give up, 'bro

MrBenchley isn't interested in a factual discussion...he just starts these stupid posts, then steers them off topic whenever his logic gets nailed.

[MrBenchley]

44. Funny, it's the RKBA crowd

that has no facts at all....and has shown its racist roots once again.

Nice playmates you guys have got.

[madddog]

47. see, you've done it again

now your throwing out the race red herring...which has nothing to do with JOHN LOTT. Just like in the earlier thread between the two of us, you got off topic when I pointed out the logistical problems with that particular argument.

Oh, in the interest of variety, could you limit your use of the "RKBA crowd" to maybe 25 uses a day...surely a person of your quick wit can come up with a few more appelations for 2nd amendment supporters? For example, I try to limit my use of "gun grabber" to ONCE a day lol.

[MrBenchley]

48. Who the hell are you trying to kid?

"the race red herring...which has nothing to do with JOHN LOTT"
Other than the FACT that he's a racist piece of shit who was recently in print defending racist Rush Limbaugh.

[madddog]

85. now now...

you need to wait for the meds to kick in. Is Lott a racist merely for supporting big fat Rush, or do you have another "criterion" for judging who is a racist?

Your "FACT" about Lott being a racist is merely your opinion, of course.

[MrBenchley]

90. Gee, you got such nice playmates

YOU stand over there with Rush and Mary Rosh and discuss which of them is the most racist.

[ijk]

40. Well, you asked, so here you go.

Here's a well-written op-ed from MrBenchley's favorite author on his favorite new web site. Try to actually rebut some of the facts without making any references to "Mary Rosh," Ted Nugent, Larry Pratt, or John "AshKKKroft."

Two basic points: First, most people here feel the various questions raised about Lott's credibility are substantiative, and the answers he's offered less so. I'm not going to bother with the details here. I've looked at this question at some length, I'm a grad student in the sciences, and I'm convinced Lott's basic credibility looks pretty shaky.

What this means is that when you say "rebut some of the facts", it's not particularly clear that these are facts to begin with. When Lott says something like "The banned guns were seldom used in crime to begin with," I see no particular reason to accept that claim at face value. I could spend time checking it out, answering questions like "does use by one percent of prisioners really constitute 'seldom'?" and "what percentage of gun crimes were committed with assault weapons?" and "are the crimes committed with assault weapons more serious than those committed with other guns?" and so on, but it would probably be a more efficient use of my time on this issue to focus on the writings of those scholars whose work has not - in my opinion - had its credibility demolished.

Second: my memory may be faulty here, but it is my understanding that the original intent of the 1994 bill was to control assault weapons in a categorical fashion, and that it was the work of the NRA and other anti-gun-control forces that got it watered down to the somewhat useless form it has today - specifically, the grandfathering of existing weapons and the weak terminology of the 'copies' clause. For those same factions to complain it doesn't work for this reason is rather disingenuous. Is Lott suggesting we would be better off with a more comprehensive assault weapons ban? Because I'm happy to agree.

In his discussion of the ban, he entirely fails to mention what the ban actually applies to, instead distracting us with a discussion of the difference between assault weapons and machine guns. The ban is aimed at various weapon features that make a gun a military killing machine, most importantly the use of large ammo clips and other features supporting a very high rate of fire. I suppose that's what Lott is calling a 'cosmetic feature'. I'm inclined to disagree. The features in question really don't have anything to do with hunting, no matter how much Lott ridicules the idea that anyone would presume to tell a hunter what he needs. Nor do they have a role in self-defense, unless you expect your house to be assaulted by a platoon or two.

His reference to machine guns is also rather peculiar. The ban doesn't apply to machine guns because fully automatic weapons have been controlled since 1934 and essentially banned since 1986. The ban doesn't apply to ten-inch artillery guns, nuclear weapons, or jaywalking, either. That has little to do with the merits of the law under discussion.

I hope that answered your question, at least in part.

[madddog]

45. you haven't rebutted anything of Lott's

central thesis, which is:
1)"assault" weapons are used in very small...3.5%...of crime before and after the ban. (And I've used the higher of the figures I've seen circulated)
2)that number didnt' go DOWN after the ban passed
3)the "ban" has not had the desired effect, if that effect is to reduce the already small amount of time "assault" weapons are used in a crime.

As for the rest of what you wrote, a couple of questions:
WTF is a "military killing machine"? Did Sarah Brady write that?

And since you can't predict how a gun is going to be used defensively, how do YOU know whether anyone needs a 20 or 30 round MAG...clips go in your hair, or in your Garand.

The AWB does NOT cover true assault rifles, which by definition are capable of SELECT (burst or full auto) fire. Those weapons are of course covered by the NFA. They are in no way banned at the federal level, although some states prohibit Class III. The Brady Campaign and the VPC are TRYING desperately to convice John Q. Public that the AWB is about machine guns.

What it covers are semi automatic LOOK ALIKE guns that the general public thinks are scary looking, but don't differ mechanically from a .22 plinker like the Marlin Model 60 or the Ruger 10/22.

[jody]

46. maddog, there you go again, spreading confusion by citing facts. eom

[madddog]

49. It's a terrible job lol...

but someone's gotta do it.

You know, the sad thing is, I've got GUNS to clean hehehe...took a couple of my homeland defense carbines out to the range a week ago Sat., and only partially cleaned them. My bad on that score.

I'll have to take a few hours off from debating the finer points of gun control here at DU and actaully clean some stuff, and make some more ammo hehe.

[MrBenchley]

50. I promised I'd be good

and not jump on straight lines...no matter how tempting...

[ijk]

51. Is this that hard to explain?

1)"assault" weapons are used in very small...3.5%...of crime before and after the ban. (And I've used the higher of the figures I've seen circulated)

Why I'm bothering, I don't know. I have offered several possible reasons why that number may be totally irrelevant. To use an exaggerated example of one, were I to explode a nuclear weapon in Manhattan, my act would represent a very very small percentage of crime in the United States indeed. This percentage would have little to do with its importance, however. Whether something similar in kind (though obviously not severity) is the case with assault weapons, I don't really know. I have the perception that it does. I'm not really interested in attempting to find out in the context of this debate, because (as I explained) I'm arguing with an article written by someone I don't perceive as credible. I merely wish to point out possible reasons these 'facts' are not as solid or relevant as they may appear. This was the request of the initial poster.

2)that number didnt' go DOWN after the ban passed

With respect to the article in question, which again, is all that I was ever talking about, I don't consider Lott's vague citations of a couple of studies to that effect as being credible. As I explained.

3)the "ban" has not had the desired effect, if that effect is to reduce the already small amount of time "assault" weapons are used in a crime.

I doubt that was the desired effect. That's a possible, but not definitive, statistical indicator of the desired effect. The desired effect, presumably, was to decrease the number of Americans being killed, which is not necessarily the same.

As for the rest of what you wrote, a couple of questions:
WTF is a "military killing machine"? Did Sarah Brady write that?

Yes. I keep her in a desk drawer to help me out when I get into these little arguments.

To clarify, briefly, it is customary to refer to various categories of armaments as being 'military' in nature, normally when a) ownership or use of them is legally restricted to the military; or b) they have little or no non-battlefield function. 'Killing machine' was just a bonus. What I was driving at, simply enough, was that the ability to fire, say, thirty rounds in five seconds, has no legitimate civilian purpose.

And since you can't predict how a gun is going to be used defensively, how do YOU know whether anyone needs a 20 or 30 round MAG...clips go in your hair, or in your Garand.

Roughly the same way I know nobody needs a ten-inch artillery gun defensively. I invite you to describe an incident in which a weapon prohibited under the AWB was required for defense. For argument's sake, let's leave out cases where the user is simply an exceptionally poor shot.

Let's leave aside questions of the meaning of the term 'assault', okay? Anyone can read the bill and see what it covers. The name has nothing to do with it.

The AWB does NOT cover true assault rifles, which by definition are capable of SELECT (burst or full auto) fire. Those weapons are of course covered by the NFA. They are in no way banned at the federal level, although some states prohibit Class III.

I explicity avoided saying they were actually banned. The restrictions placed on a would-be owner are, at the federal level, quite considerable; you need to undergo a full FBI background check, show a valid reason for wanting one, and get a signature from your local police chief. Further, since 1986 the sale of newly manufactured fully automatic weapons to civilians has been illegal (also at the federal level.) That's not a ban, but it's good enough for me. I'd be happy to have the AWB rewritten to simply use the same restrictions, but I don't really think that was what Lott was arguing for, do you?

The Brady Campaign and the VPC are TRYING desperately to convice John Q. Public that the AWB is about machine guns.

Really? where? If you go to a page like this one, the Brady Campaign makes the distinction extremely clear. So I invite a counter-example from either of the two sources you named. Not that any of this is to the point of this discussion, which is "Why is JOHN LOTT trying to mix up the AWB and machine guns?"

What it covers are semi automatic LOOK ALIKE guns that the general public thinks are scary looking, but don't differ mechanically from a .22 plinker like the Marlin Model 60 or the Ruger 10/22.

It doesn't cover the 'mechanics' of guns at all, if you mean what you appear to, which is the basic firing mechanism. Along with a list of specific weapons banned, it covers the components of guns - large clips, barrel coolers, silencer attachments, flash suppressor attachments, grenade launchers, various sorts of grips, and folding stocks, for a partial list. The point of the bill is quite clear; it's not about the 'mechanics' or the caliber of a gun, but features of the gun's design enabling it to fire large numbers of bullets rapidly or optimizing it for hidden-sniper use, basically. If you think that's a problem, fine, but that's the point you need to address.

[MrBenchley]

52. It's impossible to "explain" to those who deal in bad faith

such as Lott and his acolytes.

But you're doing an excellent job. Keep up the good work.

[el_gato]

58. so I see benchley you have run from the facts all over this thread

why?

If your so smart why don't you just address the issues?

[madddog]

61. If you argue...

that the number of times assault weapons are used in crimes is irrelevent to the Assault Weapons Ban, I don't know that I can respond. My argument is that it's essential to the ban, as the justification for it. Why do we need to ban weapons that aren't used very often in crime?

Your whole arguement more or less proves what folks on our side of the debate already know...that this ban wasn't ever about reducing crime. You can't really even get good statistics on how many lives were saved by the ban since it didn't ban anything, and "assault weapons" were just as easy to obtain as before the ban.

YOU don't think I'll ever need a 30 round mag for home defense, I disagree. You can't possibly know the circumstances that I or anyone else will face 3 or 5 years down the road. You don't know where I'll be, whether or not 1 mag will have to last me for a while, etc.

Once again, though, even THAT attempted ban has had not real demonstrable effect on crime. With millions of high cap mags around, you can easily get one if you want.

Look, I know EXACTLY what's in the ban, since I have to conform to it if I want to stay legal.

My real point here is that the AWB is a flawed law that doesn't do what it was meant to do, IF you take the authors at their word. For the Democratic party to make this a friggin' candidate's litmus test is absurd.

Had you seen the piece CNN did a about 6 weeks ago on the ban, you'd know precisely why John Lott is trying to make a distinction between NFA weapons, and those covered by the AWB...because the media have made a piss poor attempt at doing so, and a LOT of folks are confused about what's in the AWB.

[Liberal Classic]

65. Yes, thoughtful and polite post

We need more posts like your. If everyone were to post like you, Justice Public Safety would be a better place. (not so subtle hint for our regulars)



It doesn't cover the 'mechanics' of guns at all, if you mean what you
appear to, which is the basic firing mechanism. Along with a list of
specific weapons banned, it covers the components of guns - large
clips, barrel coolers, silencer attachments, flash suppressor
attachments, grenade launchers, various sorts of grips, and folding
stocks, for a partial list. The point of the bill is quite clear; it's not
about the 'mechanics' or the caliber of a gun, but features of the
gun's design enabling it to fire large numbers of bullets rapidly or
optimizing it for hidden-sniper use, basically. If you think that's a
problem, fine, but that's the point you need to address.

I think the weakness of the AWB is exactly what you describe. It's not about the ballistic capability of the rifle, but the other nomenclature. Whether a rifle has a bayonet lug or a pistol grip, or a threaded barrel does not really makes a rifle what it is. Lock, stock, and barrel makes a rifle, which is to say the trigger and firing mechanism as well as the lenght and diameter of the barrel and the overall size make rifle make it what it is. The proof that the AWB was a poorly written law should be in the fact that you can have two rifles which have identical ballistic qualities and rates of fire, one will not be considered applicable because it has a wood-grain stock and a welded flash suppressor, but the other will be applicable because it has a plastic stock and a bayonet lug.

[madddog]

76. but that gets us back to square one

ie, what is the true purpose of the ban. As it stands now, including bayonet lugs and flash suppressors is ludicrous as far as reducing crime. I truly can't remember the last time I heard of someone being bayonetted during a crime, and flash supressors wouldn't really be a factor either...they vent some of the muzzle flash out to the sides to make it easier for the shooter to see at night; they do NOT make him/her harder for LEOs to see; I can't really see this as a crime deterrent either.

If you want to stick with the "military killing machine" approach, you really DO have to ban the action/mechanism as well as the mag capacity...but there really are legitimate sporting or defensive purposes for weapons covered by the AWB, regardless of whether certain people agree with it. If you're sole reason for banning these guns is to "save lives", then we all know a handgun ban would be MUCH more effective than the AWB.

I just read a recent study by a forgotten source (sorry, I really did see it)which basically says the .223 round is ideally suited for home defense due to excellent close range knockdown power, and the fact that a 55gr bullet is MUCH less likely to go through walls/joists/brick/morter than either a 9mm or .45 round. There was really NO comparison in terms of knockdown, the .223 was vastly superior, as can be expected...much higher muzzle velocity, for one thing.

[Liberal Classic]

88. Oh, I don't disagree with you

It's just a refreshing change to hear something other than catcalls of nazi and racist.

I doubt there are any statistics gathered on how many weapons used in the commision of crimes are equipped with threaded barrels or bayonet lugs. Few, I would surmise, as most crimes involve knives or pistols.

[CarinKaryn]

91. Excellent reply.

There is no reason for civilians to possess these military weapons. Silencers, flash hiders and folding stocks that allow rifles to be hidden under trenchcoats are not necesessary to the hunter or even the cililan interested only in self defense.

[demsrule4life]

92. Trenchcoats?

Thanks for the laugh I really needed it. You have to stop watching so many movies.

[jhfenton]

96. "silencers, flash hiders, and folding stocks"

First, these are not military weapons. They are semi-automatic. Even our local police department possesses select fire/automatic weapons. These are not those.

Second, silencers are treated as machine guns under the NFA. They are irrelevant to this debate.

Third, flash suppressors are important to anyone shooting at night. This includes the gun nuts who participate in competitve and recreational night shoots, as well as those using the weapons for home defense.

Fourth, folding stocks are irrelevant to whether a long arm is concealable. The are separate rules restricting longarms that are less than 26 inches in overall length. This restriction exists with or without a folding stock, and applies to the folded length as well. So a 44" rifle that folds to 30" is illegal, while a 26" rifle with a fixed stock is legal. So concealability really isn't the issue, is it?

[beevul]

108. Do you

Advocate banning trench coats too?

[beevul]

103. How about an example from...

"Really? where? If you go to a page like this one, the Brady Campaign makes the distinction extremely clear. So I invite a counter-example from either of the two sources you named. Not that any of this is to the point of this discussion, which is "Why is JOHN LOTT trying to mix up the AWB and machine guns?"" brady/vpc.


your source.

"On January 25, 1993, Pakistani national Mir Aimal Kasi killed 2 CIA employees and wounded 3 others outside the entrance to CIA headquarters in Langley, VA. Kasi used a Chinese-made semi-automatic AK-47 assault rifle equipped with a 30-round magazine, purchased from a Northern Virginia gun store."

"Assault rifle" by definition is a select fire firearm.

One could argue that it is a misprint, or mis-whatever. If so, it sure hasn't been corrected, and that page has been around a while. That IS negligent and careless management of information, something I would think YOU being scholarly and all, should condemn them for, being a "credibility" issue and all.

"Why is JOHN LOTT trying to mix up the AWB and machine guns?"

Who's getting them mixxed up again?

If its NOT a MISPRINT, then its deliberate misinformation.


And since I'm on the brady page and credibility seems to be a topic.....

From brady/vpc:

"That means that AK47s and other semi-automatic assault weapons could begin flooding our streets again, as the weapons of choice of gang members, drug dealers and other dangerous criminals."

AK 47's are FULLY AUTOMATIC weapons, for the nth time.

I'll take it by your own words....


"Second: my memory may be faulty here, but it is my understanding that the original intent of the 1994 bill was to control assault weapons in a categorical fashion, and that it was the work of the NRA and other anti-gun-control forces that got it watered down to the somewhat useless form it has today - specifically, the grandfathering of existing weapons and the weak terminology of the 'copies' clause. For those same factions to complain it doesn't work for this reason is rather disingenuous."-ijk

"the somewhat useless form it has today"- (in particular)

that this:

"Even with the success of the ban, assault weapons still pose a threat to the safety of all Americans, and particularly to law enforcement officers. Tens of thousands of "grandfathered" assault weapons are still in circulation, and thousands more will go into circulation if the ban is not renewed and gun manufacturers begin producing and selling them again."

and this

"That means that AK47s and other semi-automatic assault weapons could begin flooding our streets again...."


are TOTAL lies.

Saying that IT DOES WORK and claiming it needs to be renewed because of it is "rather disingenuous" too, is it not?

I could go on....and on....that page you linked to has lots of...AMMO.

This is america, and you are entitled to your opinion, but IF your going to talk credibility, or more specificly, lack there of, you might want to leave brady/vpc out of the discussion.

Ok, /evilgunowneroff


In any case, welcome to DU. As others have said, your politeness is MUCH appreciated.

[jhfenton]

55. Welcome, ijk, and thanks for the thoughtful post.

I respect those who disagree with me intelligently.

"Two basic points: First, most people here feel the various questions raised about Lott's credibility are substantiative, and the answers he's offered less so. I'm not going to bother with the details here. I've looked at this question at some length, I'm a grad student in the sciences, and I'm convinced Lott's basic credibility looks pretty shaky."

Fair enough. He's obviously made some mistakes, but I don't feel any of them reflect on the underlying work. These allegations are different in character from Michael Bellesiles, who blatantly fabricated much of his material. The only similar accusation against Lott is that he can't substantiate his original 98% number from his first book. But that number wasn't part of the serious academic portion of his book.

"What this means is that when you say 'rebut some of the facts', it's not particularly clear that these are facts to begin with."

Good point. This was a short op-ed news article, so it's not properly footnoted. I'll give it a shot. The following quote is from the 1999 National Institute of Justice study. It's the best starting point I know.

"There were several reasons to expect, at best, a modest ban effect on criminal gun injuries and deaths. First, studies before the ban generally found that between less than 1 and 8 percent of gun crimes involved assault weapons, depending on the specific definition and data source used."

See the Impacts of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban: 1994-96. Footnote 17 lists the various studies. The studies which use the statutory definition come up with the lower usage numbers. Some of the studies use much broader definitions.

"it is my understanding that the original intent of the 1994 bill was to control assault weapons in a categorical fashion, and that it was the work of the NRA and other anti-gun-control forces that got it watered down to the somewhat useless form it has today - specifically, the grandfathering of existing weapons and the weak terminology of the 'copies' clause. For those same factions to complain it doesn't work for this reason is rather disingenuous."

I don't recall the exact language of the original 1994 bill, but I'm not aware that it was ever anything other than a ban based on both specific models and cosmetic features. I know it was limited in several respects, including the addition of a sunset date and the limitation of magazines to 10 rds rather than 5, in order to get the votes for passage. There was never anywhere close to enough support to pass anything like the current H.R. 2038, a bill that can be interpreted to ban almost every semi-automatic rifle and shotgun made.

"The ban is aimed at various weapon features that make a gun a military killing machine, most importantly the use of large ammo clips and other features supporting a very high rate of fire. I suppose that's what Lott is calling a 'cosmetic feature'. I'm inclined to disagree."

Actually, the "high capacity" magazine ban is separate from the AWB. It was a different part of the same bill. The AWB bans both specific models and guns with two or more military-style features such pistol grips, bayonet lugs, threaded barrels, flash suppressors, and grenade launchers. The grenade launcher is the only dangerous item on there, and grenades are already all but banned elsewhere. The current propaganda coming out of the Brady bunch crew is designed to confuse the public into thinking "assault weapons" and the AWB addresses fully automatic weapons. They have been largely successful. The banned features are largely cosmetic. (No one is really scared of "drive-by bayonettings.") None of those features affect lethality or the rate of fire. I can fire a Remington 7400 semi-automatic rifle in 7.62NATO just as fast as I can a Romanian SAR-1 (a semi-automatic AK variant) in the similar 7.62x39 caliber.

Again, thank you for your thoughtful post. We can use more rational people around here.

[Liberal Classic]

66. Indeed. We need more like him

I wish everyone in J/PS were so polite.

[madddog]

68. kudos

to everyone here who tries to argue the merits of an issue, NOT the emotion. Everyone turn to your LEFT hehehe, and give your buddy a pat on the back.

[ijk]

72. Quick reply

I should try and actually get some work done today, so this is going to be a quickie.

As far as John Lott goes: in the end, this sort of 'academic integrity' thing is a judgement call, I guess. I'm comfortable with my judgement, but I certainly have some bias as someone who dislikes him on other grounds. I just wish he didn't have to be the face of the anti-gun-control intellectual movement, really, so we could talk about other things.

On the study - thanks, interesting. I'll read it in full sometime. On a hunch, I'm guessing that by the time the ban had a shot at really getting the weapons it went after out of circulation, the replacement semi-copies had made it more or less irrelevant. So we'll never know, maybe?

On the bill - well, the thing it really comes down to is that the 'no copies' rule was supposed to work and didn't, right?

Difference between AWB and the whole bill - okay. I'd always taken them as interchangeable terms.

As to what does or doesn't constitute a dangerous feature... well, ultimately this goes well beyond my expertise. But the argument one gets into isn't normally between people who like the bill and people who want to substitute something that implements controls in different, more effective ways, after all. That's an idea I'm perfectly open to. (The bayonets part always did seem silly, I freely admit.)

[madddog]

77. peace out

good discussion.

The AWB is largely symbolic on both sides; I don't own any preban stuff simply because I'm not gonna pay twice as much for a rifle. Now, it WOULD be nice to have a collapsible stock for grins, but I have a shorty LEO stock on one of my ARs, so it's almost moot.

[jhfenton]

84. "get some work done today"

I'm right there with you. :)

A few random thoughts in response:

I think we can probably both agree on one thing. Whatever its original supporters would have liked, the ban that passed was largely symbolic, and came with a 10-year sunset. That was the best they could do politically.

Now its supporters and opponents all see it as an important symbol. What happens with the ban could signal the direction for the future. However meaningless, it was the first real national gun ban, and if it disappears it will be a major blow to the anti-gun lobby. If it stands, then it can be used as a stepping-off point for further bans when the political climate is ripe. This is why the frantic posturing on both sides. And no, I'm not really open to "strengthening" the ban. I don't believe any gun bans are effective at reducing crime.

What effect has it had on me? Well, instead of 13 rd magazines for my Glock 23, I have 10 rd magazines. Instead of 15 rd magazines for my Glock 24, I have 10 rd magazines. The Glock 26 that I carry daily has a 10 rd capacity with or without the ban.

Variants of the AR-15 and the AK come with "naked barrels," no flash suppressors. So at night shoots -- common recreational and sporting events -- the flash is blinding to the shooter.

That's about it. I can buy a pre-ban AK variant with a flash suppressor, but it doubles the cost for no real difference in the functionality of the guns. I can buy pre-ban Glock magazines for $60-85 instead of $15-20 for new 10 round magazines.

[Withergyld]

107. Either way the law is still a violation

of the 2nd Amendment because it infringes upon the right of Males between the ages of 17 and 45 to keep and bear military type weapons.