Carolyn McCarthy shows she is uneducated about her own anti-gun bill.

[Tim01]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rGpykAX1fo

She knows she is trying to ban some stuff with her bill. But she doesn't know what. Somebody must have assured her it was bad. You know, like trisexual marriage.

Next it will be the terrorist internets. Or did Bush already get those?

[Tim01]

1. Please recomend " the shoulder thing that goes up" Ha HA HA!!

[Statistical]

9. They don't need to know what it does or how it works...

assault weapons v. assault rifles
cop killer bullets
heat seeking bullets
assault weapons are so powerful they can pierce a vest (along with virtually all other rifle cartridges)
assault weapons popular w/ gangs (nope that would be handguns)
assault weapons are killing cops more than any other weapon (nope once again that would be handguns)
"the shoulder thing that goes up"

different words same tune.

The purpose of gun control is control. They fake message attached to it doesn't matter.
Every 6-12 months the meme changes.

I remember when so called "cop killer" bullets were dominating the news. Nonsense & hyperbole and then it died down and along came assault weapons.

Guns aren't revolutionary. The general concept of "modern firearm" cartridge ammo and smokeless powder is over 150 years old.
Even semi-automatic pistols and rifles are almost a hundred years old.

So since guns aren't changing they fake meme needs to change. When people & media get bored with the assault rifle non-issue something new will be invested by the gun grabbers.
Banning 0.50 cal rifles (and if it happened in less than 3 months there will be 0.495 rifles :) )

[E-Mag]

21. actually Barrett went with the .416

http://www.barrettrifles.com/ammo_416.aspx

The idea still is valid the gun control groups will then say that you exploited a loophole in the law. :eyes:

[Katya Mullethov]

73. For now , the meme will be , the FBI smuggling gun show loophole guns to Mx

Or some kinda guns ,into Mexico for the war for drugs , maybe I am getting my memes mixed up . There has been quite the flurry of them and the Mexico mem is flowing from the state dept on down .
.
NATIONAL BRIEFING | SOUTHWEST
Texas: Agent Arrested in Gun Case
By JAMES C. McKINLEY JR.
Published: July 9, 2009
An F.B.I. agent in El Paso has been arrested and charged with dealing guns, some of which ended up being used in gunfights between the authorities and drug dealers in Mexico, law enforcement officials said. The agent, John T. Shipley, was indicted Wednesday on charges he dealt firearms without a license for more than two years, buying the weapons from dealers on the Internet and then reselling them to unidentified buyers. Mr. Shipley sold more than 50 weapons, the indictment said. Some were recovered after shootouts between the Mexican Army and drug dealers in Chihuahua on March 8 last year that left seven dead, officials said. Mr. Shipley, who was released on bond this week, has been suspended without pay since March 2009, the Federal Bureau of Investigation said.

[Katya Mullethov]

80. To illustrate ,for those not well versed in weapons jargon

It is in fact , the thing that goes up . And down .
http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=ipyt5z&s=5
And to port , and starboard , phased plasma , 40 watt range is the norm .

[spin]

2. The sad part is that I'm beginning to believe that politicians...

rarely understand anything they vote on.

[slackmaster]

13. Embrace that revelation, and live by it

Welcome to the real world, spin!

[spag68]

3. guns

I personally am glad to see you don't get much traction with this gun crap. There are more important things to be worked on then your supposed right to own an arsenal. As if there was not enough violence. Why don't you move to Texas, there you can carry anything you want and maybe even take your guns into a bar and get drunk with the rest of the cowboys?

[Tim01]

4. Why don't you move? 2nd amendment rights are gaing ground all over the country. nt

[Tejas]

6. If all else fails, throw some Texas-hate in a post

:rofl:

[jeepnstein]

11. What's with the Texas and cowboys stuff?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hajTNlooZKE

[Tim01]

12. Possibly the most unbelievable thing I've seen all week.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wrv7XvYryTA&feature=related

This one plays a bit better.Same video.

[SteveM]

70. Too much B & W T.V. when young (nt)

[inkool]

8. Why is it always Texas?

I don't think it is legal to carry a gun in a bar in Texas. Now if you want to carry a gun in a bar come to Pennsylvania. I was carrying in a bar just the other day, and some how managed not to drink or shoot anyone.

[X_Digger]

26. Correct.. TX was late to the CCW table, and still doesn't allow..

.. carry in establishments that make 51%+ of their income from the sale of alcohol.

[SteveM]

71. Wait! Some one will inevitably bring up Florida (nt)

[proteus_lives]

14. So you don't have anything to add?

Gotcha.

[AtheistCrusader]

15. You actually can't do any of that in Texas.

But maybe someday. After all, they finally got Concealed Carry a few years ago (Washington has had it for Decades.)

[Taitertots]

18. I take it you don't like guns

Why don't you move to Mexico if you don't like guns. I hear their strict gun control has stopped the violence there.:sarcasm:

[paulsby]

55. why texas? how about WA state

a strongly democratic state, but one with strong gun rights.

no permit needed for open carry

shall issue concealed carry permits

guns are ALLOWED on college campuses.

oh wait, i gotta go. there's all this carnage outside my window cause of all these evul gunz!

[S_B_Jackson]

68. Share a common trait with Rep McCarthy don't you?

Namely not knowing what you're talking about. Texas doesn't permit you to carry anything you want.....a permit can only be obtained for a pistol, either a revolver or semi-automatic, with a caliber of between .32 & .50 cal. Nor can you carry in a bar or in any other place which derives more than 51% of their income from the sale of alcohol for such locations a 51% sign will be prominently posted.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/johnriv/112333641/

A DUI or Public Intoxication conviction will result in your Concealed Handgun License being revoked, and if the conviction is for a felony, your 2nd Amendment rights are suspended as well.

[eqfan592]

74. Actually...

...it's the anti gun movement that distracts more attention away from the important issues than the pro-gun movement. The simple fact is that the anti-gun movement has NOTHING to do with preventing crime and everything to do with people who hate guns.

The anti's would do better to work on issues that WILL help lower the crime rate, like fighting poverty and bettering our education system, instead of constantly giving the other side a weapon to use against us when dealing with middle America on these actually important issues, and they should spend less time trying to limit our civil liberties.

[krispos42]

5. Think we could get her to ban dihydrogen monoxide?

It's a greenhouse gas, yanno. And corrosive.

It's a product of combustion, and is a major factor in environmental erosion. And it's now being used extensively in sugary soft and sport drinks!


;-)

[formercia]

7. Overdosing on diHydrogen Oxide

Drink too much and it can kill you.

[Tim01]

10. That sounds like some bad stuff. Somebody should do something about that. nt

[iverglas]

16. slow news day?

And it still is ...



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rGpykAX1fo
beerslurpy
April 18, 2007

[jeepnstein]

17. Sure is, thankfully...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRQqieimwLQ

Heat-seeking incendiary device?

[Deadric Damodred]

19. The reporter mentions talk of getting it out of civilian hands?

That's the AR-50, which costs about $3,000, the bipod is $200, and a scope that will work well with it is anywhere between $400 - $1,000. Then of course the cost of the ammo is ridiculous; it was around $4 - $5 per round, who knows what is now with the gun surge. They must be smoking some good shit to think anyone would hand over something they've invested so much of their hard earned money into.

[iverglas]

22. "The reporter"??

What planet DO you live on??

Even I recognize Tucker Carlson when I see him. Yeesh.

Oh my.

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

Tucker Swanson McNear Carlson (born May 16, 1969) is an American political news correspondent and commentator for the Fox News Channel. He is a senior fellow for the libertarian think tank the Cato Institute.

Some say "libertarian", some just come out and speak plainly. Right-wing.

MSNBC's Tucker

Carlson's early evening show, Tucker, premiered June 13, 2005 on MSNBC. (The original title was The Situation with Tucker Carlson.) The show lasted less than three seasons; the network announced its cancellation due to low ratings on March 10, 2008. Many critics had called him an "MSNBC conservative." The final episode aired on March 14, 2008.

Carlson had also hosted a late afternoon weekday wrap-up for MSNBC during the 2006 Winter Olympics, during which he attempted to learn how to play various Olympic sports. In July 2006, he reported live for Tucker from Haifa, Israel, during the 2006 Lebanon War between Israel and Hezbollah in southern Lebanon. While in the Middle East, he also hosted MSNBC Special Report: Mideast Crisis.

Fox News Channel

On May 16, 2009 Carlson was introduced as a member of the 'Fox Family' while appearing on the Fox & Friends Weekend edition with no mention what he would be doing for the network.

Yes, Tucker wasn't attempting to ambush and discredit a Democratic politician by asking a question of no relevance to anything at all. Nah. Not our Tucker.

Carlson has stated that while he votes, and cares deeply about conservative ideas, he does not care about the success or failure of any political party. In addition, his definitions of conservative views often conflict with the mainstream opinion.

Carlson has stated that U.S. President George W. Bush is not a true conservative. Despite his general reputation as a political conservative, this and other views have been interpreted as partisan ambivalence by some Republican political figures and movement conservatives.

In an August 27, 2004 Washington Post interview, Carlson expressed his "displeasure with Bush." "Why do so many anti-war liberals give Kerry a pass when he adopts the Bush view on Iraq, as he has? The amount of team-playing on the left depresses me." Carlson did not vote in the 2004 election, citing his disgust with the Iraq war and his disillusionment with the once small-government Republican party.

"I don't know what you consider conservative," Carlson said, "but I'm not much of a liberal, at least as the word is currently defined. For instance, I'm utterly opposed to abortion, which I think is horrible and cruel. I think affirmative action is wrong. I'd like to slow immigration pretty dramatically. I hate all nanny state regulations, such as seat belt laws and smoking bans. I'm not for big government. I think the U.S. ought to hesitate before intervening abroad. I think these are conservative impulses.

Yuppers. Just the kind of fellow one whose exploits one expects to see here at DU.

[Deadric Damodred]

24. Oops! You made a booboo.

I was talking about jeepnstein's youtube clip. Which should have been obvious, since that's the post I was clearly responding to. Now go spank yourself and stand in the corner.

[iverglas]

28. 2007 was a good year

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRQqieimwLQ
sebbybean
July 10, 2007

Hey, it's two years old this week.

[jeepnstein]

29. That's what happens on slow news days.

You should get a load of some of the other videos I dredged up.

[iverglas]

20. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&safe=off&num=30&q=site%3Awww.democraticunderground.com+mccarthy+barrel+shroud&btnG=Search&meta=

Results 1 - 30 of about 214 from www.democraticunderground.com for mccarthy barrel shroud.


The thread gets this week's



award.


Everybody knows that the definitions used in legislation like this have nothing to do with the inherent "dangerousness" of any particular feature, and everything to do with reducing access to the firearms and devices favoured by particular kinds of criminal users.

I know it, everybody here knows it, and anybody who hasn't supped from the right wing / gun militant cup knows it.

[Tim01]

23. Because criminals want barrel shrouds? I just lost more respect for you.

Bored are you?

[Statistical]

25. Except they aren't prefered by criminals.

<3% of homicides involve a rifle
<1% of violent crime invovles a rifle

Handguns are the preferred weapon of criminals by a massively overwhelming majority.

So the bill NOTHING to do with "reducing access to firearms favoured by particular kinds of criminal users" nor does it reduce the number of weapons used to kill "our cops" which once again would be hanguns. More cops were killed by their OWN handgun then by rifles.

[iverglas]

27. and now listen to McCarthy again

and go look up the use of rifles to shoot at / kill police and suchlike critters.

[Statistical]

33. Once again not true.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/killed/2006/table27.html

ALL Rifles (not just low powered scary black ones) were involved in 18% (105 of 526) of LEO deaths in last decade.
Handguns were used in 67% (380 of 526) of LEO killings.

In 2006 (2007 won't be available until Oct) only 16% (8 of 48) of Officers were killed by any rifle while handguns were used 75% (36 of 48) of the time.

"The guns that were chosen back in those days were basically the guns gangs and most criminals were using to kill our Police officers."

So a complete lie. The guns chosen "back in those days" were handguns not scary black rifles.

How many of the 16% are assault rifles. Well knowing exactly is difficult because in not every shooting is the model of the weapon known however this study provides an estimate.

http://www.sas.upenn.edu/jerrylee/research/aw_final1997.pdf

Using these criteria, our estimate is that 20 officers were murdered by offenders using assault
weapons during this period. (In some of these cases, it appears that the same weapon was used to murder more than one officer). Of these cases, 3 involved Intratec models, 6 were committed with weapons in the SWD family, 3 involved AR15's or exact AR15 copies, 2 cases involved Uzi’s, and 6 cases identified AK-47's as the murder weapons.96 97 These cases accounted for about 7% of all gun murders of police during this period. This 7% figure serves as a minimum estimate of assault weapon use in police gun murders. A more accurate estimate was obtained by focusing on those cases for which, at a minimum, the gun make was reported. Overall, 10% of these cases involved assault weapons,

So 7%-10% of Police Officers are estimated to have been killed by an assault weapon in the period of time from 1992 to 1996.

[iverglas]

36. and thar she blows again

ALL Rifles (not just low powered scary black ones) were involved in 18% (105 of 526) of LEO deaths in last decade.
Handguns were used in 67% (380 of 526) of LEO killings.

And SOME HANDGUNS are assault weapons.

Blown out of the water, I do believe.

Didn't bother reading the links, didya?

[TheWraith]

38. And you'd find those probably don't get used any more than the rifle kind.

Because, compared to regular "old fashioned" handguns, the kind that can be defined as an "assault weapon" are bigger, heavier, bulkier, harder to conceal, harder to use, more expensive, and don't shoot any faster or more dangerously than a regular pistol. The only reason they exist is because they look impressive.

[Statistical]

40. and virtually no handguns are assault weapons.

The bill named the following pistols by name as "assault weapons"

(B) The following pistols or copies or duplicates thereof:
(i) Calico M-110;
(ii) MAC-10, MAC-11, or MPA3;
(iii) Olympic Arms OA;
(iv) TEC-9, TEC-DC9, TEC-22 Scorpion, or AB-10; or
(v) Uzi.

Or it required the handgun have the following characteristics

Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
* Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
* Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
* Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
* Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
* A semi-automatic version of an automatic firearm

Not only are the "characteristics" stupid there are were no weapons at the time of the ban other than ones in the list above making this second section redundant. Of course none of the weapons listed are extremely popular or sold an exception number of firearms.

Although pistol based assualt weapons are extremely uncommon that is why I included the second link (pasted again for your convenience)

http://www.sas.upenn.edu/jerrylee/research/aw_final1997.pdf

Using these criteria, our estimate is that 20 officers were murdered by offenders using assault
weapons during this period. (In some of these cases, it appears that the same weapon was used to murder more than one officer). Of these cases, 3 involved Intratec models, 6 were committed with weapons in the SWD family, 3 involved AR15's or exact AR15 copies, 2 cases involved Uzi’s, and 6 cases identified AK-47's as the murder weapons. These cases accounted for about 7% of all gun murders of police during this period. This 7% figure serves as a minimum estimate of assault weapon use in police gun murders. A more accurate estimate was obtained by focusing on those cases for which, at a minimum, the gun make was reported. Overall, 10% of these cases involved assault weapons

The 7%-10% number includes ALL assault weapons (even those based on shotguns & pistols). An UZI was used in 2 LEO killings. So roughtly 2 of 20 LEO killings involved a pistol based "assault weapon". So 10% of LEO killed with assault weapons were killed by pistol variants. That would be 0.7% to 1.0% of all cops killed by a firearm were killed by a "pistol assault weapon".

Lastly the 7%-10% number is kinda high because it is the percentage of LEO killed by firarms. Since some LEO are killed by non-firearms then number of LEO killed by assault weapons drops to 6%-9% when looking at all methods of death.

Plain jane "non assault" handguns are the #1 weapon used to kill LEO just as they are the #1 weapon used in homicides and the #1 weapon used in violence crime.

If "shoulder thing that goes up" McCarthy was being honest she would have tried to ban handgun those are what are killing LEO not this "assault weapons" junk science.

[iverglas]

42. and I'm quite familiar with that study

It covered a period up to the middle of 1996.

Do you want to stop bringing oranges to the apple table?

Figures from before and after the period examined in the study I quoted don't disprove the figures in that study. Are you actually challenging those figures?


Lastly the 7%-10% number is kinda high because it is the percentage of LEO killed by firarms. Since some LEO are killed by non-firearms then number of LEO killed by assault weapons drops to 6%-9% when looking at all methods of death.

Actually it could very well be kinda low no matter which way you hold it up.

Although BATF trace request data provide the only national trends related to assault weapon use, our findings based on them are subject to limitations. Law enforcement agencies request traces on only a fraction of confiscated guns that probably does not represent the entire population.

The recurring, constant recommendation in that study is that more study be done.

Apparently that was ignored.

And then there are the bits that no one will ever admit (emphases mine):

To buttress these arguments, proponents of assault weapons legislation pointed out that assault weapons are used disproportionately in crime. According to estimates generated prior to the federal ban, assault weapons represented less than one percent of the over 200 million privately-owned guns in the United States; yet they were reported to account for 8% of all firearms trace requests submitted to BATF from 1986 to 1993 (Lenett 1995; also see Zawitz 1995). Moreover, these guns were perceived to be especially attractive to offenders involved in drug dealing and organized crime, as evidenced by the relatively high representation of these weapons among BATF gun trace requests for these crimes. To illustrate, a late 1980s study of BATF trace requests reported that nearly 30% of the guns tied to organized crime cases were assault weapons, and 12.4% of gun traces tied to narcotics crimes involved these guns (Cox Newspapers 1989, p.4).

But you folks keep on yammering about rifles and homicide, if you like. It's all you seem able to do.

[Statistical]

45. They were attractive to law abiding too because they are "cool"

An "assault weapon pistol" fires no faster than a regular non ban semi-auto handgun.
An "assault weapon pistol" uses the same ammo as a regular non ban semi-auto handgun.
An "assault weapon pistol" is no easier to control than a regular non ban semi-auto handgun.
An "assault weapon pistol" is no easier to conceal than a regular non ban semi-auto handgun.

It just looks "tacta cool" so no wonder uneducated drug dealers and gang bangers are attracted to them.

However if they couldn't get a "cool looking" gun they would get any gun and the LEO would be just as dead from an uncool gun.

If you banned and destroyed all red cars then drunk driving deaths involving a red car would go down but it is unlikely drunk driving deaths would go down.

It was a do-nothing junk law. The fact that you defend it speaks volumes. It means there is no form of gun control that would don't find "reasonable gun control". None what so ever.

LEO were no being killed by assault weapons in large numbers that is a direct lie by the bills author.
The bill would have no material effect on crime.
The death rate for LEO is unchanged from before the original AWB, durring AWB, and after the AWB expired.

Despite all that you think it is a good idea to ban guns based on looks. That says it all right there.

[Deadric Damodred]

46. An "assault weapon pistol" uses the same ammo...

...as a regular non ban semi-auto handgun. Some do, but quite a few use rifle ammunition; not that it matters, semi-auto is semi-auto.

[iverglas]

47. "The fact that you defend it speaks volumes."

I have actually said multiple times that the AWB is no concern of mine. You can't be expected to know anything about someone before you say things about them though, can you?

It is not "defending" something to state facts about it. I know this is a foreign concept to inveterate axe-grinders, but it's a fact.

Nonetheless, I actually don't tend to start from the assumption that legislators in the legislative body that sits atop the free world and all that are complete morons. And I haven't seen any good evidence that they are yet, including in this instance.


The death rate for LEO is unchanged from before the original AWB, durring AWB, and after the AWB expired.

Really? I'll take your word for it.

Interesting, then, that for the period the Urban Institute studied, it noted

the decline in gun crime, particularly gun homicides (the most accurately measured gun crime category)

-- and
http://www.nber.org/digest/feb01/w7967.html

After peaking in 1993, gun homicides in the United States dropped 36 percent by 1998, while non-gun homicides declined only 18 percent.

--and
http://social.jrank.org/pages/1255/Violent-Crime-Guns-Gangs.html

Of all homicides committed in 2000, 65% involved a firearm, down from 70% in 1994.

-- and yet homicides of police (I'll assume that most weren't drowned or poisoned or suffocated) remained constant, you say.

Huh. In other words, they rose as compared to firearms homicides of non-police. Huh.


Despite all that you think it is a good idea to ban guns based on looks. That says it all right there.

It certainly does. Everything one would want to know about your regard for the truth.

[X_Digger]

77. Rather than 'used disproportionately in crime', it's.. ..

disproportionately reported to the BATFE. It's called biased sample. 'fraction of confiscated guns' - now tell me, o wise one, what percentage of all the confiscated guns are traced, and what are their characteristics in relation to the non-traced guns? Is the distribution of 'type' even?

[Tim01]

50. You try so hard to twist facts to suit what you already believe. nt

[paulsby]

56. i've been t o a # of cop funerals,

including my best friend. cars and handguns were the weapons of choice. i've been shot at and in shootings. handguns were the weapons of choice. three guys from my unit were shot at ONE drug warrant. handgun was the weapon of choice.

i can't recall any cop shooting around here in recent memory that involved a rifle.

most cops also support concealed carry. the IACP generally doesn't? who is the IACP? management and almost exclusively political APPOINTEES. whose position do i prefer on policy? cop-o-crat political appointees / servants to their local mayors, or actual street cops?

real street cops.

[iverglas]

58. well congratulations

Nothing like some good anecdotes.

If what cops do and don't support regarding carrying concealed firearms is somehow relevant to this thread or to anything I said ... well, I'm not seeing it.


whose position do i prefer on policy?

Well, obviously not the people you elect to make policy and the people they appoint to implement it.

Never fails to make me shrug, that one.

[AtheistCrusader]

52. Police are more often killed by their own service pistols

than they are by the proposed weapons to be banned.

[iverglas]

53. okay

So?

People more often die falling down stairs than they do of anthrax.

[Katya Mullethov]

79. Stewardess .... I speak morbidly obtuse

If the police are the only ones carrying a weapon . Those so inclined will continue to attempt to remove them from their fat sticky dick skinners ... and proceed to shoot them with it* . This is an absolute certainty .

* This would be limited to the remaining weapons that werent already shipped into Mexico by arrogant FBI agents .

[iverglas]

30. leaving aside the usual sly cherry-picking of data

... oh, and the fact that by no means all "assault weapons" covered by the ban were rifles, a fact that so many want to shuffle under the rug ...

let's look at this.

http://www.vpc.org/studies/officeone.htm

I don't give a crap what you think of this SECONDARY source. You are welcome to consult the primary source, the FBI.

... at least 41 of the 211 law enforcement officers slain in the line of duty between January 1, 1998, and December 31, 2001, were killed with assault weapons.(8) Using these figures, one in five law enforcement officers slain in the line of duty was killed with an assault weapon.

(8)The Federal Bureau of Investigation data does not identify the firearm used in some instances, in those cases the type of firearm is listed as "unknown." Therefore, the number of law enforcement officers killed with assault weapons may actually be higher.

List of incidents:

http://www.vpc.org/studies/officetwo.htm

Deduct the 8 SKS rifles from the total of 41 if you want to assume that none of them fell within the definition, and assume that none of the "unknown" firearms did.

You still have over 1 in 6 law enforcement personnel killed in the line of duty being killed with firearms that fell within the "assault weapon" definition.

And we all know perfectly well that this particular phenomenon was a specific target of the "assault weapons ban" itself.

[Deadric Damodred]

31. If one in five LEO were killed with an "assault weapon"...

...what where the other 4 killed with? Or if you go with the other date of 1 in 6, what were the other 5 killed with? If the other 4 or 5 are being killed with handguns, then that one being killed with an "assault weapon" isn't very significant. I think we'll just keep them legal and deal with the collateral damage; thanks.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tim01]

35. I'm glad someone is using numbers instead of fantasies. Thanks. nt

[Statistical]

34. Cherry picking is exactly right.

See post #33 for more... thread is getting split here.

Using the complete set of data available (1997-2006) 18% of LEO were killed by ALL RIFLES.

Criminals using handguns are the primary method of killing LEO just as they are the primary weapon in violent crime (when armed) and primary method in homicides of non LEO.

"Scary low powered black rifles" have never been a major source of:
LEO homicides
Total homicides
Violent Crime

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/killed/2006/table27.html


Remember all those stats were on ALL rifles. Given the FBI number for ALL rifles is less than the VPC number for assault rifles their study is suspect. So what is a good estimates for "assault weapons". Not all rifles are assault weapons (they don't all have a shoulder thing that goes up).
The exact number is not known because models are not always listed in Police reports.

However this study looked at the min & max based on total and only when model was known.
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/jerrylee/research/aw_final1997.pdf

7%-10% of all LEO killed with a firearm were killed by an assault rifle.


On Edit: 2008 numbers wont be officially avaiable until Oct but the preliminary numbers are 41 LEO killed, 5 by ALL rifles, 25 by handguns for a 12% vs 61% split. Handguns clearly kill 5x as many Police Officers as rifles do and 6x to 7x as many as "assault weapons".

[iverglas]

37. lend me your special specs, will ya?

... at least 41 of the 211 law enforcement officers slain in the line of duty between January 1, 1998, and December 31, 2001, were killed with assault weapons.(8) Using these figures, one in five law enforcement officers slain in the line of duty was killed with an assault weapon.

Now, where are you seeing the word RIFLE in that passage?


Not all rifles are assault weapons

And, for the second time, when no times should have been necessary: NOT ALL ASSAULT WEAPONS ARE RIFLES.


But more to the point perhaps -- the FBI figures quoted by the VPC were for 1998-2001.

You are quoting figures that include several years after that period.

Assault weapons account for lower proportion of police killings?

Hmm. I wonder what might have been in effect during those years ...

[Deadric Damodred]

39. "Not all assault weapons are rifles"

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah! So now we're expanding the definition to include EVEN MORE firearms. Yep, that idea of slippery slope is soooooooooooo bullshit. After all, gun-grabbers don't want to ban all guns, they just want to ban "assault weapons". Now if 95% of fireams happen to fall under their definition of "assualt weapons", they still aren't banning ALL guns are they?

[iverglas]

43. you really don't have a clue, do you?

I think gun militants everywhere try to hide under the furniture everytime you put finger to keyboard.

[Statistical]

41. Assault weapon pistols are a small portions of police deahts.

Of the 7%-10% of LEO killed by assault weapons less than 10% of them were with pistol variants = 0.7% to 1.0% of total LEO deaths by firearm.

Strange you bring up the timing

VPC "study" was 1998 to 2001 during AWB ban.

The FBI raw data is 1997-2006 which includes years after the AWB expired.

There is no spike in LEO deaths after the ban expired.
Preliminary data for 2007 shows the same trend.

There is no increase in rifle deaths either (I know you are focused on pistols as an escape hatch but they are a negligble portion of police deaths).

What we do know if normal unbanned plain jane handguns are:
#1 weapon used in police Homicide
#1 weapon used in overall homicide
#1 weapon used in violent crime

This assault weapon red herring is getting old.

There is no one study that shows the AWB did anything to reduce crime or save LEO lives. It was a junk bill from the day it was signed.

[Deadric Damodred]

44. Ah hell Statistical, you know she's not going to...

...give a shit about htat. I bet you've posted that to her, or similar, a number of times. You wanna know how to respond to her? Piss her off. If she want's to talk "assault pistols", let's do so.

Here is the V-51:



Now this is a .308 "assault pistol". And not only is it an "assualt pistol", but because I can't put a stock on it without making it a SBR, I can't aim it because of the ridiculous kick making the gun slap my face. So when I go to the range with it and set up bowling pins, I shoot that sucker Die Hard style from the hip.

So there you go Iverglas......there's an "assault pistol" that gets "fired from the hip". Ya gotta love variety.

[iverglas]

48. you really want to know how to respond?

Advocate that possession of handguns by members of the public be prohibited.

After all, handguns are obviously the tool used for a huge majority of firearms crime and homicides.

You'll get no argument from me there.

[Tim01]

49. I guess you'll be ok since this isn't your country. It's our country. nt

[iverglas]

51. Jim Dandy

I suggested you advocate prohibiting the possession of handguns.

You don't like my suggestion, there you go. It's your country, and your dead people, and your millions of dollars in costs to your economy from the harms committed with firearms, yup, mostly handguns.

Your choice.

And you don't have to say it again, I know it by heart.

All that stuff is mere fallout / collateral damage from you getting your own way.

[Deadric Damodred]

72. Now why would I...

...advocate banning something I enjoy?

[Katya Mullethov]

78. More realistically , they would be simply be uninvented

And it's only a minute order of magnitude less possible than gathering them all up .


An even loftier goal would be to redefine human nature itself . Congress can control the weather now . So why not try ? Just pass another law . Not only would predators cease the hunt , but busybodies , 1000's of miles away would be disinclined to run the lives of others .

More importantly , it would bring an end to the endless and insipid parsing of statistics being passed off as debate .

[AtheistCrusader]

54. If a police officer loses control of his pistol in a scuffle and is killed with it

Then the officer was slain by an assault weapon. Look high and low, I doubt you'll find a single police department in the states that issues pistols that hold 10+1 rounds or less. (excepting revolvers)

[paulsby]

57. just to clarify between officers killed and officers killed by handguns

that's 41 killed by GUNFIRE. in 2008, there were 138 officers killed in the line of duty.


there have been 64 offiers killed to date this year
source... www.odmp.org

[iverglas]

59. and just to clarify a little bit more

there have been 64 offiers killed to date this year

Actually, according to your source, 64 officers have died this year.

If you have evidence that all of these deaths were homicides, do present it.

That would mean that no police died in vehicle crashes, fires, etc.


edit: count em --

http://www.odmp.org/year.php?year=2008

Total Line of Duty Deaths: 138

9/11 related illness: 2
Accidental: 1
Aircraft accident: 3
Assault: 2
Automobile accident: 35
Bomb: 2
Drowned: 1
Duty related illness: 4
Electrocuted: 1
Gunfire: 39
Gunfire (Accidental): 2
Heart attack: 8
Motorcycle accident: 9
Stabbed: 1
Struck by vehicle: 12
Train accident: 1
Vehicle pursuit: 3
Vehicular assault: 12


I'd count 17 obvious homicides in addition to the 39 gunfire homicides.

The rest were accidental / illness.

[paulsby]

60. first of all, you have to understand terminology

homicide does not mean unlawful killing. it simply means a killing caused by another person.

any killing caused by another person is a homicide, even if justified, or accidental.

homicides iow is a term distinguished by the causal factor, not the legality or criminality.

homicides can be justifiable, criminal, or excusable (there is a slight difference between excusable and justifiable homicide).

regaRdless, i wasn't talking about HOMICIDES, i was talking about officers killed in the line of duty.

so, to clarify, i did not say 138 were unlawfully killed in the line of duty. all unlawful killings are homicides, and not all homicides are unlawful killings, or even if unlawful do not neessarily rise to the level of murder (see: manslaughter, etc.).

one of my friends was killed by a drunk driver. clearly, there was no INTENT. the guy was drunk off his ass, the cop had his arm out trying to stop traffic at an accident scene, wearing a reflective vest and in broad daylight. the guy ran over him. that is a homicide. it was also classified by ODMP as an "accident" because it was. but it was an accidental homicide.

another friend was shot in the head. that was also a homicide, specifically a first degree murder.

[iverglas]

61. suck an egg

but please don't try to teach me.


homicide does not mean unlawful killing. it simply means a killing caused by another person.

Fook, man, you're smart.


regaRdless, i wasn't talking about HOMICIDES, i was talking about officers killed in the line of duty.

And I wasn't.

So ...


so, to clarify, i did not say 138 were unlawfully killed in the line of duty. all unlawful killings are homicides, and not all homicides are unlawful killings, or even if unlawful do not neessarily rise to the level of murder (see: manslaughter, etc.).

I'll bet there's a point to this.

None that I can see, but I'll bet there was some reason for you to start suddenly talking about non-homicide police deaths in a discussion about homicide police deaths.

Still none that I can see.

[paulsby]

63. the reason is

because if i didn't, it would appear to many people that only X cops were killed in the line of duty in a given year. go back in the thread and with an open mind (hard, i know) see if it's obvious that people are talking about the total cops killed (which they generally aren't), but in fact a subset.

i've seen this miscalculations before. i had to correct somebody a ways back who claimed far less officers are killed in the line of duty. they were referencing the number who were murdered, not those who were killed.

[iverglas]

65. go back in the thread yourself

it would appear to many people that only X cops were killed in the line of duty in a given year

The thread has nothing to do with how many cops DIED IN THE LINE OF DUTY in a given year.

Some elements of the thread are about how many cops ARE KILLED BY FIREARM in a given year.

Non-homicide police deaths HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH this discussion.


i've seen this miscalculations before

WHAT miscalculation???

The discussion was of the proportion of deaths of police BY FIREARM were specifically committed with assault weapons.

Why would police deaths in motorcycle accidents or by heart attack have the first thing to do with that discussion??

[iverglas]

62. some terminology for you, that might help

The original quoted passage was:

at least 41 of the 211 law enforcement officers slain in the line of duty between January 1, 1998, and December 31, 2001, were killed with assault weapons.

See that word there? "Slain"?

It really doesn't usually refer to dying in a motorcycle accident.

And if you note the total number of deaths in question -- 211 -- and the time period -- 4 years -- you'll see that you brought oranges to the apple table.

[paulsby]

64. not if you know what slain MEANS

slain is the past participle of the verb slay.

here's the dictionary.com definition:

"to kill violently, wantonly, or in great numbers"

that does not mean killed at the hands of another.

we can say X million people were slain by the black death.

but those deaths were not homicides.

numerous literary references, for example, to people being slain by disease, etc.

so, pick up a dictionary before you spout.

hth

[iverglas]

66. good fucking god

"to kill violently, wantonly, or in great numbers"

that does not mean killed at the hands of another.

No, it doesn't.

It says, as it says, TO KILL.

Not, like, to be died, or whatever you would like it to say.

It very definitely does mean that someone who IS SLAIN has been killed by another person.

That would be because the verb "slay" is a transitive verb, and involves an actor doing something to a person or thing.

Yeee-eesh.


numerous literary references, for example, to people being slain by disease, etc.

Yes, and when we start writing poetry here, I'll be sure to let you know.

If you really want to sit there with your eggy face hanging out and pretend that the VPC was talking about cops slain by heart attacks, you feel free.



typo fixed

[paulsby]

75. no, it doesn't

it implies an ACTOR, but not necessarily a human actor.

millions of people were slain by the black death.

sorry, no human actor there, and no homicide.

but iverglas i am familiar with your MO. when you are wrong, you won't admit it. you will obfuscate, deflect or change the topic.

so, i realize i am only speaking to the others here who actually care about data, facts, and reasonable discussion, not you.

hth

[Statistical]

69. I used FBI numbers because...

the FBI tracks FELONIOUS HOMICIDE seperately. This excludes all accidents, natural deaths or incidents (albiet rare) where LEO is the crminal and is killed.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/killed/2007/feloniouslykilled.html
Table 27 is death my method.

The link to 2007 is broken from the 2007 UCR. I let fbi know. It still goes to placeholder page saying data will be available in Oct (i.e Oct 2008).


In 2008 41 Officers were killed based on the same FBI standard "felonious homicides".
http://blog.ocsd.org/post/2009/05/11/Police-Officers-Feloniously-Killed-in-2008-Dropped-to-412c-FBI-Reports.aspx

Just trying to keep apples to apples comparison.

So if we "jump the gun" and do what the FBI will in Oct. Remove 1999, add 2008, and get new rolling 10 year data we have.

Weapon Total 1999 2000 20011 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Total 488 42 51 70 56 52 57 55 48 57 41
Total firearms 450 41 47 61 51 45 54 50 46 55 35
Handgun 328 25 33 46 38 34 36 42 36 38 25
Rifle 84 11 10 11 10 10 13 3 8 8 5
Shotgun 37 5 4 4 3 1 5 5 2 8 4
Unknown 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Non Firearm 41 1 4 9 5 7 3 5 2 2 6

Some interesting stats emerge.

Rifles are used less now than during AWB (14% vs 19%).
The average number of officers slain per year has decreased slightly from 54 durring AWB to 52 since it expired.
Handguns are still the primary method used to kill LEO (68% vs 65%).

[paulsby]

76. and i have no problem with that

i was merely clariftying, not disagreeing with the stats you chose to use.

and in the process, i got to school iverglas. so, it's a twofer!

[Tejas]

67. I propose that

if McCarthy hadn't suffered the tragedy concerning her son and husband, we wouldn't be talking about this. But no, a personal event occurs and next thing you know she is championing a national agenda.

Doubt she originally gave two hoots about firearms, now look at her.