Harmony Central Forums
Announcement Announcement Module
Collapse
No announcement yet.

President's Message: Reauthorization of the Assault Weapons Ban

Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse









X
Conversation Detail Module
Collapse
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • President's Message: Reauthorization of the Assault Weapons Ban

    By the time you read this column, it is highly probable that the federal ban on semiautomatic assault weapons will have expired and once again these weapons will begin to flood our communities and threaten our officers.

    First passed in 1994, the assault weapons ban required domestic gun manufacturers to stop production of semiautomatic assault weapons and ammunition magazines holding more than 10 rounds except for military or police use. Imports of assault weapons not already banned by administrative action under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush were also halted.

    Since the law was enacted, the ban has proven remarkably effective in reducing the number of crimes involving assault weapons. Since 1994 the proportion of assault weapons traced to crimes has fallen by a dramatic 66 percent. Public opinion polls continue to prove that more than 75 percent of the public supports a reauthorization of the current ban.

    The IACP has been a strong supporter of the assault weapons ban since 1992, and our membership approved a resolution calling for its reauthorization at our 2003 conference. The membership took this action because we, as law enforcement executives, understand that semiautomatic assault weapons pose a grave risk to our officers and the communities they are sworn to protect.

    It is deeply troubling that Congress and the administration have so far failed to reauthorize this critically important legislation.

    Assault weapons are routinely the weapons of choice for gang members and drug dealers. They are regularly encountered in drug busts and are all too often used against our officers. In fact, one in five law enforcement officers slain in the line of duty between January 1, 1998, and December 31, 2001, was killed with an assault weapon, according to "Officer Down," a report from the Violence Policy Center. The weapons in question

    _________________________________________

    “True unalienable rights do not require one to trample other unalienable rights.”
    ―J.S.B. Morse

  • #2
    No.

    Comment


    • quickie1
      quickie1 commented
      Editing a comment

      mauser wrote:
      No.

      Of course not. Can't have stats screwing up your BS line of reasoning.


  • #3
    Quickie: our liberties shouldn't be based upon "stats".

    Comment


    • erok123
      erok123 commented
      Editing a comment

      mauser wrote:
      Quickie: our liberties shouldn't be based upon "stats".

       

      Aren't you the one that said the constitution gives you the "right" to kill?


    • quickie1
      quickie1 commented
      Editing a comment

      mauser wrote:
      Quickie: our liberties shouldn't be based upon "stats".

      But our laws should. Think about it.


  • #4
    Quickie: No. I said I have the right to kill.

    Comment


    • quickie1
      quickie1 commented
      Editing a comment

      mauser wrote:
      Quickie: No. I said I have the right to kill.

      How's that "right" going for ya?


  • #5
    Quickie: So far, I haven't needed to exercise it.

    Comment


    • #6

      quickie1 wrote:

      By the time you read this column, it is highly probable that the federal ban on semiautomatic assault weapons will have expired and once again these weapons will begin to flood our communities and threaten our officers.

      First passed in 1994, the assault weapons ban required domestic gun manufacturers to stop production of semiautomatic assault weapons and ammunition magazines holding more than 10 rounds except for military or police use. Imports of assault weapons not already banned by administrative action under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush were also halted.

      Since the law was enacted, the ban has proven remarkably effective in reducing the number of crimes involving assault weapons. Since 1994 the proportion of assault weapons traced to crimes has fallen by a dramatic 66 percent. Public opinion polls continue to prove that more than 75 percent of the public supports a reauthorization of the current ban.

      The IACP has been a strong supporter of the assault weapons ban since 1992, and our membership approved a resolution calling for its reauthorization at our 2003 conference. The membership took this action because we, as law enforcement executives, understand that semiautomatic assault weapons pose a grave risk to our officers and the communities they are sworn to protect.

      It is deeply troubling that Congress and the administration have so far failed to reauthorize this critically important legislation.

      Assault weapons are routinely the weapons of choice for gang members and drug dealers. They are regularly encountered in drug busts and are all too often used against our officers. In fact, one in five law enforcement officers slain in the line of duty between January 1, 1998, and December 31, 2001, was killed with an assault weapon, according to "Officer Down," a report from the Violence Policy Center. The weapons in question

      Comment


      • #7
        Quickie: Laws based upon stats that infringe on our liberties shouldn't exist.

        Comment


        • #8
          Quickie: You see...the purpose of law is to protect our rights....not infringe upon them.

          Comment


          • moonlightin
            moonlightin commented
            Editing a comment

            mauser wrote:
            Quickie: You see...the purpose of law is to protect our rights....not infringe upon them.

             

            And what laws would be infringed upon?


        • #9

          quickie1 wrote:.

          Since the law was enacted, the ban has proven remarkably effective in reducing the number of crimes involving assault weapons. Since 1994 the proportion of assault weapons traced to crimes has fallen by a dramatic 66 percent.


          In the period from 1994 to present, the federal assault weapons ban has been expired for almost as long as it has been in effect. 

          Comment


          • #10
            Will: I await his arrival.

            Comment


            • #11
              Moonlighting: True, but then I never claimed to have the right to murder.

              Comment


              • erok123
                erok123 commented
                Editing a comment

                mauser wrote:
                Moonlighting: True, but then I never claimed to have the right to murder.

                 

                You put it in the context that the constitution gives you the right to be the judge, juror, and executioner all at once. You're one of the people that should have his guns taken away, if that's truly what you believe. That's not "liberty" - it's "right of might" and anarchy of the most despicable sort.


            • #12
              Fret: just pass a law that prohibits gums from being used in the commission of a crime.

              Problem solved.

              Comment


              • fretmess
                fretmess commented
                Editing a comment

                OK serious now.  All the talk about mag capacity and so forth is fun but here is an article from Guns and Ammo Handguns that  gives a lot of real world details.  A long read but worth it I think.

                 

                What really happens in a gunfight

                http://www.handgunsmag.com/2010/09/24/tactics_training_what_happens_gunfight/

                 

                 


              • guido61
                guido61 commented
                Editing a comment

                mauser wrote:
                Fret: just pass a law that prohibits gums from being used in the commission of a crime.

                Problem solved.

                We have that already.  No problem solved.  Crimes are already illegal--whether you use guns in them or not---that's why they are called "crimes".

                The idea is to help PREVENT crimes.  It's already illegal to kill people.  We put people in jail for that.  What would be nice is stuff that helps us stop these people BEFORE they kill.

                The shooter in Aurora used a LEGAL gun with a LEGAL mega-round clip to kill a dozen people.    Had he needed to break a law to have access to those types of weapons, maybe he'd have been arrested for something else besides murder.   Sure be nice if he was instead facing charges for trying to buy an illegal weapon and all those people were still alive, wouldn't it?


            • #13
              Moonlightin: Nothing anarchist about defending yourself.

              Comment


              • #14
                Guido: if your goal is to prevent crime, then focus your efforts on those who commit them.

                And no....you're not.

                Comment


                • guido61
                  guido61 commented
                  Editing a comment

                  mauser wrote:
                  Guido: if your goal is to prevent crime, then focus your efforts on those who commit them.

                  And no....you're not.

                  Yes, I am.  

                  Here's the problem: your simplistic "focus your efforts on those who commit them" system is failing us.  Waiting until these guys break the law by killing people is too late.  Like you say, bad guys are going to break the law anyway.   So instead of waiting until they MURDER somebody before they've broken a law, how about giving them a law-they-are-going-to-break-anyway to be caught and imprisioned for BEFORE they shoot up a dozen people!

                  Like say, making the gun they need to use to be able to commit such a heinous crime with illegal!   Sure, not EVERY bad guy who needs to buy such a gun illegally will be able to be stopped in his tracks at the point of the gun purchase.  But maybe this guy in Colorado would have.   Maybe this guy in CT would have chosen something else to do that day because mommy didn't leave her LEGAL assault rifle and mega-round clip lying around.

                  Just sayin'.


              • #15
                Guido: Because few if any criminals will be deterred, and the rights of virtually everyone else will be infringed upon.

                And maybe he wouldn't have.

                Thing is.....you don't know, but are willing to restrict liberty using your ignorance as the guide.

                You're scared....other people are scared....and you want to feel all warm and fuzzy. Just like people wanted when we were saddled with the Patriot Act.

                What will be the next boogeyman from which we need protection?

                Comment



                Working...
                X