01-20-2013 08:12 AM
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—including the Colt AR-15, a semiautomatic version of the M-16 machine gun used by our armed forces, the Uzi, and the Tec-9 pistol, whose manufacturer's advertisements hailed its "fingerprint-resistant" finish—have been used in countless murders such as the Stockton schoolyard and Columbine High School shootings.
Opponents of the assault weapons ban often argue that the ban only outlawed certain weapons because of their "cosmetic features" and not because they are inherently more dangerous than other weapons. This is simply not true.
While most rifles are designed to be fired from the shoulder and depend upon the accuracy of a precisely aimed projectile, semiautomatic assault weapons are designed to maximize lethal effects through a rapid rate of fire. Assault weapons are designed to be spray-fired from the hip, and because of their design a shooter can maintain control of the weapon even while firing many rounds in rapid succession.
The cosmetic features opponents of the ban point to are actually military features such as silencers, flash suppressors, pistol grips, folding stocks, and bayonets that were designed specifically to increase the lethality of these weapons and make them more concealable. Many come equipped with large ammunition magazines allowing 50 or more bullets to be fired without reloading.
Weapons of this nature serve no legitimate sporting or hunting purposes and have no place in our communities. Unless Congress acts, the firearms of choice for terrorists, drug dealers, and gang members will be back on our streets—where, once again, our officers will be outgunned by criminals.
If Congress and the administration fail to reauthorize the assault weapons ban, it will be up to the law enforcement community to demand that it be reinstated. Over the last decade, we have made significant progress in our efforts to reduce violent crime rates. The ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines has been a crucial component of our national crime-fighting strategy.
We must not surrender the gains that we have made.
It is vital that we, as police chiefs, take a leading role in this effort. We know the tremendous harm that these weapons can inflict on our communities and we know what the proliferation of these weapons will mean to our officers. We need to be leaders, both in word and in deed, and we must make every effort to ensure that our elected officials understand that failure to reauthorize the assault weapons ban is a significant step back for law enforcement and public safety.
http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.
Really? How about that.
01-20-2013 08:22 AM
01-20-2013 08:24 AM
mauser wrote:
No.
Of course not. Can't have stats screwing up your BS line of reasoning.
01-20-2013 08:28 AM
01-20-2013 08:34 AM
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?
01-20-2013 08:36 AM
mauser wrote:
Quickie: our liberties shouldn't be based upon "stats".
But our laws should. Think about it.
01-20-2013 08:40 AM
quickie1 wrote:
mauser wrote:
Quickie: our liberties shouldn't be based upon "stats".But our laws should. Think about it.
no, coz everything would s.u.c.k.
01-20-2013 08:45 AM
01-20-2013 08:45 AM
yumpy wrote:
quickie1 wrote:
mauser wrote:
Quickie: our liberties shouldn't be based upon "stats".But our laws should. Think about it.
no, coz everything would s.u.c.k.
Then you make options and compromise.....As any reasonable society should.
01-20-2013 08:46 AM
mauser wrote:
Quickie: No. I said I have the right to kill.
How's that "right" going for ya?
01-20-2013 08:47 AM
01-20-2013 08:48 AM
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—including the Colt AR-15, a semiautomatic version of the M-16 machine gun used by our armed forces, the Uzi, and the Tec-9 pistol, whose manufacturer's advertisements hailed its "fingerprint-resistant" finish—have been used in countless murders such as the Stockton schoolyard and Columbine High School shootings.
Opponents of the assault weapons ban often argue that the ban only outlawed certain weapons because of their "cosmetic features" and not because they are inherently more dangerous than other weapons. This is simply not true.
While most rifles are designed to be fired from the shoulder and depend upon the accuracy of a precisely aimed projectile, semiautomatic assault weapons are designed to maximize lethal effects through a rapid rate of fire. Assault weapons are designed to be spray-fired from the hip, and because of their design a shooter can maintain control of the weapon even while firing many rounds in rapid succession.
The cosmetic features opponents of the ban point to are actually military features such as silencers, flash suppressors, pistol grips, folding stocks, and bayonets that were designed specifically to increase the lethality of these weapons and make them more concealable. Many come equipped with large ammunition magazines allowing 50 or more bullets to be fired without reloading.
Weapons of this nature serve no legitimate sporting or hunting purposes and have no place in our communities. Unless Congress acts, the firearms of choice for terrorists, drug dealers, and gang members will be back on our streets—where, once again, our officers will be outgunned by criminals.
If Congress and the administration fail to reauthorize the assault weapons ban, it will be up to the law enforcement community to demand that it be reinstated. Over the last decade, we have made significant progress in our efforts to reduce violent crime rates. The ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines has been a crucial component of our national crime-fighting strategy.
We must not surrender the gains that we have made.
It is vital that we, as police chiefs, take a leading role in this effort. We know the tremendous harm that these weapons can inflict on our communities and we know what the proliferation of these weapons will mean to our officers. We need to be leaders, both in word and in deed, and we must make every effort to ensure that our elected officials understand that failure to reauthorize the assault weapons ban is a significant step back for law enforcement and public safety.
http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.
cfm?fuseaction=display&article_id=384
Really? How about that.
I'll take facts over a biased article like yours.
01-20-2013 08:50 AM
quickie1 wrote:
yumpy wrote:
quickie1 wrote:
mauser wrote:
Quickie: our liberties shouldn't be based upon "stats".But our laws should. Think about it.
no, coz everything would s.u.c.k.
Then you make options and compromise.....As any reasonable society should.
then we trade politicians for statistisions.
great idea.
let's let accountants run the world while we're at it.
01-20-2013 08:51 AM
01-20-2013 08:53 AM
01-20-2013 09:08 AM - edited 01-20-2013 09:09 AM
Statistically the number of "assault weapons", which is an emotional misnomer to begin with, used in crimes is insignificant. Well into the high 90% area are NOT committed with rifles, and "assault" rifles are used for a very small portion of that.
An AWB has been shown to have virtually no effect on crime at all. The above article is inaccurate.
01-20-2013 09:15 AM
dblazer wrote:Statistically the number of "assault weapons", which is an emotional misnomer to begin with, used in crimes is insignificant. Well into the high 90% area are NOT committed with rifles, and "assault" rifles are used for a very small portion of that.
An AWB has been shown to have virtually no effect on crime at all. The above article is inaccurate.
Yep. The FBI stats pwn the OP.
01-20-2013 09:21 AM
dblazer wrote:Statistically the number of "assault weapons", which is an emotional misnomer to begin with, used in crimes is insignificant. Well into the high 90% area are NOT committed with rifles, and "assault" rifles are used for a very small portion of that.
An AWB has been shown to have virtually no effect on crime at all. The above article is inaccurate.
Banning assault weapons based on how they look is dumb. Limiting clip size has at least one recent clear instance where it could have saved lives.
"Senators say they fear the N.R.A. and the gun lobby. But I think that fear must be nothing compared to the fear the first graders in Sandy Hook Elementary School felt as their lives ended in a hail of bullets. The fear that those children who survived the massacre must feel every time they remember their teachers stacking them into closets and bathrooms, whispering that they loved them, so that love would be the last thing the students heard if the gunman found them."- Gabrielle Giffords
01-20-2013 09:23 AM
I like how they use the "66 percent" figure instead of the actual numbers. With less than 2% of firearms crimes being committed with an "assault weapon" it wouldn't take much of a drop to come up with 66% and even then could you realistically attribute that small drop the the ban. I call BS.
01-20-2013 09:27 AM
About HCHarmonyCentral.com is the leading Internet resource for musicians, supplying valuable information from news and product reviews, to classified ads and chat rooms.
Advertise on HC