We all know that?
Buck links to an ad by the four million mom march and the VPC that states:
You know and every law enforcement officer in America knows: the 1994 assault weapons ban saved lives.
Apparently, the CDC doesn’t know that; the FBI doesn’t know that because you’re eleven times more likely to be beaten to death; metro police departments know that assault weapons are used in less than 0.25% of violent crime; the FBI also notes that officers are twice as likely to be killed by their own handgun than by an assault weapon; and my personal favorite:
“Since police started keeping statistics, we now know that assault weapons are/were used in an underwhelming 0.026 of 1% of crimes in New Jersey. This means that my officers are more likely to confront an escaped tiger from the local zoo than to confront an assault rifle in the hands of a drug-crazed killer on the streets.”
–Deputy Chief of Police Joseph Constance, Trenton NJ, testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in Aug 1993
Source for most of that.
The VPC is one of many groups of people that has to lie to prove their point.
October 24th, 2003 at 11:57 am
I would vebture a guess that the assult weapon ban not only didn’t save a single life, but might have caused a few.
October 25th, 2003 at 1:20 am
I discussed this as far back as May where I pulled up statistics on police officer deaths by “assault weapon.” The VPC claims that 41 officers were killed with ‘assault rifles’ between 1998 and 2001. Except 19 of the 41 weren’t “assault rifles” as defined by law, and according to statistics I pulled up on officer deaths over the last couple of decades, “assault weapons” haven’t increased the number of officer deaths. The VPC appears to be arguing that “assault weapons” added 41 officer deaths to the toll, but the statistics don’t support that argument.
But since when has the VPC let mere facts get in the way?
November 14th, 2003 at 11:42 am
I don’t know this for sure, but from what I’ve heard, from the start of the ban about 19 police officers have been killed by assult weapons. Please correct me if I’m wrong. If this is true, it means that, even with the 19 taken out of the 41 deaths, it has decreased the number of cops killed by assult weapons.
November 14th, 2003 at 4:56 pm
Assault weapons (as defined by law, which only bans aesthetic features: https://saysuncle.com/archives/000923.html) have never been prevalent in crimes:
“Since police started keeping statistics, we now know that assault weapons are/were used in an underwhelming 0.026 of 1% of crimes in New Jersey. This means that my officers are more likely to confront an escaped tiger from the local zoo than to confront an assault rifle in the hands of a drug-crazed killer on the streets.” — Deputy Chief of Police Joseph Constance, Trenton NJ, testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in Aug 1993
They are expensive and mostly purchased by hobbyists and enthusiasts. As for the remaining 19, what were the stats before the ban? I’d guess higher. There has been an overall decrease in violent crime in general. Just because the ban was passed, it doesn’t mean that it caused a decrease in deaths.
Another example, every state that has passed laws allowing citizens to carry handguns has experienced a drop in crime. Every single one. As much as I’d like to believe that such a drop is attributable to the passing of such laws, I can’t. Other factors (general crime rate, poverty, etc.) contribute to such decreases.
January 25th, 2004 at 1:44 pm
Assult rifles. It doesn’t matter if a crimial has an “assult weapon” or not. It is the criminal, not the gun.
April 20th, 2004 at 10:35 am
yall need to get lives
April 20th, 2004 at 10:37 am
Really? It seems your level of debate dictates you need to get a clue.
Thanks for the comment.