It’s not a bill of needs
Another lame editorial that opens with:
You don’t need an assault weapon to defend your home and family against an intruder. Neither do you need one to go duck or deer hunting. What you need an assault weapon for is to commit murder and mayhem on a massive scale.
Which means you don’t need one at all. President Bush recognizes that, or at least he used to. “It makes no sense for assault weapons to be around our society,” he said while campaigning for the presidency four years ago.
What does need have to do with it? My AR15 does commit murder and mayhem on a massive scale to little pieces of paper. Then, it repeats the lies:
A more wrong-headed decision is hard to imagine. These weapons account for an extremely disproportionate percentage of gun violence because of their firepower and macho appeal. They are the weapon of choice in one of every five fatal shootings of police officers. They have no legitimate uses for private citizens and should have no place in civil society.
Wrong. They are used in less than 1% of crime (the most common weapons used in crime being 9mm semi-automatics and 357 revolvers, both handguns) and the one of every five fatal shootings of police officers has been debunked. Both of these facts come from the Violence Policy Center.
Do some actual reporting instead of repeating the talking points of an anti gun organization.
September 6th, 2004 at 1:04 pm
I thought the tops were the 9mm semi (which now outdoes small ones like the .25ACP, .32ACP, and .380 thanks to Sat Nite Special laws) and the veneralbe S&W .38 Special, which makes the list simply by virtue of there being about a billion of them in existence.