Lapse of assault weapons ban cited for police deaths

Status
Not open for further replies.

748

member
Joined
Feb 24, 2006
Messages
1,285
Location
clovis, NM
I don't know about this year but in past years when I read the FBI uniformed crime report the most common guns used to kill police in the line of duty was your basic 9mm semi auto hand gun and pump shot guns mainly the mossy 500. Yet these libs blame "assualt weapons" like the Tec-9 and every other black gun.
Here is the link:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19853442/
Here is the noise:

Police deaths up sharply in first half of year
Officials blame more violent criminals with deadlier guns after lapse of ban

Police officials and law enforcement groups Thursday blamed a sharp increase in the number of law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty on more violent criminals who have access to deadlier weapons.

Statistics released Thursday showed that 101 local and federal law enforcement officers died on duty in the first half of the year, 31 more than had died at the same time last year. It was the first time in three decades that the toll had reached more than 100.

“Every assignment that a police officer is on is potentially life-threatening,” said Craig Floyd, chairman of the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, a nonprofit group that compiled the statistics with the police advocacy group Concerns of Police Survivors. “And unfortunately, for the first six months of this year, it’s been particularly deadly for our police officers.”

Floyd called the statistics “very alarming” and “somewhat puzzling, quite honestly, because over the last 30 years we’ve seen a downward trend in the number of officers’ being shot.”

The memorial fund annually releases the half-year study, which NBC News justice correspondent Pete Williams said was considered highly reliable by law enforcement agencies.

Nearly half of the officers died in fatal traffic-related incidents, but 39 of them were shot to death, a 44 percent rise over the number shot to death by the same point last year. Floyd tied that increase to a rising number of officers on the street responding to more violent crimes, many of them domestic disturbances.

“Often, alcohol or drugs are involved, and a high rate of emotion is involved,” Floyd said in an interview with MSNBC. “It’s a very volatile situation. A police officer responds trying to keep the peace, and oftentimes they become the targets of this violence themselves.”

Lapse of assault weapons ban cited
Local and federal law enforcement officials told NBC News that criminals were more likely to use high-powered semiautomatic pistols and handguns today.

Some of those weapons, like the widely feared Intratec Tec-9, were banned until 2004, but they became legal when Congress refused to extend the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, even though President Bush, an opponent of gun control, promised to sign an extension.

Semiautomatic firearms — including the previously banned assault-style guns often misleadingly equated with “assault weapons,” which remain illegal — boast higher-capacity magazines than standard revolvers, and their trigger mechanisms allow users to fire off more rounds in a shorter period of time.

The study did not examine how many of the police officers killed this year were shot with weapons that were legalized three years ago, but the study and figures compiled by the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics suggest a statistical correlation.

The 39 officers killed in the first half of 2007 exceeds the 36 officers shot to death in all of 2004, the last year the ban was in effect. More broadly, firearm-related crime rose in 2005, the first year after the semiautomatic weapons became legal again, after having declined every year since the ban took effect in 1994.

“We’ve always had lots of guns,” said Charlotte-Mecklenburg, N.C., Police Chief Darrel Stephens, president of the Major Cities Police Chiefs Association. None of the department’s officers were killed by gunfire last year, but six have been gunned down since Jan. 1.

“What we’ve seen is people shifting from revolvers to automatic weapons,” Stephens said. “Rather than six shots or five, they have 14 or 20.”

:barf: :scrutiny:
I say those of us that have an MSN account like me sign in and vote this a half star or a 0.5.
So far it has rating of 2.5 by 363 users. (I am vote # 363)
 
They're just getting us primed for 2008. Count on a reintroduction of the ban if the dems take office, or gain in congress. Obama slipped up by letting the cat out of the bag early. The only thing left is to start the terrorism connection with assault weapons.
 
one in Moscow Idaho... M1A.. no pistol grip, no black furniture...

Oh that's right, the PERSON in control of the rifle did the shooting.. I was under the impression that the rifle just went out one night all by itself....{/sarcasm
 
The study did not examine how many of the police officers killed this year were shot with weapons that were legalized three years ago, but the study and figures compiled by the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics suggest a statistical correlation.
Correlation =/= causation.

They fail rhetoric.
 
Sigh. This misconception that certain guns "became legal again" in 2004 keeps cropping up. Truth is, no guns were banned; the law only restricted new rifles from having 2 or more listed features simultaneously. Intratecs were still legal, AK's were still legal, AR-15's were still legal (although they could not be marketed under the name "AR-15"). So no weapons "became legal" in 2004; the only thing that happened was that after 2004, rifles with protruding handgrips could have bayonet lugs again.

I sent a polite email to the author, pointing out that civvie AK's and such were just as legal 1994-2004 as they are now, and inviting him to the range to shoot a ban-era AK for himself if he wants. We'll see how that goes...

I included the following photo, showing just how superficial the changes wrought by the Feinstein "ban" were:

gallery_260_23_74799.jpg


Nor is Intratec selling any postban Tec-9's, because Intratec went out of business years ago, IIRC. So Tec-9's aren't responsible for the crime rate increase, though you'd never know it from the article. (And "feared"? sheesh, it's a non-automatic civilian 9mm pistol, just like a Smith & Wesson.)
 
The people who buy this crap could not even describe the basic operation of a T9.
I am sure they would decribe some thing like the SMG on Halo2. Where you pull the trigger and it shoots 120 bullets before you have to reload :what: and I am sure they are also sold at every gun show for $50 with no back round check.

EDIT: I just checked that news article, its down to a 2.0 Hmmm how can that be?
 
Last edited:
Your arguments are counter productive. They imply that the ban on machine guns (real assault rifles) is ok, but banning semi-autos based on cosmetics is not, since they are not the same as the others. That just sends the message that you're ok with the other ban. You might not be, but that's what happens. What is our community going to say when or IF we ever reach a point where we can challenge the machine gun ban? They will all say we were ok with it. That's why the NRA disgusts me. They are countless times on record saying they are satisfied with the current gun control on the books.

It is better to just come out and say that these firearms are perfectly ok to own and there is nothing abnormal about it. Rather than beat around the bush defending some while condemning others (unintentionally).

That is playing the whole gun control game. You lose in the end. The real issue is all about acceptance of the gun culture, or better yet, acceptance of the idea of firearm ownership. That's what it's about. And it is best to deliver that message with support of whatever firearm.

If you argue the details, like muzzle brake vs. full auto good & evil, it is meaningless as the opponents we face do not care about features. These bans are incremental steps toward a greater goal. It is better to reinforce and state arguments or acceptance of firearm ownership, regardless of what kind of firearm.


It is also more thought provoking. You will never win compromising your views. They don't. They go for all out bans, then compromise - thus shifting American culture toward their vision. We never start off demanding our ultimate goals. We start off with *****footing compromise. In the end, we get nothing.


Being terse and to the point is far better. When I am talking with an anti in person and they ask their stupid rhetorical questions, often with shock and disgust in their tone - I simply say "sure, why not" ...and carry on as if it is no big deal. Because it isn't. They are the uneducated and ignorant that have been whipped into a state of hysteria by schools, the media, the government and possibly their family. Taking a defensive, apologetic tone trying to explain yourself and your hobby is pointless. It is more productive to just state up front you views, even if they are absolutist views of the Second Amendment. Because then, most of the time, they try and figure out why you think that way and why you have such an "extreme" position. If you sit there and try and make your AK-47 look kinder and gentler, using justifications and other nonsense, they just see you as pandering and are likely to dismiss everything you say. I tell them upfront. I own AR-15's because they are more effective, not because they are less effective. Yes, I can do more damage with an AR-15 than I can a semi-auto hunting rifle. That's why I want it and not some piece of garbage Ruger. It's the American way. I want the most effective firepower I can get for all the logical reasons. This gets their attention. They are firearm ignorant, what you speak of when it comes to full auto vs. semiauto, muzzle brake vs. flash hider is in one ear, out the other. When you say this one has a bayonet lug and the other doesn't - THEY DON'T CARE because they are only interested in the idea that firearms cause deaths regardless. So long as it has a barrel and shoots a bullet, they don't agree. Therefore, you must defend the concept of owning a firearms in general, and thus you lose nothing by supporting the most effective of firearms from the get-go. At least you establish it in the dialogue, which makes it more and more accepted as a topic.


Unbelievable. Most of our core beliefs, what the nation was founded on, is a taboo subject. Most of the gun community doesn't even dare argue their "extreme" positions to their opponents! The very people who don't give a damn in the first place, and who voice their extreme positions without fear. We're too chicken to even talk about what we believe in to our opponents, let alone the mainstream public.


I believe Oleg has the right message too. If you take a deeper look at many of his posters, they do not mess around. They are upfront and in your face about the acceptance of owning firearms, even scary ones.


The truth always wins in the end. But it can't win if no one is willing to speak the truth.
 
h
high-powered semiautomatic pistols and handguns

widely feared Intratec Tec-9

Correct me if I'm wrong , but isn't the tec-9 a 9mm? What's "high powered " about that?

Semiautomatic firearms — including the previously banned assault-style guns often misleadingly equated with “assault weapons,” which remain illegal

Well at least it's acknowledged that they are assault style and not really assault rifles . But "assault weapons" still are not illegal , as we know , you just need to pay the tax to own them .
 
"Correct me if I'm wrong , but isn't the tec-9 a 9mm? What's "high powered " about that? "

Nothing. You don't expect people who report on guns, to actually know anything about guns, do you?

Now, they're trying to confuse the masses again, between assault weapon look-alikes, and semi-auto pistols.

At least this reporter recognized a distinction between the look-alikes, and real assault weapons. That was a real shocker. He still threw pistols into a mix where they don't belong, though.
 
Some of those weapons, like the widely feared Intratec Tec-9, were banned until 2004, but they became legal when Congress refused to extend the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994

it always comes back to the Tec-9. For the life of me I've never seen a Tec-9 in a gunshop, and even if I did, I have a feeling I wouldn't be shaking in my boots. Seriously, what's the difference between a Tec-9 and a Glock 17? They both are semi (as we're not talking NFA items here) and both are 9mm.
 
Having owned a TEC-9 I can validate that they are indeed widely feared. You pull the trigger on that weapon and you have no clue where the bullets will go. The fixed sights on mine were off by 4 feet at 25 meters but that was just a guess based upon the MOA of 5 feet that it produced. Oftentimes bullets would strike the target in the lane next to mine. Just trying to use it for SD at anything but point blank range would have been a liability nightmare.

While I find banning guns abhorent here it might actually have made a good case for public safety. Still thanks to the AWB I was able to sell it for more than twice what I paid for it less than a year later.

I say we ban all sales of new TEC-9s so no more shall they trouble us. Oh wait they don't make them anymore?... never mind.
 
Shhhhh..........
We don't want the anti's to know we can still get legal full autos.
The few anti's I do know think their illigal. You have to carefully introduce how you get a legal full, supperessor and DD's auto to an anti gunner.
If your not care full they will think any one can buy a full auto, supperessor or DD's at any gun show for $50.
I think I have turned at least 2 anti gunners away form the dark side of the force. They are not "far right over turn the machine gun ban" like I am but they will now listen to facts.
Over several weeks teach them these lessons.
Lesson 1: tell them how CHP's reduced crime in a hand full of states 10 years a go and now how 48/50 states caught on to it and now have CHP programs of there own. That works well, gets their full attention (because they though CC was illigal every where but texas). It really helps when you pull out a CHP with (your state here) on it. Or for shock effect pull out 2 or 3 CHP's form different states :D .
Lesson 2: some times you have to explain the difference between semi auto and full auto. And work in the fact that any time you buy a gun form any gun show dealer or any gun store there is an FBI back round check. They think 99% of guns are sold from stores and gun shows w/o back round checks.
Lesson 3: Introduction to Title 2 and 3 fire arms. Most anti's don't care a hole lot about your pistol or my hunting rifle in most cases but Now that they know what makes a full auto gun; full auto they know that those guns are illegal but don't under stand how people can own them and don't go to jail. As if the cops don't care weather or not you have a full auto. The media has made people think their is a huge gray area when it comes to legal full auto owner ship and the full autos used in say the 1994 LA bank robbery. As if all Full autos are in the same gray legal/illegal loop hole NRA floated boat.
Lesson 4: Show them what they thought were illegal fire arms (supperessors, DD's also) and such are in fact really legal guns are tightly regulated and contoled by the ATF and taxed by the NFA branch. 2 layers of government really warms them up to the Idea of people with right to bear "(real)ARMS"........
Lesson 5: Tell them how much a real legal machine gun costs ($xxx,xxx to $xx,xxx in most cases) they will go :what: (because they thought a few days ago you can get them any gun show for $50) and answer questions, they will have a few. Mainly about DD's and MG's. And it helps if you add in the fact some where along the way that if any one steals you registered ATF gun they have about a 85% chance of getting caught and going to federal prision for many years.
Now they feel safe knowing that just any one just can't go and buy a MG form any gun show for $50, unrestricted.

This post was brought to you by several shots of Jack Daniels :evil: (sorry)
 
The 39 officers killed in the first half of 2007 exceeds the 36 officers shot to death in all of 2004, the last year the ban was in effect. More broadly, firearm-related crime rose in 2005, the first year after the semiautomatic weapons became legal again, after having declined every year since the ban took effect in 1994.

54 killed by firearms in 2004

"Firearm related crime" is a broad statement . Could be as simple as someone having an "assault weapon" in an area that bans them , etc . Moot point . Keep making more laws against firearms , and of course , 'firearm related" crime will rise . Starting with murders , then switching to firearms crimes is a bait and switch .

Now as far as LEO murders (according to FBI data) , 1996 -2005 , numbers of murders is 57 ,68 ,58 ,41 ,47 ,61 ,51 ,45 ,54 ,50. (2005 had just 3 murders with a rifle, lowest of the time period).


Btw , 1994-2003 , 52 officers were killed with their own weapons . So , should the police not have weapons , if it will save just one life (yes , sarcasm) ?Funny they never mention this .

Apparently , reporters no longer have to research the stories they report , but rather , just parrot what they are told by "officials" .

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/killed/2005/table28.htm

One thing not addressed is how many of the "cop killers" were prior criminals on probation/parole etc that never should have had a gun to begin with according to the laws in place .

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/killed/2005/table44.htm

Almost forgot . The following is also a misleading statement . Says nothing about actual firearms related deaths , just total lives lost while on duty . Another bait and switch to try to support an a cause/agenda.

Statistics released Thursday showed that 101 local and federal law enforcement officers died on duty in the first half of the year,
 
Last edited:
The study did not examine how many of the police officers killed this year were shot with weapons that were legalized three years ago, but the study and figures compiled by the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics suggest a statistical correlation.

This statement is self contradictory.
 
I like this quote:

Floyd called the statistics “very alarming” and “somewhat puzzling, quite honestly, because over the last 30 years we’ve seen a downward trend in the number of officers’ being shot.”

So then... police officer firearms' deaths have been going down for 30 years, but you're going to blame one bad year on a ban that lasted only 10 of those years?

Well that's convenient.
 
Hey benEzra

What type of AK is that? Vector?

Looks a hell of alot nicer than my WASR10 - which is starting to get the "battlefield pickup" look :D
 
It's obvious that the reporter is trying to link the 39 gun related LEO deaths to the expiration of the Clinton AWB, and not doing too good a job at it, at least to anyone who can read and think.
“What we’ve seen is people shifting from revolvers to automatic weapons,” Stephens said. “Rather than six shots or five, they have 14 or 20.”

It would be interesting to find out what, if any, of the rounds beyond the first six actually hit their intended target (LEO). There was a recent study done that found most criminals shoot at the LEO first and had a greater hit rate.
 
There was a recent study done that found most criminals shoot at the LEO first and had a greater hit rate.
That would stand to reason--the criminal usually knows there's going to be a gunfight at least a few moments ahead of time.
The cop probably usually finds out after the first shot is fired.
 
I for one am sick and tired of these idiot law enforcement officers, (usually the chief of police) that continue to call for gun control.

While I don't want to indict all law enforcement, the thing I don't understand is how they process this stuff.

Any cop knows they rarely prevent crimes or murders, they simply try to solve the crime or respond and react to a crime that has already been committed. While there may be a very small number of law abiding citizens with semi-auto rifles and pistols that at some point go crazy and commit crimes with them, it is a rare occurence. Usually it is criminals doing the law breaking.

The idiot chief in Salt Lake calling for more gun control is a perfect example. Just a few months back there is a major shooting at Trolley Square (approximately 2 minutes from the actual police station) and still the only reason that there was limited loss of life was because of a concealed semi-auto pistol. Granted it was an off duty cop that had it, but the only thing he did was pin down the gunman, he didn't shoot him John Wayne style.

I guess I'll never understand the anti's reasoning. If the chief of police can't figure out that it is criminals using the guns and the only thing more gun laws do is punish law abiding citizens, they'll never understand it.

What a joke.
 
Hey benEzra
What type of AK is that? Vector?

Looks a hell of alot nicer than my WASR10 - which is starting to get the "battlefield pickup" look
That's actually a Romanian SAR-1, predecessor of the WASR (mine was imported in 2002). The main difference is that the receiver has stamped dimples to locate the magazine instead of riveted blocks.

Not all SAR's came in with wood this nicely finished, but I got lucky, I guess.

I'm sure a coat of polyurethane would make any stock look better, though.

Here's the SAR in its current configuration:

med_gallery_260_23_20379.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top