Random E-Mail From Durbin

[Trent]

I haven't e-mailed ANY reps or senators in about 6 months ("all quiet on the western front, captain!").

Then today at work I get this random e-mail from Dick Durbin, out of the blue.

Dear Mr. xxxxxxx:

Thank you for your message about a federal ban on assault weapons. I appreciate knowing your thoughts about this issue.

I am not opposed to the possession of guns. Americans are entitled to own and use guns responsibly and we must honor and respect the right to bear arms set forth in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

I stand with the Illinois law enforcement community in supporting the assault weapons ban. The 1994 federal assault weapons ban expired on September 13, 2004. For 10 years, the ban was an effective law enforcement tool that dramatically reduced the number of crimes committed with assault weapons. In 1993, assault weapons accounted for more than eight percent of all guns used in crimes. In 1995, the first year of the ban, assault weapons accounted for just under four percent of guns used criminally and by 2002, this percentage had dropped even further, to slightly over one percent. While the ban did not totally eliminate the illegal use of assault weapons, it was an important measure that increased public safety without infringing on the rights of average gun owners.

Military-style assault weapons are designed for one thing—firing a large number of bullets in a short amount of time. These firearms were the types of weapons used in the senseless acts of violence recently committed at Sandy Hook Elementary School and the movie theater in Aurora, Colorado. Following these tragic events, I met with law enforcement leaders in Illinois and what I heard was that we must take steps to limit military-style assault weapons and magazines to reduce the scale of gun violence and help keep our communities safe.
 

I will continue to respect gun owner’s Second Amendment rights while standing with law enforcement officers in the effort to help protect our communities from the violent crimes committed with assault weapons. Although we may disagree on this issue, I will keep your thoughts in mind as the Senate considers measures to prevent gun violence.

Sincerely,
Richard J. Durbin
United States Senator

RJD/bc

 

[Trent]

Oh, I forgot the important part.

At the top of the e-mail (not posted) was my full name and home address.

Not sure where he got THAT from, but I never sent any e-mail to any reps or senators with my full contact information, usually just county and state.

 

[Trent]

My response.

Senator Durbin;

Thank you for your response. I respectfully wish to ask a follow up question to your statements.

Based on your statement below, you state the Federal Assault weapons ban was directly responsible for reducing the amount of murders with assault rifles, from more than 8 percent, to one percent. But … wait.. if this were true, since the assault weapons ban expired in 2004, shouldn’t violent crime with assault weapons long since skyrocketed to “pre-ban” levels?

In Illinois, since the sunset of the assault weapon ban, there have been very small amounts of homicide with rifle (ANY rifle, including bolt actions, lever actions, 22 caliber, etc).

(All data below sourced from the FBI Uniform Crime reporting statistics, “table 20: murder by weapon by state”)

2004: *4* murders with Rifles (all types), out of 448.
(10 with hands and fists)

2005: *4* murders with rifles (all types), out of 448.
(21 with hands and fists)

2006: ONCE AGAIN, *4* murders with rifles (all types), out of 487
(14 murders with hands and fists)

2007: YET AGAIN! *4* murders with rifles (all types), out of 463.
(10 murders with hands and fists)

2008: WHOA New number! *3* murders with rifles (all types), out of 530.
(11 murders with hands and fists)

2009: *5* murders with rifles (all types), out of 479.
(6 murders with hands and fists)

2010: *3* murders with rifles (all types), out of 453.
(16 murders with hands and fists)

2011: *1* - yes, only ONE murder with a rifle, all types, out of 452.
(*17* murders with hands and fists)

2012: *4* murders with rifles (all types), out of 509.
(12 murders with hands and fists)

Total of UCR data since the assault weapon ban expired in 2004:

Illinois had 4269 murders from 2004 through 2012.

Of those murders, 32 were with rifles (any type of rifle, not just “assault rifles”.)

Over the same time frame, 117 people were murdered with bare hands and fists.

The rate of people murdered with rifles since ALL “assault weapons”, of ALL types, became legal again, is a shocking 0.7% over the last decade.


To The Point, sir:

Obviously if assault rifles are as prevalent in crime in Illinois as you claim they are, then they are QUITE ineffective at doing the job! Citizens are 3.65 TIMES more likely to be killed BY A CRIMINALS BARE HANDS, as they are with so called “Assault Rifles.” I would suggest, from this data, that you change focus and champion forth a Federal ban on “Assault Hands”, immediately!, in the interest of our state and community!!!

One thing is absolutely certain, of course. Your statements have clearly demonstrated you don’t do any research *whatsoever* in the topics you champion. (I compiled the data above in just a few moments on the Internet, off of the FBI’s public website.) If the goal of being a United States Senator is to represent the interests of the people in your state, I regret to inform you, that you are FAILING MISERABLY in this capacity. I wish you the best, in whatever you do, of course. But please, do more research before you open your mouth or put pen to paper, for the sake of the people who have to live in the same state as you.

Respectfully yours,

Trenton xxxxx

 

[Trent]

(He'll obviously never read it, but I feel much better now that I've got that off my chest.)

FYI; If he'd done his homework, he never would have tried the "homicide by weapon type" approach, because it actually works against his logic, not for.

 

[Tommygunn]

I stand with the Illinois law enforcement community in supporting the assault weapons ban. The 1994 federal assault weapons ban expired on September 13, 2004. For 10 years, the ban was an effective law enforcement tool that dramatically reduced the number of crimes committed with assault weapons. In 1993, assault weapons accounted for more than eight percent of all guns used in crimes. In 1995, the first year of the ban, assault weapons accounted for just under four percent of guns used criminally and by 2002, this percentage had dropped even further, to slightly over one percent.

When the original assault weapon ban was being debated, an FBI study was released that indicated that "assault weapons" were used in one half of one percent of crimes.
That's 00.50%. Some wag in an article back then quoted a New Jersey sheriff saying his deputies had a larger chance of encountering an escaped Bengal Tiger from the local zoo than a miscreant armed with an assault weapon.
In the years subsequent to the passing of the ban, crime did decrease. But the clincher is that it was decreasing before the ban too; criminologists and sociologists credit that to a then increasing age of the population of active criminals then loose in society; as criminals age they tend toward less active pursuits.
In any case Durbin's assertion that assault weapon use dropped from 8% in 1993 to 4% two years later is a bit much of a change for me to believe in, especially considering that in reality the "ban" was essentially cosmetic. After the ban many of the same weapons were being made with mainly cosmetic alterations. You may recall the infamous "thumbhole stock" being one way of getting around the evil "pistol grip," which has been singularly responsible for untold millions of murders in Staten Island alone.
In addition to which saying the type of gun's use in crime went down doesn't tell us anything about whether the crime itself went down. If the murder rate actually increased sufficiently you might obtain a situation where a guntype's use went from say 8% to 5% yet the actual number of humans killed with that self-same weapontype may have actually increased.
Durbin, like Feinstein, Boxer, Pelosi, et al, is simply gaslighting those he represents.