Who Needs Assault Weapons?

Status
Not open for further replies.

FRIZ

Member
Joined
May 24, 2003
Messages
193
Here is an anti Second Amendment article.

The New York Times
August 18, 2004

Who Needs Assault Weapons?
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/18/opinion/18kristoff.html

MERIDIAN, Idaho — If you've been longing for your very own assault rifle and 30-round magazine for the next holiday season, you're in luck.

President Bush, sidestepping a promise, is allowing the ban on assault rifles and oversized clips to expire on Sept. 14. So at a gun store here in Meridian, a bit west of Boise, the counter has a display promising "2 FREE HIGH-CAPACITY MAGAZINES."

All you have to do is purchase a new Beretta 9-millimeter handgun and you'll receive two high-capacity magazines - on the condition, the fine print states, that the federal ban expires on schedule.

President Bush promised in the last presidential campaign to support an extension of the ban, which was put in place in 1994 for 10 years. "It makes no sense for assault weapons to be around our society," Mr. Bush observed at the time.

These days Mr. Bush still says that he'll sign an extension of the ban if it happens to reach his desk. But he knows that the only way the ban can be extended on time is if he actually urges its passage, and he refuses to do that. So his promise to support an extension rings hollow - it's not exactly a lie, but it's not the full truth, either.

Mr. Bush's flip-flop is surprising because he has generally had the courage of his convictions. Apparently he's hiding from this issue because it's so politically charged.

Critics of the assault weapon ban have one valid point: the ban has more holes than Swiss cheese.

"The big frustration of my customers is that [the ban] removed things that were kind of fun and made it look cool, but didn't affect how the gun operated," said Sean Wontor, a salesman who heaved two rifles onto the counter of Sportsman's Warehouse here in Meridian to make his point.

One was an assault weapon that was produced before the ban (and thus still legal), and the other was a sanitized version produced afterward to comply with the ban by removing the bayonet mount and the flash suppressor.

After these cosmetic changes, the rifle is now no longer considered an assault weapon, yet, of course, it is just as lethal.

Still, assault weapons, while amounting to only 1 percent of America's 190 million privately owned guns, account for a hugely disproportionate share of gun violence precisely because of their macho appeal.

Assault weapons aren't necessary for any kind of hunting or target shooting, but they're popular because they can transform a suburban Walter Mitty into Rambo, for a lot less money than a Hummer.

"I've got a ton of customers shooting squirrels with AK-47's," said Kevin Tester, a gun salesman near Boise. "They're using 30-round magazines and 7.62-millimeter ammunition, they're shooting up the hills, and they're having a blast."

I grew up on an Oregon farm that bristled with guns to deal with the coyotes that dined on our sheep. Having fired everything from a pistol to a machine gun, I can testify that shooting can be a lot of fun. But consider the cost: 29,000 gun deaths in America each year.

While gun statistics are as malleable as Play-Doh, they do underscore that assault weapons are a special problem in America.

They accounted for 8.4 percent of the guns traced to crimes between 1988 and 1991, and they are still used in one in five fatal shootings of police officers. If anything, we should be plugging the holes in the ban by having it cover copycat weapons without bayonet mounts, instead of moving backward and allowing a new flood of weapons and high-capacity magazines.

The bottom line is that Mr. Bush's waffling on assault weapons will mean more dead Americans.

About 100 times as many Americans are already dying from gunfire in the U.S. as in Iraq. As many Americans die from firearms every six weeks as died in the 9/11 attacks - yet the White House is paralyzed on this issue.

Mr. Bush needs to live up to his campaign promise and push to keep the ban on assault weapons. Otherwise, we'll bring more of the Iraq-like carnage to our own shores, and his refusal to confront our gun problem will kill more Americans over time than Osama bin Laden ever could.
 
Apparently, these "clips" make "assault weapons" better.

If you print sensationalist documents such as these, won't more criminals and lowlifes want "assault weapons" with "high capacity clips" to "mow down" people "in the streets" and make "rivers of blood"?

Would "assault weapons" with "clips" be in such "macho" demand if newspapers and TV stations didn't constantly say how they're "designed for killing"?
 
Last time I checked, the oath to uphold the Constitution takes precident over any "promise."

Leave it to the times to use one definition of a word throughout an article, except for one sentence, where they use a different definition without saying anything. The one in five "statistic" is from a piece of vpc propaganda where "assault weapon" was defined as any semi-auto gun and iirc it included police shootings, self defense shootings, and suicides. Of course they don't advertise that little tidbit.
 
Still, assault weapons, while amounting to only 1 percent of America's 190 million privately owned guns, account for a hugely disproportionate share of gun violence precisely because of their macho appeal.

It must be cool to just be able to make crap up. Saves a lot of time on tedious research and boring fact-checking.

Hey, did y'all know that Nicholas Kristof eats his young during special ceremonies in a cave under Central Park?
 
Last edited:
While gun statistics are as malleable as Play-Doh, they do underscore that assault weapons are a special problem in America.

Does this strike anyone else as an interesting statement? "1 < A < 100, therefore A=68.3"

I think Mr Kristof majored in journalism and minored in dumb.

assault weapons ... account for a hugely disproportionate share of gun violence precisely because of their macho appeal.

Well, that's it. Time to ban macho appeal. Turn in your loud trucks and weightlifting gear, guys.
 
The one in five "statistic" is from a piece of vpc propaganda where "assault weapon" was defined as any semi-auto gun and iirc it included police shootings, self defense shootings, and suicides.

If this is the stat I'm thinking about, didn't they also add in all shootings involving a handgun that could accept a magazine of > 10 rounds? I seem to remember reading that somewhere.
 
Oh, is this a pop quiz? Finally something I know the answer to.
Who needs assault weapons? I do. :evil:

Kharn
 
I guess this clown of an author slept in his High School government class. Bush can't renew the law you dummy, only congress can.
 
"I can testify that shooting can be a lot of fun. But consider the cost: 29,000 gun deaths in America each year."

This is proof positive that leftists are mentally ill.

What precisely does a law-abiding person going out and shooting in the woods have to do with criminals killing people? Please, enlighten me, NYT.

The vast majority of people, like 99 percent, use guns for legal purposes. There is no connection whatsoever between me taking an 'evil black assault weapon' in the woods and shooting rabbits and a thug killing an old lady in Baltimore with a gun.

Law-abiding people use tools -- cars, knives, hammers, axes, guns -- in ways that do not harm other people.
 
I love how they make up stats, right when the NIJ comes out with stats totally opposite. Eh, ignore it, the sheeple will never know the differance, and that is so right. Mr and Mrs Sheeple read this idiot's story, and called thier Senator to "ban all those horrible 'assault weapons'!" Never mind there is no such thing, as an assault weapon, just select fire assault rifles, strictly controlled since 1934, to no avail there, either.
Who needs one? Me - all I have is a Mosin, so I need an AK, preferably select fire, (legal), to compliment it, keep the Russian Collection growing....
 
???? 3,500 people are killed by firearms every six weeks ??????? Say it isn't so......................:rolleyes: :scrutiny: :barf:

OK, i don't know exactly how many Americans died on 9/11/01.
 
I just had a good idea. We need to ban all rearview mirrors. After all, why does anyone need a rearview mirror? Can't you just turn your head? We all know that rearview mirrors were developed at Indy for blocking competitiors. Therefore, the only real purpose that rearview mirrors can have is to block speeding cars on the Interstate. If we stop all that non-sense blocking, there will be fewer wrecks. And, America, wrecks cause deaths, so we would be saving lives.
 
Still, assault weapons, while amounting to only 1 percent of America's 190 million privately owned guns

That number will change as the nebulous term "assault weapon" is expanded to include repeating bolt actions and the evil body armor piercing lever 30-30. :rolleyes:

The NY Times can bite me. I'll wager Pinchy Sulzberg has his own little army of bodyguards complete with fully automatic "assault weapons."

Hypocrite.
 
The poor blacks victims of genocide in Sudan would LOVE to get their hands on some 'assault weapons' around now to keep the Arab militias from displacing, slaughtering, raping, and burning their families.

Hell they would probably be overjoyed to get a shipment of non-AW guns like 1903 Springfields, M1s and Mausers, sure beats the sharp sticks and rocks they currently have to fight the government sponsored lynchmobs.
 
If by "assault *weapons*" he means semi-automatic rifles of mil-spec or near-mil-spec/service pattern, which accept detachable magazines of relatively large capacity, I'll tell you who needs them: anyone who might ever get into a fast-breaking fight at short-to-medium range with multiple, armed opponents -- especially opponents wearing body armor and/or helmets able to defeat ordinary handgun and shotgun projectiles.

Squirrels I can kill with a single-shot .22, or even a slingshot. Coyotes are not too much of a challenge for "sporting goods"-type firearms either.

I've owned a number of guns the NY Times author would probably call "assault *weapons*" (especially since he seems to consider self-loading *handguns* with normal-capacity magazines to be "assault weapons"), and I never bought one of them to hunt squirrels, coyotes, or anything else. I was less concerned about hunting than about *being hunted*.

What has hunting got to do with anything? Why do all these people keep going about about hunting, and about whether one "needs" something for hunting? And why does no one ever call them on it?:rolleyes:

MCB
 
What has hunting got to do with anything? Why do all these people keep going about about hunting, and about whether one "needs" something for hunting? And why does no one ever call them on it?

"Hunting" is the only legitimate purpose for firearms, according to the left, who consistently refuse to acknowledge the purpose of the 2nd.
 
Does this strike anyone else as an interesting statement? "1 < A < 100, therefore A=68.3"

It's "interesting" only to the degree that it illustrates parasitic leftist extremist so-called "thinking." I sometimes think it's a pity that we Libertarians and conservatives stick to facts. Can you imagine how much fun we'd have if we were to allow ourselves such flights of illogic and intellectual fraud?
 
I think it's important to remmeber that there are a significant number of "conservative" gun grabbers as well as pro-gun "liberals." ;) Most of the "I don't care what they ban as long as I can keep my Krieghoff" people I've come across consider themselves conservatives.
 
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The one in five "statistic" is from a piece of vpc propaganda where "assault weapon" was defined as any semi-auto gun and iirc it included police shootings, self defense shootings, and suicides.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If this is the stat I'm thinking about, didn't they also add in all shootings involving a handgun that could accept a magazine of > 10 rounds? I seem to remember reading that somewhere.
-------
-------


Remember also that a large percentage of Police Officers are shot with their own gun, which gets labeled as an Assault Weapon incident.
 
The sad thing about all this is that BATF testimony before Congress during debate on the Ban said that AWs represented some 2% of all firearms used in crime.

An interesting datum is that in 1993, three AWs were used in homicides in New York state (dunno if this excludes NYC, or not). Some 2,400 people were killed via fists, feet and clubs.

Art
 
Art Eatman,

Very interesting! I wonder if they would include that in the hearing, if would have made a difference.

I know a few people that have been beaten with fists, feet, bats, stabbed which involved at least a visit to the ER, and yet I do not know anyone that has been shot.

I guess it is because I live near NYC, were only cops have guns that only shoot blanks? :confused:

Dead
 
I have an important question about this article.

WHICH store in Meridian, ID is promising 2 [standard capacity] magazines? I'm in Meridan gun shops all the time, and I haven't seen it.

Did he make up that part, too?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top