Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/19/2017 7:27:10 PM
Posted: 5/4/2004 8:40:34 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/4/2004 8:49:43 PM EDT by NYPatriot]
www.sfexaminer.com/article/index.cfm/i/050304op_editorial


CONGRESS THIS SPRING WILL decide whether to renew an important piece of public-safety legislation -- one with a tragic origin in San Francisco and an unfortunate recent reminder of its importance. It's the federal assault weapons ban, otherwise known as the 1994 Federal Violent Crime Control Act, created by Sen. Dianne Feinstein.

The law, which is set to expire Sept. 13, was put in place following a 1993 incident in which an unhappy client burst into a law office at 101 California St. Armed with two assault weapons, he killed eight people and wounded six others.

Just a few weeks ago, young San Francisco police Officer Isaac Espinoza was shot to death by a killer with an AK-47 rifle.

Espinoza, unfortunately, is not the only SFPD officer to have been killed by an assault weapon: A man heavily armed and wearing body armor rampaged through city streets in 1994, killing Officer James Guelff.

Opponents often portray the ban as a sweeping infringement on the rights of law-abiding gun owners, but in fact the legislation affects a very limited number of weapons. Most are useless for hunting and too dangerous for home defense, and some are not even accurate enough to make for good target shooting.

This bill does not prohibit those weapons that might arguably be most useful for defending a person or a home; it does not affect the guns sought after by the vast majority of reasonable hunters and target sportsmen; and the precautions it requires of retailers are minor, considering the potential for destruction and loss of life such guns represent in the wrong hands.

In reality, the assault weapons ban asks gun makers, sellers and purchasers to shoulder a very slight burden of responsibility in exchange for a potentially very large benefit for public safety.

Will this legislation alone prevent such weapons from ever coming into the hands of someone who would use them to terrorize, intimidate or kill? Sadly, it will not. If it could have done such a thing, Espinoza might still be alive today.

But would the absence of this legislation, and the easier access to powerful assault weapons that would bring, make things worse? It most certainly would. The shooting of Espinoza is a sad reminder that we should be working harder to limit the availability of these weapons, not making it easier. The federal assault weapons ban must be renewed.

Link Posted: 5/4/2004 8:45:13 PM EDT
...too dangerous for home defense...

Um...yeah, that makes sense.
Link Posted: 5/4/2004 8:47:41 PM EDT
Once again, it's none of their damn business.
Link Posted: 5/4/2004 8:57:05 PM EDT
I love how they want to trade rights for

a potentially very large benefit for public safety.



not even a sure thing.


Maybe if we take away their 1st amendment rights, gold might fall from the sky, think of the possible benefits there. Cant pass up an opportunity like that, better ban their freedom of speech.
Link Posted: 5/4/2004 8:57:14 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/4/2004 8:58:47 PM EDT by TwoStage]
Excuse me if I'm out of line,

but how do these people even see to type this stuff with thier head that far up thier A$$!
Link Posted: 5/4/2004 8:58:04 PM EDT

Originally Posted By TwoStage:
Excuess me if I'm out of line,

but how do these people even see to type this stuff with thier head that far up thier A$$!


well, when your head is so far up your ass, all u see is shit. which is what they spew
Link Posted: 5/4/2004 9:11:20 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/4/2004 9:18:49 PM EDT by The_Macallan]

Originally Posted By NYPatriot:
Just a few weeks ago, young San Francisco police Officer Isaac Espinoza was shot to death by a killer with an AK-47 rifle.

And this supposed to convince me that the "assault weapon" ban is working and should be made permanent ........ so that this sort of thing won't happen anymore??????




Will this legislation alone prevent such weapons from ever coming into the hands of someone who would use them to terrorize, intimidate or kill? Sadly, it will not. If it could have done such a thing, Espinoza might still be alive today.

But would the absence of this legislation, and the easier access to powerful assault weapons that would bring, make things worse? It most certainly would.

Bzzzt! WRONG!!!

DOJ - Law Enforcement Officers Feloniously Killed
Six years prior to "Assault Weapon Ban":
Year....Total LEOs Killed...By Handguns...By Other Guns...By Other Methods
1988........78.................63............13..............2
1989........66.................40............17..............9
1990........66.................48.............9..............9
1991........71.................50............18..............3
1992........64.................44............11..............9
1993........70.................50............17..............3
TOTALS.....415................295............85.............35

Six years after "Assault Weapon Ban":
Year....Total LEOs Killed...By Handguns...By Other Guns...By Other Methods
1995........74.................43............19.............12
1996........61.................50.............7..............4
1997........70.................49............18..............3
1998........61.................40............18..............3
1999........42.................25............16..............1
2000........51.................33............14..............4
TOTALS.....355................240............92.............26

CHANGE...(-14%).............(-19%).........(+8%).........(-26%)

*** The number of police killed by non-handgun firearms (including "assault weapons") has NOT DECREASED since the passing of the "assault weapon" ban in 1994 but has in fact INCREASED since the passage of the AWB.

And this comes despite the decrease in the number of LEOs killed by all other means INCLUDING handguns.

And here's the most definitive "Final Word" on the non-effectiveness of the AWB:

Impact Evaluation of the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act of 1994
FINAL REPORT:

6.4.2. Assault Weapons and Homicides of Police Officers
"In sum, police officers are rarely murdered with assault weapons."


So rarely that no useful data can be collected as to whether the AWB is even saving ONE single police officer's life at all.




the legislation affects a very limited number of weapons. Most are useless for hunting and too dangerous for home defense, and some are not even accurate enough to make for good target shooting.
Oh - okay.

So is THAT why AR15-style rifles win so many National Service Rifle Championships year after year???

And is THAT why so many police departments all over the nation are now equipped with AR15s???

Because they're soooooo inaccurate???



Oh and by the way, the rates of gun-crimes committed with "assault weapons" are completely irrelevant to the issue of this "assault weapon" ban because our rights are not derived from nor predicated upon the most recent crime statistics!



Fucking imbeciles.


Link Posted: 5/4/2004 9:18:50 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/4/2004 9:28:10 PM EDT by gunham]
What if we only banned a few writers, like him, from writing? His logic doesn't hold water. Letter to the editor away.
Link Posted: 5/5/2004 6:08:00 AM EDT

Opponents often portray the ban as a sweeping infringement on the rights of law-abiding gun owners, but in fact the legislation affects a very limited number of weapons. Most are useless for hunting and too dangerous for home defense, and some are not even accurate enough to make for good target shooting.


Can their heads be buried any deeper in the sand?
Link Posted: 5/5/2004 6:19:21 AM EDT

Originally Posted By NYPatriot:
some are not even accurate enough to make for good target shooting.

This bill does not prohibit those weapons that might arguably be most useful for defending a person or a home;




Uh, but some are? Some cars aren't big enough to haul firewood...some are.
Some people don't deserve to breath...some do.

When did "some" become the basis for ANY valid argument?

And, if I need to defend my home, I'll take an AR, please.
Link Posted: 5/5/2004 6:21:35 AM EDT
Actually this article is absolutely hillarious when you read it from the correct perspective. You see, the writer is actually still under the impression that the ban prohibits something of substance. That is the humorous part. It does not occur to this person at all that the ban is only cosmetic and the exact same rifles are still available with a few minor changes in order to comply with the law. This appeal is purely emotional and totally ignorant. Perhaps this person will next implore congress to ban Green automobiles since it is the green ones that are most often used by drug dealers.
Link Posted: 5/5/2004 6:22:55 AM EDT

Originally Posted By shotar:
Actually this article is absolutely hillarious when you read it from the correct perspective. You see, the writer is actually still under the impression that the ban prohibits something of substance. That is the humorous part. It does not occur to this person at all that the ban is only cosmetic and the exact same rifles are still available with a few minor changes in order to comply with the law. This appeal is purely emotional and totally ignorant. Perhaps this person will next implore congress to ban Green automobiles since it is the green ones that are most often used by drug dealers.



No, not green ones; ban the ones with 20" wheels.
Link Posted: 5/5/2004 6:28:37 AM EDT
There are people who believe everything that they read."Newspapers arn't allowed to lie" is the most often repeated line of stupidity that I have heard on this topic.Or........"I am smart and sophistocated because I allow others to do my hard thinking for me(The saps)that way I have more time to watch NFL and NASCAR and simply read the results of all this thinking that has been done for me and agree with what has been decided by someone else.I am a rocket scientist.
Link Posted: 5/5/2004 6:30:17 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Belfry_Express:
I love how they want to trade rights for

a potentially very large benefit for public safety.



not even a sure thing.


Maybe if we take away their 1st amendment rights, gold might fall from the sky, think of the possible benefits there. Cant pass up an opportunity like that, better ban their freedom of speech.



Yup, these types have a absolutist view of the 1st (which everyone should have), but look at the 2nd as some type of permission to hunt which is revocable if society was to 'benefit'. It's pure selfishness. People only care about freedoms which they wish to express. If they have no interest, infringe away... Too bad politicans have this same opinion!
Link Posted: 5/5/2004 6:35:43 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/5/2004 6:37:08 AM EDT by NewbHunter]


Just a few weeks ago, young San Francisco police Officer Isaac Espinoza was shot to death by a killer with an AK-47 rifle.

Espinoza, unfortunately, is not the only SFPD officer to have been killed by an assault weapon: A man heavily armed and wearing body armor rampaged through city streets in 1994, killing Officer James Guelff.



Either the AK-47 used in this killing was legal or illegal depending on its cosmetic features. Regardless, did the AWB stop him from dying? NO, so what's the point of the ban?



Will this legislation alone prevent such weapons from ever coming into the hands of someone who would use them to terrorize, intimidate or kill? Sadly, it will not. If it could have done such a thing, Espinoza might still be alive today.

But would the absence of this legislation, and the easier access to powerful assault weapons that would bring, make things worse? It most certainly would. The shooting of Espinoza is a sad reminder that we should be working harder to limit the availability of these weapons, not making it easier. The federal assault weapons ban must be renewed.



And he honestly thinks that the person who killed this officer, a person who was willing to point a deadly weapon at an officer and pull the trigger, would have not done so if "assault weapons" were not available? Yeah right dumbass! I seriously doubt any ban would have prevented him from aquiring that weapon regardless of the laws in place and even if he couldn't have aquired that weapon he could have just as easily aquired a legal gun that was just as easily capable of killing that officer.


Opponents often portray the ban as a sweeping infringement on the rights of law-abiding gun owners, but in fact the legislation affects a very limited number of weapons. Most are useless for hunting and too dangerous for home defense, and some are not even accurate enough to make for good target shooting.


Yes it is a sweeping infringement because you wouldn't be singing this same tune if so called "assault weapons" were completely unatainable and criminals were using legal hunting 12gauge shot guns to blow holes in officers large enough to drive a bus through, or if they were using hunting rifles fromt he tops of buildings to "snipe" them. Slippery slope...slippery slope...
Link Posted: 5/5/2004 6:52:23 AM EDT
Typical BS.

Take one incident and try to convince the masses that "This kind of thing happens ALL the time!"
"It's an epidemic of violence. It's all caused by the evil black rifles."

I laugh everytime I see crap like this. Let's be realistic. Even if they had their "perfect" society where not one person could own ANY gun regardless type, would that "stop all the killing"?

Hell, no it wouldn't. People killed people en masse LONG before guns. You take away guns, you just make them resort to stabbing people. Same result. People die. "Take away knives then!" (Cheer the liberals)

Well here's a clue for them. More people are killed by CARS then guns. I don't hear their liberal asses cheering for a ban on those.


Here's a little clip of a recent news story about a woman named Deanna Laney.


She describes using heavy rocks to end the lives of her sons Joshua, 8, and Luke, 6, and to severely injure 14-month-old Aaron.


Hear anyone screaming about banning rocks? Why not? Makes about as much sense as this guys argument for banning the evil black rifles.
Link Posted: 5/5/2004 8:24:40 AM EDT
Funny thing is You can't buy So called assault weapons in California since SB23 went into effect in 2000. Also San Francisco closed all the gun stores in their city about the same time. They are running out of excuses so they want to take down the rest of you AW owners outside of California.

The guy who shot that Police Officer was a Gang Member from the Bay View Hunters Point Area. He was 19 years old. There is no way that AK47 was Legal.
Link Posted: 5/5/2004 8:31:36 AM EDT
Link Posted: 5/5/2004 8:45:54 AM EDT

I have a question. Doesn't California already ban the sale of any AK type firearm? If true, how did that ban prevent the death of the San Francisco officer who was gunned down by a man with an AK?

Here's a summary of what happened. California bans a certain type of firearm. A criminal, who doesn't care about laws, goes and gets one illegally anyway. Said badguy takes illegal firearm and uses it to kill a police officer. The situation is an example of why such laws don't work, since bad people don't care about laws. Liberal extremist San Franciscans decide the solution is to pass more laws banning the firearm.

Are arfcommers the only ones to see the lack of judgement here?
Link Posted: 5/5/2004 8:51:35 AM EDT
How could this crime have happened when there is a ban already in effect, for now?
Link Posted: 5/5/2004 8:52:41 AM EDT
2 people killed after the ban - how can that be

Of course the California ban is a ban not like the federal one which is really just restrictive of certain scary looking parts of rifles ... but then the SF Examiner would have to have a clue to understand that huh?
Link Posted: 5/5/2004 9:07:54 AM EDT
Someone should point out that there are far more semi-auto weapons "on the streets" now than there were then. All thanks to the Klinton AW ban. LMAO.
Link Posted: 5/5/2004 9:12:02 AM EDT
I guarantee you that 95% of these people writing these articles have NO IDEA what the 94 gun ban actually bans. THey've just been told it bans bad scary guns.
Link Posted: 5/5/2004 9:13:48 AM EDT
I just noticed something else a little odd about this article.
No name attached for who wrote it.

I guess the best defense for idiots is to remain anonymous while you spew your uneducated garbage.
Link Posted: 5/5/2004 9:22:55 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/5/2004 1:17:23 PM EDT by nightstalker]
I'm shocked, .....abuse of pot is up in the 90's. How can this be? Should we "double ban it"?

Link Posted: 5/5/2004 12:30:09 PM EDT

Most are useless for hunting and too dangerous for home defense, and some are not even accurate enough to make for good target shooting.

What does hunting or target shooting have to do with justification to ban certain features??
Link Posted: 5/5/2004 12:34:54 PM EDT
I'm tired of dealing with these idiots.
Link Posted: 5/5/2004 2:45:09 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Lon_Moer:

Most are useless for hunting and too dangerous for home defense, and some are not even accurate enough to make for good target shooting.


What does hunting or target shooting have to do with justification to ban certain features??



It allows them to pretend they're being reasonable...
Link Posted: 5/5/2004 3:18:03 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/5/2004 3:36:34 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/5/2004 3:37:24 PM EDT by HighStrung1]
If anyone in gov. has one factual and unproveable argument that supports the AWB, i'd like to address them in a public debate.

Ignorance, fear and lack of truthful knowledge by the liberals, is what started this entire ban.

CRIMINALS DO NOT OBEY THE LAW. PUNISHING LAW ABIDING CITIZENS FOR THE UNRULY AND ILLEGAL BEHAVIOR OF CRIMINALS, IS PURE MADNESS. THERE CAN BE NO ARGUMENT HERE. ANY ATTEMPT TO ARGUE THIS POINT IS A CLEAR SIGN OF STUPIDITY.
Top Top