AR Sponsor
Posted: 3/14/2003 6:04:17 AM EDT
|
Found this on the senate page. Follow the link below. If someone can make it hot, that would be great. I'm not all that savy on computer stuff. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/B?r108:@FIELD(FLD003+s)+@FIELD(DDATE+20030313) REAUTHORIZING THE ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN -- (Senate - March 13, 2003) [Page: S3725] GPO's PDF --- · [Begin Insert] Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, in 1994 President Clinton signed into law a ban on the production of certain semiautomatic assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines. The 1994 law banned a list of 19 specific weapons as well as a number of other weapons incorporating certain design characteristics. This law is scheduled to sunset on September 13, 2004. Last week before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Attorney General John Ashcroft indicated the Bush administration's support for the current ban on assault weapons, but refused to support reauthorization of the ban. I believe we should not only reauthorize this bill, but strengthen it. I hope the Bush Administration will support reauthorization. According to National Institute for Justice statistics cited by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, the assault weapons ban has successfully reduced the use of assault weapons in crime. According to the report, crime gun traces for assault weapons declined by 20 percent the first year after the ban took effect from 4,077 in 1994 to 3,268 in 1995. Comparatively, trace requests on all crime guns decreased by only 11 percent over the same period of time. Even with the success of the ban, assault weapons still pose a threat to community safety. In 1994, every major national law enforcement organization, including the Fraternal Order of Police, the National Sheriff's Association, and the Major City Police Chiefs Association, supported the Federal assault weapons ban. I expect that law enforcement will again support this important piece of gun and community safety legislation. I urge my colleagues in the Senate and the President to support the reauthorization of this important bill. · [End Insert] |
|
...crime gun traces for assault weapons declined by 20 percent... Interesting little misuse of fact there. Clearly the antis are hoping that the average person will read that as "the assault weapons ban reduced crime by 20 percent". Take a look at this page... [url]http://www.awbansunset.com/effects.html[/url] The same study cited by Brady et al contains, in addition to this tiny sliver of good news for the antis, MOUNTAINS of proof that the ban has done nothing to reduce crime. Here's my favorite quote from the study: [b]"Given the limited use of the banned guns and magazines in gun crimes, even the maximum theoretically achievable preventive effect of the ban on outcomes such as the gun murder rate is almost certainly too small to detect statistically..."[/b] --Mike |
|
I dont know where he gets his figures, but look at it thus: Just as it specifically included certain weapons in the bill, others of 'paramilitary' design, that used to be tallied as AW's were spec EXCLUDED. Examples would be any military bolt gun. Tack in any semiauto without pistolgrip and a flash hider. Frequently when data is collected on a homicide, ANY semiauto will be tossed in as an AW. I've seen a semi-auto with a BOSS on it classed like this. Now, if you take the AWB numbers, and pre AWB numbers, and run guns through the AWB limitations you will have a disparity. Lets say in 1993, 10 people commit crimes with quasi-AW's. 5 of them are with AR, AK or FN/FAL type wepons, or MAC-10's etc. Genuine AW's per the ban. 2 are comitted with semi-auto rifles of some kind that got tossed in the hunk for whatever reason. Military look, old issue weapons (like a 1998 mauser) or the like. The other 3 were comitted with legal arms of whatever variety that were illegally modified. OK, say in 1995 you also have ten crimes comitted. Same crimes. Same guns. You toss out the two comitted with semi-auto rifles like Winchesters or Brownings, because they're not assault weapons. You therefore have an 20% reduction in crime. Yeah. Uh, huh. And if you add like that do you also do home loans? |
|
Those figures are from the NIJ (under the Clinton administration) study released in 1999. Though the vast majority of this study indicate the ban has had virtually NO effect on crime, it also states that the ban did reduce the use of banned firearms in crime. And this is probably true. In this particular case, the "ban" resulted in firearms possessing certain cosmetic features from being manufactured, though existing firearms could still be freely transferred. Most of these have ended up in the gun safes of collectors. Because there are plenty of non-banned firearms that are just as effective, the very few criminals that may have otherwise used these rare pre-ban "assault weapons" simply used another gun. But the ban did NOT result in a reduction in crime... simply a reduction in banned guns used in crime, as would be expected under the circumstances. That's an important distinction, and pretty much castrates Brady's assertion. And, of course, as the study points out, even if every single criminal who would have otherwise used "assault weapons" decided that he just didn't want to be in the violent crime business anymore, the resulting impact on crime rates would be nearly imperceptible, because these guns were rarely used in crime even before the ban. --Mike |
| Just wondering if the AWB is not reauthorized what's the likelyhood that a company like Colt would begin selling LEO ARs like the 6920 to the general public. Would civilian sales be worth it to Colt at this point or are they satisfied just maintaining their law enforcement line only? |
|
Companies will likely be VERY VERY cautious about this, esp. given the MD sniper case v. bushy pending now. It might be legal but will they do it? Ever hear of Cessna? A plane they made crashed. I forget the reason for the crash, but it did. Someone got hurt / killed (I think latter). Court ruled Cessna had UNLIMITED LIABILITY. They could be sued for MILLIONS and MILLIONS of dollars. EVERY TIME ONE CRASHED. Cessna just stopped making airplanes. It was too expensive. Off subject but it shows how liability suits can ruin things. BTW, they're back in business now after a recent overturning of the earlier ruling. |
|
Quoted: Companies will likely be VERY VERY cautious about this, esp. given the MD sniper case v. bushy pending now. It might be legal but will they do it? If a company is currently selling firearms in a post-ban configuration, I doubt they're going to hesitate for one second after the ban sunsets to start selling no-bans. After all, if, say, Bushmaster's ARs have collapsible stocks and flash supressors, other manufacturers will have to follow suit or lose a ton of sales. Aside from that, liability protection for the firearms industry is well on its way to being passed (thank God!), which should ease whatever fears remain. Ever hear of Cessna? A plane they made crashed. I forget the reason for the crash, but it did. Someone got hurt / killed (I think latter). Court ruled Cessna had UNLIMITED LIABILITY. They could be sued for MILLIONS and MILLIONS of dollars. EVERY TIME ONE CRASHED. Cessna just stopped making airplanes. It was too expensive. Off subject but it shows how liability suits can ruin things. BTW, they're back in business now after a recent overturning of the earlier ruling. Actually, this was the "General Aviation Revitalization Act" or something like that... legislation passed by Congress that placed limitations on aircraft manufacturer liability. Without it, for example, Piper could (and was) sued because a J3 Cub manufactured 50 years before a particular crash (which had nothing to do with the plane... a truck was blocking the runway) wasn't equipped with shoulder harnesses, despite the fact that the plane met all government safety requirements when it was made. Anyway, immediately after this law was passed, Cessna started producing 172s again (though they're obviously much more expensive now than they were 25 years ago). --Mike |
|
Quoted: Companies will likely be VERY VERY cautious about this, esp. given the MD sniper case v. bushy pending now. It might be legal but will they do it? Ever hear of Cessna? A plane they made crashed. I forget the reason for the crash, but it did. Someone got hurt / killed (I think latter). Court ruled Cessna had UNLIMITED LIABILITY. They could be sued for MILLIONS and MILLIONS of dollars. EVERY TIME ONE CRASHED. Cessna just stopped making airplanes. It was too expensive. Off subject but it shows how liability suits can ruin things. BTW, they're back in business now after a recent overturning of the earlier ruling. I hope this was just an example. Cessna has been making airplane for the past 50+ years and still do. |
|
Quoted: I hope this was just an example. Cessna has been making airplane for the past 50+ years and still do. They stopped making small prop planes for a while, solely concentrating on biz jets. Now they're making small planes again (production started back up in the early to mid 1990's, if I'm not mistaken). --Mike |
AR Sponsor