Posted: 6/16/2013 7:22:50 PM EDT
|
This is a fact sheet I developed on semi automatic rifle bans. As the Rifleman's Creed says: There are many like it, but this one is mine. Mine has been a work in progress for many years and many debates on the issue in various online communities and letters to the editor, etc. While many are similar I have worked to include (and link) neutral govt. sources or even left of center sources to back up the points. Feel free to use it for any efforts in opposing these bans. Feel free to offer suggestions for improvement or additional sources or resources.
There might be a few typos. I write for a living but you can't fully proof your own words without a few days away from the subject matter and there has been no time for that so far. If anyone notices any slip ups let me know. Semi-Automatic (Assault) Rifle Ban Fact Sheet 1.) Are semi-automatic rifles commonly used in homicides? No. They are expensive and hard to conceal. Most criminals use cheap handguns if they use a firearm. According to the FBI "Crime in the United States 2011" (the last date offered with a full breakout) there were 12,664 homicides committed that year. Only 323 were committed with ANY type of rifle. That is 2.6% of homicides, again, from ANY kind of rifle. 1,694 (over 5 times as many) victims were stabbed to death. 728 (twice as many) were beaten to death using hands or feet. This is a typical result that can be found going back through years of FBI data. Here is a link to the FBI Website and table of data specifically covering the weapons used in homicide (downloading the Excel file makes it easy to do the calculations) http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-20 The same is true where specifically Chicago is concerned. According to the 2011 Chicago Police Department Murder Analysis (p.22) Out of 436 homicides in 2011 exactly 1 was committed by ANY kind of rifle. 31 were stabbed to death, 28 bludgeoned, 4 strangled and 1 beat to death with hands/feet. Again, this is a common finding going back over the years. Further, the Chicago report shows that roughly 90% of the killers had a previous criminal record. It is likely that most of these individuals were not legally allowed to own any firearm, and criminals are not known for their strict adherence to gun bans or similar laws such as bans on selling illegal drugs. https://portal.chicagopolice.org/portal/page/portal/ClearPath/News/Statistical%20Reports/Murder%20Reports/MA11.pdf Does a ban on semi-automatic rifles and high capacity magazines deter crime? Reinforcing the data above, the answer appears to be, no. This issue was covered as thoroughly as possible (given fragmented data and subjective factors) by the 2004 Department of Justice report: "Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003 Report to the National Institute of Justice, United States Department of Justice," by Christopher S. Koper. The goal of the report was to provide a foundation for considering the renewal of the expiring Federal assault weapons ban. As the opening summary noted: Should it be renewed, the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement. (Assault weapons) were rarely used in gun crimes even before the ban. (Large capacity magazines) are involved in a more substantial share of gun crimes, but it is not clear how often the outcomes of gun attacks depend on the ability of offenders to fire more than ten shots (the current magazine capacity limit) without reloading. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf 3.) Are semi-automatic rifles the leading weapon used in mass killings? No. As noted in the article "Going Postal, Pre-Pistol" by Brian Palmer in the decidedly left-of-center online publication Slate: "Guns aren’t even the most lethal mass murder weapon. According to data compiled by Grant Duwe of the Minnesota Department of Corrections, guns killed an average of 4.92 victims per mass murder in the United States during the 20th century, just edging out knives, blunt objects, and bare hands, which killed 4.52 people per incident. Fire killed 6.82 people per mass murder, while explosives far outpaced the other options at 20.82. Of the 25 deadliest mass murders in the 20th century, only 52 percent involved guns." http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2012/07/aurora_shooting_how_did_people_commit_mass_murder_before_automatic_weapons_.html Furthermore, while spree shootings like Sandy Hook are horrific, and get tremendous media coverage, in a country of over 300 million people they are exceedingly rare. Typically less likely than being of struck by lightning (200 or so people per year) rare. Yet few people live in fear of lightening. And there are a range modern life issues that are far more of a safety concern. According to the CDC (2010 data) almost 30 people in the United States die every day in motor vehicle crashes that involve an alcohol-impaired drivers. And during that year a total of 211 children were killed by a DUI-related homicide. 2.) Are these rifles used for legitimate "sporting" purposes? Yes. Contrary to gun control propaganda such semiautomatic rifles have been in existence for over 100 years now. Magazines holding more than 10 rounds have been in regular use for over 70 years. These rifles have been and continue to be used for hunting a range of game (though in some cases the modern variants of these rifles are not powerful enough to be allowed for hunting deer in some states). Modern semi automatic rifles such as the AR-15 feature prominently in national rifle competitions. In fact, the National Matches that have been held at Camp Perry since 1903 (and that attract over 6000 annual participants) feature such rifles in the competition as do numerous state, regional and local firearm competitions. Further, most rifles sold today are NOT the traditional bolt action hunting rifle. According to the National Shooting Sports Foundation: "The AR-15, which isn't a brand but rather a generic design, accounts for an estimated 60 percent of all civilian rifle sales in the United States and perhaps a quarter of all firearms sold... ." And the AR_15 is just one type of semi automatic rifle typically targeted by ban attempts. All of that is beside the point, since "sporting purposes" is not a Constitutional requirement relative to the 2nd Amendment. 3.) Do these rifles have a legitimate self defense purpose for the average person? Of course. Pistols are generally more difficult to shoot than rifles. Shotguns (and many pistols) are difficult to shoot for the recoil sensitive. A rifle like the AR-15 which fires a fairly low-powered round is easier to shoot for those with such concerns. Further, the 5.56 mm ammunition common to the AR-15 tends to have less "over penetration" though walls and doors etc. compared to both shotguns and common pistol rounds making this a safer choice in more populated environments. And for those living in rural areas where dangerous wild or feral animals roam, or where there is a limited access to immediate police support a semi-automatic rifle has clear advantages for self defense. Where the police are concerned, there is a strong focus on adopting this type of rifle to supplement the pistol (and often replace the shotgun), along with the use of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds in both. As noted, because of price and concealability issues these rifles are not the firearm of choice for criminals so this is not necessarily to match the criminal threat but to gain an advantage over the threat. Why should average citizens be denied the same tools for self defense when they potentially face the same threats to their lives and the lives of their families? And in any situation involving significant civil unrest, such weapons are far superior for self defense of the home compared to alternatives. 4.) Have such firearms and high capacity magazine driven the current mass shooting trend? No. Firearms have been around for well over 200 years in American society, semi automatic rifles for over 100 years and higher capacity magazines for at least 70 years. However, these "blaze of infamy massacres" have not been common during most of that time. What has changed is the mass media where a troubled individual can now go out in a blaze of infamy by generating a tragic body count. The Virginia Tech shooter actually sent NBC News a multimedia press which was, of course, publicized. Other killers have posted online about the attack soon to come noting how they would shortly become a household name. You can also look at the rise of the "antihero" in popular entertainment. Hollywood used to have certain requirements on content through the MPAA that cautioned the portrayal of (among others): •The use of firearms; theft, robbery, safe-cracking, and dynamiting of trains, mines, buildings, etc. (having in mind the effect which a too-detailed description of these may have upon the moron[Sic]); •Brutality and possible gruesomeness; •Technique of committing murder by whatever method; •Apparent cruelty to children and animals; •and, sympathy for criminal. The Aurora, Colo., theater killer actually dressed as the antihero "Joker" character associated with the Batman movie franchise, the latest installment of which was opening that night in the theater he attacked. Mental health issues have also become increasingly obvious as a factor in these shootings. Under or overmedication, the difficulties since the 1960s with involuntary committal and the general regard of mental health issues as a taboo subject are all potential factors in the rise of the modern spree killer. While the possible legislative solutions to these issues present many serious Constitution concerns of their own, those looking to infringe on the 2nd Amendment (including the media that supports such an agenda) are hypocritical at best if they only focuse on the Amendment impacting the tool used in these killings. 5.) The founding fathers never could have anticipated such weapons. Really? The founders, while certainly flawed in many cases, were intellectuals with a grounding in history, philosophy and science. Philosophically the goal was to give the population access to the same small arms (not ordnance) that the military possessed to serve as a check on a tyrannical government. The use of private weapons as or more capable than those used by the British military had played a significant role in the recent revolution. And while those same weapons could be used for ill in private hands, the ill caused by a tyrannical government was considered a far greater threat. In fact, in the modern world (up to the present day) tens of millions of innocents have been killed by rifles fielded by government forces against unarmed populations. The philosophy dictates that as the small arms technology used by government forces advances, so must the technology (generally) available to the citizens. Evens so, there are current limits on small arms to where true machine guns (which are not the same as semi automatic rifles) are highly regulated to the point they are rare and expensive and fully banned in some states such as Illinois. Nor was the musket of the day necessarily less lethal than the modern semi-automatic rifle. While firearm technology has advanced, so has modern medicine. An infected flesh wound from a musket ball in the 1700s could be just as lethal as being shot multiple times by a modern rifle today. Of course, there are those who say that the need for the 2nd Amendment has passed. Ironically, many of those same individuals would protest if it was suggested that the ACLU was no longer needed. They also might not consider that the existence of the 2nd Amendment since the country's founding could very well be responsible for that casual assumption. Yet thousands of years of human history strongly suggest that while the modern democratic republics might be fairly stable today, there is a continual pressure towards tyranny in human civilization. Recent events in Washington relative to the IRS, NSA and Justice Department suggest that the devotion to the Bill of Rights has become somewhat casual of late. |
|
Thanks, though I would be careful with this one...
"3.) Do these rifles have a legitimate self defense purpose for the average person? Of course. Pistols are generally more difficult to shoot than rifles. Shotguns (and many pistols) are difficult to shoot for the recoil sensitive. A rifle like the AR-15 which fires a fairly low-powered round is easier to shoot for those with such concerns. Further, the 5.56 mm ammunition common to the AR-15 tends to have less "over penetration" though walls and doors etc. compared to both shotguns and common pistol rounds making this a safer choice in more populated environments. And for those living in rural areas where dangerous wild or feral animals roam, or where there is a limited access to immediate police support a semi-automatic rifle has clear advantages for self defense." |
|
What is your take? I've seen this referenced a number of times. I could weasel it down a bit (no more of a concern, proper ammunition...) or cut it out all together. I suppose it's a bit of a nuanced discussion for an audience that might not even consider the point in the first place. |
| I would add in "with proper ammunition". I would also add in a source for the information, and a good one at that. Many cant see an AR being a better home defense weapon than a 9mm or 45 acp handgun. In my opinion, if you cant find a source that backs it up with data, I would take it out all together. The only way we win this is with rock solid facts. Not with speculation and hopefuls |
|
Quoted:
I would add in "with proper ammunition". I would also add in a source for the information, and a good one at that. Many cant see an AR being a better home defense weapon than a 9mm or 45 acp handgun. In my opinion, if you cant find a source that backs it up with data, I would take it out all together. The only way we win this is with rock solid facts. Not with speculation and hopefuls Police departments across the country transitioned to AR carbines years ago. They are not for "assaulting" criminals, but are for self defense. The DHS outfitted itself with a ton of M4s which they blithely call "Personal Defense Weapons". If it officially serves as a DEFENSE weapon by Federal, State and Municipal DEFENSE experts, then I don't see why anyone should get confused about its use as a defense weapon in the home. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I would add in "with proper ammunition". I would also add in a source for the information, and a good one at that. Many cant see an AR being a better home defense weapon than a 9mm or 45 acp handgun. In my opinion, if you cant find a source that backs it up with data, I would take it out all together. The only way we win this is with rock solid facts. Not with speculation and hopefuls Police departments across the country transitioned to AR carbines years ago. They are not for "assaulting" criminals, but are for self defense. The DHS outfitted itself with a ton of M4s which they blithely call "Personal Defense Weapons". If it officially serves as a DEFENSE weapon by Federal, State and Municipal DEFENSE experts, then I don't see why anyone should get confused about its use as a defense weapon in the home. I agree 100%. But there needs to be some rock solid facts. Saying police departments use them wont be enough to sway these municipality "leaders". |