Governing through Reason
Did the Assault Weapons Ban Work? (Part 2)
David Kopel in his interview.
As I mentioned last time, David Kopel, a professor at the University of Denver, was on the December 17th edition of The PBS Newshour. Regarding the assault weapons ban, he said the following:
Well, I think we can look at what happened when she had her 10-year in the past. The Congress, when it enacted that ban, also ordered that a formal study be done of the results of it.
The study was performed by the Urban Institute, a very well-respected, somewhat left-leaning think tank in Washington, D.C. The Urban Institute reported that it had no effect on homicide rates. There was no statistically significant benefit in terms of saving lives.
As I described in Part 1, the Urban Institute study reached no such conclusion. In any event, David Kopel was back on the January 16th edition of The PBS Newshour, during which he said the following:
Well, the Department of Justice conducted a study of the effectiveness of that ban, published it in 2004, after it had been in effect for nine years, and concluded it had done absolutely no good. No lives were saved. There weren’t fewer shots fired in shoot-outs with police officers or anything else. So it was — it’s a proven failure.
Once again, Kopel is claiming that the official studies concluded that the assault weapon ban did “absolutely no good”. In fact, unlike Kopel, the studies were careful not to overstate their findings. Following is an excerpt from the first chapter of the 2004 study, titled “Impacts of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, 1994–2003: Key Findings and Conclusions”:
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. AWs [assault weapons] were rarely used in gun crimes even before the ban. LCMs [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.
However, the study continues:
Nonetheless, reducing criminal use of AWs and especially LCMs could have non-trivial effects on gunshot victimizations. The few available studies suggest that attacks with semiautomatics – including AWs and other semiautomatics equipped with LCMs – result in more shots fired, more persons hit, and more wounds inflicted per victim than do attacks with other firearms. Further, a study of handgun attacks in one city found that 3% of the gunfire incidents resulted in more than 10 shots fired, and those attacks produced almost 5% of the gunshot victims.
This does not sound like Kopel’s claim that the study showed that “no lives were saved” and that “there weren’t fewer shots fired in shoot-outs with police officers or anything else”. In any case, Kopel’s broad claim that the study showed the ban to do “absolutely no good” is obviously false.
Kopel is not the only person to claim that the Assault Weapons Ban was proven to be ineffective without presenting the so-called proof. On January 24th, the same day that Senator Dianne Feinstein held a press conference to announce a new assault-weapons-ban proposal, Vice President Joe Biden held a “Fireside Hangout” to talk about reducing gun violence. The first question came from Philip DeFranco, an American video blogger and YouTube celebrity, who asked the following (about 3:20 into the video):
Mr. Vice President, the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, known as the Assault Weapons Ban, expired because it was proven to be ineffective at reducing violent crime…
Biden began his response by correctly pointing out that the Assault Weapons Ban “did not expire because it was proved ineffective, it expired because it had to be reauthorized in ten years” and that the “last administration chose not to seek reauthorization”. Biden went on to assert that “there were fewer police being murdered, fewer police being outgunned when the assault weapons ban, in fact, was in existence”. If true, this would contradict Kopel’s assertion that “there weren’t fewer shots fired in shoot-outs with police officers”.
Near the end of the chat, Biden made some interesting comments about his concern for the dangers posed by assault weapons versus those posed by high-capacity gun magazines. A Huffington Post article summarized them as follows:
“More people out there get shot with a Glock that has cartridges in a [high-capacity magazines],” said Biden, chair of a White House task force to develop violence prevention proposals, during an online Google+ chat.
“I’m much less concerned, quite frankly, with what you’d call an ‘assault weapon’ than I am with magazines, and the number of rounds that can be held in a magazine.” A Glock is a type of semi-automatic pistol.
I found these comments interesting in that they seemed to agree with some of the statements in the Key Findings and Conclusions chapter of the 2004 study. Following is an excerpt:
• AWs [assault weapons] were used in only a small fraction of gun crimes prior to the ban: about 2% according to most studies and no more than 8%. Most of the AWs used in crime are assault pistols rather than assault rifles.
• LCMs [large capacity magazines] are used in crime much more often than AWs and accounted for 14% to 26% of guns used in crime prior to the ban.
This agrees with Biden’s suggestion that LCMs may be the bigger problem, at least in some ways. Following are two additional excerpts involving LCMs:
• However, the decline in AW use was offset throughout at least the late 1990s by steady or rising use of other guns equipped with LCMs in jurisdictions studied (Baltimore, Milwaukee, Louisville, and Anchorage). The failure to reduce LCM use has likely been due to the immense stock of exempted pre-ban magazines, which has been enhanced by recent imports.
…
• Restricting the flow of LCMs into the country from abroad may be necessary to achieve desired effects from the ban, particularly in the near future.
Hence, not only does the 2004 study not claim to prove that the assault weapons ban was ineffective, it makes suggestions as to how to make it more effective. It would seem reasonable to try implementing those suggestions and seeing if the ban can be made more effective. In any event, we should ignore claims of proof by people like Kopel and DeFranco unless and until that proof is presented.
Related articles
-
#2 written by rgbact 3 months ago
Reed–
Are you on a crusade to stop media pundits exaggerations? That may be good, but it honestly comes off as simple deflection.
On your other points, you now seem to somewhat agree with Biden that the AWB is sort of a waste and probably should be scuttled for addressing LCM. Fair? Which curiously sort of negates your first point.
-
#3 written by Max 3 months ago
Reed,
I’ve read through the article twice and the resultant conclusion is that, while there may not have been NO difference attributable to “assault” weapons, any actual difference was extremely marginal. Further, that large capacity magazines represent an MEASURABLE difference.
Thus, a more accurate and true conclusion would be that restrictions on large cap mags will be substantially more effective than another “assault weapon” ban.
-
This reminds me of how furious I am that the CDC is enjoined by Congress from studying gun-related homicides. In order to inform public policy, we need to do the research. Sometimes (as in this case), the research supports what the NRA is saying, but that’s okay, because it allows us to direct our efforts toward things that DO work.
-
#5 written by rgbact 3 months ago
-
#6 written by Max 3 months ago
-
#7 written by dawolf 3 months ago
-
#8 written by channelclemente 3 months ago
It would seem to me that proof of the effectiveness of an ASW ban is somewhat like the proof that GOP attempts to suppress the vote were effective or not. I’m not sure where the control experiment is to be found and proving a negative is not easy. Besides the 1994 ASW was a faux regulation given the loopholes and work arounds put in to it by the gun lobby. How many fish do you catch in a net with half the net missing. That’s some beta error.
-
channelclemente,
Additionally, a ban on any sort of weapon has to wait a decade or two to see if it has an effect, because of the number of such weapons currently in the field.
In the same way, patchwork laws that differ from one state (or city) to another are clearly ineffective. We need a national policy.
Wayne LaPierre, as expected, did a good imitation of an insane person today. Perhaps it wasn’t an imitation. If we ever do get to the point where we can keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill, LaPierre should be the first person to lose his.
Gabby Giffords delivered a stunning and riveting statement.
I never expected a new assault weapons ban to pass, because the NRA owns too many politicians, despite these weapons serving no legitimate purpose. (The NRA, of course, is simply a marketing tool for gun manufacturers, and serves no other function.)
Meanwhile, as if to underline the need to get serious about massacre control, there has been yet another another mass shooting, within minutes of Gabby Giffords completing her statement.
The excuses from the pro-gun crowd are getting increasingly meaningless.
-
#10 written by channelclemente 3 months ago
DC,
I suspect the level of gun violence has been this extant for a while, it’s just ‘who knew’. I don’t see too many news reports of shootings in AZ here in CA. For once, tabloid journalism can do something useful. I’d add that a 15 year old young girl who was in Obama’s inaugural was shot to death in Chicago yesterday.
-
-
#12 written by channelclemente 3 months ago
-
From that NYT article on the Phoenix shooting:
Sgt. Tommy Thompson, a Phoenix Police Department spokesman, said witnesses saw the gunman talking to two people in the parking lot of the complex on Wednesday morning before he began shooting.
Who knew that one’s career goes from losing a Senate election to spokesman for a police department?
-
it seems obvious why the NRA didn’t want, and fought tooth and nail a Nation wide database to track gun crime.
Did they know, or merely suspect? If nothing else, it seems clear that, had the NRA felt that the numbers would be on their side, they would have happily funded the research themselves.
-
#15 written by channelclemente 3 months ago
-
#16 written by channelclemente 3 months ago
Quote from Andy Borowitz take on this morning’s Lapierre-a-gram to the Senate.
“WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—In testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee today, National Rifle Association C.E.O. Wayne LaPierre warned that the N.R.A. would vigorously oppose any legislation that “limits the sale, purchase, or ownership of politicians.”
“Politicians pose no danger to the public if used correctly,” said Mr. LaPierre, who claims to have over two hundred politicians in his personal collection. “Everyone hears about the bad guys in Congress. Well, the only thing that stops a bad guy with a vote is a good guy with a vote. I’m proud to be the owner of many of those guys.”
-
-
#18 written by channelclemente 3 months ago
-
#19 written by channelclemente 3 months ago
-
#20 written by Max 3 months ago
da,
#7
No.
I’ve already proposed civil and criminal liability for the use of a weapon attaching on purchase and no relief until the weapon is transferred to a new owner or to authorities. How one deals with that liability is their business. The criminal portion of that also means you could be charged as an accessory, or similar, if your weapon is lost or stolen!
If I use my gun, even in self defense, there exists the possibility that, even with no criminal charge, I could be sued by the person or their family, and have to prove in court by a preponderance of evidence that I acted responsibly and without negligence, even under current tort law.
-
#21 written by Max 3 months ago
-
#22 written by Max 3 months ago
-
Max,
What’s wrong with gun insurance? It would seem to make at least as much sense as auto insurance (since you like comparing guns with cars). As you say, gun owners should be held responsible for any damage done by or with their guns.
(By the way, I agree with you that gun owners or their estate should certainly be held responsible for death or injury caused by their guns — at least as much as whoever pulled the trigger.)
Anyway, I’m asking an honest question. I would like to know why you object to gun insurance. I personally could see an argument either way. On the one hand, one could say that the results of a gun being used badly are so horrendous that a typical gun owner probably can’t afford truly adequate recompense. They should be held responsible, but few people can really pay the medical and other expenses incurred by a victim or the victim’s heirs. That’s the whole idea of liability insurance of any sort. At least then, victims or their heirs (whether the death or injury was intentional or not) would have a chance at reasonable compensation. That’s the way auto insurance works.
On the other hand, gun owners should perhaps be made true paupers and entirely destroyed by the economic consequences of having someone damaged by their guns. Perhaps gun owners should be forbidden to buy liability insurance, in order to make certain they are impoverished when someone is injured or killed by a gun they own. And it shouldn’t require a lawsuit — it should be a crippling and automatic fine, perhaps with mandatory jail time attached.
That might be the best form of massacre control. The pro-gun people tend to insist they are responsible and careful with their guns, and therefore shouldn’t be inconvenienced. This would seem to be a good compromise. They can go ahead and own guns if they like — their right to keep and bear them would be in no way infringed. But if the gun is used to harm someone, the gun owner should be utterly destroyed by the consequences of having been careless or worse, and thus having abused this “right”.
-
#24 written by Max 3 months ago
-
#25 written by dawolf 3 months ago
-
#26 written by Max 3 months ago
-
Civil AND criminal liability will suffice in place of insurance.
Wouldn’t insurance help to pay for the costs of the fines incurred by civil and criminal liability? I’d think gun owners would want some help in such cases, but then, maybe gun owners really don’t feel any responsibility to the people who may be harmed by their guns — or even to themselves or their loved ones, in case of such a disaster. Maybe they don’t like planning ahead. I wouldn’t know.
In any case, you do seem to prefer the path of utterly impoverishing those whose weapons harm people. As I said, that is certainly one viable option, and seems perfectly reasonable to me.
-
rgbact wrote:
Are you on a crusade to stop media pundits exaggerations?
No more than you seem to be on a crusade to apologize for them!
On your other points, you now seem to somewhat agree with Biden that the AWB is sort of a waste and probably should be scuttled for addressing LCM. Fair?
Not fair. Biden said that he’s more concerned with magazines than with “assault weapons” and I said that I found his comments interesting and that magazines may be a bigger problem, at least in some ways. I do know that the current popular wisdom is that the assault weapons ban doesn’t have much hope of passing in its present form. It may be best to focus on specific characteristics that people can understand. I know that I myself have not studied the prior or currently proposed ban enough to know exactly what is considered to be an “assault weapon”. But I do understand the concept of large-capacity magazines, cop-killer bullets, or high-powered weaponry. By looking at the specific characteristics, it may be easier to have an informed debate on the degree that any of these are truly needed by law-abiding gun-owners versus the danger that they pose to police and law-abiding citizens.
-
Max wrote:
Thus, a more accurate and true conclusion would be that restrictions on large cap mags will be substantially more effective than another “assault weapon” ban.
As I mentioned in my prior message, it may also mean that the “assault weapon” ban needs to be more focused on those precise characteristics which constitute the greatest problem. Regarding conclusions of the study, I ran across an interesting article containing recent comments by the study’s author. Following is an excerpt:
Cato’s Kopel dwelled on the study at length, spending several minutes discussing its history and findings. “We do not have to speculate about whether ‘assault weapon’ bans do any good. A Department of Justice study commissioned by the Clinton administration found that they do not,” he explained. “The study found the [Sen. Dianne] Feinstein ban to be a complete failure.”
So is that what the study said? No, according to the author of the study himself. I emailed Koper, now at George Mason University, after the hearing to note that I had a fairly different reading of his paper from that of LaPierre and Koper, and asked if he could sort it out.
“I agree with your reading of our 2004 study,” Koper replied. You can read the full study for yourself here and see that while it was not a ringing endorsement of the assault weapons ban, as many gun control advocates had hoped, it hardly “proved” the law to be a failure, as LaPierre claims. To the contrary, it found some encouraging signs, like an average 40 percent drop in the number of assault weapons used in crimes (some cities saw a drop of over 70 percent) and some benefit from the ban on high-capacity magazines.
But mostly, the study was inconclusive. Not enough time had passed for the ban’s effect to be fully felt and there were too many loopholes to get a good read on its effect. For instance, the number of high-capacity magazines in the country actually increased during time of the ban because it was still legal to import magazines made in other countries before the law went into effect. Meanwhile, numerous other variables contributed to the drop in crime during that decade, including better policing and the end of the crack epidemic.
-
Monotreme wrote:
This reminds me of how furious I am that the CDC is enjoined by Congress from studying gun-related homicides. In order to inform public policy, we need to do the research. Sometimes (as in this case), the research supports what the NRA is saying, but that’s okay, because it allows us to direct our efforts toward things that DO work.
That ban on CDC research was mentioned during the “Fireside Hangout”. Following is a description from a an online article:
“The Center for Disease Control can’t even keep statistics on gun violence,” Biden later told Hangout participant Kawasaki, taking a dig at the NRA’s stance against gun-related investigations.
“They can’t even do research,” added Biden, who compared the gun safety debate to that over automotive safety, which was a hot topic during his early years in the Senate.
“Once the research that was done, we built much safer automobiles,” said Biden.
-
I was struck in particular by one aspect of LaPierre’s testimony yesterday, He decried the limited amount of “enforcement” devoted to current laws. Many pro-gun Congresspeople have done the same. Yet many of those same people have moved to block funds for much of the effort at enforcement.
It’s a nice catch — we can’t have more controls on massacres until we enforce the laws already on the books, but we can’t enforce the laws already on the books because we can’t afford to do so, and because pro-gun.lobbies will complain that doing so violates the Second Amendment.
We saw one result of this in the “Fast & Furious” débâcle. Large quantities of guns were purchased by people who intended to sell them to drug cartels south of the border. ATF agents weren’t allowed to intervene because current law forbade them from taking any action due to Second Amendment concerns. Their only choice was to try to track where the guns went — which itself is of questionable legality, meaning they weren’t legally able to devote the resources that would truly have been needed.
We all know the tragic results. At least one federal agent was killed with guns the ATF was trying to track. The pro-gun lobby tried to insist it had all been done on purpose, since it highlighted the stupidly extreme nature of the Second Amendment arguments they advance. Had the public understood what happened, there would have been a demand for stricter laws and stricter enforcement. Instead, we had dishonest and politically-motivated Congressional attacks on the Attorney General.
That is the trap we’re in today. The pro-gun forces won’t allow us to have better laws because they say the current laws aren’t enforced well, and we can’t have effective enforcement because the pro-gun people have rigged the system. The result is, nothing happens except more death.
-
#32 written by rgbact 3 months ago
No more than you seem to be on a crusade to apologize for them!
I didn’t apologize for him. I even implied that it may be worthy to call people out for exaggerated, blustery statements– especially someone like a professor. That said, I have a pet peeve about people that try to discredit largely valid arguments by nitpicking. Now you even admit you don’t even know what an assault weapon is—after now writing your 2nd article on the assault weapon ban. Sounds like oh so many gun control advocates. Don’t feel bad though—given media’s shallow portrayal of these issues—I have no idea what an assault weapon is either, and I’ll bet few people do.
-
#33 written by Max 3 months ago
dc,
The operative word that was used was “required” insurance. This is contradictory to the exercise of a Constitutionally recognized Right, as is a literacy test is to voting.
If the “liability” was passed as law, a person could choose to risk substantial personal financial loss against taking out insurance. If you own your home outright, you can choose to insure it, or not. You may also do the same with your car, as long as you have proof of financial ability as required, in place of insurance.
-
#34 written by shortchain 3 months ago
Reed can’t be blamed for not knowing what an “assault weapon” is. Outside of the circa-1930 German Army, there ain’t no such thing. It’s a vague, ill-defined term.
The AWB failed (to at least a degree) largely because the gun manufacturers and their toadies in the NRA “participated” in designing it for the specific purpose of failing. And that will happen again if they are allowed to “participate”. For exactly the same reason as is illustrated in the parable of the scorpion and the frog.
Bans on weaponry should be specifically aimed at reducing the capacity of weapons to produce mass casualties. -
At least one person shot outside a Texas courthouse. It’s a good thing it’s okay to carry firearms in Texas.
-
#36 written by Max 3 months ago
” … not knowing what an “assault weapon” is. Outside of the circa-1930 German Army, there ain’t no such thing. It’s a vague, ill-defined term.
Bans on weaponry should be specifically aimed at reducing the capacity of weapons to produce mass casualties. “Restates exactly what I have been saying all along.
-
Outside of the circa-1930 German Army, there ain’t no such thing.
Nonsense. Legally, an assault weapon is whatever the law says it is. Congress writes laws and writes the definitions used in the laws. This strawman that “there’s no universal definition of ‘assault weapon’ so you can’t ban them” is nothing more than an attempt to trap someone into arguing semantics instead of getting rid of unnecessary and dangerous massacre machines.
-
#38 written by rgbact 3 months ago
-
-
#40 written by shortchain 3 months ago
DC,
Yeah, there’s no problem with defining things in terms of legalese. Like how the definition “light truck” came about…
If you don’t know what you are talking about (and, arguably, people who refer to “assault weapons” don’t) — then you can’t hope to fix problems.
The whole point of trying to use “assault weapon” as a distinguishable category is so you can make the ban sound more palatable, rather than just trying to solve the problem of high-capacity clips and high rates of fire in a weapon available to everyone — because no ordinary citizen should have an “assault weapon”, right?
The problem the “assault weapons” ban was trying to solve was to sell the ban, to make it more politically acceptable. It’s no surprise that it therefore largely failed to solve the real problem.
-
shortchain,
Yeah. If you read the legal definitions, both from the earlier ban and the proposed one, there are groups of features that are used to indicate whether the weapon is to be banned. Clearly, it is the features that are being banned, and the term “assault weapon” is a label that’s been hung on a weapon with those features.
The idea is that those features (which Max describes with terms like rate of fire, magazine capacity, and so forth) were developed for the purposes of killing or seriously wounding lots of people very quickly. They serve no other real purpose. Their intent is to commit assault on many victims at once.
None of the rational reasons that have been put forth for legitimate gun ownership (hunting, recreational target shooting, self-defense) require the ability to kill lots of people very quickly. Therefore, it makes sense to ban weapons that have these features.
If Max is more comfortable putting it in those terms — “ban weapons that have these features,” rather than creating a name for those weapons and then banning weapons that have been thus named — that makes sense I suppose. The problem with that approach is that gun makers will simply invent other features that have the same practical effect in an attempt to get around the ban, and gun nuts will buy them. If you have created a class of weapon to be banned, it may be possible (if you write the law the correct way) to also ban weapons that are cynically designed for the express purpose of getting around the ban.
Of course, if you merely concentrate on features to be banned, the gun nuts will call them “cosmetic” and pretend you’re engaged in the mechanical equivalent of racial profiling.
-
#42 written by channelclemente 3 months ago
-
channelclemente,
It’s a good analogy. In both cases — guns and pornography — it’s a question of “redeeming social value.” Pornography, to paraphrase the legal definition, is an expression that is prurient and has no redeeming social value. Assault weapons are quite similar — deadly, with no actual legitimate value to responsible gun owners.
This is not to say that purely prurient expressions can’t be incredibly enjoyable. You will pry my worthless porn from my cold, dead hands. (I’m not following that analogy any farther.) The comparison breaks down in that porn kills fewer people.
-
#44 written by Max 3 months ago
” … Max describes with terms like rate of fire, …“
You have NEVER, EVER heard me describe an “assault” weapon in terms of “rate of fire”. The closest to that at all is differentiating between semi– and fully automatic weapons.
Again, to be clear, for the purposes of my gun responsibility list of proposals: an “assault weapon” is any fully automatic or selective fire weapon, and any combination semiautomatic weapon and magazine capable of firing more than 11 consecutive times without reloading. (inclusive of 1 round in the chamber.)
Please be accurate when quoting me. -
#45 written by Max 3 months ago
-
#47 written by channelclemente 3 months ago
Some news of the day…
http://www.businessinsider.com/price-middle-school-shooting-2013–1
-
Max,
I stand corrected.
My point was that you suggest particular features that should be regulated. You’ve objected to banning “assault weapons.” If you’d rather we regulate guns that have certain objectionable features and simply leave off any sort of label, that’s fine with me. I have no problem with banning guns that have a set of objectionable features.
Some of the features you list are on the list of features related to “assault weapons” in the various legal proposals. There are also similar features on that list that you don’t include. It doesn’t matter; the point is, that’s how “assault weapons” are defined (i.e., by a list of features). Even you define “assault weapons” by a list of features.
I don’t much care if your definition matches the legal one. We should find the features that are most dangerous, and ban them — and also make the law flexible enough that we can ban new features that are created for the cynical purpose of avoiding the law. Do you have a problem with that?
-
#49 written by channelclemente 3 months ago
-
-
#51 written by channelclemente 3 months ago
-
CC,
Since the NRA is primarily the marketing arm of gun manufacturers, if Americans came to see that the arguments presented in opposition to legal reform are actually baseless, the NRA might get less support. Just revealing that the NRA is little more than an Orwellian advertizing firm might even help some.
-
#53 written by channelclemente 3 months ago
-
-
-
#56 written by Max 3 months ago
In #49: the referenced article cited (in Myth #3) a study of CHL holders in Texas and found:
CHL holders were MUCH LESS likely than non-licensees to be convicted of crimes. Most non-holder convictions were for higher prevalence crimes as robbery, burglary and simple assault.
Hmmm. Just an observation.
-
-
-
#59 written by channelclemente 3 months ago
Michael,
tut, tut. Don’t highjack my fond memories of an organization gone rogue. I still remember an old article on how to shoot from one mountain to another, and the ballistics of different calibers/loads in that effort. I’d inherited on old lever action 1899 Savage 308 ‘saddle gun’ that has long since vanished to some relative. It had a six round rotary magazine and was a piece of art, IMO. Never did get to shoot mountain to mountain, but them’s the breaks.
-
#60 written by Max 3 months ago
“ I’m liking more and more the idea of mandatory licensing and insurance policies for people who want to own guns, in additional to universal background checks. “
Sounds like the British Parliament wanting to license newsprint by making newspapers buy special watermarked paper. Sad.
-
#61 written by dawolf 3 months ago
@dc
“I’m liking more and more the idea of mandatory licensing and insurance policies for people who want to own guns, in additional to universal background checks.”
It won’t happen, because of people shouting about the Constitution (the “it has to be free as it’s a right” argument), but some form of gun license — say at a cost of $100 a year — which needs to be renewed annually would certainly allow for background checks etc to be better investigated. You could then simply say its required to have a gun license to buy or own guns. This license would have to be checked against a central database by a seller either in a gun store, gun show or privately (a web portal where the name & gun licence number are put in would seem to do the job). It’s not impossible since it would be very similar to a drivers license.. If someone were then found to be carrying or owning a gun without the license then the gun could be confiscated and the carrier/owner fined.
-
#62 written by dawolf 3 months ago
-
#63 written by Max 3 months ago
-
#64 written by Max 3 months ago
-
Max,
10 in the clip seems to be a fairly common number.
As are the numbers five, six, and seven.
Besides, my Beretta holds 10+1!!!
Ahh, the old “restrictions are great, as long as they’re for other people” meme.
None. Just quoting the citation and, as I said, “just an observation.
Uh huh. Just random words. Riiiiight.
-
#66 written by Max 3 months ago
Michael,
“ It’s just now they tell people to hunt children in schools with rapid fire weapons containing large magazines. “
And with this quote, which is blatantly untrue and as a distasteful piece of demagoguery as I have seen in quite a while, you just fucked your credibility all to hell and back.
-
#67 written by channelclemente 3 months ago
-
#68 written by Max 3 months ago
-
#69 written by channelclemente 3 months ago
-
#71 written by channelclemente 3 months ago
For your viewing pleasure.
They’re awaiting your submission.
http://owenwisterreview.wordpress.com/ -
-
rgbact wrote:
I didn’t apologize for him. I even implied that it may be worthy to call people out for exaggerated, blustery statements– especially someone like a professor.
I simply did what you implied “may be worthy”. If you don’t accuse me of being on a crusade, I won’t accuse you of being wishy-washy! Deal?
That said, I have a pet peeve about people that try to discredit largely valid arguments by nitpicking.
Exactly what are the “largely valid arguments” and the “nitpicking” of which you speak? Kopel said that the 2004 DoJ study “concluded it [the AWB] had done absolutely no good”. I read the report and it does NOT say that by any reasonable reading. As I mentioned in message #29, even the paper’s author says that. Am I being “nitpicking” for calling Kopel on making, in your terms, “exaggerated, blustery statements”?
Now you even admit you don’t even know what an assault weapon is—after now writing your 2nd article on the assault weapon ban. Sounds like oh so many gun control advocates. Don’t feel bad though—given media’s shallow portrayal of these issues—I have no idea what an assault weapon is either, and I’ll bet few people do.
Yes, I know that the first rule in discussions with fundamentalists is to never admit that you don’t know everything. Take the Kopel approach and make authoritative, black-and-white statements. You may lose the independent thinkers but you’ll keep your supporters and paymasters happy.
In any case, I said that I “have not studied the prior or currently proposed ban enough to know exactly what is considered to be an ‘assault weapon’”. If you will only read articles written by those who claim to know everything exactly, then you’re insuring that you will only read articles written by liars!
-
dcpetterson wrote:
None of the rational reasons that have been put forth for legitimate gun ownership (hunting, recreational target shooting, self-defense) require the ability to kill lots of people very quickly. Therefore, it makes sense to ban weapons that have these features.
I agree. However, there are a number of arguably irrational reasons out there that it may need to be addressed. Regarding self-defense, DeFranco asked a question toward the end of the “Fireside Hangout” about whether there might be some apocolyptic situation (such as a major earthquake in California) in which homeowners might need assault weapons to hold off mobs of attackers. Likewise, I’ve heard occassional arguments that such weapons might be necessary to hold off the government. I think that Myth #1 at this link addresses this. These may be fantasies that are the result of watching too many Mad Max movies. Still, I would not be surprised if many NRA members believe them. Hence, they may be worth addressing publicly.
-
Reed,
However, there are a number of arguably irrational reasons out there that it may need to be addressed.
Good point, There is seldom a reason to avoid pointing out irrational arguments.
One interesting aspect is that these arguments admit the purpose of assault weapons is to kill lots of people very quickly. We needn’t pretend they serve any other function. They aren’t hunting rifles, they are not useful when you’re walking home late at night in a dark alley, and they’re the wrong weapon to have to confront a burglar. They aren’t even the weapon you want to keep wolves away from the family goat. Their only function is to kill a lot of people as quickly as possible.
So then we come to the question of whether that is something we want to encourage American citizens to do.
-
#77 written by Armchair Warlord 3 months ago
-
-
#79 written by Armchair Warlord 3 months ago
dc on the NRA,
The NRA is indeed awful. They need to be broken. The organization needs to be turned into an impotent joke. The NRA has to be killed and then killed again. Once it is dead, we can have effective and intelligent gun law reform.
Mule Rider on dc,
Pointing out that you’re wrong isn’t enough, DC. Given the snide and pompous way you go about your business and your non-stop derision of conservative and libertarian ideals, you must be de-humanized and de-legitimized.
Fueled by what is apparently a Mule Rider-esque level of blind hatred (and trust me, I’m familiar with the emotion), you are making a cognitive error that ultimately destroys the case you are trying to make.
-
Warlord, you could be right. What part of my comment that you quoted in #79 do you think was inaccurate?
I’m curious to know whether you approve of the antics of the current leadership of the NRA. The majority of NRA members don’t.
Do you really think the answer to gun violence in schools is to put more guns into schools? Seriously?
-
dcpetterson wrote:
I was struck in particular by one aspect of LaPierre’s testimony yesterday, He decried the limited amount of “enforcement” devoted to current laws. Many pro-gun Congresspeople have done the same. Yet many of those same people have moved to block funds for much of the effort at enforcement.
I ran across a very good article from FactCheck.org titled Did the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban Work?. Nevermind that they stole my title and just added “1994” to it! Anyhow, it covers a number of very interesting topics. For one, they cover a number of ways in which Wayne LaPierre misused the 2004 DoJ study, “cherry-picking portions out of context” to suit his arguments”. They extended that charge to Feinstein as well though it sounded to me as though the greater misstatements came from LaPierre.
In any case, they point to a very informative presentation given by Koper, the chief author of the 2004 study at a Summit on Reducing Gun Violence in America. Koper’s talk goes from about 28:00 to 46:35 in the video, just under 20 minutes. At about 44:25, he presents the following powerpoint slide:
Lessons and Implications
* New ban may reduce shootings modestly
* Magazine capacity limit was most important part of the old ban
+ Effects of restricting other firearm accessories is unknown
+ Need better data on use / impacts of LCMs* May take several years to achieve desired effects, depending on grandfather provisions
Hence, Koper does suggest that a new ban could reduce shootings modestly, that magazine capacity was the most important part of the old ban, and that the desired effects could take several years, depending on how existing weapons are “grandfathered”. The FactCheck.org article went on to state:
Koper concluded by saying that “a new ban on large capacity magazines and assault weapons would certainly not be a panacea for gun crime, but it may help to prevent further spread of particularly dangerous weaponry and eventually bring small reductions in some of the most serious and costly gun crimes.”
Hence, Koper does seem to think that a new ban can have positive effects. Of course, you never would have guessed that listening to LaPierre and David Kopel. In any case, I would recommend watching Koper’s presentation.
-
#82 written by Max 3 months ago
-
#83 written by rgbact 3 months ago
-
#84 written by shortchain 3 months ago
Max and AW make the mistake of imagining that a majority of the populace hold the same attitudes they do.
Support (outside of Congress and the SC) for gun control is pretty much overwhelming. That is, ultimately, going to translate into government action. The only question is how sweeping that action is going to be. Drawing a line in the sand and refusing to budge an inch will not stop nor even slow the incoming tide. Putting up a dam may hold the tide back for a while, but when the dam breaks, the resulting damage will only be made worse by the effort.
-
#85 written by Max 3 months ago
sc,
Once again, as you have done several times on this subject, you assume too much. Worse, you imagine you can read minds, something that has no basis in fact. Worse still, you exhibit your delusion publicly. I remind you that, like masturbation, such is not a bad thing, but is an exercise best enjoyed in private.
In fact, I understand the majority will. I also understand the mood of Congress. I understand that NEITHER side in the issue will get what they want. I understand that extremists on BOTH sides will tend to drive more folks into the middle. Which is why I have, from the beginning, charted a middle course.
I know that previously you poo-pooed my middle course. For the record, your opinion of my position being what it is, I don’t really give an obese rodent’s anus.
-
#86 written by shortchain 3 months ago
Max,
Then why do you insist on replying to my comments?
For the record — you imagine you are in the middle. You are not. That’s your fundamental mistake. You imagine, somehow, that you can pretend to be a “middleman”, offering a “compromise” (which, IMO, is not a very good one). As I said the first time I commented on your proposals. -
Max,
I think you’re partly correct. Your suggestions are definitely a compromise (and I don’t view “compromise” as a dirty word) between the extremism of the NRA (which wants no further restrictions whatever) and the centrist view that we should ban only a class of some of the most dangerous weapons. Yours is indeed a middle ground between those views. But you’re not centered between two extremes. You’re between one extreme and the middle.
You have supported a ban on large clips. You have supported better reporting and a better database. Big majorities of Americans want these things as well.
Majorities also want universal background checks and a ban on assault weapons. I admit I don’t recall your stand on background checks, but I do know you disagree with an assault weapons ban. My point is that all these points I list are most definitely part of the centrist American position. It doesn’t help your case to present some of them as “extreme”. They’re not.
I don’t generally quote opinion polls as support for my position, because I know a majority of the public can be dangerously wrong on any number of issues. I mention this only to counter the idea that an assault weapons ban is an “extreme” position, or that opposing such a ban is a “moderate” position.
Personally, I don’t care much about whether a position is extreme or moderate (though, being a political writer, I am not above occasionally throwing such rhetoric into the conversation). I’m more concerned with the merits and impact of a proposed policy. I still have seen no practical arguments against an assault weapons ban, though I’ve been asking for that for quite some time. Conversely, I have seen lots of reasons in favor of a ban. I’d rather talk on that level (i.e., the pros and cons of an idea) rather than argue where in a political spectrum the idea stands.
But we should be clear. Opposition to an assault weapons ban is not “centrist” and is not a “middle ground” — at least, not if one defines “middle ground” either as being “the central point between extremes” or “the place where the majority of Americans are.” Opposition to an assault weapons ban puts one well outside of the American mainstream.
-
#88 written by Max 3 months ago
sc,
I reply most times to attempt to overcome false assertion, shortsightedness, even idiocy. I realize that most times it is fruitless, as the poor soul is entrenched in their position and has no interest in compromise or rational, pragmatic solution. Thankfully, wiser heads than yours usually prevail in our political system, even though the extremists on either side are not satisfied.
And, as I have said many times: an unchallenged assertion stands as fact, even if it is not. So a reply is necessary is such cases.
Again, as you seem not to understand concerning your misguided, self-absorbed opinion, I don’t give an obese rodents anus. The legislation ultimately signed into law will determine which is more correct at this juncture in time.
-
#89 written by Max 3 months ago
dc,
In spite of shortchain’s ignorant and incorrect assertion, you are correct in terms of compromise , as I have the serious wounds from your counterparts in the gun advocacy camp to show for it. For the benefit of all, here is another copy of my proposal:
The Second Amendment to the Constitution recognizes the Right
of the people to keep and bear arms. As we know, no right is absolute. Even
life itself can be legally forfeit under certain situations. Every right also
has corresponding responsibilities that adhere. The recognized Right to possess
an object that, for the most part, has as its only purpose to kill and/or
injure, whether hunting for food or for self-defense, must, of necessity, carry
a high degree of responsibility for the exercise of that Right. This is an
effort to move away from the status quo
and better define the Responsibility that adheres to the Right recognized in
the Second Amendment and to the citizen that wishes to lawfully exercise that right. As
importantly, this is an effort to keep guns out of the hands of people who have
demonstrated a lack of responsibility and thus must have their Right
restricted.A) Waiting period for all gun purchases or
transfers, during which a background check will be made on the purchaser.B)
Background check, criminal and medical,
required. Criminal and mental/emotional reasons for disqualification of gun
ownership will be defined.C)
Waiver of doctor/patient privilege for mental/emotional
health reasons affecting ability to own gun, for information to be reported to
national database only. Doctor/therapist
shall report adverse information within specified period and penalty shall
apply for failure to report.D)
National database with all criminal and mental/emotional
health data, specifically for gun purchases. Database shall NOT be used for any
other purpose, and shall be continually updated. Any challenge to database
information shall be resolved, and corrected as necessary, within 45 days of
initial challenge. A penalty will be
assessed for subsequent report of same erroneous information after challenge.E)
Subsequent gun ownership transfers must meet all
original sale requirements. Exception will be made for transfer to designated
authority for which a transfer receipt will be sufficient.F)
Purchaser of a gun has civil and criminal responsibility
and liability for that weapon, and
its use, until legally transferred to another owner or documented return to
designated authority. A weapon being stolen does not release owner from
liability. Loss of a weapon shall also be prima
facie evidence of sufficient lack of responsibility by owner as to forbid
further acquisition, or continued ownership, of arms for some specified period
of time.G)
Magazines shall be limited to 10 rounds, maximum
capacity. Licensed shooting ranges may provide for lend or rental, as with automatic weapons, on site
only, magazines of capacities of up to 30 for pistols and 100 for rifles. Range
magazines shall be international safety orange in color.H)
An “assault” weapon is defined as any fully
automatic (capable of continuous repeating fire with a single pull of the
trigger, until the trigger is released) weapon, or any semi-automatic (firing
once for each pull of the trigger and automatic chambering of next round) gun
and magazine combination capable of
firing more than eleven (11) rounds, inclusive of an initial round in the gun’s
chamber. Cosmetic appearances of a
weapon notwithstanding. -
#90 written by Max 3 months ago
-
#91 written by Max 3 months ago
As far a majority opinion on a position, American history is replete with times the majority’s opinion has been counter to the Constitution and Law. In the past 60 years: Integration of the Armed Services, Brown v. Board of Education, Smith v. Collins.
This is true whether I am with that sensible majority, or stand counter to the ignorant majority.As always, it depends on whose ox is being served for dinner.
-
Yeah, right. And America is a “center right country”. Seems it’s always the claim by one side or the other, that the middle is closer to their position!
In this case, I fully admit my actual personal position is extreme. But I support what is currently the majority opinion, because it is rather centrist.
As far a majority opinion on a position, American history is replete with times the majority’s opinion has been counter to the Constitution and Law.
Absolutely true. As I said in #87, “I don’t generally quote opinion polls as support for my position, because I know a majority of the public can be dangerously wrong on any number of issues.” That does not, however, mean that the majority opinion is always wrong, or else democracy would be a stunningly bad idea. In point of fact, I agree with W. Churchhill who said (I’m paraphrasing here), “Democracy is the worst form of government — except for all the others.”
-
And thank you, Max, for repeating your proposal.
A, B, C, E, F, and G are all very good. I agree with them.
I have privacy concerns with D. But a national database of health information may help in lowering healthcare costs generally. It has to be implemented carefully, however.
Your definition of an assault weapon is probably a good start. I’d tweak it a little. But since you don’t want to ban assault weapons anyway, I don’t know why you’d want a legal definition of one (unless you’d be okay with banning the weapons you describe in H). It is a move in the right direction anyway, and the definition can be tweaked and improved as time goes on. There are other features which could be included, but this is a start.
If I understand your proposals correctly, they would result in universal background checks for all gun purchases, including private sales and sales at gun shows, and national tracking of ownership of all firearms (much as we track automobiles). If I understand that correctly, I’d support that.
I’d also like to see mandatory safety training and licensing, minimum age requirements, and the ability of cops to ticket you for shooting while intoxicated — but I recognize we are not likely to get that sort of thing in a first round.
How do you feel about allowing the CDC to research the causes and effects of gun violence?
-
#94 written by shortchain 3 months ago
It is also true that, in the long-term evolution of the populace, what was once unthinkable and unconstitutional (such as allowing all people to vote), eventually tends to become constitutional and ordinary.
Guns do not contribute to society. They are a vestige of an outdated concept of liberty, useless in the modern world except for those who enjoy some ancient pastimes. As such, they’re on the way out, except as collector’s items, to take their place alongside swords and suits of armor.
The Constitution, in this as well as in several other important ways, is showing its age.Whether the document can be amended or interpreted so as to continue to serve is an open question.
-
#95 written by Max 3 months ago
OH God!!! It’s the right wing, conservative Republican WORST nightmare!!!! The black, socialist, Muslim, Kenyan, American President WITH A GUN!!!!!
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-34222_162-57567294–10391739/wh-releases-photo-of-obama-skeet-shooting/
-
#96 written by Max 3 months ago
dc,
(H) defines a COMBINATION of equipment that, while illegal to have under usual circumstances, CAN be available for use at ranges, for those who wish to go out a fire away lots of dollars. One could also, as under the NFA, own that combination, just as they can fully automatic weapons. The permitting process, the registration, and the costs involved will be substantial and documented.
BTW, I am also considering an addition that would require that EVERY gun sold in the United States be fired prior to the initial sale, and the rifling pattern on the sample bullet be recorded into a database and the bullet itself be retained for subsequent forensic purposes.
-
#97 written by Max 3 months ago
“ The Constitution, in this as well as in several other important ways, is showing its age. ”
Sounds like GROG and other conservatives who love it, except where it does not meet their opinions.
“Whether the document can be amended or interpreted so as to continue to serve is an open question. ”
As always, one can make the Amendment attempt. I refer you to the Constitution itself, Article V,. Follow the instructions.
-
#98 written by shortchain 3 months ago
Max,
“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.”
Pretending that the Constitution is perfect and immutable is a refuge for those who have no better idea of how to fix the problems we confront today, most of them completely unforeseen by those who created said document.
I do not mind in the least being compared with our friend GROG. That said, I doubt most sincerely that GROG and I would agree to any degree about just what changes should be made to your holy document. Your comment betrays the shallowness of your argument.
-
Max, thanks for finding that picture of the President! I’m sure it won’t reduce the noise claiming that He’s Coming For Your Guns. It will, however, probably increase the fear of a black man with a gun in the White House.
Your suggestion for a test-firing and a record of the ballistics is another good one. I like that.
I agree with you about the Constitution. It was intended as a structure and a guideline, not a straightjacket. It is not perfect, and the original writers certainly didn’t believe it was. That’s one of the reasons it includes an amendment process. The Constitution — both the document itself (though the amendment process) and its interpretation (though the legislature and the courts) has evolved over time. It will continue to do so. It’s a long way from having been made obsolete by the times, and we are not near to needing a substantial rewrite.
Having said that, I agree with shortchain that the Second is one detail that has outlived its usefulness. But there is a proper method to challenge that, which is the amendment process. I doubt any constitutional limit or change to the Second will happen in the next hundred years. If it ever becomes politically possible, it will only be because virtually all Americans have stopped seeing any use for guns, and will have stopped using then — in which case, a change to the Second will probably be unneeded.
-
#100 written by Max 3 months ago
sc,
Having a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent interests me not, so I shall pass on flogging you after this comment.
I do not believe you can demonstrate that I have said the Constitution to be “perfect”, anytime or anywhere. Thus your assertion is ignorantly and factually incorrect on it’s face.
Factually, I have argued MANY times, here and elsewhere, that the Constitution is a living document, an outline as it were. But, as long as it exists, as written, the laws incorporated into the jurisprudence it ordains, and those Laws and the interpretations of both are decided and upheld by the Supreme Court, as ordained by the Constitution, then the onus is on the citizen to obey them, or suffer the consequences. Otherwise, one can GTFO.
And, when times and attitudes have changed sufficiently that constitutional changes are in order, then amending the Constitution is certainly an option, if the conditions defined for doing so are met, as I invited you to do,. Until that is done, see this comment, paragraph #3.
-
You must be logged in to post a comment.
- Comment Feed for this Post
A dramatic moment in the current Congressional discussion will happen today. Mark Kelly (husband of former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., who survived an attempted assassination) will testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee, along with NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre. Ms. Giffords is expected to attend.
It will be interesting to see Mr. LaPierre providing his extra special brand of extremist crazy in front of Rep. Giffords.