The nation’s police chiefs are finding an alarming increase in criminals’ use of assault weapons — the high-powered battlefield rifles that used to be banned, back when the federal government showed greater concern for public safety. The 10-year ban expired in 2004, despite the vows of presidential nominees from both parties to fight for renewal. Congress hasn’t mustered the guts to try, preferring to roll over for the gun lobby.
A survey of more than 130 local police chiefs and officials found 37 percent reporting an increase in assault weapons in street crime. Front-line police find criminals generally packing more powerful heat, with more than half of the chiefs citing increases in large-caliber handguns and high-capacity semiautomatics — the real-life stuff of tough-guy movie fantasies. Miami police reported that four years after politicians allowed the federal ban to lapse, homicides by assault weapons increased sixfold, including the murder of two police officers.
What do you think? Is the opinion of police chiefs to be discounted because they're really politicians? That's what I've been told. My contention has always been that the chiefs of police should be a very reliable source of information on gun and crime issues.
In their frustration, the chiefs deserve credit for trying to come up with some local and state solutions — for example, requiring owners to immediately document lost or stolen guns as a deterrent to the current dodge of selling them as “lost” in the underground market.
The chiefs were collectively enlightened, discovering that in most states gun dealers are monitored not by state or local police but by federal firearm inspectors. They have a force of but 600 covering 115,000 gun dealers — who may be visited no more than once a year. Polls regularly show that the public, including most gun hobbyists, wants more realistic gun controls. But don’t tell that to the timorous politicians of Washington.
What's your opinion? Would demanding gun owners to report lost or stolen weapons infringe on their rights in any way? Would this make them criminals?
What about the task of yearly inspections of gun dealers by the authorities? The reality is that many dealers are never visited and others so infrequently that it serves nothing. Don't you think that's a problem?
Please leave a comment.
Sounds like a rehash of an article you discussed last month.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, it is another "survey" by the Police Executive Research Forum.
That is the same organization that supported MAIG's attempt to repeal the Tiahrt Amendment. That is also the same organization the Joyce Foundation has collaborated with on occasion. The president of the PERF, Chief John Timoney, has always been a vocal anti-gunner. And their board directors includes such anti-gun characters as Thug-In-Chief Edward Flynn and Gun-Grabber-in-Chief Bill Blair.
So anything coming from this organization should be taken with a grain of salt. These are anti-gun police chiefs using their position to push an anti-gun political agenda on behalf of their handlers. Or like you said, mikeb. They're really politicians.
I don't even know what they mean. What's a "large caliber pistol"? anythlng bigger than a .380? 9mm? .40? .45?
ReplyDeleteAnd what is a "High-capacity semi-automatic"? capacity is based on the magazines, not the firearms.
They sure used a lot of words to not say anything.
"use of assault weapons — the high-powered battlefield rifles that used to be banned,"
ReplyDeleteFalse on both counts.
I bought most of my "assault weapons" during the "ban."
Miami has been notorious for crying "assault weapon" when in fact no firearm was recovered.
ReplyDeleteAnd of course we must have the bogus dealer inspection canard. Dealers that are under investigation can be visited as often as necessary. The once per year rule only applies to fishing trips to dealers not suspected of committing violations.
I suspect the sixfold increase in assault weapon use might be real. It went from like 2 to 12 instances.
"What do you think? Is the opinion of police chiefs to be discounted because they're really politicians?"
No, that group should be discounted because they are a collection of numbnuts with a political agenda.
"My contention has always been that the chiefs of police should be a very reliable source of information on gun and crime issues."
One would think so but in reality, they have proven themselves quite unreliable.
Hmmm, except that its bullshit.
ReplyDeleteViolent crime is down, officer deaths are down.
Sounds like another BS Joyce Funded "survey" to me.
Aztec Red is whining about PERF yet here are the requirements to become a member:
ReplyDelete"PERF General members lead larger police agencies in the United States and around the world; their jurisdictions are often the seedbeds of the toughest problems and hardest-won solutions in policing. They collectively serve a majority of the U.S. population. To become a General member, one must be the executive head of a municipal, county or state-funded agency that provides general police services. The agency must have at least 100 full-time employees, or serve a population of 50,000 or more. "
Yes, police chiefs of large police forces tend to support gun control for the obvious reason: they see the problems, firsthand, of easy access to guns.
AztecRed's complaints are like bleating that the AMA is biased because they don't have pro-tobacco doctors on their board.
--JadeGold
As others have mentioned, this "survey" seems a bit dubious. I'd prefer to wait and see what the FBI's crime statistics show.
ReplyDeleteYes, the survey may be dubious, but the real problem is the ambiguity of expressions like "assault weapon."
ReplyDeleteActually, both the FBI and Bureau of Justice Statistics funded PERF.
ReplyDeleteOf course, gunloon logic dictates that any study or survey that is in opposition to gunloon talking points is 'suspect.'
--JadeGold
"Yes, the survey may be dubious, but the real problem is the ambiguity of expressions like "assault weapon.""
ReplyDeleteI agree. The non-technical term should probably be removed from our lexicon. We certainly shouldn't be basing public policy on such a loosely defined term.
"Yes, the survey may be dubious, but the real problem is the ambiguity of expressions like 'assault weapon.'"
ReplyDeleteI agree. For years there was a generally accepted definition of an assault weapon. It was not until the gun control loons wanted to start banning non assault weapons did the definition become altered causing confusion. All true assault weapons have already been heavily controlled since 1934.
Yes, the survey may be dubious, but the real problem is the ambiguity of expressions like "assault weapon."
ReplyDeleteNo, Mikeb, the real problem is that there is any question of banning militia-suitable rifles for The People's use.
"Sounds like another BS Joyce Funded "survey" to me."
ReplyDeleteIt is.
"AztecRed's complaints are like bleating that the AMA is biased because they don't have pro-tobacco doctors on their board."
ReplyDeleteSo if one of the NRA's puppet organizations said crime with guns was down 50%, you wouldn't claim it as biased?
"So if one of the NRA's puppet organizations said crime with guns was down 50%, you wouldn't claim it as biased?"
ReplyDeleteIn all my time debating the issue, I've always argued the substance not the source. Of course, I have pointed out the times when such puppet groups attempt to claim independence from the NRA---for example: Ted Fiddleman, LEAA, and DIPR. Even then, I've pointed out the flaws and misrepresentations in their arguments.
What gunloons don't know--or ignore--is that if you or an organization take money from any special interest group with the proviso that you or your organization skew study results to arrive at a conclusion/finding that special interest group wants--your career as a researcher or research facility is effectively over.
I'm aware of two DC area universities that were approached by the NRA to develop research projects. The NRA was offering a lot of money but the universities turned them down because they were required to use some very dodgy methodologies.
--JadeGold
"What gunloons don't know--or ignore--is that if you or an organization take money from any special interest group with the proviso that you or your organization skew study results to arrive at a conclusion/finding that special interest group wants--your career as a researcher or research facility is effectively over."
ReplyDeleteThen by your own logic, the PERF's career as a research facility is effectively over.
Their presence on both MAIG's and The Joyce Foundations payroll damns them. The fact that many of the chiefs that they polled come from different states with different definitions of what an "assault weapon" is, damns them. And the fact they are headed by notorious anti-gunners damns them even more.
JadeGold,
ReplyDeleteif you or an organization take money from any special interest group with the proviso that you or your organization skew study results to arrive at a conclusion/finding that special interest group wants--your career as a researcher or research facility is effectively over.
Not necessarily true, think of John Lott who is quoted all the time by the gun cretin crowd.
It's true if it comes from their side, but lies from the opposition.
Zorro, Are you a threeper? Is that why you say stuff like this?
ReplyDelete"No, Mikeb, the real problem is that there is any question of banning militia-suitable rifles for The People's use.
What gunloons don't know--or ignore--is that if you or an organization take money from any special interest group with the proviso that you or your organization skew study results to arrive at a conclusion/finding that special interest group wants--your career as a researcher or research facility is effectively over.
ReplyDeleteYou mean like every single anti-gun Joyce Funded "study?"
Not necessarily true, think of John Lott who is quoted all the time by the gun cretin crowd.
ReplyDeleteExcept that Lott wasn't paid by the NRA to make sure his research reached the conclusion he wanted.
The same is not true of anti's.
Mikeb asks:
ReplyDeleteZorro, Are you a threeper? Is that why you say stuff like this?
I flatter myself with the idea that I'm both a threeper and an Oath Keeper, but really, I don't think there's any reason that one would have to be either to be vehemently opposed to keeping effective firepower out of civilian hands.
At least part of this is about trends in handguns in general--The rise of the double-stack Wondernine in the 80's, the rise of Glock and other inexpensive but reliable semiautos, the invention of the .40 caliber. I'm sure statistics would show an increasing use of cars with front wheel drive and fuel injection in crime.
ReplyDeleteWhat are the extra capabilities of these guns? How many crimes were committed using the extra capability of these guns-Can you blame a killing on high capacity magazines if it happened with one of the first 6 rounds?
...and if they are such a problem, why is crime going down?
mike w.:
ReplyDelete"You mean like every single anti-gun Joyce Funded "study?""
Please show us ALL of those studies and all of the primary sources that prove you're right.
Zorro said, "I flatter myself with the idea that I'm both a threeper and an Oath Keeper, but really, I don't think there's any reason that one would have to be either to be vehemently opposed to keeping effective firepower out of civilian hands."
ReplyDeleteThanks for that answer, I think it explains a lot. I think you'll have an opportunity to enlighten us about both of those groups, as soon as I can put the posts together, that is if you care to.
Thanks for that answer, I think it explains a lot. I think you'll have an opportunity to enlighten us about both of those groups, as soon as I can put the posts together, that is if you care to.
ReplyDelete"Explains a lot," huh--if you say so. I believed the same way about firearms long before I'd ever heard of either the Three Percent movement or the Oath Keeper movement.
As for "enlightening you," I fear I'm doomed to disappoint. "Threepers," for example, are about the most loose-knit "organization" imaginable. There's no secret handshake, no late-night strategy sessions (or if there are, no one invited me), no command structure, no dues.
It's just those of us who have resolved not to disarm--ever. When you talk, Mikeb, about "tighten[ing] up the gun laws to the point that over say, a decade or so, we have about half the number of guns" (which means, that with over 200 million guns--a very conservative estimate--in private hands, you plan to take away, at a minimum, 10 million a year), you know you can't do that without a massive program of confiscation. An attempt to implement such a program here would instead be a massive bloodbath, making today's "gun violence" look like a somewhat rougher than usual game of Yahtzee. If you want "Three Percenters" explained--the man who popularized the concept explains it best.
Oath Keepers are a bit more structured, but not much more so, so again, I have little or no information that anyone who has looked around the website for a bit would not. Well--maybe this: I'm no longer active duty, but have friends who still are, and I can tell you that this isn't some tiny fringe movement. It's real, and it's growing, and it will severely limit a would-be tyrant's options.
Zorro, Thanks for the link to the Sipsey site. I've seen it before although I'm not a regular reader.
ReplyDeleteTo paraphrase: "When the histories are written, The Sipsey Street Irregulars Blog will by synonymous with grandiose victimism. They will be in the medical journals as the first diagnosed cases of ATD (anachronistic thinking disorder)." Mikeb to Mike Vanderboegh
Please show us ALL of those studies and all of the primary sources that prove you're right.
ReplyDeleteDo I have to spoon feed you again big boy? (for evidence that you will, as usual, delete and ignore) You're a true believer and facts prove you wrong, so you have no choice, you MUST ignore evidence.
You can look it up yourself since I know it's been pointed out repeatedly right here on MikeB's blog.
Mikeb30200:
ReplyDeleteWill there be a "Sipsey Cup" award for most creative historical revisionism?
Will there be a "Sipsey Cup" award for most creative historical revisionism?
ReplyDeleteDemocommie, I can say with confidence that Mr. Vanderboegh knows more about history--and can probably guess more about the future--than you know about the present (which, perhaps, is not an especially strong statement).
I wonder how much you know about him--did you know, for example, that he's a recovering Communist (reformed by an old German doctor at the hospital at which he worked as a young man)? Do you know how rabidly the Neo-Nazis hate him (just one example--and the hatred is plenty mutual)? Do you know that he was interviewed for, and extensively quoted in, Dr. Robert Churchill's superb book, To Shake Their Guns in the Tyrant's Face: Libertarian Political Violence and the Origins of the Militia Movement?
My guess is: no on all counts.
Zorro, I'm sure Mr. Vanderboegh is a helluva guy. In fact I'd like to read more about him when I have time. But, his site contains the most paranoid nonsense on the internet (that's my opinion not to be taken literally, but only as a superlative expression of my opinion).
ReplyDeleteWhat about you? Are you into Revolutionary war lore? Do you yourself identify with the rag-tag colonists who defied the nearly omnipotent King George.
What about you? Are you into Revolutionary war lore?
ReplyDeleteNot particularly. My knowledge of the nuts and bolts history of the period is, in fact, not what it should be. Vanderboegh's encyclopedic knowledge, by the way, is hardly limited to the Revolutionary War--he could write books on either of the World Wars, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the history of the American militia movement, and a great number of other topics.
Do you yourself identify with the rag-tag colonists who defied the nearly omnipotent King George.
Of course not. If I did, I'd be guilty of the kind of "grandiosity" you so tediously accuse people like me of. I've never been a part of anything 1/1,000,000th so noble and huge as throwing off the reins of imperial tyranny--and frankly, hope I'm never thrust into a position where it's necessary to try.
Zorro, Thanks for your comments, this one and the other recent ones. It may not mean anything to you, but I find you one of the most eloquent and interesting commenters on my blog. I appreciate you're coming around.
ReplyDeleteWhy, thank you, Mikeb--that's . . . unexpected, and actually does mean something to me (as I set myself up for the punchline: "But I hope I find out your real name, Zorro, so that when I read in the news about you accidentally blowing your stupid head off, I can ridicule you here"--pending that punchline, though, I appreciate it).
ReplyDeleteYa' oughtta hear me with a guitar, though (just kidding).