VPC – Officer Down

VPC – Officer Down

I hate it when someone uses footnotes on a “study” that doesn’t actually follow logic. I would rather read straight bullshit than well-documented bullshit.

This study reveals the gun industry’s efforts to evade the 1994 ban and documents the significant threat assault weapons still pose to law enforcement.

Whew. I’m smelling it already. “The gun industry’s efforts to evade the 1994 ban…” This seem to insinuate that something illegal has been done, doesn’t it? Not to VPC. To VPC, you are “evading” a ban if you comply with it. Keep up with me here: If someone passes a law that says, “You are not allowed to do A, B, and C” and you stop doing A, B, and C, and do D instead to get your job done, you are “evading” the law. “But I did what the law said” you claim? Too bad. You didn’t look at whatever sort of “meta-law” VPC wanted you to.

Also, “weapons” don’t threaten law enforcment. They don’t even threaten law enforcement officers. Criminals threaten law enforcement officers.

In 1995, the first full year in which the ban was implemented, police continued to be victims of assault weapons. Approximately one in 10 of the 74 law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty in 1995 was slain with a banned assault weapon.

Hmm. I guess they consulted Nostradamus on that one — the study they cite (their own in fact) was published in September 1995. I wonder where you budget crystal balls?I can’t access the study online, but I suspect that I know what sophistry they used to make this statement — weapons that were owned before the ban are grandfathered in. Of course, they can’t be bothered to be accurate and say “legally owned weapons listed in the ban” — they have the children to lie for.

Immediately after the 1994 law was enacted, the gun industry moved quickly to make slight, cosmetic design changes in their “post-ban” guns to evade the law, a tactic the industry dubbed “sporterization.” Of the nine assault weapon brand/types listed by manufacturer in the law, six of the brand/types have been re-marketed in new, “sporterized” configurations. In fact, gunmakers openly boast of their ability to circumvent the assault weapons ban.

Let’s see — you pass a law that bans guns on the way they look, and then you complain that they continue to sell after changing the way they looked? You told them, “You can’t do A, B, and C.” They stopped doing A, B, and C. That is called “compliance”, not “evasion.”Of course, I didn’t know that advertising counted as “openly boasting”.

Just such a post-ban AR, the Bushmaster XM15 M4 A3 assault rifle, was used by the Washington, DC-area snipers to kill 10 and injure three in October 2002. The Bushmaster is the poster child for the industry’s success at evading the ban. The snipers’ Bushmaster is even marketed as a “Post-Ban Carbine.”

Uhh… so? They could have easily been killed by deer rifles. I could have done the job with a .22 plinking rifle at the ranges they operated at. The type of weapon had nothing to do with the crime. This isn’t advocacy; this is demagoguery.

The industry’s efforts have been aided by the fact that not all assault weapons are covered by the 1994 ban. For example, assault weapons with more conventional designs, such as the Ruger Mini-14, were not covered by the 1994 law–although gun experts define them as assault weapons.

Really? Which experts? After riddling this “study” with footnotes, this one is conspicuously missing. Funny that.

The gun industry’s evasion of the 1994 ban on assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines continues to put law enforcement officers at extreme risk. Using data obtained from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Violence Policy Center has determined that at least 41 of the 211 law enforcement officers slain in the line of duty between January 1, 1998, and December 31, 2001, were killed with assault weapons.8 Using these figures, one in five law enforcement officers slain in the line of duty was killed with an assault weapon.

Here’s the big lie. This one is the money shot. They lied by counting weapons that they say are “assault weapons” in the list, not ones that the ban says are assault weapons. 10 of the weapons they list are SKS and Mini-14 rifles — rifles that they admit (and lament) aren’t covered by the ban. That puts us at 31 of 211 — and we have no idea how many of these rifles are legally owned from being purchased before the ban took effect.This is the thing to keep in mind. There is no provision to confiscarte legally owned weapons. All these bans apply to future sales. There laws they are asking for in no way apply to the situations they describe.

In other words, even after lying about the evidence, they still fail to make a logical argument.

Comments are closed.