Sunday, February 24, 2013
More Misinformation from Senator Fenistein
She is right to say her bill does not contain registration mandates. She's a Fabian. Not this bill (although other legislatures have not been so subtle); I get it.
But when it comes time for her to support the based-solely-on-cosmetics "assault weapon" ban she proposes, she is as ignorant and self-deluded as anyone could ever be. Let's go the the article itself. She writes:
A third erroneous criticism is that the bill focuses on characteristics that are "cosmetic." The bill bans firearms that have at least one military feature, such as a pistol grip, barrel shroud or folding stock. Calling these military features "cosmetic" misunderstands why these features were developed and what they make possible.No, Senator, each of the "miltary" features in the bill, including the few you mentioned here, are merely cosmetic. The real thing that makes these guns more deadly than flintlocks or bolt action is that they are semi-automatic and can take normal sized box magazines. You have NOT tried to ban all semi-automatic weapons, you have not tried to ban all semi-automatic rifles which can take a normal sized box magazine, or indeed, an actual large capacity magazine of 50 to 100 rounds. You confuse the cosmetic with the essential things that focus your attention on the so called "assault weapons." All pistols have a pistol grip by definition. What makes them any different from the dangerous tools capable of mass killing you seek to ban? Let me venture an answer: Noting is essentially different. But let's look at her explanations. She writes:
A pistol grip makes it easier for a shooter to rapidly pull the trigger, facilitates firing from the hip and allows a shooter to quickly move the weapon from side to side to spray a wider range.Apparently, Senator Feinstein has never fired a rifle with a pistol grip. Not one of the things she says is accurate. Anyone with two minutes training or practice can fire as quickly a semi-auto rifle without a pistol grip as anyone with the same experience can one with such a grip; and everyone who is honest and skilled about such weapons will concede that point. The pistol grip makes it MORE difficult to shoot from the hip, not less, because it requires an awkward twisting of the wrist to lower the gun gripped like a pistol to hip level. Let me add that we would actually want a crazy mass murderer to shoot from the hip because he will miss many more people than if he raised the gun to his shoulder and aimed. You pivot the rifle when "spraying" the bullets and the trigger area is the fixed point. Whether there is a pistol grip at the fixed point, the fulcrum, as it were, is immaterial to the rapidness of the swing. That is accomplished by the hand on the forestock which actually causes the speed of the swing and the width of the arc. I don't believe I'm being nit-picky here. She says these things about pistol grips are facts regarding gun use, and none of them are true. None. Mr. Stoner put pistol grips on the rifle he invented, which the American armed forces adopted and that's the only reason the M-16s and M-4s all have pistol grips. The Springfield '03, the M-1 Garand, the M-14 did not have pistol grips but were just as deadly (in fact, more deadly, but because of the round they used). The latter two were semi-auto and fired a lot of aimed shots quickly. That is, they were essentially dangerous--effective and efficient at killing people in combat situations. They are not banned.
Barrel shrouds and forward grips allow shooters to grip weapons with nontrigger hands even as the barrel gets extremely hot from rapidly firing multiple rounds.All weapons since the Henry repeating rifle have a barrel shroud/forward grip for at least the underside of the barrel so that it can be gripped by the nontrigger hand even as the barrel gets extremely hot from rapidly firing multiple rounds. Has Senator Feinstein never seen a rifle fired?
Folding stocks make weapons more portable and concealable, while threaded barrels allow the attachment of grenade launchers, flash suppressors and other devices that reduce noise and recoil.Folding stocks do make the rifle shorter when they are folded in. But it's a matter of inches. Is that such a difference that the rifle is inherently more dangerous? Grenade launchers and devices that reduce noise (suppressors) are already regulated by the '34 National Firearms Act. Unless you actually attach them, does the mere possibility of attaching them really make the rifle more dangerous? Obviously not. Flash suppressors only protect some of the night vision of the shooter. They do not make the gun's discharge invisible at night. Again, is the marginal protection of the shooter's night vision something that makes a rifle more dangerous? How many mass shootings have taken place in unlit rooms or at night outside and away from street lights. Any? Finally, the device she mentions that reduces recoil on the end of the barrel has to be a compensator, which does reduce muzzle climb by deflecting some of the gas from the burning powder up. Compensators make the large caliber pistols slightly more accurate. They would be ineffective and superfluous on rifles because you're already using a hand to keep the muzzle in line for the next aimed shot. I have never seen a compensator on a rifle, but I guess you could attach one. More deadly rifle with a compensator? Not measurably so.
Then she says:
Finally, critics suggest that other assault weapons bans have failed. Evidence proves otherwise.
The Police Executive Research Forum found that 37 percent of police departments reported "noticeable increases" in the use of assault weapons following the expiration of the 1994-2004 ban.
A Justice Department study found the use of assault weapons traced to crime declined 70 percent nine years after the 1994 ban took effect. Another Justice Department study found the ban was responsible for a 6.7 percent decrease in total gun murders. Considering the annual number of gun murders exceeds 11,000, that means hundreds of lives saved.Who the freak is the Police Executive Research Forum?
Wait, here's the truth from the FBI. The number of rifles (all rifles, from muskets to AR-15s) used in homicides in America in the years post ban years 2005 through 2011 are:
2005 -- 445
2006 -- 436
2007 -- 453 (3% of all homicides that year)
2008 -- 380
2009 -- 351
2010 -- 367
2011 -- 323 (2.5% of all homicides that year)
For each of these years, hands fists and feet caused about twice as many homicides.
Necessarily, the number of murders each year by the "assault weapons" Feinstein seeks to ban is less as all rifles are not "assault weapons." Does this really sound like a problem for which we should restrict freedom and infringe on our Second Amendment rights? Anyone can see that the trend in use of semi-auto "assault" rifles since the end of the federal ban on them in 2004 has been down. If Feinstein says or implies otherwise, she is lying.
What were the number of murders using rifles during the similar "assault weapon" ban 1994 to 2004?
1994 -- 724
1995 -- 654
1996 -- 561
1997 -- 638
1998 -- 564
1999 -- 387
2000 -- 411
2001 -- 386
2002 -- 488
2003 -- 392
2004 -- 393
Before you think, well, murders using rifles was 724 in 1994 when the "assault weapon" ban went into effect and 393 in 2004 when it ended, looks like an effective law to me, consider the drop in total number of murders, from 23,326 in 1994 to 16,148 in 2004, (14,612 in 2011 so it still dropped after the ban ended). All murders have dropped by nearly 10,000 victims since 1994. The "assault weapon" ban had very little, virtually nothing to do with that. But what does the government say about the effectiveness of the 1994--2004 ban? This government funded Department of Justice study specifically on the efficacy of the bans of "assault weapons" and greater than 10 round magazines found no statistically significant evidence that either the weapons ban or the ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds had reduced gun murders.
Did Sen. Feinstein mention that report? Well, no she didn't.
Why is it that those who want to infringe on our rights to keep and bear the weapons we want to keep and bear can't come clean with us? Why do they have to lie, obfuscate and ignore their past failures?
These questions answer themselves.
Labels: Gun Control; Diane Feinstein