Obama think tank wants to replace "assault weapons" bans with purchase permits

[ezkl2230]

Obama think tank wants to replace "assault weapons" bans with purchase permits

Center for American Progress is trying to re-package an AWB to make it more likely to pass in congress by calling it a purchase permit system. They haven't studied why the AWB has consistently failed to pass in recent years. The Wikipedia article does a pretty good job of explaining this.

The first AWB was in place for nearly 10 years, yet most reliable studies have concluded that it had no signifiant effect on crime and that a big part of this is that "assault weapons" are rarely used in the commission of crime. One report author says that if the AWB had been in place for a longer period of time, they might have gotten more significant data. Right. 10 years wasn't long enough to produce significant data.

The biggest impact of the AWB? "Lott's book The Bias Against Guns provided evidence that the bans reduced the number of gun shows by over 20 percent." Reduced gun shows, but not crime.

From Wikipedia:

"The Task Force on Community Preventive Services, an independent, non-federal task force, examined an assortment of firearms laws, including the AWB, and found "insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence." [11] A 2004 critical review of firearms research by a National Research Council committee said that an academic study of the assault weapon ban "did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence outcomes." The committee noted that the study's authors said the guns were used criminally with relative rarity before the ban and that its maximum potential effect on gun violence outcomes would be very small.[12]

In 2004, a research report submitted to the United States Department of Justice and the National Institute of Justice found that should the ban be renewed, its effects on gun violence would likely be small, and perhaps too small for reliable measurement, because rifles in general, including rifles referred to as "assault rifles" or "assault weapons", are rarely used in gun crimes.[13] That study by Christopher S. Koper, Daniel J. Woods, and Jeffrey A. Roth of the Jerry Lee Center of Criminology, University of Pennsylvania found no statistically significant evidence that either the assault weapons ban or the ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds had reduced gun murders. However, they concluded that it was "premature to make definitive assessments of the ban's impact on gun crime," and argue that if the ban had been in effect for more than nine years, benefits might have begun to appear.[13]

Research by John Lott in the 2000 second edition of More Guns, Less Crime provided the first research on state bans, and the federal assault weapon ban.[14] The 2010 third edition provided the first empirical research on the 2004 sunset of the Federal Assault Weapon Ban.[15] Generally, the research found no impact of these bans on violent crime rates, though the third edition provided some evidence that assault weapon bans slightly increased murder rates. Lott's book The Bias Against Guns provided evidence that the bans reduced the number of gun shows by over 20 percent.[16] Koper, Woods, and Roth studies focus on gun murders, while Lott's looks at murder, rape, robbery, and aggravated assaults. Unlike their work, Lott's research accounted for state assault weapon bans and 12 other different types of gun control laws.

The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence examined the impact of the Assault Weapons Ban in its 2004 report, On Target: The Impact of the 1994 Federal Assault Weapon Act. Examining 1.4 million guns involved in crime, "in the five-year period before enactment of the Federal Assault Weapons Act (1990-1994), assault weapons named in the Act constituted 4.82% of the crime gun traces ATF conducted nationwide. Since the law’s enactment, however, these assault weapons have made up only 1.61% of the guns ATF has traced to crime."[17] A spokesman for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) stated that he "can in no way vouch for the validity" of the report.[18]"

 

[CharlesMorrison]

"They" can suck my left nut!

(And I wont even make them get a nut sucking permit!!)

 

[S&W645]

Instead of a purchase permit, they ought to issue an M-16 to every 18 year old. On entry into a mandatory 3 years in the military. After the 3 years, the gun and a case of ammo goes home, to be checked once a year to see it is still ok.

 

[Red Dragon]

No matter how you wrap up a crap sandwich, it is still a crap sandwich!

 

[JCliff]

See New Anti-Gun Strategies in the Firearms Politics & Second Amendment Issues category.

 

[CharlesMorrison]

It is long over due.

We need to implement a plan, of ANY KIND, that will start the recall and REMOVAL, in any manner required, of these douchebags who think the sun rises and sets because of them.

They need to get the phuck out or "we" need to start dragging them out of their offices by their scrawny necks...

Link Removed

Oh... And if my response is too "aggressive", well then, I say this....

Link Removed

 

[VA Pete]

"On entry into a mandatory 3 years in the military."

What kind of big-brother, big-government, we-are-subjects-not-free-citizens, type of BS is this!? You want to come and Shanghai my kids for "mandatory" service to the government?? Molon Labe, *****!

 

[S&W645]

"On entry into a mandatory 3 years in the military."

What kind of big-brother, big-government, we-are-subjects-not-free-citizens, type of BS is this!? You want to come and Shanghai my kids for "mandatory" service to the government?? Molon Labe, *****!

The idea being to train the 18-21 year olds to be able to fight if needed. And give them the weapon if needed. Nothing was said about them going overseas. Militia training is a better way of looking at it.

 

[Firefighterchen]

The idea being to train the 18-21 year olds to be able to fight if needed. And give them the weapon if needed. Nothing was said about them going overseas. Militia training is a better way of looking at it.

Drafted soldiers will never fight as hard as free men.

Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app

 

[slamhouse]

Our military is very strong. Our punishments for crime are not as heavy as they should be. Hang a rapist in the street, the others will see the punishment for the crime. I personally feel the gap between people and government is growing father and farther apart. The constitution was written as "we the people" not " the government and the patrons".

 

[CharlesMorrison]

Drafted soldiers will never fight as hard as free men.

Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app

Friggin EPIC statement!

 

[mooosie]

It is really hard to use Obama and think tank in the same sentence


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[gunnerbob]

Our military is very strong. Our punishments for crime are not as heavy as they should be. Hang a rapist in the street, the others will see the punishment for the crime. I personally feel the gap between people and government is growing father and farther apart. The constitution was written as "we the people" not " the government and the patrons".

This sort of severe punishment, while novel, has very little data showing that it has ever worked to reduce crime. What it does do however, is serve a populations interest in retribution and watching people suffer. I'm not judging, just pointing something out that many people (not saying you) fail to grasp about crime and punishment. It's sometimes humorous when some people call for harsher punishments to crime but would never actually live in a country that already employs such methods... Again, not saying that's you, just saying.

 

[dcselby1]

Drafted soldiers will never fight as hard as free men.

Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app

I didn't notice this when I was in Vietnam. They fought like hell.

 

[Firefighterchen]

I didn't notice this when I was in Vietnam. They fought like hell.

When did I say they wouldn't fight like hell?

Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app

 

[Oldgrunt]

"On entry into a mandatory 3 years in the military."

What kind of big-brother, big-government, we-are-subjects-not-free-citizens, type of BS is this!? You want to come and Shanghai my kids for "mandatory" service to the government?? Molon Labe, *****!

Ever heard of a little country called Switzerland? They have mandatory military service and do issue a weapon to each man to keep in his home after his active service. Not a damn thing wrong with that. I raised my son to be a man and capable of defending himself and family. A tour in the Marine Corps put the finishing touch on him and he is not a wuss by any means. A tour in the military should be mandatory for all young men and I believe moreso for any who seek public office. They should have an idea about government and the necessary means to protect and serve it. How do you propose to defend the nation without a military? And why should your sons be exempt while others have participate?

 

[Oldgrunt]

Drafted soldiers will never fight as hard as free men.

Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app

Chen: Have you ever been in service or in combat? When the first round goes flying past you, there is no thought given to how or why you entered the military. You learn to fight in order to stay alive and to keep your buddies alive. That is something one can never explain to another who hasn't been there. You are all in the same pickle, scared to death but still you fight regardless of anything else. Self preservation is a very strong emotion as is in trying to save the man next to you. Draftees fought as hard in Vietnam as the regulars and many died, just as the regulars also did. I saw quite a few die over there and I am still proud of every one of them for the sacrifice they made. Don't think the draftees didn't fight as hard as the other men. They very definitely did!

 

[VA Pete]

Ever heard of a little country called Switzerland? They have mandatory military service and do issue a weapon to each man to keep in his home after his active service. Not a damn thing wrong with that. I raised my son to be a man and capable of defending himself and family. A tour in the Marine Corps put the finishing touch on him and he is not a wuss by any means. A tour in the military should be mandatory for all young men and I believe moreso for any who seek public office. They should have an idea about government and the necessary means to protect and serve it. How do you propose to defend the nation without a military? And why should your sons be exempt while others have participate?

The last I checked this was still a free country. Young men and women can choose to be in the military. They can choose to go to college. They can choose to go to trade school, be farmers, work in the family business, do church service, or open their own businesses. They can choose to become artists, bums, or beachcombers for all I care. Mandatory service to the government is about as tyrannical and anti-freedom a concept as I can imagine. My children are strong, capable, young adults who don't need you or anyone else telling them how they should lead their lives.

 

[NotTwoShure]

It would appear some Americans feel, believe or think a governing body has the ability and the right to dictate to a citizen how they may defend themselves, family and property. They are in grave error. Even without the Second Amendment I have the right to choose. If I wish to be a victim that is my choice, if I choose to allow thugs, hoodlums and criminals to victimize me that is my choice. If I wish to carry a dreaded gun of the hand or semi-automatic rifle that is my choice. I fear an over regulated over powered government more than my gun, my neighbors gun. We don’t need no stinking permit or permission to carry, buy or otherwise control a gun. Not in America. No more, not again.

 

[Firefighterchen]

Chen: Have you ever been in service or in combat? When the first round goes flying past you, there is no thought given to how or why you entered the military. You learn to fight in order to stay alive and to keep your buddies alive. That is something one can never explain to another who hasn't been there. You are all in the same pickle, scared to death but still you fight regardless of anything else. Self preservation is a very strong emotion as is in trying to save the man next to you. Draftees fought as hard in Vietnam as the regulars and many died, just as the regulars also did. I saw quite a few die over there and I am still proud of every one of them for the sacrifice they made. Don't think the draftees didn't fight as hard as the other men. They very definitely did!

Your time in the service does not trump my time in the civilian world. You can fight for mandatory service, but when you come to take our children, and the freedom they have, the fight in Vietnam will look like a preschool fight.

There are many more professions that risk their lives daily beyond the military. I would never enter a house fire with someone who was forced to be behind me.

Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app