New York Times article: The Assault Weapon Myth

[halfmileharry]

I want to be optimistic about the source and publishing of this article by the NYT.
However, Because of the source and content I must wonder what the next chess move is on this subject.
We're reading something we like and for the most part ignoring the handgun part of the article.
I may be a bit paranoid on this one but it don't mean I'm wrong.
My suspicions say the article is little more than a set up to push other regulation.

 

[ModernGunner]

Reading ANYTHING 'positive' about firearms from the NYT 'automatically' sets my 1 - 10 spidey-sense trigger to '15'. But ANYTHING positive is... something!

The article certainly seems to counsel it's intended audience, left-loon Liberal democRATS to back off attacking 'assault weapons' because, while they're 'scary looking' they're actually used very little in the commission of crimes, and instead turn their gun-grabbing 'eye' to handguns. It certainly did NOT infer that anti-gunners should 'forget about the tool and focus, instead, on the criminal'. At least to any real extent. JMO.

The article noted:

Most Americans do not know that gun homicides have decreased by 49 percent since 1993 as violent crime also fell, though rates of gun homicide in the United States are still much higher than those in other developed nations.

This is, at least somewhat, misleading. The article notes the rate of 'gun' homicide is higher, but not necessarily homicide overall. Of course this would be true. If guns are severely restricted in a given country, criminals simply use other means to commit the crime... duh. Which is what the REAL issue IS, the criminal.

The article also 'fails' (or refuses) to note that 'other developed nations' skew their statistics by NOT reporting their crime statistics in the same manner as the U.S. This is like comparing the proverbial 'apples to oranges', in which no true comparison can be made.

For example, if a gun AND a knife were used in the crime, the 'other developed nations' may report that as a 'knife' attack rather than a 'gun attack' in order to present their gun control policies as 'more effective'. As another example, in the U.S., a justified shooting by police OR a civilian would be listed as 'gun homicide', whereas in those 'other developed nations' it wouldn't be listed at all because it was entirely justified. And so forth.

Because of those, and further, differences it's fallacious and disingenuous for ANY author to make a direct comparison between countries. While the UK and Japan, for instance, are OFTEN cited as 'models' of gun control, if those little 'modifications' are factored back in, it's discovered that the violent crime per capita are very, very close. The U.S. IS very slightly higher. BUT, the U.S. is ALSO significantly larger in population, and that very slight increase falls well below the typical +/- deviation for any such 'statistical' analysis.

It's highly unlikely that the anti-gun, loony-left Liberal democRATS are going to 'abandon' their persistently rabid gun-grabbing attacks any time in the foreseeable future. The article seems to convey that they should just change 'tactics', focus on handguns, and continue to attack the law-abiding, gun-owning citizenry. OF COURSE, while STILL maintaining their insistence on avoiding the real issue - stopping the criminal.

Good article, and thanks for posting!

 

[Twangbanger]

Sometimes, it really is easy to forget there was a time when Assault Weapons hadn't taken over the front pages yet, when antidepressants weren't in common use among kids, and kids didn't shoot up schools. Back then, banning handguns was ALL the rage.

"A handgun has no purpose but to kill." We heard that one over and over again. If the Joe Bidens of the world have their way, the single-shot Sears and Roebuck J.C. Higgins .22 and shotgun will be all we're allowed to own.

There is a very, very ugly anti-HANDgun undercurrent in this country, honed and polished over many decades, lying very shallow underneath the surface and just waiting to come roaring back out at any time. DO NOT THINK that the prevalence of CC, OC, LTCH, etc. and the associated popularity of those things makes us immune to this! IT DOES NOT. We are only one...ONE Supreme Court decision away from having that rendered moot. One decision saying the right to bear arms in self-defense by civilians does not extend outside the home, and BAM - we are all completely on the run again.

And don't think the Left won't go after this. They are not happy seeing you OC and CC'ing in public. And the Supreme Court will never...NEVER...NEVER...get a single additional 2nd amendment-friendly justice appointed to it - EVER AGAIN. I'll keep posting up the statistic - there are 16 states the Democrats have never lost in any Prez election after 1988 - 251 electoral votes that will never go to anyone but a Democrat. The Supreme Court is headed to the left, permanently. There will never be another Republican President. The Democrats begin the race with 251 of the 271 Electoral Votes they need to win. They will treat the Heller decision the same way they want to treat the Citizens United decision, only they will do it more directly, by getting a ruling that gun ownership for defense does not apply outside your home.

If you think it can't happen politically, you're fooling yourself.

 

[Alamo]

A companion piece, not directly related to the OP, but in the spirit of "Goodness Gracious Almight, the End Times Must Be Near!":

Why Public Health Needs a New Gun Doctrine

 

[Mgderf]

...the Supreme Court will never...NEVER...NEVER...get a single additional 2nd amendment-friendly justice appointed to it - EVER AGAIN. I'll keep posting up the statistic - there are 16 states the Democrats have never lost in any Prez election after 1988 - 251 electoral votes that will never go to anyone but a Democrat. The Supreme Court is headed to the left, permanently. There will never be another Republican President. The Democrats begin the race with 251 of the 271 Electoral Votes they need to win. They will treat the Heller decision the same way they want to treat the Citizens United decision, only they will do it more directly, by getting a ruling that gun ownership for defense does not apply outside your home.

If you think it can't happen politically, you're fooling yourself.

If this theory is proven correct, our country is in for some very ugly times.
I doubt the "unwashed masses" will sit still for it.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Sometimes, it really is easy to forget there was a time when Assault Weapons hadn't taken over the front pages yet, when antidepressants weren't in common use among kids, and kids didn't shoot up schools. Back then, banning handguns was ALL the rage.

"A handgun has no purpose but to kill." We heard that one over and over again. If the Joe Bidens of the world have their way, the single-shot Sears and Roebuck J.C. Higgins .22 and shotgun will be all we're allowed to own.

There is a very, very ugly anti-HANDgun undercurrent in this country, honed and polished over many decades, lying very shallow underneath the surface and just waiting to come roaring back out at any time. DO NOT THINK that the prevalence of CC, OC, LTCH, etc. and the associated popularity of those things makes us immune to this! IT DOES NOT. We are only one...ONE Supreme Court decision away from having that rendered moot. One decision saying the right to bear arms in self-defense by civilians does not extend outside the home, and BAM - we are all completely on the run again.

And don't think the Left won't go after this. They are not happy seeing you OC and CC'ing in public. And the Supreme Court will never...NEVER...NEVER...get a single additional 2nd amendment-friendly justice appointed to it - EVER AGAIN. I'll keep posting up the statistic - there are 16 states the Democrats have never lost in any Prez election after 1988 - 251 electoral votes that will never go to anyone but a Democrat. The Supreme Court is headed to the left, permanently. There will never be another Republican President. The Democrats begin the race with 251 of the 271 Electoral Votes they need to win. They will treat the Heller decision the same way they want to treat the Citizens United decision, only they will do it more directly, by getting a ruling that gun ownership for defense does not apply outside your home.

If you think it can't happen politically, you're fooling yourself.

It'll be interesting, if what you say, does come to pass if those that cheer every time some judge, up to the SCOTUS, renders a decision against some state's law or constitutional provision, will then warm up to sovereignty of the states and the states' rights over the overly burdensome federal government.

 

[BuckCreek]

A companion piece, not directly related to the OP, but in the spirit of "Goodness Gracious Almight, the End Times Must Be Near!":

Why Public Health Needs a New Gun Doctrine

Good read. Thanks for sharing.

 

[BuckCreek]

A companion piece, not directly related to the OP, but in the spirit of "Goodness Gracious Almight, the End Times Must Be Near!":

Why Public Health Needs a New Gun Doctrine

I found this in the comments of that article: Is the damage to society from the misuse of guns worth the freedom to have guns? ... another interesting read.

 

[actaeon277]

I found this in the comments of that article: Is the damage to society from the misuse of guns worth the freedom to have guns? ... another interesting read.

That was by fellow INGOer Jack Burton.
Well, he was a fellow INGOer.

 

[BuckCreek]

That was by fellow INGOer Jack Burton.
Well, he was a fellow INGOer.

Possibly. I'm not familiar with the individual you are asking about, so I can't be sure. It was written by a Jack Burton, and looking through the site he had a link that was crossed out for: "An Open Letter of Apology to the Good Folk of Illinois From a Hoosier."

The Bio on the site for him is:

Jack BurtonJoined 6 years ago from The Midwest. Last activity 2 days ago.


Jack Burton has almost 40 years experience in communications, having worked as a disc jockey, TV producer, radio station sales and general manager, newspaper publisher, and advertising agency owner. He was the director of fundraising for several well-known international charities. He currently owns his own freelance marketing company working with organizations across the country.


He met his lovely Filipina wife in Okinawa in the early-70s while they both served in the U.S. Navy. They spent the next 24 years together in the Navy/Navy Reserve and have been married for 40 years. They are graduates of John Brown University and Southern Illinois University Graduate School and have three grown and married children.

 

[actaeon277]

That was by fellow INGOer Jack Burton.
Well, he was a fellow INGOer.

Possibly. I'm not familiar with the individual you are asking about, so I can't be sure. It was written by a Jack Burton, and looking through the site he had a link that was crossed out for: "An Open Letter of Apology to the Good Folk of Illinois From a Hoosier."

The Bio on the site for him is:

He was on INGO.
I've followed some of his stuff.
He had a story about the life of a pistol, from the view of the pistol. I liked the story.

 

[BuckCreek]

He was on INGO.
I've followed some of his stuff.
He had a story about the life of a pistol, from the view of the pistol. I liked the story.

I'll have to look that up. Thanks.

 

[actaeon277]

Smith & Wesson Military & Police Revolver: A gun?s autobiography

 

[Timjoebillybob]

He was on INGO.
I've followed some of his stuff.
He had a story about the life of a pistol, from the view of the pistol. I liked the story.

What happened to him? I can't even find his name in the member list.

 

[cobber]

And don't think the Left won't go after this. They are not happy seeing you OC and CC'ing in public. And the Supreme Court will never...NEVER...NEVER...get a single additional 2nd amendment-friendly justice appointed to it - EVER AGAIN. I'll keep posting up the statistic - there are 16 states the Democrats have never lost in any Prez election after 1988 - 251 electoral votes that will never go to anyone but a Democrat. The Supreme Court is headed to the left, permanently. There will never be another Republican President. The Democrats begin the race with 251 of the 271 Electoral Votes they need to win. They will treat the Heller decision the same way they want to treat the Citizens United decision, only they will do it more directly, by getting a ruling that gun ownership for defense does not apply outside your home.

If you think it can't happen politically, you're fooling yourself.

It'll be interesting, if what you say, does come to pass if those that cheer every time some judge, up to the SCOTUS, renders a decision against some state's law or constitutional provision, will then warm up to sovereignty of the states and the states' rights over the overly burdensome federal government.

And yet many INGOers applauded when the federal courts jumped in to a State's rights issue here recently. Live by the sword...

 

[actaeon277]

What happened to him? I can't even find his name in the member list.

He's a shooter.
Shooters don't show up on the member list.
But, if you do a search for the name, you can find some of their (shooter's) posts.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

He's a shooter.
Shooters don't show up on the member list.
But, if you do a search for the name, you can find some of their (shooter's) posts.

Ah okay, thanks.

 

[BuckCreek]

Smith & Wesson Military & Police Revolver: A gun?s autobiography

Just got done reading it. Thanks!

 

[Joniki]

It's a good article, but I can't help but feel that the next assault by gun control groups will be hand guns. The article itself seemed to give a line of argument for them; "In 2008, the Supreme Court said there was a constitutional right to keep a loaded handgun at home for self-defense". No mention of public carry, whether CC or OC

As I was reading the article, I thought the same thing.

Great read.

 

[pudly]

So, if gun controllers think that attacking assault weapons has bogged down, where do they attack next? This article has a pretty good analysis of where the next targets are likely to be. In short:

• Children
• Mental health
• Handguns (not via direct frontal assault)