When Assault Rifles get into the hands of people that want to harm police, and other people

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-guns-police-idUSKCN0SK2RR20151027

Police chiefs from across the United States called on Monday for universal background checks for firearms purchases, saying opinion polls consistently show that most Americans support such restrictions.

The proliferation of firearms is one of the factors behind a rise in homicide rates in many U.S. cities this year, according to senior law enforcement officials at the International Association of Chiefs of Police conference in Chicago.

Acknowledging the power of the gun lobby and the reluctance of Congress to enact stricter gun laws, the police chiefs told a news conference they were not anti-gun but wanted to keep weapons out of the hands of people with criminal backgrounds.

Current rules on background checks apply to licensed dealers, but up to 40 percent of firearms sales involve private parties or gun shows and do not require checks, the chiefs said.

"This is a no-brainer, this is the simplest thing in the world," Chicago Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy said. "It troubles me all the time."

Not just one police chief. The International Association of Chiefs of Police want more gun control.

http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display_arch&article_id=2859&issue_id=22013

IACP Releases Firearms Position Paper

By Meredith Ward, Manager, Legislative and Media Affairs


The IACP has long advocated for the adoption of common sense policies that will assist in reducing gun violence. These proposals are drawn from the association resolutions and policy positions adopted by the over 21,000 members of the IACP over the past several years. The items listed below are not comprehensive—for the full position paper, please visit http://www.theiacp.org/firearms.


Armor-Piercing Ammunition. The IACP supports legislation and policies that will prohibit the sale or transfer of armor-piercing ammunition. In addition, the IACP believes that the process utilized to determine whether a round of ammunition is armor piercing should include performance-based testing conducted by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives.

Assault Weapons Ban. First passed in 1994, the federal assault weapons ban (Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act) required domestic gun manufacturers to stop production of semiautomatic assault weapons and ammunition magazines holding more than 10 rounds except for military or police use. While the ban was in place, it was remarkably effective in reducing the number of crimes involving assault weapons. Assault weapons are routinely the weapons of choice for gang members and drug dealers. They are regularly encountered in drug busts and are all too often used against police officers. The IACP has been a strong supporter of the assault weapons ban since 1992.

Body Armor. The IACP supports legislation to prohibit the mail order sale of bulletproof vests and body armor to all individuals except sworn or certified law enforcement officers. In recent years, the safety of law enforcement officers has often been compromised due to the possession of body armor and bulletproof vests by the criminals they were attempting to apprehend. The IACP believes that the sale, transfer, or acquisition of these items should be conducted in person in order to make it more difficult for criminals to acquire and use these items while committing crimes of violence.

Concealed Weapons. The IACP continues to oppose any federal legislative proposals that would either pre-empt, mandate, or both pre-empt and mandate the liberalization of individual states’ carrying a concealed weapon (CCW) laws pertaining to the carrying of concealed weapons in other states without meeting that state’s requirements. This applies to private citizens as well as active, former, and federal, tribal, state, and local law enforcement personnel. The IACP believes it is essential that state governments maintain the ability to legislate CCW laws that best fit the needs of their communities.

Firearms Enforcement. The IACP urges Congress to increase resources to better allow state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies and the U.S. Department of Justice to enable greater prosecution of individuals for Brady Act violations. In addition, the IACP supports firearms enforcement programs that involve local, state, and federal agencies, such as Project Safe Neighborhoods and Project Exile, which have shown significant reductions in firearms-related violent crime.

Firearms Offender Registry. The reduction of firearms-related violent crime has been and continues to be a major goal of the IACP. Studies have shown that firearm offenders have a higher recidivist rate for committing other firearms-related violent crime with firearms than the rate for sexual offenders. Therefore, the IACP supports creating a federal registry, similar to the sexual offender registry, for offenders who have been previously convicted of a felony firearm violation or a misdemeanor that involved violent or threatening acts with firearms. At little cost, this registry would have great benefit toward preventing and investigating a myriad of violent crimes, as well as establishing a computerized list of dangerous offenders that could be utilized as a notification system to alert officers
of potential danger.

Firearm Purchase Waiting Period. The IACP has gone on record supporting a waiting period for the purchase of a handgun. In the past, waiting periods have served not only as time for a thorough background investigation but also as an informal cooling-off period for handgun purchasers. However, the time needed to perform most background checks has become obsolete due to the transition to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. Nevertheless, the IACP believes there must still be a cooling-off period in place before an individual can purchase a handgun. Therefore, the IACP supports legislation to create a mandatory five-day waiting period prior to the completion of a handgun purchase.

Gun Show Loophole. The federal Gun Control Act of 1968 stipulates that individuals “engaged in the business” of selling firearms must possess a Federal Firearms License (FFL). Holders of FFLs are required to conduct background checks and maintain a record of all their firearm sales. Certain gun sales and transfers between private individuals, however, are exempt from this requirement. The laws we have in place to ensure gun purchasers go through FFLs are undermined by oversights in the law that allow an individual prohibited from owning firearms to obtain weapons at events such as gun shows without undergoing a background check. The IACP supports legislation to close these loopholes and preserve the effectiveness of the laws in place.

Illegal Firearms Trafficking/Firearms Tracing. The IACP opposes any legislation that would limit or reduce the ability of U.S. law enforcement agencies to combat the sale of illegal guns. The IACP believes that the ability to trace illegal firearms effectively plays a critical role in law enforcement’s ability to protect communities from the scourge of firearms violence. ?


Please cite as:

Meredith Ward, "IACP Releases Firearms Position Paper," Legislative Alert, The Police Chief 80 (February 2013): 8.

[Anonymous]

"Assault weapons are routinely the weapons of choice for gang members and drug dealers."

We know how much gang members and drug dealers love following the law! An "assault weapons" ban isn't happening, you should focus on other things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Huh? Did you read the links?

"We found that across developed countries, where guns are more available, there are more homicides. These results often hold even when the United States is excluded."

"After controlling for poverty and urbanization, for every age group, people in states with many guns have elevated rates of homicide, particularly firearm homicide."

"We found that states with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm homicide and overall homicide. "

"the relationship between gun prevalence (levels of household gun ownership) and suicide, homicide and unintentional firearm death and concludes that where there are higher levels of gun ownership, there are more gun suicides and more total suicides, more gun homicides and more total homicides, and more accidental gun deaths."

"In high gun states, LEOs are 3 times more likely to be murdered than LEOs working in low-gun states."

More guns = more deaths

What else would you expect, they are designed to kill.

Yes I read the links. My "aha!" comment wasn't directed at the last one you provided, but rather the fact that you have to parse to data to eliminate certain countries for consideration due to income and other considerations. My point is that guns alone don't contribute to more murders, as you are suggesting, that there are other factors at play. So eliminating guns will not necessarily result in fewer murders.

With regards to the link you provided which you've quoted from, the study does not provide any analysis or even quantified results other than written findings, and the data they do claim to draw on are decades old, and span only very narrow time periods.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Huh? Did you read the links?

"We found that across developed countries, where guns are more available, there are more homicides. These results often hold even when the United States is excluded."

"After controlling for poverty and urbanization, for every age group, people in states with many guns have elevated rates of homicide, particularly firearm homicide."

"We found that states with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm homicide and overall homicide. "

"the relationship between gun prevalence (levels of household gun ownership) and suicide, homicide and unintentional firearm death and concludes that where there are higher levels of gun ownership, there are more gun suicides and more total suicides, more gun homicides and more total homicides, and more accidental gun deaths."

"In high gun states, LEOs are 3 times more likely to be murdered than LEOs working in low-gun states."

More guns = more deaths

What else would you expect, they are designed to kill.

Yes I read the links. My "aha!" comment wasn't directed at the last one you provided, but rather the fact that you have to parse to data to eliminate certain countries for consideration due to income and other considerations. My point is that guns alone don't contribute to more murders, as you are suggesting, that there are other factors at play. So eliminating guns will not necessarily result in fewer murders.

With regards to the link you provided which you've quoted from, the study does not provide any analysis or even quantified results other than written findings, and the data they do claim to draw on are decades old, and span only very narrow time periods.

But they do control for income and other considerations. Aha!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"Assault weapons are routinely the weapons of choice for gang members and drug dealers."

We know how much gang members and drug dealers love following the law! An "assault weapons" ban isn't happening, you should focus on other things.

So ignorance is bliss, eh? How about denial?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"Assault weapons are routinely the weapons of choice for gang members and drug dealers."

We know how much gang members and drug dealers love following the law! An "assault weapons" ban isn't happening, you should focus on other things.

How do you think those criminals are getting the assault weapons ... carving them out of soap? Nope, they're obtaining them after someone (maybe the criminal, or maybe someone else) buys them legally. Eliminate the first sale, and you've eliminated all the later uses by criminals. Prevent people from owning them, and you've prevented them from later falling into the hands of criminals.

If you think the assault weapons ban our country already had for several years isn't getting re-imposed, you're not paying attention to the direction politics is headed. It's happening. Maybe at the federal level, and certainly at the state level.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Assault weapons are routinely the weapons of choice for gang members and drug dealers."

We know how much gang members and drug dealers love following the law! An "assault weapons" ban isn't happening, you should focus on other things.

How do you think those criminals are getting the assault weapons ... carving them out of soap? Nope, they're obtaining them after someone (maybe the criminal, or maybe someone else) buys them legally. Eliminate the first sale, and you've eliminated all the later uses by criminals. Prevent people from owning them, and you've prevented them from later falling into the hands of criminals.

If you think the assault weapons ban our country already had for several years isn't getting re-imposed, you're not paying attention to the direction politics is headed. It's happening. Maybe at the federal level, and certainly at the state level.

Lol wrong, at least in part. AR-15s are easily built at home. They're also not "assault rifles," but there's nothing gained by trying to educate the willfully ignorant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Assault weapons are routinely the weapons of choice for gang members and drug dealers."

We know how much gang members and drug dealers love following the law! An "assault weapons" ban isn't happening, you should focus on other things.

How do you think those criminals are getting the assault weapons ... carving them out of soap? Nope, they're obtaining them after someone (maybe the criminal, or maybe someone else) buys them legally. Eliminate the first sale, and you've eliminated all the later uses by criminals. Prevent people from owning them, and you've prevented them from later falling into the hands of criminals.

If you think the assault weapons ban our country already had for several years isn't getting re-imposed, you're not paying attention to the direction politics is headed. It's happening. Maybe at the federal level, and certainly at the state level.

Lol wrong, at least in part. AR-15s are easily built at home. They're also not "assault rifles," but there's nothing gained by trying to educate the willfully ignorant.

The AWB we had under Clinton is widely known to have utterly failed at anything except sparking more interest in the guns it tried to ban. There's a reason Everytown and other anti-gun groups don't even include an AWB in their platforms anymore. An AWB might make you feel nice, but won't work, is pointless, and doesn't do anything about the guns actually used in 99% of shootings (hint: it's handguns! Not ARs).

[Anonymous]

You want us to ban handguns?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Assault weapons are routinely the weapons of choice for gang members and drug dealers."

We know how much gang members and drug dealers love following the law! An "assault weapons" ban isn't happening, you should focus on other things.

How do you think those criminals are getting the assault weapons ... carving them out of soap? Nope, they're obtaining them after someone (maybe the criminal, or maybe someone else) buys them legally. Eliminate the first sale, and you've eliminated all the later uses by criminals. Prevent people from owning them, and you've prevented them from later falling into the hands of criminals.

If you think the assault weapons ban our country already had for several years isn't getting re-imposed, you're not paying attention to the direction politics is headed. It's happening. Maybe at the federal level, and certainly at the state level.

Lol wrong, at least in part. AR-15s are easily built at home. They're also not "assault rifles," but there's nothing gained by trying to educate the willfully ignorant.

You should really take his up with the IACP. I'm sure you know lots more about guns than the police. They'll be pleased when you educate them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You want us to ban handguns?

Oh, you would just love to do that, wouldn't you? Too bad it's not up to you ("us"), and we have an enumerated provision in the Bill of Rights that isn't going anywhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You want us to ban handguns?

Good idea!

Don't worry - you nuts will still have the right to bear arms!

[Anonymous]

So Cleveland should be interesting.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/07/12/us/politics/guns-rnc-cleveland.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So Cleveland should be interesting.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/07/12/us/politics/guns-rnc-cleveland.html

Very interesting.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/new-black-panther-party_us_57854c02e4b0867123deb359

"The New Black Panther Party, a “black power” movement, will carry firearms for self-defense during demonstrations in Cleveland ahead of next week’s Republican convention if allowed under Ohio law, the group’s chairman said."

"The Southern Poverty Law Center says the number of black militant chapters around the country grew from 113 to 180 in 2015.

The center says there are 892 hate groups total nationwide and at least 998, anti-government “patriot groups.” It says white hate groups, such as the Aryan Brotherhood, have a much longer track record of carrying out violent attacks than black extremist groups."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think eventually, people are going to have to give those damn guns up. They serve no purpose to the general public. And clearly are dangerous in the wrong hands. Maybe we let people store them at gun ranges or something.

I will never understand how anyone can defend those particular firearms.

+1

I've learned that some people that don't support a ban on assault riffles do it out of fear that a ban on ARs would be just the first step. Slippery slope. Men that love hunting. They think that if it starts with a ban on ARs, eventually their precious hunting guns will also be banned. I think it's nonsense.

I do too. Name some lawmakers who have said they want to abolish ALL guns. It would be dead on arrival.

Machine guns were outlawed because people recognized they were a threat to public safety. I'm not sure why ARs can't be treated the same way. Doesn't the ammendment actually refer to a "well-regulated militia?" And yet 2nd ammendment supporters balk at ANY regulations. Hypocrites.