The rabidly anti-gun Violence Policy Center (VPC), which sometimes criticizes the Brady Campaign for not being anti-gun enough, has released another of it's "studies." This one covers familiar territory for the VPC, being one of many of its calls for a federal ban of so-called "assault weapons"--defined vastly more expansively than the 1994 ban.
Before we get to the study itself, though, let's take just a second for background. The VPC has for decades been one of the leading cheerleaders for bans of what are, basically, semi-automatic rifles. Back in 1988, their executive director Josh Sugarmann was surprisingly candid about the planned cynical manipulation of the public's and media's ignorance
In a September 1988 report on "assault weapons" that he prepared for the Education Fund to End Handgun Violence, gun control advocate Josh Sugarmann [exectuive director of the rabidly anti-gun Violence Policy Center] candidly observed: "The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons--anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine guncan only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these guns."
So now to the current "study" (pdf file). The intent, evidently, is to illustrate a growing rate of "'assault weapon' violence" since the expiration of the 1994 AWB. The VPC's problem is that in the two year period over which the study was conducted, there was no such increase.
More than one out of four assault weapons incidents involve police. A total of 235 separate incidents were reported during the two years examined. These incidents were almost equally divided between the first period (March 1, 2005 to February 28, 2006) and the second period (March 1, 2006 to February 28, 2007). There were 117 incidents in the first, and 118 in the second. Police were involved in 64 (27.2 percent) of the total incidents.
The number of assault weapons incidents involving police grew significantly between the two periods. Police were involved in 29 incidents (24.8 percent) in the first period and 35 incidents (29.7 percent) in the second period, an increase of 20.7 percent between the two periods.
Keep in mind that these 235 "incidents" over a period of two years (in a country of over 300 million people, and 200 million privately owned firearms) weren't all killings--they didn't all even involve shooting--they're just "encounters" with so-called "assault weapons," and the number stayed almost identical through the two halves of the study (117 in the first year, and 118 in the second). Actually, when one considers the steady increase in the population of both people and "assault weapons," it could be said that the rate actually declined.
What the VPC apparently is seizing on is the fact that law enforcement "encounters" with "assault weapons" did actually go up--from 29 to 35--their "increase of 20.7 percent." When you think about it, though, since the total number of incidents in each of the two periods was essentially identical, the fact that the number of law enforcement encounters increased, means that the number of encounters by private citizens must have decreased.
Nothing against the police, but isn't that the kind of trend the VPC would applaud? Groups like the VPC and Brady Campaign, after all, argue that only the police are sufficiently trained and trustworthy to engage in gun battles with bad guys. Both groups argue that only police should have "assault weapons" (except we'll call them something else when in the hands of the police), they both argue for much more restrictive concealed carry laws, and in fact, the VPC's Josh Sugarmann has written a book calling for an outright ban of privately owned handguns.
Shouldn't the VPC be happy about the trend of "encounters" with "assault weapons" shifting away from the general public, and to the trained professionals best equipped, according to the VPC, to deal with them?
Atlanta: Ed Stone | Austin: Howard Nemerov | Boston: Ron Bokleman | Charlotte: Paul Valone | Cheyenne: Anthony Bouchard | Chicago: Don Gwinn | Cleveland: Daniel White | DC: Mike Stollenwerk | Denver: Dan Bidstrup | Fort Smith: Steve D. Jones | Grand Rapids: Skip Coryel | Knoxville: Liston Matthews | Los Angeles: John Longenecker | Minneapolis: John Pierce | National: David Codrea | Phoenix: Douglas Little | Pittsburgh: Dan Campbell | Seattle: Dave Workman | St. Louis: Kurt Hofmann | Tucson: Chris Woodard | Wisconsin: Gene German
Comments
It's funny how they play fast and loose with the numbers in order to make their point. It's disingenuous to calculate it as percentage change, and especially so to then report it as increase. The increase was actually only 4.9%.
Not to mention they calculated percentage change from the wrong numbers for what they're discussing.
Why, it's almost as if--the numbers don't mean anything.
That's okay. They don't mean anything to me either. I don't care how many people pile on to the sanctimonious drumbeat...disarming the peaceable is never, ever justified. That history and statistics also justify arming the peaceable is nice and illustrative and all, but **not the point**.
Remember: anyone who would demand you give up the means of resistance is only doing so because he plans to do something that he knows you would naturally resist. Doubters may simply refer to the history of genocides in the twentieth century alone. You wanna talk about the potential for body count? Go to tinyurl.com/genocide-chart and then start bickering about degree. (Compare with Wikipedia's data, if you feel the need.)
I hear you, Kevin. I rarely play the statistics game myself, for that very reason, but occasionally, something the other side puts out is SO outrageous that I can't resist the urge to point out the idiocy of it.
"occasionally, something the other side puts out is SO outrageous that I can't resist the urge to point out the idiocy of it."
Sure. I know I do it too. (Not like there's not lotsa opportunity, sigh...) But--just to be a PITA--what is more outrageous than disarming a peaceable man and forcing him to be helpless? That requires no stat at all, not even the one I used earlier, here, with irony. :-)
Kurt, you really do a great job of sticking to the point, and steering free of red herrings. It's the main reason I've grown so comfortable pointing people here. Stats or no, PITA or no, please keep shining the light on the cock-a-roaches.
Obviously, an “assault weapon” is whatever the VPC or the Brady Bunch says it is. They would have us believe that if one paints a goose yellow it becomes a duck. Sadly, folks who don’t know the difference will readily accept the VPC’s definition. The VPC and the Brady Bunch remind me of people I know who will kill a spider or snake out of hand just because it’s a spider or snake. When asked why they killed the animal they reply, “Because, it was there.” When asked if the animal was a dangerous, or a beneficial, variety they will reply that they didn’t bother to check. These people are scary because they are fearful of life and living. They want to be protected, secure, and comfortable, and all the while they know they won’t be. These people are to be pitied but, at the same time scorned, because they refuse to see the realities of life and actually wish all people to be as insecure as they.
Very well stated, Mr. Woodward.
By the way, thanks, Kevin--I very much appreciate the support.
While I agree in principle with woodward I have to say I disagree, vehemently, with his analogy. Having almost DIED from a spider bite some years ago I take offense to this comparison. Equating killing a spider (or snake) with disarming human beings, robbing them of their right to self-defence is absurd. Sorry but I'm not going to examine a spider in my house to see if it's good or bad. I'm going to squash it so no one in my family gets bitten. I mean, do you stop to check if an intruder is in your house "just to rob you" before you defend your family.
This comparison is the proverbial "apples and oranges." Arbitrary killing of a spider or snake and arbitrary disarming of law-abiding citizens. Need I say more!
Kurt, I apologize for this. I know it's off topic. I just can't help myself.
SOS, Let's say a drunken Baptist driver almost killed me a few years ago so, I now justifiably hate all Baptists and everybody who might faintly resemble a Baptist. Feel free to rebut. I'll let you have the last word and not reply.
[W-III]
I think the spirit of SOS's comment is probably well-taken, and also well-intended. But the beyond-guns-liberty-lover in me absolutely beams at W-IIIs response. Yes, we all do understand that spiders and snakes are not people, just as we all do understand (as I wrote about just last night) that dogs are not people. But if we want to REALLY get out of this mess we're in, we have to look at the attitude, rather than its details.
Props, W-III. That is a reminder that does me well to remember too.
I will answer WIII, I was raised in a Southern Baptist family and while I can't say I hate all of them, I certainly hold most of them low regard. I might step on one or two if the opportunity presents. Of course, I meant at the dance, where of course, they don't go, because "you know what you're thinking when you're holding that girl". Couldn't help myself either.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!