Because the associations are usually run not by the rank and file but by the politically motivated and lawerly types. An officer can be a member of these organizations and not agree with them on every issue, you know!
After 25 years I retired from one of the largest departments in the state. Very, very few of the thousands of officers I know support gun control laws or any type of bans whatsoever.
What’s sickening is that whenever one of these organizations support a liberal agenda (like the AWB) this support is used to further the agenda. But when the police unions, the Troopers Association, and other law enforcement groups endorsed a concealed carry law in Wisconsin, those endorsements were ignored by the left who opposed such a law. They kept blathering that such a law would endanger cops while the cops were actually in favor of it.
It’s all political bullshit. Most gun control laws have little (if any) affect on active law enforcement officers ability to get what type of weapons they want, even for off duty personal use. If a law does not directly affect someone, their opinion of it should be severely discounted.
First of all, the executive roles in police departments, like all other government agencies, are generally filled by political appointees whose primary qualification is the ability to sell themselves as the Great White Hope. Very few chief law enforcement executives can qualify as experts on the design, use, and forensic statistics of firearms.
Second, in the last two decades that the term has come into common parlance, I have yet to see a definitive or qualified definition of “assault weapon.” I know what an assault rifle is–that is, a rifle of intermediate muzzle velocity and small caliber capable of selective or fully automatic fire intended for use by an infantryman–but the term “assault weapon” seems to be applied to a wide variety of firearms from light caliber pistols with double stack magazines to .50 BMG single shot rifles, and anything in between that is not decorated with ornately carved wooden stocks. The actual use of assault rifles (and other fully automatic weapons) in criminal activities is, despite Hollywood portrayals to the contrary, miniscule. Weapons capable of automatic fire are regulated on both the federal level (through BATFE regulations and tax requirements) and all states.
Third, the notion that “semiautomatic assault weapons are designed to maximize lethal effects through a rapid rate of fire…assault weapons are designed to be spray-fired from the hip, and because of their design a shooter can maintain control of the weapon even while firing many rounds in rapid succession,” is patent nonsense. Anyone the least bit familiar with marksmanship will attest to the fact that a weapon fired “from the hip,” is not aimed with any accuracy and is less effective than a weapon properly sighted. This is mere obtuse bombast. As a trained shooter I can empty the magazine from a quality pistol with a single stack magazine into a target at 10 meters within a 5 or 6 inch circle. On the other hand, even if I could get a Tec-9 to fire all 20 rounds in the magazine without jamming, it is doubtful that one could keep them within the silhouette of a B-27 target even using the sights, much less firing from the hip. From the Modern Firearms description:TEC-9 became “famous” for its “evil” appearance, large magazine capacity (which offered significant firepower), and for low price. Unsurprisingly, these features made TEC-9 very popular among various marginal types. For any serious or professional shooter this gun vas of little value - it was too big and heavy to be carried comfortably, it was too unreliable when firing anything but FMJ ammunition, and the accuracy with very crude fixed sights was about marginal.
And this is the iconic “assualt weapon”, often featured in advertisements and by advocates, which is held up as necessity for gun control legislation.
The real problem with gun control as a solution to reduce crime is that diverts attention from the root causes of criminal activity; poverty, socioeconomic disparity, lack of educational opportunities and support, et cetera. It’s a cheap and easy strawman to point out without really dealing with the more complex underlying issues. But it sure fits nice on a bumper sticker.
You read them wrong. I’m not dismissing your sites because they’re pro-gun, as you insinuated I would do. Rather, I’m saying that what I want to see is quantitative evidence about how many cops oppose the AWB.
I am perfectly willing to believe you that there are pro-gun websites where individual pro-gun cops express opposition to the AWB. And if it will make you happy, I’ll go to those websites and read what those individuals say.
But what I’m searching for here is quantitative evidence in support of the claim that the pro-AWB position of law enforcement organizations does not accurately reflect the views of most law enforcement officials.
Again, this is all perfectly reasonable as a vague observation about organizations and membership. But none of it persuasively addresses my particular questions. I’ll restate them:
Is it really true that the official support of law enforcement organizations for the assault weapons ban does not accurately reflect the position of a majority of law enforcement officials?
If so, where can I find reliable quantitative evidence that will substantiate that claim?
If not, then why can’t gun-rights advocates get most cops to agree with them about the undesirability of an assault weapons ban?
I do in fact hold that position. However, that doesn’t prevent me from also arguing against certain legislation on the grounds that it does not accomplish that objective of improving public safety.
Think about it: the original AWB banned strictly cosmetic features in a class of weapons that were owned and used by only a tiny minority of criminals in the first place. To comply with the ban, firearms manufacturers stopped putting those features on the semiautomatic rifles they produced for the civilian market. The upshot of this for lawful firearms enthusiasts was that they couldn’t buy a new AR-15 with a collapsible stock or a bayonet mount. The upshot for criminals was precisely zilch, unless they were also really interested in collapsible stocks and bayonet mounts.
Even if there was a reduction in the number of “assault weapons” used in crimes following the 1994 ban, what exactly makes you believe that it was even possible for the AWB legislation to be the cause, except in the trivial sense that the new AR-15s, AK variants, and the like manufactured for the civilian market in that time frame were no longer classified as “assault weapons” per the text of the law?
Yes, I am in fact saying that Mr. Polisar is likely one or more of those three things. I’m not quite sure why you think his status as a police chief makes him any less likely than anybody else to be ignorant, or a liar, or delusional. But the fact that he’s a police chief has nothing to do with my statement. My argument is in reference to the fact that he asserted that the “assault weapons” targeted by the ban were “designed to be spray-fired from the hip.”
Well, apparently unlike Polisar, I know a thing or two about guns, and I can tell you that the most popular guns targeted by the ban, AR-15 and AK-style rifles, are just that: rifles. As such, they are designed to be fired from the shoulder, and they are maximally effective when used in that fashion. Spray-firing from the hip is an excellent way to miss your targets quite a lot.
Other, smaller weapons included in the broad and nebulous concept of “assault weapons” lack shoulder stocks, and thus are not intended to be fired from the shoulder. But these aren’t designed to be fired from the hip either: like all firearms, they are most deadly when they are actually aimed. In fact, whatever kind of gun it is, spraying from the hip is going to be considerably less deadly than actually aiming the damn thing.
Mr. Polisar’s statements are on their face incompatible with reality. Hence my judgment that he is either being misleading, ignorant, or delusional.
Honestly, this is simply a repetition of the same disingenuous fear-mongering rhetoric that’s been used by anti-gunners for years now. It’s a far better reflection of the kind of gunslinging seen in Hollywood action flicks than it is of reality, but it’s nonetheless very effective at capitalizing on public fears and misperceptions regarding firearms. The idea that guns are somehow more deadly when they’re covered in black plastic and sprayed from the hip is absurd, but anti-gunners invoke that fantasy because it’s a frightening image for a lot of people who don’t know any better.
Bottom line, what makes a gun “deadly” is when there is a person behind it pointing it at another human being and pulling the trigger. All this talk about “military” features on expensive guns that the vast majority of criminals never use is just a distraction that even the anti-gunners would never touch if it weren’t such an effective means of capitalizing on ignorance and fear to gain leverage against lawful gun ownership in general.
*The Clinton Administration was particularly successful at enlisting police support for gun control. They funneled millions of your tax dollars in political payoffs, disguised as “research” into the pockets of national law enforcement organizations.
This era spawned several police “type” organizations with blatant anti-gun agendas, such as the so-called Police Foundation, followed by a host of clones, including the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF). One particularly heavily endowed group was International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), which has adopted a consistent anti-gun political agenda.
Other police groups such as the National Sheriffs Association and the Fraternal Order of Police which, previous to the Clinton era, tended to be neutral or leaning toward a pro-Second Amendment stance, were influenced into taking pro-gun control stands by the river of political money flowing from the Clinton Administration and its allies.
In one year during the Clinton Administration, the Police Executive Research Forum, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the National Sheriffs Association and the Police Foundation collectively hauled in $4.4 million in Justice Department grants. Before then the Department of Justice dollars flowed just as freely. The International Association of Chiefs of Police raked in over $630,000. National Sheriffs Association cheerfully pocketed $516,943. The Police Executive Research Forum netted $447,343. The Police Foundation accepted a more modest $221,634.
Add up the totals [$1.8 million before, $4.4 million after] and you get a small peek at the economic and political clout the Clinton White House wielded in shaping public policy and buying national police groups into line. Every federal dollar dumped into law enforcement bank accounts is quite legal. Each has a perfectly “rational” explanation. It is merely coincidence that the police groups that scurried to do Clinton’ bidding happen to be the same ones that were awarded the lucrative federal grants. *
Of course not. Putting aside the issue that gun control in general does not reduce crime, why would anyone expect a ban on guns based on appearance to have any effect? Like someone else pointed out, it’s like banning red cars.
I also agree that it’s politically stupid.
However, Obama’s approval ratings have been falling lately. Unless your name happens to be Ender Wiggins, it’s difficult to play the role of messiah while you are still alive. Probably like so many democrats before him, he’s been tempted by the gun control issue and thinks it’s a winning issue.
He should talk to his VP about this, since the 1994 ban cost Joe Biden his committee chairmanship.
Well I count myself among those who did not, and who still do not, think that Obama will waste much political capital on gun control issues.
This was Holder in his first press conference which was called to announce arrests of hundreds involved in Mexican drug cartels. Other news coverage of the press conference doesn’t even mention the aside about the Assault Weapons Ban. Even Fox’s coverage. Oh I believe he said it, but clearly this was not a thought out administration signal that gun control is becoming a priority. If even Fox ignored it it must have been a pretty well buried aside. This is, at this time, Holder merely repeating the same things he said during his confirmation hearing and the same things that were stated as part of Obama’s campaign. Someone at ABC is trying to make a news story out of very little. And maybe it will get some traction, who knows? The news cycle is a beast that must be fed. In truth I, like Fox, see no news here: Holder is stating his known opinion; nothing more.
I think that Obama and even the less astute Democratic leadership does realize that acting on that belief is a losing battle that wastes critical capital when even good liberals like me think that the AWB as written was a poorly written legislation that was better off gone. (Mind you, I’d think that one written with better definitions of “assault weapons” - written by people who actually know guns rather than the likes of me - would be a good thing, even if it would still be a bad political idea to pursue.)
It’s a disappointing development to say the least. I had thought that Obama had better sense than this. I would have thought that the last 4 years have exposed the AWB for the fraud that it was…
Even if it went from 100,000 to zero, it wouldn’t mean anything. Look, if the government banned red cars, one could expect that the number of yearly deaths in accidents involving red cars would drop dramatically. So what?
If so it was a tiny balloon. Holder again stating what he has stated before are his beliefs, and repeating what Obama said during the campaign. And stating, explicitly, not now. (From the op’s link.)
When you hear that legislation is going to actually be introduced, or that Obama is pushing Congress to do so, let me know. I think it will stay at the bottom for, like, forever.
So Holder is a maverick or something? When he spoke of the few changes that WE want to make, was he speaking about himself and his boss or did he have a mouse in his pocket during that news conference?
The AW ban was/is a solution looking for a problem, plain and simple. Now it is being promoted as a tool to stop violence in Mexico? To take care of full autos and grenades? This is too stupid…
Count me in with the disappointed. I really wanted something different out of this administration. So far, it’s been a whole lot of meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
This means next to nothing. If I outlaw trapping lobsters, of course lobster related injuries will drop next year. It doesn’t mean that they were a problem to begin with, or that injuries from crabs didn’t increase by a similar amount.
Note this number is the “proportion” traced to crimes. Crime could have increased 20 bajillion percent, but as long as “assault weapons” weren’t being used, then the law is successful under this standard. Well, you just outlawed them, of course the proportional usage will drop. As long as people are being attacked with handguns, shotguns, rifles, knives, blackjacks, billie clubs, chinese stars, broken whiskey bottles, and bare fists, then the numbers improve. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy…
Well now, let’s not get ahead of ourselves – that makes it sound like you’ve got medium-to-long term memory loss.
As I said, I’m disappointed and I think pursuing it is a political mistake. Hopefully, DSeid is correct – it’s something that’s being mentioned (for whatever reason), but won’t get any follow-up effort. Time will tell…
I said he’d do this. Not because of any prescience on my part, becuase it’s what his own website said he’d do, in spite of the naysayers on this board.
Kimstu: I’m not going to go digging for the threads, but there were several Pit threads as well wherein “gun nuts” were called “paranoid” for thinking Pres. O was going to do anything WRT gun control.
Sorry, let me try again. I voted for Bush the first time because I expected some fiscal responsibility and some action with regard to the crappy gun laws on the books at the time. 8 years later, and the country is far worse off economically due to he and his cohorts, and not a single change was made to any gun legislation, other than letting the AW ban die a silent death.
Enter 2009, and I see another trillion with a T going out the door and the AG touting the few changes that he and the boss want to make regarding our gun rights. I want to support this guy, I really do. He is making it more and more difficult every day. It’s this tie in to Mexico that really has me flustered. It’s a new tactic and frankly, one that would set a bad precedent IMO.
