Guns: are they necesary for home defense or a public menace?

[c0ldst33ltrs4u]

Well, the counter argument will be- gun dealer

Ok, if the customer is a gun dealer, isn't the original dealer supposed to ask to see a license, or something, is the dealer just going to poor out TEC9's on the streets? If you go to the drug store and you want to buy certain drugs (medicine) you will have to show a prescription, and you can't "fill it up" too often; the "I really like them" argument won't work either (I am still talking about the drugs). So it is common sense that if a guy wants to buy a lot of weapons, and in a short time span he has a way to unload them somewhere... and don't tell me that once the gun kills somebody and it ends up in the evidence room the dealer won't be notified that the gun he sold ended up where it did. And the gun dealer is soon going to realize that the second "dealer" si selling them to criminals, or at least potential criminals. If he claims he didn't realize that then he either is the biggest american asshole that ever lived and he should end up as an exhibit in the Smithsonian, or he is just as crooked as the the other "dealer" and he should be sued and fined for every lest penny his grandsons are going to earn in their whole lifetime, so that other dealers won't get the idea that it's ok to do that and that one can easily elude the long arm of the law...

or gun collector.

Ok, so he is some passionate gun collector, and he really likes it, so he buys a couple, 2, 4, 5, how many can one collect? A collection is made up of many models and makes of the same general class of objects, not a bunch of pretty much identical objects. The standard definition is more general, but what looney collects, let's say 20 TEC9s? IMO the collector thing is not an excuse, the dealer is plain greedy.

 

[Gwydion]

Welsh, I'm not sure what Bill you're reading, but both of those clearly allow negligence cases to go to court. We have a criminal justice system with very high standards for an important reason: to avoid persecution of innocents. All these bills do is bring civil suits to that same careful standard. These don't take away the rights of people to sue, as at the very least they'll get to go to court and have a judge make a determination about the merits of the case.

Cold, the dealer in your example could be worthy of investigation for criminal negligence. If a jury decided he was guilty, then he would be open to lawsuit, and probably should be sued.

 

[welsh]

Welsh, I'm not sure what Bill you're reading, but both of those clearly allow negligence cases to go to court. We have a criminal justice system with very high standards for an important reason: to avoid persecution of innocents. All these bills do is bring civil suits to that same careful standard. These don't take away the rights of people to sue, as at the very least they'll get to go to court and have a judge make a determination about the merits of the case.

No Gwydion, you are wrong on this and misreading the bill. I have provided you two copies of the same text. Both of them are quite clear in that they limit plaintiff's causes of action and restrict the rights of plaintiffs to sue.

The links are there- they are sited right from the text.

Yes, they do take away the rights of people to sue. That's clearly spelled out. When a federal statute is passed it preempts state law (doctrine preemption) and if it curtails the causes of action, only those causes of action spelled out in the new bill are allowed.

This statute protection gun manufacturers and dealers in ways other industries are not protected.

In fact if the plaintiff brings a cause of action against the defendant dealer who was negligent in selling guns to parties that were foreseeable to be resold to criminals down the chain of commerce, those dealers are off the hook.

Read the statute. It's clear in the text.

Oh and I found that report you were mentioning earlier, but I will get to that later.

Cold, the dealer in your example could be worthy of investigation for criminal negligence. If a jury decided he was guilty, then he would be open to lawsuit, and probably should be sued.

Criminal negligence is a cause of action by the state against a party for breaking criminal law. In these cases we are talking about a liability shield for dealers and manufacturers against civil actions.

The major difference- criminal action would be brought on behalf of the general public and usually involves incarceration or criminal penalties.

A civil action would be a cause of action to recompense the injured private party.

Thus a person who is shot by one of those Tec 9's in Cold's hypothetical would have no cause of action to sue, even if the state could bring an action.

Actually it gets better. By baring causes of action in public nusiance other types of relief to the general public would also be banned.

Gwydion, please stop misrepresenting the statute. The language is clear and the analysis was given to you. What Cold is point out is something discussed in the text of the links provided above.

 

[Gwydion]

(A) IN GENERAL- The term `qualified civil liability action' means a civil action brought by any person against a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product, or a trade association, for damages or injunctive relief resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of a qualified product by the person or a third party, but shall not include--

(i) an action brought against a transferor convicted under section 924(h) of title 18, United States Code, or a comparable or identical State felony law, by a party directly harmed by the conduct of which the transferee is so convicted;

(ii) an action brought against a seller for negligent entrustment or negligence per se;

(iii) an action in which a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product knowingly and willfully violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product, and the violation was a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought;

(iv) an action for breach of contract or warranty in connection with the purchase of the product; or

(v) an action for physical injuries or property damage resulting directly from a defect in design or manufacture of the product, when used as intended.

The exemptions say it in plain English, Welsh. You can still sue for negligence. I'm not misrepresenting anything.

 

[Gwydion]

Or, if you don't like my interpretation of the bill, let's see what Minority Leader Tom Daschle has to say about it:

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the legislation we consider today attempts to strike a careful balance between the safety of Americans and the rights of gun manufacturers and dealers. As I have said on many occasions, the vast majority of gun owners, manufacturers, and sellers are honest and certainly obey the law. Moreover, the firearm industry is an important source of jobs and tax revenue for our country. It is wrong, and it is a misuse of the civil justice system, to punish honest, law-abiding people for the illegal acts of others.

At the same time, Americans who are injured due to defective products have a right to seek justice in the courts. In our efforts to protect the gun industry from meritless lawsuits, we should take care not to invalidate legitimate claims from being heard in court. There are several ongoing cases that involve product defects or cases where manufacturers or gun dealers may actually have broken the law, and those victims have a right to be heard.

As this bill was being written, many individuals raised concerns that the bill failed to consider the many important claims of victims of defective products or illegal actions. Because of these concerns, I have worked with my colleagues, Senator Craig in particular, Senator Baucus, and others to draft a commonsense, bipartisan amendment that improves this legislation by providing stronger protections for meritorious cases. This amendment is not perfect, but it goes a long way toward balancing both the rights of victims and the needs of the gun industry.

Our amendment makes several important changes. First, the language in the original bill forced plaintiffs to prove defendants knowingly and willfully broke the law before a suit could proceed. This is a high standard that would deny many victims the right to pursue legitimate claims. The amendment we now offer removes this language, to ensure cases in which Federal or State firearms laws have been broken can move forward without meeting an artificially high threshold of proof.

Second, as originally drafted, the bill created a few exceptions, where gun manufacturers' and dealers' immunity would not apply. These exceptions were tailored too narrowly. In fact, one of the exceptions could have invalidated cases in which an individual had sold a firearm to someone who committed a drug offense or violent crime simply because the individual had not yet been convicted of that offense. This amendment, our amendment, modifies this language to ensure these bad actors would not be protected from accountability merely because they were not successfully prosecuted.

Third, when a gun is defective, the manufacturer should be held responsible. However, as originally drafted, the bill limited product liability to such degree that it would be virtually impossible to bring cases against manufacturers. Our amendment provides greater protection for product liability cases, so, in particular, if a child is injured by a defective gun, the victim's loved ones can hold those responsible accountable.

Fourth, the original legislation did not specifically address businesses that sell to the straw purchasers; that is, people who buy guns only to resell them in the black market to criminals or children. With this amendment, the bill would include a provision to remove immunity from those dealers who sell to so-called straw purchasers.

Fifth, the amendment Senator Craig and I will offer addresses concerns about this bill's definition of trade associations. Many advocates indicated that, as drafted, even extremist organizations could have obtained immunity. Obviously, this is not the intent of the bill's sponsors, nor is it the intent of the gun industry.

Therefore, we modified the definition to ensure that only trade associations connected to the business of manufacturing and selling firearms would be covered.

The Protection of Law Commerce in Arms Act, as amended by the Daschle-Craig amendment, strikes a meaningful balance between the rights of legitimate business owners and the rights of individuals who have been injured by gun violence. The Senate achieves the goal of protecting manufacturers from illegitimate lawsuits, while maintaining the rights of victims to hold those responsible for their injuries accountable.

With the inclusion of our amendment, immunity will not cover a number of cases including those where a dealer sells a gun to someone who is prohibited from owning a gun, whether not they have been convicted of a crime; a dealer sells a gun to a juvenile or to an undocumented alien; a manufacturer develops a defective gun that injuries a child; or where a dealer fails to report the theft of a gun as required by law.

In each of these cases, a business loses its immunity only as a result of its own actions, not the actions of a third party.

The cosponsors of this amendment have worked hard to ensure that the gun immunity bill does not inadvertently harm important cases.

The principle of equality before the law demands that everyone--individuals and businesses alike--can be held accountable for their actions.

This legislation should not provide blanket immunity that protects ``bad actors.'' By striking a more sensible balance, my amendment strives to preserve the long-term vitality of an important American industry, while protecting the rights and the safety of the American public.

I hope my colleagues, when the legislation is offered later, will support it.

I yield the floor.

 

[welsh]

(A) IN GENERAL- The term `qualified civil liability action' means a civil action brought by any person against a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product, or a trade association, for damages or injunctive relief resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of a qualified product by the person or a third party, but shall not include--

Ok, that is what's not allowed- for damages of or injunctive relief resulting from ciminal or unlawful misuse. Thus negligently selling a weapon to a party that you could reasonably foresee would have been used in a crime, is not allowable.

(i) an action brought against a transferor convicted under section 924(h) of title 18, United States Code, or a comparable or identical State felony law, by a party directly harmed by the conduct of which the transferee is so convicted;

So a person has to be criminally convicted first.

(ii) an action brought against a seller for negligent entrustment or negligence per se;

For Negligent entrustment-

(B) NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT- In subparagraph (A)(ii), the term `negligent entrustment' means the supplying of a qualified product by a seller for use by another person when the seller knows, or should know, the person to whom the product is supplied is likely to, and does, use the product in a manner involving unreasonable risk of physical injury to the person and others.

Does this cover straw purchasers? Doesn't seem to. Again the standard is that the dealer "knows, or should know," and the consequences- 'use the product in a matter involving unreasonable risk of physical inury to the person and others." A broad reading would make sense but that would be contradictory to the language of the rest of the statute. A very broad reading of the statute could actually extned liability to anything involving an unreasonably risk of injury.

But a tighter reading would look at the knowing standard, and that would be consistent with the rest of the statute.

This is not negligence in the sale, marketing, advertising, etc.

This will protect Intra-tec when it markets its weapons to urban markets for "it's fingerprint safe" (so the cops can't trace it back to you).

That's negligence in advertising- no good any more.

And it won't work against a marketing scheme that says. "Gosh, if we emphasize that this gun carried the most fire power for a concealable weapon, and it has an intimidating look about it, ok so maybe this is popular with urban criminal chic and thus increase sales"- that's also protected.

Negligence per se? I will get to that at the bottom.

(iii) an action in which a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product knowingly and willfully violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product, and the violation was a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought;

Again, preempted by the language of this statute is the negligent selling of a weapon to buyer. Also the language is different- it requires a level of intent- did you Know that the person you were selling the gun would resell the weapon on the street to criminals? Was that your willful action? Willfulness usually means intending the result that comes to pass.

But it does protect the don't ask, don't tell circumstance that Cold noted above. "Hmmm... that guy buys 50 Tec-9's every few months... should I check it out? No. I am protected by a federal law." as the register go ca-ching!

So when the gun does go into circulation and shoots some pedestrian, that person is shit out of luck.

And this is a bad thing?

(iv) an action for breach of contract or warranty in connection with the purchase of the product; or

That's pretty straight forward. I sold you 45 Tec-9s, I delivered 40 = breach of contract. I sold you 45 Tec-9's but they are defective- warranty claim. So this protects buyers and sellers, but not victims.

(v) an action for physical injuries or property damage resulting directly from a defect in design or manufacture of the product, when used as intended.

And that is basic products liabiliy. This gun tends to backfire when it's fired because of a flaw in the barrel when the weapon was made- manufacturing defect- a defect in the manufacture of the weapon.

Or- this gun tends to misfire because a failure in the trigger mechanism, and all of these guns suffer the similar danger = design defect.

That's standard products liabiity.

The exemptions say it in plain English, Welsh. You can still sue for negligence. I'm not misrepresenting anything.

No Gwydion, you can't- and it's a legal document not plain English. Check your legal dictionary for the meaning of the terms.

You can only sue if the person can be nailed through negligence per se.

What is negligence? According to Black's Law Dictionary, 6th edition (Delux) which I am looking at in front of me. (page 1032)

Negligence: The Omission to do somethng which a reasonable man, guided by those ordinary considerations which ordinarily regulate human affairs, would do, or the doing of something which a reasonable and prudent man would not do. Negligence is the failure to use such care as a reasonably prudent and careful person would use under similar circumstances.

Negligence basically forces people and companies to be prudent and be reasonable. It is the duty of care that we should all exercise with regard to each other. Exactly what is prudent and reasonable is subject to a jury.

(negligence) is characterized chiefly by inadvertence, thoughtlessness, inattention and the like.

Thus the law allows gun companies to be negligent in their advertising, sales, marketing and production of weapons. If the gun "happens" to be attractive to criminals, oh well. If we didn't purposesly sell to criminals, or market or advertise to criminals, that's enough. SHould we have known better- maybe. But so what. We didn't have to be reasonable, prudent or careful, we just had to be wilful and intentional.

Note that the companies that you wish to defend- that sell weapons to the general gun buying population are probably not negligent in their marketing or advertizing and probably are aware of their sales. Yes, these companies may still be held accountable to the consuming public if they do become negligent.

Is that so bad?

Ok, so what about negligence per se? Page 1035-

Negligence per se- A form of ordinary negligence that results from violation of a statute. Conduct, whehter of action or omission, which may be decared and treated as negligence wihtout any arugment or proof as to the partiuclar surrounding circumstances, because it is in violation of a specific statute or valid municipal ordinance, or is so palpably opposed the dictates of common prudence that it can be said without hesitation or doubt that no careful person would have been guilty of it.l As a general rule, the violeation of a public duty, enjoined by law for the protection of person or property so constitutes."

What does that mean. Negligence per se cases often appear in DWI. If you cause an traffic accident, are drunk and the law of the locality says that drunk driving is negligence per se, then you fall within that perscription. Likewise, in some areas hunting while drunk might be negligence per se- depending on the locality. These are very specificly defined acts that have been legislated as being negligent.

Again, this is a very narrow prescription.

So the case above, that Cold pointed out, where a dealer has been selling large numbers of Tec-9's to a buyer who later sells to criminals will be excused because the dealer cannot be charged with negligence in the sale of the weapons- regardless of how uncareful or imprudent the dealer is.

 

[welsh]

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the legislation we consider today attempts to strike a careful balance between the safety of Americans and the rights of gun manufacturers and dealers. As I have said on many occasions, the vast majority of gun owners, manufacturers, and sellers are honest and certainly obey the law. Moreover, the firearm industry is an important source of jobs and tax revenue for our country. It is wrong, and it is a misuse of the civil justice system, to punish honest, law-abiding people for the illegal acts of others.

Indeed, one person is not criminally responsible for the criminal acts of another.

A person may be negligent however, by allowing those acts to occur, or even making those acts easier. Such actions can be foreseeable, and it is upon that person to take careful and prudent care to avoid foreseeable injuries.

That is the standard of the common reasonably man that is the basis of tort law, the standard all are obligated to follow.

At the same time, Americans who are injured due to defective products have a right to seek justice in the courts. In our efforts to protect the gun industry from meritless lawsuits, we should take care not to invalidate legitimate claims from being heard in court. There are several ongoing cases that involve product defects or cases where manufacturers or gun dealers may actually have broken the law, and those victims have a right to be heard.

I am cool with that.

As this bill was being written, many individuals raised concerns that the bill failed to consider the many important claims of victims of defective products or illegal actions. Because of these concerns, I have worked with my colleagues, Senator Craig in particular, Senator Baucus, and others to draft a commonsense, bipartisan amendment that improves this legislation by providing stronger protections for meritorious cases. This amendment is not perfect, but it goes a long way toward balancing both the rights of victims and the needs of the gun industry.

Thank god, a reasonable amendment to a crappy bill.

Our amendment makes several important changes. First, the language in the original bill forced plaintiffs to prove defendants knowingly and willfully broke the law before a suit could proceed. This is a high standard that would deny many victims the right to pursue legitimate claims. The amendment we now offer removes this language, to ensure cases in which Federal or State firearms laws have been broken can move forward without meeting an artificially high threshold of proof.

yes, and that's the rub- "This is a high standard that would deny many victims the right to pursue legitimate claims."

Right now I am looking at the text of S. 1805, found at
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c108:3:./temp/~c108dYMTM3::

Again, we see that (b) Negligent entrustment stuff which is unclear- "negligent entrustment means teh supplying of a qualified product by a seller for use by another person when the seller knows, or should know, the person to whom the product is supplies is likely to, and does, use the product in a manner involving unreasonable risk of physical injury."

But then we have (c) "reasonably foreseeable" - which responds to an exemption for "an action for physical injuries or porpoerty damage resulating directly from a defect in desing or manufacture of the product, when used as intended or in a manner that is reasonably foreseeable" - according to this- reasonably foreseeable does not include any criminal or unlawful misues of a gun, other than possessory offenses?

and then there is the "(d) rules of consturction. The exceptions shall be construed so as not to be in conflict and no provision of this Act shall be construed to create a Federal private cause of action or remedy"

Thus the private plaintiff is still shit out of luck for bringing a case for a company that is negligent in selling, marketing, distributing or advertising a gun that leads a criminal gunshot that the plaintiff must suffer.

I mean really, so what if the gun companies have to go to court to iron out the definitions of what is negligence. Lets say 35 law suits so far, and lets say they cost $10K, even $20K a piece. What about the cost to the person who lost their life? What about their family? If someone is crippled by a gun shot and has medical bills far in excess of that, is it fair?

Second, as originally drafted, the bill created a few exceptions, where gun manufacturers' and dealers' immunity would not apply. These exceptions were tailored too narrowly. In fact, one of the exceptions could have invalidated cases in which an individual had sold a firearm to someone who committed a drug offense or violent crime simply because the individual had not yet been convicted of that offense. This amendment, our amendment, modifies this language to ensure these bad actors would not be protected from accountability merely because they were not successfully prosecuted.

Again, I am not seeing it in the bill. I assume the amendment didn't pass. It's still in the Senate. In the House none of the amendments passed.

Third, when a gun is defective, the manufacturer should be held responsible. However, as originally drafted, the bill limited product liability to such degree that it would be virtually impossible to bring cases against manufacturers. Our amendment provides greater protection for product liability cases, so, in particular, if a child is injured by a defective gun, the victim's loved ones can hold those responsible accountable.

again an amendment. Hasn't passed yet.

Fourth, the original legislation did not specifically address businesses that sell to the straw purchasers; that is, people who buy guns only to resell them in the black market to criminals or children. With this amendment, the bill would include a provision to remove immunity from those dealers who sell to so-called straw purchasers.

But again, an amendment and not the bill. That hasn't passed.

Notice the language. The question is one of negligence vs. knowing.

Fifth, the amendment Senator Craig and I will offer addresses concerns about this bill's definition of trade associations. Many advocates indicated that, as drafted, even extremist organizations could have obtained immunity. Obviously, this is not the intent of the bill's sponsors, nor is it the intent of the gun industry.
Therefore, we modified the definition to ensure that only trade associations connected to the business of manufacturing and selling firearms would be covered.

Loophole

The Protection of Law Commerce in Arms Act, as amended by the Daschle-Craig amendment, blah blah blah.... I yield the floor.

[/quote]

Currently the bill is in Senate, and is up for consideration. Last I check it was still under consideration. Let's see what they finally come up with before we decide if the amendments work or not.

Oh an while we are at it-
Seems like the assault weapons ban has come up for reconsideration-
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c108:1:./temp/~c108y3RH9D::
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:HR03831:@@@L&summ2=m&

and there are these bills-
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:SN01431:@@@L&summ2=m&
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c108:3:./temp/~c108b4F51H::

 

[welsh]

Cost of MAC 10/11 - 9 mm. 30 round magazine" - approximately $75
http://www.jocoemprise.com/pistols/mac.html

Cost of MAC 10/11 Conversion manual for making your Mac 10 fully automatic - $11.95
http://www.ftfindustries.com/new_page_1.htm
(also check Amazon and Barnes and Nobles for editions of the Full Auto library!)

Cobray M 11/9 - $550 (for example)
http://www.wrtc.com/mrguns/

Cost of fully automatic Mac 10 Clone (to a scrupulous drug dealer/gangbanger/terrorist/militia wacko/other assorted killer) - $ 636.95

Costs to Police Officers for keeping them off the street = Priceless

Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News, Oct 23, 2003

Title: Police Chiefs Urge Congress to Retain Assault-Weapons Ban. Full Text COPYRIGHT 2003 Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News

By Thomas J. Gibbons Jr., The Philadelphia Inquirer Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News

Oct. 23--Recalling officers in their commands killed or wounded in the line of duty, a group of police chiefs from across the nation called on Congress yesterday to renew the federal law outlawing military-style assault weapons.

The 10-year-old ban expires in September, and groups including the powerful National Rifle Association (NRA) have been trying to persuade Congress to let the law die.

"The idea that 10 years later that we're even debating [it]... is insanity," said William Bratton, now police chief in Los Angeles and former police commissioner in New York.

Bratton was one of five big-city chiefs, including Philadelphia Police Commissioner Sylvester M. Johnson, who addressed reporters on the subject at a Center City hotel near the Convention Center, where 15,000 law-enforcement officials from around the world are gathering for the 110th annual conference of the International Association of Chiefs of Police.

The chiefs, who also included Harold Hurtt of Phoenix, Richard Pennington of Atlanta, and Alex Fagan of San Francisco, spoke in front of a table laden with examples of assault weapons, including "street sweepers," 12-gauge shotguns with large-drum clips that can spray 12 shots as fast as the trigger can be pulled.

"The idea that anybody in this country that would advocate allowing these types of weapons onto the streets of America is insanity," Bratton said. As recently as Saturday night, he said, two of his officers on a prowler call were assaulted by a weapon "very similar to what you see in front of you."

Why? Well according to VCP, 1 in 5 officers killed between 1998 -2001 was killed by an assault weapon which perhaps is why the International Association of Chiefs of Police are against the weapons.

See- Violence Policy Center, Officer Down: Assault Weapons and the War on Law Enforcement (2003) also Int'l Assoc. of Chiefs of Police "Legislative Agendea for the 108`" Congress" 12.

But surely the NRA has something to say about this! Indeed- and here we have the argument made earlier by Gwydion-

In a telephone interview afterward, John Sigler, NRA second vice president, took issue with the chiefs, saying they were ignoring the "legislative intent" behind the law.
"That gun ban was a 10-year experiment to determine whether outlawing a list of firearms would have a positive effect in the reduction of firearm-related crimes. A study conducted by the Clinton-Reno Justice Department determined that it had no effect whatsoever on the use of firearms by criminals, and therefore Congress should continue the process that it started and allow the ban to expire per the initial legislation," said Sigler, a retired police captain in Dover, Del.

Ah remember that? Gwydion told us that too, but he didn't give us the document. Perhaps Gwyd was recalling this article by John Lott here-
http://johnrlott.tripod.com/op-eds/HuntingAdviceDems.html

Yes, this is the same John Lott whose has been advocating for more concealed weapons to deter crime although other scholars have pointed out that he has skewed his data.

But what is he talking about? The study seems to be

http://www.urban.org/Template.cfm?N...ontent/ViewPublication.cfm&PublicationID=6178

found here-
http://www.urban.org/crime/aw/awfinal1.htm

"Our best estimate is that the ban contributed to a 6.7 percent decrease in total gun murders between 1994 and 1995, beyond what would have been expected in view of
ongoing crime, demographic, and economic trends We did find a reduction in killings of police officers since mid-1995. "

To which one can find a summary-
http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/1997/March97/130nij.htm

WASHINGTON, DC -- According to a study of short-term trends since the 1994 assault weapons ban became law, the ban may be linked to declines in the criminal use of assault weapons, violent crime and the number of enforcement officers killed by assault weapons. The study, prepared by the Urban Institute for the Justice Department's National Institute of Justice (NIJ), was required by statute to be conducted within 30 months following the enactment of the assault weapons ban as part of President Clinton's 1994 Crime Act. The report's authors warned that more time was needed to determine the long-term impact of the ban
States with no assault weapons ban when the federal ban took effect also experienced a 10.3% decline in homicides, compared to
no decline (0.1%) in states with assault weapons bans. It also appears that only one police officer is known to have been killed
with an assault weapon during the period from June 1995 to May
1996, compared to seven from January to May 1995, and nine in 1994."

more updated? try-
http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/173405.pdf
More from the Cops?

In his remarks, Hurtt said he vividly recalled both the "look on the face" of an officer's widow at her husband's funeral after he died from a gunshot wound to the head and visiting an officer in the hospital who had just had his leg amputated because of a bullet fired from an assault weapon.

"We want Congress to help us... to protect those that protect America," Hurtt said.

Johnson said the law was "all about quality of life. And what this ban does is it enhances the quality of life for the citizens of Philadelphia and all over the nation. I support this, will continue to fight for it, and we need it."

Richard Aborn, former president of Handgun Control Inc., opened the program and introduced the speakers. While speaking at the end of the presentation, Aborn caused some in the audience, including police officers, to stare wide-eyed at him as he pointed -- with his finger on the trigger - a semiautomatic pistol fitted with a large clip around the room.

"I assume these weapons have been checked?" he asked a Philadelphia police captain. He was told they had been.

But then why would you buy a Mac 10 when you can get something even better?

Canada and the World Backgrounder, Sept 1996 v62 nI p24(l).
Title: Guns - the numbers. (statistics on the proliferation of guns in the U.S. and crimes committed with guns)(United States - Gun Culture)(Brief Article)

The Miami-based company that makes the TEC-9 machine gun has produced a brochure to sell the weapon. The gun, which can be easily concealed under a coat, also has a finish that the company boasts offers "excellent resistance to fingerprints."

But has the ban worked? Well it banned the TEC-9 (at least temporarily.

Well if you use gun traces to study the number of guns being investigated in relations to crime. IN 1993 the 19 assault weapons listed on the ban accounted for 8.2% of all ATF traces. In 1995 they accounted for only 4.3% of traces.

So what did it really ban?

"2.1. THE LEGISLATION
Effective on its enactment date, September 13, 1994, Section 110102 of Title XI banned the manufacture, transfer, and possession of "semiautomatic assault weapons." It defined the banned items defined in four ways:
1. Named puns: specific rifles and handguns, available from ten importers and manufacturers: Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies (all models, popularly known as AKs); Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil models, imported by Action Arms; Beretta Ar 70 (also known as SC-70); Colt AR-15; Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, FN/FNC), SWD M-10, M-1 1, M-1 1/9, and M-12; Steyr AUG; and INTRATEC
TEC-9, TEC-DC9, and TEC-22;
2. Exact copies: "Copies or duplicates of the [named guns] in any caliber";
3. Revolvinq cylinder shotguns: Large-capacity shotguns, with the Street Sweeper and Striker 12 named as examples; and
4. Features-test puns: semiautomatic weapons capable of accepting detachable magazines and having at least two named features.

Generally a small list and considering the number of duplicates that have been on the market, perhaps the problem is not too much enforcement, but not enough.

you talk about increasing popularity of these weapons with groups likely to commit crimes with these weapons, militias was the example you gave; you talk about rising usage in crime when statistically you're dealing with 1% of crime anyway, so their usage in crime isn't even significant to begin with;

Gwydion, you must not be reading clearly or I am not being clear. That or you are distorting facts.

Only about 1-2% of the people who own guns owned, legally, semi-automatic weapons. But the problem was that the crime rates involving the use of those weapons were increasing. Roughly 6-8% of all gun related crimes involves an assault weapon.
If you look at ATF statistics from the middle of the 1980s until the middle of the 1990s you see that among the top ten weapons used by criminals were assault weapons, and that this number increases from roughly 1985-1995. You also have an increase of assault weapons, especially Chinese made weapons, coming from abroad.

If you want the statistics I would be glad to provide them for you. I doubt many of the other posters care. But you can get much of this from the ATF: National Firearms Tracing Center.That many of the mass murders that were committed in the late 80s -90s were commi
tted with semi-automatic weapons, often converted is widely known.

As for conversion kits-try this- look for J.Flores Full Auto Modification Manual (whihch proviedes instruction and diagrams for converting the MAC 10, MAC 11, Mini 14, H&K 91 and 93, M1 carbine and the Colt AR 15 into automatic weapons) on amazon.com. See if you can find it and then note that there are other manuals available-

Want to convert your CHinese AK-47? It's there.

Thompson submachine gun? If this wasn't common do you think it would be widely sold off amazon.com, even today?

Now I know you are going to say "anecodotal evidence!" Yes, even back then there were a few notorious cases. Terrible. How many anecdotes do we need before we see a pattern?

Here are some anecdotes
1989 Stockton, CA: 35 young schoolchildren shot on playground with an AK-47

1993 Langley, VA: 5 CIA employees shot with an AK-47

1993 San Francisco, CA: 9 people in a downtown law office shot with various weapons, including a TEC-DC9 assault pistol

1997 North Hollywood, CA: Police officers shot by bank robbers armed with AK-47 assault rifles

1998 Littleton, CO: 13 high school students murdered by two schoolmates armed with TEC-9 assault pistol and Hi-point Carbine assault rifle

2002 Washington, DC area: 13 people shot, 10 killed over two weeks by sniper allegedly armed with Bushmaster XM15 assault rifle, a copy of the banned Colt AR-15

and this is just part of it.

Amazing that in some countries it only took one or two such events as mass murderers using converted weapons to ban the lot. Why not in the US? Could it be the NRA? Or is it the industry which could give a shit about how many people get whacked as long as it gets its profit.

And remember, civilian sales of military style weapons were a big plus to an industry which, in the late 80s and early 90s was starting to stagnate.

But that's not relevant, Welsh. The point I'm making is that this law doesn't and never did ban weapons because they might be converted to fully auto.

Actually from what I am reading the main concern was the spread of these weapons and that many were slipping through the loopholes. For instance the many of the Chinese AK-47s that came in had automatic fire features that were slipping by distributors and retailers. The specifications for many of the semi-automatic weapons were clearly designed to target weapons that looked like military weapons being marketed as such for civilian use. This is why the large clips were being regulated, why attachments and the use of plastics were being reviewed, and why there was so much concern that these weapons were often military weapons that had gone under slight cosmetic modifications. Because modifications could be undone. But even if they weren't undone, they were still dangerous and increasinly being used in crime.

This was the problem, guns were slipping in that were not supposed to be automatic but which could be converted to automatic. The Chinese AK 47 and the Tec-9 were among those that had become popular with criminal use as found by the ATF and which were popular because of their lethality and high rates of fire.

And that high rate of fire mattered regardless of whether the weapon could be fired semi-automatically or automatically. In fact, a number of folks have pointed out that these weapons are more dangerous as semi-automatics in that they are easier to aim. A weapon that fires hundreds of rounds a minute would burn through a clip very fast and spray 30 or so round everywhere. But a person with a quick finger could fire 30 rounds (remember the ban was also about clips over 10 rounds) in less than a minute is pretty damned dangerous and potentially more accurate.

With regard to conversions-
You can't ban the sale of manuals for conversion because of free speech rules. But that doesn't mean they didn't exist or were not used or that they weren't part of the problem converting the weapons for street use.

Incidently, here's something you might want to look at if you are interested in this issue-
Tom Diaz, Making a Killing : The Business of Guns in America (1999). Pages 19-34 talk about the increased use of assault weapons in crime as well as the nature of the imports.

Let me add one final note- I will agree with Gwydion on this- you don't need an automatic or semi-automatic weapon to kill someone. And if you are desperate to kill someone, you can get another kind of gun. What these laws did was limit the intensity of gun violence. In a sense, it's like forcing disarmament- by removing some of the weapons that are lethal you can attempt to create a more peaceful street.

Incidently- here's an update on the immunity bill and the bill to ban assault weapons-
Those crazy republicans!

So what do you think? Given the choice between having more law suits against good industries or allowing more assault weapons on the streets, they voted to screw the industry and allow more assault guns. A good thing?

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=3&u=/ap/20040302/ap_on_go_co/congress_guns_14

WASHINGTON - Senate Republicans scuttled an election-year bill to immunize the gun industry from lawsuits Tuesday after Democrats amended it to extend an assault weapons ban and require background checks on all buyers at private gun shows.

Kerry Urges Assault Weapons Ban

The National Rifle Association began pressuring senators to vote against the bill after Democrats won votes on the two key gun control measures. The 90-8 vote against the bill virtually ends any chance for gun legislation to make through Congress this year.

"I now believe it is so dramatically wounded that I would urge my colleagues to vote against it," said Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, the sponsor of the gunmaker immunity bill.

Democrats won close votes on their amendments to change the Republican legislation, a strategy aimed at pressuring the GOP-dominated House to accept the restrictions to gain passage of the gunmaker-immunity bill.

While Democrats won't get the gun ban extension and the gun show legislation, they called the vote a success. Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said, "The immunity bill was a terrible bill. We're better off at the end of the day than we were at the beginning of the day."

Underlining the importance of the day to Democrats, presidential contenders John Kerry (news - web sites) of Massachusetts and John Edwards (news - web sites) of North Carolina broke away from the campaign trail to cast their first Senate votes of the year, joining the 52-47 majority on the assault weapons ban and the 53-46 majority on the gun show bill.

A dozen Republican senators voted for one or both of the provisions, allowing minority Democrats to gain victories on the amendments.

The House last year passed a bill to shield gunmakers and dealers from liability suits by crime victims. But Republican leaders in the House refused to allow a vote on continuing for another decade the assault weapons ban, which is to expire in September.

Democrats had hoped their victories in the Senate on gun shows and assault weapons would force Republicans to let the House also vote on them. But the White House said the two amendments would only kill the effort to immunize the gun industry from lawsuits.

"Some are simply more interested in undermining that piece of legislation than they are in necessarily getting the other legislation passed," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Tuesday.

and the news right before-
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...4&e=2&u=/nm/20040302/ts_nm/congress_guns_dc_6