I enjoy debunking gun control myths.

ASSAULT WEAPONS
“Assault weapon” is an invented term. In the firearm lexicon, there is no such
thing as an “assault weapon”. The closest relative is the “assault rifle”, which is a
machine gun that fires rifle cartridges.1
Myth: “Assault weapons” are a serious problem in the U.S.
Fact: In 1994, before the Federal assault weapons ban, you were eleven (11) times
more likely to be beaten to death than to be killed by an “assault weapon”.2
Fact: Nationally, “assault weapons” were used in 1.4% of crimes involving firearms and
0.25% of all violent crime before the enactment of any national or state “assault
weapons” ban. In many major urban areas (San Antonio, Mobile, Nashville, etc.) and
some entire states (Maryland, New Jersey, etc.) the rate is less than 0.1%3
Fact: Even weapons misclassified as “assault weapons” (common in the Federal and
California assault weapons confiscations) are used in less than 1% of all homicides.4
Fact: Police reports show that “assault weapons” are a non-problem:
For California:
• Los Angeles: In 1998, of 538 documented gun incidents, only one (0.2%)
involved an "assault weapon".
• San Francisco: In 1998, only 2.2% of confiscated weapons were "assault
weapons".
• San Diego: Between 1988 and 1990, only 0.3% of confiscated weapons were
"assault weapons".
• “I surveyed the firearms used in violent crimes...assault-type firearms were
the least of our worries.”5
For the rest of the nation:
• Between 1980 and 1994, only 2% of confiscated guns were "assault
weapons".
• Just over 2% of criminals that used guns used “assault weapons”.
Fact: Only 1.4% of recovered crime weapons are models covered under the 1994
assault weapons ban.6

Fact: In Virginia, no surveyed inmates had carried an assault weapon during the
commission of their last crime, despite 20% admitting that they had previously owned
such weapons.7
Fact: Most “assault weapons” have no more firepower or killing capacity than the
average hunting rifle and “play a small role in overall violent crime”.8
Fact: Even the government agrees. “ . . . the
weapons banned by this legislation [1994 Federal
Assault Weapons ban] were used only rarely in gun
crimes”9
Myth: One out of five police
officers killed are killed with
“assault weapons”10
Fact: This “study” included firearms not on the
Federal “assault weapons” list. Including various
legal firearms11 inflated the statistics almost 100%.
Fact: Only 1% of police officers murdered were killed using “assault weapons”. They
were twice as likely to be killed with their own handgun.12
Myth: Assault weapons are favored by criminals
Fact: Only 8% of criminals use anything that is classified (even incorrectly) as an
assault weapon13, though fewer than 1% claimed to use these firearms when
committing crimes.14
Fact: Criminals are as likely to carry single shot (derringer) handguns than they are to
carry assault weapons.15

Fact: "Assault rifles have never been an issue in law enforcement. I have been on this
job for 25 years and I haven't seen a drug dealer carry one. They are not used in
crimes, they are not used against police officers."16
Fact: "Since police started keeping statistics, we now know that assault weapons
are/were used in an underwhelming 0.026 of 1% of crimes in New Jersey. This means
that my officers are more likely to confront an escaped tiger from the local zoo than to
confront an assault rifle in the hands of a drug-crazed killer on the streets."17
Thoughts: “Assault weapons” are large and unwieldy. Even misclassified handguns
tend to be bigger than practical for concealed carry. Criminals (who incidentally
disregard concealed carry laws) are unlikely to carry assault weapons.
Myth: Assault weapons can be easily converted to
machine guns
Fact: Firearms that can be “readily converted” are already prohibited by law.
Fact: None of the firearms on the list of banned weapons can be readily converted.18
Fact: Only 0.15% of over 4,000 weapons confiscated in Los Angeles in one year were
converted, and only 0.3% had any evidence of an attempt to convert.19
Fact: Recall the Rodney King riots in that anti-gun city of Los Angeles. Every major
news network carried footage of Korean storeowners sitting on the roofs of their stores,
armed with “assault weapons”.20 Those were the stores that did not get burned to the
ground, and those were the people that were not dragged into the street and beaten by
rioters. "You can't get around the image of people shooting at people to protect their
stores and it working. This is damaging to the [gun control] movement."21
Myth: Assault weapons are used in 16% of homicides
Fact: This figure was concocted to promote an “assault weapons” bill in New York. The
classification scheme used encompassed most firearms sold in the U.S. since 1987
(center fire rifles and shotguns holding more than six cartridges, and handguns holding
more than 10 rounds). By misclassifying “assault weapons”, they expanded the scope
of a non-problem.

Myth: The 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban was
effective
Fact: “ . . . we cannot clearly credit the ban
with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun
violence.”22
Fact: The ban covered only 1.39% of the
models of firearms on the market, so the bans
effectiveness is automatically limited.
Fact: "The ban has failed to reduce the
average number of victims per gun murder
incident or multiple gunshot wound victims.”23
Fact: "The public safety benefits of the 1994 ban have not yet been demonstrated.”24
Fact: "The ban triggered speculative price increases and ramped-up production of the
banned firearms”25
Fact: "The ban … ramped-up production of the banned firearms prior to the law's
implementation”26 and thus increased the total supply over the following decade.
Fact: The Brady Campaign claims that “After the 1994 ban, there were 18% fewer
assault weapons traced to crime in the first eight months of 1995 than were traced in
the same period in 1994”. However they failed to note (and these are mentioned in the
NIJ study) that:
1. “Assault weapons” traces were minimal before the ban (due to their infrequent
use in crimes), so an 18% change enters the realm of statistical irrelevancy.
2. Fewer “assault weapons” were available to criminals because collectors boughtup
the available supply before the ban.
Myth: Nobody needs an “assault weapon”
Fact: There are many reasons people prefer to use these firearms:
• They are easy to operate
• They are very reliable in outdoor conditions (backpacking, hunting, etc.)

• They are accurate
• They have value in many self-defense situations
Fact: There are many sports in which these firearms are required:
• Many hunters use these firearms
• Three-gun target matches
• Bodyguard simulations
Fact: Ours is a Bill of Rights, not a Bill of Needs.
http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-fa...4-0-Screen.pdf

Too bad you can't debunk facts.

__________________
"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives." — John Stuart Mill

Is that code for "I can't argue against you Wolverine"?

...debunk myths.

Come on, now. Throw a few more out here for batting practice.

__________________
"Tweeter was a Boyscout before she went to Vietnam and found out the hard way... nobody gives a d@mn."

I am just saying if he exaggerated on the above points with his own comments, I would be glad to debunk his comments. As for debunking myths, I am all for it, thats why I have nothing to say.

__________________
"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives." — John Stuart Mill

Regardless of feelings on the issue, this one is not a myth, unless you define "need" in a very liberal (not politically- I usually use this context of the word to p!$$ off conservatives, but since you're a libertarian I'm just using it because it's the right word) way.
You haven't demonstrated that anyone actually NEEDS an assuault rifle.

__________________
"It's never over... BOY!"
The Tall Man, Phantasm III

An assault rifle is a machine gun firing an intermediate cartridge, that being somewhere between a pistol round, and a rifle round. The term is derived from the German StG. 44, meaning "lighting" or, assault rifle.

As for "AW's",
Protection from domestic and foreign threats.

Its the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Needs. You don't need an "AW" anymore than you need a reason to listen to Jimi Hendrix.

Its all written on the some piece of paper.

If one faced multiple armed attackers who had weapons other than firearms, a so-called assault weapon would definitely be needed. Six bullets wouldn't be enough. As Wolverine pointed out, moreover, the state has no right to disarm people of non-military weapons any more than it has the right to steal a person's home.

__________________
"I am a Tory Anarchist. I should like every one to go about doing just as he pleased- short of altering any of the things to which I have grown accustomed." (Max Beerbohm)

Just a curious question, why would you need an assault rifle?
Why do you want the right to have one, if you don't need it?

Domestic and foreign threats? Overkill for the first one, and absurd for the second.

BTW: the StG 44. is the Sturmgewehr, that translates to "storm" not lightning.

Not if one were dealing with multiple attackers breaking into a home.

__________________
"I am a Tory Anarchist. I should like every one to go about doing just as he pleased- short of altering any of the things to which I have grown accustomed." (Max Beerbohm)