Are so-called "Assault Weapons" a Threat to Police Officers?

dZ

New member
Are so-called "Assault Weapons"
a Threat to Police Officers?
http://i2i.org/SuptDocs/Crime/Are_Assault_Weapons_a_Threat_to_Police.htm
By David B. Kopel

[Originally printed in the Sept./Oct. 1997 of The Law Enforcemen Trainer, the official publication of the American Society for Law Enforcement Training.]

Handgun Control, Inc., would have you believe so, and an article in the Jan-Feb issue of this magazine repeated some of their claims nearly verbatim. But it ain’t necessarily so.

Here are the facts:

In November 1995, Handgun Control, Inc. put out a "study" titled "Cops Under Fire." The study claims that 13% of police officers killed from January 1994 through September 1995 were
shot with "assault weapons." HCI also wrote that in 23% of the homicides, the perpetrator’s gun could use a magazine holding more than ten rounds.

But these statistics appear to have been doctored. Using the FBI’s annual report, Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted, I found several incidents in 1994 (the 1995 edition of the
report hasn’t been produced yet) for which the HCI data was inaccurate: the wrong model gun was listed, and the real gun was not banned by the 1994 federal "assault weapon" law; the
gun was taken from a police officer; or the murder was perpetrated by a police officer against another officer.

The logical implication of HCI’s counting crimes by polices or crimes with guns taken from police is that police officers should not be allowed to own guns with magazines of more than 10
rounds.

For the cases involving a gun which could hold a magazine of more than 10 rounds, HCI did not specify whether the perpetrator’s gun actually did have such a magazine. Nor did HCI
specify how many shots were actually fired. Of the 13 incidents for 1994, the FBI report specifies that more than 10 shots were fired in only once incident.

In truth, so-called "assault weapons" account for a small percentage of police homicides. From 1975 through 1992, there were 1,534 police officers feloniously murdered in the United
States. Over these, 16–slightly over 1 percent–were killed with "assault weapons.".

California was the state of origin for the "assault weapon" hoax. In the spring of 1989, the gun prohibition lobbies convinced the state legislature to enact an "assault weapon" prohibition
by claiming that police officers were being mowed down right and left by "assault weapons" in that state. But according to a study published in the Journal of California Law Enforcement
in 1991, "It is interesting to note, in the current hysteria over semi-automatic and military look-alike weapons, that the most common weapon used to murder police officers was that of the
.38 Special and the .357 Magnum revolver." The Journal found that calibers for military-style shoulder weapons accounted for eight percent of officer fatalities. (Of course not every
fatality involving a such a caliber necessarily involved an "assault weapon.")

Looking at the broader picture of all gun use in crime, it becomes clear that "assault weapons" are a minor part of the problem. Police gun seizure data from around the nation finds that
"assault weapons" account for less than 2% of guns seized by the police; more typically, they account for less than 1%. (Data from 24 major jurisdictions are provided in chapter 4 of my
book Guns: Who Should Have Them?)

According the gun prohibition lobbies, Los Angeles is the "assault weapon" capital of the world, where scores of drive-by shootings every year perpetrated with these evil guns. But a
study in the New England Journal of Medicine investigated the 583 drive-by shootings in Los Angeles in 1991 in which a person under the age of eighteen was shot at. "Use of an assault
weapon was documented in one incident." (H. Range Hutson, Deirdre Anglin, and Michael J. Pratts, "Adolescents and Children Injured or Killed in Drive-By Shootings in Los Angeles,"
New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 330 [1994], p. 326.)

Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Deputy Dwight Van Horn is the firearms examiner for South-Central L.A., the most gang-ridden spot in the United States. "I deal with firearms-identification
experts at departments all over the country," he says, "and I can tell you that the claim that AK-47s or something called an ‘assault weapon’–which is simply a fabricated political and
media term meant to vilify firearms that look like military arms but actually means whatever someone wants it to mean–is widely used by criminals, isn’t true and never has been true."

The most recent research about "assault weapon" use in crimes against civilians and the police is a March 1997 report from the Urban Institute, under contract from the U.S. Department of
Justice. The study looked at data from January 1992 through May 1996. There were 276 officer homicides, of which 20 (seven percent) were verified to have involved an "assault
weapon." In the first half of 1996, there were no "assault weapon" homicides, a fact which some would interpret to suggest that the "assault weapon" ban is working.

On the other hand, there were also no "assault weapon" homicides of police in 1992, a year when there was no federal ban in place.

Indeed, almost half (9 of 20) of the "assault weapon" shootings occurred in 1994. In that year, the ban went into effect in September, but President Clinton and gun prohibition lobby were
generating "assault weapon" publicity throughout the year.

We know that television shows such as Miami Vice pique interest in particular exotic models of firearms. Is it possibility that all the publicity that President Clinton, Attorney General
Reno, and others gave to "assault weapons" in 1994–making wild claims about what great "cop-killer" weapons they were–may have attracted the interest of some potential cop killers?

The Urban Institute report concluded, "In sum, police officers are rarely murdered with assault weapons." The study noted that "assault weapons" were more likely to be used in murders
of police officers than in other murders, but not have sufficient information to conclude why this was so. ("Cop-killer" publicity is certainly one possibility.)

The study said that it was possible, but not proven, that the Clinton gun ban might affect the proportion of "assault weapons" used in police homicides. The study did not attempt to
investigate whether any possible shift from "assault weapons" to other guns had resulted in fewer law enforcement deaths.

If "assault weapon" bans did work, it is unlikely that police or the public would be safer. The federal "assault weapon" law does not define "assault weapons" based on rate of fire,
velocity, bullet weight, or any other measure of lethality. Rather the ban is based on cosmetic features, such as whether the gun has a bayonet lug, or whether the a rifle’s pistol grip
protrudes "conspicuously."

If criminals were bayoneting police officers, banning bayonet-capable guns might have some impact. But an aesthetic exercise like the federal "assault weapon" ban is unlikely to make a real
difference on the streets.

More fundamentally, the fact that some criminals use a particular type of gun against the police is no justification for banning the possession of that gun by law-abiding citizens. In contrast
to "assault weapons," handguns really are used in many attacks against police. But the misuse of handguns by criminals is no reason to disarm the 99% of handgun owners who are
law-abiding–any more than the occasional misuse of guns by criminal police officers is a reason to disarm law-abiding police.
 
Okay lets get this straight. Most of the gun laws that came in to place since Klintokov became the chief, were designed to serve him or his re-election. People were gullible enough to vote for him the second time, they were convinced that he was telling the truth about guns and crime.

To a dear old grannie, a black, assault type firearm is frightning, irrespective of whether it is automatic, semi automatic, or has a "high capacity magazine".
Now if you ask her , she will question you why some one who goes hunting, needs a weapon with all these "assault" features.
So there is a mindset if you will, that is of the opinion that we dont "need" these type of weapons.
Once this mindset has been established, those in power can manipulate this to their advantage.Truth and Facts be Damned!
Do any of us TFL members truly believe that these gun laws are for our benefit...No!we dont! But there are a lot of hardcore liberals, and fence sitters out there who support the chief's view. The media is a pawn which can be manipulated by those in power, and so we have a nexus.
The media must report unbiased facts, and the truth not its view or editorial.
These laws were was nevermade in order to curb crime!
Anand
 
The mis-use of any item; car, bat, knife, firearm is a threat to everyone, not just LEOs. No suprise here. Passing a law can not prevent anything. It can only spell out an act (robbery/murder) and set a punishment (jail).As long as "spin"(define, is) and "feel good"(for the childern) replaces the hard answers we need,HCI and the media will tell the sheeple this kind of "facts" BS. What sheeple wants to admit that they are the problem?

------------------
Be careful what you ask for..You may get it.
An unloaded pistol is a paperweight.
 
First of all I think an assault weapon is anything you attack me with. That said I have been an LEO for over eleven years and I have yet to take an "assault" weapon from a BG.
 
Im with MRAT although I certainly apprecitate breaking down for the less than update among us on the HCI concept, to me this question is like asking 'are guns a threat to police offcers'.
I would think many officers that serve in area's of HIGH legal gun ownership are quite happy about the low murder rates and the fact that their not the only ones that can shoot back at gangbangers.
In area's of very high crime some of us have
seen where honest police officers either get picked off by their own dirty partners or outgunned by gangbangers because the badguys know none of the disarmed citizens will stick out their necks when theyve accepted
their place of subjects.
Just my .50 though.

------------------
"those who sacrifice
liberty for security deserve neither"
 
Honest officers picked off by their dirty partners? Where on earth do you come up with that one? Seriously, I am noticing a very disturbing trend. We are seeing more rifles in the hands of criminals, mostly gangbangers. These are almost invariably SKS's, a couple of MAK's, and in one incident, a Mini-14. We have had 5 officers killed in the central Texas region this year by "Assault Rifles". One case was a planned ambush in retaliation for a domestic violence arrest, another was a simple traffic stop. That's five out of 7 officers killed this year so far. Non-fatality incidents involving these weapons are to many to count. Why is this? I believe it's the media. the news is so awash in stories about "The weapon of choice" that I think a sort of fad has begun. You're not anyone on the street without an "assault Rifle" It has become common to confiscate them. Even worse, most of them come from the local gun shows.
 
One of the Central Texas shootings, the traffic stop on the elderly man, wasn't the weapon a Garand? Not an assault weapon by definition, is it? No detachable mag, no pistol grip, etc. Not that a Garand won't kill you, but the socialists made up the defintion, let's make them live with it. Under they way assault weapon is defined, it is mostly a cosmetic difference, so the only way they are an extra threat is if they hurt a Peace Officer's feelings, or frighten him with the evil aura of black plastic!
 
Enfield your right I forgot if you wear blue your beyond corruption.
But your also right its been a while
like since the LA scandle where youve had clean (or desperate) officers turning in their partners for their very illegal and murderous actions.
Yes enfield we need to close the gunshow loophole so next time you guys 'find' one that was used in a crime you can stop by the orginal owners house and 'ask' him to come in for questioning.

The scariest thing to me about a gun being stolen isnt having to replace it,its when he runs out of ammo and ditches it and the police come to me to ask me why *I* committed a crime with that gun.
Wish I could think of a time in TN that any officers have ever been shot by any of these
'assault weapons' to support your point we sell those more dangerous guns here all the time.
Course it seems the few times when automatic fire of any sort is heard aroud here that the police seem to take even longer to get to the scene.Not saying this is the case in other areas!
But its hard not to laugh when you see the ambulance get their before the police do.


------------------
"those who sacrifice
liberty for security deserve neither"
 
this Kopel Article is good too: http://www.i2i.org/SuptDocs/Crime/rational.htm

Rational Basis Analysis of
"Assault Weapon" Prohibition

David B. Kopel [*]

I. Introduction

One evening, a gang brawl broke out in the street next to the northwest Denver home of a young woman named Sharon Deatherage. A police car happened upon the scene, and sped away
without taking any action, never to return. As a result of this experience, the young woman, who lived alone, decided that she would have to take measures to protect herself because she
could not rely on the Denver City government for protection. Because of an injury to her wrist, she was unable to use a handgun. At the suggestion of a firearms instructor, she bought an
M-1 carbine, which is a relatively small, low-powered semiautomatic rifle, and which has been commercially available for nearly half a century. [1] Not long after she bought the weapon,
the City of Denver turned Ms. Deatherage into a criminal by declaring her M-1 carbine and its attached 30-round ammunition magazine an illegal "assault weapon."

Three states--California, [2] New Jersey, [3] and Connecticut [4] --have enacted "assault weapon" prohibitions, as have over two dozen cities or counties. [5] At the federal level, the
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms has used its authority over the import of "non-sporting" weapons to impose a 1989 import ban on certain rifles, and a 1993 import ban on certain
pistols. In August 1994 Congress enacted a comprehensive federal "assault weapon" prohibition. The Congressional *382 prohibition is the "Feinstein Amendment," which outlaws 184
"assault weapons." [6]

Scholarly legal analysis of the "assault weapon" issue consistently puts "assault weapon" prohibition in the context of "gun control." Scholars have asked whether outlawing "assault
weapons" would violate either the right to arms guarantee of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, [7] a state constitutional right to arms, [8] or the militia clauses of
the United States Constitution. [9] Although such scholarship has been valuable, this Article suggests that the first, and perhaps dispositive, question in analyzing "assault weapon"
prohibition is whether such legislation passes the rational basis test.

Employing the rational basis test, before analyzing the of right to bear arms provisions, is useful for several reasons. For example, the Second Amendment is of limited use in analyzing
prohibitions enacted by states or subdivisions of states. Despite some recent Supreme Court dicta suggesting that the individual right to keep and bear arms is incorporated in the
Fourteenth Amendment, [10] federal courts have been unwilling to apply the Second Amendment to non-federal action. [11] Further, forty-three states have their own state constitutional
right to bear arms. In all of these states, except Massachusetts, the right is considered to inhere in individuals, rather than the state government. [12] But seven states, including California
and New Jersey, do not *383 have a state constitutional right to bear arms. And even in states that do have a constitutional right, right to arms jurisprudence is not as fully developed as,
for example, free speech or search and seizure jurisprudence. Thus, use of a right to arms guarantee to test the Constitutionality of "assault weapon" prohibition will involve the judiciary
analyzing a Constitutional right with which many judges have little prior professional experience. In contrast, almost every judge with Constitutional law experience will have some
familiarity with a rational basis analysis. To the extent that a right to bear arms analysis does become necessary, analysis of "assault weapon" prohibition under the rational basis test can
help clarify the issues relevant to the right to arms.

This Article begins in Part II, with a brief summary of rational basis jurisprudence. Next, Part III applies the rational basis test to various characteristics that are said to distinguish "assault
weapons" from other firearms. These characteristics include the weapons' rate of fire, ammunition capacity, ammunition lethality, design history, and the presence of features such as a
folding stock and a barrel thread for a muzzle brake, or a bayonet lug. In Part IV, the article examines another basis for treating "assault weapons" differently from other weapons--the
frequency with which "assault weapons" are used in crime. Finally, this Article discusses the rationality of a prohibition on firearms based on their suitability for sports.
 
Ruger, I have never heard of a honest cop bieng killed (Picked off) by a dirty partner outside of the movies. Corrupt cops however, get burned all the time, it's nothing new, and I have never denied it. Just once I'd like to see this "Blue wall" everyone is always talking about. Jack, I've never heard of a shooting with a Garand. The shooting I have in mind happened on IH35 to Randy Vetter. Weapon in question was a Mini-14, the fatal wound was a 55 gr FMJ to the left eye exiting out the left rear of his skull. the original question was if "Assault weapons" are a threat to law enforcement. Yes, they are, just like any other weapon, or DWI's for that matter. My main concern is that they have become the thing to have because of all the media attention. I'm not advocating closing any sort of loophole or any other gun control nonsense. Please read my post again. Officers die from them, and they come from gunshows. You might not like it, but it's still true. It would be nice if they just shot other criminals with them, but they do not. they're just a big a threat to the public at large as they are to police offricers.
 
Thank god some of the pulic at large are as well armed as these thugs you say go to pulic gunshow to arm their gangs.
More importantly that the public at large
be as well armed as those men with a
BAD
ATTitude
Towrd
Freedom.

I hear about way more civillians assiting police in shootouts than such ones without records use them against police.
Whats it matter even if the thugs with such weapons are caught 1 in a million might be executed.
Last week in TN a man fired through a door at another man hitting a baby and a woman in the arm.The baby died and the woman was injured.AS of yet no ones even been arrested.
LEO's that want a monopoly on any sort of weapon may as well be called BATF.
www.ccops.org
 
Did I say anything about a police state? did I mention anything about BATF? Did I, mention with even the slightest hint, that I wanted firearms banned or restricted? It seems that no matter what the subject, some folks insist on turning it into an excuse to slam police. Don't like cops? Fine. Do you folks have to mention it in just about EVERY thread?.
 
Objects are not threats. People are threats.

If one guy can blow up a whole building in Oklahoma City with a van full of fertilizer and diesel mixture, should we shut down garden centers and truck stops? Ridiculous. The powers that be need to quit trying to blame inanimate objects and start dealing with people.
 
enfieldj, sorry man, you are right, I looked up the story and it was a mini-14. Though I would still say that the only way an "assault weapon" is any more of a threat is psychologically. Most of these shootings could easily have been done with an old surplus bolt action (an enfield, perhaps).

[This message has been edited by Jack M (edited October 13, 2000).]
 
Back during the 1994 AW debate, I contacted the head of the Wisconsin State Crime lab to find out how many of these "evil" guns were involved in crimes. Of the roughly 1200 murders committed from 1998 to 1994, there was one involving an AK47. Would the anti's be happier if it were a Remington 7400 in 30-06 that was used? It is arguably a "nicer" looking rifle. I hate the fact that even we, as gun owners, have accepted the term "assault weapon." Control the language, control the debate.

Dick
Want to send a message to Bush? Sign the petition at http://www.petitiononline.com/monk/petition.html and forward the link to every gun owner you know.
 
*386 III. Inconsistent: Prohibition Based on
the Characteristics of "Assault Weapons"

"Assault weapons" are said by gun prohibition advocates to possess certain unique features which render them far more dangerous than other firearms. This Part examines each of the various
physical characteristics said to be unique to "assault weapons," and analyzes whether any of them creates a classification that can survive meaningful rational basis scrutiny.

At this point, it should be stated that this Article will not discuss assault rifles. As the United States Defense Department's Defense Intelligence Agency book Small Arms Identification and
Operation Guide explains, "assault rifles" are "short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachine gun and rifle cartridges." [21] In other
words, assault rifles are battlefield rifles which can fire automatically. [22]

Weapons capable of fully automatic fire, including assault rifles, have been regulated heavily in the United States since the National Firearms Act of 1934. [23] Taking possession of such
weapons requires paying a $200 federal transfer tax and submitting to an FBI background check, including ten-print fingerprints. [24]

Many civilians have purchased semiautomatic-only rifles that look like military assault rifles. These civilian rifles are, unlike actual assault rifles, incapable of automatic fire. For example, the
AK-47 is an assault rifle formerly used by the Russian military, which now uses the AKM-74. Only a few hundred AK-47 firearms have been imported into the United States. On the other
hand, tens of thousands of AKS *387 firearms (a Chinese semiautomatic rifle which looks like the AK-47, but cannot fire automatically) have been imported into the United States and sold to
civilians. [25] Similarly, the semiautomatic Colt Sporter rifle, of which tens of thousands have been sold, looks like the automatic U.S. Army M-16 assault rifle. "Assault weapon" legislation
involves semiautomatic firearms, like the AKS and the Colt Sporter, but not automatic firearms, like the AK-47 or the M-16.

Other firearms manufacturers produce guns that do not look like an assault rifle, but that have a military appearance that some people find repugnant. Such guns typically have black plastic
components, in contrast to the brown wood components found on more familiar firearms. The Calico M-900 carbine is an example of a gun which, although not related in design to any
military firearm, has a military appearance. The TEC-9 handgun, not resembling a military gun, also has futuristic styling. Guns such as the Calico and the TEC-9 with futuristic styling are
also singled out for prohibition by "assault weapon" legislation.

While the Defense Intelligence Agency's term of art "assault rifle" has a precise and technical meaning, the phrase "assault weapon" has a less certain meaning. No "assault rifle" (by Defense
Intelligence Agency definition) is an "assault weapon" because all "assault rifles" are automatic, while no "assault weapons" are automatic. [26] "Assault rifles" are used by the military,
whereas no "assault weapon" is used by the military. [27] "Assault rifles" are all rifles, but "assault weapons" include semiautomatic rifles, semiautomatic shotguns, revolver-action shotguns,
semiautomatic handguns, and semiautomatic airguns.

Not surprisingly, attempted legislative definitions of "assault weapons" have varied widely. Some definitions are simply a list of guns. [28] Other definitions may involve a set of various
characteristics. Still others may involve a list and a set of characteristics. [29] The discussion below examines the various purported characteristics of *388 "assault weapons." [30]

A. Rate of Fire

Foremost among the features which are said to make "assault weapons" different from other firearms is their "high rate of fire." [31] If "assault weapons" were actually automatic firearms,
such as machine guns, then the claim would clearly be true. With an automatic weapon, if the shooter squeezes and holds the trigger, bullets will fire automatically and rapidly until the trigger
is released.

Semiautomatic firearms, however, are by definition not automatic. With a semiautomatic, pressing the trigger fires one, and only one bullet. [32] To fire another bullet, the shooter must release
the trigger, and then press it again. Thus, a semiautomatic can shoot only as fast as a person can squeeze the trigger. So, although gun prohibition advocates sometimes use the catch-phrase
"spray-fire," a semiautomatic firearm, unlike a machine gun, cannot "spray fire," because the shooter must press the trigger for each shot.

The "semi" in "semiautomatic" comes from the fact that the energy created by the explosion of gunpowder, used to force the bullet down the barrel, is diverted away from the shooter. The
energy is directed forward, and is used to reload the next cartridge into the firing chamber. Thus, in semiautomatic action firearms the shooter does not need to perform an additional step, such
as cocking a lever ("lever action") or operating a slide ("slide action"), in order to load the next round. Although a semiautomatic firearm does not require a separate *389 step to load the next
round into the firing chamber, the semiautomatic is not unique in this regard. In a revolver or a double-barreled shotgun or rifle, the shooter can also fire the next shot as fast he can squeeze the
trigger.

How does the actual rate of fire of a semiautomatic compare to the rate of other guns? The Winchester Model 12 pump action shotgun can fire six "00 buckshot" shells, each containing twelve
.33 caliber pellets, in three seconds. Each of the pellets is larger than the bullet fired by an AKS. In other words, the Winchester Model 12 pump action shotgun can, in three seconds, unleash
seventy-two separate projectiles, each capable of causing injury or death. The Remington Model 1100 shotgun (which is a common duck-hunting gun) fires semiautomatically and is not
usually labeled an "assault weapon." It can unleash the same seventy-two projectiles in 2.5 seconds. In contrast, an AKS would take about a minute to fire forty aimed shots, or perhaps twice
that many without aiming and the AKS rounds would be slightly smaller than the pellets from the Winchester or Remington. [33] Similarly, an old-fashioned .357 revolver can fire six shots in
as little as two seconds.

If one tests a firearm under highly artificial conditions--such as bolting the gun to heavy platform and squeezing the trigger by jerking one's arm back and forth--a semiautomatic will "cycle"
slightly faster than other firearms. But the only meaningful rate of fire for a weapon is how fast a person, shooting at actual targets, can hit those targets. In terms of actually hitting a target, a
study conducted by the United States Navy Seals is revealing. According to the Navy study, at close *390 range, a bolt-action gun [34] cycles only one-tenth of a second slower than a
semiautomatic; at longer ranges, the cyclic rate is the same for both types of guns. The Navy studies also confirmed something that most gun-owners understand--but something which
persons whose familiarity with weapons is limited to "Rambo" movies do not--shooters who fire without aiming virtually never hit their target. It is nearly impossible for even trained
shooters to fire on target at much faster than one shot per second. [35]

Because, under highly artificial conditions, a semiautomatic can be shown to fire slightly faster than other guns, a prohibition of all semiautomatics might pass a lenient version of the rational
basis test. Under this test, any distinction, no matter how slight or meaningless, would be held sufficient. Most "assault weapon" legislation, however, cannot clear even this low hurdle, at
least in regard to rate of fire. The legislation almost always bans some, but not all, semiautomatics. All semiautomatics have one of three types of action design--recoil-operated, blowback, or
gas operated [36] --and the guns typically selected for prohibition are not exclusively of one type or another. Thus, some semiautomatics are prohibited because of their alleged high rate of
fire, while other semiautomatics, with an identical rate of fire, are not prohibited. Accordingly, "rate of fire," standing alone, provides no more than a shred of a rational basis for prohibiting all
semiautomatics, and provides no rational basis at all for banning only some semiautomatics.
http://www.i2i.org/SuptDocs/Crime/rational.htm
 
Back
Top