[coloradan]

To get around the fact that "assault weapons" are rarely used by criminals, the VPC is now claiming that from 1998 through 2001 "one in five law enforcement officers slain in the line of duty was killed with an assault weapon." This estimate is padded by the inclusion of weapons that Congress does not define as "assault weapons" but that the VPC does. In any case, it indicates that the vast majority of cop killers use guns that no one considers to be "assault weapons."

Many cops are killed by their own guns, when criminals get ahold of them in a scuffle. To be sure, cops carry "assault weapons" but to twist the fact that cops sometimes lose their own guns in scuffles, and have superior firearms rights/powers than we citizens, into a call to further restrict such firearms to we citizens, is despicable - in other words, just what we would expect from the VPC.

[chudogg]

Well it says that the VPC modified the Congress's definition of "Assualt weapon" to suit their own purposes. What if instead of using congress's defintion of "Assualt weapons" as containing multiple cosmetic features, and instead used only one of those cosmetic features, such as pistol grips, and in their view, all weapons with pistol grips became assualt weapons. Does an "assault weapon" have to be a rifle? Or can the VPC claim that a handgun is an assualt weapon because it has a pistol grip, thus explaining the inflated statisitic.

[Tahoe3002]

"Assault" can be committed with the hands, feet, tennis rackets, rocks, knives, gasoline, flintlock rifles, or anything else. An "assault weapon" can be anything if you use it to settle a dispute with your neighbor. The AW ban is all about incremental control of the populace. Our "leaders" are seeking their own security by having an unarmed populace. Guess what: not as long as I breathe.