Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

DC Sniper Anniversary Brings Call for More Gun Control
CNS New Service ^ | 10-02-03

Posted on 10/03/2003 7:04:39 AM PDT by Brian S

DC Sniper Anniversary Brings Call for More Gun Control
By Jeff Johnson
CNSNews.com Congressional Bureau Chief
October 02, 2003

Capitol Hill (CNSNews.com) - Gun control activists seized on the first anniversary of the Washington, D.C., sniper shootings a day early Wednesday to press their call for expanding restrictions on the Second Amendment right of American citizens to keep and bear arms. Gun rights advocates said Thursday that no one should be surprised by the exploitation of a tragedy.

click to enlargeSpeaking about the sniper shootings Wednesday, Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.) became so angry over the prospect that Congress might not extend a ban on military-looking semi-automatic rifles, commonly referred to by the misnomer "assault weapons," that she was almost yelling.

"Now we've been to memorials, we've been to candlelight ceremonies, we've prayed, we sang hymns, we said we would never forget these victims," Mikulski said, "and I'll tell you how we'll never forget them: We've got to pass this assault weapons ban."

Erich Pratt, communications director for Gun Owners of America, has a question for Mikulski:

"What gun control law would have stopped the sniper shootings from occurring?" Pratt asked. "The snipers have admitted that they stole the firearm they used from a gun store, so what gun control would have stopped them from getting that firearm?"

Pratt suggested that Mikulski also remember those who have used the weapons now banned by the 1994 law to defend themselves in the past.

"Many of the merchants in the riots in Los Angeles were photographed atop their buildings with these semi-automatic firearms, which eventually were banned at the federal level," Pratt recalled. "It's interesting that it was their stores, the Korean merchants who were using these firearms to defend their stores, theirs are the stores that did not burn during the riots even while many stores around them, that were left unprotected, were burned."

According to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports for 2001, the most recent year with complete data available online, criminals used firearms in the commission of a murder, robbery or aggravated assault in about 376,000 of the 1.4 million violent crimes committed. Conversely, research by an American Enterprise Institute resident scholar, Dr. John Lott, shows that firearms are used to stop or prevent crimes in the United States more than two million times a year.

McCarthy admits laws don't stop criminals from getting guns

The husband of Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) was murdered and her son was seriously wounded in 1993 by a criminal armed with a gun. She, too, believes those in Congress who support full Second Amendment rights are misguided.

"Here we are, 10 years later - 10 years later - still trying to, at least, keep the assault weapons ban, but to improve on it," McCarthy said. "What are these people thinking? What are they thinking? You know, if you want an assault weapons [sic], go join the Army. I mean, why do we need these on the street?"

Pratt told CNSNews.com that McCarthy's remarks reveal the subtle but, he believes, intentional attempt to mislead the public.

"Here's the big misnomer: She calls these 'assault weapons' and equates these guns with the kind that the military are using, but the guns that Congress banned in 1994 are owned by no military upon the earth. These are not military assault weapons," Pratt explained. "These are semi-automatic firearms. You pull the trigger once, and one bullet comes out of the barrel.

"That is such a farce for the congresswoman to refer to these guns as military assault weapons; they're not," Pratt continued. "In fact, most of the guns that were banned have far less firepower than your average shotgun."

McCarthy admitted that the government cannot stop all criminals from getting guns. "No, we can't, and I'm sorry to say that we can't."

Based on that admission, Pratt wondered, why McCarthy supports the ban.

"Obviously, the only people it will affect, then, are good folks," Pratt argued. "That's the only type of person that gets affected by legislation like this. The bad guys, they don't go through the background checks, and they still manage to get firearms."

But McCarthy dismissed the concerns of law-abiding gun owners who believe their freedoms are curtailed by such bans.

"I will say to people that want to own guns: You're still going to be able to go duck shooting, you're still going to be able to go turkey shooting in November," McCarthy said. "Let's be reasonable about this. These guns don't belong on the streets of America and, if you're going to have these guns on the streets of America, not only for the criminals to get them, but you're going to allow terrorists to get them, too."

Pratt scoffed at McCarthy's implication.

"Banning these firearms is not going to stop criminals or terrorists from getting them. No gun ban stops bad guys from getting guns," Pratt argued. "That's the experience that England has had. With a virtually complete ban on an island, they have still not been able to stop criminals from getting guns. In fact, they have a worse problem now than they did before the ban."

Pratt also objected to McCarthy's implication that the rights recognized in the Second Amendment apply only to hunting.

"It's not about duck hunting. It's about freedom. It's about the ability to defend yourself," Pratt added. "These guys just don't know what they're talking about."

Anti-gun lawmakers, groups accused of 'playing games with statistics'

Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) - quoting from Officer Down, a report by the anti-gun Violence Policy Center (VPC) - alleged that a significant number of law enforcement officers are murdered each year with so-called assault weapons.

click to enlarge"According to analysis of FBI data, one in five law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty from 1998 to 2001 was killed with an assault weapon," Lautenberg claimed. "It's a dangerous job by itself, but when the criminals possess assault weapons, it places our police at further risk."

Kevin Watson, spokesman for the Law Enforcement Alliance of America, was holding a copy of the report when he talked with CNSNews.com.

"The Violence Policy Center report is 100 percent deceptive, if not factually incorrect," Watson argued. "It's very obvious they're playing games with statistics."

Watson pointed out that the VPC report has headings to list the manufacturer, model and caliber of weapon used in the murder of 41 law enforcement officers, as well as the state in which they were killed, from 1998 through 2001. But in almost a third of those cases, the FBI was unable to determine even the weapon's manufacturer, much less whether or not the specific model used was banned by the 1994 law.

"What [the VPC is] using is, any gun in that caliber," Watson charged. "So this notion that these Officer Down statistics are in any way related to renewing the Clinton gun and magazine ban is absolutely false."

The VPC report, Watson believes, also misses the broader implications of criminals using firearms against law enforcement officers.

"They can make whatever distorted claims they want," Watson added, "but 100 percent of officers killed in the line of duty with firearms are killed by criminals," Watson added. "And it's policy that goes after criminals and puts these people behind bars that saves lives, not locking up the guns, which only has an impact on law-abiding gun owners."

Rep. James Langevin (D-R.I.) was a 16-year-old law enforcement cadet when a police officer accidentally shot him in the neck, paralyzing him. He believes FBI statistics show the 1994 ban reduced the frequency with which criminals used the banned weapons.

"In 1995, the FBI reported that trace requests for assault weapons declined 20 percent only one year after enactment of the ban," Langevin noted. "Since enactment, criminals are using these guns less frequently, and that means lives are saved."

But Pratt pointed out that inquiries by local, state or federal law enforcement agencies to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to determine the identity of the dealer who sold a particular firearm, called "trace requests," are not necessarily related to violent crimes.

"Trace requests have nothing to do with how often a gun is used in a crime," Pratt said. "In fact, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) did a study to actually determine how many so-called assault weapons were being used in crimes, and the figure was less than 2 percent. That is the real figure. This whole issue of trace requests appears to be smoke and mirrors."

The lawmakers all support the Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2003 (H.R. 2038), which would expand the list of firearms covered by the ban to include hundreds more semi-automatics, including many of those owned for sport shooting, hunting and self-defense by millions of Americans.

Pratt reiterated an earlier point.

"These bad guys don't abide by the laws. They're criminals, they're murderers, and so, they steal their guns, they use fake IDs to buy their guns," Pratt explained.

That BJS report supports Pratt's claim. According to the federal agency's research, only 2 percent of criminals obtained their guns through gun shows or flea markets, while an additional 12 percent purchased their guns at retail outlets or pawnshops. But an overwhelming 80 percent obtained their guns from friends, family members, a "street buy" or through an illegal transaction.

"It's a ridiculous notion to think that by passing more laws, a criminal who has already broken 15 or 20 laws in illegally acquiring a firearm and illegally using a firearm to commit a crime that, all of a sudden, he's going to obey the 21st or 22nd law," Pratt concluded. "It's just ridiculous."


TOPICS: Front Page News; Government; US: District of Columbia; US: Maryland; US: Virginia
KEYWORDS: anniversary; bang; banglist; dcsniper; goa; mikulski
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-56 next last
To: from occupied ga
Make no mistake, These people aren't misguided. They aren't "concerned about the children." They don't think that the 2nd A pertains to duck hunting. They know full well that the right to keep and bear arms is the final constitutional protection against tyranny, and they willingly and knowingly wish to destry it. They will not rest until we are dead, they are dead, or we are totally enslaved.

And the country is one Democratic president away from exactly what you describe.

21 posted on 10/03/2003 8:55:43 AM PDT by Euro-American Scum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Euro-American Scum
the country is one Democratic president away from exactly what you describe.

Or 5 RINO's.

22 posted on 10/03/2003 8:59:13 AM PDT by freeeee (Control freaks unite and pass more laws so we can all be free!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Euro-American Scum
And the country is one Democratic president away from exactly what you describe.

Since Bush has pledged to sign the expanded Swineslime ban, I don't think that the Republicans are exactly stand up guys on this either.

23 posted on 10/03/2003 9:07:20 AM PDT by from occupied ga (Your government is your most dangerous enemy, and Bush is no conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: mbynack; Brian S; *bang_list; All
They went to an area with the most stringint gun controls in the country - where private ownership of firearms is virtually prohibited-

!@#@#%^%%^$!!!!!!

I AM SICK OF WELL MEANING BUT IGNORANT PRO-GUN ACTIVISTS USING THIS FALSE ARGUEMENT. PLEASE STOP.

Mohammed and Malvo committed precisely one murder in the District of Columbia. That murder was committed very close to the Maryland border; they may well have thought they were in Maryland. They may also have not cared. In either case, the Washington DC gun ban was completely irrelevant.

They committed approximately 60% of their murders in Maryland, a state with obnoxious gun laws. However, New York, New Jersey, Massachussetts, Illinois, and California (for a start) have far worse laws. Firearms are not virtually prohibited in Maryland.

Virginia, the site of the rest of Mohammad and Malvo's murders, has: No list of "banned" guns, shall issue concealed carry, and a regularly executed death penalty.

If Mohammad and Malvo were seeking an area with severe gun control laws, they would have committed their murders in Washington DC, or New York, or Boston, or Chicago, or Los Angeles; someplace other than Virginia or even Maryland.

I live in Fairfax County, VA. I frequently travel to Montgomery County, MD. I am very familiar with the gun laws in this area; I have to try to comply with them.

Please, try to keep your facts straight.

Thank you.

-Bustard

24 posted on 10/03/2003 9:13:21 AM PDT by ArrogantBustard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: from occupied ga
Bush has pledged to sign the expanded Swineslime ban

I thought he had only pledged to renew the current ban. Have you heard different?

25 posted on 10/03/2003 9:25:51 AM PDT by freeeee (Control freaks unite and pass more laws so we can all be free!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Brian S
Sen Frank points to an evil assault weapon and says: "Look it's got a handle. We can't have any of that. It's too dangerous!"

moron...

26 posted on 10/03/2003 9:35:42 AM PDT by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brian S
My Republican congressman, Mark Kirk of Illinois recently sent me a letter stating that he supports the so-called "Assault" weapons ban. He compared "Assault" weapons to nuclear bombs.

My Republican senator, Peter Fitzgerald of Illinois recently sent me a letter stating that he supports the so-called "Assault" weapons ban.

27 posted on 10/03/2003 9:47:52 AM PDT by Mini-14
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ArrogantBustard
I AM SICK OF WELL MEANING BUT IGNORANT PRO-GUN ACTIVISTS USING THIS FALSE ARGUEMENT. PLEASE STOP.

A tad touchy today aren't we?

The fact that they were called the "Washington DC" snipers led to my comments about the gun laws. I'm sure that the local gun laws had nothing to do with the choice of the area to commit the crimes as these two had no regard for any laws.

28 posted on 10/03/2003 10:26:29 AM PDT by mbynack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Gritty
I choose Door #2 as well.
29 posted on 10/03/2003 10:33:31 AM PDT by AK2KX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Brian S
"I will say to people that want to own guns: You're still going to be able to go duck shooting, you're still going to be able to go turkey shooting in November," McCarthy said. "Let's be reasonable about this. These guns don't belong on the streets of America and, if you're going to have these guns on the streets of America, not only for the criminals to get them, but you're going to allow terrorists to get them, too."

Oh? The "Washinton sniper" killings could have been committed in exactly the same manner if the shooter had chosen a single-shot muzzle-loading black-powder rifle.

30 posted on 10/03/2003 10:39:11 AM PDT by Oztrich Boy (tag under renovation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mbynack
The fact that they were called the "Washington DC" snipers

Is further evidence that the national news media is composed of idiots. But we already knew that...

"Touchy"??? This time last year, I was looking over my shoulder everywhere I went, wondering where (that|those) rat bastard[s]1 were going to strike next, and watching that arsehole Moose gibber on my local TV news. It was more than a little disconcerting to know that I was in the middle of a situation where my concealed weapon wasn't going to do much good.

I'm sure that the local gun laws had nothing to do with the choice of the area to commit the crimes as these two had no regard for any laws.

I agree. Unfortunately, too many pro-gun activists who don't know the laws in the area try to draw some sort of connection between the misdeeds of those two oh-so-clever psychopaths and the WashDC gun ban. It's a non sequitur and it makes us look silly. I'm completely opposed to any gun control laws. That pair certainly broke their share of laws, but it's not like they went looking for "gun control heaven"; they had other motivations.

1) Back then we didn't know how many of "them" there were; I suspected two or three.

31 posted on 10/03/2003 10:46:18 AM PDT by ArrogantBustard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Oztrich Boy
I was more than a little surprised to learn that they were using a Stoner/AR pattern rifle. A scoped bolt action would have seemed more appropriate.
32 posted on 10/03/2003 10:49:46 AM PDT by ArrogantBustard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Oztrich Boy
Oh? The "Washinton sniper" killings could have been committed in exactly the same manner if the shooter had chosen a single-shot muzzle-loading black-powder rifle.

Yeah, but that huge cloud of white smoke would have probably been a tip-off to where the shot came from.

And these guys were Muslims, not Amish... ;)

33 posted on 10/03/2003 10:55:00 AM PDT by Kenton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: ArrogantBustard
I was trying to make the point that these guys had a total disregard for the laws but I didn't communicate my thoughts very well. Sometimes I forget that the rest you can't hear the little voices in my head.

While we're on the subject of the press - I wish they would quit referring to these two murderers as "snipers" and just call them homicidal Islamic terrorists.

34 posted on 10/03/2003 11:17:42 AM PDT by mbynack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Mini-14
You have some work to do, Mini. Go get their minds right on this.
35 posted on 10/03/2003 11:30:25 AM PDT by Badray (Molon Labe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: mbynack
little voices in my head.

Tinfoil, my friend. Tinfoil. Shiny side out. Works every time.

Homicidal Islamic terrorists is indeed the correct term for Mohammad and Malvo. Defendants is also a correct term for them ... and if they are indeed convicted in Virginia, they will almost certainly be sentenced to die by lethal injection. Trial should start in a month or three.

36 posted on 10/03/2003 11:50:52 AM PDT by ArrogantBustard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Badray
You have some work to do, Mini. Go get their minds right on this.

I have bombarded them with letters. These people are hopeless, and need to be voted out of office. Unfortunately, I am in the Peoples Democratic Socialist Republik of Illinois where "Republicans" are to the left of Southern Democrats.

37 posted on 10/03/2003 12:31:57 PM PDT by Mini-14
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Brian S
These gun control toads will use any occasion to call for more gun control.
38 posted on 10/03/2003 12:42:48 PM PDT by white trash redneck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: from occupied ga
Since Bush has pledged to sign the expanded Swineslime ban, I don't think that the Republicans are exactly stand up guys on this either.

Got to agree with you there. GWB is too busy sucking up to the Mexican government, offshoring every job in this country worth having, and trying to out-compassion the Dems.

Think I'll buy another gun today.

39 posted on 10/03/2003 1:32:24 PM PDT by Euro-American Scum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Euro-American Scum
Think I'll buy another gun today.

You can't go wrong, investing in strategic metals!

40 posted on 10/03/2003 7:25:43 PM PDT by Travis McGee (----- www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com -----)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-56 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson