Friday, January 25, 2013

OT: Senator Feinstein is an idiot.

Obvious disclaimer: I support the 2nd Amendment.

Senator Feinstein, the asshat person behind the revised "Assault Weapons Ban of 2013," is a complete moron when it comes to firearms. Banning a firearm is in direct contravention of the Constitution, but obviously she's not concerned with the Constitution. Even though she swore to "uphold and defend the Constitution" upon taking her seat to represent the people of California.

I've taken to Twitter (@mbull) because, well, why not? I can't email her, she's not my legislator. But suffice to say, I've done more tweets to her recently than generic tweets. Mainly these tweets are to poke holes in her thought process, because her and her staff routinely misinterpret statistics and bend facts to fit their argument, because they know that most people won't look at the reports or raw data.

Basically, they say whatever they want because they know people are stupid and/or lazy.

Prime example- from one of her recent press conferences on her proposed bill: Assault weapons were created for a purpose and
" view that’s a military purpose, to hold at the hip, possibly, to spray fire to be able to kill large numbers."
Hold the phone, Rambo. Military-grade firearms aren't meant to be fired from the hip. Military-trained soldiers do not fire from "the hip" except in rare instances. That's why firearms have a stock (among other things, like sights). 

Also, Senator Feinstein is concerned that a pistol grip is a military feature. No, it's not. It's a better ergonomic way to hold a rifle. Try this- hold a .308 rifle or a M1 rifle from the shoulder like you're going to shoot a target. Then hold a rifle with a pistol grip. Which one is more comfortable? Which one requires you to cock your wrist at an odd angle?

Other inaccuracies on Senator Feinstein's part include misrepresenting statistical reports. From her webpage:
In a Department of Justice study (pdf), Jeffrey Roth and Christopher Koper find that the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban was responsible for a 6.7 percent decrease in total gun murders, holding all other factors equal. They write: “Assault weapons are disproportionately involved in murders with multiple victims, multiple wounds per victim, and police officers as victims.”
Actually, what Roth and Koper say is:
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.  However, with only one year of post-ban data, we cannot rule out the possibility that this decrease reflects chance year-to-year variation rather than a true effect of the ban.
Guess what? Contributed is not synonymous with responsible. Not by a long shot. And just a little bit further on in the report:
We were unable to detect any reduction to date in two types of gun murders that are thought to be closely associated with assault weapons, those with multiple victims in a single incident and those producing multiple bullet wounds per victim.  We did find a reduction in killings of police officers since mid-1995.  However, the available data are partial and preliminary, and the trends may have been influenced by law enforcement agency policies regarding bullet-proof vests.
And other highlights from other reports that Senator Feinstein has on her site:
It is Premature to Make Definitive Assessments of the Ban’s Impact on Gun Crime
•  Because the ban has not yet reduced the use of LCMs in crime, we cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence.
In the broadest sense, the AW-LCM ban is intended to limit crimes with
semiautomatic firearms having large ammunition capacities – which enable shooters to discharge high numbers of shots rapidly – and other features conducive to criminal applications.  The gun ban provision targets a relatively small number of weapons based on outward features or accessories that have little to do with the weapons’ operation.  
Ok. So "other features conducive to criminal applications" is a retarded argument. Feinstein wants military-style weapons banned. Now the reports she quotes state the ban is intended to limit crimes committed with guns that appeal (maybe?) to criminals. Or features that are conducive to criminal activities. In which these features have nothing to do with the gun's operations. Just because it looks scary to you, or because it's what the military uses, doesn't mean it should be banned. That logic is f**king retarded.

And now we move on to the most blatant smoke and mirrors effort of Feinstein & Co. According to numerous reports, the bans on "assault weapons" and large capacity magazines (LCM) have shown, at times, a dramatic drop in either a) guns with LCMs being used/recovered or b) assault weapons being used/recovered.

Let that sink in.

Statistics show that banned items are found less frequently than expected.

No sh*t, Sherlock. I mean, it doesn't take a genius to expect that if something is banned, fewer people will be using it.

The misdirection here is subtle, if you're not thinking. These studies show that LCM and "assault weapons" are used less during the time period of the law. The studies do not correlate any data to a decrease in crime. In fact, these studies don't even acknowledge that the AWB/LCM bans had any affect on crime*. None! A ban on an item that doesn't prevent crime?! Whiskey Tango Foxtrot!

I have also removed "magnificent assclown" from the text herewithin, since I don't want a knock at my door from guys in black suits and shades.

*I read a handful of articles and conclusions of the reports, not all of them. I've not found a direct correlation between the AWB and decrease in total gun-related crimes.

No comments:

Post a Comment