Back Home 
Mail Me
I am not a member of the NRA and never have been. I have never joined any pro or anti gun groups. I am not a registered voter. I do not give any money to any politicians or political organizations. I don't hunt and I don't fish.
Many of us have heard the terms "Cop-Killer Bullets" and "Assault
Weapons". I know I have. But what exactly are we talking about? What do these
phrases mean? How can we have an intelligent discussion if we don't know what
we're talking about?
So, here's what the terms mean:
What is a "Cop-Killer Bullet"?
This is a media-coined term usually
used to describe a certain type of pistol ammunition (KTW) that was developed by
a coroner, the coroner's special assistant, and a police sergeant in the mid
'60s.
(The inventors were, according to most sources, creating a round for
police use. A round with increased penetration against harder targets such as
windshield glass and automobile doors.)
What is an "Assault Weapon"?
Definition of this according to many
current laws, turned into English: An assault weapon is a semi-automatic,
"high-capacity" magazine (over 10 rounds), medium-caliber rifle, usually with a
military-style appearance.
These weapons have certain mostly cosmetic features that don't make them more or less dangerous.
Now here is where I ask us to stop it ----- Stop using buzz-words and start
using English!
Stop playing to emotions, and start talking about how we
can best use our resources.
All I ask is why are the "emotional" terms used to describe things? Why not just speak semi-logically, at least if we really want to accomplish something (versus making political statements). If we want to be rational and have some sort of honest discussion: Why not "hard-target police-use bullets" and "military-style semi-automatic rifles"?
I think I know the reason why; it's hard to advance your agenda (whatever it
may be) with descriptions that don't make things seem bad or controversial or
evil.
I accept that. I can see it.
But I can't agree with it.
So how
about some logic, some intelligence? Some I don't know what.
So, being somewhat rational at random times myself, let's talk about both of these "issues" in a "logical" sense. Or in other words, let's put forth the facts rather than just blather out some buzz-words.
"Hard-target police-use bullets"
These pistol rounds have been around since the late 60's. They were developed for use by police. The ammunition is called KTW, after the three inventors. This ammunition has NEVER been available to the public; in fact, no police officer has EVER been killed by one of these bullets penetrating their vest.
Originally, KTW used a steel core, but in 1981, the core was changed to
brass.
One explanation (possibly incorrect) of the Teflon: Brass is very
destructive to gun barrels, so they coated the bullet with Teflon.
Another
explanation (according to an inventor) for the Teflon: The Telfon helps the
bullet 'grab' onto a glass or metal surface at oblique angles. That sounds the
most reasonable.
One or both, what is the irony of it all?
In real life, the Teflon
actually slows down the round when the round hits the fabric (Kevlar) of
a "bullet-proof" vest!
Really, these pistol bullets were made for police to use, and have never been sold to the public. They were not designed for penetrating body armor! In fact, they do not more easily penetrate body armor. So why "cop-killer" bullets? That's not what they were made for, nor is that what they do.
On to the law; depending to whom you listen, the original law to ban these
bullets for private sale (ignoring the fact they were not ever available for
private sale in the first place) either covered all lubricated bullets or all
bullets able to penetrate a vest.
For whatever reason this law was
originally offered up, it simply covered too much ammunition compared to what it
was supposed to have done. It didn't just cover the KTW bullet; it covered
either most large (above .30 caliber) rifle bullets and/or any bullet with any
lubricant on it.
With many legislators and various groups realizing the back-door, over-scope, and probably unenforceable nature of this bill, it was of course opposed!
Any reasonable person would have opposed it. As many did.
What was next?
The NRA (???) drafted legislation to specifically continue to deny the
sale of KTW pistol ammo -- or in fact, any armor-piercing type
ammo -- to other than police and the military. (Which is, of course, for whom
the inventors made the bullets anyway.) And was the point of the original
bill.
? The NRA drafted bill was the bill that was passed?
Yes, specific armor-piercing ammunition restrictions were passed,
with the help of the "corrupt and evil NRA".
So, my question would be: What exactly is wrong with opposing badly-written, ineffective laws -- and instead passing laws that accomplish what the authors supposedly are trying to do? Doesn't that make the most sense? Don't bother trying to answer that question. Nobody reads this page anyway, so whatever.
But, I would guess that
"The NRA opposes cop-killer bullet ban!"
doesn't sound as good as:
Representative Mario Biaggi (D-N.Y.) (the original bill's sponsor),
stated: the final legislation "... was not some watered down
version of what we set out to do. In the end there was no compromise on the part
of police safety..."
Yes, the original sponsor of the bill said the final law was what he himself was trying to accomplish! So how is that bad?
"Military-style semi-automatic rifles"
One weapon often spoken about, the AR-15, is a semi-automatic 5.56mm (.223
caliber) rifle that can't even be used for deer hunting in many states because
the standard round is not powerful enough to immediately kill a deer. The AR-15
fires one round per trigger squeeze. That's it.
It is not fully automatic,
and can not easily be made so. And if you did convert it to be fully automatic? Yes, you would be guilty of a felony.
Not that most laws alone will stop most law-breakers.
Sure, go ahead and pay too much money to get an AR-15. Try and find
anything other than Safe and Fire on it any day or any place. Good luck.
As far as the legal details: Since 1994, the manufacture of "Assault Weapons"
has been banned in the U.S. Just in case you didn't know or didn't want to
research it.
In 1994, the federal government passed the "Violent Crime
Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994" which, among other things, banned the
manufacture of semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines and certain
features.
Basically, according to the law, a banned weapon has more than one
of the following things: A folding stock, a pistol grip, a bayonet mount, a
flash suppressor or threads for one, a grenade launcher.
So, you can have
one of the above, but no more.
The AR-15 (continuing our example) has a pistol grip as part of its basic
design.
So if it has any (or all) of the other things, the law says
it is an "Assault Weapon"
If it has none of the others, it is not an
"Assault Weapon".
I can tell you what a flash suppressor does. It makes it so the people around
the weapon are not blinded if it is fired at night. It also makes it harder (but not
impossible) to see from where a weapon is fired at night. I can tell you what a
folding stock does. It makes the weapon smaller when the stock is folded. (In
the case of the AR-15, that would be an enormous 6-9 inches.)
But I'm not
exactly sure what makes a pistol grip dangerous, haven't heard what percentage
of people have been killed by bayonets mounted on a rifle, and don't know how
many police have been killed by rifle-launched grenades. (I'm rather thinking
that grenade launchers are Class III firearms anyway, and I don't know of any
place you can buy the civilian-restricted ammo for one.)
For further information - a pre-ban AR-15, which, except for the lack of a
third setting (safe/semi/full; no full on an AR-15), has everything an M16 has.
It runs about $2,000. The post-ban AR-15, which has no flash suppresor and no
bayonet mount, is about $700. Neither is any more or any less dangerous than the
other. Neither. You decide why.
Update September 2004: The 1994 ban expired this year, so it is now again legal
to manufacture this rifle with the cosmetic features. You can also manufacture
the other weapons (estimates range from 19-134 based upon the law) that this law
banned. None are fully automatic of course. Some are handguns, by the way.
I've also added another link at the end, a paper written in 1994, from a
legal/logical/rational standpoint. It's at the top of the list.
(As a bit of info, the Safe/Semi/Full M16A1, used by most of the U.S.
military services until fairly recently, was replaced by the M16A2, which also
has three settings; Safe, Semi, Three-Round Burst. Why? You can't hit anything
(even at full-auto) if you don't aim. The M16A2 also has more powerful
ammunition which also has a greater range.)
In any case, these so-called "Assault Weapons" are responsible for just how many crimes and/or are seized from criminals how often? That will tell us if we're spending our resources in a wise fashion. Don't just take my word; go look for yourself. These figures are not exact, nor are they inclusive. But they are reasonable. Think and read and think and then decide.
Okay, these semi-automatic rifles are used in about .2% (point two
percent) of all violent crimes, and in 1% of gun crimes! This is with weapons
that comprise 1.7% of the guns in the U.S.
Oh, what an epidemic!
What bothers me is the idea you can take something that (statistically at least) accounts for basically "no" misuse and turn it into the biggest problem we face! I don't understand it -- not from a crime ( or intelligent ) standpoint, at least.
Isn't there something more mis-used on which we can spend our time and money? I wonder.
Is the desired result less crime, less violence, fewer accidents and a
safer society? Of course. If so, why don't we craft laws with those goals based
upon the facts? Or perhaps posturing is more important? Nah, politicians don't
do that kind of thing.
But, as this is about firearms; my newest question (Octoberish 2001) is this: Do you really need a gun to kill a bunch of people? As you no doubt know, the answer is NO.
But if you want more on the firearms issue? Okay. As far as weapons being
siezed, in 1990 in California (for example), a huge and
fear-inducing total of 58 "Assault Weapons", (out of a total siezed of
1,979), were taken from narcotics dealers.
Man, that's a national emergency
for you. I am so scared right now. As I'm sure you are.
Some more on the
"Assault Weapon" problem?
In Chicago from 1985-1989, a totally insane
(and so very obviously evil) 1 (one) military-style weapon was used in
homicides, and an equally telling total of 175 military-style weapons were
seized by police -- out of 17,144 total seizures.
Is this something a lucid person regards as a problem?
According to the 1934 National Firearms Act, real assault weapons, that is, fully automatic weapons, are very heavily regulated. And since 1986, no new machine guns are allowed to be sold to civilians. But if you can get a pre-1986 machine gun? A $200 transfer tax and much federal paperwork and deep background checking. Same goes if you sell it.
Okay, perhaps that's not enough to stop this insane crime-wave. So all I can
do is give you some numbers.
A total of one (1) legally licenced machine gun
has been recorded as being used in a crime since 1934. Wait, one? That's not
what we have heard. And by the way, that one is out of a small (1995) 240,000
registered machine guns. ?
The one used in a crime? A murder! Sorry to tell
you, it wasn't a drug dealer or a politician. It was a police officer! He used a
MAC-11 .380 machine pistol to kill a police informant.
I don't know all the
details, but the guy got 18 years, after pleading guilty. Hmmmmm.
So, my question: If only one legally owned machine gun has ever been used in a crime, why did 'they' ban new sales in 1986? You figure it out.
But as far as illegal (non-registered) machine guns?
Cases of use or
seizure of illegal machine guns range from 0% to .7% in any state at any time.
Or, as an example, in a period of 9 years (1983 to 1992), less than half a
percent of police deaths nationally were from illegal machine guns.
That's a shame, but again; I ask you, reasonably; how is this an epidemic
requiring an immediate and wide-spread reaction?
Perhaps we should focus our resources on something like
solid and liquid poisoning, which killed 1000% more people from age 15-44 than
did ALL firearm accidents in 1998. Or on drowning, which killed double the
number of 15-24 year olds than all firearms did in 1998? (According to the
National Safety Council.)
My point is this: The facts simply do not support the
emotion.
Why are we wasting our time and money on things that (as much as anyone
wishes it) can't be totally erased?
To another idea and subject, off topic a bit almost:
Let's talk about the "gun-show loophole".
What is that? Gun show loophole? Does that mean if you are not "engaged in the business of selling firearms" (and therefore do not need a licence to sell them), that you can sell your own weapons at a show or from your trunk or from your home or from a newspaper?
Or is the fact that if you're not a firearms seller (meaning, retail sales)
that you can sell your own weapons most anyplace you want the issue?
Yes. You got it.
There is no "loophole".
You can sell private (and non-restricted)
weapons anywhere at any time without a license.
My problem is that -- again -- we're wasting time and money on an issue
where the statistics simply don't support any reasonable ideas of cause and
effect. In this case, the idea is that guns bought from a show are used any more
frequently in crime than those sold in newspaper ads. They are not. So why is it
an issue?
Most "Unlicenced Dealers" at gun shows are not even selling guns
at all. If you were selling holsters, food, memorabilia, swords, antique
weapons, or the like, of course you'd be unlicensed to sell guns. Why massage
the numbers? Why?
So, what is the intent of laws like this? Does the law reduce
accidents or crime? I personally couldn't find any figures to support why
exactly we should say that we should add more laws to the thousands there
already are.
The bulk of those around are not enforced, mainly due to their
sheer numbers and the overcrowded courts.
I was unaware that there was an epidemic of people from 18-21 buying guns 20
at a time and then "paying back" everyone who ever dissed them.
Just look at
the highly publicized stories and then think of the 300 million people in this
country.
Personally, I think we're wasting our time and money on things that don't
work. We're looking at effects when the only way you can solve things is
by fixing the causes.
As long as we concentrate on effects, things will continue to get worse in all aspects of our society.
Blaming inanimate objects based on emotional opinions leads to a lack of results, at best.
Sources:
Rational Basis Analysis of
"Assault Weapon" Prohibition
Article;
An Army of Gun Lies
Essay; Part of an interview with the
coroner who helped develop the KTW round
Interview; the whole
interview with the coroner
Essay by Maine Police
Officer on "Cop-Killer Bullets"
Article;
Are so-called "Assault Weapons" a Threat to Police Officers?
Essay on "Assault
Weapons"
Essay
on fully automatic weapons
Paper; 'Safe
Storage Gun Laws'
Homidide rates 1900 to
1997
Homidide
rates by age 1970 to 1998
Article; Trigger
Locks
Search
the CDC for info on mortality rates by whatever critera you want
Essay by UCLA Law Professor on the
question: 'Are gun owners paranoid about the aims of new gun laws?'
Letter
rebutting a DGU survey, and the rebuttal to the rebuttal
Study; Tennessee
Law Review, 'Epidemic or Pandemic?'
Article;
Why Barbara has a gun.
Article;
'Anti-gun, Pro-IRA?'
Essay; The Founding
Fathers?
Article; Story in
USA Today on Emerson case
Article; '43:1'
Article; 'Two Dozen'
Links;
Anti-gun groups info; The NRA (?) shows you where to go to join them.
What is the
Bill of Rights? Which ammendment is better or worse than the others?
Some of these links are broken (as of September 2004) so you'll have to go find them yourself if you want to read them.
"Japan, which prohibits handguns, has a suicide rate of more than twice the
U.S. level."
Back Home