User talk:Charliemike

Hi Charliemike, welcome to SourceWatch/Congresspedia. I am relocating your contribution here and outlining a way we can proceed that is consistent with SourceWatch/Congresspedia standards.

While you are quite entitled to publish your opinion on your talk page or on the talk page of a specific article, we aim to ensure that all articles are fair, accurate and referenced. (See http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=SourceWatch:About, http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=SourceWatch:References and http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=SourceWatch:Congresspedia_article_guidelines)

If you want to create an article on a specific piece of legislation and list the debate about it, by all means lets do that. If that is what you want to do the starting point should be the name of the legislation or the bill to re-authorize it. (As an example see http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Animal_Enterprise_Terrorism_Act)

If that's what you want to do post a note to the talk page of either myself or Conor Kenny and we can help get you started. Some of the material could be incorporated, if relevant and referenced, in such an article. --Bob Burton 02:29, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

The Now infamous Assault weapons ban that was signed into law during the Clinton Administration was allowed to sunset after ten years. There are close to 4 million assault weapons in the U.S., which amounts to roughly 1.7% of the total gun stock. (1995 Numbers) This bill is an attempt to reauthorize a law that Experts say had no actual deterrence on crime. During the ten years the ban was in existence there was no empirical evidence that it had any positive or negative impact on crime. Banning some firearms because of there appearance is a poor social engineering attempt and does little to address real Crime issues. Studies have shown that in areas where gun control is in place Crime actually increases. Further Studies have shown that more guns in the hands of the populace actual reduces crime. Without exception Places that have passed CCW laws have seen a decrease in crime. Furthermore, the type of firearms that this bill address are used in less that 0.01 percent of any type of shooting including Justified self defense cases. As found in Bureau of Justice Statistics "Since police started keeping statistics, we now know that assault weapons are/were used in an underwhelming 0.026 of 1% of crimes in New Jersey. This means that my officers are more likely to encounter an escaped tiger from the zoo than to confront an assault weapon in the hands of of a drug-crazed killer on the streets...." Joseph Constance, Deputy Police Chief, Trenton, NJ (From 1982 to 1993, of the 687 officers who were killed by firearms other than their own guns, more were killed by .38 caliber revolvers than by any other firearm. Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Guns Used in Crime, July 1995,

Police have attempted to tell us the truth for years. "I think of them as whitewash. Government has not been able to deal with the crime problem effectively, so Congress is now trying to find a `quick fix' that the public will accept, but it won't work. These measures don't impact on crime. They can actually make crime rates worse. A good example is Washington, D.C. - a city that has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country. It's now the murder capital of the country." Lt. Harry Thomas: Cincinnati Police, regarding semi-auto bans.

"Gun control is a band-aid, feeling good approach to the nation's crime problem. It is easier for politicians to ban something than it is to condemn a murderer to death or a robber to life in prison. In essence, 'gun control' is the coward's way out." Gabriel Suarez, police officer, California

This law make no sense and this is why this bill should never leave committee. One you look at the misinformation presented that states a 65% reduction in crime but then when you delve into they number yourself you see a estimated number of 3 to 1 percent you must start to ask yourself one question. Why would anyone propose or support such a law?

Since it can not be concluded that it neither deters or prevents crime what is the motive to ban firearms because of there appearance?