Photo: Kim Pham
In the wake of last Friday's Newtown, Conn., school massacre, President Obama and numerous senators and representatives are calling for stricter gun control laws. One specific measure that has strong approval among Democrats and even some Republicans is a measure to reinstate the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994, which expired in 2004.
Proponents of reinstating the Assault Weapons Ban believe it will take these "military-style" firearms out of the hands of active shooters, including school shooters, and make children safer. They say that law enforcement officers support the ban.
They've been speaking with some officers, but they are not speaking with the overwhelming majority of Police Magazine/PoliceMag.com readers.
Earlier this week, the editors of Police Magazine/PoliceMag.com sent a survey to 5,000 of our readers chosen randomly. A total of 717 readers responded to the poll. Of this number, 602 self-identified as law enforcement officers and were allowed to answer the Assault Weapon survey questions. Out of these 602, 590 chose to answer the question.
A full 84% of those officers who chose to answer the question (498) said that restricting the sale of "assault weapons" would not reduce the number of mass murder incidents such as the Sandy Hook school shooting. Only 3% of these officers, 20 in total, had changed their mind about "assault weapon" access because of the Newtown massacre.
The poll was conducted over a 24-hour period from Tuesday to Wednesday of this week.
Related:
Comments
Ed Fanning @ 12/29/2012 12:07:32 PM
It worked in Australia, it can work here. A retroactive ban on assault weapons was instituted in Australia after a 1996 mass shooting that killed 35 people in a place eerily named New Town. Both killers in Newton, CT and New Town, Australia used an AR-15. Since the retroactive ban, Australia has not experienced a mass shooting. Citizens were required to turn in their assault weapons and 650,000 weapons were taken off the streets. The law did not simply stop the sale of new weapons. New legislation being proposed by U.S. Senator Diane Feinstein stops far short of addressing the problem, as millions of these weapons would remain legal for those who currently possess them. Feinstein has stated her legislation will not be retroactive. http://www.democracynow.org/2012/12/18/new_town_to_newtown_how_96
Patriot @ 12/30/2012 9:14:06 AM
First off since the gun ban in Australia, violent crime has increased. Every weapon is an assault weapon. At the signing of the constitution the black powder rifle was the "assault rifle" that King George tried to ban. You could say there is no use for cars that go over 60mph or speakers that are louder than our ears can tolorate. It's not about hunting although many hunters use SEMI auto not FULL auto to hunt. If you don't know the difference then you are clueless and don't know what you are talking about. Isreali teachers are armed and have no school shootings. Not only do guns kill but they save lives too. Maybe idiot Leprechaun only wants the crimnals armed. RETARD
Art Washut @ 1/14/2013 2:13:34 PM
The bigger question is whether or not cops will put their jobs on the line rather than enforce what they believe to be an unconstitutional gun law? I suspect that when push comes to shove, even cops who oppose the law, will enforce it rather than risk being fired. Am I wrong?
Julie @ 1/19/2013 6:50:08 PM
What Robert McNamara, the founder of TriggerSmart who has commented above, is that his technology requires the use of a device to be worn as a ring or a bracelet - OR IMPLANTED INTO THE HAND (as illustrated in his video on Youtube). If this technology takes off, and right now it is being recommended by Biden and Holder, no-one is going to think that wearing a ring to activate a gun is a 'safe' way to do it - fingers would be chopped off, rings etc lost or stolen or forgotten. Implants for guns is but one of many applications for an implanted chip. McNamara also fails to mention that his technology enables Wide Area Control, ie remote disabling of the gun such as in 'safe zones'. The new technology will simply lead to a whole new set of problems; ones which are harder to control.
Bobby Kearan @ 9/24/2013 8:17:49 AM
I've got a serious question that I would like an educated, experienced answer to. Or, a firing range test that I'm interested in the results of. Using the same basic weapon ( say a Mini-14 ), have one with a standard, wood, one-piece stock and one with a collapsible stock with a pistol grip. (Using the Mini-14, a Ranch model and a Tactical model, both off-the-shelf) Fire 5 rounds as fast as possible with each, time speed and accuracy of both rifles. Fire 20 rounds as fast as possible with each, time speed and accuracy of both rifles. Fire 5 rounds as accurately as possible, time speed and accuracy of both rifles. 1. Would you expect a difference in the two rifles performance? 2. Would you expect a difference in speed and/or accuracy due to the stock/grip? 3. What was the actual experience regarding performance and the stock/grip?