That was shore enlightening -- a quotation with a link offered as the source ... to a site which offers no source for its quotation. Cute.
So, in essence, the VPC acknowledges that public confusion with regard to "assault weapons" is a big advantage. Don't honest activists generally want the public to make well-informed decisions about public policy?Well now. Let's just look at where the quotation in question actually did come from.
http://www.vpc.org/studies/awaconc.htmThat's the conclusion portion of a study by the VPC called "Assault Weapons and Accesories <
sic> in America". (I'll assume for the sake of argument that Josh Sugarmann actually wrote it. I sure wish they'd use a spellchecker, though.) It starts here:
http://www.vpc.org/studies/awaintro.htmand it contains the following sections:
Introduction
Assault Weapons Violence
Drug Trafickers <
sic>, Paramilitary Groups... And Just Plain Folk
Assault Weapons Marketing
Assault Weapon Look-Alikes: Airguns and Toy Guns
Publications
Accessories
Paramilitary Training Camps and Combat Schools
The Assault Weapons Debate
Conclusion
Appendix I
Appendix II
Here's the bit of the conclusion that the quotation in question (emphasis added) came from:
Assault weapons are increasingly being perceived by legislators, police organizations, handgun restriction advocates, and the press as a public health threat. As these weapons come to be associated with drug traffickers, paramilitary extremists, and survivalists, their television and movie glamour is losing its lustre to a violent reality.
Because of this fact, assault weapons are quickly becoming the leading topic of America's gun control debate and will most likely remain the leading gun control issue for the near future. Such a shift will not only damage America's gun lobby, but strengthen the handgun restriction lobby for the following reasons:
It will be a new topic in what has become to the press and public an "old" debate.
- Although handguns claim more than 20,000 lives a year, the issue of handgun restriction consistently remains a non-issue with the vast majority of legislators, the press, and public. The reasons for this vary: the power of the gun lobby; the tendency of both sides of the issue to resort to sloganeering and pre-packaged arguments when discussing the issue; the fact that until an individual is affected by handgun violence he or she is unlikely to work for handgun restrictions; the view that handgun violence is an "unsolvable" problem; the inability of the handgun restriction movement to organize itself into an effective electoral threat; and the fact that until someone famous is shot, or something truly horrible happens, handgun restriction is simply not viewed as a priority. Assault weapons — just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms — are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons — anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun — can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons.
Efforts to stop restrictions on assault weapons will only further alienate the police from the gun lobby.
- Until recently, police organizations viewed the gun lobby in general, and the NRA in particular, as a reliable friend. This stemmed in part from the role the NRA played in training officers and its reputation regarding gun safety and hunter training. Yet, throughout the 1980s, the NRA has found itself increasingly on the opposite side of police on the gun control issue. Its opposition to legislation banning armor-piercing ammunition, plastic handguns, and machine guns, and its drafting of and support for the McClure/Volkmer handgun decontrol bill, burned many of the bridges the NRA had built throughout the past hundred years. As the result of this, the Law Enforcement Steering Committee was formed. The Committee now favors such restriction measures as waiting periods with background check for handgun purchase and a ban on machine guns and plastic firearms. If police continue to call for assault weapons restrictions, and the NRA continues to fight such measures, the result can only be a further tarnishing of the NRA's image in the eyes of the public, the police, and NRA members. The organization will no longer be viewed as the defender of the sportsman, but as the defender of the drug dealer.
Efforts to restrict assault weapons are more likely to succeed than those to restrict handguns.
Although the majority of Americans favor stricter handgun controls, and a consistent 40 percent of Americans favor banning the private sale and possession of handguns,<129> many Americans do believe that handguns are effective weapons for home self-defense and the majority of Americans mistakenly believe that the Second Amendment of the Constitution guarantees the individual right to keep and bear arms.<130> Yet, many who support the individual's right to own a handgun have second thoughts when the issue comes down to assault weapons. Assault weapons are often viewed the same way as machine guns and "plastic" firearms — a weapon that poses such a grave risk that it's worth compromising a perceived constitutional right. ...
Now ... what are we seeing here?
Are we seeing someone with "something to hide"?
Or are we seeing a FACTUAL assessment of a situation?
Are we seeing someone who wants to ban assault weapons BECAUSE OF their "menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully-automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons"?
Or are we seeing someone who has REASONS for supporting the ban on assault weapons, REASONS which have been set out in considerable detail in the study, in the conclusion of which that statement was made, REASONS which have nothing to do with the "menacing looks" of assault weapons, or the public's "confusion" with respect thereto?
Is there evidence that Sugarmann, or the VPC, has ever "concealed" its reasons for advocating the assault weapons ban, or the basis on which it advocates the ban? Evidence that it has attempted to create or exacerbate the public confusion in question? Not that I know of.
So the statement in question is no more nor less than
a statement of fact. Is the fact in question "a big advantage" to advocates of the ban? Perhaps. And in an assessment of the likelihood of success of the assault weapons ban campaign, which is
the context in which it appeared, it would be a relevant fact.
Are those advocates responsible for that advantage?
S/he who says so had better do something to substantiate the allegation..
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
