After Cops Shot, Columbus Proves Assault Weapons Ban Was Smart
The Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence (OCAGV) said that the city of Columbus had the vision and foresight to pass an assault weapons ban in 2005 despite intense pressure from the NRA. As a result of the local ordinance the gun lobby sought to punish Columbus by pulling its annual convention thereby denying revenue to the city and state. One year later, the Ohio legislature passed a state preemption law that eliminated most local gun laws such Columbus’s assault weapon ban. The Ohio Coalition says the state legislature’s decision jeopardized public safety, and put law enforcement officers and communities at greater risk.
Case in point occurred Monday, where a drunk driver, Jason Farnsworth, 37, evaded police trying to pull him over when he fired on two Columbus police officers. One officer was shot in the face with an AK 47 and the other was hospitalized after being shot in the chest from a 9mm handgun but his bullet proof vest saved the officer’s life. According to media reports Farnsworth then barricaded himself inside a building and a gunfight ensued where as many as 100 police officers responded including a SWAT unit. A police cruiser and neighborhood cars were riddled with bullets as people took cover wherever they could find a safe place. The bullet fired from the AK-47 traveled more than 150 yards (for comparison, a football field is 120 yards) and went through the police cruiser’s window before hitting the officer. The attack ended when Farnsworth took his own life.
“The Columbus city council and Mayor Michael Coleman understood the threat and availability of cop-killing assault weapons and took steps to protect our law enforcement officers and our communities. That’s what true leadership is about: assessing the risks to our public safety and working to enact measures to prevent gun violence,” said Toby Hoover, Executive Director of OCAGV. “We need the same kind of leadership and foresight in all levels of our government, especially in the legislature and governor’s office. The truth is that effective public policy is what ultimately matters.”
Tragically, Ohio law enforcement officers pay the ultimate price because of the unrestricted availability and access to powerful handguns and assault weapons. On July 13, 2008, Ashford Thompson shot a police officer four times in the head after he was pulled over for playing loud music in Cuyahoga County. On April 30, 2008, Derrick Foster was shooting dice inside a house when it was raided for drugs by a police tactical unit. Foster shot through a barricaded door, wounding two police officers as they broke through it.
Military style semi-automatic assault weapons pose a grave risk to law enforcement officers. One in every five law enforcement officers slain in the line of duty between January 1st, 1998, and December 31st, 2001, were killed with assault weapons according to a study Officer Down —Assault Weapons and the War on Law Enforcement also conducted by the Violence Policy Center. Although federal agencies have largely stopped releasing robust crime data and analysis, researchers and advocates point to anecdotal evidence of the threat of assault weapons. Four Oakland police officers were killed on Mar. 21, 2009 during a traffic stop, two of them gunned down by a man using an AK-47 assault rifle. Three Pittsburgh officers who were shot and killed by Richard Poplawski on Apr. 4, while responding to a domestic incident when he opened the opened the door and overpowered the officers in a hail of bullets.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
When people who claim to be hunters support a gun control agenda in the face of an administration that is actively subverting congressional investigation into actions by it's cabinet members to perpetrate a fraud onto the American people to make a case for a reintroduction of the asault weapon ban, I doubt sanity can be injected into the discussion.
I would strongly suggest that anyone who wishes to have an honest look at what measures the anti-gunners are willing to go to in an effort to disarm you look carefully at the ATF run operation "Fast and Furious" and ask one question... What legitimate purpose could this operation being conducted in the way that it was possibly serve?
I oppose any kind of gun control on general principle, as it is not gun control but government control, and while it may sound paranoid to some, if an administration is willing to break international law in an effort to gain a momemtum toward an assault weapon ban; had the idea succeeded, where should we think those efforts would stop? Does anyone serioulsy believe that the nest type of firearm that can be manipulated into the "choice of criminals" would not next in the anti's sights?
Considering the lies that have been perpetrated by the anti gun establishment over the years, to the illegal actions of this administration through the ATF operations of putting guns into the hands of the drug cartels; I cannot tell any difference between the evils of them and the criminals they claim they would protect me from by disarming me.
Sorry, I've seen the Koolaid and the waters it's made from are polluted.
A semi automatic ak47 is WEAKER than most common hunting rifles. Effectively this org says you can't have an ak because it is too powerful and you can't have a 9mm because it is too powerful (another joke to anybody familiar) but you can't have a .25 auto or a 380 auto because they are "Saturday night specials". In other word, if it isn't too big, it's too small and they want they all banned.
An analsyis of weapons is now available while examing the FBI Uniform Crime Reporting statistics. The paragraphs that follow are a summary of the use of rifles in homicides.
"1. The percent of murders committed with all rifles, not just semiautomatic rifles, but all rifles including bolt actions, lever actions, single shots, and all other types account for less than 3% of murders. And over the last four years, this small percentage is showing a downward trend. The number of murders actually committed with semi-automatic rifles is clearly even lower. I would ask The Brady Campaign to try to support its assertion that rifles of any type are 'super dangerous' weapons.
2. RIFLES REPRESENT THE LOWEST DANGER OF ALL WEAPONS TYPES, INCLUDING HANDS AND FEET. (emphasis (all caps) by poster) The number of murders committed with no weapons at all is more than double the number of murders committed with rifles in 2008. The number of murders committed with a knife or other edged weapon is more than quintuple the number of murders committed with rifles. The number of murders committed with a blunt weapon is also more than quintuple the number of murders committed with rifles. In fact, a person is more than twelve times more likely to be murdered with a knife, blunt object, or no weapon at all as compared to a rifle.
3. Despite the fact that these weapons are said to be 'super dangerous' and are also said to be "increasingly used by criminals" by the Brady Campaign (I would like a quote for this but I can't find it), the percentage of murders committed with all rifles dropped from 3.0% to 2.6% between 2005 and 2008.
And here's a link to the original post:
http://thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=5903837&postcount=1
gun control: the belief that a woman raped and strangled with her own hose is morally superior to one who defends herself with a firearm.
Seriously, do you think things would have escalated this way had the poor victim been sober? Maybe if Ohioans can't handle their liquor they shouldn't be trusted with guns . So how about bringing back prohibition? That was a pretty good idea. It worked great and everybody obeyed the law . Crime went down, -except for the organized kind. Prohibition works for drugs too. Look at how well it's working! It would probably work for guns too. Since everybody obeys the law.
...and it didn't stop him until the police were alerted to it.
Being armed and drunk is already illegal in the majority of the US. I can't carry concealed if I am under the influence of alcohol and so I don't drink when I am in public. I choose to carry when I am in a public place because this is where these types of events unfold. Since I only have control over myself in public I exercise self-control to the highest degree.
There are still some people who have no concept of self-control. It's not up to me to figure out why they have no self-control. I'm not their psychologist. I can only account for my own actions. I can't even account for the actions of everyone in my party while I am out with friends.
If a drunk person who is armed and making bad decisions decides to start hurting innocent people around me my first instinct is to get away from him. Being armed does not guarantee my survival; if there is no other way to prevent my death I have a tool - not an immunization - at my disposal.
If he is holding a hostage or there are people in-between us I am not going to shoot into the crowd. Even during such irrational times I am expected to be rational. I am going to dodge for cover and hope I get out okay yet I still have the option to stand my ground should I choose to do so. It is nice to have the option. If you're going to consider the option then you should be responsible enough to know when the option is mandated.
Back on topic with your comments, I feel alcohol was the motivator and the main contributing factor. It's a known fact that alcohol removes one's inhibitions, stripping away the layers of reason from unstable people. It puts them to the brink. However, how many people left bars that night and didn't hurt a soul? How many of them were gun owners?
One drunk idiot hurts police officers then takes his own life. One drunk Ohioan with guns doesn't speak for every drinker, every gun owner, or every Ohioan. It's likely officers could have died. I'm glad they didn't. It's unfortunate that they were wounded but it comes with the occupation...
Do you think prison guards like getting punched, bruised or stabbed? It comes with the territory and the nature of the people you are dealing with. Someone is always going to hate you and even in prison you can acquire the means to hurt someone. You'd think that if you were locked up in maximum security your life would be safe.
Go on a tour of one of America's maximum security prisons . Ask about in-prison violence. Ask what kind of ingenious tools they come up with to commit murder . Then tell me if the laws you're seeking would work out in the open where you can't possibly police everyone. It's evident in the number of law enforcement officers compared to the number of private citizens.
Setting aside the gun control versus non-gun control issue; I fail to see how one incident can be used a crux of justification of either side. It's about the whole, not one tragic incident. One could easily argue he may have had one with the ban in place, that's why discussing individual tragedies in the context of gun control is stupid.
It's painfully obvious that some of you would rather take away my 2nd Amendment rights than punish those responsible for violent crime . A FULLY AUTOMATIC WEAPON has been banned from civilian ownership(except by special BATF permit) since 1934. Other than Military Remote controlled Weapons, I've never seen a gun that loads itself, aims itself, and pulls it's own trigger. Just because a weapon LOOKS ominous is no reason to ban it. In the other 80% of the ".. law enforcement officers slain in the line of duty between January 1st, 1998, and December 31st, 2001.." Are those weapons on your Ban List also? For the guy that wrote this.. a Football Field is 100 yards.
Even the wackiest liberal has to admit that, by definition, a criminal does not obey laws. I will never understand the obsession with passing laws the restrict the right of only those inclined to obey them in the first place.
According to the FBI's 2007 data, 55 officers were killed, 2 with their own weapon. 8 were killed by a rifle, which is the category the weapons used in Columbus and Pittsburgh would fall into. Overall, 3.7 percent of officers being assaulted(80.2%), were assaulted with a firearm.
I mourn the loss of every officer, but to contrast the above statistics; 55 people were killed in 2007 from contact with hot tap water , 102 people drown in swimming pools and 307 more in bathtubs. We lost 27 to lawn mowers. 650 to falls from beds and other furniture. 1304 fell down steps. 97 fell off some type of skates or a skateboard.
Where is the outrage and demand to ban bathtubs or skateboards?
The stories above may have turned out different if the same amount of effort currently put toward banning weapons was redirected to education and enforcing/toughening existing laws.
Ok many have died from your great bathtub assault of 2007, but these things that you are talking about were not made to kill. The shootings are murder . Anything in your home can kill you if used to. They were not made to. This does prove that morons shouldn't get guns . I don't want to ban guns and I don't personally know anyone who does. (they are out there sure) I am all for strict gun laws and enforcement. Bans on assault rifles are fine to me. They are just a compensation. Pistols, like -Nivarion- said, are easy to defend yourself from an attacker with since some are so high powered.
Criminals will get guns. Some from the honest non criminal who needs to make some quick money . We can try to stop as many as we can getting into their hands.
America needs to learn not to sell weapons to "criminals" or other countries that we will later invade.
The figures for bathtubs that "kill people" are not publicized because you can't use a bathtub to kill someone. I think we can agree that it is an accidental death. You don't expect it. You don't expect to drown either but that happens to many people each year. You don't expect to slip and fall, but that too happens.
You don't expect a maniac to run around shooting cops. It still happens. It has happened throughout history since the beginning of law enforcement. Since the beginning of laws. I'm not saying that to strike down all laws but I am suggesting that there's some insane people out there who will vent their aggression on public figures - on those human symbols of the system they disagree with.
If you limit the tools that they can use it does not stop their aggression. Let's say we do a complete ban on guns . It is very successful. I'm not saying that I think it would be. Let's just say for argument's sake that it works and there's no longer anymore guns for the lawful citizen or the criminal.
They'll use a flare gun and painfully burn you to death. They'll use a steak knife and leave jagged cuts across your flesh. They'll use a baseball bat with rusty nails stuck in it. Even if you survive the beating you might contract an illness or infection that will plague you long after. That's no different from a bullet. You can still die. There will still be a virtually infinite number of weapons they can use against you or the police .
While accidental deaths from steps or bath tubs may be high, I don't think it is the best way to give a pro-gun argument. It builds a straw man by diverting attention away from the gun and towards some other statistic entirely. It doesn't argue in favor of why we need guns to protect ourselves. It just brings up another way to die that isn't through gun violence .
Intentionally harming or killing someone is something that stems from the mind of the disturbed individual, not the weapon that they use. That rusty nail in the baseball bat can't hurt you if it's not in the hands of a psychopath. By that token you can be cautious if you know your bath tub gets slippery while you're showering. It's not going to attempt to kill you anymore than the gun on your nightstand or the baseball bat in your closet. You might even put a pad down to compensate and give you traction in your tub. It is a precaution.
I can understand how you might think that getting rid of all guns is another precaution but I don't think it is a realistic precaution. In areas where there are more gun laws you see more cases of victimization. The psychopath is incapable of functioning in normal society beyond their breaking point which is most often caused by circumstance. The problem is without having snapped before there is no way of telling if or when they will until it happens.
Anyone who is anti-gun I urge you to purchase a firearm and ammunition. Learn how it functions and then load it, cock it, and store it. It will never hurt anyone until it is picked up and the trigger pulled while the barrel is facing a living being. There's nobody telling you to commit a violent act and if there is I suggest you see a professional about it. You might not be responsible enough to own that weapon if that's the way you think just by being around the weapon.
If you've never owned or fired a gun you have a higher chance of being intimidated by it and you're more likely to have an accident. There's a reason why responsible pro-gun organizations constantly reiterate safety rules such as "always treat a firearm as if it is loaded." If you do not continually respect the firearm and the responsibility of wielding one then you may hurt yourself, a loved one, or a stranger.
If you're a responsible driver and someone with road rage takes it out on you, I'm sure you'd be upset. But you're not going to be upset with Oldsmobile for making that car. You're not going to blame your Honda either unless perhaps your airbags fail. If I responsibly own a firearm and someone shoots me, is it my Springfield's fault or his Glock's fault? No, it's his fault for pulling the trigger. It's the driver's fault for not paying attention to the road or letting his aggression overwhelm him.
Don't judge my level of responsibility through another individual's failure to live up to their own.