Wednesday, February 27, 2013

Fight Like a Girl: The Little Girl Speaks TRUTH

Via Michael


Remember our story about Katelyn Francis? We ran it about a month ago. Here's an English paper she wrote. You're gonna love it. This Missouri 13 year old 3-gun competitor is one of our heroes.


Everyone kept asking if I would post my English paper over the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 but my dad said I couldn't post it. Alot of people were asking if my school was ok with me writting about this subject, they are very supportive of my shooting and I'm very appreciative of that. My mom talked him into it so here it is:
The Assault Weapons Ban of 1994

By: Katie Francis

In 1994 Bill Clinton approved an assault weapons ban. The ban was not just for assault weapons; it also covered any magazines holding 10 or more rounds of ammunition. It also banned guns that had certain characteristics. If you had any of the following things on your rifle, it was banned: bayonet mounts, barrel shrouds, folding or telescoping stocks, flash suppressors or barrels threaded to accept them, and pistol grips (Wintersteen). If your pistol had any of the following, it was banned also: magazines that attach outside the pistol grip, any semi-auto version of a fully automatic pistol, barrels threaded to accept extensions, suppressors, flash suppressors, or hand grips, barrel shrouds, and pistols with unloaded weights of 50 ounces or more (Wintersteen). If your shotgun had any of the following, it was banned: magazine capacities of five shells or more, folding or telescoping stocks, pistol grips, and detachable magazines (Wintersteen). So did the assault weapons ban of 1994 work? The facts will show that the ban did nothing to stop or even slow down violent crimes with guns.

The crime rates during the ban were not reduced. The last year the ban was in effect, 5.7 out of every 100,000 deaths were from gun related crimes (Lott)."We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence. And, indeed, there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence" (Ban on Assault Weapons). In the study done by the U.S. Department of Justice, they found that "The ban has failed to reduce the average number of victims per gun murder incident or multiple gunshot wound victims"(Roth). This clearly shows that even with a ban on assault weapons, the crime rates did not go down.

Since 2004, when the ban expired, overall violent and murder crime rates went down instead of going up like the government thought they would. In 2003 the gun related deaths were 5.7 out of every 100,000 crimes, in 2011 the gun related murders were 4.7 out of every 100,000 crimes (Lott). "The ban did not produce declines in the average number of victims per incident of gun murder or gun murder victims with multiple wounds" (Assault Weapons).  
   From the years 1985 to 1994, the number of mass shootings were 173 (Assault-weapons). The number of victims were 766 (Assault-weapons). In the years 1995 to 2004, the years the ban were in effect, the number of mass shootings were 182 (Assault-weapons). The number of victims were 830 (Assault-weapons). During the ban the number of mass shootings went up by almost 10 shootings. This does not seem like very many. On the other hand the number of victims during the ban went up by over 60 victims. How could this be if the government banned the weapons that had the ability to shoot more people faster and were able to hold more rounds? It would seem that fewer people would be shot without all the so-called assault rifles around.

No comments:

Post a Comment