More strange "logic" from the gun ban advocates

According to this article, police departments are outfitting patrol officers with more firepower. This is coming in the form of semi-automatic, detachable magazine fed rifles--commonly referred to as "assault weapons," (more on that in a minute)--or simply moving rifles and shotguns from the trunks of squad cars, up to the front, where they're more easily available (but I thought quickly available firepower only made bloodbaths more likely--I guess the "Only Ones", as defined at War on Guns--are too good for that).

The writers of the article would clearly like us to believe that the reason for this is that the expiration of the ban on so-called "assault weapons" means that more of them are showing up in the hands of criminals, requiring police to need more firepower to avoid being "outgunned."

Scott Knight, chairman of the Firearms Committee of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, said an informal survey of about 20 departments revealed that since 2004 all of the agencies have either added weapons to officers' patrol units or have replaced existing weaponry with military-style arms.

Knight, police chief in Chaska, Minn., said the upgrades have occurred since a national ban on certain assault weapons expired in September 2004. The ban, passed in 1994, in part prohibited domestic gunmakers from producing semi-automatic weapons and ammunition dispensers holding more than 10 rounds.

"This (weapons upgrade) is being done with an eye to the absolute knowledge that more higher-caliber weapons are on the street since the expiration of the ban," Knight said. He said his own department of about 20 officers is in the midst of determining whether to upgrade its weapons.

Hmm--an "informal" survey of "about 20 departments"--hardly ironclad proof of a widespread national trend to more police firepower. Keep in mind that this "ban" wasn't a ban--at least not in the traditional sense. People who owned the banned firearms were not compelled to give them up, and could sell them to others without any more restrictions than were imposed on other firearm sales. True--banned firearms manufactured during the 10 year life of the ban were off limits to most of the public, but as the civilian disarmament extremists never got tired of complaining, firearms manufacturers were able to market, absolutely legally, many guns that differed from the banned models only by the most trivial of details. Even Tom Diaz (Violence Policy Center) himself said that

if the existing assault weapons ban expires, I personally do not believe it will make one whit of difference one way or another . . . reducing death and injury.

The simple truth is that the militarization of our nation's police forces is a well established (and somewhat alarming) trend, and has nothing to do with the sunset of the AWB. Finally, since the AWB included absolutely no language restricting the calibers available to the public, his statement that "This (weapons upgrade) is being done with an eye to the absolute knowledge that more higher-caliber weapons are on the street since the expiration of the ban," is clearly pure nonsense.

A few paragraphs ago, I promised to expand on the civilian disarmament extremist lobby's sensationalist, pejorative term of "assault weapons," for semi-automatic, detachable magazine fed rifles. As gun owners, our use of their loaded terminology plays right into their hands. A member of a gun forum I frequent, 1911 forum, suggested a new term that is both much more accurate, and less "frightening" sounding: homeland security rifles.

I think it's as good a term as any (and better than any I'd heard until now).