You're the one lying. Here's proof. Now apologize for misleading the thread and wrongfully criticizing me.
MATTHEWS: Yes. OK. Chief, why does the prevalence or the availability of an assault weapon endanger police, endanger society?
WILLIAM BRATTON, LAPD CHIEF: Because they do. That‘s the reality, that every year in the United States, in excess of 10 police officers are killed with these types of weapons. Many citizens, residents are killed with these types of weapons, wounded by them. That‘s the reality, unfortunately.
MATTHEWS: So you go up against them with a service revolver, right?
BRATTON: Well, that...
MATTHEWS: Is that the usual order of battle?
BRATTON: That has been the issue in many cities. Los Angeles probably had the most famous shoot-out in 1997, when two individuals, completely covered with Kevlar type of bulletproof vesting, armed with these types of weapons literally held several hundred Los Angeles police officers armed with 9-millimeters at bay for quite a period of time.
MATTHEWS: And the 9-millimeter gun can do what against an assault weapon?
BRATTON: Totally different caliber, penetration issues. These weapons, the 19 that have been banned, many of them have a projectile that‘s capable of going through bulletproof vests. In my city, Los Angeles, all of our police cars have ballistic armor on our dashboards and on our side doors because of the prevalence of shoot-outs that we get into.
MATTHEWS: Don‘t your members, who are by and large, relatively conservative guys—I‘m not saying right-wingers—don‘t they sympathize with policemen who put their lives on the line every night in tough neighborhoods?
LAPIERRE: Chris, NRA is one of the largest police organizations in the country. We run the national police shooting championships every year.
MATTHEWS: But when the guy gets out and he‘s facing the line of fire, are you with him or not with him?
LAPIERRE: Those—what he‘s saying about these guns, with all due respect to the chief, is just not accurate. They are not machine guns. They don‘t—aren‘t any different from any other hunting gun. They‘re not more powerful. They don‘t spray bullets. This is all fog! And this is...
MATTHEWS: What‘s the prey these guns are used for?
LAPIERRE: They can be used for anything. They can be used...
MATTHEWS: Well, what are they usually used for?
LAPIERRE: ... for self-defense. If a criminal gets a hold of one, he can misuse it, like any other gun.
MATTHEWS: Well, what does a—what does a sportsman use it for?
LAPIERRE: They use them for competitive shooting. They can be used for hunting. They are not any more powerful, and they‘re not...
MATTHEWS: What kind of game?
LAPIERRE: Any type of game.
MATTHEWS: What type of game requires an assault rifle?
LAPIERRE: It‘s not an assault rifle! You guys keep talking about this...
MATTHEWS: OK, what‘s the word I should use?
LAPIERRE: Semiautomatic firearm. An assault rifle...
MATTHEWS: OK. Why do you need a semiautomatic firearm, to fight what kind of an animal?
LAPIERRE: There—yes, you can hunt anything. People hunt everything from deer to any type of game. You can go shooting with...
MATTHEWS: What would be left of a squirrel or a bird after you‘ve shot it with one of these things?
LAPIERRE: You keep thinking they‘re more powerful. That‘s the lie that‘s been put out by the people that marketed this. It‘s not true. There‘s no difference in the firepower of these guns than any of the guns not banned. That‘s the point NRA keeps...
MATTHEWS: I‘m trying to figure out—is what you‘re against is any rifle that can shoot semiautomatically?
BRATTON: No. It‘s the combination of issues of these weapons, what they were designed for, plus the clip. The clips that have also been...
MATTHEWS: The banana.
BRATTON: ... concerned with—the banana clip of 30, 50, 100 rounds. A 30-clip single-fire weapon can discharge all 30 of those rounds in about five seconds. On full automatic, if it were a machine gun or machine pistol, it‘d take about two seconds. So 30 shots in five seconds, 30 shots in two seconds. The capability for spraying—it‘s true, these are not machine guns. These are not, in a sense, fully automatic weapons. But their capabilities, because of the large clips they can be equipped with, are very problematic.
MATTHEWS: What do they cost on the street?
LAPIERRE: Whatever...
MATTHEWS: A hundred bucks?
LAPIERRE: ... a gun costs—a clip?
MATTHEWS: No, one of these guns.
LAPIERRE: Several hundred dollars to thousands of dollars. It—but there‘s no difference in the guns...
MATTHEWS: How many people are killed a year by them?
LAPIERRE: How many people killed by firearms in the U.S.?
MATTHEWS: By these rifles. By these rifles.
LAPIERRE: Every study has showed that there‘s—it‘s statistically insignificant...
MATTHEWS: Well, not to the ones who get killed.
(CROSSTALK)
LAPIERRE: No, no. I‘m not talking about that. I‘m talking about...
MATTHEWS: I‘m wondering how many—how many—chief, do you know how many people...
LAPIERRE: These guns are not used in crimes.
MATTHEWS: ... were killed by criminal—by criminals who were using these guns?
BRATTON: In term of an area of concern that I certainly have, police officers that—on average, about 10 police officers a year are killed by these weapons.
MATTHEWS: Do you accept that?
LAPIERRE: No. I don‘t. In fact, the chief...
MATTHEWS: Wouldn‘t he know?
LAPIERRE: The chief of the Maryland police testified the other day
before the legislature, said there were 55 police officers killed in the
U.S. last year, 35 by handguns, 10 by rifles, 1 by shotgun, the other eight
by cars, knives...
MATTHEWS: OK. Should automatic weapons...
LAPIERRE: ... and he said the FBI...
MATTHEWS: ... be legal?
LAPIERRE: ... doesn‘t keep that statistic.
MATTHEWS: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) was the federal government wrong in the ‘30s to outlaw automatic weapons?
LAPIERRE: We support that ‘34 law. They‘ve been heavily restricted...
MATTHEWS: So you‘re OK on outlawing automatic weapons, and OK about outlawing weapons that can easily be converted to automatic.
LAPIERRE: It‘s against federal law to sell any gun...
MATTHEWS: No, no. You‘re against that?
LAPIERRE: We support that federal law.
MATTHEWS: OK, so but you draw the line in saying you should be allowed to own semiautomatics.
LAPIERRE: Yes. Absolutely. They‘re mainstream. They‘ve been...
MATTHEWS: Why are the police fighting this...
LAPIERRE: ... around for 100 years...
MATTHEWS: ... if these aren‘t dangerous to police?
LAPIERRE: The rank and file aren‘t. You‘ve got some big city chiefs that are. But believe me, the rank and file officers...
MATTHEWS: Why are the chiefs against these weapons?
LAPIERRE: You have to ask the chief...
MATTHEWS: No. You must know. You understand the business. Why are they against them?
LAPIERRE: The—because—I don‘t know. I don‘t want to speak for them. But I know where the rank and file is, Chris. The rank and file...
MATTHEWS: Chief, last word.
LAPIERRE: ... think this thing is a cosmetic sham.
BRATTON: Isn‘t it the irony that it‘s not the police chiefs that are up against these weapons in the streets, but it‘s our police officers who were here speaking on behalf of them. I‘ve got about 9,000 rank-and-file police officers in Los Angeles, many of whom face these weapons routinely, unfortunately, in my city, and are ambushed by them. I can‘t believe that statement. The rank-and-file police officers are not supportive of (UNINTELLIGIBLE) these weapons. |
