The Assault Weapons Ban is a failed attempt at gun control and will not work again.
Taking its cue from sophomore gun enthusiast Harry Hixon, the government should not mandate to the population what they need, and instead should punish for actions rather than possessions.
The ban is more of a show to prove to citizens that politicians are doing something to protect the states and citizens that elected them. Bans on the local and state levels were found to be ineffective in Gary Kleck’s book “Point Blank.”
The previous ban and the current proposed ban do not provide a safer America, but merely a cosmetic anticrime legislation.
Previous bans on firearms have proved ineffective. After instituting a firearm ban in 1996, Australia experienced a 3.2 percent increase in homicide countrywide and 300 percent increase in the Victoria state. Australia also had a 45 percent increase in armed robberies, with assaults up 8.6 percent. For the preceding years, Australia had a slight decrease in crime (worldnetdaily.com).
Gun control did not work in Australia, and would not be effective in the United States.
According to research by Christopher Koper in a report to the National Institute of Justice, the ban’s effects on gun violence were too small for reliable measurement. If the previous ban produced no noticeable results, then gun control should not be an issue.
The assault weapons ban was cosmetic at most and was not effective. A stricter control would only bring catastrophic effects like those of Australia.
Many people think that assault weapons, due to their semi automatic and automatic firepower, are more hazardous. Criminals could kill more victims faster with assault weapons.
Assault weapons are more effective due to features such as a flash suppressor, folding or retractable stock and pistol grip. Yet the pistol grip makes shooting more difficult, according to Hixon. The folding stock supposedly makes a gun easier to conceal, but decreases its effectiveness in aiming.
Before the ban, Koper states that between 1 and 8 percent of guns were assault weapons.
The banned guns could also be replaced with legal substitutes or other exempt semi automatic weapons.
Gun rights are indeed a conservative value, but also a liberal one. Allowing citizens to carry guns means that the government trusts its citizens. If the government treats people like children, they will soon behave like children.
Guns also give equality. A 100 lb. man has no chance against a 250 lb. thug, unless he has a gun and can disable the thug in order to run away.
Gun control did not work in the U.S. before and will not work in the future. Banning guns eliminates the first crime deterrent: protected citizens.
Instituting another permanent ban is first, against the U.S. Constitution and second, an ineffective anticrime legislation.
Assault Weapons FTW • May 15, 2009 at 7:23 am
“A weapon isn’t good or bad, depends on the person who uses it.” -Jet Li
This states that it doesn’t matter what type of weapon is it is who uses it.The Quote from Seneca(below) says that a killer is a killer no matter what the weapon.
“A sword is never a killer, it is a tool in the killers hands.”
Nuke, Knife, or Assault weapon, they can all kill and if a killer get one of these in their hands. They will kill. That is my point sorry im right.
James Refalo • May 14, 2009 at 10:58 am
Btw, for the above, see the Fox News article: “The Myth of the 90 Percent”, April 02, 2009. It shows how the numbers were manipulated by the ATF to make it look as though 90 percent of the guns used by Mexican drug lords come from the US, when in fact, only 17 percent of the guns captured have been traced to the United States. Moreover, the 90 percent number has been repeated by the Obama administration, his secretary of state, the head of ATF, and other gun control proponents, despite being aware this is a gross distortion of the percentage of guns traced. It appears the administration believes that if you say something enough times, it becomes truth.
James Refalo • May 3, 2009 at 1:28 am
Not only have gun ban’s failed to reduce crime, but so have supposedly “reasonable” gun control laws, such as registration, licensing, and requiring a permit. One sweeping attempt that comes to mind is the dismal failure of the stringent gun controls Hawaii implemented (all three of the above) in 1967, which resulted in a 42 percent increase in the island’s murder rate and 144 percent increase in the Hawaii’s rape rate during the following two years. Five years later, those numbers up 183 and 326 percent respectively. (See “What We’ve learned in New York, Washington, and Hawaii” by David T. Hardy.)
Now Obama’s at it. And if you don’t think he wants your guns, how about his complete fabrication that 90 percent of the guns used by Mexican drug gangs are coming from the US, when he was speaking to the press in Mexico? It had been revealed to be a gross exaggeration in the press two weeks before he spoke those words.
And btw, it is not even the 70% claimed by the Mexican government, which based those numbers on a small percentage of guns that they could trace, because they were manufactured or sold in the US– ignoring that virtually all of the weapons are not traceable, because they are of Russian or Chinese manufacture, fully automatic, and therefore, imported to Mexico through South America. But Obama knows this, he doesn’t care. His goal is to register your guns, then make it untenable to own one.
Peter • May 1, 2009 at 11:16 am
I agree, criminals will always have an effective way to kill people. They will simply obtain guns from black market sources, which is basically what they are already doing.
Plus, an assault weapons ban would violate the 2nd amendment of the constitution. Ordinary people have the right to have access to deadly weapons for the sake of preserving a free state.
Chad • May 1, 2009 at 10:17 am
You speak the truth. all too often the media vilifies the guns not the criminal.