More media gun distortions
This article is almost too stupid to fisk. Almost:
A ban on certain assault rifles that expires in September should unquestionably be renewed by president Bush.
Nope, no bias there.
How these weapons, developed for the military and capable of inflicting terrible carnage on humans, became available for sale to the general population is mind boggling.
Second amendment sound familiar?
Equally appalling is the possibility that the hard-working men and women in law enforcement could once again face military-style weapons out on the streets if the ban is not renewed by Congress.
These weapons have never been a huge problem for law enforcement. Before and after the ban, these weapons were used in less than one half of one percentage point of violent crime.
It doesn’t take a Harvard math professor to validate the theory that banning certain assault weapons will reduce the frequency with which heinous crimes like the one in 1993 in San Francisco occur. If military-style assault weapons are kept out of circulation, nuts won’t have the opportunity to own them. True, there’s always going to be nuts, but let’s not give them unfettered access to assault weapons with the swipe of a credit card.
Uhm, what year did Columbine occur? Oh, yeah, after this ban was in place.
And we’re Nuts? Nice. Steve Lyon you’re an idiot. Try doing some research instead of just grabbing the latest Brady Center press release. The weapons banned under the 1994 law are indistinguishable, except in appearance, from popular hunting rifles.
July 2nd, 2004 at 6:27 am
Do these people not know, or do they just conveniently not mention, the fact that the so-called “ban” did not apply to existing firearms. It’s not like they all magically disappeared.
So when this fool says “[LEOs] could once again face” these firearms, he’s absolutely right—because THEY NEVER WENT AWAY.
July 2nd, 2004 at 8:53 am
It never ceases to amaze me how often the 1993 Frisco massacre gets brought up as evidence of the supposed need for a federal ban, and how rarely it gets brought up as evidence of the futility of California’s own ban, which was enacted in 1989.
July 2nd, 2004 at 10:16 am
What a nutbasket!
Do you think his failure to capitalize “president” was an accident? I’m surprised he didn’t call him the “President-select”, Shrub, or Baby Bush.
July 2nd, 2004 at 10:27 am
XRLQ,
That’s easy: the bad guys just drive to Nevada or Arizona or some other state where they hand out assault rifles at the welcome center rest stop.
July 2nd, 2004 at 3:46 pm
I know. But then, why aren’t they also advocating that California repeal its useless, unenforceable law?
July 2nd, 2004 at 4:31 pm
Well, it’s not that the law is useless; it just needs to be strengthened. And bumped up to the national level.