There’s a lot of good AWB stuff today. Bill O’Reilly gets the assault weapons ban wrong, according to Vox Day:

Mr. O’Reilly once attacked the president of the Gun Owners of America as a nutcase on the fringe due to the GOA’s opposition to the assault weapons ban. This demonstrated three things:

1 “The Factor” does not understand the purpose of the Second Amendment, which is to ensure that the people are able to militarily resist their government. Of all people, a New England man should know that Lexington and Concord were fought by those resisting the attempt of the then-legitimate government to confiscate private weapon stores.

2 “The Factor” does not understand the Assault Weapons Ban, which does not concern itself with bazookas and machine guns, but pistol grips and magazine clips.

3 “The Factor” has no intention of allowing open debate on his program. It’s his program, so that’s his right, but it puts the lie to his “No-Spin” claim. Mr. O’Reilly is every bit the agitprop artist that Michael Moore is, the primary difference being that Moore lies and seeks the destruction of his targets in order to destroy them, while O’Reilly lies and seeks the destruction of his targets in order to sell himself.

And party foul to Mr. Day for using the phrase magazine clip.

It turns out that the police do not overwhelmingly support the ban, at least among the rank and file. The Law Enforcement Alliance of America writes:

Long guns of any type are used in only a tiny fraction of gun crimes (the preferred firearm for criminals is, naturally, more concealable pistols). And despite the impression you may get from movies and TV, the criminal use of rifles classified as so-called “assault weapons” is even rarer. Indeed, those firearms classified by the legislation as “assault rifles” are the least likely firearms to be used in crime.

In effect, the 1994 law bans 19 types of semi-automatic rifles and pistols because they have two or more “scary looking” features –like a bayonet lug, pistol grip or flash suppressor. Note that none of these features actually contribute to criminal use of the firearm. And, there is a prohibition on newly manufactured ammunition magazines capable of containing more than 10 rounds, for rifles or handguns.

Surely there must have been some reduction in crime as a result of this sweeping ban? Actually, no.

The U.S. Department of Justice conducted two studies of the consequences of the 1994 ban. Nearly five years after passage, in 1999, the U.S. Department of Justice, still under Clinton’s control, looked exhaustively at the ban’s effects. It concluded that “the public safety benefits of the 1994 ban have not yet been demonstrated.” In 2001, a second Justice Department review similarly found no evidence that the ban had a statistically significant effect on violent crime. Finally, a congressionally mandated study by the liberal Urban Institute reached comparable conclusions.

This article states that police are largely underwhelmed and will view the sunset of the ban as just another day:

Big shots in the national gun-control debate may party or hang out black crepe paper Sept. 13, when a 10-year ban on assault weapons is expected to end.

Area law enforcement officials expect it to be just another day on the streets.

“I think it makes most police officers uncomfortable knowing the amount of fire power that is out there and available to the percentage of the population that would use it for evil purposes,” said David Lain, chief deputy of the Porter County’s Sherrif’s Department.(sic)

“But I don’t see that, ban or no ban, that it’s going to affect what weapons the bad guys are able to get ahold of.” (sic)

Indeed.

On the political front, Clinton, in his book, apparently blamed the 1994 ban to the Republican congressional sweep that happened two months later:

One issue that Democrats are not highlighting on a national level is gun control. In his new book, Clinton writes that the passage of the assault-weapons ban helped Republicans take control of Congress 10 years ago.

Sen. John Kerry, who supports extending the ban that expires Sept. 13, has stressed that he is an avid hunter. He interrupted his campaign schedule earlier this year to vote for the extension of the assault-weapons ban.

However, he does not list gun control as a major issue on his campaign website and has attempted to make a clear distinction between his views on guns and those of 2000 Democratic presidential nominee Al Gore.

If you haven’t heard, Carolyn McCarthy will be giving a speech about the ban at the Democrat National Convention. The ban is definitely the party line at this point. If the ban sunsets, I’ll have to reconsider my support for Bush because if Bush loses, the Democrats will push for it.

However, this article states that Democrats are divided on the issue:

The issue is complicated for Democrats because some party leaders, including Louisiana Senate candidate Chris John, now a U.S. House member from Crowley, strongly support the National Rifle Association position against gun control, which is that aggressively prosecuting lawbreakers is more effective than any gun legislation.

Those who helped write the Democratic platform apparently didn’t want to place a major emphasis on the gun-control issue, devoting just a single paragraph to the topic.

“We will protect Americans’ Second Amendment right to own firearms, and we will keep guns out of the hands of criminals by fighting gun crime, reauthorizing the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole, as President Bush proposed and failed to do,” the platform reads.

Protecting my rights by infringing on them? I think you misunderstand the concept. The article also details the struggle in the party about, though most Democrats support the ban, they don’t want to push it because it will cost them votes. So, if it’s not an election year, expect a push for it if the Dems gain power.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation has a fact sheet on semi-automatic firearms.

Posted in uncategorized on July 27th, 2004 by SayUncle | RSS 2.0 |