The answer is no
An article that asks the question: Will Lapse of the Assault Weapons Ban Lead to More Columbines? It makes many of the same points I have made about the ineffectiveness of the assault weapons ban. However, it should be pointed out that Columbine occurred in 1999, while the ban was in effect.
October 12th, 2004 at 9:31 am
Don’t forget, also, that the Columbine killers used two sawed-off shotguns…which have been regulated since 1934.
Think they paid that $200 NFA tax on those?
October 13th, 2004 at 2:35 am
Good article.
Don’t you just cringe every time someone mentions “assault weapons”? The word Columbine is never far behind, even though it is, like you said, unrelated.
October 13th, 2004 at 2:02 pm
Overall it’s a good article, but I cringed at two parts. (1) “Clips” for magazines. (2) “According to figures from the FBI, approximately 10% of all violent crime in the U.S. is attributable to guns, 15% is attributable to other causes [sharp objects, blunt objects, rope, poison, etc.].”
Let’s rewrite this in a form that doesn’t suggest that rocks jump up from the ground all by themselves to club hapless victims: “Approximately 10% of all violent crime on the US is committed with guns, and 15% with other weapons.” So, apparently 75% of violent crimes are committed without any weapon – that is, bare hands.
It sounds to me like either the FBI counts way too many plain fist fights in it’s violent crime statistics, or victim disarmament is working all too well. Using your bare hands to mug an 85 year old unarmed woman is one thing. Mugging one who is carrying a pistol is quite another.