Friday, September 7, 2012

Dems Want A New Assault Weapons Ban

Thanks to a commenter at New Jovian Thunderbolt, we can read for ourselves that the 2012 Democratic Platform calls for a renewal of the AWB.  As I said the other day, "party platforms aren't really worth the paper they're printed on - no one is required to follow them (heck, no one is even required to read them)".   Still, they give you some idea of the soul of the party - the direction some high-level members of the party would like to go. 
We can focus on effective enforcement of existing laws, especially strengthening our background check system, and we can work together to enact commonsense improvements—like reinstating the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole—so that guns do not fall into the hands of those irresponsible, law-breaking few. (emphasis added - SiG)
To those without a Bullshit to English translation program on their machine, "closing the gun show loophole" means, "making it illegal to sell your private property where you want".   The Bullshit to English translation of "loophole" is "fully legal activity the speaker disapproves of".   DOJ Statistics show that about 1% of guns involved in crimes are bought at a gun show.  They're either bought as stolen property, or the criminal steals them directly.  39% are bought from family or friends.  Gun shows are not a problem. 

How effective is an AWB likely to be?  Not effective at all.  We don't need to speculate, we have the 1994 - 2004 AWB to use as a model. It wasn't effective, why should a new one be?

I think that few would disagree that "Gun Facts" is one of the most thoroughly researched sites on the web.  Version 6.1 says:
Fact: In 1994, before the Federal “assault weapons ban,” you were eleven (11) times more likely to be beaten to death than to be killed by an “assault weapon.”359
Fact: In the first year after the ban was lifted, murders declined 3.6%, and violent crime 1.7%.360
Fact: Nationally, “assault weapons” were used in 1.4% of crimes involving firearms and 0.25% of all violent crime before the enactment of any national or state “assault weapons” ban. The rate is less than 0.1% In many major urban areas (San Antonio, Mobile, Nashville, etc.) as well as some some entire states (Maryland, New Jersey, etc.).361
Fact: Even the government agrees. “The weapons banned by this legislation [1994 Federal Assault Weapons ban - since repealed] were used only rarely in gun crimes”369
I'm sure these facts aren't surprising to any regular readers, just as I'm sure I don't need to remind my readers there really is nothing that distinguishes a so-called assault rifle besides appearance.  

Face it, Dems, these guns are very rarely used in any sort of nefarious activity.  When you consider that they're the most popular rifles sold in America for the past several years, and the sheer volume sold, they certainly would be available for criminals to steal.  But as Charles Krauthammer said (The Washington Post, April 5, 1996):
“Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is a symbolic, purely symbolic move ... Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation.” 
Symbolic acts that hurt law-abiding people while not impacting crime in any significant positive way?  Yeah that sounds like Evil Party logic.  Tyrants can't stand an independent, armed populace.   There's no logic involved, just emotional reactions. 

As always, gun control isn't about guns, it's about control


  1. I fully encourage them to continue pushing their gun control madness. This way, when some soda head keeps insisting that I'm paranoid over the Dems banning guns, I can smack them over the head with the internet.

    1. Rachel Madcow was doing a rant a few weeks ago how paranoid and stupid the right wingers are to think Dems want to institute more gun control. I'd take any bet she never recognizes this.

    2. You're expecting "her" to own up to what was said?
      I wouldn't take any bets on that.:)
      Accountability isn't something they seem to hold dear.

      I still recall being told I was extremely paranoid about Obama wanting to enact a gun ban, by every gun shop owner in west Texas. This was despite the claim on Obama's campaign page he was interested in renewing the AWB.

  2. Guns don't "fall" into the hands of criminals. This is one of the big problems with the Dems 'commonsense' arugments. They still make the erroneous connection between numbers and motives - more guns more crime, etc. That particular phrasing about "those irresponsible, law-breaking few" is supposed to make the responsible, law-abiding people think that Dems aren't punishing them for the acts of criminals, but behind the words is the real intent - less guns, period. Its not really about keeping guns away from criminals but about getting rid of guns altogether (except of course for those who wear the state-issued costume and/or collect a .gov paycheck). They refuse to recognize the facts that don't fit their narrative, the fact that most gun crime is committed with weapons obtained illegally in the first place, and therefore their goal seems perfectly reasonable. Law abiding gun owners are just collateral damage in the crusade against guns being waged on the entirely fictional premise that fewer guns = less crime.

    Exhibit A: (formerly) Great Britain