The 2004 Hunt. Presidential candidates on guns.

NRO ^ | November 18, 2003, 9:11 a.m. | By John R. Lott Jr.

[.cnI redruM]

Democratic presidential candidates have recently taken up a new calling: offering advice to hunters. Governor Howard Dean supports extending the assault-weapons ban next year "because I never met a hunter who needed an AK-47 to shoot a deer." Senator John Kerry offered, "When I go out there and hunt, I'm going out there with a 12-gauge shotgun, not an assault weapon."

Clearly what worries these senators is that people and not deer will be "hunted" with these guns. As Senator Carl Levin noted early this year, allowing the ban to expire will "inevitably lead to a rise in gun crimes." Ratcheting up the fear factor to a new level, Senator Charles Schumer claims the ban is one of "the most effective measures against terrorism that we have." New York Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy claims: "You want an assault weapon? Go join the Army."

The most-charitable interpretation is that the ban's proponents know nothing about guns. "Assault-weapon ban" conjures up images of machine guns used by the military, which are surely not very useful in hunting deer. Yet, the 1994 federal ban had nothing to do with machine guns, only semiautomatics, which fire one bullet per pull of the trigger. The firing mechanisms in semiautomatic and machine guns are completely different. The entire firing mechanism of a semiautomatic gun has to be gutted and replaced to turn it into a machine gun.

Functionally the banned semiautomatic guns are the same as other non-banned semiautomatic guns, firing the exact same bullets with the same rapidity and producing the exact same damage. The ban arbitrarily outlaws 19 different guns based upon either their name or cosmetic features, such as whether the gun could have a bayonet attached.

With the sniper trial now going in Virginia, the media understandably focuses on the so-called "sniper rifle." Yet, the .223- caliber Bushmaster rifle used in the sniper killings was neither a "sniper" rifle nor an "assault weapon." In fact, it is such a low-powered rifle that most states ban it even for deer hunting precisely because of its low power, too frequently wounding and not killing deer. Ironically, the much-maligned AK-47, only new semiautomatic versions of the gun were banned, uses a .30-caliber bullet that is actually well suited to hunting deer.

The law never had any effect on crime. Banning a few percent of semiautomatic guns when otherwise identical guns are available only changes the brand criminals use. But despite the apocalyptic claims, the law didn't even do that much. Even President Clinton, who signed an "assault-weapon ban" into law, complained in 1998 how easy it had been for gun manufacturers to continue selling the banned guns simply by changing the guns' names or by making the necessary cosmetic changes.

The banned guns were seldom used in the commission of crimes to begin with. A 1995 Clinton administration study found that fewer than one percent of state and federal inmates carried a "military-type" semiautomatic guns (a much broader set of guns than those banned by the law) for crimes they committed during early 1990s before the ban. A similar 1997 survey showed no reduction in this type of crime gun after the ban.

Only two studies have been conducted on the federal law's impact on crime, one of which also examined the state assault-weapons laws. One study was funded by the Clinton administration and examined just the first year the law was in effect. It concluded that the ban's "impact on gun violence has been uncertain."

The second study was done by me and is found in my book The Bias Against Guns. It examines the first four years of the federal law as well as the different state assault-weapon bans. Even after accounting for law enforcement, demographics, poverty, and other factors that affect crime, the laws did not reduce any type of violent crime. In fact, overall violent crime actually rose slightly, by 1.5 percent, but the impact was not statistically significant. The somewhat larger increase in murder rates was significant.

The only clear result of the state bans was to consistently reduce the number of gun shows by about 25 percent. Features such as bayonet mounts on guns may not mean much to criminals, but gun collectors sure seem to like them.

The bans have now been in effect for almost a decade, without any evidence of any benefits. Increased crime is not the biggest danger arising from not extending the law. Politicians who have claimed such dire consequence from these mislabeled "assault weapons" have put their reputations on the line. If the extension fails, a year after that voters will wonder what all the hysteria was about.

Fueled by false images of machine guns and sniper rifles, the debate next year is likely to be very emotional. Let's hope that the politicians at least learn what guns are being banned

[.cnI redruM]

Wrong. The election of a Democratic Pres. who would go on tv and make it an issue every night would significantly alter public opinion.

Also, if the Dems do well enough to get the White House away from an incumbant President, they will take the house by a good 20-30 seats as well.

[bc2]

the last 10 years has led me to believe that Republicans in Congress do more to support a conservative agenda when they do not have the White House.

Maybe I am wrong but this is what I see at first glance.

[ArrogantBustard]

If memory serves, the 1994 Ugly Gun ban was excreted by the Committee on the Judiciary as part of an "omnibus" crime reduction bill.

The current chairman of this committee is one F. James Sensenbrenner, a Representative of Wisconsin.

[neverdem]

Cool pic. The poster held by the jerk-off on the right is priceless.

[.cnI redruM]

Sensenbrenner needs to receive the email barrage constantly between now and then. A great tactical move would involve seperating the ban from the Omnibus legislation and getting it shot down on the floor. I'm guessing it would do well to get 150 votes without being attached to Federal Law Enforcement funding as a rider.

[ArrogantBustard]

In point of fact, Miller was dead when his case reached the Supreme Court. The Supremes remanded it to the lower court for reconsideration, along with the "no judicial notice" business. Miller being dead, the lower court dropped the case.

[LTCJ]

he's glib, but not very deep.

Then it would probably be lost on him if it were pointed out that, under a strict Constitutional test, tyrantical politicans would find it to their advantage to grow antlers?

[Mr. Mojo]

Senator John Kerry offered, "When I go out there and hunt, I'm going out there with a 12-gauge shotgun, not an assault weapon."

FrankenKerry believes that hunting is the only legitimate use for guns.

[ArrogantBustard]

A renewal bill would not have to be part of an "omnibus" bill. In fact, if it became such that too would be evidence that the Republican leadership isn't doing its job. They can't preven the 'Rats from introducing an Ugly Gun ban renewal; they can make sure that the bill goes precisely nowhere.

[caltrop]

Most Congressional districts have been drawn to ensure the incumbent goes back to Washington if he wants to. Only about 35 seats are likely to be truly in play next year, for example. The chance the Democrats will take over the House in 2004 is tiny. The Presidency is a different story, however. The Democrats could win the Presidency with the shift of very few votes and, in particular, if Nader decides to sit it out or doesn't pull the votes he did in 2000.

[.cnI redruM]

Only if bag limits on antlered a--holes pass a strict constitutional standard.

[.cnI redruM]

I doubt Kerry has been out of the heating or air-conditioning longer than 1 hour for more than 20 years.

[.cnI redruM]

SO The Commitee Chairman could count his votes and then release it when he knew it would die a bloody death. Gunned down by eager sharpshooters.

[drypowder]

Ya think these dumacrats really believe the 2nd Amendment is meant only to allow us to hunt? Anyone who speaks of the 2nd in those terms is either a lier or very poorly educated in US history. This country doesn't want nor need another president who is a lier and/or doesn't know American history.

[caltrop]

That Republicans in Congress seem neutered every time a Compassionate/Liberal/Rockefeller Republican wins the Presidency is becoming harder and harder to ignore. Here in Florida, I know a number of 2000 Bush voters who'll probably be voting for Dean in 2004 on that basis and Dean's A rating from the NRA.

[.cnI redruM]

Yeah, but there are people who will swear up and down Howard Dean is here to guard the 2nd Amendment.

[JoJo Gunn]

That picture paints a thousand words, don't it?

[Hat-Trick]

Clearly what worries these senators is that people and not deer will be "hunted" with these guns.

Let me show you what I believe truly "worries these senators", and why they are so persistent in attempting to deny law-abiding citizens the God-given right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed in the 2nd Amendment:

Hat-Trick

[xsrdx]

Actually, SEN Kerry, with an extended magazine and pistol grip, this "12 gauge shotgun" is expressly PROHIBITED as an "Assault Weapon".

So, surely, you must mean that your $4000 Beretta double is the only acceptable hunting arm, for the ruling class only -of course.

[cruiserman]

which are surely not very useful in hunting deer

It's certainly possible to kill a deer with a select fire, .223 rifle.