Posted on 04/24/2008 5:50:18 PM PDT by neverdem
When a rash of gun murders takes place, it makes sense for the police to do one of two things: renew tactics that have been effective in the past at curbing homicides, or embrace ideas that have not been tried before.
But those options don't appeal to Chicago Police Supt. Jody Weis. What he proposes is a crackdown on assault weapons.
I'm tempted to say this is the moral equivalent of a placebo—a sugar pill that is irrelevant to the malady at hand. But that would be unfair. Placebos, after all, sometimes have a positive effect. Assault weapons bans, not so much.
If there are too many guns in Chicago, it's not because of any statutory oversight. The city has long outlawed the sale and possession of handguns. It also forbids assault weapons. If prohibition were the answer, no one would be asking the question.
The recent spate of killings gives a misleading impression. Since the peak years of the early 1990s, the number of murders in Chicago has fallen by more than half. In the first three months of this year, homicides were down by 1.1 percent. No one would describe the current murder rate as acceptable, but the city has made huge progress.
It has done so despite the alleged problem cited by Weis, which is the availability of guns, and particularly one type of gun. "There are just too many weapons here," he declared at a Sunday news conference. "Why in the world do we allow citizens to own assault rifles?"
Actually, in Chicago "we" don't allow citizens to own assault rifles. Elsewhere they are allowed for the same reason other firearms are permitted. The gun Weis villainized is a type of semiautomatic that has a fearsome military appearance but is functionally identical to many legal sporting arms.
And its bark is worse than its bite. As of March 31, there had been 87 homicides in the city. When I asked the Chicago Police Department how many of the murders are known to have involved assault rifles, the answer came back: one.
As it happens, we already have ample experience with laws against these guns. From 1994 to 2004, their manufacture and sale were banned under federal law. Yet the number of murders committed with rifles and shotguns began falling in 1991, three years before the law was enacted.
It's true that gun homicides also fell while the law was in effect. Does that prove the value of the ban? Not exactly, since stabbing deaths fell even faster, as did murders involving crowbars, baseball bats and other blunt objects. Obviously other factors were behind the improvement.
The irrelevance of the law was plain to see. In 2004, Tom Diaz, an official of the pro-gun control Violence Policy Center, said, "If the existing assault weapons ban expires, I personally do not believe it will make one whit of difference" in curbing gun violence.
No surprise there. Anyone with criminal intent had plenty of deadly options at hand. The so-called assault weapons, contrary to what you might assume, were no more powerful or lethal than other, unbanned guns.
Not only that, but criminals, the people most likely to commit violent crimes, were completely unaffected by the ban—for the simple reason that they are not allowed to buy or own guns of any kind.
As Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck notes, most criminals arm themselves by stealing guns or buying guns stolen by someone else. So new restrictions don't make much difference to them. The federal ban was a classic illustration of how gun control works. Law-abiding people who rarely misuse their guns were deprived of options. Ex-cons went on as before.
Why wouldn't a gun ban dry up the supply of firearms available to criminals? Three reasons: There are more than 200 million guns in private hands. They have a very long useful life. And it doesn't take many to supply the nation's bad guys with all the ordnance they need.
Gun control hasn't worked as a remedy for crime. So what makes anyone think the answer is more gun control?
COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
I have a Colt .45 SAA revolver that was made in 1897. It shoots as well today as the day it was made.
Thanks for the post. I’ve been planning to get an AR-15 for a while now and this thread is a great reminder of why I originally wanted to get one in the first place. Because I can.
I have a Walther PPS 9mm, made in 2008. It will shoot as well in 111 years. God Bless America!!
“I’m tempted to say this is the moral equivalent of a placebo—a sugar pill that is irrelevant to the malady at hand. But that would be unfair. Placebos, after all, sometimes have a positive effect. Assault weapons bans, not so much.”
I consider it the moral equivalent of horse manure, not only irrelevant, but utterly misleading.
In reality that depends on how often you shoot the pistol.
If you wish that to be true you should buy a replacement barrel, firing pin, springs and other parts that wear out while you can.
That’s not fair.
Horse manure is relevant to roses and other plants!
This is not about gun control, it’s about controlling people and their right to defend themselves.
Awesome ... I have a Ruger 45 Colt blackhawk that shoots effectively a 44 mag round. I'd like to think that my son will pass it down to his granchildren.
The officers should forget about the shootings and all of that violence. They should all go out and strictly enforce parking and other traffic violations. Increased revenue to the city with population control of gangs for the most part.(/heavy sarcasm off...don’t agree, read my tag line!)
Thanks for the link.
I remember walking into a store one cold night in the mid 1980's, slapping down a small plastic card, signing a receipt, and walking out with a brand new stainless steel Mini-14. I remember how proud I was that I lived in a country where such a thing was possible.
Yes, too bad we don’t use the methods that they did.
Very nice pre-1898 revolver. You know it is worth a pretty penny don't you? Do you shoot smokeless or black powder cartridges through it? I have an nice little 1897 Iver Johnson .38 S&W that looks and shoots like new. I reload black powder cartridges for it.
Ah, the good old days. Long gone here in CA...
There is no substitute for victory.
There is no substitute for victory.
That's as things stand now, with a political leadership that doesn't really care if we achieve a clear victory or not.
Define the after-the-act actions you describe as providing aid and comfort to the enemy, and execute a few of the perpetrators for their actions when they are indeed proven to be treasonous, and the difficulty in achieving creative military solutions to political problems that can be so resolved would evaporate. Along with our enemies.
In practical terms, I don't really expect that to happen, unless a successful follow-on to the 09/11 atrocity occurs and the American people demand and get a regime change. But a future in which a surviving subdivision of the former United States takes such actions is entirely possible, and probably more likely.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.