Skip to comments.Assault Weapons: Facts vs. Fiction
Posted on 07/29/2012 7:09:10 AM PDT by Kaslin
Its not much of an exaggeration to say that John Lott has changed the national debate on gun control. His rigorous research and prolific pen have exposed the slip-shod analysis of anti-Constitution advocates.
Ive cited his work on several occasions.
Its now time to share more of Lotts work.
Responding to some of the demagoguery after the Colorado killings, heres some of what he wrote for National Review.
the M&P 15 and the AK-47 are military-style weapons. But the key word is style they are similar to military guns in their aesthetics, not in the way they actually operate. The guns covered by the federal assault-weapons ban (which was enacted in 1994 and expired ten year later) were not the fully automatic machine guns used by the military but semi-automatic versions of those guns. The civilian version of the AK-47 uses essentially the same sorts of bullets as deer-hunting rifles, fires at the same rapidity (one bullet per pull of the trigger), and does the same damage.
This is a key point. I suspect most journalists (and far too many people who get their news from these clowns) genuinely think an assault weapon is akin to a machine gun.
Lott also shows that there is nothing about military-style weapons that enables a bigger magazine.
The Aurora killers large-capacity ammunition magazines are also misunderstood. The common perception that so-called assault weapons can hold larger magazines than hunting rifles is simply wrong. Any gun that can hold a magazine can hold one of any size. That is true for handguns as well as rifles. A magazine, which is basically a metal box with a spring, is also trivially easy to make and virtually impossible to stop criminals from obtaining.
Lott then discusses some of the research showing that Clintons assault-weapons ban didnt reduce crime.
despite Obamas frightening image of military weapons on Americas streets, it is pretty hard to seriously argue that a new ban on assault weapons would reduce crime in the United States. Even research done for the Clinton administration didnt find that the federal assault-weapons ban reduced crime. Indeed, banning guns on the basis of how they look, and not how they operate, shouldnt be expected to make any difference. And there are no published academic studies by economists or criminologists that find the original federal assault-weapons ban to have reduced murder or violent crime generally. There is no evidence that the state assault-weapons bans reduced murder or violent-crime rates either.
Indeed, it appears that crime has dropped because the ban no longer exists.
Since the federal ban expired in September 2004, murder and overall violent-crime rates have actually fallen. In 2003, the last full year before the law expired, the U.S. murder rate was 5.7 per 100,000 people. Preliminary numbers for 2011 show that the murder rate has fallen to 4.7 per 100,000 people. In fact, murder rates fell immediately after September 2004, and they fell more in the states without assault-weapons bans than in the states with them.
Correlation is not causation, of course, but these results also are consistent with logic and intuition. If law-abiding people have more access to guns, it makes sense that this makes life more difficult for criminals.
P.S. For fans of the Second Amendment, youll enjoy these gun control posters (here, here, here, here, and here). And here are some amusing images of t-shirts and bumper stickers on gun control (here, here, and here). In addition, Ive posted four different videos on gun control (here, here, here, and here). And heres my interview on NRA-TV.
Lott will never convince the anti’s that more guns = less crime, but he/we, can prove beyond a doubt that more guns DO NOT = more crime.
Gun sales have skyrocketed over the past 4 years all while crime has decreased.
Contact Mitt on this. He’s WAFFLING!!!!
Is there any way we can past by the “Assault Weapon” definition.
There are single shot rifles, repeaters, semi-automatic & fully automatic rifles.
Other than that, they are all the same. How powerful they are depends on the type of cartridge they use, not whether they are “hunting rifles” or “military rifles”.
Doesn’t matter to the unwashed masses, many of whom either have never fired a gun in their life, or last handled a gun during a military hitch that they may not have fond memories of. And, the anti-gunners know it.
Beretta USA has a sale on their 92/CX4 30 round magazines for $40. That’s a steal!
The left doesn’t like it, but here’s the `bright line’: a necessary element in the definition/for a firearm to be considered an “assault weapon” is that it must be capable of fully automatic fire, e.g. `Automat Kalashnikov, 1947.’
The three round burst on our service weapon complicated the definition, but not really.
A semi-automatic firearm fires as fast as you depress, release and then again depress the trigger. It is not an “assault weapon.” If a semi-auto firearm is an assault weapon, then the Ruger 10-22 and Jennings .22 are included. The spaz’s on the left (Piers, Bloomie, et al.) don’t have to like it, that’s what it is, QED.
It's not about crime. It's about, "I don't have a gun -- so YOU don't need one! Take his gun away!"
People who don't want to learn, will never earn. In this case, it's freedom and peace of mind that they are willing to let slip away, because all they care about is getting good bagels at 2 a.m. -- Blue America hasn't got what it takes to be free, and they're a lead weight around our necks.
Pretty much any hunting rifle is going to be based on a military designed rifle like the K98 Mauser.
RE: There are single shot rifles, repeaters, semi-automatic & fully automatic rifles.
Other than that, they are all the same. How powerful they are depends on the type of cartridge they use, not whether they are hunting rifles or military rifles
Therefore, the questions that arise are the following:
1) Should citizens be allowed to own fully automatic rifles?
2) Should citizens be allowed to own military rifles?
3) Should citizens be allowed to own semi-automatic rifles?
If the answer is ‘yes’ to all three above, is there any LIMIT to what non-military, non-police citizens can own without infringing on the second amendment?
If the answer is ‘no’ to all three above, what can a non-military, non-police citizen own without infringing on the second amendment?