Posted on 12/18/2012 5:27:59 AM PST by SeekAndFind
In the wake of the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary, numerous Democrats have called for legislation banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Unfortunately, such bans are empty gestures, certain to offend many law-abiding citizens but highly unlikely to reduce gun violence.
Simply put, so-called “assault weapons” are nowhere near the root of the American violence problem. According to FBI data, of the two-thirds of murders that involve firearms, about 69 percent involve handguns rather than rifles or shotguns of any kind. Most estimates place the contribution of assault weapons to gun crime at around 1 or 2 percent. These numbers should not be surprising: Rifles are difficult to conceal, and a criminal who decides to use a rifle has little reason to prefer an assault weapon over any other semiautomatic option. Contrary to popular myth, assault weapons fire only once for each pull of the trigger; they are not machine guns.
The features that define assault weapons — such as a folding stock or a pistol grip — may look militaristic, but they provide little advantage to someone intent on killing innocent civilians. Adam Lanza used a variant of the AR-15, but he could have achieved the same result with any number of guns commonly employed in hunting and self-defense. As yet there are no reports that Lanza’s Bushmaster .223 was outfitted in such a way as to fall under Connecticut’s assault-weapons ban (or under the national ban that expired in 2004), and .223 ammo is not unusually powerful; to the contrary, most deer hunters use larger calibers, and many of them are required to do so by state laws.
Further, statistical research has failed to turn up evidence that the federal ban that expired in 2004 did any good. Columbine occurred while the ban was in effect.
A limit on magazine capacity (which was also part of the federal ban) is by far the more plausible of the proposed measures, seeing that Gabrielle Giffords’s shooter was tackled while reloading his gun. However, other shooters (such as those at Columbine and Virginia Tech) have had no problem reloading, and still others (such as those at the Aurora movie theater and possibly the Oregon mall) have experienced jams while using high-capacity magazines. The net effect of such legislation would almost certainly be statistically indistinguishable from zero.
Both of these measures raise Second Amendment concerns as well. It is difficult to claim there is a legitimate reason to ban assault weapons, given the above-explained irrelevance of the distinction. And reviving the 1994 ban’s ten-round cap on magazine capacity would outlaw the standard versions of popular guns such as the Glock 17, which is likely a violation of the Second Amendment interpretation laid out in Heller and McDonald.
The Left would like to take this tragedy as an opportunity to reform our laws in such a way as to make public shootings significantly less likely. This is a noble goal. Bans on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines will not accomplish it.
America does not have a "gun problem".
We have moral, behavioral and cultural problems.
It is not even well intentioned.
Gun Control is about CONTROL. These people don’t care about victims or they wouldn’t create self-defense free zones for nutballs to commit massacres in. They just don’t want YOU have the means for self defense.
“And reviving the 1994 ban’s ten-round cap on magazine capacity would outlaw the standard versions of popular guns such as the Glock 17, which is likely a violation of the Second Amendment interpretation laid out in Heller and McDonald. “
People forget that the Assault weapon ban IS STILL IN EFFECT IN CT. Thoase who say the AWB would have prevented this are morons.
“And reviving the 1994 ban’s ten-round cap on magazine capacity would outlaw the standard versions of popular guns such as the Glock 17, which is likely a violation of the Second Amendment interpretation laid out in Heller and McDonald. “
People forget that the Assault weapon ban IS STILL IN EFFECT IN CT. Those who say the AWB would have prevented this are morons.
“You don’t have to ban them. You just have to coerce retailers not to sell them.”
By, say, issuing an executive order for the BATFE to stop processing all paperwork, including FFL renewals.
Oh, sure, the FFLs will sue, but that can be dragged out in the courts until they go under for want of revenue.
Well as it has been pointed out that you’re bringing up something which isn’t relevant in most cases, I have to wonder why you are still pursuing it?
Let’s be honest here, why should we trade a restriction on guns for a restriction on body armor? I mean do you think body armor somehow convinces people that they are invincible and thus go out and do crimes? That’s no more plausible than guns making people commit murder.
LLS
Open the mental institutions! Take the psychos out of the general public!
That might be messy for a little while, but those who succeed at anger management would live in a more peaceful and polite society after that.
Mitt Romney: ““These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.””
Besides which, the federal AWB didn’t ban high capacity magazines - it only banned manufacturing or importing new ones.
Not pursuing anything. Just stated an opinion.
I am also not convinced that body armor makes someone feel invincible when committing crimes. However if someone is going to commit a crime and I put two center mass, I don’t want him to get up.
What is the practical use of body armor in the civilian sector? The only one I can think of is to protect us when government turns weapons on us. If we ever get to that point, we have bigger problems.
That makes no sense when most of the mass murderers end up capping themselves anyway (which I wish they would just do first and save everyone all the grief).
What? People get shot. Having body armor would save a lot of grief for someone who is likely to be the victim of a holdup.
So if I want to be safer by owning body armor (for whatever reason), that is trumped by your desire to be guaranteed to be able to put someone down with a chest shot? I don’t think so.
|
Are you still killing your unborn? -- GOD |
Sowing and reaping comes to mind.
BOOKMARK
Yeah? Cite your sources for this ridiculous comment. I can think of exactly ONE time where this happened. The South LA Bank Robbery where the bad guys also had full auto AK's. The main issue in that case was poor marksmanship by the cops who couldn't seem to make the head shot for anything. Oh yeah and maybe the shooter in Colorado was gussied up like that but it probably worked against him in restricting his vision to the sides and rear. But heck, I'll buy Body Armor just because there's a chance the bureaucrats in DC might make it illegal.
I can hear it now: You don't need body armor to hunt deer! You sound like them. The Second Amendment ain't about hunting! The framers meant it this way: If the INFANTRY carries it, the people must have it too, but in greater numbers. That's the only way to stay free. Has that thought glanced across your brain?
“I can hear it now: You don’t need body armor to hunt deer! You sound like them. The Second Amendment ain’t about hunting! The framers meant it this way: If the INFANTRY carries it, the people must have it too, but in greater numbers. That’s the only way to stay free. Has that thought glanced across your brain?”
I think this is what I said:
“What is the practical use of body armor in the civilian sector? The only one I can think of is to protect us when government turns weapons on us. If we ever get to that point, we have bigger problems.”
So, yes. It did glance across my brain and no, I never said anything about hunting so please don’t try to parse my words.
And thank you for validating what I said about seeing it before. Read up on it. There have been quite a few crimes committed by criminals in body armor and body armor is illegal to have in several states.
If a criminal wants body armor, he will get it.
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.