Skip to comments.Adam Winkler: Banning "Assault Rifles" Counterproductive
Posted on 10/18/2016 4:45:00 AM PDT by marktwain
There are approaches to gun control, such as universal background checks and cracking down on rogue gun dealers, that can reduce the daily death toll from guns. It may seem like a victory for the forces of good to ban assault weapons, but such laws aren't the answer. Assault weapon bans are bad policy and bad politics.Winkler reiterated his logical opposition to "assault rifle" bans only a week ago. He was answering an interview question about Hillary Clinton's police positions. From an Oct. 2016 Interview at vice.com:
Another thing she wants to do is ban "assault rifles," but there's a debate about whether the old assault rifle ban, which expired in 2004, did much good. What do you think of that?In April of this year, Winkler penned an editorial against imposing a ban on standard capacity magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. From latimes.com:
My own view is that there's no way to make assault rifle bans effective. It's an ineffective law, it's an ineffective goal, it's an ineffective policy that's mostly about symbolism and not about substance. The truth is assault weapons are used very infrequently in crimes. I think there is a grand total of about 300 people a year who die from rifles of any sortassault or otherwise.
Americans have tried over and over to outlaw things that some insist are objectionable and others enjoy. Prohibition was repealed when its supporters realized that the disobeyed laws against alcohol brought the whole legal system into disrepute. The war on drugs is widely recognized as an abject failure. We haven't even been able to stop music file-sharing, which despite a 10-year effort by the recording industry is as popular as ever.Winkler is operating from pragmatism instead of principle, but that brings him to policy decisions that work to uphold a good bit of the Second Amendment.
Like alcohol, drugs and file-sharing, guns including the ones with large magazines are here to stay. Gun policy is going to be more effective when we stop fighting against that simple fact.
But what about handguns, bolt action rifles with magazines, etc? The question should always be what is next?
NY banned them.
4% compliance rate.
Not a good sign when otherwise law abiding citizens would rather be felons than comply.
I am guessing that this man thinks that people outside of his clique are basically fungible, but deep down inside he has those nagging doubts. So import a new group of people who have no respect for the laws and you end up with Third World LA, and while he sits atop and helps rule that mess, everyday that mess moves closer to his little West LA sanctuary.
There is no assault weapon problem in America. The assault weapon issue is complete bull***t fabricated by left wing journalists and politicians with ulterior motives.
It's worth mentioning that the graph doesn't even differentiate between rifles that would be considered "assault rifles" and rifles that would not be considered assault rifles.
If it did, the insignificance of this so called issue would be even more clear than it already is.
Death by assault rifle is rare in America but when it happens, it is exploited by these journalists and politicians in order to further an anti-second amendment agenda that never ends.
They are not interesting in protecting your children, they are interested in enslaving them.
Unsupported by any evidence. So-called "universal" background checks are a joke. They are based on the fantasy that when a criminal purchases a firearm from another criminal that they will obey the UBC law while preparing to break so many others, and that UBC will stop the transaction.
There are roughly 500,000 violent crimes committed each year with a firearm. If we estimate that a criminal obtains a firearm and uses it in say 10 such crimes (total guess here) before losing/discarding it, then that means there is a market/need for 50,000 illegal firearms coming into the "supply chain" each year. For comparison, there are roughly 20 million purchases - with background checks - from licensed dealers each year.
This points out that going after the "supply chain" by trying to force "universal" background checks is utterly futile. They are looking for that 0.25% in a field of 99.75% legal purchases... Even if they somehow succeeded - I have literally no idea how anyone could make "universal" background checks succeed - all they would do it induce criminals to hold onto firearms longer and/or raise the value of firearms that did make it into the criminal food chain. This extra value would actually be an incentive to commit more crimes to obtain that valuable commodity.
You are right. But universal background checks have nothing to do with drying up a supply chain and everything to do with identifying who owns guns and exactly what do they own? They are much more concerned with id’ing the law abiding gun owners than they are slowing down the criminals.
That has been my argument against arbitrarily slow speed limits. They imply that drivers are either stupid or suicidal. They also move the highway patrol from the "Serve & Protect" role to that of being the Enemy.
Engineers used to use the "85% Rule" - set the speed limit at a speed which 85% of the drivers are driving at or below. The assumption was that most drivers are neither stupid nor suicidal. This rationale gave us speed limits of 70mph on Interstates while driving a 1950's car with lousy steering and tires, compared to today's vehicles.
If the gun laws of the 1950's are deemed inadequate to stem 'gun violence', what has changed since then?
Evil men no longer fear the death penalty.
God has been 'removed' from public life and education, so men no longer fear God.
Music, movies, TV and the new phenomenon of Video Games glorify extreme violence directed at authority and innocent bystanders. The old "shoot-em-ups" usually showed that there were consequences to lawless violence.
No, no, no The law says they have to destroy those records.
“No, no, no The law says they have to destroy those records.”
Even if they did destroy them, most FFL’s keep their 4473 forms digitally. So it would be about a week long project (max) for the feds to i.d. 99.9% of the legal gun owners in the US and what guns they own. The only thing that stops them is private sales with no official background checks. And that’s why they are so fanatic about background checks for private sales.
What they can’t get from the 4473’s, they will get from data mining. If you buy Glock 27 magazines online, you probably own a Glock 29. If you buy .556 ammo online, you probably . . .
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.