2/27/2009

New Fox News Op-ed: New Assault Weapons Ban Will Not Reduce Crime In This Country

My new piece at Fox News starts this way:

It is pretty hard to seriously argue that a new so-called “assault weapons” ban would reduce crime in the United States. Even research done for the Clinton Administration couldn’t find that the federal assault weapons ban reduced crime.

There are no academic studies by economists or criminologist that find the original federal assault weapons ban reduced murder or violent crime generally. There is no evidence that the state assault weapons bans reduced murder or violent crime rates – even some evidence that they caused murder to rise slightly. Since the federal ban sunset in September 2004, murder and overall violent crime rates have remained virtually unchanged.

In fact, when the assault weapon's ban sunset in September 2004 there was no explosion of murder and bloodshed as gun control advocates feared. Immediately after the law expired murder rates fell and they fell more in the states without state assault weapon bans than the states with them.

But yesterday, Eric Holder, the new U.S. Attorney General, offered a new justification: “I think that will have a positive impact in Mexico, at a minimum.” . . .

Labels: , ,

8 Comments:

Blogger J.D. said...

Don't let facts get in your way.

In 2004..."officers in Orlando and Orange County seized 15 high-powered AK-47s and AR-15s. Four years later, that number grew to 79, a jump of more than 400 percent."

"Following implementation of the ban, the share of gun crimes involving AWs
declined by 17% to 72%"

2/27/2009 4:12 AM  
Blogger 1 said...

"There are no academic studies by economists or criminologist that find the original federal assault weapons ban reduced murder or violent crime generally. There is no evidence that the state assault weapons bans reduced murder or violent crime rates – even some evidence that they caused murder to rise slightly. Since the federal ban sunset in September 2004, murder and overall violent crime rates have remained virtually unchanged"...

Sadly nothing new here but politicos being politicos refuse to learn the lessons of history...

Fear of Obama drives gun stocks higher

(skip)

Ruger reported Tuesday that gun sales increased 81% in the fourth quarter on new products and "robust firearms demand." Its order backlog now stands at $48 million. Smith & Wesson plans to double revenue within the next three years and reported increased sales from "speculation on the outcome of the presidential election." Cabela's reported that same-store sales rose 2.2% over the holiday election season -- a time of great distress for other retailers.

With that kind of performance, it's not surprising investors are flocking to these names. Over the last week, while the S&P 500 is down 2%, Smith & Wesson is up 56%, Cabela's has gained 35%, and Rugers added 44%.

2/27/2009 4:31 AM  
Blogger TaintedPix said...

No matter what, when it comes to criminals trying to get a hold of guns, they will get them.

You should see how easy it is to get a hold of chemicals needed to create explosives. Those are all illegal, and I can find them on eBay.

I'm going to toss this article up on a couple forums I'm on.
http://swstreetrides.com/

-TORCH

2/27/2009 5:28 AM  
Blogger fromwembley said...

Holder is a fool. I thought I was upset when he called America a nation of cowards. Now I wish he would just stick to his racist anti-White pep talks. Because if Holder actually starts DOING things it sounds like he'll screw them up.

I have just a tad of pity for poor Mexicans who live with narco violence. But don't restrict Americans' rights. Mexican drug gangs have the cash and political clout in Mexico and abroad to get guns anywhere.

Holder is really showing himself to be ignorant of America, its people, and its problems.

2/27/2009 8:55 AM  
Blogger Chas said...

"It is pretty hard to seriously argue that a new so-called “assault weapons” ban would reduce crime in the United States."

Markie Marxist sez: "Oh, we don't want to reduce crime. We want to disarm our political enemies, law-abiding gun owners, and leave them more vulnerable to crime. That should increase crime. Crime works for us politically. It helps to destroy capitalism, gives us more power over disarmed individuals, brings down America so that socialism doesn't look so bad, it encourages more dependence on government programs for a 'solution', and it allows us to increase taxes and spending thus moving America closer to the 100% taxation that is communism. Crime is a good thing for advancing our Marxist agenda.”

2/27/2009 11:53 AM  
Blogger Rick "9mm" Ector said...

Hopefully, I am not the only person wondering why law-abiding US citizens should have their rights infringed to help another country with their law enforcement problems. The offerred explanation from the AG Holder defies reasoned thought.

2/27/2009 11:54 AM  
OpenID Adam Smith said...

I think it's important also to clarify that these so-called 'assault weapons' in reality are all semi-automatic rifles, which is a large class of firearms that Americans own. There is also the myth that you can easily convert these into fully automatic weapons. In general the BATF makes sure the conversion is very hard--you need hours in a shop with a gunsmith willing to commit a felony. Even the full-auto sear by itself is treated as a machine gun. CNN loves to play videos of machine guns when this topic comes up, but as usual they are simply brainwashing the less-informed.

2/27/2009 2:14 PM  
Blogger Martin G. Schalz said...

So often do I read of our rights being stripped away for the mere purpose of political advancement.

This is no different.

We wail and gnash our teeth at the actions of those whom wish to enslave us, yet we fail to do two things; implement our suffrage, and or overthrow a corrupt and despotic government.

The two aforementioned rights are 'God Given' according to the Constitution. Inalienable is the word used, I do believe.

Let us look at the problem of suffrage for a moment.

We elect these clowns, and they fail to uphold their promises and oaths of office.

I am of the opinion that SCOTUS decisions are made not on the fact of law, but are influenced by the political and socioeconomic forces in effect at the time of the decision. The same holds true to the idiots that we elect. Stimulus, response. Laws, and rights be damned.

We also suffer due to the fact that our elected offals ignore their oath of office. They promote their own personal ideologies at the expense of all. Why do we let them get away with these abuses? Is not the oath inviolate? Who or what enforces adherence to the oath? We do!!!

We have many solutions to correct the erosion of our rights. Vote the bums out. Revolution. Have laws enacted that punish those whom fail to uphold their oath, and enforce said laws vigorusly. Impeachement. etc., etc.

To do nothing is to fail.

3/01/2009 10:54 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home