Assault Weapons Ban reintroduced

November 9, 2017

In the aftermath of the horrific church shooting in Sutherland Springs, Texas, Dianne Feinstein and 22 other Senate Democrats have already introduced a new “assault weapons” ban bill. I don’t like to accuse people of politicizing a tragedy, but it’s curious that they already have a bill written and ready to go this quickly, and that it so closely resembles a 2013 bill to revive the 1994 assault weapons ban that was sponsored by…Diane Feinstein.

The sponsors admit the new law “wouldn’t stop every mass shooting,” but they say we’ve got to start somewhere. That sounds like common sense, but it has more flaws than a $2 diamond. First of all, there really is no such thing as an “assault weapon.” Any weapon is an assault weapon; that’s just a made-up term to describe a weapon that exhibits a combination of various features that make it look more like a scary military weapon but may not make it more deadly, and in some cases are actually just safety or convenience features.

Commentary continues below advertisement

Second, the ten-year 1994 assault weapons ban wasn’t allowed to expire because of the evil NRA, as liberals like to claim, but because it had no demonstrable effect on crime or murder rates. An exhaustive study by criminology Prof. Christopher S. Koper found that crimes involving the banned weapons declined, but they made up just 2 percent of all gun crimes anyway, and that was offset by a rise in crimes using other types of guns. Proponents such as Feinstein pointed to a drop in gun crime during that decade, but Koper could find no evidence that gun crime became less lethal or that the gun ban had any discernable impact on the gun crime rate.

He did find that because of the grandfathering of previously-available “assault weapons,” the ban might have led to a small reduction in shootings if it had gone on much longer. Or, I would posit a more likely scenario: criminals might have just switched permanently to other types of guns, most acquired illegally.

Commentary continues below advertisement

I think the problem lies in the pro-gun control side's inability to be completely honest. I believe that in their heart of hearts, what they sincerely want is to ban all guns and confiscate them, as other nations have done that they point to as examples. But what it’s done in those nations is turn the law-abiding into unarmed sitting ducks for the lawless to prey upon. Advocates seem to think that the lack of firearms would end violence, which conveniently ignores everything from knife attacks to vehicle attacks to flying planes into buildings to sucker-punching your neighbor while he’s mowing his lawn. Besides, too many Americans cherish their Second Amendment rights and would never comply with gun confiscation. The only explanation for their inability to come up with a new law that would do any good is that they don't have one. So they have to fall back on “do something that feels good, even if it’s pointless.”

You know, it’s ironic that the left has become emboldened about attacking people of religious faith, even openly mocking prayers for victims of mass shootings as useless superstition. Yet when pressed on what they would actually do to stop mass shootings, the best they can come up with is to pass more laws like the ones we already have that didn’t stop the Texas shooter, or to revive a gun ban that was already proven to have had no effect.

And they accuse people who believe in prayer of “magical thinking?”


More Stories

ICE needs to keep it up, not pull back

Memo to Jeff Sessions

Stop passing useless laws

Cooked gun statistics

Leave A Comment

Note: Fields marked with an * are required.

Your Information
Your Comment
BBML accepted!

Comments 1-5 of 25

  • Bruce Deming

    11/15/2017 11:20 AM

    Typical libtard democrat never waste a tragedy rhetoric. Adolf Cuomo got away with it in New York just after the Sandy Hook false flag hoax. He clandestinely rammed through the Safe Act limiting rifle upgrades to 1, and magazine size to 7 rounds, without the required 72 hour wait. Albany NY makes DC look like a monastery.

  • Michael R Brannick

    11/14/2017 11:19 PM

    As even The New York Times pointed out in a 2014 article headlined “The Assault Weapon Myth,” Clinton’s DoJ looked at the law and concluded that “Should it be renewed, the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement.” So a ban on the most popular sporting rifle in the country won't do a bit of good. But it WOULD do damage. EVERY day law-abiding American gun owners use their guns to STOP violent crimes. How often? The SMALLEST estimate of that I've found is in the National Crime Victimization Survey put out by the Violence Policy Center, not exactly a bastion of conservative thought. It states legal firearms are used to stop crimes the equivalent of 129 times per day. Approximately 50% more than the 88-92 lives lost to "gun violence" Hillary and Ex-Mayor Bloomberg's minions often quote. And this allows the gun controllers to include in their figures 66 suicides and a number of justified homicides such as police shooting criminals and those law-abiding citizen who actually had to shoot their attacker.
    (Most criminals run at the sight of a gun, but not all). Pursuant to Obama's Executive Order telling the CDC to investigate gun violence as a health problem their report said guns are used defensively between 500,000 (a359/day) and 3 million (8219/day) times per year. So if AR-15s are banned how many of those violent crimes won't be stopped? How many more deaths due to "gun violence" will there be because the citizens couldn't use their rifles to defend themselves?

  • Wendell Hurst

    11/13/2017 11:07 PM

    I wonder how many currently legally armed citizens would be prevented from stopping attacks if this "new" law were passed?

  • Glenda Kimberlin

    11/13/2017 02:39 PM

    A huge step towards stopping hate crimes, would be the left stopping their spewing of hate towards anyone that doesn’t agree with them! The news media and the leftists seem to enjoy and embrace tragedy , if they can twist it to promote their agenda. An agenda of control and profit!

  • Glenda Kimberlin

    11/13/2017 02:39 PM

    A huge step towards stopping hate crimes, would be the left stopping their spewing of hate towards anyone that doesn’t agree with them! The news media and the leftists seem to enjoy and embrace tragedy , if they can twist it to promote their agenda. An agenda of control and profit!