….repeating same tactics over and over and expecting different results. The failed“Assault Gun Ban” during Clinton era 1994-2004 followed same formula: defining assault guns by features not automatic process, exempts some weapons that have actually been used in mass shootings, and limits pistol grips, forward grips, telescoping stocks, and barrel shrouds which do not increase the lethality of a firearm.
They may make a gun more ergonomic or tactical-looking, but they do not change how it functions. The reason such bans are ineffective: See 2004 study led by Christopher S. Koper, “An Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003.”
Ø Gun related crimes are used in 2% of US gun related incidents.
Ø Gun control is based on faulty logic, not statistical law enforcement facts, that less gun access lowers the crime rate.
Ø Guns are not uniquely lethal. We live in a world filled with extremely lethal objects from chemical compounds to big trucks. We can license and regulate some things. But we can’t regulate everything.
Ø For example, the French authorities seize some 1,200 “assault rifles” every year. Meanwhile in the capital of the European Union, you can get a “military weapon” for $500 in half an hour.
Ø Chicago and other big democratic power centers killing fields haverestrictive gun ordinances and no gun stores or ranges are within city limits; but, the gangs kill every weekend.
Ø We have a gang problem, not a gun problem.
Ø Legal firearms make it easier for people to defend themselves and for the authorities to track criminals. Criminalizing firearms just creates a massive black market in which anything goes.
Ø Existing weapons are grandfathered, meaning there are an estimated 4.0million in circulation assault weapons and 40 million to 60 million large-capacity magazines still in the U.S. The estimated total number of guns (both licit and illicit) held by civilians in the United States is 310,000,000 to 328,000,000.
Ø In a comparison of the number of privately owned guns in 178 countries, the United States ranked at No. 1, ranks No. 1 in number of privately owned firearms per 100 ranks, and ranks 31st in Rate of Gun Homicides per 100,000 people (3.43)-; if gun access, pushed by the anti-gun movement, was the primary factor in gun related homicides you would expect the US to rank NUMBER ONE.
Ø School mass shootings are rare. Since 1764, there have been 228 mass school shooting deaths. In comparison, alcohol is linked with an estimated 5,000 deaths in people under age 21 each year and more than 50, 000 over last decade--more than all illegal drugs combined.
******************************
AMERICAN THINKER
March 3, 2018
The assault weapons ban of 2018
By Ben Cohen
Following the massacre in Parkland, Florida, Representatives Ted Deutch (D-Fla.) and David Cicilline (D-R.I.) introduced their version of an assault weapons ban. The bill would ban the sale of "assault weapons" and "high-capacity" magazines manufactured or imported after the law's enactment. Weapons already in circulation would be "grandfathered" in.
The bill classifies firearms as "assault weapons" based on a feature test; it classifies magazines as "high-capacity" if they can hold more than ten rounds.
Under the bill, a semi-automatic rifle is an assault weapon if it accepts a detachable magazine and has one of the following features: pistol grip; forward grip; folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; grenade- or rocket-launcher; barrel shroud or threaded barrel.
The bill stipulates a similar test for semi-automatic pistols and shotguns.
Contrary to popular belief, this type of guns is legal outside the United States. Canadians, for example, can purchase a Tavor or similar rifle with a basic firearms license. New Zealanders can purchase a "featureless" AR-15 with a basic firearms license; they can also purchase one with a pistol grip and flash-suppressor if they are willing to go through the paperwork.
Further, feature tests do not make much sense as policy. There is no reason to believe that pistol grips, forward grips, telescoping stocks, or barrel shrouds increase the lethality of a firearm. They may make a gun more ergonomic or tactical-looking, but they do not change how it functions.
The bill includes a list of firearms banned by name and a list of firearms explicitly exempted by name. The bill specifically exempts the Ruger Mini-14 – despite the fact that it was used to perpetrate one of the world's deadliest mass shootings – and explicitly bans the Beretta CX4 Storm.
Both rifles are semi-automatic and accept detachable magazines. The Mini-14 fires the same ammunition as the AR-15, the 5.56 rifle round. The CX4 fires the weaker 9mm luger pistol round. The relevant difference for the bill's sponsors seems to be that the Mini-14 looks like a traditional rifle with a wooden stock, and the CX4 looks like a prop from a science fiction movie.
Regulating weapons based on how they look doesn't make much sense, which is what the new assault weapons ban does. Gun control proponents would likely point to the bill's other major component – its ban on high-capacity magazines – to defend its efficacy.
While it's plausible that limiting magazine capacity could reduce the number of victims, there isn't much hard evidence for this. The alleged perpetrator of the Parkland, Florida massacre used ten-round magazines because they were easier to fit in his bag. The perpetrator of the Virginia tech massacre used a handgun with ten- and fifteen-round magazines. For an experienced shooter, the time it takes to change magazines might not make a big difference.
Further, limiting magazine capacity would reduce the ability of the average citizen to defend himself. When New York State passed a law limiting magazine capacity, it didn't include an exemption for retired and active law enforcement. Following backlash from police, they amended the law to create an exemption for retired and active-duty officers. If a retired cop needs a seventeen-round magazine to defend himself, it's hard to argue that the average citizen doesn't.
Mass shootings are horrific, and doing nothing is unacceptable. However, this new assault weapons ban lacks a rational basis. There's no reason to believe that threaded barrels or polymer furniture makes guns deadlier. Ineffective and stupid laws are not the answer to mass shootings.
Following the massacre in Parkland, Florida, Representatives Ted Deutch (D-Fla.) and David Cicilline (D-R.I.) introduced their version of an assault weapons ban. The bill would ban the sale of "assault weapons" and "high-capacity" magazines manufactured or imported after the law's enactment. Weapons already in circulation would be "grandfathered" in.
The bill classifies firearms as "assault weapons" based on a feature test; it classifies magazines as "high-capacity" if they can hold more than ten rounds.
Under the bill, a semi-automatic rifle is an assault weapon if it accepts a detachable magazine and has one of the following features: pistol grip; forward grip; folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; grenade- or rocket-launcher; barrel shroud or threaded barrel.
The bill stipulates a similar test for semi-automatic pistols and shotguns.
Contrary to popular belief, this type of guns is legal outside the United States. Canadians, for example, can purchase a Tavor or similar rifle with a basic firearms license. New Zealanders can purchase a "featureless" AR-15 with a basic firearms license; they can also purchase one with a pistol grip and flash-suppressor if they are willing to go through the paperwork.
Further, feature tests do not make much sense as policy. There is no reason to believe that pistol grips, forward grips, telescoping stocks, or barrel shrouds increase the lethality of a firearm. They may make a gun more ergonomic or tactical-looking, but they do not change how it functions.
The bill includes a list of firearms banned by name and a list of firearms explicitly exempted by name. The bill specifically exempts the Ruger Mini-14 – despite the fact that it was used to perpetrate one of the world's deadliest mass shootings – and explicitly bans the Beretta CX4 Storm.
Both rifles are semi-automatic and accept detachable magazines. The Mini-14 fires the same ammunition as the AR-15, the 5.56 rifle round. The CX4 fires the weaker 9mm luger pistol round. The relevant difference for the bill's sponsors seems to be that the Mini-14 looks like a traditional rifle with a wooden stock, and the CX4 looks like a prop from a science fiction movie.
Regulating weapons based on how they look doesn't make much sense, which is what the new assault weapons ban does. Gun control proponents would likely point to the bill's other major component – its ban on high-capacity magazines – to defend its efficacy.
While it's plausible that limiting magazine capacity could reduce the number of victims, there isn't much hard evidence for this. The alleged perpetrator of the Parkland, Florida massacre used ten-round magazines because they were easier to fit in his bag. The perpetrator of the Virginia tech massacre used a handgun with ten- and fifteen-round magazines. For an experienced shooter, the time it takes to change magazines might not make a big difference.
Further, limiting magazine capacity would reduce the ability of the average citizen to defend himself. When New York State passed a law limiting magazine capacity, it didn't include an exemption for retired and active law enforcement. Following backlash from police, they amended the law to create an exemption for retired and active-duty officers. If a retired cop needs a seventeen-round magazine to defend himself, it's hard to argue that the average citizen doesn't.
Mass shootings are horrific, and doing nothing is unacceptable. However, this new assault weapons ban lacks a rational basis. There's no reason to believe that threaded barrels or polymer furniture makes guns deadlier. Ineffective and stupid laws are not the answer to mass shootings.
No comments:
Post a Comment