Tags
The wishy-washy Republican turned independent (just because New Yorkers don’t recall Democratic mayors fondly) Mike Bloomberg has funded an ad during the Virginia governor’s race which attacks Republican candidate Bob McDonell for his gun rights position.
The ad places the tragedy at Virgina Tech in the forefront of the debate by saying that loopholes in VA gun laws allowed it to occur. Not so fast: Jim Geraghty details its errors here.
Because really. Stop and think. All the evidence shows that smart laws that allow citizens to exercise their right to bear arms lead to drops in crime rates and, most especially, drops in violent crime rates. So really, these gun control activists may have the passion on their side, but certainly not the facts.
“All the evidence shows” — that’s a bold claim, care to back it up?
Anthony is correct. Look at concealed-carry laws implemented in throughout the states (e.g. Virginia)- crime rates go down. And the reverse is true- when Britain had its ban on handguns, violent crimes have shot up. It’s intuitive: if the criminal knows that there’s a good possibility that his potential victim will be armed, he will be less likely rob/attack/kill. Why are campus massacres so effective? The attacker knows that no one will be armed besides the few police present. The only two situations where a school shooter was stopped and disarmed were in situations where students ran off campus, got their guns in their vehicles, ran back and threatened the shooter who stopped (e.g ASU).
You’ve got some anecdotal evidence there, and some intuition — are there any peer-reviewed studies that support this claim? John Lott doesn’t count.
i can understand the logic behind people wanting handguns to protect themselves. but what exactly is the rationale behind allowing people to purchase assault rifles, such as the one used in a new york shooting recently? or other semi-automatic weapons? you don’t need a machine gun to shoot a mugger.
and as for closing loopholes in laws, the gun show loopholes are pretty disturbing. they rarely check for licenses or other legal background. and let’s not forget the sad story of an eight year old child killed because he was allowed to fire a machine gun.
Well, considering that no crime has been committed with a legally purchased assault rifle in the past 50 years, I think assault rifle sales are the least of our problems.
Epic fail cwjones:
http://www.bradycampaign.org/issues/assaultweapons/nramyths/
Not to say that the Brady Campaign isn’t as biased as the NRA, but how can you actually believe that claim? Crimes have been committed with the aid of assault rifles. Someone “legally” purchased them at some point or another.
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcfullau.html
No fail here.
Two murders have been committed with legally purchased automatic weapons since 1934. In both cases the weapon was a MAC-10 submachine gun, so my statement about legally purchased assault rifles stands.
All the crimes listed in your link were committed with illegally purchased weapons.
Right, because my source states that the crimes were committed with illegally purchased weapons… where did you read that? Further, assault rifles are not the same as machine guns. Machine guns are fully automatic. Assault rifles can be either fully automatic or semi-automatic. So, this:
“no crime has been committed with a legally purchased assault rifle in the past 50 years”
is false.
Tell any police officer, DEA officer, etc. that you think it’s great that people can own weapons designed for combat. To use GunCite.com’s info (assuming its accuracy):
1.7% of total guns are assault rifles
10% of police homicides are the result of assault rifles
1-7% of all gun homicides are by assault rifles
Obviously, if only 1.7% of the United States’ gun total is assault rifles, they are going to appear less frequently in crimes. So, even those numbers are alarming. If assault rifles get into more people’s hands, I would assume that those numbers will go up. What if assault rifles were as readily available as handguns? Would you feel more secure?
I’m 100% for people’s right to bear arms. My parents own guns. But, there has to be some common sense regulation. There has to be more accountability at gun shows and I know it’s controversial, but I support reinstating the Brady ban on assault rifles.
Lastly, although this blog disagrees with the numbers, there is no denying that some weapons from the United States are helping to fuel the drug wars in Mexico (that are spilling into our country). We need to be smarter about our regulation and we can do that without infringing upon people’s rights.
“If you can infringe the slightest on a citizen’s right to bear arms, then slowly, but surely it will grow into a wholesale ban on weapons.”
While I understand the basis of this argument, it doesn’t make sense. We infringe “slightly” on people’s right to bear arms when we ban citizens from owning tanks, F-22s, and high-grade explosives. You can’t say that ANY gun regulation will lead to a “wholesale ban on weapons.” Further, we infringe “slightly” on people’s right to free speech when we ban people from making threats, screaming “fire,” etc. There has been some gun regulation on the books forever, but there has never has been a wholesale ban on weapons. Your statement just doesn’t hold water because there is no evidence of it and it is simply illogical.
“The point raised by Chris is that only two crimes have been committed by ‘assault rifles’ in the past century, the rest have been by illegal weapons”
Wrong. He said machine guns. Perhaps that is true, but hundreds of crimes have been committed with assault rifles. And I gave a definition (although you’re right, there is no TRUE definition): fully automatic AND semi-automatic rifles (M-16s, AK-47s, AR-15s, etc). The very source you both are using SAYS 10% of police homicides have been through use of assault rifles. I am not advocating specific legislative language (as I don’t have the expertise), but I advocate restricting citizens from having military-style weapons. I’m all for the 2nd Amendment (and so is Obama, by the way, haha), but is it smart to have assault rifles readily available for anyone?
Let me raise my past point again: would you want to live in a country where assault rifles were as readily available as handguns? We have no idea what kind of impact that would have on crime rates (or % of crimes that include assault weapons) because only 1.7% of guns in the U.S. are assault rifles.
Johnny Q, you are failing to draw the distinction between legally purchased assault weapons (obtained using a class III firearms permit) and illegally obtained assault weapons (bought through the black market, or obtained fraudulently, or sold without the proper permits, or stolen).
And no, I wouldn’t want to live in a country where assault rifles were as readily available as handguns. That’s why I support their current classification as Class III controlled weapons. I don’t support silly legislation like the federal assault weapons ban that don’t help solve the actual problems but instead put undue burdens on people’s right to bear arms.
See what California and a lying California attorney, Steven T. Schoonover, and flip flopper James K. Olson did here to a Nevada citizen’s right to have a gun to protect herself after James K. Olson had broken into this Nevada citizen’s home! Gun Controllers Among Us, Marin County California Courts
Most liberal Marin County Ca has repeatedly thumbed their nose at the US Constitution, then imposed their illegal actions onto a Nevada citizen. What’s next?
Lying California attorney, Steven T. Schoonover had the Nevada citizen served at 7:30 Thursday evening in Nevada for a 9 am the following Monday court in California and the California incompetent judge allowed that 1 day notice although illegal as have to be served more than 10 days before a hearing and furthermore it was to a Nevada citizen!
Three strikes you’re out lying California attorney, Steven T. Schoonover
http://reno.broowaha.com/article.php?id=3749