Why banning assault rifles (sic) won’t reduce gun violence
By the pro-gun control Adam Winkler:
Such bans don’t reduce gun crime, but they do stimulate passionate opposition from law-abiding gun owners: Gun control advocates ridicule the NRA’s claim that the government is coming to take away people’s guns, then try to outlaw perhaps the most popular rifle in the country.
Speaking of, support for banning “assault weapons” is at a 20 year low.
December 15th, 2015 at 3:30 pm
The delusion is strong with this one.
He’s found a truth. “Assault Weapons” bans do not reduce violent crime. Why? Because a) “Assault Weapons” are largely the same thing as a regular rifle, and rifles are used in such a tiny percentage of violent crime because they aren’t readily concealable (among other reasons); and b) If/when one kind of firearm becomes less available, instead of giving up, criminals will just use something else that IS available.
What he doesn’t manage to do is to extrapolate that new knowledge across other like devices. So, he believes that the machine gun “ban” TOTALLY worked regardless of the fact that the same things apply to machine guns that apply to “Assault Weapons”.
All with a side of delusion that more government oversight in the form of “universal background checks”, that as we’ve seen are written more to annoy law abiding gun owners than actually reduce illegal gun ownership; or cracking down on “Rogue Gun shops”, which really just amounts to punishing the innocent using misunderstood statistics as evidence. If “Rogue Gun Shops” actually exist, then the ATF should already be on the case (unless, of course, they are the ones RUNNING the “Rogue Gun Shops”, as we’ve seen in the past).