Tucson Tragedy No Justification for Assault Weapons Ban ...

[spin]

By Peyton R. Miller
Published: Tuesday, February 08, 2011

Although the media’s response to the tragic massacre of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and others in Tucson, Ariz. on Jan. 8 focused largely on right-wing rhetoric, the incident has also renewed calls for tougher gun laws. A bill introduced on Jan. 18 by U.S. Rep. Carolyn C. McCarthy (D., N.Y.), which is cosponsored by 65 congressmen, is similar to the Clinton-era Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) that the Republican Congress allowed to expire in 2004. The Obama administration voiced its support for reinstating the AWB during its first hundred days, and Newsweek reports that the White House is soon to unveil “a new gun control effort.” The trouble is that the ban would not have prevented the Tucson shooting, and even if it had, this by itself would not be a valid reason for its reinstatement.

***snip***

Academic literature does not provide consistent evidence that such restrictions reduce crime, and analyses frequently conclude that they have little if any effect. With respect to the AWB, a 2004 University of Pennsylvania study noted that assault weapons were rarely used in gun crimes before the ban and that the reduction in violence that would result from renewing the law, while nontrivial, was likely to be “small at best.”

***snip***

Perhaps the most significant cost of this or any gun control law is that it opens the door to further restrictions that may be less reasonable. The best evidence of this is the United Kingdom, which at the beginning of the twentieth century had hardly any restrictions on the right to arms and now imposes virtually outright prohibition. The transition to the control regime was fueled by media focus on isolated gun crimes , which politicians used as justification for ever tighter restrictions.

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2011/2/8/gun-awb-law-control/

post edited to comply with DU rules.

[onehandle]

1. Ah, Peyton R. Miller of the Conservative Weekly Standard.

Classy.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/author/peyton-r.-miller

[Hoopla Phil]

3. Yeah, he once claimed that 1+1=2. I know he's lying, but a can't prove it.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[X_Digger]

8. Genetic fallacy.

If you wish to actually talk about the article rather than impugn the source, I'm all ears.

[spin]

15. The article was posted in The Harvard Crimson ...

History of The Crimson

The Harvard Crimson, the nation's oldest continuously published daily college newspaper, was founded in 1873 and incorporated in 1967. The newspaper traces its history to the first issue of "The Magenta," published on Jan. 24, 1873, and changed its name to "The Crimson" to reflect the new color of the college on May 21, 1875. The Crimson has a rich tradition of journalistic integrity and counts among its ranks of editorship some of America's greatest journalists. The faces of Pulitzer Prize-winning Crimson editors line the walls of The Crimson. Past editors include John F. Kennedy ‘40, Don Graham ‘65, Jeff Zucker ‘86, Jim Cramer ‘76, and Steve Ballmer ‘77. The name of Franklin D. Roosevelt, Class of 1904, is proudly engraved upon The Crimson's president's chair. One hundred and thirty-eight years after its founding, having grown from a fortnightly newspaper to a daily, The Harvard Crimson continues to flourish with a strong body of undergraduate staff volunteers.
http://www.thecrimson.com/about/

The Harvard Crimson, Founded in 1873, is the oldest continuously published college newspaper in America; it counts among its many editors numerous Pulitzer Prize winners and two U.S. Presidents, John F. Kennedy and Franklin D. Roosevelt.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_University

[onehandle]

17. Pat Buchanan gets a MSNBC salary.

Conservative dickweeds go where the money is.

[spin]

19. Out of curiosity can you debate the premise that Miller makes ...

that using the Tucson incident to push for another assault weapons ban because is a poor idea. Basing important law on a "visceral reaction to one unfortunate event" is foolish.

I personally believe in passing laws which will make a difference, not merely to make some people "feel good".

In my opinion the assault weapons ban was a TOTAL failure and instead of making certain weapons and magazines rare, it instead made them extremely popular. I watched as many of my fellow shooters bought "black rifles", Glock pistols and high capacity and extended magazines for their new weapons DURING THE BAN! It was entirely legal as the ban never existed.

Before these items were "banned" few shooter had any interest at all in owning a plastic rifle that was "ugly and underpowered". Glock pistols were relatively rare and most shooters like the 1911 style .45 autos that had seven and eight round magazines.

I was amazed that my fellow shooters and also people who rarely went shooting ran out to buy these overpriced weapons and high capacity magazines like they were hotcakes. I never did. I was one of the few who didn't.

Why don't we work together to actually solve the problem. We can improve and enforce many of our existing laws and make a real difference. We can focus future gun control laws on taking guns out of the hands of criminals rather than law abiding honest citizens.

We might try to find a solution to the fact that private sales require no background check. We could consider ideas that would require a citizen to go through a course on gun safety prior to purchasing a firearm or ammunition.

Unfortunately, people like you appear to believe that we can reinvent an idea that was a total failure and make it work. I don't really believe that you are that foolish but instead are following the old technique of attempting to steadily take away gun rights until you can successfully ban all semi-auto firearms followed by all firearms.

This is another failed approach that is once again a waste of time. Those who oppose firearm rights have been losing the battle for years and I see little chance of this changing. Just look at how "shall issue" concealed carry, castle doctrine, "stand your ground" and "take you gun to work" laws have swept across our nation since 1987 when Florida first passed its shall issue concealed weapons law.

As a shooter, I am as concerned as most people who hate guns about the abuse of firearms in our nation. I love my hobby and treat my firearm ownership as a serious responsibility as do most gun owners in our nation. None of us want to see guns misused by criminals or those with serious mental problems. On the other hand we want to see REAL solutions that work rather than idiotic laws passed by fools that do nothing but harass honest gun owners.

[Hoopla Phil]

2. Also, I don't think a magazine ban would pass constitutional muster. n/t

[damntexdem]

4. More NRA bullshit here.

An assault-weapons ban, a magazine ban, controls on ammo would all pass muster. In fact, if we could get some of the conservative yahoos off the SCOTUS, the nonsense about an individual right to any and all arms would not pass muster.

But instead we get DU posters parroting the rightwing, NRA bullshit.

[armueller2001]

7. I wasn't aware

that the SCOTUS ruled it's a right to "any and all arms".

I'm sure you can provide sources for that statement.

I'll wait.

* cricket*... * cricket*...

[Dr_Scholl]

11. It's not NRA bullshit.

AWB's are at best feel good legislation and at worst a swift kick in the ass from voters. Banning something because it looks scary is just stupid. Limiting magazine capacity does not stop high body counts during mass shootings.

[spin]

13. Welcome to DU ...

posting here is a lot more fun than posting on a pro-gun forum where many agree with you.

[Dr_Scholl]

16. Thanks. It keeps me entertained.

n/t

[spin]

12. The bottom line is that the "assault weapons" ban was a total failure ...

It backfired!

Before the ban, items like "black rifles" (semi-auto rifles that resemble true military assault rifles) were curios.

The gun enthusiasts that I knew in the Tampa Bay area of Florida had little interest in such firearms prior to the ban. They were considered ugly and inaccurate and shot a round that was inadequate for hunting. A semi-auto military clone rifle may be a good choice for a self defense weapon in the rural areas or on a boat, but has far too much penetration for use in an urban environment.

But the ban led shooters to suddenly develop a desire to own an assault weapon and several high capacity magazines or extended magazines for their new toy. These firearms and magazines were always available. They just cost a small fortune.

As shooters bought these rifles, they learned just how useful they are and how much fun they can provide. Currently "assault weapons" outsell conventional firearms.

So rather than make "assault weapons" rare, the law made them common.

Interestingly enough, many manufacturers decided to build more compact pistols that would meet the 10 round magazine limit. These smaller pistols have gained tremendous popularity among those who have concealed carry licenses. Rather than carry a revolver with a five or six round capacity they can now carry a subcompact pistol like the Glock 30 SF that holds 10 rounds of the powerful .45 acp in an easy to conceal package.

To top it off, the AWB caused shooters to head to the polls and cast votes for pro-RKBA politicians (who were most often Republican). Our party lost a lot of good representatives all over this country because of this ill conceived law.

The AWB was a prime example of a "feel good" law. We don't need to repeat the mistakes of the past.

Note: I should add that I did not run out and buy a "black rifle" or a pistol that could hold a 15 or 17 round magazine because of the ban. I personally like S&W Revolvers or 1911 style .45 autos. Living in the Tampa Bay area, I had no reason to buy a rifle. Now that I have moved to a more rural area, I have bought a rifle but it's a bolt action Swedish Mauser.

[Hoopla Phil]

14. Um yeah sure.

I'll not dignify you insults by replying to them. However, I don't think anything you proposed would stand up to what Heller decided. Here are a few choice excerpts for you to read.

"The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."


holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those
“in common use at the time”


"The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to
self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban
on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an
entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the
lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny
the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—
in the place where the importance of the lawful defense
of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional
muster."

"It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful
in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be
banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely
detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said,
the conception of the militia at the time of the Second
Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens
capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of
lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia
duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as
effective as militias in the 18th century, would require
sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at
large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small
arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and
tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited
the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the
protected right cannot change our interpretation of the
right."


"Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous,
that only those arms in existence in the 18th century
are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret
constitutional rights that way. Just as the First
Amendment protects modern forms of communications,
e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844,
849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern
forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27,
35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima
facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms,
even those that were not in existence at the time of the
founding."


"We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this
country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the
many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun
ownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the
District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that
problem, including some measures regulating handguns,
see supra, at 54–55, and n. 26. But the enshrinement of
constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy
choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition
of handguns held and used for self-defense in the
home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment
is outmoded in a society where our standing army is
the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces
provide personal security, and where gun violence is a
serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is
not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to
pronounce the Second Amendment extinct."
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf

[oneshooter]

18. I am still waiting to learn from you...

What reasonable firearms laws you propose.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Hoyt]

6. P R Miller - Harvard Salient and Weekly Standard. He probably sleeps with Assault Weapons.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

20. Says someone from Huffpo?

[Hoyt]

21. Actually, it is in his bio -- but I doubt pro-gunners will fault him for being a right winger.

[friendly_iconoclast]

22. You've got to be quicker- Someone already used the genetic fallacy.

Care to discuss the speech instead of the speaker?

[Hoyt]

23. Sure. First, we are not simply discussing the Tuscon issue. It's what comes next and next and next

Time to start passing some gun controls so that 20 years from now we won't be discussing the same stupid BS. Or do we just pass this gun obsession to the next generations?

[spin]

24. In order to pass draconian gun control you have to have representatives ...

that will vote for it. Currently your side doesn't have those votes.

My advise is to work on improving existing laws and enforcing them. The Huffington Post recently ran a poll that showed some areas you might work on:

-- 90 percent of Americans and 90 percent of gun owners support fixing gaps in government databases that are meant to prevent the mentally ill, drug abusers and others from buying guns.

-- 91 percent of Americans and 93 percent of gun owners support requiring federal agencies to share information about suspected dangerous persons or terrorists to prevent them from buying guns.

-- 89 percent of Americans and 89 percent of gun owners support full funding of the law a unanimous Congress passed and President George W. Bush signed after the Virginia Tech shootings to put more records in the background-check database.

-- 86 percent of Americans and 81 percent of gun owners support requiring all gun buyers to pass a background check, no matter where they buy the gun and no matter who they buy it from.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/18/poll-americans-gun-owners-stronger-laws_n_810069.html