June 02, 2008
Edumacated
It appears that our education system is failing us once more, as a collegiate newspaper published an anti-gun editorial penned upon completely false information.
It is sad enough when one editorialist makes up the basic facts his story hinges upon; it's worse when editorial board signs off on this kind of ignorance:
In 2004, a federal ban on assault weapons expired.Now, four years later, Mayor Michael Nutter and Governor Ed Rendell want to reduce violent crime nationally by convincing Congress to re-enact the ban.
The ten-year federal ban forbids the possession, manufacture, use and import of assault weapons. And according to a 1999 National Institute of Justice study, it reduced the percent of crime committed with assault weapons, including police murders, by a significant amount.
The only thing that the editorial board of the Daily Pennsylvanian got right in this editorial is that the ban expired in 2004.
As we well know, the so-called "assault weapons" ban in the 1994 Crime Bill:
- Did not ban the manufacture of semiautomatic firearms. In fact, companies that manufacture semi-automatic firearms, such as Bushmaster and Olympic Arms thrived throughout the length of the ban, and Kahr Arms was founded as a direct result of a market created by the ban;
- Did not ban the transfer of semiautomatic firearms. Sales of semiautomatic firearms actually increased during the 1994-2004 ban.
- Did not ban the possession of semi-automatic firearms. This includes weapons defined as "assault weapons" under the ban, as long as they had been manufactured prior to the law going into effect, and tens of thousands of semi-automatic firearms made and sold during the ban;
The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban was irrelevant; if anything it had the unintended effect of making such firearms more desirable, increasing their popularity.
Sadly, this mythical view of the accomplishments of the 1994 AW Ban is common "conventional wisdom" in left-leaning journalism and politics. Unlike so many views held in the community-based reality, however, the perception has nothing to do with the truth.
Remember the great correction in the NYT from last week where a reporter stated that, since the US had committed biowarfare, the AIDS/CIA fable was a rational belief. Of course the Times had to later concede that there was "no evidence" of such an event. Obviously the MSMers, graduates of fancy schools of Marxist this and that know a universe of things that are not only untrue, but stupidly so and anti-American to boot. Remember this, friends, when your children are college bound.
Posted by: megapotamus at June 3, 2008 11:32 AMLet us not forget that the antigun forces, desperate to find support for their beloved ban, did studies which found that ten years of the ban had no effect on crime whatever. It did not reduce "gun violence," to say nothing of "assault weapon violence," because both terms were and are media/anti-gun inventions and exist only in the fevered imaginations of those who believe that the way to combat crime is to punish the tools used by criminals.
There was, however, another salutatory effect of the ban. Because magazines (yes, magazines; the only currently manufactured firearm in widespread circulation that uses a "clip" is the M1 Garand rifle) were limited to only 10 rounds, manufacturers miniaturized handguns to those dimensions, giving rise to my Glock 26 and a variety of other similarly small firearms. Unintended consequences indeed.
To anyone that is fighting the fight against the gungrabbers, try using this as a reference.
http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/4.0/GunFacts4-0-Screen.pdf
Now, let it be known that of ALL the firearms crimes committed last year, only 2% were committed with rifles (this means any kind of rifle).
Now know that more people were killed last year by someone beating them to death with hands and feet only than were killed with a firearm.
The left really pisses me off.
Posted by: Matt at June 7, 2008 02:10 PMWhat's this? An anti-gun article that doesn't use the phrase "common sense laws?" I thought Soros made that a mandatory requirement.
Since the incorrectly labeled "assault weapons" are used in such an insignificant portion of crimes (not insignificant if you're the victim, I suppose) I can imagine a "study" finding a drop from, say, 2.01% to 2.00% being used to declare the ban a success. But that's just a guess as the studies I'm aware of found no association between that law and a drop in crime.
Doesn't matter, they're all living in another world where facts are irrelevant to their goals.
Posted by: DoorHold at June 8, 2008 09:24 AM
