Assaulting Guns: Did It Make a Difference?
The web site "GoUpstate.com" has a New York Times article that says seven months after the so called assault weapons ban was repealed, there hasn't been any increase in crime related to assault weapons.
I think most people realize criminals carry pistols, not rifles (assault or otherwise). Pistols are easier to conceal, cheaper, and work better in close quarters. Hence, banning assault rifles doesn't do much. For that matter, passing a law against pistols might not be effective either. But that's a debate for another day.
Aloha!
Comments
Australia has implemented quite stringent firearms restrictions, and it really hasn't done much. Genuine sport shooters, or farmers and graziers and professional shooters who need firearms as essential tools, can still get them - just. It's a heck of a lot more inconvenient to the law-abiding though, and of course the law-breakers go right on regardless of the laws.
The restrictions have made no difference to trends in criminal use of firearms. They haven't reduced growth in crime. They haven't increased growth in crime. The only visible effects are to massively inconvenience law-abiding shooters; and to establish a precedent which city-based uneducated idiots can then use to go on further restricting these essential tools and international sporting items.
WITH ONE EXCEPTION. The new laws and regulations enforced storage of firearms in locked gun safes, and SEPARATE locked storage of ammunition. This has resulted in an enormous drop in firearm-related accidental death of children. That's certainly good. It's the only good that's come out of it all though, and it wasn't necessary to go through all the other restrictions and victimisation of law-abiding citizens to accomplish it.
A COMMENT. Our society has a different attitude to handguns than does the USA. Handguns have always been restricted and licensed, and hence there are a lot less of them floating around. That's certainly reasonable for us - handguns here are largely for killing people, which is not always desirable. We in Australia don't have such dangerous animals that we need to carry a firearm on us while doing two-handed work. A long-arm suffices.
Consequently, there's a lot less handgun-related crime and less firearm-related crime and death than in the USA. I think that's good for us. However, I'd never presume to suggest you try to achieve it in the USA. You can't get here from there - your society has been different from its inception, and anyone who tried to enforce our situation on you would have to destroy your constitution first. Anyone in the USA who carries a handgun has a way-low rate of turning up a crime victim, and if I lived in your society where handguns are more common than here - including in the hands of criminals - then I'd certainly have them myself.
Posted by: Don Armstrong | April 25, 2005 07:26 PM
Big assault weapons are only interesting for criminals if they don't use them. They are great for impressing and intimidating.
Smaller handguns are at least as effective in use and, more important I think, much easier to get rid off after the crime.
Posted by: sjon | April 25, 2005 08:59 PM