[mikegunner]

Ban on assault weapons didn't reduce violence

By Jerry Seper
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

The federal assault-weapons ban, scheduled to expire in September, is not responsible for the nation's steady decline in gun-related violence and its renewal likely will achieve little, according to an independent study commissioned by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ). ....... For the rest of the story -- click HERE

 

[MikeO]

The Democrats thought they had a win/win, no-lose thing going w the AWB.

If in 10 yrs crime went down, they could say "see, it worked, imagine what more would do?" and if crime went up they could say "see, we need to do even more!".

Then they lost control of the House and Senate...

They are saying that, but the House isn't buying it like the Senate did. Sure hope it does expire, still not sure it will.

 

[Bloofington]

Even back when I was a knee-jerk NYC born and raised liberal Democrat, mg: it was always plain to see that . . .

guns don't kill people, people kill people.

If you take away the gun, they will use knives, if you take away the knives, they will use bats, if you take away the bats, they will use fists, if you disable them, they will plot and scheme with others to perform the violence, or use poison or any means. When people are bound and determined to perform acts of unprovoked violence upon others, they will find the means. The excuse that certain kinds of weapons make it easier is flimsy.

You do not need to get rid of the easier means, you need to get rid of the wrong people in a society in order to stem acts of unprovoked violence. When the people left in a society walking around free are the ones who will not make the choice to commit acts of unprovoked violence, then crime goes down, and society is happier, more secure and more productive. Very simple.

Personally, I'm a "bring back the guillotine and firing squad" man, m'sef. :cheerschug:

But our guillotines would be made in the USA, regardless of the fact that some weasels invented it.