Free Markets, Free People

assault weapon ban


The usual unfounded calls for reinstating the assault weapon ban

They are as predictable as sunrise after something like Aurora.  But, the gun banners have less of a leg to stand on now than they did way back then, although some, like Ezra Klein, try to make the case with selective statistics and the usual arguments.  Howard Nemerov takes the time to demolish both.

The fact is there has been less violent gun  crime since the lifting of the ban than when it was in place.  In fact, we haven’t seen this low a level of violence since 1972, even while the number of guns in the country increased.

So attempting to find some correlation between the number of guns and amount of violence seems not to be there.

That doesn’t stop those who would ban your access to guns from trying.  And one of their favorite means is by trying to ban scary guns … er,  I mean assault weapons.

Much like politicians who rely on the public’s economic ignorance to sell economic policy that is, frankly horrible, they do the same with gun bans.

Assault weapons.  Scary.  Used in war.  Kill bunches of people.  As opposed to “regular” weapons which I guess aren’t as scary, aren’t used in war and, presumably as such logic must go, don’t or won’t kill bunches of people.

Perhaps a graphic is the best way to refute that “logic”:

 

gun leg

 

It isn’t the way the weapon looks that makes it dangerous, it’s the nut wielding it.  Banning so-called assault weapons is about as effective as banning cars that look like the one in the top left.  If the idiot behind the wheel of the one on the right decides to drive it into a crowded sidewalk, are the people he kills any less dead because it didn’t look like the car on the left?

Of course not.  The common denominator?  The nut using the tool.

Not the tool.

~McQ

Twitter: @McQandO

michael kors outlet michael kors handbags outlet michael kors factory outlet