MSNBC: How the numbers shifted against gun control

[RamboLiberal]

-----

Even last year and in 2009, when Democrats had control of both houses, Congress showed more support for protecting and expanding the rights of gun owners than for restricting them.

Why? Look at the numbers.

Reacting to the Tucson shooting which left Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D- Ariz., with a traumatic brain injury, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y. has proposed to ban magazines or clips with a capacity of more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

McCarthy’s bill has 57 co-sponsors. Almost all are from California, from big cities (Minneapolis, Chicago, Portland, Ore., Chicago, Denver, etc.) or from suburbs in the Northeast. No members from rural parts of America have yet signed on to her bill. Nor have any Republicans.

-----

There's another factor: the 1994 gun control measure wasn’t standalone legislation, but was wrapped inside a massive anti-crime bill which passed only after months of tortuous deal-making. It included other provisions such as an expansion of the federal death penalty — that picked up some support from centrists and conservatives — and items such as a hate crime statute to deter crimes against women — that won support from liberals.



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41194989/ns/politics/

[shadowrider]

1. Shifting against gun control insinuates the number were FOR gun control

before this Tucson tragedy.

It simply ain't so. Normal American have always been against gun control.

[old mark]

2. Most Democrats do not favor more unenforcable gun laws...it's more bullshit....nt

[shadowrider]

3. Agreed. n/t

[HankyDubs]

4. I don't suppose

it has anything to do with the massive propaganda campaign funded by the NRA and other anti-sanity groups.

[Hoopla Phil]

6. Perhaps it was a rejection of the propaganda by the brady bunch.

But either way, gun control is currently a loosing issue in politics.

[HankyDubs]

8. compare the spending on both sides

then get back to me.

[Hoopla Phil]

11. The amount spent is not the issue. But rather the "propaganda"

When false studies that the brady bunch hang their hats on fall apart it causes people to question the message.

Either way, gun control is currently a loosing issue.

[rrneck]

13. Compare the membership and get back to me. mt

[MicaelS]

21. You're free to give as much money as you want

To those groups promoting gun control. So tell us, in your lifetime, how much have you given?

[DonP]

32. The amount spent is just a reflection of public support

That's pretty easy to understand. One group gets all of its funding from a large Foundation and has close to zero grass roots support. The other gets its money from 4.5 million dues paying members, member endowments and the like. Please, don't try "the gun companies fund the NRA" crap. They fund the Shooting Sports Foundation.

[beevul]

45. Are you saying...

Are you saying that the brady bunch doesn't have as much money to spend as the NRA ?

What?

You mean they don't have 4.5 million donating members?

Why not?

If gun control is so popular they ought to have members coming out their nose.

I know!!! Gun control lobby supporters are legion but just a bunch of cheapskates... :eyes:

[RamboLiberal]

10. Had more to do with the was nothing but a feel good measure

Wikipedia has a fair article on what it did/didn't do.

The law banned certain feature combinations that many firearms experts considered to be arbitrary. Manufacturers complied with the law by removing the banned features while leaving the core functionality of the weapons intact. For this, they were criticized as attempting to circumvent the spirit of the law by many gun control groups and even by then-president Bill Clinton. Pro-gun groups responded by pointing out that the manufacturers made and sold exactly what was permitted, and that they could not be held to any standard higher than the law itself.

For example, the AB-10 was a legal version of the TEC-9, with barrel threading and barrel shroud removed; the XM-15 was a legal AR-15 without barrel threading or a bayonet mounting lug; post-ban semi-automatic AK-47s were also sold without folding stocks or bayonet lugs, and with standard or "thumbhole" stocks instead of pistol grips. As the production of large-capacity magazines for civilians had also been prohibited, manufacturers sold their post-ban firearms either with newly-manufactured magazines with capacities of ten rounds or less, or with pre-ban manufactured high-capacity magazines, to meet changing legal requirements.

The law prohibited newly-manufactured detachable magazines with a capacity of more than ten rounds manufactured after enactment of the law from sale, transfer, or importation. One effect was the increased importation from other countries of large quantities of magazines manufactured before the ban. Former Warsaw Pact countries had large quantities of AK-47 magazines of various capacities that could fit a variety of both pre-ban and post-ban AK-47 variants. Existing stocks of pre-ban American-made magazines were likewise exempt from the ban; this resulted in a brief surge in domestic manufacture of high-capacity magazines before the law took effect. Large capacity magazines manufactured post-ban for military and law enforcement were stamped or etched with the logo "LEO" (for "Law Enforcement Only") and it was illegal for civilians to possess LEO magazines during the ban.

With the ten-round limit on magazine capacity in effect, and some form of concealed carry of firearms legal in over 38 states, manufacturers had an added incentive to design smaller frames at or below the ten-round capacity, thus replacing the previously popular 9mm and .45 ACP higher capacity pistols. Since they could no longer manufacture the popular 15- and 17-round magazines to consumers, continuing to market the large frames designed for such made less sense. Glock introduced their 10-round capacity 9mm semi-automatic pistol, the Glock 26, in August 1994, in apparent anticipation of the legislation. In 1995, the Kahr Arms company was founded; they debuted their ultra-compact 9mm pistol, the K-9. In the years that followed, all manufacturers of semiautomatic pistols followed suit, developing a large array of concealable ten-round pistols in various calibers, including 9mm, 10mm, .40 S&W, and .45 ACP.

In March 2004, Kristen Rand, the legislative director of the Violence Policy Center, criticized the soon-to-expire ban by stating "The 1994 law in theory banned AK-47s, MAC-10s, UZIs, AR-15s and other assault weapons. Yet the gun industry easily found ways around the law and most of these weapons are now sold in post-ban models virtually identical to the guns Congress sought to ban in 1994."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

[Pullo]

19. The NRA is powerful because it has 4 million voters engaged in protecting their RKBA .......

...... plus millions and millions more gun owners who, despite not being dues-paying members, agree with and support the NRA as the HMFIC of the gun-rights movement.

Simply put, regardless of overall polling numbers, gun owners are much, much more likely to vote the gun issue than casual supporters of more restrictive gun laws. That is why the NRA wields such power.

[YllwFvr]

35. its not just the NRA

but the countless pro gun groups that operate locally and are politically active.

[Pullo]

37. Absolutely.

However, when the talking heads discuss the power of pro-RKBA supporters, they usually just say "NRA."


Of course that's not a fully accurate statement. But then again the media can't be relied on for accuracy, especially when it comes to firearms related topics.

[safeinOhio]

48. Kind of a mixed bag of support for the NRA

that includes groups like this

http://www.knightriderskkkk.com/

The Knight Riders,Knights Of The Ku Klux Klan
Officially Endorses The NRA and Supports all
Their efforts to Protect Our Second Amendment
Rights.
God Bless Us All in our time of need.

[X_Digger]

50. Yes, yes, yes.. and Hitler was a vegetarian..

Any other association fallacies you'd like to throw out so that we can get them all on the table at once?

[safeinOhio]

51. Just responding to the post

that inferred that 4 million members of the NRA has so much influence. Only 4 million out of 83 million gun owners? Kind makes that an "association fallacies" that you totally missed. There, got it on the table.

[X_Digger]

52. And how is the KKK 'politically active'?

What cases have they filed? What cases have they submitted amicus briefs for? What's their PAC's name that they do lobbying through? Got a link to their 527?

[safeinOhio]

53. It is now active through

it's affiliation and infiltration of the current Tea Party. Lots of links with the likes of David Duke.

[X_Digger]

54. Lol, it's the META-association fallacy! I love it! n/t

[Callisto32]

29. Ad hominem.

Thus, yours is a useless post.

Got anything other than calling people insane?

[YllwFvr]

34. most gun owners

are NOT members of the NRA

[Hoopla Phil]

5. Wow, a news article that seems to actually do a little analysis.

and no pontificating. Good read.

[spin]

7. We definitely don't need another useless "feel good" assault weapons ban ...

pushed by a media who shows people shooting fully automatic assault rifles and convinces people who are not familiar with firearms that these are the weapons the ban will apply to.

That law banned nothing as semi-automatic "assault weapons" and high capacity magazines were easily available during the ban. In fact the ban made this category of firearms extremely popular where before the ban semi-auto rifles that looked like military full auto assault rifles were merely a curio that few gun owners had any interest in.

[HankyDubs]

9. wheres the slope?

"That law banned nothing as semi-automatic "assault weapons" and high capacity magazines were easily available during the ban."

Again, the main objection voiced here is that the ban did NOT contain an unconstitutional ex post facto provision.

The ban was in place for 10 years...and during that time there was no slippery slope...no "gun grabbin'" and no loss of "gun rights."
The slippery slope argument is bunk.

[spin]

12. As I said the law was useless political bullshit to make the masses ...

"feel good".

We wasted time passing this incredibly stupid law when we could have actually found real solutions that would have produced results, none of which would have banned or prohibited any firearms let alone made them popular.

We could have placed the names of people who have been determined by a court or other lawful authority to have a mental condition that makes them dangerous to other people on the NICS background check database. This might have prevented Seung-Hui Cho from walking into a gun store and legally buying firearms. Perhaps if we would have done this, the Virgina Tech massacre would have never happened and thirty two people would be alive today.

[HankyDubs]

15. canada's laws seem to work.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa030500a.htm

Lots of very sensible ideas in there...spousal notification etc...lots of guns much far less gun crime per capita.

Of course the gungeon would oppose crazy things like spousal notification, but that adds more weight to the claim that these are sensible restrictions IMO.

[spin]

27. Canada has a hard time getting people to register their firearms ...

and in fact has recently considered getting rid of the program entirely. The cost overrun of the program was spectacular and there are legitimate arguments that the program failed to solve many crimes or was valuable in any respect.

I can't speak for all he pro-RKBA posters in the gungeon but I see no big problem with ideas like a state photo license showing that the holder has passed a background check and has attended a gun safety course. In fact, I have such a license. It's called a concealed carry permit. In also has a more in depth background check then the Brady background check or NICS check and requires my fingerprints to be submitted to the state before issue.

As far as the spousal notification, my ex wife and I are close friends and she also is a gun owner although she has never applied for a concealed weapons permit (her current husband has one). Possible problems might arise with such a system if there was bad feelings between the parties of a divorce and that might cause an honest and responsible person to lose his/her rights to purchase and own a firearm because of unjustified hatred from an ex-spouse. As you suggest, it is a crazy idea.

As to Canada's rule restricting the ownership of handguns to "to collectors, target shooters and those who can demonstrate a need of guns to protect their lives", handguns are the best defensive firearms and since I have a concealed weapons permit and would find it difficult to carry a 12 gauge shotgun concealed, I oppose this idea. It would probably have no effect on me as I enjoy target shooting and have for over 40 years.

While you may feel that Canada has effective firearm laws, I could point out that our nation differs significantly from Canada in many respects including population, demographics, and our constitution. Canada has never had a Second Amendment and never rebelled against England. Firearms are not viewed as part of their tradition.

It's far easier for countries like the United Kingdom and Canada to restrict firearm in their nation than it is for the United States. One of the prime reason is that there are so few firearms to start with in those nations. Your article mentions that there are 31 million people in Canada with an estimated 7.4 million firearms while our nation has 300 million people and quite possibly 300 million firearms.

[HankyDubs]

28. these are minor considerations

"Possible problems might arise with such a system if there was bad feelings between the parties of a divorce and that might cause an honest and responsible person to lose his/her rights to purchase and own a firearm because of unjustified hatred from an ex-spouse. As you suggest, it is a crazy idea. "

Perhaps I should have included a sarcasm smiley. The possibility that a person might be denied a weapon based on spousal animosity pales in comparison to the possibility that a jilted spouse might commit a crime of passion. Not only is this idea not crazy...it is an extremely sensible proposition.

"Canada has never had a Second Amendment and never rebelled against England. Firearms are not viewed as part of their tradition."

Who cares? Their gun laws are more effective than ours at preventing gun deaths.

"One of the prime reason is that there are so few firearms to start with in those nations. Your article mentions that there are 31 million people in Canada with an estimated 7.4 million firearms while our nation has 300 million people and quite possibly 300 million firearms."

The Canadian ratio reflects a sane society, and Canada certainly is a more sane society than our own.

[spin]

42. I have known Canadians and have found them to be polite people ...

and I have nothing against their country, BUT I would never want to live in Canada.

I'm a proud citizen of the United States and I love the freedoms we enjoy in our nation including the right to own firearms.

Comparing the crime rates between two nations is often futile as many factors are in play. But lets look at some data.

Canada's crime rate increase dramatically after the 1960s and peaked in the mid 1990s and has taken a downturn but it still far above the levels in the mid 1960s.

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Canada#Statistics_Canada_data

Violent crime in the United States also increased in a dramatic fashion after the 1960s and peaked in the 1990s. However our increase in violent crime rate has been far more spectacular than Canada and we have returned to near 1960 levels.




The violent crime rate of the United States, 1960 to 2005
source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States

Comparisons

Comparing crime rates between countries is difficult due to the differences in jurisprudence, reporting and crime classifications. National crime statistics are in reality statistics of only selected crime types. Data is collected through various surveying methods that have previously ranged between 15% and 100% coverage of the data. A 2001 Statistics Canada study concluded that comparisons with the U.S. on homicide rates were the most reliable. Comparison of rates for 6 lesser incident crimes considered possible but subject to more difficulty of interpreation. For example types of assaults receive different classifications and laws in Canada and the US making comparisons more difficult than homicides. At the time the U.S. crime of aggravated assault could be compared to the sum of three Canadian crimes (aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, and attempted murder). This comparison had a predicted bias that would inflate the Canadian numbers by only 0.1%. The study also concluded that directly comparing the 2 countries' reported total crime rate (i.e. total selected crimes) was "inappropriate" since the totals include the problem data sets as well as the usable sets.<6> For reasons like these homicides have been favored in international studies looking for predictors of crime rates (predictors like economic inequality).

***snip***

Furthermore, in recent years, the gap in violent crime rates between the United States and Canada has narrowed due to a precipitous drop in the violent crime rate in the U.S. For example, while the aggravated assault rate declined for most of 1990s in the U.S. and was 324 per 100,000 in 2000, the aggravated assault rate in Canada remained relatively steady throughout and was 143 per 100,000 in 2000. In other areas, the U.S. had a faster decline. For instance, whereas the murder rate in Canada declined by 36% between 1991 and 2004, the U.S. murder rate declined by 44%. <8> Surprisingly, both Saskatoon and Regina consistently have Violent Crime rates that would place them among the 10 most violent cities in the US, and often individually exceed larger US centres in terms of Total numbers for Aggravated Assaults and Robbery.

The homicide rate in Canada peaked in 1975 at 3.03 per 100,000 and has dropped since then; it reached lower peaks in 1985 (2.72) and 1991 (2.69). It reached a post 1970 low of 1.73 in 2003. The average murder rate between 1970 and 1976 was 2.52, between 1977 and 1983 it was 2.67, between 1984 and 1990 it was 2.41, between 1991 and 1997 it was 2.23 and between 1998 to 2004 it was 1.82.<9> The attempted homicide rate has fallen at a faster rate than the homicide rate.<10>

By comparison, the homicide rate in the U.S. reached 10.1 per 100,000 in 1974, peaked in 1980 at 10.7 and reached a lower peak in 1991 (10.5). The average murder rate between 1970 and 1976 was 9.4, between 1977 and 1983 it was 9.6, between 1984 and 1990 it was 9, between 1991 and 1997 it was 9.2 and between 1998 and 2004 it was 6.3. In 2004 the murder rate in the U.S. dipped below 6 per 100,000, for the first time since 1966, and as of 2009 stood at 5.0 per 100,000 <8>

Approximately 70 percent of the total murders in the U.S. are committed with firearms, versus about 30 percent in Canada.

***snip***

Only one third of Canadian murders involve firearms. Most Canadian weapons are rifles or shotguns owned by rural property owners, hunters and target shooters, and are less likely to be used in crimes. Many types of weapons are banned or restricted in Canada. The two biggest provinces, Ontario and Quebec have had a long history of strict gun controls. Most of the users of these illegal firearms are youth in their teens and early 20s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Canada#Statistics_Canada_data

So basically we are doing a better job of reducing violent crime in our country than is Canada. The reasons for the decrease in crime are not obvious but during the time that violent crime has been dropping in the United States, many states passed "shall issue" concealed carry, castle doctrine, "stand your ground" and "bring your gun to work" laws. There was also a dramatic increase in gun sales in the United States and many of the firearms sold were "assault weapons".

So if firearms were a direct cause of increasing crime, it would be logical to believe that with more people carrying firearms concealed in public and more "high powered assault weapons" in the hands of citizens, our violent crime rate should have skyrocketed.

Well it didn't. Here's a chart that shows the preliminary 2010 data.

http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2010/december/crime_122010/image/crime-stats-chart-new
source: http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2010/december/crime_122010/crime_122010

Here's a map that shows how shall issue concealed carry swept across our nation at the same time violent crime began its significant downturn.



And here's an interesting article from 2009

USA Gun Owners Buy 14 Million Plus Guns In 2009 – More Than 21 of the Worlds Standing Armies Combined

Washington, DC --(AmmoLand.com)- Data released by the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) for the year reported 14,033,824 NICS Checks for the year of 2009, a 10 percent increase in gun purchases from the 12,709,023 reported in 2008.

So far that is roughly 14,000,000+ guns bought last year!
The total is probably more as many NICS background checks cover the purchase of more than one gun at a time by individuals.

To put it in perspective that is more guns than the combined active armies of the top 21 countries in the world.
http://www.ammoland.com/2010/01/13/gun-owners-buy-14-million-plus-guns-in-2009/

Obviously with that many firearm in the hands of citizens more people will be shot or killed with firearms than in a country that has laws which greatly prohibit firearm ownership.

So the question is should the United States adopt gun laws similar to Canada. We can argue back and forth on this issue and we can both score points but the bottom line is that such laws would never pass in today's political environment and any attempt to pass such laws would lead to another election disaster for our party in 2012. Even if such laws were passed, many people would never willing turn in their firearms. Is it worth it to allow true violent criminals to go free to pillage, rape and plunder in order to make room in prison to incarcerate a citizen whose only crime was refusing to turn in a handgun?

[beevul]

46. Thats one opinion.

"The possibility that a person might be denied a weapon based on spousal animosity pales in comparison to the possibility that a jilted spouse might commit a crime of passion. Not only is this idea not crazy...it is an extremely sensible proposition."

I guess if your the person that needs it for protection from a violent ex spouse, you might disagree.

Beyond that, rights denied hurt everyone, and society, worse than any single death.

[DonP]

14. No loss of rights, just the loss of both the House and Senate

... not to mention the White House in 2000, when Gore lost his and Clinton's home states, but that's OK since it was for higher principles.

Well at least that's what Clinton said, but what the hell would he know about it, right?

Hey, let's do it again and follow the gun control people right off the electoral cliff again! It'll be fun seeing what Palin wears to the inauguration.

[HankyDubs]

16. political expediency

is a bogus argument.

[DonP]

17. So, 8 years of Bush/Cheney and a GOP Congress was just political expediency?

Save us all from self aggrandizing "principled" people then.

[RamboLiberal]

22. +1 Not to mention

That those in favor of gun control are not doing their cause any favors when their electoral jump off the cliff will ensure we will have a conservative SCOTUS for at least a generation or more.

1 or 2 more conservatives on the court who are there for life will ensure even a liberal Democratic congress & president will not get more gun control laws of the ilk of the useless AWB ever being the law of the land.

[Katya Mullethov]

36. Yo . Devo .

This would be a good example of a "banzai charge" or maybe the " charge of the light brigade" category for your list of tactics .

[shadowrider]

39. Picketts charge don't forget n/t

[RSillsbee]

41. Up men! and to your posts

And let no man forget today, that he is from Old Virginia!

[Katya Mullethov]

47. We have the day men !

Turn the cannons on them !
Turn the cannon !

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

20. In your opinion, is an AWB worth SS, HCR, and endless wars?

give the pubs the senate and whitehouse and watch how fast HCR dies, SS is raided, and the wars expand. Guess what, they'll probably start the repeals with your precious AWB and anti-gun legislation just to win public support.

If you want to call it "political expediency" thats fine.
Everyone else just calls it politics.

[X_Digger]

18. Brady II was proposed less than a month after Brady I..

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s103-1878&tab=summary

Have a read.. get your ski's on, it's a black diamond..

[benEzra]

23. Wrong, wrong, wrong. The law didn't ban NEW gun sales, either...

nor did it ban purchasing new-in-the-wrapper 30-round magazines 1994-2004 as long as the manufacturer stockpiled them prior to 9/1994.

This civilian rifle is a 2002 model, new production Romanian SAR-1 that I purchased brand new in early 2003, along with ban-era 20- and 30-round magazines (shown). I bought an additional 30-rounder for $9.99 at the same time, the going price during the non-ban.



The 1994 Feinstein law did not ban the purchase of any guns or any magazines. It merely required the cosmetic changes shown below, required that new civilian guns not be marketed under any of 19 banned names (many of which were red herrings anyway), and raised prices on some pistol magazines without affecting availability. That's it.

[Callisto32]

30. I forget.

Did the Brady bill ban muzzle brakes, or just flash hiders?

[Euromutt]

31. Just flash hiders

I think it took a court ruling to establish that muzzle brakes weren't covered by the ban, but the end result is that they weren't. They did have to be "permanently" fixed to the muzzle, though.

[benEzra]

44. Permanently or pinned. The threads were the only legal problem,

so you could thread and silver-solder to make a permanent bond so the threads wouldn't count.

[benEzra]

43. Flash suppressors only. Muzzle brakes were OK,

but had to be pinned on or integral. Screw-on brakes were verboten due to the threads involved.

[GreenStormCloud]

24. The AWB woke gun owners up, and we pushed back.

Now the slope is running the other direction.

[Hoyt]

25. Agree. If we are on a slippery slope it is trending toward irrational expansion of guns in public.

[lawodevolution]

26. HankyDubs, the truth is you can't establish a ban on high cap magazines

the founding fathers set us up in such a way as to provide a tremendous protection against people like you when protecting gun rights.

First off we have the 2A, but the 5A also protects gun owners by making confiscations so costly that any bans that do pass result in all products out there being grandfathered.
1A protects my right to discuss facts and data that support gun rights and expose lies spread by gun haters.

Then there is 10A, which means that any ban enacted at the federal level does not effect a magazine built in Texas and sold in Texas as long as we pass the correct legislation in Texas like some other states already have, such that if the feds banned high cap magazines I will still purchase new manufactured high cap magazines.

If you want to pass an amendment to repel or change the 2A, 1A, 5A and 10A, we only need 13 states to block it.

You simply cannot ban anything firearm related from washington DC, and you won't ban them in Texas, this means you WILL NOT BAN THEM no matter how much you want to and no amount of money you donate to the brady campaign and no amount of protesting will change this. During the first AWB, we were not ready and they didn't ban much of anything anyway, now we are ready and any ban at the federal level will be negated at the state level via the 10A. Have a good day, and I hope you come to terms with this reality and move on.

[Euromutt]

33. Tell that to Charles Krauthammer

In 1996, Krauthammer wrote a column in the WaPo (reprinted in, among others, the Seattle Times http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19960408&slug=2323082) about the AWB that contained the following passages:

In fact, the assault weapons ban will have no significant effect either on the crime rate or on personal security. Nonetheless, it is a good idea, though for reasons its proponents dare not enunciate. I am not up for re-election. So let me elaborate the real logic of the ban:
<...>
Ultimately, a civilized society must disarm its citizenry if it is to have a modicum of domestic tranquility of the kind enjoyed in sister democracies like Canada and Britain. Given the frontier history and individualist ideology of the United States, however, this will not come easily. It certainly cannot be done radically.

It will probably take one, maybe two generations. It might be 50 years before the United States gets to where Britain is today.

Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is a symbolic - purely symbolic - move in that direction. Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation.

Emphasis in bold mine.

The WaPo's token neocon sure as hell didn't think the slippery slope was bunk, though he rightly noted that gun control was a futile effort unless and until thorough crime control could be established first (with made his argument self-defeating, because if you could get crime under control, any subsequent gun control would be imposed for its own sake, not for the sake of public safety; but that's neocon thinking for you, with "moral clarity" being allowed to override logic).

The fact that there was no follow-up to the AWB had a lot more to do with the immediate and vehement reaction on the part of the voters: the Democrats resoundingly lost control of Congress for twelve years and only members of Congress who can rely on a thoroughly anti-gun majority in their particular constituency even dare to utter the phrase to this day.

[friendly_iconoclast]

38. +1 They keep trying historical revisionism, and we keep digging up inconvenient truths...

We are a "malevolently-well informed" lot, aren't we?

[slackmaster]

49. You just said it - "The ban was in place for 10 years"

And it didn't do a bit of good.

[aikoaiko]

40. The numbers shifted when voters wised up to stupid gun laws & held politicians accountable