Monday, April 25, 2005

More evidence
that anything less than total gun confiscation is pretty much ineffective, from the New York Times, via InstaPundit. The NYT says:

Despite dire predictions that the streets would be awash in military-style guns, the expiration of the decade-long assault weapons ban last September has not set off a sustained surge in the weapons' sales, gun makers and sellers say. It also has not caused any noticeable increase in gun crime in the past seven months, according to several metropolitan police departments.
Glenn adds:
The ban was symbolic legislation, designed to bolster the media profiles and direct-mail efforts of gun control lobby groups, while building momentun for eventual complete gun confiscation (something that some gun-control enthusiasts admitted, and others unconvincingly denied). It failed at that, and in fact succeeded mostly in costing the Democrats control of the legislative and executive branches.
The NRA has been extremely damaging to its opponents in a lot of districts throughout the country. How many times have you watched a Democrat make sure to get television coverage of his hunting trips to keep the NRA happy? How many other issues have presidential candidates condemning the incumbent for allowing the law in question to lapse but making sure to avoid voting himself?

As far as the complete gun confiscation plans go, the people supporting that idea were never realistic. There are a lot of gun owners in this country who would never have approved of that idea. Furthermore, there are many out there like me: people who don't own any guns but will never allow the gun control lobby to so blithely disregard the intention of the Founders of this nation.

UPDATE [4/25/2005 - 6:43]: More from JustOneMinute.

No comments: