The bottom-feeders at the New York Times editorial board are exploiting the Tucson tragedy to push for new gun control measures, including a renewal on the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. The measure, which expired in 2004, prohibited the sale of high-capacity clips, among other things.
Congress has the “the power to reduce the number of these sorts of horrors, and their lethality” if only they would confront the evil interests of the NRA and reinstate the ban, intoned the Times.
Hyperbole aside, would a ban on oversized magazines result in lower crime rates and prevent massacres like the one we saw take place in Arizona? John Lott Jr., a criminologist and author of The Bias Against Guns, says no. Not a chance.
In a HUMAN EVENTS video exclusive, Lott said that when the assault weapons ban expired in 2004, liberals argued that felonies and shootings would soar.
The opposite happened, Lott states. Murder and robbery rates have fallen substantially, in fact.
To Lott, the question then become this: Why should we believe gun control advocates now when they were so wrong about the sunset of Clinton’s firearm law to begin with?
Good question indeed. Get on it, old media!
Most gun control measures just don’t work.
“To the extent that you disarm law-abiding good citizens relative to criminals you can actually see increases in violent crimes rather than drops,” Lott argues.
Criminals will break the law. Shocker.
But what about background checks? The New York Times tells us we need to beef up the background checks on who can and can’t buy a gun. The system is way too lax, as is. Well that’s one of the Left’s new favorite memes, anyway.
Lott disagrees that background checks are a panacea.
“There’s not any evidence by criminologists or economists that background checks reduce violent crimes.”
“A lot people seem to feel good about background checks. They get some solace, I assume. That’s fine. But you have to realize that it’s more of a placebo than actually [a benefit].”
Lott points out that most people who are prohibited from purchasing a firearm because they get flagged during background checks actually turn out to be “false positives.”
It’s comparable to a member of Congress being on the “no fly” list.
Individuals get flagged incorrectly, but are able to obtain a gun once the mistaken information is corrected at the appeals level.
Sign up to the Human Events newsletter