It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Now that there’s a proposal for a new one on the table, it seems that it’s acceptable to admit in polite company that the previous “assault weapons” ban was a failure. Putting it especially bluntly, the Washington Post’s Brad Plumer argued today that “the last assault-weapons ban didn’t work.” At Mother Jones, Tim Murphy agreed, conceding that:
Although Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) suggested on Thursday that the ban might have saved “hundreds of thousands” of lives had it never gone away, a 2004 University of Pennsylvania study commissioned by Department of Justice was much more reserved: “We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence. And, indeed, there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence.”
The unfortunate caveat to this admission is the suggestion that last ban failed because it wasn’t properly written or implemented, and not because gun bans don’t work in countries with widespread private ownership of firearms. As such, Tim Murphy argues that there were two flaws in the ‘94 bill: “that gunmakers could—and did—simply modify their semiautomatic weapons to fit the law by eliminating cosmetic features,” and that the ban “ended, sunsetting in 2004.”
Although Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) suggested on Thursday that the ban might have saved “hundreds of thousands” of lives had it never gone away, a 2004 University of Pennsylvania study commissioned by Department of Justice was much more reserved: “We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence. And, indeed, there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence.”