March 2, 2009

A New Assault Weapons Ban Will Not Reduce Crime In This Country

On Feb. 26, John R. Lott, Jr. wrote this on the Fox News website:

It is pretty hard to seriously argue that a new so-called "assault weapons" ban would reduce crime in the United States. Even research done for the Clinton Administration couldn't find that the federal assault weapons ban reduced crime.

There are no academic studies by economists or criminologist that find the original federal assault weapons ban reduced murder or violent crime generally. There is no evidence that the state assault weapons bans reduced murder or violent crime rates ñ even some evidence that they caused murder to rise slightly. Since the federal ban sunset in September 2004, murder and overall violent crime rates have remained virtually unchanged.

New Assault Weapons Ban

John R. Lott, Jr.

In fact, when the assault weapon's ban sunset in September 2004 there was no explosion of murder and bloodshed as gun control advocates feared. Immediately after the law expired murder rates fell and they fell more in the states without state assault weapon bans than the states with them.

But yesterday, Eric Holder, the new U.S. Attorney General, offered a new justification: I think that will have a positive impact in Mexico, at a minimum.

To read the rest of the piece, click here.

Comments (34)

Robert J and Mr. Novak, I have a link to the Second Amendment March on my Web site. I do believe that to make it a phenomenal success, the Obama-Biden-Holder-Emanuel anti-gun dream team, will have to come after us lawful, honest and trustworthy firearm owners with a significant level of aggressiveness. If the Obama-led team comes out soon and pushes very hard for big gun control ideas, then I can see a 2010 march on Washington as being well worth attending. So much so, that I am promoting it now. I am starting to put aside a little cash each week for airfare and hotel, should the march become a 'be there or be square' event. It has that kind of potential!!!


Posted by: | March 14, 2009 8:23 AM    Report this comment

Robert J.....Please tell us more of the Second Amendment March. Who are the organizers, and where/when is this to occur? While I have traditionally been unimpressed by marches and demonstrations, some good could possibly accrue from one that supports the Second Amendment. Since every other special interest group seems to have gained something from organized marches, perhaps this is something that might bring national attention to our cause, while at the same time exposing the lies of the anti-Second Amendment propaganda.

Posted by: canovack | March 13, 2009 2:07 PM    Report this comment

"...we are, pretty much, stuck with a two-party political system..."

As my late, great father used to say: "I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying that I'm blaming you!"

Even though I'm thoroughly disgusted with the cowardice and dearth of principle in the Republican party nowadays, I have to admit that I still think the two-party system is superior to the kind of multi-party coalition governments that the parliament-ruled European countries have to deal with.

Even so, the lesser of two evils is still evil, and that sticks in my craw so damned bad...

Posted by: Gaviota | March 13, 2009 12:23 PM    Report this comment

Yes Sir Colonel, you are correct. We have to play the game if we are going to win. I was trying to diplomatically bring Gaviota to that reality. I am impressed by his adherence to principles, however the anti-gunners have been using that trait against us. I lot of great ideas here: Vote for the best choice. Join the NRA, SAF, etc.. Write your Congressmen. The best idea I have heard in a long time is this Second Amendment March they are organizing right now. I can think of no better way to get our message to the masses.

Posted by: Robert J | March 13, 2009 12:15 PM    Report this comment

Well, Robert J., this dialogue seems to have come full circle. I recall just a while back, that Gaviota and I had some spirited debate concerning our voting practices. Your comment of 13 March provides lucid support of my premise that when we don't vote, or when we vote for a third party candidate, we are essentially throwing our vote away and giving the election to our worst nightmare. I am, in no way, trying to open any old wounds here, but we must realize that we are, pretty much, stuck with a two-party political system. That said, we all must: (1) Vote! (2) Vote for the candidate that has the best chance of defeating the sworn anti-Second Amendment opposition. While I do, indeed, appreciate the firm, almost rabid, adherence to principles as expressed by Gaviota, in today's political it or not.....the game of compromise is likely the only game in town. We would also do well to remember this quotation: "The enemy of my enemy is my friend".

Posted by: canovack | March 13, 2009 11:58 AM    Report this comment

The reason a lot of gun owners don't vote that I have talked with is because they feel niether candidate truely in line with their beliefs. As Savetheguns stated, not voting for the lesser of 2 evils paves the way for the anti-gunner to take office. When poised with 2 choices, you have to make the most logical. By making no choice puts your fate in the hands of others that are willing to go the extra mile. McCain was not the most conservative or pro-gun candidate, however by not voting gunowners paved the way for a pure anti-gun candidate.

Posted by: Robert J | March 13, 2009 9:46 AM    Report this comment


Wouldn't it be great if every gun owner in the United States took a good close look at the opinions of their legislators before they voted for them? Wouldn't that be something?

I've personally spoken with many gun owners who refuse to even vote. I usually tell them that they're no better than an anti-gunner. Likewise, the pro-gun, pro-Second Amendment person, who doesn't do anymore than complain about gun control amongst his friends and family, is no better than an anti-gunner either.

Posted by: | March 12, 2009 10:10 AM    Report this comment

I'm a little confused here? The media have seemed to brainwash a lot of people! Last I checked an "assault rifle" is fully automatic and any of the so called assault rifles are all semi-auto sporting guns?
Maybe we should take a good long hard look at who these clowns that supposedly work for us.
FYI: A law decreed by the supreme court that is not upheld by the majority dose not go into law.

Posted by: gunjunkie01 | March 12, 2009 8:50 AM    Report this comment

No, that law does not currently apply. It did during the federal assault weapons ban from 1994-2004. I bought a Glock in 1993 with a two 15 rd. clips. Maybe that law was before then while I was active duty. Small world Colonel, I live a mile and a half from Mt. Holly.

Posted by: Robert J | March 10, 2009 1:29 PM    Report this comment

Does Michigan still cling to its requirement that pistol magazines be limited to ten rounds?
A few years back, during one of my visits, my nephew-in-law and I were comparing our purchases of the same model of pistol in .40 S&W. Mine, purchased in Texas, had two 14 round magazines, while his had two 10 round magazines. He referred to them as "Michigan Magazines". Incidentally, my sister and her husband often ski near Holly.

Posted by: canovack | March 10, 2009 11:52 AM    Report this comment

I live in the Holly area close to White Lake.

Posted by: Robert J | March 10, 2009 6:45 AM    Report this comment

I live in the Holly area close to White Lake.

Posted by: Robert J | March 10, 2009 6:45 AM    Report this comment

From 1950 until graduation from Eastern Michigan University in 1963, my home of record was in Dearborn. With my entry on active duty in 1963, I roamed freely throughout the world until I retired in 1984, and selected the gun-friendly state of Texas as my retirement home. The surviving members of my 95-year old mother and my sister presently reside in White Lake.

Posted by: canovack | March 9, 2009 4:35 PM    Report this comment

What area in Michigan do you visit Colonel? I live an hour and a half north of Detroit.

Posted by: Robert J | March 9, 2009 11:57 AM    Report this comment

Yes, Jeff W, I continue to display my NRA Benefactor Member sticker, along with my Texas State Rifle Association Life Member sticker, and my Law Enforcement Alliance of America Life Member sticker. I am also fortunate to have little need to drive anywhere anymore, except, when I do drive to Michigan, I go by way of states that have reciprocal agreements with my Texas Concealed Handgun License. I refer to my route as my "Second Amendment Friendly Corridor". It includes Texas, Arkansas, Missouri, Tennessee, Kentucky, Indiana and Michigan.....all of which respect my Texas CHL. By-the-way, during my discussion with the Illinois Troopers, they asked me why they should trust me with my guns.
My response was: "Because I am one of the good guys". When they said: "How do we know?" I responded with: "Because both of you are still standing on your feet, since you have committed enough errors in this contact, that if I was a bad guy, I would have taken you both down quite easily". They didn't seem to get the humor in that.

Posted by: canovack | March 7, 2009 6:44 PM    Report this comment

Canovack, do you still drive your vehicle with an NRA Sticker attached? I do not leave any trace of my thoughts or beliefs on my vehicle because I lack the diplomacy skills I would need to get my personal belongings back. It would be more like me to inform the officer that I am armed for my own protection and if you wish to disarm me, I will consider that a threat. I'm sure the situation would only worsen from that point forward.

Posted by: JWallace | March 7, 2009 1:28 PM    Report this comment

Those troopers have no sense of humor. But unfortunately you were very lucky they didn't lock you up for Unlawful Use of Weapon. I am of the belief that citizens should have the right to carry after proper training and issuance of a CCW. I'm a member of the NRA, ISRA, & USCCA. canovack, I don't blame you for boycotting. I hate this state also, but I am staying because my roots are here.

Posted by: jchbroker | March 7, 2009 1:17 PM    Report this comment

Mr. Novack, thanks for your story. I too will now seek to never do business with another business in the State of Illinois. If I'm looking at buying something on the Internet, or through a mail order catalog and the company's headquarters resides in Illinois, I will boycott it as well.

That's a great idea. Let's all band together and boycott all Illlinois business until the institute a fair and balanced concealed carry law. If all gun owners in the nation did this, Illinois would be a pro-gun state within a very short period of time.


Posted by: | March 7, 2009 1:14 PM    Report this comment

Several years back, in 1998, I had occasion to be driving through Illinois back to Texas from a visit with family in Michigan. I will never set foot in Illinois again! Just south of Effingham I was stopped by two state police officers.....because I had an NRA sticker on my car. I had several firearms with me and on me. The two troopers took all of my pieces and placed them in the trunk of one of the police cars. I argued the tenets of the Second Amendment with them, and one of them said....."Well, it just ain't right to have these in your car and on your person". Then, a really amazing thing happened. He corrected his comment by saying: "Er, I mean it ain't legal". I seized the opportunity to agree that it may not be legal (in Illinois), but it surely is right, according to the Constitution.
After about two hours of argument, they gave all of my guns back to me and I was on my way.
Since that time, I have boycotted Illinois, and I have related this incident to the Illinois State Rifle Association and the Illinois State Chamber of Commerce. Both were sympathetic to my stand.

Posted by: canovack | March 7, 2009 10:47 AM    Report this comment, you are exactly right. But there are some politicians downstate who are really pushing. But of course, they have to get by the Chicago machine before anything happens. Sometimes I hate where I live because of the political atmosphere

Posted by: jchbroker | March 6, 2009 7:50 PM    Report this comment


If we can get the Illinois legislature to pass a fair and well-balanced concealed carry law, which would be in force in Chicago and its suburbs, without onerous restrictions, it would surprise the heck out of me.

Most Illinois legislators just don't get it. I'm afraid that there will have to be a few voting cycles that focus on sending anti-gun politicians back to the private sector before that happens. But I'll support you anyway I can.

Posted by: | March 6, 2009 11:01 AM    Report this comment

I live in Illinois near Chicago. Gun crimes are on a rise in Chicago which has the most anti gun ordinances on the books.

The Illinois Sheriff's Association has endorsed the proposal that conceal carry in Illinois should be passed. The bad guy then will have to think twice before stalking his prey thinking that his target might be armed.

Gun bans don't work!!!!!

Posted by: jchbroker | March 6, 2009 9:58 AM    Report this comment

After 68+ years of speaking, writing, and studying our language, I continue to be amazed by the many different terms we can generate. I have already commented about the misnomer "assault rifle" in one of my rants above. I am quite impressed with the new terminology that I have read in these pages. The term to which I refer is "sport-utility rifle". Now THAT is a really good description!
I'd guess that the term was borrowed from the automobile industry, but whatever its origins might be, it is an accurate, non-judgmental, descriptive term that we should all strive to bring into common usage.....especially when we are dealing with non-gun people who might be easily cowed by threatening terminology.

Posted by: canovack | March 5, 2009 7:04 PM    Report this comment

Robert J and canovack are exactly right. The term "assault rifle" is a deliberate misnomer invented by Josh Sugarman at the fear-mongering Violence Policy Center (VPC) as a propaganda tool to deceive non-gun-owning politicians and voters by purposely and maliciously blurring the mechanical and legal differences between select-fire and semi-auto firearms. Ironically, Sugarman calls my semi-auto Bushmaster AR-15 an "assault rifle" but my son, a sergeant in the Marines, calls his select-fire M4 a "rifle."

When the question is asked: "Why do you need an assault rifle," my first response is: "For the same reason you need a car that can do 80 miles an hour." Then I go into education mode and teach them about the VPC's propaganda, and the liberties inherent in the Constitution.

As far as .308 sport-utility rifles go, I researched the subject for years before I made my purchases, and I decided on three guns. I now own two, and I'm working on the third. I have a DSA FAL, a PTR-91, both of which are vastly superior US-made clones of the G2 and G3, and I'm fixin' to buy a Fulton Armory M1A. IMHO, these three are the best.

When you buy your sport-utility rifles, don't forget to stock up on at least 4 magazines (I got ten for each gun) and stripper clips. Stripper clips are an often overlooked but vital accessory for combat. Keep the stripper clips loaded, and you'll be able to charge magazines in jig time, otherwise you'll be unarmed during magazine changes!

Posted by: Gaviota | March 5, 2009 6:45 PM    Report this comment

When asked: "What do you need an 'Assault Weapon' for anyway?

My reply is "Why do you want to take my "assault weapons" away from me?"

Posted by: RackEmPunk | March 5, 2009 2:33 PM    Report this comment

Of course, the very term "assault weapon" as used in the media is an incorrect term, since by definition, an assault weapon is one that provides a full automatic capability. As we know, there just aren't that many full autos out there. Anyway, I haven't seen any thing about the Kel-Tec, that Gaviota mentioned, but I do know that the Springfield SOCOM II is a pretty nice platform. The Armalite AR-10 is basically an AR-15 on steroids. Some of the Russian imports are also pretty good with .308 chambering. I have a Saiga 308, that shoots every time I pull the trigger. The Spanish CETME and the UK FAL also come to mind as good .308 platforms. So.....the guns are around, all you have to do is pony up the money before they are priced out of reach.

Posted by: canovack | March 5, 2009 12:08 PM    Report this comment

The problem here is logic versus agenda. The untrained person uses logic in understanding that an assault weapon is bad. What they don't know is the agenda behind banning assault weapons, or as Gaviota and Jeff W would call them recreational not assault. Additionally, they don't know that these weapons are almost never used in crimes. Those are the two sticking points. If people knew the satistics involved and they knew the agenda of the people passing these bans, they would feel differently on the topic. Why is this? The liberal media does not keep people informed on these topics. They use misinformation and half the story to support their liberal agenda and views. Journalism is dead. It used to be we counted on these people to be our watchdog over government, now the liberals have control over much of the mainstream media. See the question should not be "What do you need an Assault Weapon for anyway?" the question should be "Why is the government trying to take a second amendment right away from the people?" See the wrong question is being asked.

Posted by: Robert J | March 5, 2009 9:57 AM    Report this comment

I think a SUR/Assault Rifle could be categorized as a health insurance policy for your family. The rifle allows you to protect you and your family from a greater distance with minimal exposure. Also, the government can't fully protect us from danger so we have an obligation to provide this service on our own. I would also mention that we have a duty to our country to be able to defend her in a moment’s notice.

Posted by: JWallace | March 5, 2009 9:38 AM    Report this comment

Okay guys, I want to start a new 'thread' here. What is your personal response to the inevitable question from the anti-gun leaning and completely untrained friend, family member or co-worker who asks "What do you need an 'Assault Weapon' for anyway?

I have been asked this question dozens of times, but I've heard pro-gun guys stumble and stutter over answering this question. What is your opinion on a proper response?

Posted by: | March 5, 2009 9:04 AM    Report this comment

What really bothers me about this is Mexico complaining that their criminals are getting guns from the U.S. For years the Mexican government has not cared that they are responsible for the majority of illegal drugs on our streets, more money for Mexico. Now that they let the drug trade get carried away and they are shooting up the streets in Mexico its the U.S. fault. Bad karma for them, what comes around goes around. Of course, the Democrats will jump all over this crisis to justifably introduce anti-gun legislation. Seems to be a pattern with the Democrats, using crisis to slip through their agenda.

Posted by: Robert J | March 5, 2009 8:32 AM    Report this comment

Gun Tests doesn't have much good to say about Taurus. Both my gun dealer and my combat instructor report that most of the Taurus guns they've seen have some pretty spotty quality control issues resulting in questionable reliability and durability.

Posted by: Gaviota | March 4, 2009 10:32 PM    Report this comment

No, I haven't seen the Kel-Tec RFB chambered in .308, I need to look into it (thanks for the information). My subscription to GT ran out in December and I haven't been stationary long enough to reorder and accept delivery. Same applies to G&A. I'm hoping for severe wind storms in Texas or Southern Florida so I can visit some well stocked gun shops. Flooding and minor wind storms keep me in the Northeast and Midwest. I was in Alabama for 3 months but that turned out to be rather disappointing. I wanted to check out an FNH FNP-45 but the three guns shops I visited never heard of FNH. I wanted to look at a Glock-30 as a back-up gun as well. I think there is a larger profit margin for them on Taurus and Ruger handguns because that's mostly what they offered.

Posted by: JWallace | March 4, 2009 7:52 PM    Report this comment

Jeff, have you ever seen the new Kel-Tec RFB .308 rifle? I've only seen the pictures and video on the website, but it sure looks interesting. One of these days, if it ever does reach the market (they've been promising to sell it now for over a year) maybe Gun Tests will review it.

I never buy a gun anymore without checking with GT.

Posted by: Gaviota | March 3, 2009 11:24 PM    Report this comment

First Thought - more lives perish from knives and illegally purchased handguns than from assault weapons or sport utility rifles (whichever way you choose to phrase it). That's fine if they want to keep up the hype because my wife overheard the news this evening and suggested I need to purchase my rifle while I still can. I do not like the M-16 platform or the 5.56 round. I'm waiting for something decent to come out in 7.62 or .308 Second thought - I'm thinking if violent Mexicans quit killing each other, we will have even more of them illegally crossing north of the border. My thinking might be slightly tilted here, but I'm thinking the U.S. Government should send guns to Mexico and allow the Drug traffickers to keep killing each other. It would be more cost effective than their current War on Drugs tactics.

Posted by: JWallace | March 2, 2009 11:17 PM    Report this comment

Add your comments ...

New to Gun Tests? Register for Free!

Already Registered? Log In