Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Why ban the guns that kill the least amount of people, and ignore the ones that kill the most? [View all]TeddyR
(2,493 posts)9. Most people involved think it was a failure
Here's an excerpt from a piece in the Guardian on Monday discussing the AWB:
The loophole-ridden 1994 federal assault weapons ban, which expired in 2004, produced no clear evidence of reducing gun violence. An in-depth evaluation of the law concluded that the impact of even a more comprehensive ban would be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement.
That was not a surprise to anyone who had been paying attention. In the early 1990s, even some gun control advocates criticized the push for an assault weapon ban as a distraction with little crime-fighting benefit. But the ban generated intense, visceral reactions from the public. A former Democratic staffer who helped craft the assault weapon ban said he had hoped passing it would give Democrats the political momentum they needed to pass the drier, more technical gun laws that might actually save more lives.
Instead, the push for a political victory backfired. President Bill Clinton later blamed the assault weapon ban for the 1994 midterm victories that allowed Republicans to take over both houses of Congress. Many prominent gun control groups have since moved away from an assault ban through hard, bitter experience, said Matt Bennett, a gun policy expert who advised Sandy Hook Promise.
Democrats know the research behind the ban. While a ban on high-capacity magazines could help some, the assault weapons ban does nothing, a former senior Obama administration official said last year.
Despite this, the ban has remained a moral litmus test for Democratic politicians.
Obama endorsed the assault weapon ban after Sandy Hook. Behind the scenes, the ban got little political support from the White House in 2013. Instead, the administration focused its energy on expanding background checks. When it came to the assault weapon ban, We did the bare minimum, the official said. We would have pushed a lot harder if we had believed in it.
That was not a surprise to anyone who had been paying attention. In the early 1990s, even some gun control advocates criticized the push for an assault weapon ban as a distraction with little crime-fighting benefit. But the ban generated intense, visceral reactions from the public. A former Democratic staffer who helped craft the assault weapon ban said he had hoped passing it would give Democrats the political momentum they needed to pass the drier, more technical gun laws that might actually save more lives.
Instead, the push for a political victory backfired. President Bill Clinton later blamed the assault weapon ban for the 1994 midterm victories that allowed Republicans to take over both houses of Congress. Many prominent gun control groups have since moved away from an assault ban through hard, bitter experience, said Matt Bennett, a gun policy expert who advised Sandy Hook Promise.
Democrats know the research behind the ban. While a ban on high-capacity magazines could help some, the assault weapons ban does nothing, a former senior Obama administration official said last year.
Despite this, the ban has remained a moral litmus test for Democratic politicians.
Obama endorsed the assault weapon ban after Sandy Hook. Behind the scenes, the ban got little political support from the White House in 2013. Instead, the administration focused its energy on expanding background checks. When it came to the assault weapon ban, We did the bare minimum, the official said. We would have pushed a lot harder if we had believed in it.
Link - https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/20/gun-control-orlando-attack-newtown-mass-shooting
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
39 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Why ban the guns that kill the least amount of people, and ignore the ones that kill the most? [View all]
MadDAsHell
Jun 2016
OP
Failure, maybe, because it didn't go far enough or long enough. That can be corrected.
Hoyt
Jun 2016
#14
One step at a time, semi-auto pistols next. An AWB will force many gun stores/shows to shut down
Hoyt
Jun 2016
#4
Handgun ownership is Constitutionally protected, as per the Heller decision.
Just reading posts
Jun 2016
#7
That's what it feels like. What will score us a political win, not what will help us save lives...nt
MadDAsHell
Jun 2016
#10
I think most non-mass shooting murders (the vast majority of gun deaths) are illegal guns...
MadDAsHell
Jun 2016
#35
We are all prophets of our own biases, and read the futures which best validate our desires...
LanternWaste
Jun 2016
#27
My biases (and I certainly have them) aside, I find the prospect of the US Congress outlawing
Just reading posts
Jun 2016
#37
That's a fair point, but wouldn't the "good" be preventing 80% of deaths, not 20%?
MadDAsHell
Jun 2016
#32
For similar reasons to why the mentally ill are targeted for greater and greater surveillance
HereSince1628
Jun 2016
#38