It’s that time of year again. The weather warms up, the birds start chirping a bit louder, and a politician starts pushing the assault weapon ban.
Just kidding. Someone’s willing to push that year-round, regardless of the season.
This is especially true in the aftermath of a mass shooting like the one in Buffalo. Anti-gun politicians see it as a golden opportunity and you know what they say, “Never let a good crisis go to waste.”
In this instance, it’s the president pushing the ban. Yet, as Katie Pavlich notes over at Townhall, his “facts” don’t check out.
Speaking from Buffalo, New York Tuesday morning President Joe Biden falsely claimed the ban on semi-automatic sporting rifles from 1994 to 2004 cut down on violence and shootings. He made the statement while pushing for gun control after a teenager killed ten people in a local grocery store over the weekend.
BIDEN: "We can keep assault weapons off our streets. We've done it before. I did it when we passed the crime bill last time." pic.twitter.com/41ktuGrBfw
— Townhall.com (@townhallcom) May 17, 2022
Except, it did no such thing.
Yes, they passed the crime bill that includes an assault weapon ban, but crime was already going down before the law went into effect.
Further, after it sunset, crime continued to go down.
In other words, studies have shown that the ban had absolutely no effect on shootings, crime, or much of anything else.
And really, why would it?
We have to remember what the assault weapon ban really was. You see, it didn’t actually ban so-called assault weapons. What it did was restrict certain features that were common on such weapons and make it so you couldn’t have two “evil features” in addition to a detachable magazine.
It was kind of a joke, really.
Oh, but it did restrict magazines. That had to make a difference, right? Nope, and history has shown that.
Look, the assault weapon ban of 1994 had exactly one good thing in that law. It had a sunset provision that meant the law would automatically lapse after 10 years unless Congress voted to reinstitute it. Since Congress was going to change over time, it meant there wasn’t much hope in hell of such a law staying in place.
The law itself did absolutely nothing. As such, there’s no reason to pass the same insanity again.
What’s funny to me is just how hard anti-Second Amendment types like Biden are trying to ignore the fact that the shooter explicitly said he chose his target because of the gun control laws. He wanted a disarmed population to kill.
If you’re going to respond rationally to an event like this, your response should probably include a liberalization of gun laws.
Especially since the twit also said he wanted to spark up another gun control debate.
If you’re going to call this an act of domestic terrorism–and I’m OK with that based on the evidence we currently have–the last thing you should do is give him anything he wanted. Yet Democrats seem inclined to do the opposite of what any sane or rational person would do in light of that fact.
Of course, this also happens to be what they want and, well, “never let a good crisis go to waste” is something of a mantra for them.