Why don’t liberals want to address the real causes of gun violence?

Liberals have an unending capacity for doing the wrong things. When the economy is hurting, they suck the life out of productive citizens rather than stimulate the economy so all can have the opportunity to do well. Following a tragic shooting, they respond with meaningless gestures. They would punish those who abide by the law. The cry has gone out for stronger gun control laws and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) is the head cheerleader. For starters, her proposed bill includes:

Stops the sale, transfer, importation and manufacturing of more than 100 specifically-named firearms as well as certain semiautomatic rifles, handguns and shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds.

Stops the sale, transfer, importation and manufacturing of large-capacity ammunition feeding devices (magazines, strips and drums) capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.

Protects legitimate hunters and the rights of existing gun owners by:

grandfathering weapons legally possessed on the date of enactment;

exempting more than 900 specifically-named weapons used for hunting and sporting purposes; and

exempting antique, manually-operated, and permanently disabled weapons.

Feinstein makes claims that are abusive of the literature she cites:

A Justice Department study found the Assault Weapons Ban was responsible for a 6.7 percent decline in total gun murders. However, since the 2004 expiration of the bill, assault weapons have been used in at least 459 incidents, resulting in 385 deaths and 455 injuries.

So let’s have a look:

“At best, the assault weapons ban can have only a limited effect on total gun murders, because the banned weapons and magazines were never involved in more than a modest fraction of all gun murders. Our best estimate is that the ban contributed to a 6.7 percent decrease in total gun murders between 1994 and 1995, beyond what would have been expected in view of ongoing crime, demographic, and economic trends. However, with only one year of post-ban data, we cannot rule out the possibility that this decrease reflects chance year-to-year variation rather than a true effect of the ban. Nor can we rule out effects of other features of the 1994 Crime Act or a host of state and local initiatives that took place simultaneously.”

Another Feinstein claim:

“A recent study by the Violence Policy Center finds that between 2005 and 2007, one in four law enforcement officers slain in the line of duty was killed with an assault weapon.”

The truth?

However that’s not what the study states. The data which she is referencing studies 64 incidents that already involve “assault weapons” of which also involved law enforcement. The study actually says that out of the 64 incidents that involve assault weapons, four ended in at least one law enforcement fatality, not that one in four officers are killed by assault weapons.

What is it Feinstein really wants?

“If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States, for an outright ban, picking up [every gun]… Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in.”

Would banning large capacity magazines stop mass shootings? No.

Nothing new here. The criminals response? Carry more magazines, as we’ve seen in Virginia Tech where the shooter brought nineteen loaded magazines for his two handguns and Columbine where they brought 13 extra magazines.

And Feinstein would demand more:

-Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act, to include:

-Background check of owner and any transferee;

-Type and serial number of the firearm;

Page 1 of 4 | Next page