Quote:
Originally Posted by Liberty";p="
Quote:
Originally Posted by maximus-erectus";p="
it's a rather subjective thing to measure.
violent crime went down significantly during the clinton administration.
gun deaths went down (though it's still thousands and thousands)
it's been 10 years since the ban took effect, and the country is measurably safer. There are less of these types of weapons on the streets.
It is probably a combo effect, where clinton increased the country's police force by 50,000 (?, i think that's correct), an assault weapons ban, and other tougher gun controls, all played some part.
is there more to do? YES! can tougher measures be put in place? YES!
should the ban stay? it certainly won't hurt.
|
I would argue that the decrease in violent crime was primarily the result of a strengthened economy. Only a scant fraction of violent crimes were committed with "assault weapons" prior to the ban, so it would be silly to claim that banning them has resulted in any measurable decrease in violent crime.
You provide no evidence or reasoning for maintaining the ban other than it "certainly wouldn't hurt." It certainly wouldn't hurt to outlaw rubber band guns either -- should they also be banned? |
some evidence is in the article i posted...
Quote:
|
They accounted for 8.4 percent of the guns traced to crimes between 1988 and 1991, and they are still used in one in five fatal shootings of police officers.
|
you like cops right?
you provide no evididence either. a scant fraction? what does that mean? only a few hundred deaths?
i would agree that a strengthened economy definitely helps.
it's interesting that crime has gotten worse under the bush years as the economy has gone down.