There are some logical problems with the reasons you've posited for a reduction in crime. First, the Clinton era push to get officers on the streets was a TEMPORARY increase in funds to hire officers. The departments who received these funds were then left in a no-win situation in which they were pushed to keep these people on board when the temporary funding ran out. These sorts of programs have never had any long-standing impact on crime totals.

The assault weapons ban had virtually nil impact on criminality on the street. Only 1.7% of weapons can be classified accurately as assault weapons, and they represent a miniscule percentage of actual crime...just as hunting weapons do. BY far, the largest percentage of violent crimes aren't committed with legal assault weapons, but with legal and illegally owned (usually stolen) 22s and other small caliber handguns (known as Saturday Night Specials).

Perhaps the biggest impact on gun crimes has come from 10-20-life laws passed by places like Florida and the 3 strikes laws passed by California, which put violent repeat offenders (a relatively small percentage of all offenders) behind bars for life.

Of course, liberals generally hate those laws, so attributing decreases of crime during the late 90s to them (versus gun laws, which seem to have had minimal effects on crime) isn't likely going to happen from the left.

Criminals who have wanted to possess military-style assault weapons (versus the legal definition of assault weapons) have continued to do so. Most of those guns have come into this country illegally from places like El Salvador where they are cheap and plentiful, and are frequently trafficked by international gangs like Mara Salvatrucha.

Catz

__________________
Job 13:5 (New International Version)
If only you would be altogether silent! For you, that would be wisdom.

I have fired both rifles and semi-autos...what's your point?

__________________
The last time this country mixed politics with religion, people got burned at the stake.

States which have passed conceal carry laws have seen a corresponding reduction in violent crime.

Interesting data that flies in the face of leftist assumptions about dangerous guns.

And, just FYI, Truebrit...

There is no substantial difference between the twelve-guage hunting rifle I keep in my house and an "assault weapon." The differences are primarily cosmetic. Assault weapons "look scary." But function no differently than a hunting rifle.

__________________
Job 13:5 (New International Version)
If only you would be altogether silent! For you, that would be wisdom.

Assault rifles are" AK47s, UZIs, KALASHNIKOVs etc".... I am NO gun expert. Never even fired one in my life (though I am thinking of taking lessons, obtaining a permit and purchasing a nice simple handgun).

CATZ, what is a good, simple, not-too-large handgun? I don't like 9mmS..

Yup, okay.... The primary difference between my car and a Ferrari is primarily cosmetic too......

__________________
The last time this country mixed politics with religion, people got burned at the stake.

some evidence is in the article i posted...
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.

__________________
"strength and wisdom are not opposing values." ~ bc

Thomas Kean for President!


there's what mccain says...then there's what JP5 says mccain says

I'm such a dolt. We own a shotgun. Not a rifle. I must have rifle on the brain.

Munko, I've never owned a handgun, only a shotgun (or, when I was a kid, we used a hunting rifle). For home protection, I highly recommend a shotgun over a handgun.

And, as far as carrying a concealed handgun, I'd suggest that it's far better to be conscious of your surroundings. It would be very difficult for the average person to carry a handgun in such a way as to respond effectively to a menacing situation. You're more likely to have it taken away from you.

As far as assaults on police officers, most of those were from illegal guns (many imported, as stated, from places like El Salvador). Virtually NONE were from legal, registered weapons.

Catz

__________________
Job 13:5 (New International Version)
If only you would be altogether silent! For you, that would be wisdom.

Again, remember, Clinton flooded the streets with cops, but it was only temporary....and he knew it. That money lasted for 3-4 years and then was gone.

So, lots to blow his horn about, but minimal long-term impact.

As far as the increases in crimes, bear in mind that many cities were hard hit in the 90s with gangs and did massive crackdowns. These crackdowns resulted in mass incarceration from some groups. In some areas where there aren't mandatory minimum sentences, these folks are starting to come back out to their communities. Most of these gang members only served 5 years...max.

And, many remain gang involved.

Further, the emphasis on terrorism has drawn away focus from local problems, like gangs. Departments are totally stretched trying to respond to homeland security and local crime problems. This would have occurred regardless because our economy took a massive hit immediately following 9/11 (not Bush's fault). That hit has started to drastically impact local community budgets over the past two years (it takes a while for communities to feel the effects of a stagnant economy in terms of tax revenues).

The Bush administration is just beginning to revisit some of this stuff, but it's cyclical. When gang crime goes down, everyone (including the liberals) stops paying attention to it.

When it inevitably goes back up, everyone acts surprised.

I've been around long enough to have seen this happen a couple of times.

Catz

__________________
Job 13:5 (New International Version)
If only you would be altogether silent! For you, that would be wisdom.

Ah, but have you ever fired a 105mm tank cannon? That'll wake you up!

(And, since some of the fumes exhaust into the turret, you can get pretty high after a dozen or so rounds if the hatches are closed; found that out after my first live-fire exercise).

I'll showcase my ignorance (I never got too worked up about this issue): I thought the major distinction with "assault weapons" was rate of fire -- more than one bullet being fired per squeeze of the trigger. Even many assault-type rifles that technically fired only one shot per squeeze were easily modified to fire bursts.

The M-16, for instance, has a single-shot and automatic setting, the latter firing three bullets per squeeze of the trigger. The civilian AR-15 version, which I've never handled, only fired single-shot. I believe. But an inexpensive kit readily restored the three-shot option.

Feel free to flagellate me for my ignorance.

Fully automatic weapons are of course already illegal and not part of the 10-year ban (yes truebrit, there is in fact no difference between a hunting rifle and a semi-automatic version of the AK-47--it's like banning a Ferrari with your Honda Civic's engine).
There are some silly distinctions:
*No bayonet mounts (for all those policemen getting stabbed to death by gang members who wait in trenches).
*No pistol grips (that pistol grip shotgun is a MUCH bigger threat to our officers than a normal shotgun)

Finally someone gets to the crux! The weapons covered by the "assault" weapons ban are not truly assault weapons unless they are illegally modified. It would be very interesting to look at:
A) How many violent crimes were carried out using the weapons banned in 1994 (not all assault weapons)
B) Of these weapons, how many were more dangerous/lethal than a standard semi-automatic hunting rifle (e.g. had been modified to produce bursts)

I'd be willing to bet very, very few.