Democrats are very quick to call for more gun control. But these calls are always aimed at reducing the availability of guns to law-abiding Americans. Personally, I think that Democrat politicians intentionally resist going after actual gun crime and criminals simply because without gun crime they lose one of their campaign rallying cries.
Take this example
as highlighted at the Ace of Spades blog, noting that out of the 4,000 firearm purchase background checks per year that are deemed a violation of Federal and/or state law and referred for prosecution, that under 200 of them are actually prosecuted. These are the very people who the Government has decided should not have a gun and one would think that 'gun control' Democrats would be in favor of ensuring don't get a gun. But for some reason, the Government has no interest in punishing for violating existing gun laws. From a 2009 Government-funded Brady Gun Law report:
ATF and U.S. Attorneys have developed referral criteria for all 94 judicial districts that reflect the types of cases most likely to merit prosecution. Cases involving restraining orders, domestic violence misdemeanors, non-immigrant aliens, violent felonies, warrants, and indictments are most often included in referral criteria. - Report link in PDF 2009 report here
So here we have actual gun crime where the main response from the US Government is to look the other way. (And just how many illegal aliens do you think the Government goes after for trying to purchase a gun.....)
And what about those Democrat calls for increasing gun control? Just as long as you don't try to punish the actual gun criminals. Take for instance the New York Democrat politician calls to simply confiscate guns from New York. Take them from the law-abiding citizens, but don't you dare increase sentences for actual gun criminals:
Efforts by Cuomo to reach an agreement with the Legislature on a package of gun-control laws has, so far, gone nowhere.
Senate
Republicans, who will retain enormous power in January, have made it
clear they don’t support confiscation of assault weapons or any new
severe restrictions on their ownership.
Assembly
Democrats back the most severe restrictions but, sources said, have
repeatedly refused to agree to sharp increases in penalties for illegal
gun possession or for the use of guns in violent crimes. - NY Post
Democrats
do not want tougher penalties for gun crime and criminals simply
because they depend on this as a wedge issue. After all, if they let the
Republicans put the criminals behind bars, then what use are they? Take Senator Diane Feinstein's new attempt to bring back the assault weapon ban. The original ban was so useless that is did nothing to remove assault weapons or even high capacity magazines from the market. Not for anything, but it is still legal to purchase and own currently registered fully automatic weapons. A new assault weapons ban will not change availability either. Although I have to admit that the threat of regulations has managed to enact one form of gun control, by selling out the market as a result of panic buying.
Back to the proposed assault weapons ban, here are some comments via Forbes's article titled ''Assault Weapon' Is Just A PR Stunt Meant To Fool The Gullible':
Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) has announced that she will be introducing legislation to reenact the ban on so-called assault weapons that she authored in 1994. The evidence is in on the effect of her previous assault weapons ban: zero, zilch, nada, as the saying goes. The ban made no perceptible difference in the gun violence statistics when it went into effect, and no perceptible difference when it was allowed to expire 10 years later, in 2003.
That is because the term “assault weapon” is just a PR stunt that fools the gullible and easily deluded. It is defined in legislation by cosmetic features that frighten white bread suburbanites, but do not involve any functionality of any gun. We tried it, conservatives said it wouldn’t work, and it didn’t work. Yet, it is the liberal answer to the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre in Newtown, Conn.
Why do the hard work of actually making a difference, when with no work at all you can perform a meaningless and irrelevant gesture that won’t make any difference?
A Connecticut state law already banned assault weapons. The difference that made in stopping the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary: zero, zilch, nada, as the saying goes. -
Forbes
Deciding that some guns are more dangerous than others is ridiculous. Take the Walther P22. It is a 22 target pistol and as far as I know would not be effected under any sort of assault weapons ban, unless some variations get banned simply due to how they are colored. The gun comes with a 10 round magazine, which is not considered a high capacity magazine. Despite this, a Finnish mass murderer used one of these pistols to kill ten people, in the process shooting over 200 rounds, 10 at a time.
The trick here is to deny access to guns from those who would misuse them, prosecute those who illegally try to purchase them, jail those who use them in a crime, regardless of whether legally obtained of not. If you do these things, you should still be able to guarantee access to those who legally are entitled to them as recognized in our Bill of Rights.
--------------------
--------------------
