Sen. Schumer Says Long Dead Assault Weapons Ban Responsible for Current Falling Crime Stats

On Sunday Senator Chuck Schumer tried to pass off the 1994 assault weapons ban bill that was canceled eight years ago as the reason that today’s violent crime rates have been down.

In a discussion about gun control with Senator Chuck Schumer (D, NY) and Lindsey Graham (R, SC), David Gregory of NBC’s Meet The Press correctly pointed out that past gun banning laws like the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban didn’t work and that is a challenge to Schumer’s anti-gun position. Schumer answered to Gregory with a nice twist of logic saying,

“Well, the amount of gun violence since we passed the assault weapons ban and the Brady law is down considerably,” Schumer said.

This is a twist of logic. Firstly the assault weapons ban has been off the books now for eight years so it is a big stretch to say it factors into what is happening today. Further, since the Assault weapons ban lapsed every state but one (Illinois) has passed some sort of concealed carry law meaning that there are more guns “on the street” in as much as more law abiding citizens are allowed to carry their firearms everywhere they go.

So, logically, if Schumer is saying that gun bans work and he’s pointing to the lower numbers of gun violence as “proof,” the fact that more guns are being carried should have made gun violence go up. Yet, it hasn’t. As Schumer correctly noted, it has gone down. The facts undermine Schumer’s argument, here.

Later during the panel discussion the gun control debate continued with Andrea Mitchell making another point without any meaning.

Talking about how the various states have different gun laws, Mitchell said, “You’ve got states now that permit guns, concealed guns, in elementary schools, in houses of worship, on college campuses. I mean you’ve got such a patchwork quilt of states permitting guns and access to guns in places where common sense says they shouldn’t be…”

Yet, incidents of shootings in schools or churches just aren’t perpetrated by legal concealed carry license holders. So, again, this point is meaningless.

The fiscal cliff also came up on this broadcast of Meet The Press.

During the panel discussion, Chuck Todd urged the President to forget about any “small deals” and go big. As always, Todd wants the President to steam roll over the GOP as much as possible.

“We’re going to be getting a small deal,” Todd began. “It’s a shame,” he said sadly.

“I think politically the President’s making a mistake to go for a small deal. He’ll lose leverage as the year goes on. He’ll get a big political victory, but he should try one more time for the big deal,” Todd said. “I think go one more time.”

Newspaper Posts Map of Gun Owner’s Homes, Blogger Posts Newspaper Employee’s Homes
Yes Virginia, sooner or later we will all be paying more taxes
  • GarandFan

    Todd said. “I think go one more time.”

    Sort of like Barney Frank ‘rolling the dice one more time’. And we all saw how well that worked out.

    As for Schumer, logic isn’t his strong suit. Perhaps he has an explanation as to why 9 incidents of ‘multiple shootings’ occurred during the AWB.

  • jim_m

    Talking about how the various states have different gun laws, Mitchell said, “You’ve got states now that permit guns, concealed guns, in elementary schools, in houses of worship, on college campuses. I mean you’ve got such a patchwork quilt of states permitting guns and access to guns in places where common sense says they shouldn’t be…”

    Yep. That’s called democracy. No wonder the left hates it. Far better to impose rule from a central government. That’s what’s coming. Federally imposed gun control, most likely by Presidential order or by administrative ruling.

    • disqus_LUSd7jdSBg

      No one seems to mention the church shootings in colorado, where a off duty security guard was able to subdue the shooter PRECISLY BECAUSE she was carring at the time

  • jim_m

    The dems will introduce a high cap magazine ban on the first day of the new session. [this is separate legislation from the Feinstein bill]

    This is essentially the same ban as the former assault weapons ban. The best part is that the sponsor admits that this will do nothing to stop some crazed person from committing mass murder. This is just another way to assert control over the public.

    Never let a crisis go to waste.

  • LiberalNightmare

    There you go again. Injecting logic and reason into an argument, as if that matters to liberals.

  • http://wizbangblog.com/ Baron Von Ottomatic

    Remember when crack cocaine was an epidemic? And the Feds rushed to pass mandatory minimum sentences so that a person arrested for crack got a sentence equivalent to someone popped with 100x as much powder cocaine?

    And then crack became a joke and source of mockery within the communities where it had been most popular and damaging. People started making fun of crackheads and crack fell out of fashion and then the dealers who’d been shooting each other up over turf stopped shooting each other up.

    That happened at about the same time as the previous assault weapon ban. I’d wager the Nickelbackization (Beiberizaton? I’m trying to invent a word for when something that was once bafflingly popular becomes a source of mockery and shame. Disco-ization? Anyway…) of crack cocaine had more to do with the decrease in violent crime over the past 20 years than anything else.

  • 914

    What a Shmuck!

  • retired.military

    What is 10,000 times more dangerous than all the assault rifles in the world combined?

    Standing in between CHuckie Schumer and a microphone.

  • http://www.shockandblog.com/ Jay McHue

    Either he’s a liar or he is abysmally ignorant. Neither is good.

    • herddog505

      The man is a US senator, so there’s no “either / or” about it: he’s a liar AND abysmally ignorant.

  • Par4Course

    Gun control is about two priorities on the liberal agenda of folks like Senator Shumer: (1) growing the power and scope of government and (2) restricting individual rights. It is not, never has been and never will be about making our country safer.

  • UOG

    I do have a question about this, but only one question. If the original assault weapons ban is responsible for the current drop in crime rates… does that mean that the dinosaurs’ flatulence is really the cause of “climate change/global warming”?

    • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

      That’s a good question. I really think it’s worth the expense to come up with a working time travel machine – and send Al Gore and Michael Moore back to investigate it, along with Pelosi, Reid, and Schumer.

  • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

    This is interesting – a pro-control reporter looked at the data – discarding anything from the NRA.

    I personally believed in civilian disarmament until an acquaintance in law enforcement challenged my gun-banner’s assumptions with questions and points I could not rebut. This began a research journey limited only by my decision to exclude any data cited by the NRA. At the time, I was convinced only caring people like the Brady Campaign would present the truth.

    Surprisingly (to me, at the time), I found no dataset proving civilian disarmament made anybody safer.

    In response to Ezra Klein’s report titled “Twelve facts about guns and mass shootings in the United States,” below are eight fictions about gun control.

    Do note: all data cited below are from sources supportive of gun control.

    http://pjmedia.com/blog/gun-control-fails-say-statistics-from-gun-control-advocates/?singlepage=true

    Interesting results. The overall thing I’m seeing… is that the gun control advocates are really fudging the numbers to come up with any sort of support for their position, and in a number of cases lying outright. (And I’m not talking about the ‘lying where you’re mistaken, because you don’t know the facts’ – it’s ‘lying because you DO know the facts, but don’t want to put forth the facts since they don’t support you’.)

    Based on the crime data presented in this article — again, all the data come from countries and organizations supporting the most extreme forms of gun control — the gun-ban movement promotes a fatally flawed agenda whose outcome includes:

    More women raped;

    More blacks murdered;

    More people experiencing fear;

    More school children murdered;

    And the individual’s civil rights infringed.

    If civilian disarmament is a righteous, caring agenda, why must gun-control advocates manipulate their own data to manufacture “proof” of its validity?

    That’s a real good question, isn’t it?

    2+2 always equals 4. You can dance around, scream, shout, obfuscate, throw hysterical fits, and pretend with all your dramatic talent that it really equals 5 – but in the end it’s going to be 4.

    Gun control doesn’t do any of the things its supporters insist it does – and never did.

    • jim_m

      I was just reading that story and was going to post the link. Well done!

      The problem is that, like all left wing ideology, despite ample evidence that it is a failure, the left clings to it and is certain that the failure is not that their ideology is wrong but that it wasn’t implemented properly. In the case of gun control, it hasn’t been enforced by confiscation, no knock raids on the homes of suspected gun owners, Harsh prison sentences on otherwise law abiding citizens, etc.

      Gun control and stamping out violent crime is the means by which the left will impose a totalitarian regime and they will do it all for our benefit and “For the children”.

      • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

        If I were a cynical sort (which I’m trying hard to get away from…) I’d think that the continual trumpeting of the ‘for the children’ meme and the ‘gun owners are EEEVIL!’ meme were intended to foster a general societal approval for the idea of confiscation and imprisonment of gun owners.

        Trouble is – it doesn’t seem to be working. The more hysterical they get, the more they’re laughed at.

        And if you figure (like some surveys show) that half the folks in the US own firearms – I tend to think that although supposedly it’s about half, it’s more like about 65% or so, because if someone phones me and asks how many firearms I might own, I’d probably tell ‘em about my father’s old lever-action 30-30 Winchester that got lost in an unfortunate canoeing accident… (Funny how many of those there are…) Or in other words – ain’t none of your damn business. (And the funny thing is – that’s the most powerful rifle I own. Oops – owned, lol…) I see no reason to answer accurately a survey asking how many and what kinds of firearms I might have around the house.

        But even if it’s just half – to take half the country and turn them into felons at the whim of a legislator is NOT going to go well. ”For the children” or not – there’s going to be one hell of an uproar and a whole lot of civil disobedience.

  • jim_m

    A UK citizen is 5 times more likely to die from government health care than an American is to die from a gunshot..

    But the left wants to give us socialized medicine and take away the guns. I suppose their reason must be that we aren’t dieing fast enough.

    • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

      One must break eggs to make the socialist omelette.

      Sucks to be the egg, eh?

      Is there ANYTHING being pushed by the left that produces results that match the ad copy?

      • Quietus

        I’ll take your SS check if you’re not going to use it. Thanks!

        • jim_m

          You are aware that the age of 65 was chosen for receiving SS benefits because the life expectancy at that time was 65.5 years? It was targeted so that most people would not receive benefits.

          THAT is the left’s idea of helping the elderly. Help as few as you can get away with. But like most lefty policies it didn’t turn out as planned.

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            Might be why they’re looking so hard at instituting Obamacare. Gotta get the demographics down somehow!

          • Quietus

            So I can have yours then? Doesn’t it suck when a liberal idea gives you money?

          • jim_m

            actually, it is stealing my money since I could earn a better return myself. Tell you what, Why don’t you pay us all the difference between the average market return and what SS will actually pay us?

          • Quietus

            Great point! How much did the market go up again under Clinton and now, under Obama?

          • jim_m

            Reagan was President when I started working. You’re going to have to pay out big.

            In truth the fact is that the overall trend line since 1950 is the same across nearly every president, including the high tech bubble economy under Clinton. In fact the only place it is flat is from Kennedy through Carter.

          • Quietus

            I hope you’ll take off any gains made during democratic presidencies. Only fair, since you hate them so much. No help for you when your retirement crashes along with the market occassionally either btw. Great system you want.

          • Vagabond661

            yeah those Democrat presidents can print money faster than the best of them!

          • jim_m

            Why should I? Or are you admitting that the dems do not feel that they are president for the entire nation and only for their supporters?

            Actually, my system is sustainable. Yours is not. Mine allows people freedom. Yours enslaves them to government. Mine allows people to become rich, yours mires them in poverty.

            I suppose that you are still regretting the collapse of communism. Having millions of people free to lead their lives as they choose must really rankle.

          • Quietus

            I love that you only look to the best case scenario instead of living in a world that acknowledges the pitfalls & wants to insure when times are tough not everything falls apart.

            I see your understanding of communism, socialism ( of which America has plenty, right down to milk prices ) and pure, unfettered capitalism ( which doesn’t and never has existed ) are completely lacking.

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            What ‘give’? Ever looked at your paystub?

          • Vagabond661

            If it is a SS check technically it’s not the government’s money. They are giving me what I paid in minus all the interest that would have accrued.

        • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

          Come and try to take it…. if I ever get it, which is looking less likely by the year.

    • Quietus

      That’s fantastic. Now I wonder how many of us die from being unable to afford quality health care, or from the worse outcomes from the expensive stuff we *do* get, compared to the UK…

      • herddog505

        I dunno. Why don’t you post some actual numbers so we can judge for ourselves?

        Or are you limited to, “democrats good, Republicans baaaaad”?

        • Quietus

          I was “wondering”, not explaining that I’d spoon feed you real statistics which you’d dispute just because they trampled your fanatical ideological beliefs that no one in the rest of the industrialized world hold.

          • jim_m

            In other words he’s got nothing to back up his claims so he will just make lame excuses for not actually engaging in anything other than name calling.

  • Quietus

    We should just arm children. If you’re old enough to grasp your mothers finger, you’re old enough to pull a trigger.

    I very much like the idea that if anyone gets in my personal space, I can shoot them for feeling threatened by them. Viva.

    • jim_m

      Hey, looks like Carl found his way back.

      • Quietus

        If you don’t love children enough to arm them, you’re the problem, not the solution.

        • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

          Thanks! I’ll be taking my son and a friend of his to the range tomorrow. Gotta teach ‘em early what’s what with firearms – which is why the Eddie Eagle program with the NRA is so popular. Worked with him on it then, and then when he was old enough started taking him to the range.

          When kids get old enough to properly understand, you teach them to shoot. That takes a lot of the mystery and fascination out of firearms, especially when you make them clean them afterwards.

          Firearms are tools – much like you.

          • jim_m

            Where on earth are you finding the ammo? Ammo stocks are supposedly down over 90% since the election.

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            Found it lost in a stream when canoeing. ;-)

          • herddog505

            Tell me about it. “Out of stock” seems to be the most popular caliber these days. If you CAN find it, prices have gone up accordingly.
            I’m guessing that nobody in Congress or MiniTru will be calling for investigations into “gouging”…

          • Vagabond661

            I remember a news story awhile back about the EPA and other government agencies buying up a lot of ammo.

          • Quietus

            You’ve left it far too late though. An undefended toddler in the back of a vehicle is UNAMERICAN. That child must be able to shoot back from their first birthday at the latest.

            I applaud your effort but you’re already leaving children defenceless.

          • retired.military

            Children are defenseless in the womb but that doesnt stop liberals from killing them. Now I am all for arming them in the womb so if a doctor tries to abort it the unborn child can defend itself.

        • retired.military

          I am quite sure you love them enough to kill them before they are born.

      • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

        Ought to check IP addresses. If it’s the same (or parses out to the same location as previous) then cut it off.

        • jim_m

          Alas, I am not a moderator. But he is very much in the same vein as Carl and other previous incarnations. Making no serious contributions and only posting sarcastic comments and ignorant statements.

  • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

    Another interesting question…

    “A lot of our gun control measures are aimed at people who would obey the law and get the permits. How does keeping me or you from having a gun really control gun violence in Washington or New York City?” asks Craig R. Whitney, a former New York Times journalist and author of the new book, Living with Guns: A Liberal’s Case for the Second Amendment.”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulV9W66bOcc&feature=youtu.be

    It does make it safer for the folks who don’t obey the laws, obviously…

Optimization WordPress Plugins & Solutions by W3 EDGE