An editorial summarizing the irrationality of "assault weapon" phobia and bans, surprisingly hosted by the NY Times in this Sunday edition:
An excerpt follows:
"This politically defined category of guns — a selection of rifles, shotguns and handguns with “military-style” features — only figured in about 2 percent of gun crimes nationwide before the ban.
Handguns were used in more than 80 percent of murders each year, but gun control advocates had failed to interest enough of the public in a handgun ban."
"Handguns were used in more than 80 percent of murders each year, but gun control advocates had failed to interest enough of the public in a handgun ban. Handguns were the weapons most likely to kill you, but they were associated by the public with self-defense. (In 2008, the Supreme Court said there was a constitutional right to keep a loaded handgun at home for self-defense.)"
The article goes on to analyze some of the issues re inner-city crime. Inner cities are where most of the gun-related violence occurs, yet gun control just isn't credible in these areas.
Will the next gun control focus be on handguns as this editorial seems to suggest, or will the "ban everything" tactics used by California and other states continue as the main effort by those who seek to ban effective self-defense?