Two things are as predictable as the sun rising in the East. Politicians will scapegoat firearms for criminal acts long before all the facts are known — even if the facts do not support their arguments.
And the same leaders will call for stricter gun control, even when it would not have had the slightest effect on whatever incident they are using to make their point.
Her statement followed President Joe Biden’s call for Congress to send an “assault weapons” ban to the Oval Office for him to sign.
Jean-Pierre’s Tuesday press conference started with the spokesperson talking about the horrific mass shootings that occurred within a 48-hour period in California.
This is the same state, for the record, that boasts of the most restrictive gun control laws anywhere in the U.S. Not to mention the fact that it already has a ban on “assault weapons.”
Facts notwithstanding, Jean-Pierre reiterated the White House demand for a federal ban on the popular firearms. It was then that the facts became murky at best.
The press secretary boldly claimed that “the last time we had an ‘assault weapons’ ban enacted, mass shootings actually went down.” She took the opportunity to thank her boss and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) for their leadership in stripping away Americans’ Second Amendment rights.
Her facts, however, are simply wrong.
The evidence against Jean-Pierre’s statement comes from the very same government she represents. According to the Justice Department’s National Institute of Justice (NIJ), the “assault weapons” ban enacted from 1994 until 2004 did not result in a drop in gun violence.
In fact, the report’s author related to the Washington Times that there was no such drop during that period that could be related to the federal ban. University of Pennsylvania professor Christopher Koper noted that “there has been no discernable reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence” during the decade.
The NIJ cited several reasons for the lack of impact of the blatantly unconstitutional measure. What the uninformed prefer to call “assault weapons” are rarely used in criminal acts. Federal experts asserted that the weapons hardly showed up at crime scenes even before the ban went into effect.
As the NIJ concluded, the law’s observable impact was “perhaps too small for reliable measurement.”
Simply put, the push to ban “assault weapons” has more to do with opposition to gun rights and the appearance of the firearms than any practical purpose. There’s an explanation for why the popular rifles are called “military-style.” The fact is that they are styled after weapons of war, but that in no way makes them actual weapons of war.
Another plain truth is that these rifles are bulky. They are not easy to conceal and are very observable when carried around. For this reason, they are not preferred by the criminal element, who would much rather carry weapons that are easier to hide.
Those firearms, however, are perfectly legal and do not fit the narrative of grandstanding politicians who want to scare their voting base with wild and invalid claims.
There is an anti-gun lobby that will not rest until the Second Amendment is in tatters. Misinformation is just another tool to spread their doctrine, and facts will never get in the way of their arguments.
That’s why it is important to pay attention to what our so-called “leaders” say about our constitutional rights. If they are not fiercely guarded, they may soon disappear.
