A provision to the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, the 10 year Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) attempted to broadly define 'assault weapons' and create more effective restrictions on their production and distribution. The bill was signed into law by President Clinton on 13 September, 1994 and expired in 2004. The states of New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and California all have independent assault weapons bans. In a 2004 report it was said that the pre-ban rate of assault weapons used in crimes was 66% and during the ban it dropped to 1.66%. I do not understand how this would not be evidence that the ban was effective and therefore should continue. I personally believe that the AWB should be strengthened, giving a clear definition of 'assault weapon', and making it more difficult to receive these weapons.
source: http://www.politicalbase.com/issues/assault-weapons-ban/57/
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I totally agree. In my opinion, all guns should have extreme restriction measures to make sure they are as hard to get as possible. It'll be interesting to see how the AWB will evolve over time...
ReplyDeleteMy opinion is that we should have a right to bear arms...which we do. But the problem is not that we have guns, but its how people use them. I don't know how somebody could monitor how people use them but, if a person was in serious danger, I'd bet they would want a gun. I think guns should only be used in self-defense, but nobody can monitor how, and for what reason people use their guns.
ReplyDelete