(August 15, 2012 at 2:22 pm)Moros Synackaon Wrote: What negated the efficacy of the AW ban and what could be done to reach the desired results (ie less deaths)?
As to the first question, 1) it targeted weapons that are vastly underrepresented in violent crime, and 2) defined weapons by essentially cosmetic features - e.g. post-ban, you could still legally purchase anything you could pre-ban - the difference between a pre-ban AR-15 and a post-ban one is a) the name was changed, b) no bayonet lug or flash supressor.
Difference in utility? Zero. I cannot point to that law and honestly claim it saved lives, nor have I seen anyone else make a convincing argument that it did.
As to the second question - it's a good one, and one that I think about often. I don't have a satisfactory answer at this time - but it is my opinion that it will include several elements: some increased gun control, addressing root causes of violent crime as well as our criminal justice system, education, social and economic justice... the list goes on.
Short of absolute prohibition and confiscation, any measure that I have seen proposed seems akin to putting a band-aid on an arterial gusher. Even if that could be and were accomplished, there is still the underlying problem that we have elements of our society who are prone to violence, and that will continue to be true.
One issue I would like to see honestly studied is whether or not the background checks system for purchases from dealers has been effective in reducing violent crime, and whether non-dealer transfers can be brought into the system as well. However, there are Constitutional issues with implementing this at the Federal level for intrastate private transfers - and in order for it to be effective, I think it's going to have to be done at the Federal level.
