Perhaps there is hope for the future of journalism in this country. Peyton R. Miller, writing for the Harvard Crimson, notes that while there have been renewed calls for the assault weapon ban, these would have done little to prevent the Tucson shooting.

Interesting this writer for the student run paper, also seems to understand that the so-called assault weapons are merely “military style” and further explains how “semi-automatic” operates. More in the media could take a cue and know as to what they are writing about in their articles.

Miller also notes that the gun and magazine used in Tucson, even if banned, could have been bought on the black market – making a ban nearly a moot point.

And here too Miller makes a good point:

“Academic literature does not provide consistent evidence that such restrictions reduce crime, and analyses frequently conclude that they have little if any effect. With respect to the AWB, a 2004 University of Pennsylvania study noted that assault weapons were rarely used in gun crimes before the ban and that the reduction in violence that would result from renewing the law, while nontrivial, was likely to be ‘small at best.’”

This is a refreshing take from not only the media but from a student at a notoriously “liberal” university. The argument is well-founded and without any bias.