sure
http://www.grouchyconservativepundits.com/index.php?topic=3573.0;wap2
from his op-ed:
In fact, the assault weapons ban will have no significant effect either on the crime rate or on personal security. Nonetheless, it is a good idea, though for reasons its proponents dare not enunciate. I am not up for re-election. So let me elaborate the real logic of the ban:
It is simply crazy for a country as modern, industrial, advanced and now crowded as the United States to carry on its frontier infatuation with guns. Yes, we are a young country but the frontier has been closed for 100 years.
In 1992, there were 13,220 handgun murders in the United States. Canada (an equally young country, one might note) had 128; Britain, 33.
Ultimately, a civilized society must disarm its citizenry if it is to have a modicum of domestic tranquility of the kind enjoyed in sister democracies like Canada and Britain. Given the frontier history and individualist ideology of the United States, however, this will not come easily. It certainly cannot be done radically.
It will probably take one, maybe two generations. It might be 50 years before the United States gets to where Britain is today.
Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is a symbolic - purely symbolic - move in that direction. Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation.
and
Yes, Sarah Brady is doing God’s work. Yes, in the end America must follow the way of other democracies and disarm. But there is not the slightest chance that it will occur until liberals join in the other fights to reduce the incidence of and increase the penalties for crime. Only then will there be a public receptive to the idea of real gun control.
now, he wrote this back in 1996, perhaps he’s changed his mind. But I haven’t seen any evidence yet.
Krauthammer has never disavowed his position from the article quoted.
What interests me is his dogmatic desire for citizen disarmament. He does not give any serious reason for it, other than the silly “everyone is doing it”, which I do not take seriously.
So, the real question is: Why is he for it? If he is not for it any longer, because of the mountains of evidence that have piled up over the last 20 year, why doesn’t he say so?
Thanks for the article.
I suspect [but I certainly don't know] that his thinking on the issue may have changed. Nonetheless, though I don't agree with him on several other issues, either [I think he's misinformed on economics, for example], I still love to listen to his thought process.