Annoyingly, one of my senators, Dianne Feinstein, is a co-sponsor of the bill that poposes extending the "assault weapons" ban. Her arguments in favor of the extension, however, are completely vacuous.
“Over the past 10 years, however, the assault weapons ban has worked. It has dried up the supply of these weapons, and their use in crime has dropped by two-thirds. It would be a grave mistake to allow these weapons to once again flood our cities' streets.”But has the reduced supply actually reduced crime? No one makes that claim.
The Million Mom March also has some pointless statistics about assault weapons.
Assault Weapons: Key FactsSo what? Was there less crime, or did criminals simply start using other guns?- Assault weapon bans work. In 1989, when President Bush stopped the import of certain assault rifles, the number of imported assault rifles traced to crime dropped by 45% in one year. After the 1994 ban, there were 18% fewer assault weapons traced to crime in the first eight months of 1995 than were traced in the same period in 1994.
- Although assault weapons comprised only 1% of privately-owned guns in America, they accounted for 8.4% of all guns traced to crime in 1988-91.Again, so what? What are the statistics now? Is any of the reduction of crime over the past decade or so related to the AWB? If there were any such evidence you can bet the ban's proponents would be pointing it out.
The ban is nonsense, and hasn't saved a single life. All it does it restrict liberty, cost us money, and waste our legislators' time.
Some notes:
These weapons have never been used in crime to any statistical relevance. And they are expensive.
The rifles that bush stopped in 89 were SKS rifles. They don't even fit the definition of assault rifles as defined by law because they have a fixed magazine and not a detachable one.
Alot more here and just at my site in general.
SU: Yeah, your site has lots of great gun information, for which I'm always grateful.
As for statistical relevance, 8.4% seems significant to me, for what it's worth. I just don't see how it matters if the actual crime rate isn't affected. It's like the people who think England is safer because there are fewer guns -- there's still more violent street crime, and more at-home burglaries.
8.4% includes guns that are not legally assault rifles. I should have been more clear.
SU: Ok, well from the stats on MMM it looks like it's referring to "assault weapons". Whatever, I don't think it matters.
That's actually the problem. If you review the stats with descriptions of guns, they are classifying any semi-auto rifle as an assault weapon, as opposed to the legal definition (has detachable mag, folding stock, bayonet lug, yada yada yada)
They're moving the goal posts, as it were.
SU: I'm just not sure they're doing that. Right below the statistic is a long list of what is necessary to qualify as an "assault weapon". Isn't it safe to assume those are the criteria they're using? I don't see any evidence on this webpage, anyway, that they're using any other criteria.
Hey, it saved mine. It's been almost 10 years since they banned those nasty thing, and I haven't been shot by one of them since.
Sorry, without the data for them to back it up, I don't buy it. Too many other sources put the number at less than one quarter of one percent for violent crime. And 1.4% of all crime. Even weapons misclassified are used in less than 1% of homicides involving guns.
1.4% of all crime weapons recovered were assault weapons.
And upon some research, i think i found where the 8% number came from (an FBI study). The weapons were misclassified as were figures in a study in New York. And the CDC found no evidence that the ban reduced crime.
After all, the MMM, brady and the VPC have lied for the last ten years trying to get everyone to believe the ban affects machine guns. They even call them bullet hoses and refer to them as spray fire weapons.
And don't forget the NJ police chief who testifed before congress:
I was threatened by a gun the other day. I was walking to the gas station at 4am to get a pizza, upon walking home my brother and I were confronted by a man telling us to get the F--k off of his property. It led into argument, even though we were on the street, ( public property ). The man told us to take back all of the negative replies or he was going to "cap us" with his pistol he said he had, and had his hand on underneath his jacket. I told him to F--k off and he walked away- Hmmm he didn't have a gun. Was this still considered a gun-related crime??
RJM: I dunno, but I would have ran away rather than taunting that nut.