Why the Assault Weapons Ban is Baloney
I’ve already talked about the problems with the Obama administration’s goal to require that all firearms be child-proofed as well as the misinformation about the “Gun Show Loophole” (That isn’t a loop hole at all). I wanted to finish this series with a discussion on the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. The sad truth of this legislation that Obama administration would like to make permanent is that it doesn’t do anything. This legislation does nothing at all, it did nothing the last time it was enacted except serve as a way for politicians to look tough on guns.
What Exactly is/was banned (What is an Assault Weapon)?
The Obama administration has talked of reinstating the original assault weapons ban and making it permanent so it is only fitting we look at what was accomplished with the assault weapons ban. The ban made it illegal to manufacture or purchase a list of specific firearms it considered to be Assault Weapons and gave guidelines for determining which firearms were assault weapons. According to the ban an assault weapon was defined as a semi-automatic weapon with two or more features from a published list.
For rifles these could be: folding stock, pistol grip, bayonet mount (Because we all use bayonets for committing violent crimes), A flash suppressor or threaded barrel for accommodating a flash suppressor, or a detachable high capacity (more than 10 round) magazine. For pistols the law was equally absurd considering the overall weight of the pistol, whether or not the magazine went inside the grip, whether the gun was a semi-automatic version of a firearm that had originally been automatic, etc.
These Rules Don’t MEAN Anything.
During the period the assault weapons ban was active no one stopped selling ‘Assault Weapons’ instead these guns were altered slightly so that they no longer offended legislators delicate sensibilities and life went on without a hitch. Firearm manufacturers stopped putting threaded barrels on their guns and stopped selling magazines that held more than the requisite 10 rounds. They renamed these new versions of their firearms and kept selling them; The AR15 became the XR15 and the firearm industry didn’t even notice this bill.
In fact the legislative director of the “Violence Policy Center” even pointed out the legislation did nothing saying,
“The 1994 law in theory banned AK-47s, MAC-10s, UZIs, AR-15s and other assault weapons. Yet the gun industry easily found ways around the law and most of these weapons are now sold in post-ban models virtually identical to the guns Congress sought to ban in 1994.”
The most laughable thing, however, is that it is specifically SEMI-automatic firearms. The Assault Weapons Ban had no bearing on fully automatic weapons. These weapons remain under the purview of the 1934 National Firearms Act. Not to mention the belief that these ‘Assault Weapons‘ are somehow more dangerous than any number of other semi automatic weapons that existed at the same time and fired the same ammunition simply because they had a pistol grip or a flash suppressor.
The Numbers.
The numbers are interesting to look at also. Assault weapons never accounted for more than 2-8% of all violent gun related crimes. Senator Dianne Feinstein, however, saw things differently saying, “In my view, the assault weapons legislation was working, it was drying up supply and driving up prices. The number of those guns used in crimes dropped because they were less available.” The only problem with the Senators logic is that the number of weapons identical to these Assault Weapons that were produced with slight modifications during the 10 years the assault weapons ban was active was 1.17 million, there were only 1.5 million in private hands before the ban.
Clearly the graph above shows a dramatic drop in violent gun related crimes around the time the original assault weapons ban but gun ownership rates continued to go up during this period. According to the US Dept. of Justices count of the number of ‘assault weapons’ used in violent crimes before and after the assault weapons ban, assault weapons were used in 66% fewer crimes. Instead of constituting only 3% of the number of violent gun related crimes they accounted for only 1.6% of the same crimes during the bane.
There just isn’t enough evidence available to show that the assault weapons ban in any way related to the drop in gun crimes we’ve seen over the last decade and for the Obama administration to push this in their agenda shows they just want to gain favor with the liberal left.
Nice. I enjoyed the article and it presented good argument.
But we’d make more headway if we’d quit refering to semiauto firearms as “assault weapons.”
What is the sense in that?
You can call a turd a bon bon, but it’s still a turd and you’d still be incorrect.
We certainly don’t agree that semi-auto guns are “assault weapons,” we were just pointing out that that is what was banned by the ridiculous law. Many people wrongly assume that the ban is for automatic weapons and that is why they support it.
I agree Clarky. Many people do wrongly assume the ban is about autoguns and machine guns.
What I am saying is that we’d make more headway if we ourselves would quit refering to them as “assault weapons.” I recommend that pro-gun rights people NEVER use the term assault weapon unless they are describing a National Firearms Act type weapon.
That is a good point. Perception is huge and we need to get people to stop thinking of them as “scary guns”
Carl in Chicago and clarky
I take on the terminology issue in a comment over at snowflakesinhell. You might want to check it out…
http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2009/02/23/assault-weapons-ban-history/#comment-38954
Now Eric holder is saying”mexicos gun violence is the fault of lax American Gun laws and our possession of so called Assault weapons.” Poppy Cock! You can not buy fully automatic weapons and 79 mic mic grenades at Gun shows in America. Ain’t gonna happen but, the average brain dead Americanus Liberalus will believe that Turds are bon bons. these sheople need to remove their heads from their rectums and grow the hell up.
Make no mistake America! These so called “assault weapons” are simply civilian semi-automatic firearms with a military look. They shoot 100% identically to many hunting rifles and average target shooting long arms. They do not and never will spray bullets that could take out multiple targets with one sweep. They are meant for taking well-placed shots, not for combat. These types of firearms have absolutely nothing to do with the crimes taking place on the Mexican boarder. You’d have to be one heck of a salesman to smuggle guns into Mexico and then try to convince the drug cartels that your semi-automatic “assault rifles” are superior to their fully automatic machine guns and explosives. If Mexicans were armed with these semi-automatic civilian arms, we wouldn’t have this boarder problem because the fight would be over in no time or there wouldn’t be a fight at all. Statistics show that since the original assault weapons ban expired in ‘04, these readily available firearms are used in a fraction of 1% of all violent crimes in the US. It’s all just another excuse for the government to strip our rights out from under us. How can they even think up such nonsense while our country is in economic turmoil?! Everyone that takes pride in their Constitution which is the foundation of our great nation, please do something about this and join the NRA today before it’s too late! They need us and we definitely need them. They are our best hope to victory.
Why isnt my M1 carbine not listed as an Assault weapon? It is because politicans have no clue what they are talking about. Some of them have never seen an rifle period. The law is a joke. I am a cop in NY and I have seen plenty of bad guys with glocks and Smiths. The numbers of crimes commited with AKs and ARs is very limited. They are not made for criminals. They cannot be hidden on the body. It isnt the weapon of choice. If these were the weapons of choice every criminal would use them. The fact is criminals use whatever weapons they can steal. Most weapons used are stolen guns.
O.K. Guys, will someone out there write me a sample gun law that WOULD make sense and WOULD cut down on the numbers of murders being commited by kooks with automatic hardware? Please!!!
Elizabeth:
You want a sample gun law that WOULD reduce violence? By “making sense” do you mean this law must comply with the constitution, which states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed? If so, there probably is no gun law that WOULD reduce murder.
Perhaps the most effective and constitutional way to go about reducing murder is to ensure that punishment for murderers is sure, swift, and severe enough to deter new murderers and recidivist murderers, as well as responsible family and social involvement for young people so they learn values that would prohibit them from ever deciding to murder.
@Carl in Chicago
Dear Carl in Chicago, The Supreme Court interprets the meaning of The Constutution. ie only property owners were expected to vote in the olden days when our nation was new - no mention of women. The court might someday interpret what kind of “arms” we are allowed to carry. Raising some young people to be responsible takes such a long time. Even the old Greek philosophers complained about the dreadful new generations of young people. Lucky there ARE so many good families or else we would all live in chaos. Can’t you think of any legislation that would bring peace to our hoods and our campuses that would be acceptable?
Hi Elizabeth:
Yes. The Supreme Court has already begun a “test” for what arms are protected. It revolves around those in common use for lawful purposes. So that test would protect common handguns, shotguns, rifles, including semiauto firearms (they are certainly in common use). Perhaps if jurisprudence finally develops the militia aspect of the right to arms (certainly one of the important purposes) then we will have to deal with regular military small arms (select fire rifles, etc.). They are currently legal to own (given federal registration) in at least 40 states, but 1986 legislation made the prohibitively expensive.
Bringing peace to our hoods. That would be wonderful. But I suspect no amount of arms restrictions will bring peace to the hoods. Some of the most violent areas already have draconian gun control, including total bans. Also, there are some 20,000 plus federal, state, and local regulations regarding arms. It always befuddles me that some feel that more will somehow reduce crime. Something new needs to be tried (or something old … eliminating criminals).
Considering all the regulations on arms and their use now, can you think of any new legislation that would reduce crime and not offend the individual right to arms? Honestly … I cannot.
Elizabeth:
Do you think it a correct premise or assumption that gun control equals crime control? That seems to be a very commonly held assumption, but one that I suspect is false, or at least false much of the time. It is very sad that most of the high-profile “gun violence prevention” groups are simply a front for gun control. They perpetuate this arguably false premise simply out of their own survival interests.
Carl and Elizabeth,
The biggest problem with thinking that gun control laws will stop crime is you are assuming that a criminal will obey the law. That doesn’t make much sense does it. You have a guy that is willing to commit murder, but you somehow think that if there is a law against guns that guy will obey it? If you outlaw guns then only criminals will have them. If you allow everyone the right to have a gun, then the criminals have something to be scared of.
I think there should not be a ban on the weapons, but I believe there should be a way to limit the purchase of “assualt weapons”. It should be, that to own a semi-auto, you’d need a “assualt weapons” lisence.
I’m a US Soldier, and I plan on buying a P-308 (AR-15, but has a .308 receiver, collapsable stock)
@jeff
I thank you very much for serving our country jeff, but I have a .22 that is semi-auto. it seems awful silly for me to need a license to own what is little more than a BB gun. also, the real point is that there is simply no way of keeping guns away from people who wish to do harm with them. If they plan on breaking the law, they aren’t going to go get the license. they are just going to get the gun on the black market. no reason to make law abiding citizens like you and I go through even more hassle.
Thank you Derek for your common sense approach on the matter. The national firearms act of 1934 banned civilian ownership of full-auto (machine guns)unless you pay the $200 transfers tax, fingerprint background check with the FBI and register the weapon with BATF. The assault weapons ban was only a cosmetic ban relating to any semi-automatic with two features: 1. Grendade launcher 2. Folding stock 3. Pistol grip 4. Flash Suppressor and 5. Bayonet mount
None of these features increase the firepower of a weapon, yet was the main feature of the ban. All the manufacturer had to do was drop of the features to “one only” and it is a legal gun to own. Fact no. 1 is that no military force uses a so-called assault weapon. Fact no. 2 is these semi-auto’s are used in less then 2% of gun crime. Fact no. 3 is that they shoot the same as semi-auto hunting rifles. When the press was showing footage of assault weapons being fired on video during the 1994 vote, they incorrectly showed full-auto guns being used. This was the biggest fraud ever done by the media. So called assault weapons only SHOOT ONE SHOOT FOR EVERY PULL ON THE TRIGGER PERIOD. I hope this clears up the confusion on the part of the factless national media.
I disagree with this article. I believe we should put a ban on sem-automatic weapons and put an end to crimes commited with guns. Yes, all crime wont vanish BUT we wont have as much crime. Assault weapons were made to kill, end of story!!!
Are you serious man? Just because you ban the guns does not mean criminals will won’t find a way of getting them. its idiotic people like you who get elected and then you pass laws preventing the average joe from own a very useful self defense utility. California is a prime example, The 2000 gun ban and the 1989 gun ban increased the crime rate and murder rate in CA by over 38%. Now you tell me if your willing to allow that to happen in your home town or your kids’ hometown hmm?
Just because you ban legal people doesn’t ensure that it will eliminate criminals… gosh people these days
its not just CA everywhere you go there are weapons and anything you do there will alawys be. weather its your hometown or mine there is nothing you can do to change it.
First an Assault Rifle is a rifle with selctive fire including: Full Auto, 3 round burst, and semi-auto. So how many of you typical gun owners has a gun that fits this description. REAL Assault Rifles are very expensive, difficult to aquire, and most of all EASY to track. So given these parameters would a criminal even a very rich or very stupid criminal even try to buy a AW from a gun dealer or gun show?
Unfortunately, gun control is in effect in very deceptive, sinister ways…and not just on assualt weapons. Take the Leutenberg ammendment concerning domestic violence. Under this ammendment, a misdemeanor conviction of domestic violence ensures you are never again legally permitted to own a firearm. It may sound somewhat reasonable at first glance, but let’s define what the police and judges constitute as assualt. If you are in a shouting match with your wife/significant other and the police are called, they either have to make an arrest or go through the considerable trouble explaining why they didn’t…they are going to make an arrest. The DA IS going to prosecute…guaranteed…they have to, and they will get a conviction. Assualt can be something as simple as stepping towards someone making them step backwards…or they just felt scared. Of course, all they have to do is say this and you will be arrested and stripped of your rights as an American citizen. Frankly I don’t believe that even convicted felons should have their rights stripped if they have paid for their crime in full…otherwise, they are still seen as a criminal. They are Americans and have inalienable rights…including the right to protect themselves. There shall be NO LAWS infringing upon the right to keep and bear arms…PERIOD! Anything short of this is tyranny in my honest opinion.
@Elizabeth B.
All citizens of age and no criminal record may now openly carry firearms in all venues except courtrooms and other such places unless prohibited by propertys’ owner.
The problem with your assumption is that in cases where countries have banned guns gun crimes rise upwards of 300%. Australia and New Zeland(Excuse the spelling) are good examples.
Hitler banned guns as well, I guess he was a good guy who just wanted to stop the violence. You must disarm your citezens in order to establish tyranny.
Perhaps we should ban political speech as well. That leads to violence. Cars cause more deaths than guns they should be banned as well.
Just for kicks: Define assault weapon. I always thought that being hit with a .233 at 2900fps would hurt even if the rifle didn’t have a bayonette stud.