Tag Archives: AWB

AWB ’94: A reminder of how “effective” it was

Senatorial scumbags Chris Murphy and Dianne Feinstein are still riding their “assault weapon” ban hobbyhorse. In fact, they’re pushing several of the usual rights-violations, but I want to focus on this one just now.

Act to Break the Cycle of Gun Deaths
Outlawing these weapons, an action supported by 60 percent of Americans, will bring down the number of mass shootings and reduce the number of casualties, just as it did when the ban first passed in 1994.

Just how effective was the ’94 “assault weapon” ban? Let’s ask the experts paid by the Department of Justice to check that.

Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003
“AWs were used in only a small fraction of gun crimes prior to the ban: about 2% according to most studies and no more than 8%.”
[…]
“Following implementation of the ban, the share of gun crimes involving AWs declined by 17% to 72% across the localities examined for this study”

A 17% to 72% drop sounds good, right? Not so fast.

That’s a 17-72% drop of the 2%-8% of crimes that involved “assault weapons” as defined in the law.

If so-called “assault weapons were 2% pre-ban, then the drop during the ban was to 1.66% – 0.56%.

If AW usage was as high as 8% pre-ban, then the drop was to 6.64% – 2.24%

In other words, “assault weapons” were and are used so rarely that the change is actually lost in the statistical noise. An alleged “improvement” that is meaningless. A “gain” at great cost in rights. What do I mean?

Let’s say you own a house, and you want to make it more energy efficient by adding expensive insulation (=the infringement of 2A rights) to reduce heat loss in the winter (=firearms deaths). Currently, you’re losing 2% to 8% of your power bill to lost heat. You pay a contractor to insulate your attic (=AWB ’94), at a cost of $5130.00 – $6120.00 (just for example); call it $5,625.

Pre-insulation, you were paying $150/month for power, and wasting 2%-8% of that: $3 to $12.

Post-insulation, you save 17%-72% of that wasted energy: $0.51 to $8.64 per month.

If the numbers are at the low end of savings, you’ll pay for that five grand of insulation in energy savings in a mere 11,029 months. 919 years.

More optimistically, with the high end, you pay off the insulation in 651 months. 54 years.

That’s what gypsy insulators Murphy and Feinstein are trying to “sell” you: Just give up your rights, and we’ll promise you a an improvement you’ll never notice.

You’ll never notice the “improvement” because — statistically speaking — you’re unlikely to be the victim, or have a family member victimized, unless you or they are gangbangers… who aren’t going to give up their weapons anyway.

Go knock on some more gullible neighbor’s door; I’m not buying your scam.

[Permission to republish this article is granted so long as it is not edited and the author and The Zelman Partisans are credited.]

 

Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with ISP and web host bills. And the rabbits need feed. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)

 


Ed. note: This commentary appeared first in TZP’s weekly email alert. If you would like to be among the first to see new commentary (as well as to get notice of new polls and recaps of recent posts), please sign up for our alert list. (See sidebar or, if you’re on a mobile device, scroll down). Be sure to respond when you receive your activation email!

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

Marketing Failure?

While sorting through the news Tuesday morning, two seemingly unrelated stories ended up in adjacent tabs.

First…

Sandy Hook lawsuit against AR-15 maker could actually reach the Supreme Court
But the state supreme court ruled plaintiffs’ suit can proceed under Connecticut’s unfair trade practices law. Plaintiffs’ lawyers argued that Bushmaster’s advertising essentially encouraged customers and others to use their XM15 rifles — the type used by Lanza — for criminal purposes.

Leaving aside how Bushmaster is responsible for the use of a firearm it sold to a dealer who sold it to a woman who had it taken by someone else after she was murdered…

Alleged: Advertising the rifle as suitable for mass murder.

Which brings me to the second article…

Study: ‘Assault Weapons’ and Magazine Bans Do Not Lower Homicide Rates
[Lead study author Michael Spiegel] observed, “Laws regulating the sale of assault weapons are unlikely to have a large impact on homicide rates, because these weapons are used in only a very small proportion of homicides. The vast majority of firearm homicides in the United States are committed with handguns.”

Hardly news. The government discovered the same thing after the federal “Assault Weapon Ban” of ’94. And that very thing had been predicted by numerous people when the bill was being debated.

But the juxtaposition of the stories struck me.

Pantytwisters: Eek! Bushmaster is advertising mass murder tactical death machines and encouraging us to go out and kill everything!

Everyone else: Didn’t work.

[Permission to republish this article is granted so long as it is not edited and the author and The Zelman Partisans are credited.]

 

Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with truck repairs (too late; I’m selling the truck) and recurring bills. And the rabbits need feed. Truck insurance, lest I be forced to sell it. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)

 

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

Assault Weapons Ban of 2017

Die-Anne Feinswine’s Assault Weapons Ban of 2017 is out. It’s worth a read. In some respects it’s much like its 1994 predecessor, only more so. Particularly in that it isn’t a ban. Hang on to that thought.

The first section sets up definitions. “Assault weapons” become pretty much any semiautomatic firearm with a detachable magazine and any 1 of several other features: pistol grip, pistol grip (specifically includes thumbhole stocks), forward grip, barrel shroud, adjustable stock, shoulder thing that goes up, threaded barrel, and so forth. Pistols specifically have their own characteristics, which you can guess from Feinstein’s previous ranting.

She got smart on one point. Back in the ’90s, manufacturers simply redesigned platforms to conform to the law (which she fein-whined was taking advantage of a “loophole”). This time she remembered to ban any variant of pages of specified firearms. So gun makers can’t take an AR-15 and saw off the pistol grip or weld the magazine in place and call it an AR-15PB (post-ban).

They’ll have to give it a new model number series. I suggest the UYDF-17. You can figure it out.

Then she gets to the ban-that-isn’t.

Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended—
(v) (1) It shall be unlawful for a person to import, sell, manufacture, transfer, or possess, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, a semiautomatic assault weapon.

(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the possession, sale, or transfer of any semiautomatic assault weapon otherwise lawfully possessed under Federal law on the date of enactment of the Assault Weapons Ban of 2017.

Yes, existing gear is grandfathered. As before, her “assault weapon ban” doesn’t ban a single firearm, and — gun owners having learned the lesson of her last attempt — have far more “assault weapons” on hand than they did in 1994.

Standard capacity magazines are next to not-go, with similar language merely banning future manufacture or importation of detachable magazines with capacity greater than 10 rounds, existing magazines grandfathered.

Government entities are all exempted, of course.

Up next, “safe storage.” Yeah, if you aren’t carrying it, or have it within arms reach, lock it up. Unloaded. Ammunition elsewhere. Feinstein really hates children.

“High capacity” magazines for government are going to get more expensive, but hey: taxpayers have deep pockets. New “assault weapons” and magazines must be serial-numbered and marked with date of manufacture.

She then inserts 90-some pages of specific firearms that are exempted from this law’s restrictions, which strikes me as stupid because the ones I recognize don’t fit her “assault weapon” definition anyway. She never was that bright.

Transfers of grandfathered “assault weapons” would have to go through an FFL. A private seller has to turn it over to the FFL, who has to enter it into his inventory records. The buyer will have to fill out a 4473, just as if the firearm were being purchased from the FFL, and be run through NICS. There is no exemption for gifts or loans, even between family members.

She’ll graciously allow you to let the buyer handle it for pre-purchase inspection without the FFL and NICS check. Oh, goody.

Now back to that thought I started with; why a ban that isn’t a ban? She did that before, and we know how that turned out.

  • Strictly by the numbers, crimes committed with firearms fitting the ’94 definition of “assault weapon” did go down. But it was statistically meaningless because those firearms were always rarely used by criminals. It’s like a town that saw one case of measles one year, then had 100% percent increase the next when two siblings get the measles. Statistically meaningless in a town of a couple hundred thousand or more.
  • Overall, firearms crime remained roughly the same. A few more hand gun crimes compensated for “assault weapons.”
  • A frickin’ huge number of evil, wicked “assault weapons” were transferred in panic-buying before the ’94 ban went into effect. So the imminent law had the effect of a subsidy for firearm manufacturers and dealers.If Feinstein — or her staffers/handlers — have a brain amongst them, they know this. They know every time someone makes serious banning noises (Obama election sound familiar?) sales skyrocket. “Gun Salesman of the Year.” Prices go through the roof.

    We know Feinstein isn’t bright. But is she crazy? Or is she taking brib campaign contributions from the evil gun industry?


    Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar.

    paypal_btn_donateCC_LG



    Ed. note: This commentary appeared first in TZP’s weekly email alert. If you would like to be among the first to see new commentary (as well as to get notice of new polls and recaps of recent posts), please sign up for our alert list. (See sidebar or, if you’re on a mobile device, scroll down). Be sure to respond when you receive your activation email!

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail