E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSAs lawmakers in Washington, D.C., consider President Obama's proposal to institute a new assault weapons ban, we thought it would be helpful to take a look at the last one.
What was the 1994 assault weapons ban?
The law banned the manufacture, transfer, and possession of certain semiautomatic assault weapons (otherwise known as simply “assault weapons” or “AWs”). The law applied to several named weapons, as well as any semiautomatic pistol or weapon that has “an ability to accept a detachable magazine” and at least two of five specific features listed in the law.
It also banned the transfer or possession of “large capacity ammunition feeding devices” (otherwise known as “large-capacity magazines” or “LCMs”). These were defined as “a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar Device”…”that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition; but does not include an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.’’
Officially known as Title XI of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, the ban went into effect on Sept. 13, 1994. It was repealed 10 years later.
Did the ban have any major limitations?
According to the 2004 National Institute of Justice Assessment of the ban, it had one big one: Assault weapons and large-capacity magazines manufactured before the effective date of the ban were “grandfathered” and thus legal to possess and transfer. That’s a whole lot of firepower:
- In 1990, there were an estimated 1 million privately owned assault weapons in the U.S. that would have been grandfathered.
- Americans possessed an estimated 25 million guns equipped with large-capacity magazines in 1994, and gun industry sources estimated that -- including aftermarket items for repairing and extending magazines -- there were at least 25 million LCMs available in the U.S. as of 1995, with at least 4.7 million pre-ban LCMs imported into the U.S. during the ban.
Has anyone measured the ban’s effectiveness?
The Law Enforcement Act of 1994 required a study by the U.S. attorney general to determine the effects of the ban, to be conducted within 30 months after it was enacted. The National Institute of Justice awarded a grant to The Urban Institute for an evaluation, which was titled “Impact Evaluation of the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act of 1994.” That evaluation was updated in 2004 by one of the original authors (findings below). Since the ban was allowed to lapse in 2004, there hasn’t been another comprehensive national study.
What was the criminal use of assault weapons before the ban?
According to the 2004 assessment mentioned above:
- By most estimates, assault weapons were used in less than 6 percent of gun crimes before the ban (about 2 percent in most studies and up to 8 percent in others). The relatively small number can be attributed to the higher cost of AWs and the fact that longer AW’s are difficult to conceal. Most of the AWs used in crime were assault pistols rather than assault rifles.
- Guns equipped with LCMs — of which AWs are a subset — were used in roughly 14 percent to 26 percent of most gun crimes. Although this range was based on a small number of studies, it is generally consistent with national survey estimates stating that approximately 18 percent of all civilian-owned guns and 21 percent of civilian-owned handguns were equipped with LCMs as of 1994.
What were the effects of the ban?
According to the official NIJ assessment:
- The share of gun crimes involving AWs declined by 17 percent to 72 percent for the locations observed in this study (Baltimore, Miami, Milwaukee, Boston, St. Louis, and Anchorage) during all or some of the 1995-2003 post-ban period. This is consistent with patterns found in national data on guns recovered by police and reported to ATF.
- However, in the jurisdictions studied, the decline in AW use was offset throughout at least the late 1990s by steady or rising use of other guns equipped with LCMs. The failure to reduce LCM use has likely been due to the immense stock that was in place prior to the ban as well as imports, the report found.
- The few available studies do, however, suggest that attacks with AWs and other semiautomatics equipped with LCMs result in more shots fired, more people hit, and more wounds per victim than do attacks with other firearms.
What is the trend in crimes involving assault weapons since the ban’s expiration?
As explained above, there has been no comprehensive nationwide study done since 2004. However, the Police Executive Research Forum reported several findings in "Guns and Crime: Breaking New Ground by Focusing on the Local Impact" in 2010. Since the ban’s expiration in 2004:
- 37 percent of police agencies who responded to this survey reported that they’ve seen noticeable increases in the use of assault weapons by criminals.
- 53 percent reported seeing increases in large-caliber handguns, such as .40 caliber weapons.
- 38 percent reported noticeable increases in criminals’ use of semiautomatic weapons with high-capacity magazines (holding 10 or more rounds).
Leave a Comment:
Seems like the usefulness of the last ban is pretty questionable. I would like to see another detailed study before agreeing to any new bans. (and no, I'm not a gun owner and I doubt I will ever buy one)
Banning any particular type of weapon is bound to have its limitations. Perpetrators will simply use something else. According to another recent article, half the homicides last year were handguns, not assault rifles.
It's more useful to concentrate on qualifying gun owners to be responsible with their weapons and also screening who can own them in the first place rather than banning this or that type of gun. The problem is the individual, not the weapon.
So this is the grand idea our beloved leader can come up with? Seriously? We have mentally ill people, DANGEROUSLY mentally ill people shooting up schools and universities, and churches and he wants to ban some guns and large mags, and oh maybe just maybe look into the joke of a mental health system we have.
So in short, he wants to go with a law he can enact in less than 4 years to get his buds re-elected, instead of initiating a potentially difficult and long term REAL solution in overhauling our mental health system. Typical lazy politician, placate the masses with short term ineffective laws, rather than do something of actual substance that might fix the problem. These guys are crazy BEFORE they get a gun and shoot up someplace. The guns don't cause the crazy....why do we NEVER look at the underlying cause?
Well, to a certain extent, yes, it was less useful in curbing the number of crimes committed with guns overall.
However, the study did show that there were lower body counts, fewer injuries, and less severe injuries than before, when LCMs and AWs were not used. Mostly LCMs.
If there were a way to ungrandfather LCMs, so that they could be brought out of circulation, other than going door to door and conducting in-house illegal searches, it would be a good idea. Unfortunately, that's not only unconstitutional (with ex post facto laws and warrantless invasion of privacy being protected against), it would likely result in more deaths of police officers and other law enforcement, at least for the short term.
I don't think there's a perfect answer for this. We still can't keep law-abiding citizens from losing, or outright giving, their guns to those with less stringent morals/grasps of reality. I don't know what the answer could be. I do own a gun, an M4 0.22 cal rimshot, w/ 30 round magazines. Apparently, my gun would probably have been fine under the old ban. I'm personally torn between getting another gun or two (a .556 caliber rifle for target shooting and a shotgun for home defense), and not getting them in case they are ever stolen.
People wouldn't be arguing against it unless they were afraid that it would be effective. People want to keep assault weapons with extended mags because it makes them feel powerful. But the only kind of person who'd be attracted to having one is someone who is mentally ill. You can't pass a law that will reduce the number of mentally ill people, but you can curb the assault weapons and extended magazines. They are unneccessary for any purpose other than killing many people at once. They are ideal for a killing spree and not much else at all.
MASS MURDERS
MASS MURDERS
MASS MURDERS
Why confuse it with the other stuff???? It is as Bill Clinton said recently - the ban lessened the amount of MASS MURDERS. Do the research and stay focused!!!!
So what is the harm of banning the type of weapons that fire so many bullets before the shooter has to reload?
Hunters don't need them. Homeowners don't need or want them to protect their homes. The bottom line is law-abiding citizens who use guns for these two purposes don't want these weapons used by mass murderers.
There is no ACTUAL downside in the argument for sensible gun regulations just like there is no downside to making it illegal to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater when there is no fire. Has anyone lost their right to openly express their opinion in this country? No.
Your argument makes no sense.
Ron-1861300, allow me to recap for you...
Since the ban’s expiration in 2004:
But as we all know, police agencies all lied when responding to the surveys, right???
Not that facts matter to the gun wackos on the far right, anyways.
Look at the facts in Sandy Hook, the legal gun owner was killed for her guns, how will this law prevent that from happening again? The mentally disturbed person did not buy the guns, he kill for them, how will this law prevent that from happening again? This is all just a feel good law, a look we are attempting to do something, just ignore the man behind the curtain.
Wrong Bozo,
Mass Murders
MASS Murders
Stop the disinformation and stay focused. No it didn't cure crime. SHEESH!
MASS MURDERS since the AUstralian BAN (1996 after Port Arthur Massacre) = ZERO
Wrong Haggis. The worst and most numerous mass murders in the U.S. occurred in the 1930s and the 1990s. YOU'RE the one spreading disinformation, here.
(And P.S. Columbine HS -- the first "modern" school shooting with such a high body count in the US -- occurred right in the middle of the expired AWB.)
At least civilized, humane people are trying to do SOMETHING to decrease senseless gun violence.
And the Rightwing continues to pretend to care about children and "Christian values."
Would Jesus own an assualt rifle with large capacity magazines?
Pathetic.
Ex post facto (or after the fact) laws are prohibited and for good reason. So, it follows that you can't make the LCM's already out there illegal. You could, however, ban the sale of said magazines. That would be almost impossible to enforce. Since it is the shooter, not the gun, that is the problem, why not address the real problem. 30,000+ people die in car crashes every year and I don't see people screaming for a ban on buses. (Large Capacity Vehicles) And yes, it is that stupid. An insane person will find a way to set a new record for fatalities by some means. A backpack full of 10 round clips can hold just about as many rounds as a backpack full of 30 round clips. Get real, solve this at the actual cause.
Life in Prison-no parole if caught using Assault Weapon in commission of any crime
10 years Prison & $250k fine for owners whose registered guns are used by others in a crime
Not perfect but I bet it will clean up a lot of @!$%#. Criminals will always get to guns if that's how they want their deed to be handled, so make it painful if the above is implemented.
Ron - RE: that study ordered as part of the ban. The Congress carefully crafted the limits of the study - data could only be culled from a 24 month span, and the Act also limited the the timeframe for study and delivery of the findings to 12 months.
When Congress limits the data set and time for research - kinda sounded like they wanted to increase the likelihood of getting either the result they wanted (that assault rifle ban made no difference) or that research was inconclusive. The later was the result.
You have to question any results when Congress is being told by a lobbying group how to word the specific limitations of research. Or, you can just defund any research that makes your lobby group uncomfortable - which is what they did with gun injury/fatalities. Besides gun lobby, also see fossil fuel lobby, and food lobby for such tactics.
Never, Jesus actually allowed his disciples swords...the "Assault Weapon" of the time.
And stop saying "Assault rifle" like it's not already illegal to own one without a federal permit. An assault rifle is a burst or fully automatic weapon. It is not a civillian "Scary-looking-army-gun". If you think it is an army gun, go on down to your local base and demand they trade their m4 for a Bushmaster.
I'll agree... if you agree to a similar law. If I steal your car and kill someone in an accident, you get fined as well. See how ridiculous that sounds? Since when do we hold honest citizens accountable for criminals actions?
That's not to say I couldn't get behind something like "if a gun is not properly stored and is stolen, yada yada" then maybe. But even that is stretching it.
newsgirl - any lobby. Stop cherry picking.
Haggisbingo what else has come into the forefront since the ending of the weapons ban? What is the one thing that all these mass killings have in common? The perpetrator has been deeply involved in violent video games. Before you come out and say that I am some sort of NRA stooge I would like to point out that I am for a assault weapons ban. I am also for the elimination of these 30 round clips that this Ct monster had. I am not however so blind however that I cannot see other issues at play here. Something needs to be done to curb the proliferation of these games. While I don't believe that there is a real connection between some of the violent movies of today and these crimes. The tactile experience when one is playing these games does create a cause and effect relationship. While we need to be careful as to what type of monster purchases guns we must also be careful as to what game might create the monster.
haggisbingo-2225582, you can yell all you want (although we wish you wouldn't). The worst mass shooting in the U.S. was not done with a rifle. Search Google for "Virginia Tech". That happened after the assault weapons ban-- as have many other mass shootings that didn't involve "assault weapons".
Even mass shootings during the ban (like Columbine) that didn't involve "assault weapons". You argument about when these shootings happened have absolutely zero to do with assault weapons. In fact, the Aurora, CO shooting incident had most of the fatalities from the Glock-- because his "deadly" AR-15 jammed only seconds into the firing. How about you do some research?
By the way--- it's not only about MASS MURDERS. It's about ALL MURDERS. 27 individual murders aren't any less significant than 27 murders in a single incident. A life is a life. Stop spreading your FUD and enjoy your disarmed life in Australia. Hopefully you aren't victimized by the criminals (crime in Australia went up after confiscation) that didn't turn in their guns.
"At least civilized, humane people are trying to do SOMETHING to decrease senseless gun violence."
NSAQ, because a policy is well-intentioned doesn't make it right or effective. Knee-jerk legislation in response to an emotionally charged event usually doesn't accomplish what is intended and may have significant unintended consequences.
What if I saw a person of race X kill another person of race Y...should I seek to exterminate all people of race X to reduce the murder rate? No, of course not. It's not the person's race that killed, it was the person.
we argue against a AW ban because we don't think that people should lose personal rights unless there is a very good reason.... the bottom line is the AW ban did not significantly reduce gun violence as people just started using more non banned weapons
since the ban
a- police are seeing more criminals using AWs because there isn't a comprehensive background check, nor felon search system to keep them from getting AW
b- police see more LCMs being used because magazines over 10 rounds are standard equipment on most handguns produced in the last decade... not because people are using AW to commit crimes, its two separate issues
c- police see expanding use of large caliber handguns (at least .40) as production of these has expanded rapidly as well.
Chicago had 396 gun murders last year, one was with a rifle and it wasnt an AW. Probably 50% of those handgun murders were with magazines of 10-15 rounds which are standard stuff these days.
Gun hobbyists like using the AR-15, bottom line.... its well made, modular, adaptable to different purposes, it's accurate, an American / patriotic design, its fun to shoot, has sufficient power to hunt a variety of game, can be used for home defense, with 30 round magazines it's not such a pain to reload all the time for target practice..... it's a swiss army knife and wildly popular... I don't own one and can easily see why it's so popular and if I were going to buy a rifle there's a 100% chance I'd buy that type.... not because I'm a hick, because I'm not, but because it's the best thing available....
this is about restricting felons and psych patients from getting their hands on ANY guns, not just blindly pointing a finger without knowing your subject and saying "ARs are responsible"
the anti gun nuts sound like complete fools saying 'AWs and LCMs are only for murder'... the gun nuts sound like fools quoting the militia clause....
reality is, this should be about Congress doing their job for a change and getting to the real issues.... and they aren't AWs or LCMs...
COLUMBINE 1999... Smack dab in the middle of your precious assault weapons ban.
LOL. Why bother arguing about this anymore. It is over. There isn't going to be a ban on black semi-auto rifles, it won't make it through Congress.
I've been saying for days that the most they'll be able to do is perhaps strengthen a few existing laws. Nothing is going to change & everyone will still be able to buy the firearms they currently can.
BTW, what is the difference between these two:
1. Black, plastic/metal, detachable magazine fed semi-auto AR-15 rifle
2. Wooden stocked, detachable magazine fed semi-auto hunting rifle
I'll give you gun grabbers a hint, there isn't any other than the way they look.
So if you're against AR-15s then you must be against semi-auto magazine fed hunting rifles.
Fienstiens...Meet the Fienstiens
Never learned a thing from Historrreeee
From the town of Deadlock
Their existence is a mysterrrreeee
Why does the Left want to take away The Right?
Riding Unicorns day and night!
When you're with the Fienstiens
They'll pass a law to DO ya
They'll stick it TO ya
Where the sun don't shiiiiine!
DIANE! I'm home.
Intelligent & Independent
You say,
"Hunters don't need them. Homeowners don't need or want them to protect their homes"
In my opinion and experience, a major component of intelligence is knowing that you can't know the unknowable (other peoples thoughts). In other words, the more you learn, the more you realise you don't know $hit! Your assertion that you know what homeowners want and don't want, cancels out any possible claim you might put forward about your intelligence. To take that a step farther, when someone is not terribly smart, they are inherently DEpendant, dependant on others for their opinions, their facts and too often, their moral compass. "NBC says assault weapons are bad", so they must be bad. That, all too frequent way of thinking, is quite possibly the most unintelligent and dependant way of thinking.
I take this time and effort to point out the contradiction because it's this very misconception and ignorance that is driving a giant wedge between two ever fracturing segments of this country. This breaks my heart. If a group of folks were debating (more likely arguing) the ethics of say, testing on animals, I would not throw my $1000.02 into the pile without knowing anything about the topic. Because, multiply my ignorant comment by 10's of thousands, and all of a sudden, that ignorance begins to take on a life of it's own and begins to cloud an already difficult topic.
In a phrase, why claim to know what homeowners want and don't want? There's a slight chance that someone out there will think that you somehow came upon that information in a legitimate way, and that it's true. When I KNOW FOR A FACT, it's not.
As to this new low in "journalism", there is an abundance of studies showing that the last ban wasn't effective. That's what this frickin story is about and the person that wrote it made it look like a transcript from one of those awkward interviews where the person just wont answer the question! You ask, "was the ban effective?" Even though the answer is clearly NO, you instead redirect the question and answer with some dribble about "LCM's"?? So the assault weapons ban didn't work, no exciting statistics, so introduce a new player, the "assault handgun". You have just lost a reader with this garbage. Too bad because in trying to add something into the discussion, you're wagging the dog to the benefit of the gun lobby. Sad man, so sad.
Research published in USA Today stemming from FBI data, reveals that over a five year period ranging from 2006 to 2010, mass killings accounted for only a tiny fraction of homicides, less than 1% to be precise.
Worst School Massacre in US history: Bath, Michigan School Massacre. 1927. Murder accomplished with explosives. 44 victims (equal to the Columbine and Virginia Tech massacres combined).
Worst Domestic Terrorist Attack in US History: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building bombing.4/19/95. Murder accomplished with a rental truck full of fertilizer based explosives. 168 dead (including many children in an onsite day care).
Worst Foreign based Terrorist Attack in US History: September 11, 2001 attacks on NYC, PA, Pentagon. Murder accomplished with box cutters and commerical airliners. ~3,000 people dead.
Non-Gun Mass Murders (worldwide):
By no means is this a complete list. I have focused on 2008, and NOT included the majority of terrorist attacks in recent times, most of which involve car bombs (London), attaché bombs on trains (Madrid), the Sarin gas attack in Tokyo, etc. (and in fact almost all modern terrorist attacks are done without guns for the reasons of efficiency stated above).
Arson, Stabbing Rampage in Seoul South Korea : 10/20/2008. 6 people dead, 5 from stabbing. 7 others wounded, 4 seriously. An angry man felt people “looked down on him.”
Anti-police stabbing spree in Shanghai, China: 7/2008. 6 Police Officers stabbed to death, 4 wounded. 28 year old man angry at police attacked a police station with a knife.
Akihabara Massacre, Chiyoda City, Tokyo, Japan: 6/8/2008. 7 people killed (3 struck by car, 4 by stabbing), many more injured. Man slammed into a crowd with his car, then jumped out and began stabbing people to death.
18 year old slashes 4 to death in Sitka, Alaska, US: 3/25/2008. 4 people killed. 18 year old (old enough to purchase a rifle over the counter) kills 4 people, related to him, with a 5 inch knife.
Stabbing Spree kills 2, Tsuchiura, Japan:3/23/2008. 2 killed, 7 wounded. Man “just wanted to kill anyone.”
Stabbing spree wounds 41, 6 seriously in Berlin Train Station:5/26/2006. 41 wounded, 6 seriously. Thankfully no one died in this attack, but not for lack of trying on the part of the drunk 16 year old.
4 killed in stabbing spree in London, UK:9/2004. 4 killed, 2 wounded. Mentally ill man attacks mostly older people.
6 killed over Xbox dispute in Deltona, Florida, US: 8/6/2004. 6 killed. 4 men (all old enough to legally purchase firearms) bludgeon 6 people to death with baseball bats over purloined Xbox.
Daegu subway fire, Daegu, South Korea:2/18/2003. 198 killed, 147 injured. A 56 year old unemployed taxi driver, dissatisfied with his medical treatment, sets fire to a crowded train.
Osaka School Massacre, Osaka Japan: 6/8/2001. 8 children dead, 13 other children and 2 teachers wounded. Committed by 37 year old former janitor armed with a kitchen knife.
How the hell is this UN intelligent Ahole to tell me what I want? He may speak for himself
and that is it.
You've got to love liberal "studies" and the attempt to manufacture the results they wish were real:
"The share of gun crimes involving AWs declined by 17 percent to 72 percent for the locations observed in this study (Baltimore, Miami, Milwaukee, Boston, St. Louis, and Anchorage) during all or some of the 1995-2003 post-ban period."
So crimes involving AWs declined during all OR SOME of the ban period?
"OR SOME"?
So they just decided to ignore the periods during the ban when AW's were used?
Like a recovering alcoholic who has been sober for the past 8 years..... or some of it.
Reducing magazine size, banning assault weapons...solves nothing. It might make an uneducated dolt sleep better. But anyone with a clue knows that most shootings are not assault rifles- but handguns. We've seen planes flown into buildings, trucks packed with fertilizer used as bombs...banning one style of weapons, or limit ammunition is a magazine does nothing.
Most of this mass murders are done by lunatics. Whether by gun, plane, fertilizer or even cyanide in tylenol. What we need is better mental health care. From counseling for couples going through divorce, assistance for those being laid off...basically any stressful event.
Guns are a tool, a means...not the cause of violence. Treat the cause, spare the guns.
I have a gun safe full of weapons, pistols revolvers, rifles and shot guns and everyone of them is a assault weapon. anytime a gun is used in the wrong way it is a assault weapon. as far as LCM's, its nice to not have to load a magazine so often when your on the firing range. Everytime I buy a new gun I have to submit a form to the Gun dealer and he has to do a federal check before he can give me the gun. So why do we need more gun regulation laws. Lets inforce the 1's we have and address the real problem we have, TV, VIDEO GAMES, MOVIES, DRUGS, MENTAL HEALTH, ETC. Why should 99.999% of the people pay for the deeds of a small part of the people
Guns don't kill people. People kill people.
Just can't figure out how the bullet holes in the corpses fit into the picture.
The story clearly showed the use of the rifle when down while banned and went up when the ban was lifted. The major problem showed was the "grandfathering" that was allowed.
According to our justice system uncle bob you can't pass ex post facto laws in the US nor any States! The grandfathering you mentioned is why there will be an appeals to NY's law for ex post facto magazine ban down to 7 rounds and if turned down in state court they will probably go to SCOTUS.
a Big point that was missed All these crimes were committed by criminals. I bet they all obtained these weapons with out a background check. Broke every F^%ing law on the books and still got the weapon
Studies have shown that there were more mass shootings during the 10-year assault weapons ban than the 10 years before it or the 9 years since it ended.
Murders have gone down by more than 14% in the 9 years since the the assault weapon and LCM ban expired.
Th UK enacted an assault weapons AND handgun ban after a school shooting in 1996. Over the next 5 years the murder rate shot up by more than 60% and gun violence skyrocketed. While the murder rate has slowly receded, it is still well above what it was before the ban was put in place and the UK now has more gun violence than the US.
In spite of all the rhetoric from the Left, assault weapons are NOT the problem.
Less than 2% of all homicides are committed with a rifle of any sort. That was 323 homicides in 2012, out of 14,748 total homicides, 11,078 of which involved use of a firearm. 958 people were beaten to death or strangled with bare hands. The remaining 2712 were stabbed, poisoned, burned, blown up, or killed in some other fashion.
Rifles, of any sort, are clearly the least of our worries with respect to weapons used in homicides. But the black plastic ones certainly are the left's favorite whipping boys in their zeal to demonize the possession of weapons by the people.
If that seems bizarre, it is. But the would be tyrants of the left see the black rifles as symbolic. Because they cosmetically resemble military weapons, the would be tyrants of the left are afraid the people who have them might see themselves as able to stand against tyranny. They don't want people to believe that.
Ban the production, sale and transfer or Large Capacity Magazines. Implement aggressive buy back campaigns. Confiscation from those who are arested for a gun related crime. Mandatory destruction of any LCM owned by individuals convicted of using a gun in a criminal act. It will take a couple generations, but they would disappear from common access over time. It does not stop the lions share of gun violence, but it provides a path to help address some of the most egregious..
You still don't get it, do you? Making laws that control firearms only affects law-abiding people .. the people who are responsible with guns. Criminals aren't going to give a rats-ass about your law. So, now you turn law-abiding people into criminals, too.
I let my NRA membership expire when they kept calling me with the "BS" aobut Obama taking away our guns. I thought they were paranoid. NOW, look what's happening ...
Remember 1994.
And let's all remember how well Prohibition worked: created a HUGE underground of liquor smugglers, massive increases in organized crime, thousands of deaths from people drinking bathtub gin, criminalized most of the country in one way or the other. The Socialists never learn......
So now the 2nd amendment is going down the tubes in another going to be failed social experiment. What with the new NDAA, the government now has the opportunity to take away your gun, labeling you a terrorist in the effort to do so, confine you indefinately, search your belongings without your approval (there goes the 4th...) . All this is seen by liberals as a good idea. Sounds more like North Korea to me. Of course, that's what "progressives" like : CONTROL...as long as THEY get to tell YOU what to do.
Ten years ago, a Republican sponsored (Todd Tiahrt R-Kansas), NRA written bit of legislation was inserted into a funding bill. It gutted the ATF's ability to track firearms and enforce existing gun laws. It required that background check information be destroyed within 24 hours, restricts inspection of gun shops to once per year, cuts funding so that actual inspections only occur once every 17 years on average. It also removed any requirement for gun shops to take inventory or keep track of their products. Republicans have blocked Senate confirmation of a director of the ATF for the last 6 years. (this requirement was inserted into the Patriot act by John Sensenbrenner R-Wisconson. He won the NRA's defender of freedom award that year.) The total number of ATF agents has remained at 2500 for the last 35 years and they have 100,000 gun sellers to monitor, not to mention the alcohol and tobacco.
57% of guns used in crimes were traced back to only 1% of gun dealers. This information was obtained 20 years ago, but since then the ATF has been barred from collecting and using such a database. The NRA has little credibility after these attacks upon very reasonable gun legislation.
haggis
The mass murders and attempted mass murders done since the ending of the AW ban have been commited by dope smokin, psychotropic drup takin LWNJs. Blaming the weapon that was chosen is just the LWNJs trying to take the real blame from themselves.
there will always be mass killings, prohibiting a certain type of weapon won't stop that....its just a feel good measure by the libs....and what mental test parameter would they use to find these people?...and who would administer the test?...most psychologists are about half looney themselves....
There has to my knowledge never been a ban on Handguns larger than .40 caliber of which there are so many in the US that its not even funny, so the point of mentioning that was?... Also lets talk about the numbers of gun violence going down. Also the point is that criminals have had them illegal or not, but citizens having them to defend them selves against criminals who have them only happens if they are not illegal. Because law abiding citizens Would not have them were they illegal, and this study states that the criminals had them illegal or not. Would criminals have a slightly lesser chance of obtaining them? Possibly. but its not worth leaving Every law abiding gun owner at the disadvantage of Not having one when a criminal will have it one way or another.
Despite the spineless American media's pandering to Obama's rhetoric, most Americans know that guns don't cause murders anymore than alcohol causes drunk driving or banks cause bank robberies.
"That may also be a reason why a majority of Americans (54%-45%) favor armed guards in every school in the country although that proposal does not restrict guns in any way, and why a plurality (47%-40%) say that armed guards would do more to reduce gun violence in schools than stricter gun control laws would."
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/16/cnntime-poll-slight-dip-in-support-for-gun-control-measures-in-last-month/?hpt=hp_bn3
I noticed the story mentioned an observation in the increase in handguns of .40 caliber and larger...
1) When law enforcement agencies, including the FBI, started adopting sidearms chambered for the .40 Smith and Wesson cartridge in the early 1990's, the portion of the general population who own firearms soon followed suit. This is nothing new. When the LE standard was the .38 Smith and Wesson Special for a good 60 years (WWI era through the mid-1980's), it was also the most popular handgun cartridge for personal protection handguns. When the 9x19mm really took off in about 1986-87 (Especially with the Glock 17 pistol), 9mm was number one for a good ten years or so.
2) The thing that made a lot of the 'wondernines' such as the Glock and others so popular among serious users was the high capacity magazines, often holding more than a dozen cartridges. Many gunfights involve multiple shots fired with most missing their intended target. The reason for this isn't so much that officers are scared as it is that most gunfights occur in low light or after dark and involve rapidly moving suspects wearing dark clothing who may very well be shooing at officers trying to apprehend them from distances much farther away than the usual several yards. A lot of the 'street life' also tends to be under the influence of some substance or another and often will not be especially perceptive of pain. 9mm is very marginal under these circumstances, so multiple shots may be needed to incapacitate someone high on drugs or intoxicated with alcohol. Citizens who carry firearms for personal protection face similar risk, even if less frequently because it's not their job to go tangle with lawbreakers. If you can no longer get high capacity magazines for your somewhat anemic 9mm pistol, why mess with 9mm? If you're limited to ten cartridges, they might as well be ten (or less) more powerful cartridges! .40 has proven to be quite effective, right on the heels of the ever-popular .45 automatic. The classic .45, the Colt Government Model, holds seven in its magazine. Some other models will hold nine or ten. If you're limited to ten, might as well pick a proven 'man stopper', eh?
Unless you have ever been in a close quarters firefight, you should not be making policy as to what kind of firearm or magazine capacity it should hold....its easy to legislate when you don't know what your talking about....even the most experienced shooter has misses when it comes down to a fight of your life...Its called stress and fear....put bloomberg into a shootout with a couple gangbangers and see how he performs and if he survives what his opinion woud be for only 7 rounds per magazine....
According to the Washington Post, the 1990's (during most of which the ban was in place) had the most mass shootings of any decade in US history, and 1999 (right in the middle of the ban) had the most of any single year in US history. Not exactly an indication that the ban resulted in any public safety benefit.
That is why MSNBC used a study that ignored certain periods of the ban:
"The share of gun crimes involving AWs declined by 17 percent to 72 percent for the locations observed in this study (Baltimore, Miami, Milwaukee, Boston, St. Louis, and Anchorage) during all or some of the 1995-2003 post-ban period."
AW crimes declined during the ban... well, or "some" of it anyway..... you know minus the times when AW crimes were occurring.
Banning an object used in less than 3% of firearm homicides and expecting "big results" is dumb.
In 2011, there were ~300 murders involving rifles, of the 11,000 gun homicides. It's like banning a specific brand of Vodka and expecting big results in a decline of drunk driving.
Exactly.
But the term 'assault weapons' sounds so much more sinister and scary, particularly to the weak minded and ignorant. It's useful in polarizing them to take action - to give them a sense of belonging and self esteem and purpose, no matter how misguided or delusional.
The truth is, crime is going down - gun deaths are dropping - and our nation is actually safer than in the past.
But you won't see that fact on the major news outlets. Wonder why.
"gun deaths are dropping - and our nation is actually safer than in the past." - How would we know really since Congress passed laws pushed by NRA that defunded and/or banned any collection such data? It is an illusion that weapons injury, suicide and homocide is not longer a problem.
"Weak minded"? Oh, you need to go to Fox "News" for that. They've rebranded assault weapons, armor piercing bullets, 30 round mags as "Modern Weapons". Doesn't sound so massacrey that way....
I can't figure out if you all are willfully obtuse about this or if you're just really, really stupid. Lessening access to weapons and high capacity ammo feed equipment lessens the chance that someone with serious mental problems gets their hands on a tool that can kill scores of people in minutes. It has nothing to do with whether or not someone can kill with another weapon, it has everything to do with the ability to inflict catastrophic damage before anyone can stop you.
keep in mind too, 328 murders with RIFLES, not assault rifles, but ALL rifles. now narrow that 328 number down to just those of assault rifles. keep in mind, no one is using the term "assault rifle" properly; not to mention, the anti-gunners have a track record of tacking offense to education. they want to ban something, anything, even though they don't exactly understand what it is they are banning.
10 myths of gun control.
thank you duke university.
and for the ignorant comments about the cdc not being allowed to track gun death stats, try the fbi. its already being done, why support and pay for a duplicate effort ?
http://people.duke.edu/~gnsmith/articles/myths.htm
@Pedertrian-in-SF, try again.
focus on the screening process, not on the screw driver sitting in your tool box, or what ever tool may be used.
According to the FBI Uniform Crime report for 2011:
12,664 murders in the U.S.
Out of the total above 8,583 were murders by firearms, broken down as follows:
6,220 committed by handguns
323 committed by rifles
356 committed by shotguns
1,684 committed by unknown type of firearms
1,694 committed by knives or cutting instruments
1,659 committed by other weapons
728 committed by hands/fists/feet etc..
Out of 315 million people in the U.S. means your odds of getting murdered by a firearm is a small fraction of 1%. The odds are even smaller if you only consider murders committed with rifles.
BTW, what is the difference between these two:
1. Black, plastic/metal, detachable magazine fed semi-auto AR-15 rifle
2. Wooden stocked, detachable magazine fed semi-auto hunting rifle
I'll give you gun grabbers a hint, there isn't any other than the way they look.
You are obviously a fool.
Oneslackr,
There may actually be a difference other than appearance, between an AR-15 style rifle and a hunting rifle. The hunting rifle is quite likely more powerful than the AR-15.
Matt says that it is dumb to have a law on guns that only is responsible for 3% _— I think its dumb not to have a law if they only are responsible for one death not even 1%. Just how much is live worth, NRA think their toys are so much more valuable than life.
@clayton
So should we ban cars?? They are responsible for more deaths in the U.S. than guns!
What a stupid guber
Clayton, perhaps you can't read: I said expecting "big results" is dumb. If they were serious about getting results, they'd ban handguns, which are responsible for 70+% of all firearm homicides, and likely a much larger fraction of total gun deaths (considering 2/3rds of firearm deaths are suicides.)
Let me pose this question to you: Which is worse, 97 people getting murdered on 97 separate occasions, or 3 people getting murdered all at once?
@haggisbingo
nice, do you talk to your mother with that mouth?
Clayton made a comment that if we could save 300 lives's that it would be well worth it to him to ban all rifles. so going on that reasoning to the next level we could save a heck of allot more lives's by banning cars. Isn't someones life worth more than that shinny car that you got parked outside?
Okay, I'm going to spell this out ONE MORE FRIGGIN TIME. If any of you have even the most basic math ability you'll get it.
8583 a year are killed by ALL COMBINED TYPES OF FIREARMS.
According to the DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, NOT the NRA or any other pro-gun lobby, guns are used 83,000 times PER YEAR to DETER VIOLENT CRIME.
Now let's equate this to something all you friggin sheep will understand!
In a VERY FEW NUMBER OF CASES EACH YEAR seat belts actually KILL people. I'm a retired fireman, I've SEEN it happen.
WANNA BAN THEM DUMB ASSES?
I've tried speaking rationally and with provable facts about this subject for a very long time. I've tried to promote COMPROMISE that would address the REAL issues. I'm done. I'll be KEEPING my assault rifle, thank you much. No, it does NOT make me "feel powerful". If I owned it for THAT reason I'd be well within my right to carry it in my truck every day under state law instead of keeping it locked in a gun safe.
Now go suck up everything else the media is feeding you.
"...by criminals."
There it is, in two sentences. Right from the findings.
Now, I'd like to see the data showing how many citizens with no previous records, who were law abiding and legally owned these 'assault weapons' committed gun crimes before and after the ban.
Doesn't seem to me that you can directly correlate a drop in crimes using these weapons to the enactment of the ban. Seems pretty questionable.
Now, if Obama and his team could figure out a way to get the demographics that are committing gun crimes/murders with handguns to stop doing so, that would be something.
bingo ! yes, the criminals.
what's the old saying ? when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. that's the exact manifestation of gun laws.
It sounded like such a cliche until I moved to Chicago a few years ago and realized there was an outright ban on firearm possession in the city. But yet there are shots fired in my neighborhood every couple of nights.
Now that the courts overturned that, I found it will cost me roughly $300 to complete all the steps to legally register/possess my shotgun. It really does feel like they stick it to the law abiding citizens while ignoring the criminals.
jayinflorida, your right. Chicago even has billboards stating don't bring a gun here but the shooting still go on but now they are blaming Indiana with supplying the guns
It may also be "Helpful" to know just exactly what was in that list of the 23 executive "actions" that were just signed . And why were they not put before the House and Senate BEFORE they were signed? Why hasn't this list been published? and why are they now "actions" instead of "orders"? because of the fact that they were never put up for a vote in the first place perhaps?
Tramp is really an idiot if he desn't know why they or it wasn't put in front of the gun manufacturers lobby ( NRA )that has bought the Party of NO in congress !! Anything regardless how much good it would be for the country with Obama's name to it would be rejected.using the executive orders by a Democrat is being a dictator but if used by a Republican president its a deserved previlege. It looks as the list you want has been published can't you read ??
323 deaths occurred by rifle last year by their own numbers that they themselves released this morning. yet they wish to ban these why?
Gun control has never been about guns ......its about control....period.
Yes, and by 'rifle' does that include hunting rifle? Assault rifle?
How many of those were suicides?
Interesting questions.
An Assault Rifle is full auto, an NFA item. You have to pay upwards of 15k for an m16 plus a $200 tax stamp from the ATF, then you have to get fingerprinted, photo ID'ed and get a background check. THEN you have to wait a year before all your forms to get back. Only then can you take it home. There have been only 2 crimes committed with NFA items in the past 76 years! The media should get their terminology right.
"Since 1934, there appear to have been at least two homicides committed with legally owned automatic weapons. One was a murder committed by a law enforcement officer (as opposed to a civilian). On September 15th, 1988, a 13-year veteran of the Dayton, Ohio police department, Patrolman Roger Waller, then 32, used his fully automatic MAC-11 .380 caliber submachine gun to kill a police informant, 52-year-old Lawrence Hileman. Patrolman Waller pleaded guilty in 1990, and he and an accomplice were sentenced to 18 years in prison. The 1986 'ban' on sales of new machine guns does not apply to purchases by law enforcement or government agencies."
and keep in mind, the word "rifles" is a much large subset set than the misused phrase "assault-riffles".
The 323 were indeed homicides (no suicides) by rifle. But as already mentioned that category isn't broken down any further so one can only guess how many of those were caused by the black scary type of rifle.
Either way, to spend all of this time, effort, and money chasing something that is responsible for less than 2.55% of all homicides is insane.
Thank you FBI and Excel:
12,644 total homicides (2011)
49.11% Handgun
13.37% Knife/cutting
13.29% Unknown firearm
13.1% Other Weapon
5.74% Hands, Fists, Feet
2.81% Shotgun
2.55% Rifle
I agree. According to the statistics I read, more people were killed with claw hammers than assault rifles. Maybe we need to ban those, too.

Compare those numbers with the number of fatal motor vehicle accidents in the United States... I think you will be surprised. No one is calling for the government to out-law vehicles that can go more than 70 MPH. Adding more gun restrictions is like limiting how much fuel commercial airplanes can carry in light of the September 11th attacks. The answer was not a war on planes, it was ensuring that those who have access to board planes were not out to harm others. I am fine with ensuring only responsible people own guns. It is not okay however, to punish responsible gun owners who have not committed any crimes.
Mexico banned all private ownership of guns and ammunition. Mexico last month finally released real statistics, 1 Mexican citizen is murdered every 30 minutes by the drug cartels. Obama and Holder sent 1600 guns to Mexico under the farce of "tracking" them. Obama and Holder are now trying to lecture me on responsible gun ownership? No, President Bush did not send the guns to Mexico, leave that one alone. I am also bored with liberals and the liberal media blaming the NRA. They are no more to blame for what people do then Harley Davidson is for the biker gangs.
whuck...excellent post...!!
HI Whuk, 2little,
Um, You know how we get our drugs from Mexico, so we kind of blame them for our "drug related problems"?
Well guess what country Mexico gets their illegal guns from? (hint, the flag has 50 stars on it)
(The gun makers backing the NRA are feeling bad, all the way to the bank.)
Sorry Whuck, but history says you've got your facts wrong. Eric Holder ender the program that was started during the Bush era. Besides, nobody sent those guns to Mexico. The guns were transported the way they still are, legally, through loop-holes that the gun lobby wants to keep open, and that this new initiative is trying to plug. Yeah, the government knew that the guns were headed for Mexico, but by your argument, you are still against giving authorities the tools (laws) necessary to do more than watch them go.
If sellers, and owners were held responsible for their guns, (and the only way to do that is make everyone register them) It would be harder for criminals to get guns. and we'd know when and from where guns had gone "missing".
I feel for that Lanza boy's mother, but she let a member of her family with serious mental-health issues get at her guns. If he hadn't killed her, I think she'd have to be held partly responsible for the deaths caused by her carelessness with her guns. Kind of like if your dogs attack someone, of if you let a drunk drive your car.
Who buys these guns? Why are they necessary? For the record, Australia, NewZealand, England, France, Korea and Japan have the same video games and movies that we do. Some of their rating systems are even weaker than ours, so why aren't there any mass shootings? Because there aren't as many guns! Yes people can kill with a knife, a baseball bat or a car, but they can't do it from 100 feet away.
With an assault and a high capacity clip, every one-handed, half blind, Walter Middy, malcontent in the nation can become a mass-murder. If they live next to a school or shopping mal, they can kill from the window of their home.
I'd worry about the people who want these things. What's up with that? Do they think they should have the right to own nerve gas? Tanks? Where do you draw the line? I think the NRA is leading some of us by the nose.
Every country has mentally ill people. What are we doing wrong?
I really hate to tell you this but it is not a legal gun owners fault that someone else steals their guns and then uses it to kill people. What happened to personal responsibility in this country? I am so tired of hearing parents say the drug dealer got their kid hooked on drugs, that is not true. I am so glad that I have a Mother that taught me personal responsibility. When I was in school that is when they started this peer pressure bull crap. My Mom would not let that fly. She said you've got a mouth and you have 2 feet and she said you say no,and walk away, and if you say yes it is you that did it not your friends. If we really want to fix our country we need to get back to personal responsibility and accountability. Quit blaming everyone else for our mistakes. The Columbine thing they also had bombs. They were determined to kill some one. As far as if you ban these guns they won't be able to get them you need to research David Marshal Williams, better known as Carbine Williams he invented the self loading guns and patented it while in prison!
@maninjapan.. Help me understand why Obama gave Holder a get out of going to jail free card then? Please don't try to twist history to match what you are trying to say.
whuck just who was the one who is responsible for that program that sent guns to the Mexican drug runners ?? Apparently you forgot about the Bush administration that actually started that program..
maninjapan, as for some of your post, had you not spoken so openly and well I would call you something bad. Instead, though I disagree with some of what you think, I'll say, good post. You're speaking an educated opinion. Now, on some things you are correct. I, as a gun owner, can agree. The problem has far less to do with GUNS then ACCESS. The way my guns are stored, with the exception of the one I carry on my belt legally every day, it would take a thief five hours, a blow torch, and a good knowledge of high end alarm systems to get NEAR them. Can all people afford this? No. Could most gun owners afford a small safe? Yup. Take your BOLTS AND FIRING PINS out and lock THEM up. I believe in keeping one gun for security, two if there are two adults. Do you need them on the nightstand when no one is home? Nope. I also agree with penalties for people who are lax in security and allow the mentally ill or criminally inclined to get them. Your comment about Lanzas mom though...not cool. How do we know she wasn't killed for trying to stop him? Though, yes, had they been locked up well...
Where we might not agree...why do people need these guns? I own one. I use it for deep penetration camping. It is lightweight, powerful enough to defend against dangerous animals in the right hands, fairly inexpensive on ammo (compared to, say, my .300 mag), and compact to carry. You're worried about that 30 round mag? I can fire 30 rounds from my seven shot .45 pistol in only 2.5 second less than you can empty those 30 rounds. With a little practice and dexterity a mag can be changed in as little as one HALF of a second.
Rebecca, while I feel your sentiment, if you leave your keys in your car and it gets stolen are you not at least partly at fault? I don't feel keeping a gun collection in a closet is much of a deterrent to a criminal. Don't get me wrong, we're pretty much on the same side, but we gun owners must be responsible for the guns we own.
How many people have died because of AWs...in the hands of our military?..200,000 yet? .. how many were basically regular folks or innocents?
All this smear campaign is striclty POLITICAL...so, IT APPEARS they are worth something, when the Prez, Joey on down are basically WORTHLESS.
Whenever the Gov makes laws...there are those who figure ways to dance around them...tax laws or gun laws, doesn't matter. Lawyers get richer, but then again...Most Politicians are or were LAWYERS...ummmm
The answer was no, it was not effective.
I just bought a new Silverado, did I need it no, I just wanted it, (I now have three trucks) So the government can tell me that two is enough? And I paid for it.
And this posted in the wrong spot, sorry.
So we have somewhere over 10,000 gun related homicides per year here in the US. I agree that quite a small percentage of them involve an "assault weapon", so lets say that over 5 years, 500 peoples lives were saved, would it be worth it? Let's say a couple of those 500 are close friends of yours. The downside is that ordinary citizens would no longer be able to buy these types of weapons. I honestly can't come up with a reason other than "because I want one" or "because I think it's my right" that people need this type of weapon. Dynamite and grenades are also unable to be purchased by civilians because it's too simple to cause great harm to a large number of people with them. Why is there such a difference because the item happens to fire a projectile? Why is there no outrage that you aren't allowed to buy an M4 or an M-16, but the almost identical but semi-automatic AR-15 is your constitutionally protected right to own?
That is BS. You can use that argument to justify the banning of practically anything. Here is an example:
According to http://www.skatepark.org/park-development/2012/01/2011-skateboarding-fatalities/
42 people died in skateboarding accidents in 2011. Over 5 years that amounts to 210 people. If we ban skateboards 210 lives could be saved over a 5 year period. Would it be worth it? What if your son or daughter fell and broke their neck skateboarding.
I can't come up with any reason to own a skateboard other than "because I want one" or "because I think it is my right." Do people really need to roll down a hill doing flips and tricks on a piece of wood with wheels on it just because they think it is fun?
There are so many things wrong with this type of thinking that it hurts my head. So, just because you cant come up with a reason, then we should all follow your thought process. I cant think of a reason that you should have 5 pairs of pants so you are limited to 4. Do you think the role of government is to decide what I or you need? It is a freedom that we are all entitled to and I dont think anybody should be preaching what they think I need or I have to explain why I want something.
Hi Smart!
Why does this hurt your head? In countries with more violent video games and movies than we have here,
(Japan, Korea) they don't have mass shootings because nobody has this kind of weapon. Switzerland, Sweden, Canada, have hunting cultures similar to ours but guns are regulated, and assault rifles are very hard to
get. And guess what. Our death by gun rate is through the roof compared to just about the rest of the world put together.
Your head hurts? My head hurts! Why is your right to own dangerous toys more important than the rights of the rest of us to live safely and at peace. If the Lanza boys hadn't owned those guns, those 20 kids and 6 adults might still be alive. At least make people who own these things accountable.
You're overlooking 1 huge difference. How many people were killed by another person with a skateboard?? How many people killed a group of other people with a pair of pants?? I completely agree that I don't want the government telling me what I can or cannot own, do, eat, drink, smoke, whatever, *as long as it doesn't infringe on someone else's rights*. When the thing that I want has the possibility of denying other people, especially a lot of other people, of their right to life and liberty, I accept the government's role in controlling that thing. That's why it's against the law to drive drunk. I'd love to be able to hop in the car after a few drinks, but I understand that because so many innocent people have been killed or had their property damaged by this activity, that it must be a "freedom" that's taken away by the government.
@maninjapan78
You are an prime example of a "low-information voter". The "Lanza Boys" as you called him (notice I said "him" not them) did not own any of "those guns". He killed the owner then stole them. If you would like to make the dead owner accountable then please tell us how.
@maninjapan, you might want to take the swiss off your list. nearly every house in switzerland has an assault rifle in it, and not a "scary looking gun", stupid un-informed anti-gunners think may be an assault weapon.
"Switzerland, Sweden, Canada, have hunting cultures similar to ours but guns are regulated"
Switzerland? You're using seriously using Switzerland as an example of limited availability of assault weapons? Their nations primary national defense force is militia, fully automatic/selective fire assault weapons are in most homes.
notTotallyBrainDead,
When you argument turned to "Let just say" you lost it....
Let's just say (fill in the blank) and then every man woman and child
would have (Fill in the blank)
Try debating with TRUE facts and not head up the A$$ emotions
Um.. no. We had a little over 8,000 gun related deaths. +300 of them committed with a rifle of some type (does not distinguish between traditional bolt-action or semi-automatic)
The 1994 AWB did not do anything. Gun related crime has actually dropped steadily since its repeal (See FBI Stats since the repeal). The weapon is being demonized for it's looks only. It is nothing close to being a "Weapon of War" because of the way it functions. It only LOOKS like the real thing. You will not see one single AR-15 in the hands of a soldier in battle. Select fire rifles- those that can switch between semi-auto & full auto with the flip of a switch- are "Assault Rifles". Look up the term. Then look up the term "Asault Weapon" and you will see it was a made up term in the '90's to scare the general public who knew nothing about guns. The military uses M-16 (select-fire), M-4 (select fire), M-14 (select fire), and several other select-fire rifles as standard gear. Those rifles are not available to the general public.
Finally, some of the right questions are being asked, like about how effective was the last ban. Here are the firearms used at Columbine which occurred five years after the 1994 assault weapon and magazine capacity ban. Asterix (*) indicate high capacity magazines as defined by the 1994 Federal Assault Weapon Ban:
12-gauge Savage-Springfield 67H pump-action shotgun - no magazine, four round capacity - 25 rounds fired (7 reloads) - not affected by 1994 or proposed ban
Hi-Point Model 995 9mm semi-automatic carbine rifle - thirteen 10-round magazines (NOTE: the reduced 10-round capacity was the limit imposed by the 1994 Federal Assault Weapon Ban) - 96 of 130 rounds fired
TEC-9 9mm semi-automatic handgun - one 52*, one 32*, and one 28* round magazine - 55 of 112 rounds fired
12-guage Stevens Model 311D double-barreled (illegally) sawed-off shotgun - no magazine, two round capacity - 12 rounds fired (6 reloads) - not affected by 1994 or proposed ban
also, here's a pretty good study done by duke university:
http://people.duke.edu/~gnsmith/articles/myths.htm
In other words, nobody actually has any measurable data, because they were too afraid to go to Detroit to get any real data. Just go to Mexico and buy some of those full automatic weapons Eric Holder had shipped over there to the drug cartels. Nobody ever gets stopped taking guns OUT of Mexico. That's where the criminals will get theirs from now on, since there are enough to supply the US Army!
Hi backtobasics,
The guns in Mexico come from the US. Anyone can buy a gun here, so their criminals come here and buy guns,
"legally". To the rest of the world, the problem is simple. THe Us is the cause of the Mexican gun problem.
When I was a kid, Mexico was considered a sleepy backwater. Send your kids there for school if you could afford it. This gun thing is new.
You said it yourself. They get their guns from us. The NRA and this "new version" of the American gun culture are the problem.
as paul harvey would say; "page 2".
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20110209-mexicos-gun-supply-and-90-percent-myth
By Scott Stewart
For several years now, Stratfor has been closely watching developments in Mexico that relate to what we consider the three wars being waged there. Those three wars are the war between the various drug cartels, the war between the government and the cartels, and the war being waged against citizens and businesses by criminals.
In addition to watching tactical developments of the cartel wars on the ground and studying the dynamics of the conflict among the various warring factions, we have also been paying close attention to the ways that both the Mexican and U.S. governments have reacted to these developments. Perhaps one of the most interesting aspects to watch has been the way in which the Mexican government has tried to deflect responsibility for the cartel wars away from itself and onto the United States. According to the Mexican government, the cartel wars are not a result of corruption in Mexico or of economic and societal dynamics that leave many Mexicans marginalized and desperate to find a way to make a living. Instead, the cartel wars are due to the insatiable American appetite for narcotics and the endless stream of guns that flows from the United States into Mexico and that results in Mexican violence.
Interestingly, the part of this argument pertaining to guns has been adopted by many politicians and government officials in the United States in recent years. It has now become quite common to hear U.S. officials confidently assert that 90 percent of the weapons used by the Mexican drug cartels come from the United States. However, a close examination of the dynamics of the cartel wars in Mexico -- and of how the oft-echoed 90 percent number was reached -- clearly demonstrates that the number is more political rhetoric than empirical fact.
By the Numbers
As we discussed in a previous analysis, the 90 percent number was derived from a June 2009 U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) report to Congress on U.S. efforts to combat arms trafficking to Mexico (see external link).
According to the GAO report, some 30,000 firearms were seized from criminals by Mexican authorities in 2008. Of these 30,000 firearms, information pertaining to 7,200 of them (24 percent) was submitted to the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) for tracing. Of these 7,200 guns, only about 4,000 could be traced by the ATF, and of these 4,000, some 3,480 (87 percent) were shown to have come from the United States.
This means that the 87 percent figure relates to the number of weapons submitted by the Mexican government to the ATF that could be successfully traced and not from the total number of weapons seized by Mexican authorities or even from the total number of weapons submitted to the ATF for tracing. In fact, the 3,480 guns positively traced to the United States equals less than 12 percent of the total arms seized in Mexico in 2008 and less than 48 percent of all those submitted by the Mexican government to the ATF for tracing. This means that almost 90 percent of the guns seized in Mexico in 2008 were not traced back to the United States.
The remaining 22,800 firearms seized by Mexican authorities in 2008 were not traced for a variety of reasons. In addition to factors such as bureaucratic barriers and negligence, many of the weapons seized by Mexican authorities either do not bear serial numbers or have had their serial numbers altered or obliterated. It is also important to understand that the Mexican authorities simply don't bother to submit some classes of weapons to the ATF for tracing. Such weapons include firearms they identify as coming from their own military or police forces, or guns that they can trace back themselves as being sold through the Mexican Defense Department's Arms and Ammunition Marketing Division (UCAM). Likewise, they do not ask ATF to trace military ordnance from third countries like the South Korean fragmentation grenades commonly used in cartel attacks.
Of course, some or even many of the 22,800 firearms the Mexicans did not submit to ATF for tracing may have originated in the United States. But according to the figures presented by the GAO, there is no evidence to support the assertion that 90 percent of the guns used by the Mexican cartels come from the United States -- especially when not even 50 percent of those that were submitted for tracing were ultimately found to be of U.S. origin.
This point leads us to consider the types of weapons being used by the Mexican cartels and where they come from.
Types and Sources of Guns
To gain an understanding of the dynamics of the gun flow inside Mexico, it helps if one divides the guns seized by Mexican authorities from criminals into three broad categories -- which, incidentally, just happen to represent three different sources.
Type 1: Guns Legally Available in Mexico
The first category of weapons encountered in Mexico is weapons available legally for sale in Mexico through UCAM. These include handguns smaller than a .357 magnum such as .380 and .38 Special.
A large portion of this first type of guns used by criminals is purchased in Mexico, or stolen from their legitimate owners. While UCAM does have very strict regulations for civilians to purchase guns, criminals will use straw purchasers to obtain firearms from UCAM or obtain them from corrupt officials. Cartel hit men in Mexico commonly use .380 pistols equipped with sound suppressors in their assassinations. In many cases, these pistols are purchased in Mexico, the suppressors are locally manufactured and the guns are adapted to receive the suppressors by Mexican gunsmiths.
It must be noted, though, that because of the cost and hassle of purchasing guns in Mexico, many of the guns in this category are purchased in the United States and smuggled into the country. There are a lot of cheap guns available on the U.S. market, and they can be sold at a premium in Mexico. Indeed, guns in this category, such as .380 pistols and .22-caliber rifles and pistols, are among the guns most commonly traced back to the United States. Still, the numbers do not indicate that 90 percent of guns in this category come from the United States.
Additionally, most of the explosives the cartels have been using in improvised explosive devices (IEDs) in Mexico over the past year have used commercially available Tovex, so we consider these explosives to fall in this first category. Mexican IEDs are another area where the rhetoric has been interesting to analyze, but we will explore this topic another time.
Type 2: Guns Legally Available in the U.S. but Not in Mexico
Many popular handgun calibers, such as 9 mm, .45 and .40, are reserved for the military and police and are not available for sale to civilians in Mexico. These guns, which are legally sold and very popular in the United States, comprise our second category, which also includes .50-caliber rifles, semiautomatic versions of assault rifles like the AK-47 and M16 and the FN Five-Seven pistol.
When we consider this second type of guns, a large number of them encountered in Mexico are likely purchased in the United States. Indeed, the GAO report notes that many of the guns most commonly traced back to the United States fall into this category. There are also many .45-caliber and 9 mm semiautomatic pistols and .357 revolvers obtained from deserters from the Mexican military and police, purchased from corrupt Mexican authorities or even brought in from South America (guns made by manufacturers such as Taurus and Bersa). This category also includes semiautomatic variants of assault rifles and main battle rifles, which are often converted by Mexican gunsmiths to be capable of fully automatic fire.
One can buy these types of weapons on the international arms market, but one pays a premium for such guns and it is cheaper and easier to simply buy them in the United States or South America and smuggle them into Mexico. In fact, there is an entire cottage industry that has developed to smuggle such weapons, and not all the customers are cartel hit men. There are many Mexican citizens who own guns in calibers such as .45, 9 mm, .40 and .44 magnum for self-defense -- even though such guns are illegal in Mexico.
Type 3: Guns Not Available for Civilian Purchase in Mexico or the U.S.
The third category of weapons encountered in Mexico is military-grade ordnance not generally available for sale in the United States or Mexico. This category includes hand grenades, 40 mm grenades, rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs), automatic assault rifles and main battle rifles and light machine guns.
This third type of weapon is fairly difficult and very expensive to obtain in the United States, especially in the large numbers in which the cartels are employing them. They are also dangerous to obtain in the United States due to heavy law enforcement scrutiny. Therefore, most of the military ordnance used by the Mexican cartels comes from other sources, such as the international arms market -- increasingly from China via the same networks that furnish precursor chemicals for narcotics manufacturing -- or from corrupt elements in the Mexican military or even deserters who take their weapons with them. Besides, items such as South Korean fragmentation grenades and RPG-7s, often used by the cartels, simply are not in the U.S. arsenal. This means that very few of the weapons in this category come from the United States.
In recent years the cartels, especially their enforcer groups such as Los Zetas, Gente Nueva and La Linea, have been increasingly using military weaponry instead of sporting arms. A close examination of the arms seized from the enforcer groups and their training camps clearly demonstrates this trend toward military ordnance, including many weapons not readily available in the United States. Some of these seizures have included M60 machine guns and hundreds of 40 mm grenades obtained from the military arsenals of countries like Guatemala.
But Guatemala is not the only source of such weapons. Latin America is awash in weapons that were shipped there over the past several decades to supply the various insurgencies and counterinsurgencies in the region. When these military-grade weapons are combined with the rampant corruption in the region, they quickly find their way into the black arms market. The Mexican cartels have supply-chain contacts that help move narcotics to Mexico from South America, and they are able to use this same network to obtain guns from the black market in South and Central America and then smuggle them into Mexico. While there are many weapons in this category that were manufactured in the United States, the overwhelming majority of the U.S.-manufactured weapons of this third type encountered in Mexico -- like LAW rockets and M60 machine guns -- come into Mexico from third countries and not directly from the United States.
There are also some cases of overlap between classes of weapons. For example, the FN Five-Seven pistol is available for commercial purchase in the United States, but the 5.7x28 armor-piercing ammunition for the pistol favored by the cartels is not -- it is a restricted item. However, some of the special operations forces units in the Mexican military are issued the Five-Seven as well as the FN P90 personal defense weapon, which also shoots the 5.7x28 round, and the cartels are obtaining some of these weapons and the armor-piercing ammunition from them and not from the United States. Conversely, we see bulk 5.56 mm and 7.62 mm ammunition bought in the United States and smuggled into Mexico, where it is used in fully automatic AK-47s and M16s purchased elsewhere. As noted above, China has become an increasingly common source for military weapons like grenades and fully automatic assault rifles in recent years.
To really understand Mexico's gun problem, however, it is necessary to recognize that the same economic law of supply and demand that fuels drug smuggling into the United States also fuels gun smuggling into Mexico. Black market guns in Mexico can fetch up to 300 percent of their normal purchase price -- a profit margin rivaling the narcotics the cartels sell. Even if it were somehow possible to hermetically seal the U.S.-Mexico border and shut off all the guns coming from the United States, the cartels would still be able to obtain weapons elsewhere -- just as narcotics would continue to flow into the United States from other places. The United States does provide cheap and easy access to certain types of weapons and ammunition, but as demonstrated by groups such as the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, weapons can be easily obtained from other sources via the black arms market -- albeit at a higher price.
There has clearly been a long and well-documented history of arms smuggling across the U.S.-Mexico border, but it is important to recognize that, while the United States is a significant source of certain classes of weapons and ammunition, it is by no means the source of 90 percent of the weapons used by the Mexican cartels, as is commonly asserted.
Read more: Mexico's Gun Supply and the 90 Percent Myth | Stratfor
ps. hello sinister man, garbman, herron, daveinsomeplace in cali, etc, etc, etc:
its time to jump on and make all your posts of "you suck", "loser", "blah, blah, bah", and various comments about male genital parts, now that you are confronted with facts.
Bush was the founder of sending those guns to Mexico he was the president when that program was started not Holer or Obama Check the facts.
how does that change what i posted ?
as usual barry osama does and says whatever he thinks his brainwashed supporters ( socialists , communists and other democrats ) want at the moment . no government really wants to fix the problem because it is not politically correct and it will cost too much .
This article is ridiculously biased. The United States Department of Justice and the National Institute of Justice did studies on the ban in 2004. Both conclusively found that the impact of the ban was negligible. Hence, the ban wasn't "repealed" as MSN/NBC would tell you in the article, it simply wasn't renewed because it didn't curb gun violence. Since 2001, the gun violence/homicide rate has lowered 6.4 per 100 people to 3.1 per 100 people. It's important to note that even after the ban expired, that rate continued to drop. Gun bans are not the answer to gun violence.
you are absolutely right. here's some interesting unbiased info:
http://people.duke.edu/~gnsmith/articles/myths.htm
Hey Dave, thanks for the Duke link.
you are very welcome.
"Observed increases" and "seen increases" are subjective statements. Objective numbers indicate that the homicide rate has dropped every year since the 1994 Clinton round of infringements on the right of the people to keep and bear arms expired.
And it was illegal, during this entire period, for criminals to have guns at all. It's so hard to believe that these criminals broke the law. Let's hope they obey the law this time around. HAH!
If your gang or mafia related you could most probably find an assault weapon but if your some non-gang/mafia high school or college student your chances of finding an assault weapon with out purchasing or stealing the folks/friends/neighbors assault weapon is extremely slim.
The share of gun crimes involving AWs declined by 17 percent to 72 percent...
But it is 17 to 72 percent of at most 6% of gun crime. It is legislating the exception to the rule.
Stating it that way is exactly like misleading people with the statistic that you are 40 times more likely to be killed by gun in the U.S. than the U.K. It is the different between ~0.2 gun deaths per 100K (U.K.) and ~3.2 per 100K in the U.S. Is it more in the U.S.? Sure, but it is still an extremely unlikely event per capita either way.
The few available studies do, however, suggest that attacks with AWs and other semiautomatics equipped with LCMs result in more shots fired, more people hit, and more wounds per victim than do attacks with other firearms.
... which, in almost all instances, was still less than the 10 round limit imposed for gun magazines by the 1994 ban. (Section 9.2.1 of the study linked above).
you might enjoy this read:
http://people.duke.edu/~gnsmith/articles/myths.htm
What a bunch of liberal bs excuses and lies
Much guber, Gomer?
Simply put: you righties are NUTS! The country is going to hell in a hand basket and you continue to play partisan politics!Prepare to be marginalized in the future! Americans have HAD IT with you people!
Hey, Tom, there are nuts on both sides. Some of us are not right-wing kooks and disagree vehemently with the one-sided approach taken in response to this issue, and we disagree with some of the policies that seem to be anti-gun without being anti-violence.
Uh - I'm a democrat and I think any ban on guns because the way they look is a farce.
I'm a Dem as well jayinflorida and also know that the 1994 ban was nothing more than a feel good measure and another would be the same. If they're going to actually do something about mass shootings they'd better start finding ways and the MONEY to work with the mentally ill. Then REALLY stiffen the penalties for criminals who use guns of ANY kind in a crime!!
Mentally ill excuse = bull$hit . These gubers seeking revenge will sneak through all these little tests and still slaughter in mass. ANd you probably know this.
and stop lying about being Dems you gubers
The country is going to hell in a hand basket, and we know exactly who is to blame. It isn't Bush. It isn't Tea Party Republicans. It isn't the NRA. It is the Obama regime. It is those who suckle at government's teat generation after generation. It is the Democrat Party, their union stormtroopers, and their propaganda arm the left wing press.
It is like the final days of the Weimar Republic. We know the end of life as we've known it is near. Hard times and hard fighting are ahead. We are preparing for the coming storm.
Clearly, the problem, and the common denominator in these school shootings, is young white guys. We must ban them to protect our kids.
What gets me is that there is the equivalent number of people murdered in Chicago every month to the number killed in mass murders. Chicago is a gun free zone. Nobody is talking about that. Its conveniently ignored because of a premeditated liberal agenda and you are fooling yourselves if you think other wise.
very good observation. here is some good reading
http://people.duke.edu/~gnsmith/articles/myths.htm
All citizens should be kept in cages for their own SAFETY.
SAFETY is more important than FREEDOM.
<sarcasm>
Woah now, best calm yourself. Wouldn't want them to find you and lock you up too now would you? Who needs freedom when I can have someone else take care of me and all my worries? I would prefer to keep my free handouts thank you very much, and they wouldn't lie or misinform me about anything would they? Besides, if we could save even just ONE life at the expense of putting everyone in cages, wouldn't it be worth it? Aren't your children worth it?