What a complete crock.
The Assault Weapons Ban was a failure. It did not produce any significant impact on crime because the banned firearms were never that commonly used in crimes to begin with.
Here’s the truth: According to the FBI, rifles are used in fewer murders than knives, blunt instruments or even bare hands. The same is true for shotguns.
Furthermore, the average percentage of homicides involving any kind of rifle has been nearly 21% lower since the expiration of the ban as it was during the ban’s 10-year existence.
Even when it comes to mass shootings, there were more mass shootings involving the banned firearms during the Assault Weapons Ban than there were in the decade before it.
The original assault weapons ban, and every version of a ban proposed since that time, were written by people with no knowledge of firearms. The features used to determine which firearms would be included and which would be exempt bore no relationship to the capabilities of the guns themselves.
Every mass shooting that involved an AR-15 or an AK-47 could have been carried out just as easily with firearms that weren’t banned. In fact, the use of some of these could have produced a greater number of victims and fewer survivors.
The bans on standard-capacity and extended-capacity magazines are pointless — and that is a very polite description.
Since even legislators can figure out that the solution to magazine restrictions is extra magazines, a fact that has been repeatedly demonstrated, one has to assume they intend to provide more opportunities to stop the shooter.
The assumption is that a would-be defender, or defenders, could neutralize the shooter while magazines are being changed. The truth is that a would-be defender positioned in such a way to have a chance of a successful intervention could make his or her move whether the shooter was reloading or not. The problem with this scenario is that most shooters have multiple firearms, meaning they still have the capability to defend themselves.
A look back at actual mass shooting incidents shows that many killers not only change magazines; they also reload magazines.
The example of Seung-Hui Cho is interesting. Cho’s Walther P22 didn’t have a high-capacity magazine. It had a 10-round magazine — just like virtually every other .22-caliber pistol on the market. Since it would be exempt under the proposed limitations, one wonders what was the point Mr. Nagin was trying to make?
In addition, it should be noted that, far from becoming a new law, the days of restrictions on magazine capacities may be numbered. California’s ban on magazines with capacities of more than ten cartridges was recently ruled unconstitutional by a federal court in San Diego. The decision is being appealed but should it get to the Supreme Court, such restrictions may be outlawed altogether.