DID THE ASSAULT WEAPONS WORK ? 1994 2004

[spittoon]

In my opinion NO but it proved a point. From what I have found less than 2% long rifles was used in crimes and mass shootings during the ban. There are a lot of other ways people have been killed just take the time to look up Homicide trends in the USA .We have been down this road it is sad people had to die. At the hands of a Crazy men. But do not punish the legal gun owners because crazy peoples actions.

My Rant,opinion is it seems to me it is all a political talking points and finger pointing with no real solutions . The loss of life is terrible . If our Money is protected by guns also the rich,politicians, hi profile buildings ares and venues, as for Schools why are they not . I would love to know what would of happened if there was some concealed carry in the stores "Texas" , restaurant "Dayton"and sadly other places .To me it is apparent gun free zones do not work nor do the previously weapons bans work. As for the red flag laws are totally unconstitutional.
As For the mass shooters ,murders, no more insanity pleas just the Hangman's noose .

[TEAMRICO]

My son was born the day the ban was lifted..coincidence? I think not!

[Gman]

They couldn't prove that it was effective and it was allowed to sunset. Fans of the idea thought the mistake was that the firearms were grandfathered. The ban may have had a better effect if it was in place longer. It's the usual "we didn't do enough" rather than being supported statistically.

An Investors Business Daily editorial from 3/1/18
Attn. Gun Control Advocates: We Banned Assault Weapons Before ... And It Didn't Work

Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault
Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and
Gun Violence, 1994-2003: PDF
^ Essentially blames "Large Capacity Magazines" (LCM) for the failure. Sheetmetal boxes with springs aren't exactly high tech.

My biggest problem with what is going on now is that the left is playing a statistical game of trying to use the circumstances of the '90s and '00s to today. Like they somehow knew how to predict the future. Decisions are based on the information that the decision-makers have. They're trying to play Minority Report in the playground sandbox. Governing based on models/predictions/tea leaf readings is ridiculous and irresponsible.

[.455_Hunter]

How could the ban have been effective at anything?

All of the grandfathered weapons AND magazines could still be sold, and any new weapons were functionally identical to the "banned" ones.

I am still pretty convinced that that aftermarket >10 round magazine production never really stopped, especially given the number of "pre-ban" undated magazines still in the wrapper for sale at reasonable cost after 2000. Yup, I am sure they are "old stock"...

[Great-Kazoo]

How could the ban have been effective at anything?

All of the grandfathered weapons AND magazines could still be sold, and any new weapons were functionally identical to the "banned" ones.

I am still pretty convinced that that aftermarket >10 round magazine production never really stopped, especially given the number of "pre-ban" undated magazines still in the wrapper for sale at reasonable cost after 2000. Yup, I am sure they are "old stock"...

A decent amount of them were coming in through canada, hypothetically.

[cstone]

If by effective, you mean make certain firearms and accessories more expensive, then my answer would be absolutely!

[Bailey Guns]

There was never a ban on "assault rifles". The ban should've been called "Certain Features of Assault Rifles Ban". The guns were still manufactured, they still used the same magazines in existence before the ban, they still used the same ammo, they still functioned the same. The only thing you couldn't buy on a new gun between 94 - 04 was: bayonet lug, collapsible stock, flash suppressor. They still came with the ability to accept "high capacity" magazines and pistol grips....the other two EVIL features. You could have a maximum of 2 of those 5 things on your gun.

Democrats wrote the law and then bitched that manufacturers were "skirting" the law or "sidestepping" the law or "circumventing" the law because they made guns without lugs, suppressors and collapsible stocks. No, they were not. They were following the law that democrats wanted. Democrats were too stupid to write an effective law so naturally they blamed everything and everyone but themselves. Just like they always do when they have to have some policy, they get it, then it fails miserably. They blame someone else. It's been the democrat MO for as long as I've been alive.

Of course it was a complete failure. The only place where it succeeded was in placing a great inconvenience on lawful gun owners and artificially raising the cost of pre-existing magazines and guns.

[wctriumph]

AWB - one possible definition of insanity.

[cstone]

Let's make some drugs illegal. That should eliminate the drug addiction problem in our country.

[Jamnanc]

My son was born the day the ban was lifted..coincidence? I think not!

You sure he wasn’t conceived on van lift day? That would mean something more I think.