The Data: Assault-weapons ban no guarantee mass shootings would decrease

As the gun control advocates continue their fight to take away Second Amendment rights, the law abiding gun owners keep fighting back in their right to bear arms.  It may be becoming a boring topic to many, but it deserve equal time as a discussion.  We all know that congress plans to debate reinstating the assaul rifle ban next year.  And Sen Dianne Feinstein, whom herself owns a gun,  already has vowed to introduce such a bill at the start of the session. President Obama is voicing support.

But new statistics have been released showing the crime rate and guns, and the truth is what liberals don’t want you to know.

Data published earlier this year showed that while the ban was in place, from 1994 to 2004, the number of mass shootings actually rose slightly during that period.   Add to that the fact that most gun crimes in America are committed with handguns, and the gun lobby enters this debate with some potent statistics.

“You had that for 10 years when Dianne Feinstein passed that ban in ’94. It was on the books. Columbine occurred right in the middle of it. It didn’t make any difference,” NRA chief Wayne LaPierre argued in an interview Sunday. “I think that is a phony piece of legislation, and I do not believe it will pass for this reason.”

Fox News

Yet at the same time, gun control advocates note that modest decreases in assault-weapon crimes were recorded during the ban. A revived version won’t stop gun crime in America, but, advocates argue, it could spare some lives from the violence on America’s streets, in its schools and in its homes.

If we look more closely at the mass shooting stats,  the acts that typically prompt calls for more gun control — shows a negligible
impact from the Clinton-era ban.

Crime stats compiled by a Northeastern University professor, the Census Bureau and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel show the number of mass shootings since the 1980s has fluctuated annually, but without any major upward or downward trend.

Translation:  No matter if a ban was reintroduced, a mentally ill person or criminal will still get weapons to carry out their attacks.

The report says that from 1985-1994, there were 173 mass shootings and 766 victims. From 1995-2004 (starting with 1995 because it was the first full year the law was in effect), there were 182 mass shootings and 830 victims.  After the ban expired, the average number of mass shootings every year continued to tick up slightly. The numbers were published over the summer in the Journal Sentinel, and counted a mass shooting as any murder where four or more people were killed at once.

The pro-gun-control Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence argues the ban had more of an impact than it’s given credit for. The group claims that in the five years before the ban, the affected weapons made up 4.8 percent of crime guns traced by ATF officials. Since the ban, that number dropped to 1.6 percent.

“This decline is extremely significant to law enforcement and has clearly enhanced public safety, especially since these military-style weapons are among the deadliest ever sold on the civilian market,” the group claims.  Feinstein’s office also claims the ban can be traced to a 6.7 percent decline “in total gun murders.”

Fox News

But as the NRA points out, only a small amount of attacks involved assault rifles. According to the Justice Department, gun-related homicides overall have declined since they peaked in 1993. That decline is mostly attributed to a drop in murders involving handguns, which fell from nearly 14,000 in 1993 to close to 9,000 a decade later.

Both sides of this debate have pointed to several reasons why the assault-weapons ban was limited in its effectiveness. Aside from the fact that handguns are the most prevalent in violent crime, the assault-weapons ban included an array of exemptions.

But to be called a semiautomatic assault weapon, a semiautomatic rifle had to have a detachable magazine and two or more of five specific features — including a grenade launcher and a bayonet mount. Some gun makers simply modified their weapons to avoid qualifying under this definition.

A report in November by  the Congressional Research Service noted that opponents argued the banned guns “were potentially no more lethal than other semiautomatic firearms.”   The law also allowed people  to keep semiautomatic weapons that they had before it took effect. The saturation of firearms in the country limited the impact of the ban. If the same law were passed today, that means more than 300 million firearms — or one gun for every person in America — would still be floating around.

Of course any new bill to be drafted will be modified to include these changes, but it’s expected it won’t pass in the Republican controlled House.  Feinstein announced last week that her newest proposal would exempt more than 900 weapons.

Everything from mental health to school security to the entertainment industry is likely to be examined in the weeks ahead.

But now on to another topic of how asinine these anti gunners have become.  Today’s story is at the top of the list.  New York’s “Journal News” ignited a fierce debate Sunday after publishing the names and addresses of pistol permit holders in two New York counties.  They are actively working on acquiring data for a third county.  Being anti gun, their little plan backfired, as it has drawn much scrutiny from gun advocates.  Seems this idiot paper posted a map showing which homes in neighborhoods were registered gun owners.  But the idiots, in doing so under the Freedom of Information Act, they also exposed unprotected home to criminals.

Each dot on this map shows a gun owner, but doesn’t include rifles or shotguns, only handguns.

AMI Global Security, which published an article condemning the “massive privacy breach” that is “meant to intimidate the lawful” and “abrogate the Bill of Rights,” collected a few of the first comments:

“If the homeowner is killed or injured, will LOHUD be charged as an accomplice to the crime?”

“It is as if they put out an ad to jewel thieves listing the names and addresses of where to find diamonds and cash.”

“This is CRAZY!! why in the world would you post every licensed gun owner information?? What do you hope to accomplish by doing this? This is the type of thing you do for sex offenders not law abiding gun owners. What next? should I hang a flag outside my house that says I own a gun?”

“Now everyone knows where the LEGAL GUNS are kept, a valuable piece of information for criminals. Why don’t you do something helpful, like trying to find out where the ILLEGAL GUNS are kept? That would be helpful to the non-criminal population”

The Blaze

AMI Global Security also added recent “threats from local government” with regard to guns.

So here you have it, government thugs and anti gunners trying to imply that law abiding citizens are criminals, for excercising their Constitutional rights.

And furthermore, last week Gov Cuomo said new legislation might be passed in New York, and confiscation may be an option…..I don’t think that will go over too well with “legal” gun owners.  It also must be noted that this isn’t the first time this newspaper pulled such a stunt.  Back in 2006 they only published names and municipalities– not exact street addresses.

This is what Obama and his Democrats want, divide a nation so he wins – an unarmed nation furthers his tyranny, and quest for power.  I say again, time for Obama, Feinstein, and his cronies to give up their armed protection, and make them at the mercy of criminals and nutcases, like everyone else would be.

Hmm, if something should happen because of this exposure, isn’t there a lawsuit in the making?

About these ads

6 Comments

  1. Janet

    Not to change the subject here but…..these anti gunners are lunatics. Now they want to go after “toy” guns….

    Fox News

  2. Janet

    Okay, and this one takes the cake too:

    Los Angeles offers groceries for guns in annual buyback

    Los Angeles police are offering groceries for guns in a buyback program that was moved up in the wake of the Connecticut tragedy.

    Fox News

  3. hobbit55z

    To a point, I agree with stronger regulations on toy guns. Many years ago, when I was 20, I was working as an armed guard at a bowling alley. As I was walking out to the parking lot I heard someone that kept yelling freeze. It was dark and all I could see was a couple of teenagers on the sidewalk under a street lamp and a black shadow under a tree between them and me. The shadow had what appeared to be a gun, pointing it at the teens and was telling them to freeze.

    As I exited the door I pulled my gun and worked my way closer to the figure under the tree. As I yelled for him to drop the gun, two school police officers joined me with their guns drawn and also yelled for him to drop the gun. They had been sitting in the restaurant of the bowling alley and seen me pull my gun as I exited.

    The shadow started turning towards us. Was like slow motion as he brought the gun around to our direction. All of us were within a split second of shooting when he seen us and dropped the gun.

    It was a ten-year-old boy with a toy gun. We were lucky that night. We were able to go home without carrying with us the guilt of having shot a child over a toy. Others, including police officers, have not been so lucky.

    After years of children being shot over toy guns, requirements started being put into place for flourescent tips on toy guns so they were easier identified. Unfortunately, not only the children, but even some parents, cover or cut off those flourescent ends.

    Frankly, I think they should make altering those tips a crime. Charge adults who do so with felony child endangerment. Maybe they’ll wake up.

  4. Janet

    Last summer here a police officerand his family stopped at a gas station I believe it was, to talk with someone he and his wife knew, and left their small children in the van with his loaded gun. The three year old got his hands on it and shot his sister, who died. The jury couldn’t reach a verdict, and the officer got off. Now he should have known better not to leave the gun where kids could get a hold of it….and it’s usually parents that do stupid things, that makes it bad for all sensible gun owners. Some say the officer got off too easily, others say he’s been punished enough….the point is, you can’t leave them lying loose today, as kids are inquisitive, and it’s not like in our day, we were told don’t touch, and that was it…..also, another point, parents today most often don’t teach their kids to leave the gun alone…..it’s a no win situation….bad when one is shot, but at the same time, gun advocates who always take the blame.

  5. hobbit55z

    Lot of people here though a Sheriff’s Deputy should have been prosecuted for laying his loaded gun down and turning his back on his 3 1/2 year old son, who picked it up and shot himself in the head. Most think the Deputy got off easy because his father was Sheriff at the time. The Deputy claimed he had just set the gun down and turned to take cleaning stuff from his wife. He knew his son was there, he shouldn’t have set it down.

    http://www.appeal-democrat.com/news/news-62624-breaking-sheriff.html

  6. Janet

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 557 other followers

%d bloggers like this: