Stanford law professor John Donohue claims to have discovered evidence that the 1994 federal ban on so-called assault weapons "really did work," because mass shootings and the deaths caused by them declined while the law was in effect, then rose afterward. But the methodology Donohue used is suspiciously selective, and his results do not show what he thinks they do. [More]Did he factor in the "costs" of confiscation?
[Via Mack H]
1 comment:
I cal1 Bravo Sierra.
1. The "ban" didn't remove a single "assault weapon" or "large capacity ammunition feeding device" from civilian hands. They were all grandfathered in. In other words, there were at least as many in circulation after the ban took effect as there were before.
2. Manufacturers of both of the types of banned categories, both firearms and magazines, ran their plants at capacity for the months after the ban was suggested and prior to its effective date. Because they were manufactured before the effective dates, and already in retail channels, they were not affected in the least by the ban on manufacture of new ones. In some cases, those "pre-ban" but legal to sell items were still being sold new when the ban expired ten years later. In other words, obviously there were an increasing number of banned items in circulation throughout the 10 years the ban was in effect. These pre-ban models in the retail pipeline were grandfathered in as well. So how the actual "frack" did an increased number of guns and magazines in circulation result in a decrease of incidents?
3. Consider the "Colt Sporter" for just a moment. The pre-ban model, which became classified as an "assault weapon", had a bayonet lug and a flash hider. The post-ban model, which Colt continued to sell for the duration of the ban, had neither. But in every respect, the post-ban model was just as lethal as the pre-ban version, BUT IT WAS NOT CLASSIFIED AS AN ASSAULT WEAPON! Again, in other words, if someone had shot up Times Square on New Year's Eve with a post-ban Sporter, the event would technically not have counted as a crime committed with one of the banned weapons. I'm sure the bean counters would have overlooked the distinction and counted it as one anyway.
So, for the 10 years the ban was in place, 1994-2004, the number of supposedly banned weapons and magazines in civilian hands INCREASED, yet, per the anti-gun folks, the ban resulted in fewer incidents involving them.
How do they explain it?
Post a Comment