[quote]Now let’s look at the shaded region on the plot, which is the time the Orwellian-named “Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act”, i.e. “‘Assault’3 Weapons Ban”, was in force, from 13 September 1994 until the same date in 2004. [u]There does not appear to be much correlation between this ban and the homicide rate: homicides both decrease and increase during the time which it was in force.[/u][/quote]
Much more at the link above. [b][u]In short, the 1994 assault weapons ban accomplished nothing[/u][/b] that can be discerned from looking at various trends in violent crimes.
And yet we're being told that it is the solution (to what problem?).
*sigh*
-
The first ban absolutely had a positive effect. Of course that was back in the 20's... Nowadays? Its hard to say. The AR-15 design is certainly the gun of choice for the rampage shooter. In the last 5 shootings, its been in 3 or 4 of them. That said, people are more likely to be killed by MULTIPLE lightening strikes than be killed in a mass shooting. To my knowledge we have yet to attempt to ban lightening storms... What I would like to see is a study on why a certain type of individual does a rampage shooting, and then see what steps we can do at a societal level to prevent that. When someone flips out, they hurt people. A firearm just allows them to hurt more, and more fatally. Rather than mitigate the damage, I'd like to go to the cause and solve the problem. If you live in near a river that floods, you can waterproof your house (the equivalent of banning assault weapons) or you can build a dam by the river (solving rampage incidents). Though, I would also like a dial back in the rhetoric on both sides of the debate. When Sandy Hook happened it seemed like there was a race between the NRA and Congressional Democrats as to who could say the dumbest thing quickest. I don't remember who won, if it was the "Arm everybody" or "Ban everything" camp, as if it made a difference.