Every month or two someone posts the whole “Mass shootings dropped X amount after the ‘94 ban, and increased Y amount after it was repealed”. Tempting correlation, but probably bullshit. Why? The ‘94 ban only affected sales of newly manufactured rifles with certain combinations of cosmetic features. A basic AR-15 with a full length barrel was legal to make, sell, and own throughout the ban. High-capacity magazines were widely available. AR-15 sales went up during the ban’s lifetime.
1/2
Why do I care? First, it is intellectually disingenuous. Second, I actually support an updated (and effective) ban. The problem is that Congress loves to pretend to do things. If we’re gonna go through the hassle of an assault weapons ban, let’s actually do it this time. None of this “oh yeah, this sucker is pre-ban” bullshit at the gun show. 2/2.
I also support an effective ban on assault weapons.
One path to such a ban could be nationalizing the U.S. gun industry.
@mcnado My experience with assault weapons bans is with the California version. The 10-round magazine limit has done some good, but the rest is performative BS. You can buy “featured” or “featureless” rifles that are roughly equivalent in lethality to the rifles you can buy in most other states. Is there a way to ban assault rifles that’s not just banning “ugly features?”
@schof the proposals I have seen that I think would work ban semiauto long arms with pistol grips and a detachable magazine, or just ban any semi-auto long arm with a detachable magazine or integrated high capacity magazine. Sure, you can shoot up a school with an M1 garand, but it’s a lot harder. Won’t solve gun violence (which is almost all handguns) but it would probably decrease the lethality of mass shootings. Add a ban on semi-auto handguns and you get somewhere.
@mcnado You would really have to ban semi-automatic weapons which nobody is actually advocating. Here’s multiple ways of getting around a pistol grip ban: https://www.pewpewtactical.com/featureless-ar-15-rifle/
@schof it’s all in how you write the law. If it were me, I would start with simply making it illegal to posses a semi-auto anything until age 25, which would shut down many of these events, and a huge number of other shootings. That said, without adding in a buyback program, there is the problem of a few hundred thousand rifles that are already out there.
@mcnado I think it would have to be all semi-automatic weapons or it’s just gadgets you can bolt to your gun to get around the law. Not sure there’s a political appetite for that. I’d give up my semi-auto weapons if it stopped school shooting. I don’t have any problems I can’t solve in 6 shots.
@mcnado Okay, that’s fair. What about the part where the shootings increased when the ban was lifted. That still good? Or no?
@Catawu the problem is that the two events are probably unrelated. The phenomenon here of people killing entire classrooms of kindergarteners with an assault rifle needs to stop, and after two decades of various pathetic failures, the obvious solution is a meaningful ban on assault rifles. If we reinstated the ‘94 ban in full, it wouldn’t do that because it didn’t actually ban them. There have been some better proposals out there.
@mcnado Something has to be done. So far, you are correct, we are being fed cosmetic “solutions” based on flawed logic.
@Catawu absolutely! There have been some good bills drafted. Colorado almost passed one a year ago that would pretty well have banned new sales and transfers. Hard sell in the US, and harder now that uncertain times are upon us.
@mcnado My suggestion would be a very high tax on ammunition. But only if removed from shooting ranges and designated hunting areas.
You want to take bullets home? That's an extra ten bucks each cartridge.
I think it is the insurance industry that could solve this problem. If we could more reasonably put the liabilty of the consequences of gun ownership onto people who own guns, it will get figured out quickly.