Posted on 04/24/2005 2:28:30 PM PDT by FairOpinion
Despite dire predictions that America's streets would be awash in military-style guns, the expiration of the decade-long assault weapons ban in September has not set off a sustained surge in the weapons' sales, gun makers and sellers say. It also has not caused any noticeable increase in gun crime in the past seven months, according to several city police departments.
The uneventful expiration of the assault weapons ban did not surprise gun owners, nor did it surprise some advocates of gun control. Rather, it underscored what many of them had said all along: that the ban was porous - so porous that assault weapons remained widely available throughout their prohibition.
Assault weapons account for a small fraction of gun crimes: about 2 percent, according to most studies, and no more than 8 percent. But they have been used in many high-profile shooting sprees.
Gun crime has plummeted since the early 1990's. But a study for the National Institute of Justice said that it could not "clearly credit the ban with any of the nation's recent drop in gun violence."
(Excerpt) Read more at iht.com ...
And as much as I respect Bill Ruger, I'd still like to know the whole story involving him, former Senator Dennis DeConcini and the Mini-14 vis-a-vis the AWB---
Nope crime was never the issue, gun confiscation was.
The AW ban was never intended to be anything other than purely cosmetic, the liberals knew it when they passed it. But it brought attention to the anti-gun crowd, filled their coffers with funds and was designed to set the old media agenda for more draconian gun control to follow. Look at it as setting the stage for demonizing first 'bad black guns' then all guns. If you think back you will recall many of the gun control supporters said as much -- even that esteemed Dem Senator from CA who said she would have banned them all, but couldn't do it right now. Operative phrase 'right now'.
Then came 1994, the elections were a Democrat disaster and the AW ban was the cause. A bridge too far if you will.
Never lose sight that liberals need to disarm the public. It's simple really, they need to separate you from any responsibility for your actions. People control is the goal, gun control is just one prong of attack to achieve that end.
You might also want to note that CCW is a success in nearly 40 states, crime goes down. But not in CA where they continue to ban guns and crime goes up. Sooner or later the people in CA and other gun ban happy states will see the light. If they don't move.
It is not just the people, it is people who have been indoctrinated by the liberals to the woderful non-judgmental, moral relativism that teaches them their whole lives that the only thing right or wrong is what is right or wrong to you.
I wish they would! People kill people not guns. If you laid a loaded weapon on your coffee table in your home and left it for one hundred years and nobody touched it, nothing would happen.
Gee, that's strange. I saw it offered in Brownells for my son's assault sling-shot last month.
Anything over a .22cal round is armour piercing, and even a .22 can kill.
Secondly, I made her read the original bill, and see examples. She *the libertarian pacifist that she is* even understood that it was meant to ban the "scary guns" only.
Lastly, I mentioned that if a criminal wants a gun, they will get it, regardless of laws on the books.
I'm alway laugh when liberals are amazed when gun law retirements don't increase the crime rate. I'm sure many libs think that there is a direct correlation between the amount of guns and crime. I live in a part of the country, the midwest, where even most Democrats are gun lovers. If Left Coast and East Coast libs knew how many guns midwesterners have, they would most likely vomit up their soyburgers. And guess what? The crime rates around here are much lower than the big liberal cities.
Again, more of the lame stream media garbage....article says crime went down in the 1990's, suggesting the gun control laws had something to do with it, when actually it was the beginning of the three stikes and your out laws, that really lowered crime rates.
Of course the ever wrong, disgraced liberal press never mentions that fact....why??? Oh that's right, it was because they were rabidly against the three strikes laws.
So now, showing there true lying colors, they attempt to link gun control (that has never worked) with a reduction in crime, when in reality it was the three strike laws.
Toooooo funnny. What a bunch of morons and losers.
Yes, and the extended magazine ban decreased crime just about as much as limiting cans of beer to 6 ounces would have decreased alcholism.
It seems that liberals have to "do something" even if they don't understand the nature of the problem.
>>>And as much as I respect Bill Ruger, I'd still like to know the whole story involving him, former Senator Dennis DeConcini and the Mini-14 vis-a-vis the AWB---<<<
could you explain this further for me? i just bought a mini-14 and you have me curious...
Gee, wasn't that about the time the first conceal carry laws went into effect?
a) DeConcini was one of the original movers and shakers on the AWB import ban under Bush 1 and then, IIRC, on the next one
b)Ruger put a manufacturing facility in Arizona about this time,
c)Ruger was quoted in one of the gun magazines as saying"we've got to save our little gun",
d)the Mini-14 has escaped any bans while the AR-15 went in,
and e)???????????
---and Ruger attempted to do some legislative trading by supporting the large cap mag ban at one point , also---
Bill Ruger didn't know when to keep his mouth shut. It's the same as when a Freeper says, "I don't know why they are after the Barrett .50 when my [fill in the blank] does as much damage". He didn't understand why they wanted to ban the guns when all they had to do was ban the high capacity magazines.
Bottom line is the libs wrote the law to ban military guns and the Mini-14 didn't look like a current military weapon no more than the M1A did.
Please join the NRA and if you are already a member, put the initials in your tagline. We're going to need all the members we can to stop the next ban.
Fortunately the NRA membership is at an all time high, but you are right, it can never be too high, more members allow them to do more. Without them we may have lost our 2nd Amendment rights long ago.
"The NRA is riding a wave of success, and membership is at an all-time high of about 4 million."
http://www.theiowachannel.com/news/4385998/detail.html
It wasn't a dud. It cost gun grabbing DemocRATS control of the House, according to Bill Clinton. As much as I hated it, that alone made it worth the infringement on the RKBA.
It wasn't a dud. I twas a lie. Just another lefty lie!
thanks to both of you.
seems any common military ammo is also on the hit list... my guess it is because the rounds are cheap and plentiful. if they can't keep the guns away.. maybe they can control the ammo... ?
and who would even want a semi if you can't have at least a 30 rnd clip? might as well go for a bolt then...
it's all hog wash..
btw... the mini was my anniversary present from the hubby this year! LOL
I just got a cool new nail gun and a compressor. If that counts. :o)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.