Animal’s Daily Assault Weapons News

From The Complete Colorado’s Jay Stookesberry:  Research Refutes “Assault Weapons Bans, Buybacks.”  Read the whole thing, of course, but meanwhile:  Excerpts, with my comments:

For example, consider one such proposal that is currently on display via a billboard in Grand Junction: ban assault weapons. Fortunately, we have the benefit of hindsight for this specific proposal because we tried it before. In 1994, a ten-year prohibition on the manufacture, possession, and transfer of certain “semiautomatic assault weapons” was signed into law.

Except it wasn’t a ban on those rifles; no, it made even less sense than that.  It was a ban on certain cosmetic features of those rifles; gun makers quickly started selling “post-ban” models with no flash suppressors and bayonet lugs, which made them perfectly legal.

And bayonet lugs?  Serious?  Bayonet lugs?  Fucking bayonet lugs?  When was the last time you heard of a drive-by bayoneting?  I suppose all those opposing street gangs fixing bayonets and closing to hand-to-hand range promoted that particular piece of stupidity.

And what was the result of this ban? The bill mostly targeted the cosmetic qualities of these weapons — restrictions which manufacturers circumvented by altering production so that the banned elements were excluded. But even without these loopholes, the ban’s impact on violence would have been minimal. A Justice Department report examining the impact of the ban was underwhelming at best. “Should it be renewed, the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement,” the report states.

That rates a huge “no shit, Sherlock.”

The report goes on to explain that the law’s larger impact on overall gun violence was minimal, because the banned weapons were rarely involved in criminal acts in the first place. According to the FBI, rifles — a broader category that lumps together your grandpappy’s hunting rifle with military-style rifles — constitute an average of 340 homicides per year. Though any loss of life is tragic, these numbers don’t exactly rise to the occasion in solving what is commonly characterized as a national epidemic.

Remember that number.  340 homocides a year committed with any manner of rifle.  Now remember a particularly stupid statement issued recently by the Irish tortilla from El Paso, Beta O’Rourke.

But this debate isn’t about just any old rifle, right? The scope of this debate is often targets one specific style of the rifle: the infamous AR-15.

Yup, the AR-15 – of which I have a copy, and Mrs. Animal has a copy.

But here’s the real peach of the piece (emphasis added by me):

Again, analysis regarding the AR-15 — the so-called “weapon of choice” of mass shooters — produces less-than-impressive numbers. Between 2007 and 2018, 173 people were killed by mass shooters using an AR-15, according to a New York Times analysis — roughly, 15 per year. (For perspective, 13 people die per year from vending machines falling on them.) The fearmongering regarding this weapon becomes even more apparent when one considers the estimated 8 million AR-15s currently in circulation — the vast majority of which will never be involved in a crime.

Remember that bit, True Believers, and use it (hah) liberally.  You are, statistically, almost as likely to be killed by a vending machine as by a mass shooter with an AR-15.

I can add nothing to that.  Nothing.