Why Gun Control Groups Have Moved Away from an Assault Weapons Ban

[VScott]

They'll still never learn though.

If by some slim chance they do manage to get UBC legislation passed, an AWB and mag
limits will be back at the top of their list.

The morning after the Sandy Hook shootings, Shannon Watts, a mother of five and a former public relations executive, started a Facebook page called “One Million Moms for Gun Control.” It proved wildly popular and members quickly focused on renewing the federal ban on military style assault weapons.

“We all were outraged about the fact that this man could use an AR-15, which seemed like a military grade weapon, and go into an elementary school and wipe out 26 human beings in less than five minutes,” Watts said.

Nearly two years later, Watts works full-time as the head of the group, now named Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, is a significant player in a coalition financed by former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg. But while polls suggest a majority of Americans still support an assault weapons ban, it is no longer one of Watts’ top priorities.

“We’ve very much changed our strategy to focus on public safety measures that will save the most lives,” she told ProPublica.

It’s not just that the ban proved to be what Watts calls a “nonstarter” politically, gaining fewer votes in the Senate post-Sandy Hook than background check legislation. It was also that as Watts spoke to experts and learned more about gun violence in the United States, she realized that pushing for a ban isn’t the best way to prevent gun deaths.

A 2004 Justice Department-funded evaluation found no clear evidence that the decade-long ban saved any lives. The guns categorized as “assault weapons” had only been used in about 2 percent of gun crimes before the ban. “Should it be renewed,” the report concluded, “the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement.”

http://www.valuewalk.com/2014/09/gun-control-assault-weapons/

[upaloopa]

1. As soon as we have a sugar daddy like you have

the NRA and the gun lobby there will be a ban.
You act as if people don't want it. You are hiding behind industry money nothing more.

[NYC_SKP]

2. Feinstein study: AWB increased sales of "military style" rifles. From Sen. Feinstein's page:

.

Now isn't that a hoot. She and her ilk and their ill-conceived ban GREW SALES of that type of rifle.

Every time hoplophobes move to restrict, they bump up sales.

Hell, manufacturers don't need the NRA with banners all about.

http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/files/serve/?File_id=b531daeb-a954-41f8-a21c-268cceccb4c4

[ncjustice80]

3. Thats becuasr of stupid loopholes allowing ones in circulation to remain so.e

They should have instead simply outlawed them- make it a serious felony to own one, and all but a fww fringe nutcases would get rid of them.

[krispos42]

4. Except that it's very problematic unless you make a blanket ban

An "assault weapon" is a regular gun (rifle, shotgun, or handgun) with "assault" features.

Note the following two facts, if you would


Fact 1: a quote from the original post.

The morning after the Sandy Hook shootings, Shannon Watts, a mother of five and a former public relations executive, started a Facebook page called “One Million Moms for Gun Control.” It proved wildly popular and members quickly focused on renewing the federal ban on military style assault weapons.

The implication is that the expiration of the Federal AWB allowed the sale of the rifle used in the Newtown shooting. Right?


Now, fact #2.

Connecticut is the 3rd state in the union to enact an AWB, in 1993, a year before the Federal ban took effect. And being State law, it did not expire in 2004 when the Federal ban did. On the day the AR-15 was purchased, new and legally, in 2009 from a federally-licensed gun dealer, there was an AWB in effect in Connecticut. On the day the AR-15 was the tool used by a deranged child-murderer, three years later, that same AWB was still in effect in Connecticut.

The AR-15 used in Newtown was not an "assault weapon"; it didn't have the features that turn a regular rifle (or shotgun, or handgun) into an "assault weapon". It was a legal semi-automatic rifle.




The only way to ban ALL AR-15s and AK-47s, would be a blanket ban on semi-automatic (self-loading) rifles. This would also ensnare all other semi-automatic rifles, like SKSs, M-1 Garands, Ruger Mini-14s, M-1 Carbines, M-1As, and others.


If you don't do that, what are you trying to do? What makes an AR-15 an AR-15? How many minor changes to the design would have to be made in order for it to NOT be an AR-15?

[Duckhunter935]

9. got awful quiet

I guess there is no response to logic.

[ncjustice80]

12. Lol sorry Im just not a tireless rebutter.

There are reams of evidence that gun control works. I don t know why people think they need military grade assault weapons

[Duckhunter935]

13. you mean like my 1926 Mosin bolt action rifle?

As my AR-15 is not military grade, but it does have a pistol grip for safety and the dreaded bayonet lug. Those lugs are very dangerous indeed.

[IronGate]

14. I don't know why you have a need to know why people

want to own semi auto weapons.

[friendly_iconoclast]

17. "There are reams of evidence that gun control works" Yes, but not the kind *you* want

The example of Mexico shows that draconian bans have very little effect

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

27. Gun control is a myth

Only those that respect the law are subject to any real control.

[oneshooter]

29. I do not own "military grade assault weapons"I have M1 Garands. n/t

[ncjustice80]

31. Wasn t the M1 the standard issue weapon of the US military in WW2?

How is that *not* military grade???

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

32. I'd say...

...it used to be military grade but doesn't fir the definition of 'assault weapon'. Unless there's been a change to what an 'assault weapon' is and that seems to change with the (wait for it)... whim.

[Straw Man]

33. The Springfield rifled musket was the standard issue weapon of the US military in the Civil War.

How is THAT not "military grade?" ((( shruggy little emoticon )))

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

34. better get these off the market

https://www.readymaderesources.com/cart/freeze-dried-dehydrated-misc-foods-32-60-off-on-mountain-house-food/hamburger-patties-freeze-dried-25-year-self-life-free-shipping/prod_5512.html

They're military.

[oneshooter]

36. Post#32 answers your question.

It has no removable magazine, is not black, does not have a folding stock nor a flash hider and does not fire a low/mid powered cartridge. It does have a bayonet mount, and the standard length blade issued was 14" long.

[jeepnstein]

38. And you can shoot at 600+ yards with one.

The M1 Garand is a very formidable weapon. Just because it doesn't look like an AR doesn't mean it wasn't built for serious fighting. Of course by today's standards they are kind of quaint looking with their wooden stocks. I suppose that counts in some circles.

[oneshooter]

39. but it is NOT an "assault weapon/rifle. n/t

[IronGate]

30. Welcome back. nt.

[benEzra]

37. "Military grade assault weapons" (e.g. select-fire) have been banned since 1986

and tightly controlled before that going back to 1934...well before select-fire, intermediate-caliber automatic rifles were even invented.

My AR isn't a "military grade" anything; it is a non-automatic civilian rifle, and not a very powerful one at that; most AR's are centerfire .22's, as is mine. AR-15's don't fire any faster than any other civilian self-loading rifle, or than any civilian pistol, and rifles are the least misused class of guns in the United States. Heck, they're the least misused of *all* weapons in this country.

They also happen to be one of the most common rifles in U.S. homes, and have been the top selling rifle in America for many years (going back to the late 1990s/early 2000s, during the Feinstein non-ban that ironically helped make them so popular). So no, a ban isn't going to fly.

As to why own them? Target shooting, recreational plinking, 3-gun and USPSA/IPSC style competition, and home defense, mostly. Most are a bit underpowered for deer hunting, though larger-caliber variants can be used for deer and elk, and there are numerous hunting variants on the market (e.g. the Remington R-25).

[spin]

15. It was impossible to totally outlaw semiautomatic firearms. Also I know a good number of ...

gun owners who are not "fringe nutcases" who would never turn in their semiautomatic weapons.

If there is any suggestion that a law would pass that would ban and confiscate firearms, a shrewd investor might buy stock in companies that make PVC pipe and cosmoline grease. Instructions on how to make a weapons cache are easy to find on the net. For example in less than30 seconds I found this page:

Caching Weapons for Long Term Storage
December 20, 2012 by Great Northern Prepper
http://www.greatnorthernprepper.com/caching-weapons-for-long-term-storage/

Of course first it would be necessary to pass a law requiring national registration of all firearms. Many gun owners would simply refuse to register their weapons and it would be impossible to determine who owned what firearms. Canada tried to set up such a national registration system and it proved a colossal failure.

1/22/2013 @ 10:31AM
Canada Tried Registering Long Guns -- And Gave Up

One persistent suggestion in the post-Newtown conversation about gun control is a law requiring the registration of all guns, even so-called “long guns” like the rifle Adam Lanza used in the school killings. Lost in the discussion: Canada tried it and gave up, discovering like several other nations that attempting to identify every gun in the country is an expensive and ultimately unproductive exercise. Criminals, of course, don’t register their guns. And even law-abiding citizens tend to ignore registration when it comes to long guns mostly used for hunting and target shooting.

***snip***

The bigger lesson of Canada’s experiment, Mauser says, is that gun registration rarely delivers the results proponents expect. In most countries the actual number registered settles out at about a sixth. Germany required registration during the Baader-Meinhof reign of terror in the 1970s, and recorded 3.2 million of the estimated 17 million guns in that country; England tried to register pump-action and semiautomatic shotguns in the 1980s, but only got about 50,000 of the estimated 300,000 such guns stored in homes around the country
http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2013/01/22/canada-tried-registering-long-guns-and-gave-up/

[Straw Man]

19. Stupid loopholes?

Thats becuasr of stupid loopholes allowing ones in circulation to remain so.

Those "stupid loopholes" are arguably an eminent domain issue, since such a ban with no grandfathering would represent a "taking" of private property -- legally acquired, by the way -- for a public purpose: "public safety," in this instance. According to the Fifth Amendment, this would require "just compensation" for the property taken.

How much would this cost? A conservative estimate suggests that there are half to three-quarters of a million AR-style rifles alone.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2012/12/20/assault_rifle_stats_how_many_assault_rifles_are_there_in_america.html

This figure is only from companies that make this style of rifle exclusively. Add in AR-style rifles that are part of a more diverse line by makers such as Ruger, S&W, etc., as well as AK-pattern rifles, then HK and SIG models, etc., and we're talking about several millions. Shall we just say 3 million for arguments sake? Market prices would be in the $500 to $2000 range. Let's say $1000 to keep things simple.

Three billion dollars to buy back weapons that account for fewer fatalities per year than hands, fists, and feet?

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/tables/20tabledatadecpdf/table_20_murder_by_state_types_of_weapons_2012.xls

Does that make sense to you?

[ncjustice80]

21. They had no problem outlawing drugs but I don t aee amyone getting compensated.

[Straw Man]

22. Drugs being a consumable, ...

... one would assume that ample lead time before the law took effect would obviate the need for the government to confiscate anything that was legally acquired prior to the law being passed. "Smoke it now, because it's going to be illegal soon."

Obviously, anything acquired after the law was passed would be contraband by definition, and no compensation would be due.

[beevul]

25. "They had no problem outlawing drugs..."

"They had no problem outlawing drugs..."

And that drug war is just going so swimmingly, isn't it?

[blueridge3210]

26. Well, if you're building prisons, yes.

Or selling overpriced car insurance to people with drug charges; or running DUI Schools for people with drug charges. Otherwise, maybe not so well.

[VScott]

23. And, those numbers don't include sales of stripped and 80% receivers

That alone is a pretty sizable market.

2 of my 3 AR's and 2 of my 3 AK's are home builds from stripped receivers.

[benEzra]

28. That link says just under 4 million AR's, if I read it right...

How much would this cost? A conservative estimate suggests that there are half to three-quarters of a million AR-style rifles alone.

That link says just under 4 million AR's in U.S. homes, not 1/2 to 3/4 million. I've also seen a figure of five million AR's currently in U.S. homes kicked around.

Add to that all the other "assault weapons" (I've seen the number of SKS's in U.S. hands put at seven million several years ago, after all the years you could buy them for $60-$80), plus all the M1As, M1 carbines, Garands, Mini-14's/Thirtys, Kel-Tecs, Hi Points, etc. that have also been targeted by AWB's this decade. Add to that half a billion to a billion over-10-round magazines manufactured and in private hands since the 1860s (or since the early 1900s if you limit it to detachables), including the majority of full-size 9mm's ever manufactured.

I don't think a lot of AWB/mag ban advocates understand the magnitude of what they are trying to outlaw.

[friendly_iconoclast]

5. You have a backer worth 33 billion dollars (Bloomberg). Why isn't that enough?

Several reasons come to mind:

A: He isn't supporting you near as much as he'd like you to think he is,

or

B: Your "assault weapon ban" is not as popular as you think it is,

or

C: Some combination of A & B, which would be my guess

[Lurks Often]

6. You have Bloomberg, the Joyce Foundation, Bill Gates and you think you don't have the rich

on your side?

You can't seem to comprehend that it isn't money that gets the voters out against gun control politicians, but that most gun owners are single issue voters.

It seems that the courts, the state legislatures and Congress don't seem to be on your side

[IronGate]

8. Wishful thinking.

But good luck with your wish.

[Duckhunter935]

10. Bloombergs worth billions

way more than the NRA can even think of having. That is a pretty good sugar daddy you have there.

[Eleanors38]

11. Actually, a more salient reason the "ban" won't be pursued:

The semi-auto carbine -- even with its skimpy, lurid accutrements -- is relentlessly replacing the older bolt-action military cast-offs with a less obsolete type within the civilian population. It is becoming the new hunting/cheap-ammo sport/ SD rifle. The banners see this, and go for the low-hanging fruit: Safety. Yet even here, they are playing catch-up, since campaigns centered on safe storage are dramatically reducing gun-related accidental mortality rates. And it is gun-owners who are leading the way. "Me too" is all they can muster.

As for funding, you don't have to like the NRA, or hate it to an obsession, to recognize it has millions of members making millions of dollars in donations. And you don't have to be blinded by the billionaire's light to see millions more who show up to vote, primarily on this issue.

[Straw Man]

16. Bloomberg's fortune dwarfs the NRA's assets.

And now you can add Bill Gates's billions to the prohibitionists' bankroll.

At some point you're going to have to stop whining about the "big money" that the NRA commands. It simply isn't true.

[friendly_iconoclast]

18. We are dealing with another example of "false consensus effect"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False-consensus_effect

Since those that have it don't recognize that they have it, they occasionally resort
to far-fetched (if not downright ludicrous) explanations for why their 'popular' cause
isn't actually popular at all.

Hence the claim that a cause backed by two of the richest guys on the planet
is somehow lacking for money...

[pablo_marmol]

20. LMAO -- "sugar daddy"

President Obama's campaigns: Funded primarily by numerous small individual donations and a few large ones -- righteous grassroots effort.

NRA: Funded primarily by numerous small individual donations and a few large ones -- evil gun lobby.



The reason that folks like you don't have to open their wallets is because megamedia is in the bag for control, as well as the Joyce Foundation, Bloomberg, Gates, etc. etc. etc. There's your lobby.

Talk about getting is exactly backwards!

[Taitertots]

40. So your complaint is that other groups are too popular and too well funded

[ileus]

7. That's why every payday I invest in more pmags.

One of these days these sick regressives will pull the wool over the people (or just go around them like in Co and NY)and get some kind of shitty ban.

[beevul]

24. "she realized that pushing for a ban isn’t the best way to prevent gun deaths."

Last edited Thu Sep 11, 2014, 01:57 PM - Edit history (1)

"she realized that pushing for a ban isn’t the best way to prevent gun deaths."

Yeah, it appears instead, they chose to target the sales of all guns when and where her crooked little group can:

Moms Demand Action Deeply Disappointed in Federal Judge’s Decision Overturning Chicago’s Citywide Ban on Gun Dealerships

Grassroots Movement Outraged on Behalf of Gun Violence Victims in Chicago

U.S. District Judge Edmond Chang has ruled that Chicago’s ordinance prohibiting licensed gun stores from operating in the city is unconstitutional. The court’s decision reportedly cited the city’s failure to prove that banning licensed gun dealers has a significant impact in reducing gun violence. The ruling would also decriminalize many private transfers of firearms between individuals inside city limits.

Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America is shocked that in a densely populated city struggling to keep children safe from gunfire, the court has dealt a serious blow to public safety by essentially encouraging more citizens to arm themselves. We firmly believe that loosening gun legislation is a step in the wrong direction, and we echo the Mayor of Chicago, Rahm Emanuel, who ‘strongly disagrees’ with this ruling and said in a statement yesterday, “we need stronger gun safety laws, not increased access to firearms within the city.”

In the context of federal loopholes that already make it too easy for criminals to obtain firearms, cities must be allowed to enact local ordinances to curb gun violence, such as Chicago’s ban on gun dealing. Despite the gun lobby’s efforts to chip away at common-sense regulations, we support a city’s right to regulate businesses that profit from selling guns.

Moms Demand Action will support and work with local officials and law enforcement to appeal this ruling. Despite the forces of the DC-based gun lobby to wield influence in Illinois, we will ultimately persevere alongside community leaders who continue the struggle to reduce gun violence in Chicago.

http://momsdemandaction.org/in-the-news/moms-demand-action-deeply-disappointed-federal-judges-decision-overturning-chicagos-citywide-ban-gun-dealerships/

Nothing to see, nothing to hear, move along, and pay no attention next time the demanding moms try to suppress a Democratic fundraiser:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=143122

[NYC_SKP]

35. Adding a link to the Cindy Horn story linked in your other reply.

That link goes to a story that's no longer available at that URL.

This is, I think, the same story:

http://variety.com/2014/biz/news/gun-control-groups-urge-cancellation-of-hollywood-fundraiser-for-mark-begich-and-mark-pryor-1201141065/