QUESTION: Is there any evidence that letting the AWB expire...

[FatSlob]

will make America more dangerous?

[billbuckhead]

1. All other similar nations to USA have one and are safer

Seems pretty much cut and dried.

[MrBenchley]

3. Can't imagine how

putting dangerous weapons in stores can possibly not increase public danger...

[FatSlob]

4. What countries?

I know of no country that has a ban similar to ours. As I am sure you know, the ban covers:

1. Flash Reducers
2. Adjustable stocks
3. Barrel threads
4. Bayonet/bipod lug
5. Magazine capacity

The addition of which feature will make us more unsafe?

[Wickerman]

6. Phew, glad we got the definition out of the way

we were approaching 5 posts and no had clarified what the AWB entalied. I was breaking into a cold sweat, I tell ya.

[MrBenchley]

7. It's amazing, isn't it....

[FatSlob]

8. Bill evidently didn't know, so I had to inform him.

Remember, we are talking about a SPECIFIC piece of legislation here.

edit to fix spelling.

[Wickerman]

9. understood, I was glad to see it up

otherwise we seem to dissolve into a 100 post thread of what ignoramuses each other are because we know/don't know or care of what the AWB ban is comprised.

I think in the future I a might just lock anything AWB related that doesn't contain your little definition of the AWB.

[FatSlob]

11. Good Idea.

[MrSandman]

40. Hey, that would make a good poll...

Count me as "Don't Care what is banned" or not banned, or restricted, or, well, you see I don't care what.

Still a good way to lose House seats.

[iverglas]

10. so?

I know of no country that has a ban similar to ours.

Who was talking about countries with a ban similar to yours?

What was said was:

All other similar nations to USA have one and are safer

(where we all know perfectly well, of course, that "similar to the US" means industrialized, capitalist, "western").

I've repeatedly offered all the info you can eat about what's "banned" in Canada (actually, it's "restricted", but the effect is similar to what's called a "ban" where you're at, I'd say, at least with respect to new items, in the US).

Canada's law refers to regulations, which list firearms by name, on a list of what are called "restricted firearms". The law doesn't rely on listing tricky combos of features that have to be checked to see whether "firearm X" is permitted or not.

But I think you'd find that firearms that have the features you list are on Canada's list. Just a different approach in the US - maybe not the one I'd pick, but I just don't see this huge problem. You could ban citrus fruit by making a list of the names of citrus fruit, or by banning things that have thick skins and internal seeds with no core and juicy pulp. Same net effect, seems to me.

Now, maybe your point was that these other countries' "bans" go farther than the US's ban. Hey, good point. We're safer, and we have even tougher bans. Random coincidence, anyone?


The addition of which feature will make us more unsafe?

Haven't we answered this one already?

The one mass murder by firearm in Canada that I'm familiar with -- when Marc Lépine killed 14 women and injured 14 other people at the engineering school of the University of Montreal in 1995 -- was committed with ... hold on, I've got the coroner's report right here ... there we are, a Sturm Ruger mini-14. After he'd killed himself, the police found an empty 5-cartridge magazine and 2 empty 30-cartridge magazines. Who knows ... if he'd had to stop to reload after 5 (the limit imposed by Canadian law after that event, along with the firearm in question being made "restricted"), there might be a few people alive today who aren't.

There sure haven't been any mass murders by firearm since then, anyhow.

Seems there haven't been in the UK or Australia since they instituted their new firearms controls, either.


(edited to add omitted word)

[FatSlob]

12. Don't split hairs, you know what was meant.

Please,don't be so obnoxious about it, either. We all know of your lawyerly skills, you don't need to exercise them.

This is a discussion of the AWB in the United States, therefore, since no other countries have a ban similar to ours, they are not relevant to the conversation. We are discussing the law in the United States.

[MrBenchley]

13. In other words, Iverglas showed up fat slob

and he's huffy now....

[FatSlob]

28. Just went back and read what I wrote.

Sorry about the obnoxious thing. That wasn't very nice of me.

[Jack_DeLeon]

14. So what happens when...

a company changes the name of a firearm, or another company makes the same firearm but calls it something different.

Canada's law refers to regulations, which list firearms by name, on a list of what are called "restricted firearms". The law doesn't rely on listing tricky combos of features that have to be checked to see whether "firearm X" is permitted or not.

[iverglas]

15. is that what's called lobbing a soft pitch?

So what happens when...
a company changes the name of a firearm,
or another company makes the same firearm
but calls it something different.

The regulations get changed by adding the (new) name of the (new) firearm.

Thank you, thank you.

Regulations are made thus. They are prepared by the experts in the relevant govt. dept. -- experts both in the subject matter and in legislative drafting. They are published in draft form in the Canada Gazette, the official record of govt. activities, with "explanatory notes", and comment is invited. They are finalized, and submitted to whoever has the authority, under the legislation in question, to make the regulations in question: the relevant Minister, or the "Governor in Council" (which means the Prime Minister and the federal cabinet).

Here, once again, is the legislation that confers the regulatory authority (the Criminal Code of Canada); and actually, the legislation does contain definitions of "prohibited" and "restricted" firearms that aren't entirely regulation-dependent:

http://www.canlii.org/ca/sta/c-46/sec84.html

"prohibited firearm" means

(a) a handgun that

(i) has a barrel equal to or less than 105 mm in length, or
(ii) is designed or adapted to discharge a 25 or 32 calibre cartridge,

but does not include any such handgun that is prescribed, where the handgun is for use in international sporting competitions governed by the rules of the International Shooting Union,

(b) a firearm that is adapted from a rifle or shotgun, whether by sawing, cutting or any other alteration, and that, as so adapted,

(i) is less than 660 mm in length, or
(ii) is 660 mm or greater in length and has a barrel less than 457 mm in length,

(c) an automatic firearm, whether or not it has been altered to discharge only one projectile with one pressure of the trigger, or

(d) any firearm that is prescribed to be a prohibited firearm;


"restricted firearm" means

(a) a handgun that is not a prohibited firearm,

(b) a firearm that

(i) is not a prohibited firearm,
(ii) has a barrel less than 470 mm in length, and
(iii) is capable of discharging centre-fire ammunition in a semi-automatic manner,

(c) a firearm that is designed or adapted to be fired when reduced to a length of less than 660 mm by folding, telescoping or otherwise, or

(d) a firearm of any other kind that is prescribed to be a restricted firearm;

"Prescribed" means "set out in regulations".

http://www.canlii.org/ca/sta/c-46/sec117.15.html

PART III FIREARMS AND OTHER WEAPONS
General
Regulations

117.15 (1) Subject to subsection (2), the Governor in Council may make regulations prescribing anything that by this Part is to be or may be prescribed.

Restriction

(2) In making regulations, the Governor in Council may not prescribe any thing to be a prohibited firearm, a restricted firearm, a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device or prohibited ammunition if, in the opinion of the Governor in Council, the thing to be prescribed is reasonable for use in Canada for hunting or sporting purposes.

Then the "prescribed" restricted firearms are listed here:

http://www.canlii.org/ca/regu/sor98-462/whole.html
"Regulations Prescribing Certain Firearms and other Weapons, Components and Parts of Weapons, Accessories, Cartridge Magazines, Ammunition and Projectiles as Prohibited or Restricted"

2. The firearms listed in Part 1 of the schedule are prohibited firearms for the purposes of paragraph (d) of the definition "prohibited firearm" in subsection 84(1) of the Criminal Code.

3. The firearms listed in Part 2 of the schedule are restricted firearms for the purposes of paragraph (d) of the definition "restricted firearm" in subsection 84(1) of the Criminal Code.

If you look in those parts of the schedule at that link, you'll see the long list of names of prohibited and restricted firearms.

[iverglas]

16. just a clarification for anyone legally metrically challenged

I don't know whether you folks measure firearm thingies in inches or millimetres. For ease of conversion (1 inch = 25.4 mm):

105 mm = 4.13 in

457 mm = 18 in

470 mm = 18.5 in

660 mm = 30 26 in

Duh, read my calculator wrong.

[Jack_DeLeon]

17. So they have to go through the whole...

legislative process again to update the law?

How long does this usually take.

Also what happens if someone owns a weapon that is later "banned."

In the US its still legal to own "pre-ban" stuff, how about up there?

[iverglas]

20. well, you tell me

Are the things listed in the schedule in the regulations not covered by the definitions in the legislation? I haven't a clue, since I have no need to. I mean, would the definitions in the legislation (handgun, barrel length, semi-automatic, etc.) not cover anything likely to come up? I don't actually know why the list in the regs is needed -- except, I suppose, to avoid the "skirting" that goes on down there. We learned from your mistakes maybe?

So they have to go through the whole...
legislative process again to update the law?

Uh, NO; I think that was the whole entire point of my post.

They go through the regulatory process, which is a completely different animal. It isn't affected by parliamentary calendars and recesses, it isn't politicized, it doesn't require multiple readings and committee studies. It is a process initiated by, or with the authority of, the Minister of Justice, conducted by the Department of Justice, and signed off on by the Cabinet.

It isn't, granted, a complete rubber-stamp process.

But exactly how often are new models of "assault weapon"-type firearms put on the market? Looking at the regs that contain those lists, for instance, "Regulations Prescribing Certain Firearms and other Weapons ...", I don't see any amendments since they were made and came into force in 1998.

Also what happens if someone owns a weapon that is later "banned."

I believe that there are grandfather clauses. The owner at the time of the legislative/regulatory change is permitted to retain ownership (if the firearm is registered, obviously), but may not transfer ownership of it.

Hmm, it's rather complicated; have a look and see if it answers the questions, re "prohibited firearms" and grandfathering, e.g.:

http://www.canlii.org/ca/sta/f-11.6/
http://www.canlii.org/ca/sta/f-11.6/sec12.html

And aha, a prohibited firearm may be transferred only to a business, i.e. no private sales are permitted:
http://www.canlii.org/ca/sta/f-11.6/sec24.html
The business would be a firearms dealer, and it could only sell the firearm to someone licensed to possess a prohibited firearm (e.g. a handgun).

I keep thinking I've figured out what the deal with "restricted" firearms is, and then forgetting. It seems to have to do with being authorized to keep them only at one's residence, and special conditions on transporting them.

In the US its still legal to own "pre-ban" stuff, how about up there?

So it does seem to be, subject to registration (possession is not legal if it is not registered), and, in the case of "prohibited" firearms, without the possibility of private transfer/sale.


Here's my exhaustive list of links to Cdn firearms regulations again:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=15464

[MrBenchley]

2. Of course...

Given the gun industry's willful disregard for public safety and the prevalence of straw purchases.....

"DEBORAH AMOS: Do you think if the majority of Americans understood that terrorists were able to use the loopholes in our gun laws to buy guns, do you think they would sit still for no change?
SENATOR JACK REED: Oh, no, they would demand, in fact they would ask us why we hadn't moved more promptly... What we've learned from Sept. 11th is that terrorists will likely try to use the weapons that they find here... to harm us. And that I think should send us to the point where we begin to look again at closing some of these loopholes.
DEBORAH AMOS: But Senator Jack Reed says every effort to fix the gun laws is met with resistance from the NRA, and now, from the Attorney General and the Bush administration.
SENATOR REED: There's a constant drumbeat from the NRA and their allies that ah, that try to discredit any attempts at gun control as not protecting the American public, but eroding fundamental rights. And that drumbeat is persistent and loud."

http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript_gunland.html

"Licensed firearms dealers in our communities funnel guns all the time to ex-felons, teenagers and others who are legally forbidden from buying them. We know this because five years ago, in a single three-week interval, Wayne County sheriff's deputies managed to make bogus straw purchases at eight of 10 licensed dealers they approached. "

http://www.freep.com/news/metro/dicker30_20040630.htm

"The peer-reviewed research, which appears in this week's edition of the journal Injury Prevention, studied 120 gun dealers randomly selected from 20 major U.S. cities. In telephone interviews, undercover researchers asked gun dealers for advice on purchasing a handgun under one of three scenarios. Two of the scenarios suggested legal transactions. In the third scenario, the researcher asked about purchasing a handgun for someone else who "needs me to buy her/him a handgun" - a clear suggestion that the transaction was likely an illegal straw purchase. Key findings of the study included:
* 52.5% of the 120 gun dealers surveyed were willing to help a potential handgun buyer purchase the handgun for someone else, even though such transactions are illegal.
* 20% of gun dealers in a smaller follow-up survey were willing to sell a handgun to a researcher who said "My girl/boyfriend needs me to buy her/him a handgun because she/he isn't allowed to." One gun dealer responded "s long as you have no record, you can come down here and pick one up and put it in your name." - indicating a clear willingness to facilitate a blatantly illegal sale.
* Gun dealers in the Northeast (Baltimore, New York City, Philadelphia) were least likely to facilitate illegal sales; dealers in the West (Denver, Seattle, Phoenix, Los Angeles, San Diego) were more likely; dealers in the South (Memphis, Nashville, Jacksonville, Oklahoma City, Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, El Paso, Austin, Fort Worth) and Midwest (Cleveland, Indianapolis) were the most likely to facilitate illegal sales."

http://www.csgv.org/news/news_releases.cfm?pressReleaseID=17

Wonder who opposed the common sense bill Levin is talking about here?

http://levin.senate.gov/newsroom/release.cfm?id=209017

[slackmaster]

5. None AFAIK

Even if (let's just pull something that sounds reasonable out of the air here) semiautomatic firearms that accept detachable magazines are a threat to public safety, the AWB completely failed to do that.

The demise magazine capacity limit might seem like more of an imminent threat, but there isn't any clear evidence that it has reduced the number of people shot per crime or the number of rounds taken by people who are shot (again pulling something that sounds reasonable out of the air). I haven't seen any studies on how many people are shot with the 11th or 14th or 29th round from a single magazine.

AWB enthusiasts have had 10 years to come up with evidence to bolster their precious ban, but all they have to offer are excuses and conspiracy theories to explain the lack of hard data.

[goju]

18. From the National Institue of Justice

"Given the limited use of the banned guns and magazines in gun crimes, even the maximum theoretically achievable preventive effect of the ban on outcomes such as the gun murder rate is almost certainly too small to detect statistically..."

[MrBenchley]

21. Wow...wonder why there's no link....

[iverglas]

37. Yeah, that's a tough one -- but it's a good one!!!

The third result on my google list
http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/001414.html
cites the first two on the list
www.awbansunset.com/response2-26.html
www.saysuncle.com/archives/2004/02/24/awb-update
neither of which cites a proper source.

I shall keep dredging ... and aha, there was only one other, and there it all is (I boldface the part that we were presented with here -- the stuff *after* the boldface was written as "..." by our pal, or by his puppetmaster, or slop-bucket-filler, or whatever):

http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/173405.pdf

Given the limited use of the banned guns and magazines in gun crimes, even the maximum theoretically achievable preventive effect of the ban on outcomes such as the gun murder rate is almost certainly too small to detect statistically because the congressionally mandated timeframe for the study effectively limited postban data collection to, at most, 24 months (and only 1 calendar year for annual data series). Nevertheless, to estimate the first-year ban effect on gun murders, the analysis compared actual 1995 State gun murder rates with the rates that would have been expected in the absence of the assault weapons ban. Data from 1980 to 1995 of 42 States with adequate annual murder statistics (as reported to the Federal Bureau of Investigation) were used to project 1995 gun murder rates adjusted for ongoing trends and demographic and economic changes. Tests were run to determine whether the deviation from the projection could be explained by various policy interventions other than the assault weapons ban.

... Overall, 1995 gun murder rates were 9 percent lower than the projection.

Gun murders declined 10.3 percent in States without preexisting assault weapons bans, but they remained unchanged in States with their own bans.

Hot damn, that's a great quote! And look who we have to thank for it!

library_max, you listening? There's that alternative universe they keep asking you about. ;)


edited to fix a formatting glitch, and to say:

Can you believe the ... uh ... gall of whoever produced the "quote" we were presented with, and of anybody who would present it to us as meaning what it was being represented as meaning??

[MrBenchley]

39. Good job....

"Can you believe the ... uh ... gall of whoever produced the "quote" we were presented with, and of anybody who would present it to us as meaning what it was being represented as meaning??"
Yup....but then I been here a while and I've seen the tricks our "pro gun democrats" try to pull on a daily basis....

[iverglas]

41. gotta kick this one

It isn't to be missed. Can't wait for the flood of replies.

A source was "quoted" by someone, somewhere, who *knew* that s/he/it was completely falsifying what the source had said.

Someone here went scrounging for scudge, and came up with that secondary source and its falsification of the primary source's meaning, and offered it up to us. Apparently, as authority for the falsified meaning -- given the rather authoritative nature of the primary source that the "quotation" was attributed to.

All unwittingly, I'm sure. Certainly no one expects anyone to be the least bit suspicious of the truthfulness of the folks at hkweaponsystems.com, or wherever else the gem was unearthed, or would think it the least bit negligent for anyone not to verify what they say before quoting them.

We now know that the representation of what the primary source said, wherever that representation was found, was a complete and utter MISrepresentation.

We now know that what the primary source REALLY said was pretty much the opposite of what it was portrayed as saying -- and that what it REALLY said is pretty much the opposite of what the secondary source and its acolytes would like us to think about the subject of it.

I can hardly wait to see the spinning sincere, candid discussion that must surely be about to erupt, now that we have an authoritative source for the answer to that whole "is there any evidence" thing ...

[MrBenchley]

42. Agreed...

To use a favorite word that's been rattling around here lately, it's more than a bit disingenuous for someone to put a butchered quote like that forward, isn't it?

[iverglas]

43. he's here, I've seen him

He started a thread this very morning. But no word still.

goju, where r u??

Damn, and I was so looking forward to a bunch more softballs like these, if not to an acknowledgement of what his source in this particular instance was really saying, and perhaps a lively discussion of what it really said.

I have to learn to lower those expectations, I guess.

[MrBenchley]

44. You will recall the "enthusiast" from the other day

who insisted that it wasn't enough to dismiss a bill introduced in Congress by some of the most repulsive right wingers around by pointing out that fact...that the measure had some "merits" that needed to be discussed in the abstract...

Funny how he fled when you offered that discussion in the abstract of what an idiotic and disgraceful measure it was....

[MrBenchley]

26. ACTUALLY from the National Institute of Justice

"WASHINGTON, D.C. -- There was a 20 percent decline in the criminal use of guns banned by the 1994 Crime Act immediately following its passage, as well as a decline of gun murder rates, according to a report released today by the Justice Department.
"The assault weapons ban has helped to reduce the number of murders committed with these weapons, especially murders of law enforcement officers," said President Clinton. "We must continue to work together to keep these deadly weapons out of the hands of criminals permanently." "

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/pressreleases/1999/NIJ99046.htm

Notice that there's a link

[goju]

19. From the Violence Policy Center

"If the existing assault weapons ban expires, I personally do not believe it will make one whit of difference one way or another . . . So if it doesn't pass, it doesn't pass."

[MrBenchley]

22. Wow...wonder why there's no link....

The answer is of course, that the VPC supports the current proposal to strengthen and renew the ban...

But it sure was edifying to watch our pro gun democrats selectively edit a quote to make it seem as if the VPC opposes the ban....AGAIN.

[iverglas]

34. well I do believe we have one now

I was inadvertently on the money in that last post.

http://www.hkweaponsystems.com/cgi-bin/quote.pl

They're all there, I believe.

Put "site:www.hkweaponsystems.com" and a snippet of one of those quotes into the google box, and you'll find 'em.

e.g. http://www.hkweaponsystems.com/cgi-bin/quote.pl?lowell_duckett

Hey, you'd like the message boards.

This Web site is dedicated to providing an information resource for enthusiasts of Heckler & Koch (HK) firearms, and advocacy of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (RKBA). HK91.com is not officially endorsed by or affiliated with HK.

http://www.hkweaponsystems.com/cgi-bin/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum&f=13

To: Anyone,

Before you vote for John Kerry and the rest of his Goons...You should take a good hard look at some of the links bellow. The first one is a slide show and may take a few minutes to download...it is well worth the wait.

Thank You,

SLIDE SHOW
KERRY'S HOLLYWOOD CONNECTION
KERRY'S CHOICE FOR RELIGIOUS OUTREACH DIRECTOR
THE CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS

This is only the tip of the iceberg! The last link has nothing to do with John Kerry but if Kerry ends up in office he will put a stop to the war against terror.

Thank You For Your Time. After seeing this do you still want to vote for Kerry and his Goons?

Dasher
--------------------
Criminals Prefer Unarmed Victims

Hmm. No answers. And then there's:

I have been around muslims when I was sent to Desert Storm. And they are cowards some of the worst that I have ever seen. They are no different than a liberal.

Damn, it's those fine upstanding gun owners putting us to shame again.

[MrBenchley]

38. Jeepers...

Guess that be one of those gun loony forums that our "pro gun democrats" never ever ever visit.....

[goju]

23. From Handgun Control, Inc

"...I don't believe gun owners have rights."

[MrBenchley]

24. Wow...wonder why there's no link, he said again....

[goju]

25. From the Million Mom March Spokeswoman

"I honestly think - and I am not an expert on the amendments - I think the only people in this nation who should be allowed to own guns are police officers. I don't care if you want to hunt, I don't care if you think it's your right. I say 'sorry'. It is 1999, we have had enough as a nation. You are not allowed to own a gun and if you do own a gun, I think you should go to prison."

[iverglas]

30. there are a whole lot of places that might have been from

Here's one:

http://freedompage.home.mindspring.com/

Ew, charming.


Now, here's one that doesn't actually think it necessary to misrepresent what was said:

http://womentoarms.net/women_said.html

"They are looking only to protect gun owners' quote — and I stress that — rights, because I don't believe gun owners have rights. The Second Amendment has never been interpreted that way. Now I am not for taking guns away or denying guns to law-abiding citizens, but I don't think it's a constitutional right that they have, and every court case that's ever come down has shown that." --Sarah Brady, 10/97

That one cites this one:
http://www.hkweaponsystems.com/

Rather oddly, this one "quotes" it in the form we were given:
http://www.nea.org/neatoday/9910/messages/459.html

and cites it to "Hearst Newspapers Special Report, 'Handguns in America' October 1997".


Here's a good one; it "quotes" Brady in the form we were given, too:

http://www.dustyland.net/liberty/enemiesofliberty.html

and includes such other well-known enemies of liberty as ... c'mon, you can guess it ... William Jefferson Clinton, of course. Oh, and don't forget the ACLU.

Yup, there sure are a lot of lovely places one can go diving for drek and come up with that one.

And yes, very obviously Sarah Brady should be understood to have said that gun owners can just be made to sit at the back of the bus, and kicked hard by anybody who has the urge, and forbidden to speak or write or vote, and denied marriage licences, and thrown in jail if they look at you funny, and strip-searched at any hour of the day or night, and barred from attending the public schools, and not allowed to buy The Pill. They just don't have any rights, any rights at all. That's what Sarah Brady was saying. Clear as a day to anybody. If s/he's seriously impaired in the visual dept. ... or some other dept. ...

[MrBenchley]

31. Are you surprised?

Me neither....

[goju]

27. From the New Jersey Police Department

"Since police started keeping statistics, we now know that assault weapons are/were used in an underwhelming 0.026 of 1% of crimes in New Jersey. This means that my officers are more likely to confront an escaped tiger from the local zoo than to confront an assault rifle in the hands of a drug-crazed killer on the streets."

[MrBenchley]

32. "The New Jersey Police Department"--ri-i-i-i-i-ight

Guess somebody's not even trying to look credible now....

[iverglas]

35. he hasn't got that copy & paste thing down yet

It was Trenton, NJ:

http://www.hkweaponsystems.com/cgi-bin/quote.pl?joseph_constance

And it was in 1993. Not one of yr more up-to-date quotes.

[goju]

29. From the President of the Black Police Caucus

"Gun control has not worked in D.C. The only people who have guns are criminals. We have the strictest gun laws in the nation and one of the highest murder rates. It's quicker to pull your Smith & Wesson than to dial 911 if you're being robbed."

[MrBenchley]

33. Sounds more like the King of the Make Shit Up Club

[iverglas]

36. well, that one was from 1996

and you just don't find much mention of the DC "Black Police Caucus" or Duckett outside of the usual-suspect sites. In fact, all I found other than that quote was something about Duckett not liking the mayor's pick for police chief, and something about the woes of an officer who shot a suspect.

Not one of your real big authoritative opinion sources, I'd say.

[iverglas]

45. Yes -- I found the evidence! Where is everybody??

Here's what I reproduced in a post above, after the first teeny bit of the passage below was offered as an authoritative source for evidence that the ban did *not* make the US safer. When you reconstitute what that source actually said, instead of replacing everything after "too small to detect statistically" with "...", here's what you get:

http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/173405.pdf

Given the limited use of the banned guns and magazines in gun crimes, even the maximum theoretically achievable preventive effect of the ban on outcomes such as the gun murder rate is almost certainly too small to detect statistically because the congressionally mandated timeframe for the study effectively limited postban data collection to, at most, 24 months (and only 1 calendar year for annual data series). Nevertheless, to estimate the first-year ban effect on gun murders, the analysis compared actual 1995 State gun murder rates with the rates that would have been expected in the absence of the assault weapons ban.

Data from 1980 to 1995 of 42 States with adequate annual murder statistics (as reported to the Federal Bureau of Investigation) were used to project 1995 gun murder rates adjusted for ongoing trends and demographic and economic changes. Tests were run to determine whether the deviation from the projection could be explained by various policy interventions other than the assault weapons ban.

See??

There's that "all other things being equal" alternative universe you've all been looking for -- the U.S. in which there was no assault weapons ban, but everything else was the same.

... Overall, 1995 gun murder rates were 9 percent lower than the projection.

Gun murders declined 10.3 percent in States without preexisting assault weapons bans, but they remained unchanged in States with their own bans.

Do we see it?

The very expert opinion of the folks at the US National Institute of Justice is that there were 9% fewer murders in the US in the year following the assault weapons ban than one would have expected there to be -- based on the observed trends prior to the ban.

Yes, there are a lot of subtleties in the analysis that aren't reflected in what's quoted above, and the report very definitely does not attribute all the observed phenomena to the assault weapons ban. It *does* address a number of the issues frequently raised here. I invite anyone who wants to discuss them to do so.