Everything You Should Know About The 1994 Assault-Weapons Ban

Authored by Donna Carol Voss , op-ed via The Daily Caller,

Here we go again. Another assault weapons ban rears its knee-jerk head. The Assault Weapons Ban of 2018 is the feel-good, we-have-to-do-something move. I’m all for it if it will make a positive difference. But it won’t. We already know that it won’t because of the 1994 assault weapons ban.

Remember how excited your mother was in 1994? “Honey,” she said, “finally we’re doing something about crime.” She did have a point since crime had been rising steadily through the eighties and early nineties. The ban seemed like a good idea at the time, and darn it if FBI crime statistics didn’t prove her right. (You hate it when that happens.) From 1994 to 2004, the violent crime rate dropped 35 percent.

When the Department of Justice released statistics about firearms homicides specifically, your mother was even more sure of herself. In 1993, the year before the ban took effect, there were 18,253 firearm homicides. The ban took effect, and the number of firearm homicides dropped every year for the next seven years. They began to rise again in 2001, but in 2004, there were 11,624 firearm homicides, an overall reduction of 36 percent.

“See?” your mother crowed, “Told ya!” (*sigh*)

Then you got to thinking. There was that statistics course you took in college, and something is niggling in the back of your mind. Hey, you realized, those numbers don’t mean much unless you know how many guns were on the street while all of this was happening. A crude measure of gun sales is criminal background checks, and the FBI began collecting data in 1998, four years into the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban. You can’t study the entire ban period, but you can study the last six years. And then you can study the first six years after the ban.

For the six years from 1999 to 2004 when the ban was lifted, 52,214,932 background checks were conducted. For the first six years after the ban was lifted (2005 to 2010), 71,319,676 background checks were conducted. If each background check represents one gun, 19 million more guns were purchased in the six years after the ban than during the last six years of the ban. This makes intuitive sense: when guns are banned, fewer guns are sold; when the ban is lifted more guns are sold. But is it the number of guns we care about or what people are doing with those guns?

You compare the data on background checks - your reference point for gun sales - to the FBI’s data on what people were doing with those guns for 1997 to 2001, 2002 to 2006, and 2007 to 2011. While you’re at it, you look at what the FBI says people were doing with rifles specifically since there were a principal target of the ban.

The FBI says that during the last six years of the ban, firearms were used to kill 54,468 people, 2,483 of whom were killed with a rifle.

During the first six years after the ban - with 19 million more guns on the street - the FBI says firearms were used to kill 58,065 people, 2,432 of whom were killed with a rifle.

What? More people were killed with a rifle during the ban than after the ban? Could it be the assault ban made no difference to homicide by rifle? Why, yes, yes it could. And with 19 million more guns on the street after the ban, there were only 3,597 additional firearms homicides? Could it be that limiting guns had very little impact on limiting total firearms homicides? Why, yes, yes it could.

You realize that during the last six years of the ban, there was one gun murder for every 959 guns whereas during the first six years after the ban, there was one gun murder for every 1,228 guns. Well, you’re right to wonder, if there were more guns but fewer firearms homicides per gun, what was everybody doing with all those extra guns? They certainly weren’t using them to murder more people. Could this help to explain the steady drop in violent crime rates that has continued since 2004? Could it be that people are using those extra guns to defend themselves and to deter and prevent all kinds of violent crime? Why, yes, yes it could.

You need to tell your mother.

Especially if she looks like Dianne Feinstein.


hedgeless_horseman Tue, 03/06/2018 - 10:58 Permalink


...shall not be infringed.

In my best Boris Alotovkrap accent: In Soviet Amerika, idiot politician has force genius design basterdized, because politboro decide only supreme government employees can be trusted to possess full-auto capability to defend Motherland (with few very expensive and very burdensome fascist exceptions of course).

We are told this is not tyranny, nor does it infringe on our natural right to bear arms.


Some animals are more equal than others.

FireBrander wildbad Tue, 03/06/2018 - 11:06 Permalink


No guns allowed; signs clearly posted. Everyone in the building is unarmed and has received training to “run and hide” in a “active shooter” situation. If confronted by the “shooter”, hold a book in front of your face for protection.


Police Stations:

Everyone is carrying a gun and everyone knows how to use it...if an “active shooter” situation occurs; shoot back.


Gun Shows:

100's, even 1000's of guns and gun owners. Many people are carrying and know how to use a firearm...if an “active shooter” situation occurs, it's going to be a live fire shooting gallery and the “shooter” is the target.



Schools – Routine mass murders.

Police stations – nope.

Guns shows – nope.

In reply to by wildbad

Pool Shark FireBrander Tue, 03/06/2018 - 11:15 Permalink

Actually, the reason violent crime dropped in the 90's was statistically proven by Steven Levitt in Freakonomics.

It had NOTHING to do with gun control legislation, and only a little to do with the 3-Strikes Movement.

The real reason crime dropped?

The would-be criminals were never born.

That's right; in the wake of Roe v. Wade in 1973, the next wave of violent, urban thugs was... aborted.

They would have reached their prime 'crime committing age' in the mid-90's.

However, now that Ultra-Blue states like Kalifornia have repealed welfare reform, and now once again richly reward vacuous, uneducated, indolent mothers to continuously breed; the next violent crime wave is demographically assured.

Passing additional gun control laws will have no effect...


[Edit: Actually; passing additional gun control laws might have an effect: It could increase homicides, as there would be fewer armed victims, and violent criminals would know it. (Example: there would likely be fewer hunters if deer could shoot back...)]

In reply to by FireBrander

carni MrPalladium Tue, 03/06/2018 - 11:36 Permalink

Everyone likes to go to the "shall not be infringed" text of the 2A to justify gun ownership. But a more comprehensive and ethical argument resides in the Declaration of Independence, when Jefferson wrote that "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." - meaning that 1) I don't have the right to disarm my neighbor, so I can not cede that right to the State, and 2) If the State says that I don't have the right to be armed, then where does the State derive its power to be armed?

I'm sick of leftists telling to "negotiate". Well I want automatic weapons legalized, why don't you negotiate my direction.

And the argument that the people couldn't fight the awesome power of the US government with ARs is actually a compelling argument that we need less gun laws.

In reply to by MrPalladium

crusty curmudgeon VAL THOR Tue, 03/06/2018 - 12:57 Permalink

To argue crime statistics and the efficacy of "gun control" laws is to already have lost.

Whether someone else does a bad thing with a gun, or how often it happens, should not affect my rights.  When someone exercises their first amendment right and speaks out about evil things (e.g., killing a particular group of people), that doesn't mean I should lose my first amendment right to speak.

I am tired of tolerating evil people who want to deprive me of my natural right to defend myself.  I will not engage in these pointless debates.

In reply to by VAL THOR

DuneCreature VAL THOR Tue, 03/06/2018 - 13:55 Permalink

They will get the guns. .. 75% of them. .. (((They))) have this well planned out.

I just posted this on the other end of the thread but it is important so I'll post it here again if you don't mind.


The Army is pretty good at disarming little ole ladies.

Illegal Gun Grab

You should have seen Blackwater's behavior after Katrina. (Or maybe it was Kraft International or ISI or EPS or Wackenhut or one of a hundred other Security contractors they may have called in). .. The National Guard units were well behaved by comparison. .. I'll bet there are videos out there. .. Go search it. ... A couple of the dudes (cops or contractors) went to jail for using civvies as target practice on a bridge as I recall.

Then when all that doesn't do the gun grab job they will call in the UN.

Don't believe me? ... Just watch.

This is way past stopping unless we can bust the False Flag School Yard Shootings. ... But AI AL knows just when to quit one op and switch to another to keep up the momentum.  ... It will be a probably be synagogue next AND a total news and investigation black out. .... For The Little (Jewish) Kids, of course.

Live Hard, Gun Owners Better Get To These FF Shooting Events 'In Mass And Unarmed' Demanding Evidence. .. Video Cameras, Vests And Bail Money Are The Mission Load Out. ... Do It, Or Lose Them, Die Free

~ DC v8.8


In reply to by VAL THOR

DuneCreature daveO Tue, 03/06/2018 - 14:28 Permalink

Good observation.

Your County Sheriff is 'in theory' the supreme LE authority over the Feds and has jurisdiction. (Answerable only to the State Governor in most States, I believe).

In a National Emergency or Martial Law situation I think the Feds think they can do anything they want. .. They do have the firepower when it comes right down to it.

The second problem is compromised Sheriffs. ... You may never know he's 'owned' until it's too late.

Live Hard, (((They))) And AI AL Are Very Good At Owning All Of The Players And Pieces On The Game Board, Die Free

~ DC v8.8

In reply to by daveO

TheEndIsNear DuneCreature Tue, 03/06/2018 - 18:46 Permalink

The way our local sheriff explained why he can't kick the Feds out is that the way it works is that the government sues the sheriff in Federal court where the Feds always win, and it costs the city many thousands of dollars to defend the local sheriff who is certain to lose the court case regardless of what the Constitution says. The US Constitution means nothing to the courts anymore.

In reply to by DuneCreature

Malleus Maleficarum Chupacabra-322 Tue, 03/06/2018 - 16:25 Permalink

I hope you're right. I pray you're right. I'd really, really like to believe you're right! Still, if the steady erosion of the other Amendments, and especially the 4th Amendment (with eager support by many NRA "conservative" Republicans, I might add) is any indicator, most Americans will choose to comply quietly, snitch out their neighbors when threatened, and go-along-to-get-along with bans and confiscations in hopes of preserving their immediate comfort and the all-important "safety" and "the children."

My life experience and millennia of history and records of human behavior bear this out. Only a very select few are willing to pay the ultimate price for freedom. Don't be hopeless - there is always hope. These rights were given to us by almighty God, nevermind that we are morally, logically and legally correct. Just be realistic.

And you know what? Screw tyranny. Screw the tyrannical actions of the right, and screw the tyrannical actions of the left. Definitely screw Communism! But also screw this:

"J. Edgar Hoover and "Tailgunner Joe" McCarthy were 100% correct!"

Our very own "Jeremiah Johnson" actually said that in yesterday's article! Not exactly what I'd expect to hear from a mountain man!

In reply to by Chupacabra-322

FireBrander carni Tue, 03/06/2018 - 11:48 Permalink

How would the authors of the 2A define the gun rights of a person like Cruz?

I would imagine their first thought would be to shoot him on the spot...but what is Cruz's legal right to gun ownership pre-mass murder?

When you murder someone, you forfeit your right to freedom...so, at what point does a person forfeit their right to arms?



If the State says that I don't have the right to be armed, then where does the State derive its power to be armed?

That power is derived from it's ownership of guns...

In reply to by carni

DosZap carni Tue, 03/06/2018 - 12:55 Permalink


With over 33 million AR/AK clone owners NOW(that they know of), AR clones,and AK clones are the ONLY weapons American citizens have even close to what they need to fight a tyrannical govt.(people say we can never have that in AMERICA!, I call BS, look at this country now, it's a haven of raging morons and leftists.(after the latest FLASH point) add another million or so to that number.

They know this,that's why they want them, and that's why they will never get them STOCK first.

The 2nd Amendment as you so succinctly put it, NEVER guaranteed citizens the to RKABA.

It was put into the BOR's to STOP the Feds from limiting/infringing  our rights, that existed before America was even thought of, and NATURAL LAW  existed so that every man had the right to the  then known weapons .(except those under tyranny, and dictatorships.)

In reply to by carni

synthetically … carni Tue, 03/06/2018 - 12:56 Permalink

"And the argument that the people couldn't fight the awesome power of the US government with ARs is actually a compelling argument that we need less gun laws."


I fully agree with your reasoning and conclusion. That being said, didn't the defeat of the US in the Vietnam War completely disprove the notion that a vastly outgunned populace couldn't possibly fight the awesome power of the US government?  


In reply to by carni

blindfaith I am Groot Tue, 03/06/2018 - 12:45 Permalink



Don't forget that Obama deported more Mexicans and Central American illegals that ALL PREVIOUS PRESIDENTS COMBINED.

That is a fact jack.  Wonder how that treasons shit mayor in Oakland thought about that fact, when she warned all those illegal felon's who tote guns? 


Oh, and don't forget that ol' Billy Clinton was the one who gave North Korea nuclear technology.  Hiltery gave uranium to the Russians.  What a coincidence of like kind thinking.


Funny to see her picture on an article about killing.  Really funny....

In reply to by I am Groot

Dilluminati I am Groot Tue, 03/06/2018 - 18:25 Permalink

It is all about cognitive bias and beliefs that people want to believe in, the same people passionate about gun control, abortion, racism, the Clinton's and blacks incarcerated facts, whatever the topic: the rigidity to which people cling to a proposition is almost a study in pathological behavior than any actual facts.   It is as if the topic is, I'll not let facts stand in the way of my opinions.

This morning as an example I shitted on the North Korea talks post, as if facts mattered.  I took a deep stinky shit on the euphoria of "peace at last" and "peace in our lifetime" and instead looked instead at them pesky things called facts and concluded that these were the same cocksuckers promising talks and disarmament who did so in the past, and will do so again in the future.

And the delta/difference was the myopic assessment of what constitutes a threat.  Most don't feel it is our responsibility to police South Korea and if you make that existential statement, well it is a rational comment or point of discussion, not our fight.. not our problem.  If however the idea of being disarmed and having personal property taken is discussed, we see allot of virtue signaling and from my cold dead hands talk.

I had a conversation today with a person who claimed the Russians "altered" the outcome of the last US election, and I was almost laughing but decided to do polite at work, but it was some really stretching the wishful thinking, because that was a loss, a historic loss, and a landslide victory, and no the rules don't count the popular vote.

So irrespective of facts nobody is changing their minds, most cunts can't deal with facts, it stands in the way of their opinions.

That's just a harsh ass truth.


In reply to by I am Groot

SoDamnMad stevegee58 Tue, 03/06/2018 - 13:23 Permalink

Wash my moth out with laundry soap for saying this.  Could we get Bebe to speak before Congress about how a well armed country is safer because if the criminal terrorists raise their ugly head WE SHOOT THEM DEAD?  Maybe a dual-citizen like Feinstein might ump up and say, "Bebe you are wrong, You need to totally disarm and then there won't be any shootings."

In reply to by stevegee58

pods Pool Shark Tue, 03/06/2018 - 11:26 Permalink

Social media pressure of this is off the charts if my chosen proxy (the Mrs.) is any indication.

She started in on "have to do something" last night.  Then talked about "need" as well with regards to ownership of mag fed semi-autos (she called them assault weapons which I corrected her about select fire).  Needless to say it was a short discussion with me.  My rights have nothing to do with anyone else's needs.  The language is being lost though. The term "assault weapon" is starting to =mag fed semi-autos.  

Then she tried the line about when the 2nd was adopted and muskets and crap. A quick talk about the 1st amendment and printing presses versus radio, TV, and the internet ended that.

There is a large coalition that loves these shootings. They are ready to astro-turf new movements to stop these scary looking weapons.  It is a fight that is not going to be won in the public space as long as social media is dominated by women and emos.

Just not enough thinking going on today.


In reply to by Pool Shark

Abaco pods Tue, 03/06/2018 - 12:15 Permalink

Remind your wife that when the 2nd amendment was ratified private ownership of warships - the most powerful weapons in existence - was the norm.  Government's didn't own them. The musket argument is made by the ignorant. Also have her read the preamble to the Bill of Rights. It makes it abundantly clear that the purpose of the amendments is all abut restricting government  and ntohing to do with granting or establishing rights.

In reply to by pods

Ace Ventura pods Tue, 03/06/2018 - 12:23 Permalink

I feel your pain. The Mrs. and her circle of hens have started clucking about this in almost identical fashion (e.g. no one 'needs' these things, etc). This is when I calmly remind her that no one 'needs' cheesecake or reality TV shows, so lets ban those too. Then its usually a short jaunt into focusing the issue on guns instead of the individual(s)/governments involved......is like focusing the issue on forks when it comes to the nation's obesity problem.

In the end, I usually wrap up on what needs to be widely addressed and aggressively reminded. The PURPOSE of the 2nd Amendment itself. Far from being just about hunting/sport-shooting/self-defense.....its MAIN purpose is to serve as a bulwark against government tyranny. But the average Joe only had flintlock muskets back then!  Well yes, but then so did the average soldier. Given the MAIN purpose of the 2A, shouldn't the average Joe bear arms similar to those used by the average soldier today?

That usually ends the conversation, but you're absolutely correct. The sheer progtard EMO-VIBE this kind of event generates has been fueled by social media's kerosene.

In reply to by pods

DosZap pods Tue, 03/06/2018 - 13:49 Permalink

Explain to her the 2nd Amendment doesn't give us the RIGHT to keep or bear arms, we had it before the Constitution existed.It's called Natural Law.The 2nd, LIMITS the GOVERNMENT from infringing on our rights,if they try to seize them we are OBLIGED to fight them.Using the 2nd as a way yo supposedly GIVE us a Right we already had is Bad juju,even the SCOTUS is using it incorrectly.

We are still technically a Constitutional Republic.

 Man for 6000 yrs has had  a God given right to self defense.The PRINCIPAL(citizens militia,which all able bodied males are members,whether they like it or not) weapons were to be of exactly the same kind as issued to the nations military,and the military was not to exceed 100,000 as a standing army.(the Founders were very leery of even having one.)The Government want a 10-1 citizenry to soldier advantage.Also, the Congress USED to pay for citizens weapons and furnish all who wanted them with ammo and powder,they changed that pretty quick(cost savings you know,my arse)

In reply to by pods

Dark star pods Tue, 03/06/2018 - 13:58 Permalink

How much of that "social media pressure" represents the genuine opinions of real live people, and how much of it is artificially created by bots, sockpuppets, and well organised troll farms?

You know the lengths they will go to to disarm America.

The false flags are fully supported by utterly false social media campaigns. You cannot believe any opinions expressed on social media.

You know it.

In reply to by pods

FireBrander Pool Shark Tue, 03/06/2018 - 12:13 Permalink

If deer could shoot back; that would be real hunting.

Shooting something from 300' is just, well, I don't know, I'm just not "impressed" with the "hunter-ness" of that action...

Now, grabbing a knife, stalking a deer, and taking it down with that knife...WOW!...that's a real "hunter" in my book.

Years back, hunting show, guy used wooden bow/arrows, had to get close enough that the animal could turn and kill him...I'm impressed.

In reply to by Pool Shark

RAT005 FireBrander Tue, 03/06/2018 - 13:17 Permalink

Likely you've never hunted.  The stories afterward are never about how impressive the deadly force of the cartridge is.  The story is how many days it took to find the animal, how close the person could get before taking the shot, how accurate the shot placement was from that distance, the extent of how far the animal went after being shot and what effort it took to find it.

Yes the people have a huge advantage, and yes many hunters do not fill their tag.  The gov. collects revenue from the tags, the animals are harvested to a controlled limit that their range can support.  Skilled hunters get a 100-200lbs of meat.  All in costs, that meat usually costs more than CostCo.

There are many places where shots are less than 300' but there are also many places that shots are over 1,500 feet.  I suspect you're not familiar with the ballistic difference.

The importance of gun control discussion is not about hunter-ness.  There are plenty of good comments here already about that.

In reply to by FireBrander