search
top

WaPo: Bring Back the AWB

The Washington Post has been particularly antsy lately to see our rights removed, and they seem to be closing off the week with a call to reinstate the Assault Weapons Ban, largely based on this study, which appeared earlier, that they claim shows it’s effective.

I’ve looked into this somewhat, and the Virginia Criminal Firearms Clearinghouse does indeed have magazine capacity as a field on the form. It seems, however, that the Post has made quite a leap to suggest this is effective. It’s interesting data, but it’s one state, and we have no idea whether the firearms in this database are representative of crime guns. It seems very strange that criminals should have a difficult time buying magazines of greater than ten rounds when as a law abiding person, I had no problem.

The disappointing thing about this article it has made us realize we have one more database we have to close off, so that our opponents can’t mine it for data and draw unfounded conclusions support limiting our constitutional rights. I do thank them, however, for pointing this glaring error out to us, and hope NRA takes this up with the Virginia legislature forthwith.

9 Responses to “WaPo: Bring Back the AWB”

  1. DirtCrashr says:

    We still have an AWB here, and a how effective has it been? Not a bit.

  2. mike says:

    Here’s a question:

    How many of those guns with so-called high capacity magazines had more than 10 rounds fired from them before being seized?

    In other words, did it make one bit of difference? How many crimes were actually committed using the 11th, 12, etc rounds? My guess is one – by a certain deranged college student who shouldn’t have been able to pass a background check to begin with.

  3. I could be missing something here, but wouldn’t an assault weapons ban be unconstitutional per the “in common use” test?

  4. Sebastian says:

    Sure, logically, if that’s really a test instead of just dicta. I’d like to think the courts would take that seriously, but I don’t have a lot of faith in that.

    But it’s an interesting situation if that is a test. How do you prove common use? Do the courts just take notice of it? Is it a percentage of sales? How narrow can you get? If the government banned the Ruger SR556, it’s not all that common in the bigger picture of all semi-automatic guns? How broad do you have to look to determine commonness?

    I have theories on all this that lead to broad protections, but you see what games can be played here.

  5. mike says:

    A not-so-unintended consequence of a so-called high-capacity magazine ban would be that most modern firearms would become paperweights in one generation or less. If the mags can’t be transferred, then the gun becomes fairly worthless if you want to sell it. A gun ban, without having a gun ban. Pretty sneaky.

    All the while, the same people are adamantly opposed to closing the border with Mexico or keeping criminals locked up. And with all the publicity about the abortion clinic fiasco in Philly, I haven’t heard any of these people call for a ban on abortions. Or scissors.

  6. Spade says:

    People still read the Post?

  7. How do you prove common use?

    Well, that’s a fair question; I was thinking semiautomatic weapons (both rifles and handguns) were the hottest-selling classes of firearms in the country since the sunset of the Clinton gun ban, which would more or less make them “common.” Am I wrong in thinking that it’s not that much of a secret that they can be used for pretty much anything you’d need a gun for?

  8. divemedic says:

    The fault with the study is obvious: The study was done of all guns seized or recovered. Guns stolen from legal gun owners and then recovered from the thieves would be considered “recovered” and would contribute to the statistic.

    Since there are more magazines of 10 rounds or more available since the expiration of the AWB, there are more available to steal and be recovered. This is exactly the result you would expect to see. This study is being misused.

  9. Marco says:

    May I suggest that each of us who is in disagreement with the WaPo’s public lobbying against the Civil Right of Americans as formally protected the 2nd amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America donate the amount in dollars of a WaPo subscription to your favorite Pro-2nd Amendment supporting civil rights organization and then write a letter to the editor of the WaPo letting them know about the lost revenue and political capital for thier efforts.

top