If guns are illegal….

| December 15, 2012

So some folks are hinting that we need tougher guns laws after the horrific events of yesterday in Connecticut. So let’s say we do somehow rationalize that on a national scale. Luckily we have examples of how well a gun ban works in this country. The District of Columbia, in 1974 forbade handguns within it’s borders. So how did that work out for them? Here we are three decades later and the DC Metro Police are still taking an average of more than 5 illegal guns off of the streets every day;

Metro DC gun recovery

Fox News is reporting that Congress is reinvigorated in their call for renewing the “assault weapon ban” of the 90s;

“I hope and trust that in the next session of Congress there will be sustained and thoughtful debate about America’s gun culture and our responsibility to prevent more loss of life,” said [California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein], who co-sponsored a 1994 bill that resulted in a 10-year ban on many semi-automatic guns, called “assault weapons.”

The gunman identified in the killings Friday morning at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., purportedly used a Glock pistol and a Bushmaster rifle.

It’s not often discussed that the DC sniper, who terrorized the Metro DC area in October 2002, used a Bushmaster rifle, the same type used in yesterday’s tragedy, during the “assault weapon ban” which ended in September 2004. So how well did the “assault weapon ban” work?

The Ruger Mini-14 was one of the weapons included in the “ban”, but the one I bought in 1984 was “grandfathered”. I modified the rifle in 2001, during the ban, by adding a pistol-grip stock and a flash suppressor. The only restriction I had was that I couldn’t buy them both from the same vendor, because “assault weapons” were defined by the ban as a weapon which used detachable box magazines and had at least two of the following; Folding or telescoping stock; Pistol grip; Bayonet mount; Flash suppressor; Grenade launcher. I guess a flash suppressor is just as dangerous as a grenade launcher.

That’s why I call the “assault weapon ban” the scary-looking weapon ban, because, with the exception of the detachable box magazine and the grenade launcher, none of those features make a semi-automatic rifle more lethal – just more scary-looking.

I also bought large capacity magazines for the rifle which had been manufactured before the ban – so the gun companies must’ve made huge stocks of them before the ban took effect.

I’m expecting gun sales to jump again after this weekend, if Congress insists on making an issue of this just to make them feel better about themselves – and make some of our commenters feel better about themselves.

Category: Gun Grabbing Fascists, Guns

Comments (22)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

Sites That Link to this Post

  1. Prayers for Newtown, Connecticut and Weekend Links | December 15, 2012
  1. DaveO says:

    You’re using logic and facts again. To discuss this on the same level as the Prognazis, douse your privates in gasoline and apply a lit match.

  2. Scott says:

    Actually, the mini-14 was on the excluded list, which made no sense as it’s functionally the same as an AR-15. There was a Court case regarding it.

  3. Pat says:

    Haven’t owned a gun in years, but some recent neighborhood burglaries and the potential restrictions we might face have added a purchase and training/range time to my ‘to-do’ list.

  4. Al T. says:

    LGS told me around 1600 today that no NICS checks were being done – all were defaulting to a 30ish minute answer the phone time gap and all were issued delays.

  5. Ex-PH2 says:

    Oh, go ahead. Make all the gun ban laws you want to. It won’t stop criminals from getting their hands on guns and ammo whenever they want them. It will, however, leave the law-abiding citizens of this country feeling more and more unprotected.

    We already have more than enough gun control laws in place. Every year, Chicago PD has the guns for whatever exchange, and takes in a LOT of weapons. This year, CPD ran out of the whatever and people still turned in their weapons. Oddly, it has not reduced the shootings one tiny little bit. Children are still being targeted and shot on their own front lawns and on their bikes on the sidewalk by gangbangers coming out of the alleyway, looking for targets.


  6. USMCE8Ret says:

    Is that the same Chicago whose elected officials also wanted to raise taxes on ammunition in that county (Cook), as a means to minimize the crimes committed by firearms there?

    Yeah, that really worked.

  7. Ex-PH2 says:

    No kidding.

  8. 68W58 says:

    It’s so tiresome to have to keep making these arguments: the nut might just have easily used a shotgun to achieve his evil ends, without too much effort he could have made pipe bombs and killed those kids-but no, the scary looking guns have got to go regardless of any evidence or reason why that won’t work.

    What lefties really need to try to ban is Physics.

  9. Bobo says:

    I have been putting off buying a Sig M400 for a while. The order went in this morning because I know that in a few weeks they will be illegal. My guess is that the same thing is happening across the country.

  10. Ranger11C says:


    Won’t see that in the mainstream media. Responsible sheepdog stopped the shooter with his CCW pistol. Of course there are those of us who would have repositioned or closed with and destroyed, but I am not going to second guess the kid. He did what he did and the shooter killed no one else after seeing him.

  11. UpNorth says:

    Ranger, that’s the first I’ve seen as to what happened in the mall. I wonder why that is?/sarc
    Good on the young man for doing what he did, he more than likely saved a few lives that day.

  12. Don’t forget the bayonet lugs…since they were banned, drive by bayonettings went way down.

  13. Common Sense says:

    There was a report today that gun attacks were up 35% in the UK, even though they have some of the most strict gun control laws.

    If guns are illegal, only criminals will have guns.

  14. Common Sense says:

    More stats from Australia, a strict gun control country:

    We saw this clearly in Australia when Aussies were disarmed by de jure measures in 1997.

    To accomplish this, the Australian government sponsored a $500 million buyback on all privately owned firearms that led to a ban. Australian politicians who supported the move “promised a lower crime rate once the ban was in place.”

    Did lower crime result? No. Instead armed robberies rose significantly and home invasions rose as well.

    Moreover, assaults involving guns rose more than a 25% and murders with a gun rose nearly 20%.

  15. Hondo says:

    It’s even better than that, Common Sense. The US violent crime rate is lower than at least 9 Euroweenie countries that have much stricter gun laws:


    The article NHSparky cites in the first link above provides the data proving this to be fact.

    Heinlein observed that an armed society is a polite society. It’s also one with substantially less violent crime – because prospective criminals know they too are at risk while committing a crime.

  16. Old Trooper says:

    @7: The fact that Chicago still has a huge problem with gun violence was addressed by Rahmbo when he blamed areas outside of Chicago as the reason. He said that the guns are coming in from other states and that’s why there are still so many guns in Chicago. So, the point he was making is that if everyone else had the same draconian gun laws as Chicago, then it would all be fine.

    I’ve heard many leftists, in the last 2 days, make the question/statement “can we now have an honest discussion on guns”? Well, we all know it’s not a matter of having a discussion with them. What they are really saying is “can we now ban guns and dispense with any honest, objective difference of opinion that bring any honest facts/statistics to the table”?

    If we want to look at the bigger picture, outside of the tool used for the evil that is perpetrated, then we have to look at the “why”. Leftists, who use a ban as the do-all to end-all philosophy to fix the shooting problem aren’t interested in looking at the real reasons behind the problem, because the guns have always been there and were much easier to obtain even when I was a kid. Hell, my father-in-law ordered several shotguns out of the Sears catalog, 50 years ago. When I was in high school, the local hardware store had an AR in the gun rack that you could buy the same as any other rifle. The only requirements were to be 18 and have an ID. Most people had firearms in the house, not locked up and no one would mess with them. Me and my friends would bring our shotguns to school so we could go hunting after school. They were in our vehicles out in the school parking lot, along with ammunition, and no one would mess with them. Some of the teachers would even have their own shotguns in their vehicles and if someone had a new gun they brought, the teachers and us hunting students would go out to the parking lot and look at it and talk about hunting. Now, you get expelled, not suspended but expelled, for having a camping hatchet in the trunk of your car on school grounds. The honest discussion has nothing to do with guns, but rather the fact that we have removed personal responsibility from our society. Look at the excuses made for someone who messes up i.e. “it wasn’t his fault, he came from a broken home”, or “it wasn’t her fault, it was the gun”, and one of my favorites “my little Timmy is a perfect kid, it had to be because of one of those other, really bad kids”. The left introduces and promotes moral relativism into society, over the last 50 years, and then they want to remove the effect instead of the cause, because they aren’t willing to be honest about what the problem really is. Take morals, discipline, and responsibility out of society and you have the free-for-all that we have now. But that’s not the problem, it’s the guns and any time you mention that the guns have always been there, they poo-poo it and say that there are now too many guns. We could say the same about people, using that twisted logic.

  17. Ex-PH2 says:

    @17 0T, same thing at my high school. Kids drove to shcool in a pickup that belonged to their dads and had a gun rack in the cab, usually with a rifle or shotgun in the rack.

    No one ever gave a thought to going ballistic on a captive audience. No one pulled a “Carrie” by locking the gym doors and firebombing the place.

    No one discussed bringing a gun to a high school dance, but some kids at Barrington HS were doing just that this weekend, so the after-game dance was canceled.


    I think the internet’s capacity to give instant “fame” to someone feeds the process. There is also, as you said, a massive refusal to be realistic about these violent acts. We already have more than enough gun control laws in effect. They haven’t done one thing to stop the people who want to commit violence.

    Remember the Unibomber? When one of his latest bombs injured the recipient, someone (dumber than a pair of marshmallows) I knew said there should be a law against that kind of thing. This is exactly how stupid people are.

  18. Jabatam says:

    I’m glad that I now have all the firearms I want…more than I need really. The only thing I have to beef up on is magazines and ammo

  19. ChopIT says:


    Ditto! But finding ammo at non-reactionary pricing is the problem! Everytime Walmart puts out .223 ammo with brass casings at good prices, it’s gone within 2 hours.