by Jack
23 years ago a deranged transient by the name of Patrick Purdy strolled onto the playground of an elementary school in Stockton and opened fire with a Chinese made semi-automatic rifle killing 5 Cambodian-American children. This tragedy sparked a ban on assault weapons with magazines that held more than 10 rounds. Opponents of the ban argued this was an isolated event. They said it was an anomaly, a combination of a mentally ill, homeless person, who owned a Type 56 rifle, who had a predjudice against Asian children and homicidal tendancies. Therefore it was not likely something to be repeated. But, the good hearted people caught up in the emotion of the moment felt something had to be done to protect the children. Eventually they joined up with the gun-grabbers that promised a ban on assault weapons was the right answer and together they were an unstoppable force.
California’s response was predictable because most in the legislature were not given to thinking beyond removing guns from the public. However, despite their loathing of guns, they had no choice but to exempt all current owners of assault weapons with high capacity magazines; saying to the tens of thousands of owners, you can keep what you own, but you can’t buy any more. People found it easy to buy the same [banned] weapon out of state (Nevada) and police couldn’t tell the difference from one of these weapons and a grandfathered weapon. Oddly, the State failed to employ any statistical tracking to see if the assault weapon ban was actually helping save lives? This was strange given the high profile nature of the ban and how certain they were about it’s future results in reducing violence crime.
Given the State’s logic for the ban and the number of assault weapons that remained in public hands one should have expected regular school yard shootings – amazingly that never happened, no doubt much to the chagrin of the gun-grabbers.
Nation-wide federal statistics showed that about .05% of violent crimes were committed using an assault weapon as opposed to some other type of firearm, but how that statistic factors into California we don’t know, because nobody is tracking it! We do know that in 1982 violent crimes per 100,000 populated were around 875. That number has slowly been going down and in 2011 it was 450. Non-violent crimes have gone down from 6500 to 2800 per 100,000 population. Don’t be too quick to congratulate the assault weapons ban, because in 1993 California passed the Three Strikes law. That law kept many repeat offenders locked up and caused other career criminals to move out of state to safer areas.
There were 1,794 homicides reported in 2011, down 0.8% in 2010 and a 25% percent decrease from 2002. However, during this time the legislature did not pass any new gun laws, and law enforcement had no change in tactics or numbers, sometimes these things just happen.
When the victim-offender relationship was identified, the largest proportion of victims (44.3%) was killed by a friend or acquaintance. Almost 70% of the victims were either black or Hispanic. An equal number of arrestees were also black or Hispanic. 32.1% were gang-related, 27.% were the result of an unspecified argument, and 11.8% were domestic violence-related.
Based upon the facts, it’s reasonable to conclude CA’s assault weapon ban had no discernible impact on violent crime or homicides. This might explain why the gun-grabbers from our state legislature have zero interest in acquiring data on the ban. This is yet another good reason why all new laws should have a sunset clause. We need to force a review of their effectiveness or let them expire.
CA assault weapons ban was a total flop, but don’t try to convince the low information voters or the gun-grabbers. It’s waste of time, just like that ban. Ca. Sen. Dianne Feinstein is now leading the charge in Washington DC, ironically using CA failed law as a national model! By the way, one of the factors that separates an assault weapon from a similar type rifle is the fact that an assault weapon has a bayonet! How many drive by bayonetings have we had?
PS Purdy’s weapon, the 56, as shown above has a legal 10 shot clip.
Excellent recap of past failures of Government mandates that fail to recognize the problems of a situation or issue. Much like the wasted time and Tax dollars Ann Schwab has depleted with her Plastic Bag ban witch hunt. Both Feinstein and Schwab are of the same ilk and use their political office to champion interests that are meaning to them alone, and lack any meaningful benefit to the general populous of America. They both are intent on stepping on individual freedom of choice. Nanny nanny, has become apparent of late in that many more Californian’s wish to be lead by their nose(ring) instead of following their own thought out position on a subject. A rife and magazine ban to reduce mass killings, as pointed out in your article did not work prior, and the current hoopla is flawed in identifying the problem ONCE MORE. Actually what seemed to work was the sunset clause on the previous ban that allowed law abiding people to acquire these weapons and defend themselves while waiting on increasing police response, which has become a problem due to another political tactic, CUT THE BUDGET BASICS to make citizens SUFFER (a very Liberal tactic)to the point they will agree to almost anything the elected present. Should anyone reading you article research the type of weapons used ,Rifles of ANY STYLE were insignificant as opposed to handguns, of which most were illegally obtained, now theres a suggestion as to where the problem lies and start in that direction to resolve this problem by addressing solutions that remove guns from of the hands of the criminals and even in part to the heavily medicated or mentally ill. However like Schwab’s efforts to remove a REUSABLE plastic bag which as studies have shown are more beneficial to the environment and our heath, Feinstein attacks are in individual rights not in problem solving. However this is a democracy, and if a majority of our fellow-citizens are content to live as wards of the state, subsisting from cradle to grave as dependents, we are, frankly, screwed. There is only one place where freedom and a proper constitutional balance can be restored: the ballot box
Harold, you’re a voice of reason and sanity, no doubt about it, well said! It’s hard to add much to what you have reported about our nutty City Council, Mayor Schwab, the stupid gun regulations, plastic bag regulations and so on…and it adds up to one thing liberals seems to love, CONTROL. I had to laugh yesterday when Iheard the news that the courts reversed Mayor Bloomberg’s screwy law to restrict the size of soft drinks you can buy. Apparently Mayor Bloomberg doesn’t have absolutely CONTROL and must still go through the regular legislative process. Now if only somebody will explain that to Obama.
Just one more thought…have you noticed the idiots that are trying to pass more gun regulations know very little about guns? Might explain why CA legislators thought the bullet button release for magazines was a good idea.
Today I watched as Senator Feinstein,got into a heated exchange with Senator Ted Cruz of Texas. I was discussed that she felt more disdain as to being refreshed on our Constitutional Rights than being reminded that she was doing nothing more than trampling on them. Right now its the 2nd Amendment, tomorrow the first or the fourth Amendments if she continues with her we liberals know whats best for you attitude.
I only hope she comes to realize it isn’t the gun that is dangerous it’s the mental state of the person using it, remember folks, a rifle or hand gun it is just a inanimate tool. A AR 15 is no more dangerous that a 22 caliber rifle when someone is determined to cause damage with it. Another fact she seems to overlook/ignore is the 223 caliber round is a wounding round primarily, along with it is a “STYLE of rifle” with a SEMI Auto fire mechanism, and not a full automatic military weapon as she would have the general public to believe. Once more we have a Senator in office that is not doing their job for the benefit of the American public, not even close. No what we have, and now beginning to see is just another politician posturing for re-election votes!
Thank God for people like Ted Cruz. Feinstein is over the hill and out of touch. If she had an ounce of compassion for the public good she would get out of the way instead of buying elections and hanging around. What is she now 80? She needs to go!
Ted Cruz’s line of questioning was ridiculous. He attempted to treat Diane Feinstein as if she had never heard of the second amendment, but he acted as if he had never heard of the fact that there are limits to both the second amendment and the first amendment. Luckily others in attendance pointed out that the second amendment has never allowed citizens to own any type of weapon they want. And the first amendment doesn’t allow people to produce child pornography. There are limits. The debate is over what those limits should be. I wish Republicans would stop acting as if the debate is over whether the limits should exist at all; by doing so they are engaging in self-parody.
The best part was Senator Leahy’s response to Cruz asking if certain books should be banned:
LEAHY: I appreciate that discussion of books. I know that you have that in your state of Texas, where your educational boards tell people what books they should and shouldn’t read in schools, something that we would not do in Vermont.
CRUZ: Mr. Chairman, I, I appreciate your, your acknowledging that the state of Texas allows books.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/closeread/2013/03/feinstein-and-cruz-fight-about-guns.html#ixzz2Nd26yFKp