Powered by TypePad

« Their Worst Nightmare | Main | Texas Death Cage Match »

April 24, 2005



"In my view, the assault weapons legislation was working," said Senator Dianne Feinstein, Idiot of California, but alas the "loopholes in the law" had it such that the "American public thought there was an assault weapons ban, there never really was one."

This Mobius Loop of logic would lead most to believe that new ban legislation that looked good on paper but was never enforced would have the same effect.

And I thought our tax dollars were important, instead we made police and others spend hundreds of hours on a task that yielded nothing but perhaps a good feeling and an issue for Senator Feinstein and her like thinking friends.

And they kept saying the bayonet was useless.


"driving up prices". That's all it did and, thankfully, not by much. Somebody else said it before me, but it reflects my feelings too: I never wanted a semi-automatic rifle until the government told me I could not have one. To the extent that it encouraged Americans to buy decent guns and avoid junk, looking forward to reselling them to recoup their investment, it was maybe a good thing.


"In my view, the assault weapons legislation was working," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., "It was...driving up prices. The number of those guns used in crimes dropped because they were less available."

--Who knew that Dianne Feinstein was so much a supporter of and partisan for .50BMG rifles? After all, they're ALREADY expensive and hard to get; therefore, they must be little-used by criminals!

richard mcenroe

Neo — I never bought the bayonet is useless argument. Suppose you're out hunting and a herd of illegal immigrant Sandinista deer fights its way through the barbed wire into your foxhole? That bayonet's the last thing between you and a mess of antlers....


Can someone fact-check DiFi's assertion that the price of assault weapons increased after the assault weapons "ban"?


Can someone fact-check DiFi's assertion that there is a definable category of things called "assault weapons"?


Military-style-esque semi-automatic rifles did increase in price pretty dramatically after the banwhichwasnotreallyaban. That is a fact. This was especially true of higher-quality rifles, such as the M1A and the AR-15 variants, and the FALs and the H&K produkten. Even cheaper rifles got more expensive. Stuff like my little Ruger Mini-14 jumped in price a good forty percent or more. One notable component, the uncontrollably-murderous, ill-tempered, bipolar, virulently violence-prone, more-than-ten-round clip, became especially more dear after the ban. Especially for my little Ruger Mini-14. Ruger, good coprolite citizen that it is, complied with the spirit of the "ban" and made their big boxes unavailable to noncops. On the aftermarket, they were more than twice what they had been before.

All of this simply made for a larger market for AKs and SKSs, and other fine work from the CB. Those rifles, which actually have a lot going for them besides their low cost, proliferated in the market like rats on clomid.

Source: My anecdote-enhanced memory, unadjusted for inflation.


Fairix: Personal experience: Low-volume mags (stuff that wasn't out in big quantities pre-ban or stuff for rarely-imported weapons) went up in price and kept going up as the market dwindled; I remember seeing 32-round Glock mags going for $75 or more at gun shows (they originally sold for about $30)and high-caps for Para-Ordinance .45's going for $60+. High-volume stuff, where there was a blue million units on teh market to begin with- M16/AR15 mags, stuff for FN-FAL's or AK's- doubled in price; but, when you consider inflation over 10 years and the fact that they never cost that much in the first place ($5.00 increased to $12.00) this wasn't a big deal.
Personal experience as a serious gun nut.

Andrew Frechtling

Let's not forget: the real purpose of the ban was to be "a good first step" to confiscation.

Columnist Charles Krauthammer put it best in a April 1996 column in the Washingtom Post;

"Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is a symbolic -- purely symbolic -- move in that direction. Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation. Its purpose is to spark debate, highlight the issue, make the case that the arms race between criminals and citizens is as dangerous as it is pointless. "


I bought my AR the day the ban passed, and it spiked up 50% 2 days later at the same shop. Later, 15 round magazines for my Glock 22 were going for $90. Doh!

On the other side of the coin, I was still able to buy a "non-banned" nice Russian SKS for under $200, paid with a credit card, grabbed the reciept, picked it up and walked out to my car same day -- in California, at the now banned Pomona Gun Show.

Go figure.

So, now in California I can still no longer purchase a new 15 rd mag for my Glock, and not only can I not get another AR, I can't even sell mine in State or give it to my wife (I can sell it out of state).

But I can buy crates of Mini-14's any day of the week.

So, I guess I'm not allowed to own an ACCURATE .223 caliber semi automatic rifle with a removable magazine.

But, hey, the weather's nice.

The comments to this entry are closed.