All it did was ban cosmetic features like bayonet lugs, collapsible stocks, etc. High capacity magazines were still legal and easily available.

I was talking about the Assault Weapons Ban (that didn't actually ban any weapons, just their cosmetic features).

You are talking about the Brady Bill for some reason, which mandated background checks and some other unrelated firearms changes like waiting periods.

passed in California after a work-place massacre, endorsed it. By the way, during the California ban being in effect, no comparable incident to that mass slaughter.

Although Republicans refused to entertain any gun regulation under Obama, he entrusted Biden with handling gun control.

This is an issue in Biden’s wheel house. Whether you like it or not, many Americans do listen to Biden because they know about his past involvement in gun control, and he is one of the authoritative voices respected in contemporary political discussion.

She never could answer questions about the details of any of the legislation or anything about the firearms it was directed at. Most that endorse these bills don't understand them, very few people from either end of the political spectrum can describe what the Assault Weapons Ban actually did (which was very little). Simple question, what did it actually ban?

Snip————————————————-

The 1994 law included a ban on 18 specific models of assault weapons, as well as a ban on any firearms containing certain military-style features, like a bayonet mount, a flash suppressor or a folding stock. It also banned high-capacity magazines capable of holding more than 10 bullets. The bill allowed individuals already in possession of such weapons to keep them. It was also set to expire after 10 years' time.
“The original intent of the assault weapons ban was to reduce the carnage of mass shootings,” Klarevas said. “And on that front the data indicate that it worked.”

Klarevas has compiled data on gun massacres involving six or more fatalities for the 50 years before 2016. His numbers show that gun massacres fell significantly during the time the assault weapons ban was in place, and skyrocketed after the ban lapsed in 2004. A separate mass shooting database compiled by Mother Jones magazine shows a similar trend.

Klarevas wasn't surprised by the 2004 report showing the ban had little effect on overall rates of gun crime. “If there was going to be any benefit on [overall] violent crime, that would have been a pleasant surprise,” he said. But, “the real objective of the assault weapons ban was always to reduce both the frequency and lethality of mass shootings.”


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/02/22/the-real-reason-congress-banned-assault-weapons-in-1994-and-why-it-worked/

Snip———————————————————-

Prevent mass shootings? My point is that everything available before the ban was still available during the ban, it just looked cosmetically different. And banning firearms by name was futile because they changed the names of those firearms during the "ban". Tens of millions of high capacity magazines were also still for sale during the ban, the cost just increased.

If they do another ban one day it actually needs to ban something is my point.

not overall gun homicides of course, but mass shootings specifically.

Strip it of its nonprofit status then brand it as a domestic terrorist org condoning and profiting from violence. Kneecapping this org and creating legislation to severely curtail gun ownership by civilians is the best way to thwart the gun industry.

It shows he has confidence and courage. And it's certainly a position I applaud.

thought of that.

Link to tweet