Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s, D-Calif., most famous piece of legislation, a ban on so-called “assault weapons,” was far less effective than she and the gun control crowd claims it was, according to a report released this week by the nonprofit ProPublica.
The ban, which was passed in 1994 under President Bill Clinton, expired 10 years ago. However, spurred by recent mass shootings in Newtown, Conn., and Aurora, Colo., Feinstein has been keen to see the U.S. Senate to reinstate her signature piece of anti-gun legislation.
She tried in April 2013 to have Congress renew the ban on so-called “assault weapons,” but the measure failed, much to the senator’s vexation.
“We have had enough of the development of highly militarized weapons — easy to shoot, big clips, 100-plus bullets in each large-velocity gun — falling into the hands of grievance killers, juveniles, people mentally disturbed,” Feinstein told her colleagues during a speech on the floor of the Senate.
But here’s the thing: The California Democrat’s “assault weapons” ban would have done little to stop Newton shooter Adam Lanza, a deranged teen who killed 26 people, including 20 children, according to ProPublica.
In fact, the report continues, Feinstein’s claim that her bill reduced gun killings is based on outdated information from the Department of Justice that has since been replaced by newer, more relevant statistics.
“A definitive study of the 1994 law — which prohibited the manufacture and sale of semiautomatic guns with ‘military-style features’ such pistol grips or bayonet mounts as well as magazines holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition — found no evidence that it had reduced overall gun crime or made shootings less lethal,” Pro Publica reported.
The DOJ said in a 2004: “We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence … Should it be renewed, the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement.”
Feinstein, for her part, is unimpressed with the ProPublica report and claims that its conclusions are false, insisting that the 1994 ban did reduce “assault weapons” related crimes.
“I continue to believe that drying up the supply of military-style assault weapons is an important piece of the puzzle—and the data back this up,” Feinstein said in a statement. “These weapons were designed for the military and have one purpose: to kill as many people as possible, as quickly as possible.”
“Let me be clear: Assault weapons allow criminals to fire more shots, wound and kill more individuals and inflict greater damage. The research supports that. A ban on assault weapons was never meant to stop all gun crimes, it was meant to help stop the most deadly mass shootings,” the statement added. “That’s why it needs to be a part of the discussion, or rampages like Sandy Hook will continue to happen.”
