Results Of Analysis Of Assault Weapons Ban May Surprise You


Anti-gunners like to trot out made up statistics about gun control and about countries where gun control has been enacted. Too bad that these statistics don’t have any bearing on the reality of the United States. And, frankly, the statistics that they like to trot out don’t, when viewed in the context of the larger picture, support the idea that gun control is beneficial.

So, if you’re one of those people who oppose gun control because you support our right to bear arms but think that gun control would actually help reduce the murder rate, here are some real statistics for you: gun control doesn’t reduce gun crime.

Now, in case you think that I’m just spouting opinions without any statistical basis or merit (like anti-gunners), then read what Jordan Fischer writes:


An Indianapolis city councilor’s newly proposed ban on high-capacity magazines and the class of semi-automatic rifles commonly referred to as “assault rifles” would likely have little impact on gun crime in the city, according to an analysis of IMPD gun trace records conducted by RTV6.

But, if you want specifics, here you are again from Fischer:

Of the then-record 149 murders in 2016, only 3 were committed with rifles of any sort. Indianapolis again set a murder record in 2017 with 154 murders. Of those, only six were committed with a rifle. So far this year, only two murders have been linked to rifles […].

So, there you have a it from a major city: rifle bans, which is what so many anti-gunners want, won’t make any difference.

I’d really like even more specific details. I wonder how many of those murders committed with a rifle were committed with a firearm that was obtained through legal channels. I suspect that one, if any, were committed with a legally purchased firearm.

The fact of the matter is that gun bans don’t work because those people who are predisposed to do the wrong thing aren’t going to comply with the law when it comes to obtaining a firearm either. It’s because of this reality that gun bans are (at best) a waste of time and (at worst) a way to steal the rights of law-abiding citizens.



  1. That stand on gun control has never failed since I started hearing about “gun control” back in early 70’s. “When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns”.

    • Well then more than half of America will be outlaws, according your your ignorant view… come and get them moron!

      • I think you wholly misunderstood his context. I think he was in support of 2A, not gun control with his statement.

        And yes, when a gun ban is absolute, then only outlaws will have guns, because by default, mere ownership makes you a criminal at that point, and that would account for roughly 1/3 of this country. We’ll all be outlaws, when guns are outlawed. I do agree however, that if they want to take them, they better come heavy to come take them.

  2. The Second Amendment is as important as any Amendment of our Constitution. And, it states that it shall not be infringed upon. The Constitution is the basis upon which our nation’s government was formed and operates. There is a process by which the Costitution can legally be amended. But, that has not happened. So, as far as I am concerned, matters relating to firearms are still as guaranteed by the Second Amendment, regardless of what any State or Municipality might try to restrict them.
    I would hope that the Federal Government would pass legislation that the Second Amendment is the Law of the Land, and that all laws, regulations etc infringing upon it are hereby rescinded.

    • I agree. The Constitution is the foundation of all laws in this country, and is also under the protective purview of the Federal government, and in their failure to act when a state infringes on rights detailed in the Constitution, they are not just doing a service to the people, but to the very document they are SWORN to protect at all costs. I agree wholly with States rights on issues that the federal government has not been specifically granted power, however, that is not the case with the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment is a Constitutionally protected right, and therefore it is incumbent upon the Federal government to defend it from enemies both foreign and domestic, and this includes attacks against it by state governments that think they can supersede the federal government on an issue that it clearly has been given direct authority over, and which the states have been clearly NOT been given the direct authority over. The whole rational of having it protected on the federal level is to make sure states fall in line with the by-laws and policies of the WHOLE UNION. The fed needs to step up and slap states like NY and California and New Jersey for stomping on every citizen of any denomination and their right to bear arms “Of a manner and sort in common usage of the day” (the spirit of the law, if not the letter, elucidated in a further document in another amendment, I believe, I can’t remember where precisely I read that) which is the definition of it as it applies to military arms, which is what the constitution was referring to, not pop-guns, hunting rifles (though they have military application), semi-automatics, or even handguns. It was what was commonly in use “of the day” meaning presently, and for military operations. Meaning anything our military uses is precisely what we have a right to, in regards to infantry gear.

    • They’d attack that too. But by definition a ‘sporting rifle’ like an AR-15 cannot be an ‘assault rifle’ as it does not have the means to assault by way of heavy suppression fire, or rapid fire outside of what you can do with your finger, or tricky grip mechanism or whatever you have. It’s just not capable, until it’s modified, of firing full auto or selecting between semi and any other rate of fire. It’s a trigger group. So it cannot be called an ‘assault rifle’. Maybe an assault weapon, but every weapon is an assault weapon when you use it to do harm to another. Defending yourself or not.

      The entire usage of the term ‘Assault weapon” is ridiculously erroneous. Changing what we call it will just draw more fire, and how the ‘military industrial complex’ is somehow ‘circumventing’ the law regarding firearms. It will just pull more silly commentary from morons like Piers Morgan and the like that know absolutely nothing about firearms, their operations, or their applications in regards to homeland and home defense.

  3. I totally agree with ABP. If you stick with the statistics of crimes with guns you can’t find a logical reason to ban any guns. Most anti-gun people are reacting with their emotions rather than facts. The second amendment was established to prevent the government from taking away our right to protect ourselves and our families. It also prevents a tyrant like Hitler from employing mass executions of certain nationalities. The USA stands for equality of all races and nationalities and they are given the right to live free without persecution from any government.

  4. I agree with ABP the laws regarding gun ownership should be the same through out the US. Legally a gun in one State can get you arrest in an other.

  5. In my years in law enforcement, before Obama started the trend of refusing to obey lawful orders and making threatening moves, I was threatened by one rifle. That rifle was a WWI 7 mm Mauser in the hands of an untrained guard hired by a business owner. When I checked the rife it had been dry fired so much that the tip of the firing pin had fatigued to the point it had broken off and the rifle was inoperable. I recently checked a .40 S&W semi auto pistol that had been fired with a 9 mm round that had ruptured and seized in the chamber causing a jam. There are all kinds of fools out there that know nothing about guns that are passing feel good laws that do nothing to deter crime, and fools thatdon’t know how to use them if they do have them. Ever noticed on the TV show “cops” how many cops don’t now how to clear a loaded gun? At least train cops how to unload a gun without shooting a fellow officer before they pass anymore asinine laws.

  6. NOTE that the 2nd Amendment does not even say “firearms” … it says ARMS! WhatEVER kind of “Arms” are current at any given time in the future!! Whether that is a Musket or a Rocket Launcher, or a ‘phazer’ or Laser or whatever is invented in the future! It is INTENDED to protect us from our own Government overstepping or an invading enemy! It is NOT so we can shoot varmints in our garden! The 2nd does NOT say anything about “civilian arms” vs “Military arms” or that the Police can have certain weapons that civilians can NOT have…
    Our Legal System has been taken over with “Precedent” as their guideline rather than the Constitution! If ONE Judge in some obscure court case decided a ‘matter’ in a particular way … then from that point forward, Other cases that are in some way “similar” then the Court is expected to ‘find’ the same way as the previous case… And Even SCOTUS does the same thing! Rather than looking fresh and independently at the MERITS of a case, they simply say that because SCOTUS in 1823 decided a certain way then they refuse the case and refer back to the 1823 case…
    So I agree with ABP that we need to RE-ESTABLISH the 2nd Amendment as “The Law of the Land”..!!
    As the article states, and other comments, if a person is already contemplating breaking One Law — Murder, Rape, Bank Robbery, Violent Assault, Home Invasion, etc. — then they will have NO Hesitation to Break Other Laws, such as firearm restrictions! Does a Bank Robber obey the traffic Laws and Speed Limits as they flee the Bank..? If a Bank Robber is planning on stealing a Dodge Charger to use as their ‘getaway car’ but they can’t find a Charger to steal…will they just cancel their plans to rob the Bank? Or will they just find another type of car to steal? …And Rob the Bank anyway!!

    • You are SO right! That has been my point for a long time: outlawing guns will have no effect on criminals. They are NOT law-abiding to begin with, and they won’t become law-abiding because the government passed a law. As my husband said, drugs are illegal, aren’t they? That means no one owns, transports, sells, or uses them, right? Same principle.

    • ” It is NOT so we can shoot varmints in our garden!”

      Yes it is. The 2nd is about ALL legitimate uses of firearms be that formal target shooting, informal target shooting, hunting, pest control, self defense, to protect us from our own Government overstepping or an invading enemy, and more.

  7. If these people can band this type of weapon then they can make up anything law to band the rest. Time to resist.

  8. I totally agree will not be infringed upon at all no matter what you read in on it sporting rifles are not protected under the Constitution I beg to differ all firearms are protected under the Constitution is way I read it.

  9. The violent crime rate in this country has fallen precipitously during recent decades. To be precise, the F.B.I.’s count of violent crimes reported to law enforcement has declined from a rate of 747 violent incidents per 100,000 people in 1993 to 387 incidents per 100,000 people in 2012. During these years private gun ownership has skyrocketed, except in the abattoirs of Democrat controlled cities where strict gun control is maintained, and citizens are denied the right of self-defense.

    • And citizens are victimized further by gangs and other hoodlums that don’t obey the gun laws and draw down on and sometimes shoot them in the commission of their crimes. Banning guns only affects those that own guns lawfully. Those same cities you mentioned have the highest assault and murder rates in the country. In fact, one could argue they account for 100%+ of the murder rate of the rest of the country combined. All because of laws that leave citizens unprotected from criminals that the laws seem to favor, because they don’t care about the law regardless.

  10. Anti-gun measures presented should be imediately aware of their arrest, detention and prosecution for treason. Its open & shut. Should automatically go with the territory.
    Our real concern is that our deep state FBI is allowing it, doing nothing. Every field agent is asking, “aren’t they violating the Constitution?” Yes. They are.



  13. Should the Gov. try and start taking our guns we have the RIGHT to STOP them with our guns. So says 2nd Amendment. That is why it was written. Right to bare arms means any weapon. These so called gun laws that have been FORCED upon us are not legal and should be removed.

  14. In the 1960s, the federal government sold .30 caliber carbines to any law-abiding citizen who wanted a souvenir from WW2 and Korea. Millions were sold, they shoot the same as the AR-15, one pull of the trigger, one shot. Because the AR-15 is black is that the reason it’s a bad gun? AR does not stand for Assault Rifle it stands for Armalite the company who developed it for the military. The left-wing liberal reporters will try to do anything to convince politicians to ban guns. Pres. Obama said we should follow what Australia did by confiscating guns from law-abiding citizens, crime is now up 40%. Keep your guns– it’s our right.

Comments are closed.