Was it effective in lowering crime?  Did it really take dangerous wepons off the street? I believe the answer to the above is a resounding NO!  As far as I can tell, the only real practical changes were simply cosmetic. After all I have a post ban bushy that's a much nicer gun than my SP Colt was IMHO. I have several USGI 30 rounders $20 each. The only diffrence I can see is that I do not have the flash hider. So what's the big deal?  Seems to me to be more of a political thing. Democrats vs NRA.  The Democrats won that battle and so it made big news.  In watching the news in that time 94, I really thought AR's and AK's were gone period! I remember being surprised to find out that the only thing it did was take away the flash hider and bayo lug. High caps were still plentiful albeit more$ OK no folding stock either.

Don't get me wrong here I think it was the wrong thing to do. I just do not see that it has really had as big of an effect on gun owners as the press would like you to believe.

It made me poorer than shit.
God I'd envy someone who became poorer than shit IF it sunsetted. At least you became a martyr for a worthy cause.

Um duh.

Remember your posting this on the AR15.COM. :)

it drove prices way up..and made assault rifles harder to get ahold of legally..thats about it.  

Those queer-ass Democrats think they have it all figured out when it comes to reducing crime.  If you take firearms out the hands of well-disciplined civilians, all you do is put those firearms into the hands of criminals.  That stupid AW Ban had no effect on the crime rate.  Hell, if you think about it, most of the gun crime involves pistols anyways, not AR's, AK's, etc.  All it did was make those immoral tree-hugging, baby-killing liberals happier and pissed us moral gun owners off.

Crime was lowered slightly in that since the AWB, there has not been one bayonetting on record. [slap]

About half the US population is now comfortable with the idea of restrictions on firearms, ergo, they're less likely to object when the next round comes down.

It caused the growth of several great companies.  Bushmaster, Olympic Arms, Eagle Arms, etc.  Prior to the weapons ban these companies only had a small share of the market.  When Colt declined to offer a civilian version right away these companies picked up the slack.  I'm not in favor of the ban, but laws can (and usually do) have Unintended Consequences.  You just can't keep a good idea down for long.

Actually I believe the assault weapons ban spurred semi-autos on the civilian market like no other bill ever could.

People bought them just because they couldn't have them and at the same time, law enforcement across America happily traded gun dealers their old, used pre-bans for shiny new rifles at no cost. In return the gun dealers got $1200 prebans for the price of a postban wholesale.

The huge spike in demand coupled with the LE market dump probably exposed more fence-sitters to "evil black rifles" than we ever would have seen without a ban.

Ponder this.
Washington, D.C. where all these politicians work and many live part of the year has a complete ban on firearms.
NO ONE can own a gun and keep it in D.C. If you are a resident and own a firearm you must store it at an armory outside of the district (very useful in protecting your family). Yet D.C. has one of the highest homicide rates in the country. Figure that one out.

Assault rifles have been hard to get a hold of legally since 1968.

Semiautomatic rifles with military looks have been hard to get a hold of since 1994.

Alex

Your preachin to the choir man.

We all understand your frustration.

And the winner is:

What did it REALLY accomplish?  Some of the Democraps that signed it were voted out on the next election!!![party]

Remember the speech clinton gave after, where he said something like, "Some of the people who signed that bill are not here anymore..." and a lot of people in the audience (to his dismay) started clapping and cheering?  

It taught the public that its people, not weapons, that are dangerous.

The 94 AWB is to firearms what the 18th Amendment was to liquor laws. And like the 18th Amendment, once its gone it will never come back because it left with such a evil reputation.

1) A pre-ban vs post ban if they are used in a crime, meaning actual shots fired THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE in the effectiveness of the weapon.

2) Since firearms makers were limited to 10 round magazines........Firearms were designed to fit a 10 round magazine. In other words handguns became smaller because of the mag. cap limits. (I would much rather have BG's armed with 20 round magazines, it makes them much easier to spot)

3) AW's account for a very small percentage of the weapons used in crimes. They are UNDER-represented in crime stats. Revolvers are OVER-represented, and I suspect pump shotguns are also. So the very premise of the law was flawed. Where are our "duck hunter buddies" with thier weapons, that are far more likely to be used in crimes?

Oh yeah, after the ban was passed, the next elections created the largest turnover rate in the US House, and Senate, in history.

Its enactment helped to cement public perception of AR's, AK's, etc., as being "evil" guns which should be viewed & treated differently from grandpa's hunting rifle &/or SG. People tend to go along with a law because it's the law, & because its "just the way things are". Once a habit has been formed, it becomes all the more difficult to break.

In short, it was an incrementalist method of altering public opinion & stealing a little more freedom from the avg. citizen.

What did it do?  Lemme see:

Mags (AR-15, Glock, Beretta) (mind you, this was in my AO)

Feb '94:  
AR-15 30rd, NIW, USGI--$7 each
AR-15 20rd, Used, USGI--$2-$3 each
Glock, 17rd, New, Factory--$26 each
Beretta, 15 rd, New, Factory--$26 each

Feb '03
AR-15 10rd, NIW, Bushmaster--$20 each
AR-15 20rd, USED, Various USGI--$20-30 each
AR-15 30rd, NIW, Preban, Various--$40 each
AR-15 30rd, USED, Various USGI--$18-$30 each
Glock, 10rd, New, Factory--$30 each
Glock, 17rd, New or Used, Preban, Factory--$50-120 each
Beretta, 10rd, New, Factory--$30 each
Beretta, 15rd, Used, Preban, Factory--$55 each

Glock Pistol, G-17, new, with two mags and box, 1994, $450
Glock Pistol, G-17, new, with two mags and box, 2003, $500

AR-15, Colt, Match HBAR Sporter, Preban, NIB, August 1992, with 30rd magazine, $695
AR-15, Colt, Match HBAR Sporter, Postban, NIB, March 2003, with 10rd magazine, $1115
AR-15, Colt, Match HBAR Sporter, Preban, Used or previously owned, April 2003, with no magazine, $1600

I'd say that guns have gone up in price, and maybe not just because of inflation.

However, look at all the companies which are making ARs or AR parts and accessories.  In 1992, I don't remember any rail systems, good lighting systems, different barrels, brakes, uppers, lowers, stocks, etc. as there are now.  I also don't remember as many AR owners as there are now.

Ultimately, when your parents tell you that you can't have something you want, more often than not, you want it more.  If anything, the AWB created an artificial demand for a product previously in ready supply.  Were less crimes committed with the AWB?  No.  Did a truckload of people from gun dealers, gun manufacturers, and parts manufacturers make money?  Yep.  Did you buy your AR (and hold on to it) after the ban?  Probably.

-Zmeja

"About half the US population is now comfortable with the idea of restrictions on firearms, ergo, they're less likely to object when the next round comes down."

That was exactly the purpose, to desensitize the public to firearms restrictions.

And now, all you hear from the antis is Uzi, Uzi, Uzi.  And they have worked very hard to confuse the public about semiautos and machine guns.  When you point out the difference, they say, "well, it takes only seconds more to empty a clip."  Or, "if it saves just one life."

If you point out that it has done nothing to reduc crime, they will reply with, "too many loopholes, we need to make the law more stringent."

The purpose was, as stated by the other guy, to make it seem reasonable to ban "dangerous weapons of war."

We should never have allowed the "sporting purposes" thing to come into our laws.  But we can thank groups like SAAMI for this.  

We need to get behind Ron Paul's bill big time... we need it in writing, we have an absolute right to weapons that are ideally suited to self and homeland defense.

Valid point. In 1993 I began looking into firearms. I had no practical use for an assault rifle whatsoever and had no intention of ever buying one. As soon as the ban was announced I bought a preban AK, (naturally because I didn't know shit about quality weaponry). My reason was that it was possibly the only chance of owning one and I might be interested later in life without any means to get one. 10 years later this ban made me obsessed with "evil firearms" and full capacity magazines. Good job, Sarah & Slick Willy... you converted a zealot!

One thing it did do for us... the closet gun banners, the ones who "believe in reasonable restrictions" are now out in the open.  We know who they are, we don't have to guess whose side they are on.

Make no mistake about it, the weapons ban is NOT now, and never will be about crime! If it were, facts and reality would have prevailed and it would never have happened. If "they" are so worried about crime, why is there more concern for a criminal's rights than the victims? Why are so many repeat offenders back on the streets? When was the last time you heard of the ACLU stepping in for the rights of a victim? A real victim, not just a publicity victim.

It's all about control. It's about the eating away of our rights, and ability for ANYONE to pose a threat. It's about creating an imaginary enemy to the mindless and then pretending to protect them from this imaginary enemy. The price, just a little smidgeon of your rights and freedoms. Not enough so you'd notice, just a smidgeon. JMHO

So much for my rant. I just get my fill sometimes and have to vent. Time to go back to my cave.