The Promises of Feinstein’s Civilian Disarmament Bill

The Promises of Feinstein’s Civilian Disarmament

Eric at the Gunmart Blog
Eric at the Gunmart Blog

United States –-( When Senator Feinstein introduced her new, gun control, civilian disarmament bill she released all the details of the new bill on her website. Along with all of that she also included what she calls “proof” that the 1994 “Assault Weapons” ban worked.

The shining example of this “proof” and the item that she chose to list first and foremost amongst her evidence submitted is a study conducted by the Justice Department that determined “the assault weapons ban found that it was responsible for a 6.7% decrease in total gun murders, holding all other factors equal.

Lets do the math on that, shall we? You will of course have to suspend reality by ignoring the fact that many other studies have concluded that the 1994 ban did absolutely nothing to control criminals… but indulge me for just a moment if you will and lets take these findings at face value just to see exactly what we would get for handing over our Bill of Rights in the name of safety.

According to the National Center for Health Statistics, the number of gun murders in 2010 was a total of 11,078. If we implement this new AWB and achieve these historically “proven” results then we will decrease the total number gun murders by 6.7% or 665 murders (6.7% of 11,078). Yes, one would have to believe that no guns = no murders, but lets overlook that for right now.

So, supposedly thats 665 murders that will be stopped by passing that legislation. Giveaway your God given right and your guarantee of liberty and freedom to save 665 people (or 0.000002% of the U.S. Population). Or you know what… we could just ban hammers/clubs. Hammers? Yep. That alone would stop the 496 murders that happened in 2011. Remember, anti-gun logic says that if we just ban the tool then there will be no murder. Or we could ban swimming and save 3,782 people from unintentional drowning. Do we really need to be taking all of those innocent children to the local pools and water parks everyday during the summer? And dont get me started on cars… (30,000 – 40,000 fatalities per year) So, wouldn’t things like that be a better use of Congress’ time than treading on the Bill of Rights for the sake of saving lives? And thats what they are really after with all of this. Right? Wink. Wink.

I will also point out that in her efforts to prove that the 1994 “assault weapons ban” worked, she submits that since the ban expired back in 2004 – more than 8 years ago! – a grand total of “more than 350 people have been killed and more than 450 injured by these weapons“. Thats about 44 people per year. Thats well short of the 665 that her math promises us will be saved, and it makes that ban on hammers look like a full fledged campaign issue.

So the next time a gun-grabber tries to turn the, gun control, civilian disarmament debate into a “public health issue” debate, put them in their place. Tell them to stop sensationalizing things and let them know that the numbers just don’t support their argument.

As the old saying goes… there’s just no there there.
Eric at the Gunmart Blog – Eric is a gun blogger, firearms enthusiast, and sorry excuse for a hunter. He is also an AmmoLand Shoting Sports News Columnist. Leave him some comments on this article before you go. You can also follow Eric on Facebook, Twitter and at his blog, Gunmart. Visit:

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Dianne "mothballs" Frankenstein needs to retire she has become far too unreasonable with her age and the length of time she is been in office is safe to say that her mental state is not one that is acceptable for a legislator the old decrepit and senile I have no place writing walls for our nation

roger griggs

one would better off trying to talk sense to a stop sign that's in the wrong place. nobody home is right !

you cannot talk sense to these type's because they have no common sense!

Ivan Pistov

SBeecher, I take offense at your assessment of Feinstein's proposals as "very limited". These proposals involve total SACRIFICE of all the types of guns listed, they will not be compensated, and the truth is that an extremely small percentage and number of these guns and those who own them have ever committed any crime. If drunk driving or drowning accidents, or medical mistakes, were comparable numbers, we wouldn't be talking about guns. Those opposed to gun ownership always seem surprised at how "controversial" the gun issue is, no matter what sub-issue or context. That's because people who believe in the… Read more »


I like "gun control, civilian disarmament."

I've been using "(gun) control."


People need to read the Bill of Rights and history in order to understand why the 2nd Ammendment was so important to our Founding Fathers. This country won the Revolutionary War because each man in each household was permitted to own a firearm. They left their homes,many without proper clothing or shoes and fought for our freedom. If we allow this oversized,underproductive government to take this right from us we are defenseless against the very thing that the Founding Fathers were afraid of:Our inability to form a militia to protect ourselves or our country if necessary. This is something we… Read more »


Mental health issues are definitely real. All too real. The reason that many parents find themselves going with drugs is out of sheer frustration because nothing else works. I support the very limited approach to regulating guns that is currently being proposed by Feinstein and others because we have got to begin somewhere to act in a constructive way, even if the prospect of gaining majority votes creates a sense of it being little better than nothing. Most of the comments here read as antagonistic to any thinking that might be an attempt to work towards something constructive. I think… Read more »

Philip W Martin

Feinstein is a worthless old fool. She only think's of way's to disarm this nation. Then she and those other fool's can take over for good. Someone should put her in her place. That fool is sick.


sbeecher says: Complex issues can take years and decades. What will it really take to improve the public mental health system? Most people don’t encounter a need to become familiar with how young people fall into serious mental illness, so the basis for intelligent discussion on that is outside the debate. The problem is simple young people are comitting these acts because big pharma has invented a bunch of imaginary problems and paid off doctors with bonuses for convincing parents to poison their children with dangerous drugs that cause violence and suicide. The blame for these acts and the resulting… Read more »

Jay Cochrane

I heartily agreed. Although the proposed legislation will do practically nothing to curb gun violence, it does give the appearance that the politicians want to do something even if it's wrong. I've actually seen a few pathetic suggestions that we "alot more money for mental health" (throw money foolishly at the problem. And, that we consider the effects of violent movies, TV, and video games. These are not real solutions, and no one wants to tackle the problem from these directions because they are messy and hard to understand. Knee jerk ideas like take away all the guns get air… Read more »


"More Guns Less Crime." The simple answer to a complex problem. After all, it is the Bill Of Rights, not the Bill of needs.


I have a somewhat different take. I think that Congress needs to increase regulation on a very limited basis to move against gun violence. The way politics works, what matters is any movement at all in some direction. A big problem in the debate over what to do with outrage over such incidents as Newtown and Aurora and Tucson, is that it is polarized to the extent that the analysis needed to get to real solutions may be impossible. The only way that the political system can work is for this most intensely interested to choose sides and see who… Read more »