It's easy to get the results you want when you get to define the terms.
DiFi helped define "assault weapons" as those with two or more insignificant features. During the ban, rifles could only be sold with one such feature and thus were NOT "assault weapons".
Since the ban expired, dealers have been able to sell rifles with all the insignificant features and buyers need not give up their bayonet lug, their flash suppressor, or their pistol grip (except in Kalifornia where the nonsense continues).
Naturally, sales of "assault weapons", as defined by the ban, resumed in 2004 with plenty of pent up demand.
It should be no surprise then that there was an increase in crime due to the presence of weapons which previously were outlawed. The interest created by the ban itself caused untold numbers of rifles to be sold which DiFi would now, using her NEW and IMPROVED definition, outlaw.
DiFi is the worst sort of demagogue, using a corrupt and willing media to destroy our rights and impose a tyranny on our children and grandchildren.
What were the names of the men found in the woods at Newton? Were the two or three of them? What have the children described? What about the shots coming through the windows?
This anti-gun playbook has been waiting for this practically perfect event. Made to order.
And here, the Sandy Hook killings took place on an anniversary of George Washington’s death and the ascension of the caliph, Uthman. The MB must be pleased.
“there was an increase in crime due to the presence of weapons which previously were outlawed.”
Her crime numbers fail to notice that while “assault weapons” were banned, trivially different guns remained available and sales thereof surged. It’s as if red cars were banned, and crashes involving red cars fell slightly, then they are legalized and crashes involving red cars increased - then claiming the ban on red cars worked, and ignoring other relevant statistics.