This just in

The ban on weapons that looked like assault weapons was a bust. The NY Times with Many Say End of Firearm Ban Changed Little:

Despite dire predictions that the streets would be awash in military-style guns, the expiration of the decade-long assault weapons ban last September has not set off a sustained surge in the weapons’ sales, gun makers and sellers say. It also has not caused any noticeable increase in gun crime in the past seven months, according to several metropolitan police departments.

The uneventful expiration of the assault weapons ban did not surprise gun owners, nor did it surprise some advocates of gun control. Rather, it underscored what many of them had said all along: that the ban was porous – so porous that assault weapons remained widely available throughout their prohibition.

Actually, it wasn’t that the ban was porous, it’s that it was pointless. Banning a gun based on how it looks is asinine. It also acknowledges the NIJ conclusion that the ban could not be shown to have affected crime. The NYT, now after the ban is done, even posts pictures of a gun affected by the ban and one that wasn’t. Odd how this comparison was never shown back when the media was in a hysterical hissy fit over the ban’s pending expiration.

This quote contains an error:

While the 1994 ban prohibited the manufacture and sale of such magazines, it did not outlaw an estimated 25 million of them already in circulation, nor did it stop the importation of millions more into the country.

Actually, it did stop the importation of regular capacity magazines into the country. And the quote of the day, from Colt’s legal counsel:

“People might think it looks less evil,” Mr. Chen said, “but it’s the same weapon. It was a hoax, a Congressional hoax, to ban all these different features.”