Virginia Pushes Semi-Auto Ban — But Even RAND Says Evidence Is “Inconclusive”
0
0
0
The Democrat-controlled Virginia General Assembly continues advancing legislation that would ban commonly owned semi-automatic firearms and standard capacity magazines. The stated justification? Public safety. The problem? Even major research institutions aren’t finding solid evidence that these bans reduce violent crime. These types of bans only affect the law-abiding citizen. The criminal does not care for gun laws.
Furthermore, violence in the United States, at least with firearms, has actually dropped. That is not even breaking things down to the point that guns such as the ones banned in these bills, do not even make up a significant percentage of the ones used in crimes. Policies such as these are, unfortunately, about politics and not real-world solutions. All policies must be tested against our constitutional rights regardless, if they infringe on them then constitution must be amended before the said policy can be enacted.
RAND’s Decade of Research — Still “Inconclusive”
In January, the RAND Corporation published the fifth and final edition of its long-running “The Science of Gun Policy” review, summarizing more than a decade of research into gun control measures. When examining bans on what it termed “assault weapons” and “high-capacity magazines,” RAND concluded:
“Available evidence is inconclusive for the effect of assault weapon bans on total homicides and firearm homicides. Similarly, we find inconclusive evidence for the effect of high-capacity magazine bans on total and firearm homicides.”
In other words, after years of study, there is no clear empirical proof that these bans reduce violent crime. For gun owners, that confirmation matters—especially considering RAND has received funding from organizations that support gun control initiatives.
The Data on Rifles and Crime
FBI Uniform Crime Reporting statistics consistently show that rifles of any kind account for a small fraction of overall homicides.
In recent years:
More than three times as many people were killed with knives or cutting instruments than with rifles.
“Personal weapons” (hands, fists, feet) were listed in more homicides than rifles.
Shotguns account for fewer homicides than knives or blunt force objects.
Yet semi-automatic rifle bans continue to dominate legislative agendas.
We’ve Already Run the “Experiment”
The United States conducted a 10-year federal “assault weapons” ban from 1994 to 2004 under the Clinton Crime Bill. A 1997 Department of Justice-funded study found:
“At best, the assault weapons ban can have only a limited effect on total gun murders.”
A 2004 follow-up DOJ study concluded:
“Should it be renewed, the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement.”
Even the National Institute of Justice under President Obama acknowledged in 2013 that eliminating so-called “assault weapons” would not have a large impact on gun homicides. After decades of study, the conclusion remains consistent: bans on commonly owned semi-automatic firearms and standard capacity magazines show little measurable impact on violent crime.
Policy Driven by Headlines, Not Evidence
High-profile tragedies often drive legislative momentum. But as criminologist James Alan Fox has noted, mass killers are deliberate and determined. Laws targeting specific firearm features do not necessarily prevent that intent on violence. When policymakers continue pushing bans despite limited empirical support, it raises serious questions. If the data does not support the policy, what is driving it? Unfortunately, the 2nd Amendment has become a political football and policy, often, is not done on fact, but emotion.
Why This Matters Beyond Virginia
While this legislation is moving in Virginia, similar proposals regularly surface in states like Minnesota. The debate is not abstract. It directly affects millions of law-abiding Americans who own semi-automatic firearms for:
Home defense
Sport shooting
Hunting
Competitive use
These firearms are among the most commonly owned rifles in America.
2 If By Sea Tactical, is committed to defending our constitutional rights here in Minnesota. We are also committed to fighting those infringements no matter where they pop up elsewhere. We believe policy should be guided by facts—not political narratives.
When the data repeatedly shows that a policy is unlikely to reduce crime, lawmakers should reconsider whether restricting lawful gun owners is the right path forward. We will continue monitoring developments in Virginia and across the country because what begins in one state often spreads to others.
In fact, one would argue that the governmental response to crime should never be restricting those who did not commit the crime, but punishing those who did. Law abiding gun owners are not the problem. They never have been. If law makers who are using this current logic when it comes to Modern Sporting Rifles where right, then the National Firearms Act would have stopped all crime with those regulated items.
As we know, it has not. This is why we must fight and stay informed. Staying engaged and connected with those who support you is so important at this moment. Here at 2 If By Sea Tactical, we will be one of those who fight for you. We will continue to bring your clear, fact-based coverage of issues impacting your Second Amendment rights.
Here at 2 If By Sea Tactical we strive to bring you the best experience in the firearms world. As we continue to grow the media arm of 2 If By Sea, make sure you keep tuning in to our Youtube and Rumble channels and right here at “The Patriot’s Almanac” to stay informed on the latest happenings in the firearm world! But we are not lawyers, so this isn't legal guidance. We are proud to be Southern Minnesota source for all things 2A.
Stay sharp, stay informed, and stay ready.
