First respect for reading the article and citing areas you took issue you with.
In response (
https://www.google.com/amp/s/abcnews.go.com/amp/US/understanding-1994-assault-weapons-ban-ended/story?id=65546858):
Your first point is pretty pedantic so moving towards your second with the above quotes. The bill specifically prohibited the possession of semiautomatic assault weapons. And the years during the bills existence did coincide with a drop in gun crimes using such weapons.
In actuality the issue with the bill very well may have been that it didn't go far enough. It did not work retroactively and such weapons that were obtained prior to the bills passing were not affected. And ultimately it was found to not do enough to rein in other non-banned weapons that could be modified to hold large capacity magazines.
But as a blueprint for doing *something* there are worse places to start. Alterations would surely need to be made to meet whatever issues have risen in prominence since the sunsetting of the original bill. But that's what congress is for; to craft legislation according to the issues of the day, and gun violence in America certainly qualifies.
Last time we had such a discussion, you made some pretty salient suggestions on things that could be implemented to help in this issue. That's why it's so frustrating that you consistently take the position that you do in these debates. You clearly and obviously recognize the issue, but you get so deep in the weeds that you spend exponentially more time defending increasingly myopic points than actually offering any actual solutions.
Like this country has a gun violence problem; debating on classes of firearms is pretty far from the actual point and I'm pretty sure you know that.
