In 1718, James Puckle invented and patented what was essentially a machine gun.  According to Wikipedia, the Puckle gun “had a pre-loaded cylinder which held 11 charges and could fire 63 shots in seven minutes [9 shots per minute]—this at a time when the standard soldier’s musket could at best be loaded and fired three times per minute.”  The gun was intended for use aboard British ships to repel boarders.  Although the Puckle gun was never widely used, it was known at the time of the American Revolution, and the concept was certainly known since Leonardo da Vinci designed a rapid fire weapon in 1481 (see here).

Another relatively rapid fire weapon was the Ferguson Rifle invented by British officer, Major Patrick Ferguson. The Ferguson Rifle was a flint lock, but it was breech loading rather than the standard muzzle-loaded rifle.  It could fire up to seven rounds per minute, two to three times faster that the muzzle-loading weapons of the day.  This rifle was used by the British against the Americans in 1777.  For more information and a video of a re-enactment firing of the Ferguson Rifle, go to this link.

The “failure of imagination” argument falls to the facts of history.

I found two of his graphs especially interesting regarding the homicide rate during the time that assault weapons were banned.

The first compares the relative number of homicides by hand guns and “other firearms” which presumably includes assault weapons. Notice that during the assault weapons ban, homicides by “other firearms” increased while homicides by handguns decreased:

The next graph shows relative percent homicide by method. Briggs notes “The two rivals, equaling or exceeding in lethal importance to ‘assault’ weapons (and other non-handguns), are knives and other types of weapons, such as poisons, strangulations, and fire. Yet we never hear even rumors of politicians wishing to ban fire. Though we do hear, all too often, of impaired officials banning children for pointing their fingers.”

Briggs maintains that assault weapons bans are ineffective. He concludes with this statement:

None of the statistics presented here are new or unknown. They are available to every politician, and indeed every lawmaker with the word “ban” on his lips knows them well (otherwise they are incompetent). Each of these people, like you now, knows that limiting “assault” weapons will do little to change the homicide rate. Yet still they want to ban. Why?

Could it be—this is reasonable to ask—that they have a different agenda in mind? Did we not hear many elected officials (from both major parties) tell us that guns are “only for hunting”, and did not some call for the confiscation of all guns? I suspect that this is the sole reason for the current flurry, the drive to “never let a crisis go to waste”: to strip citizens of their guns. Not all at once, for that would lead to rebellion, but slowly, incrementally, a death through many small paper(work)cuts.

His full post on this matter: http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=7056

Wryheat comment: If Briggs’ statistics are right, a ban on assault weapons will accomplish little.

]]> http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/2013/01/16/assault-weapons-ban-not-correlated-with-decrease-in-homicides/feed/ 6