Altogether now..."Well, DUH!"

This article from The New York Times reports on what many predicted:

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.

Notice this paragraph (emphasis mine):

What's more, law enforcement officials say that military-style weapons, which were never used in many gun crimes but did enjoy some vogue in the years before the ban took effect, seem to have gone out of style in criminal circles.

Unfortunately, some whackos refuse to see the pernicious truth when it's obvious even to the New York Times:

"In my view, the assault weapons legislation was working," said Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, a chief sponsor of the new bill. "It was drying up supply and driving up prices. The number of those guns used in crimes dropped because they were less available."

Yeah, even though they were "never used in many gun crimes."

This stupid law banned guns on the basis only of their appearance, not function, even when it was something as inoffensive as a Ruger 10/22. Note:

Mr. Pasco of the police organization disagreed. "We knew exactly what we were doing by trying to ban guns with certain features," he said. "While it didn't affect their function or capability, those features, at that point in time, seemed to make those weapons more attractive to those who wanted to commit crimes."

What can we expect from a law that creates an arbitrary term ("assault weapon") which can mean anything they want it to? Oh, and note to Ms. Feinstein: it's magazine, not clip. Either learn the correct terminology for what you're attempting to talk about, or stop talking about it.