The Impact of the 1994 Assault Weapon Ban

TLDR: The 1994 Crime Bill accomplished absolutely nothing because it did almost nothing.  Mass homicides remained at the same level and AR-15's were actually used in more of them during the time it was in effect.  

 Many folks I interact with point to the 1994 Assault Weapon Ban (AWB) as an example of a successful measure in reducing gun related homicides and mass shootings.  They posit that similar success would be a reasonable expectation with a repeat of the legislation.  I thought it might be a good time to explore the bill's accomplishments, from a data perspective.  Having begun shooting competitively during the ban, I'll also share firsthand insight in how it changed market dynamics.

For reference, the bill went into effect September 13, 1994 and sunset on the same day in 2004.

First, what was included in the bill?

Magazines - No magazines with a capacity greater than ten rounds could be manufactured or imported, after the effective date, except for those designated for law enforcement or military use, which were required to be conspicuously engraved as such.  It was a major no no to be a civilian caught in possession of these.  Magazines already manufactured or imported prior to 9/13/94 were grandfathered in.  

Assault Rifles - What we've (incorrectly) come to refer to as assault rifles weren't banned outright. Instead, they were watered down to not be so scary.  Rifles with detachable mags were only permitted one of the following list of attributes: pistol grips, bayonet lugs, collapsible stocks, or flash hiders, and grenade launchers.  Threaded barrels were banned.  As with magazines, those already manufactured or imported prior to 9/13/94 were grandfathered in.  There were other rules, but they weren't applicable to the topic at hand.  

What was the impact on gun violence?

Figure 1 shows gun related homicides from 1988 through 2011.*  While it's obvious the quantity dropped precipitously, while the AWB was in place, the numbers had already begun to decrease when the bill was implemented.  Also, it might be tempting to attribute the correlation between number of gun related homicides with the efficacy of the AWB.  However, if the decrease did in fact come from the AWB, murders would have returned to pre-ban levels once it sunset, which they didn't. This is another example where correlation doesn't equal causation.  

Figure 1

On the mass murder piece, Table 1 shows that there were the same number of incidents during the AWB as the decade prior.  There was a slight decrease in the number of fatalities.  However, the standard deviation on mass murder fatalities per event of 24.3, there's no statistical difference.   AR's were used in more mass murders during the AWB than in the decade prior.** 

For clarity, I use the FBI definition of a mass shooting (murder), which is an incident in which four or more people are shot and killed, not including the shooter, and the victims aren't related to the shooter.  (i.e. excludes domestic violence)

Table 1

Table 2 breaks out the numbers of incidents and resulting fatalities, across various time periods, between mass murders committed with AR's versus those that used another firearm.  You can see that the AR became more popular with mass murderers but didn't didn't become the most commonly used firearm until the most recent half decade.  I'll come back to that later.**

Table 2

What was the impact to the market and individual gun buyers?

Rifles - You could still buy those without issue.  There were plenty of used pre-ban AR's available for sale, although they'd more than doubled in price.  New rifles were plentiful as well, with manufacturers simply producing AR-15's without the features the government considered scary.  Don't believe me?  Pictured below is an AR-15 I bought brand new during the AWB to shoot 3 Gun matches (pistol, rifle, shotgun); it was just as capable as the ones I own now.

Congress was seriously miffed and pulled in the heads of Colt and Bushmaster to explain themselves.  I recall the president of Colt testified something to the effect of, "We're in compliance with the law; don't whine to us when you did a shitty job of writing it."

There were other dumb loopholes, as well.  The most egregious was the exemption for the Ruger Mini 14, which fires the same cartridge at the same rate of fire and holds the same number of rounds as an AR-15.  Just as lethal, but less scary.

Not Scary

Scary

"High Capacity" Magazines - Manufacturers did their best to compensate for the hi-cap mag spigot being turned off.  For example, in the months leading up to the AWB taking effect, Glock was using their entire sea freight allocation to bring in almost literal boatloads of hi cap magazines to include with new guns.  Other firearms manufacturers were taking similar steps, which meant there were plenty to go around at first.  If you weren't able to grab one with your new gun, there were plenty of hi cap mags available on the secondary market, for a price of course.  I recall the mags for my Sig P226 mags changed in value from $15 to $100 each overnight.  I was forced to pay $50-60 each for scruffy 30 round GI AR mags at the time.  Brand new, better designed versions currently sell for $10.  In other words, you could still get whatever hi cap mags you wanted, but at an inflated price.

There was another interesting loophole in that if you already owned hi cap mags, you could repair them (i.e. buy replacement components) if they were damaged.  I "heard stories" of my fellow competitors using this loophole to build new hi caps from components.  I will neither confirm nor deny doing so myself to support the new competition racegun I had just built.  

Ultimately, the numbers prove the AWB had almost no impact in reducing overall gun violence or the number of mass murders because it didn't really do anything meaningful.  You could still buy anything you wanted on the secondary market, at a higher price.  In reality, the AWB made the AR-15 more popular.  I've already written how a gun dealer friend of mine said that he had droves of first time gun buyers come in to his store to buy one.  He told me there were a few that literally walked in and wanted "whatever the government doesn't want me to have."  While this may be anecdotal evidence, consider that when the bill took effect, there were two manufacturers (Colt and Bushmaster) supporting 95% of the market demand for AR-15's.  After the bill sunset, new ones began coming online every year to support the spike in demand.  Now, there are no less than a thirty major manufacturers making AR-15's, which have become the most popular gun in the country. The author of the AWB was of course, Joe Biden.  Maybe a bit of irony the person who drove the greatest spike in popularity for a gun now wants to outlaw it.  

The facts above haven't prevented those who want semiautomatic guns banned from posting falsehoods and nonsense data.  The one I see most frequently is the chart showing how mass murders rapidly increased after the AWB sunset.  Anyone who understands cause and effect / the scientific method recognizes the chart as the bullshit it is.  The AWB was meant to decrease gun violence; was there a drop after the bill was put in place versus the decade prior?  That answer is obviously NO.  

In order to not perpetuate the falsehood that this piece of legislation was successful in its goals, I will no longer refer to it as the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban...it was the 1994 Crime Bill.

Update:  I've been made aware of at least two studies that contradict my findings with respect to the bill's impact on mass homicides.  The recent video from Robert Reich you may have seen relies on one of these.  Both clearly had an intended conclusion they were seeking and backed into it in some sketchy ways.  I'll address each and explain why I don't care about them.

1.  A Study Conducted by Stanford Law:  This is the one Reich used for his video.  This study utilizes the same dataset as I do, but alters the criteria of what a mass homicide is to SIX or more fatalities.  They justify this via someone's book I'm not paying $18 for.  My position is if the FBI's definition is good for the FBI (and is the standard most entities use), it's good enough for me.  We can all manipulate the data and reach any conclusion we want, which is why I'm transparent.  FWIW, another author called BS on their findings and this was the article responding to it.  In addition to data manipulation, they show a complete lack of understanding of how the bill impacted someone looking to purchase a gun (it didn't).  Plus, they were bitchy and petty about being called out.  

2. A column by some guy in the Ohio Capital Journal that references some nebulous studies by Dimaggio:  This guy copy pasted a chart from the Dimaggio study and provides a link for the data.  Said data only includes fatalities by year, with no detail, and those are hopelessly understated (by almost fourfold) versus the FBI's data.  Yet, he claims to have referenced Mother Jones, which if you read the footnotes, is the exact same source I use for mass murder data.  The data being wildly off and no detail on methodology make this piece a joke.  

In conclusion, I'm done with this topic.  I lived it as a gun buyer.  I easily and legally bought the shit it was supposed to ban, so I know how it impacted the availability of the guns it targeted (it didn't).  The data is what the data is and further debate on the subject is a waste of time.

*Source: https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf

**Source: Mother Jones Mass Shooting Database

***For the sake of simplification, I dumped all assault rifles into the AR(15) bucket, instead of breaking down the various subtypes, such as AK's, etc.   

This entry is part of my "Gun Series" that focuses on providing insight into the gun debate and gun violence.  You can find the other entries in the series HERE.  

About the author: Sean R is a recovering conservative who owns a consulting firm specializing in strategic marketing.  He's been a competitive shooter since the early 90's and holds a High Master classification in PPC and a Master classification in USPSA.  As an instructor, he taught courses in gun safety and competition.  He lives in Raleigh, North Carolina with his overly vocal dog, Sadie.

Can We Ban Guns?

Every mass homicide brings out those who want to ban guns altogether in this country.  Unfortunately, reality says it won't happen, at least not in any of our lifetimes.  Rather than debate in 140 characters or less, I decided to put together a quick and dirty list of hindering factors.  There may be others, that I've missed.

Reasons a gun ban will never come to fruition:
2nd Amendment - It's not going anywhere and it guarantees the right to own firearms

Most members of Congress won't touch it - The topic is widely considered a third rail and an instant way to prevent yourself from being reelected.

Gun lobbies - They make massive contributions to GOP members of Congress, who don't want to lose that stream of funds.  

The population doesn't want a ban - Obviously, there is a portion of Americans who support a ban on guns, but it's a far cry from the much louder majority. 

The US isn't other countries - The gun culture is ingrained into American society, as I wrote here. That entry also talks about banning guns.  

If we confined a ban solely to scary AR-15's and similar weapons, we can probably skip the section above, because such a ban may come in the form of an executive order (that would be overturned by SCOTUS, but that's beside the point.  

Why a ban on guns would be next to impossible to implement:
For the purpose of this entry, I'm working within the context of an outright ban, with nothing being grandfathered in. 

Compliance - More accurately, lack of compliance.  Anyone who believes Americans will happily turn their guns over is completely out of touch with reality.  There will be a large number of firearms "lost in boating accidents" or "sold that thing years ago".  The criminals who own them most definitely won't surrender theirs.  

Enforcement / Confiscation - What happens when the government sends out their ATF jack booted thugs to collect guns?  First, it would be a matter of time until some junior ATF agent gets shot on someone's front porch.  Second, the folks tasked with confiscation would be the most likely to oppose such a ban.  "Nope, didn't find any this week."  Sheriffs in some communities have already stated they won't enforce a ban just on AR-15's.  That number would skyrocket in the event of a total ban on guns.  

Costly - The US government would be required to reimburse gun owners for the value of what was confiscated.  400 million guns in the US at a median cost of $800, means $320 billion for reimbursement.  There are some really nice and rare (read expensive) guns in peoples' safes that won't go anywhere without compensation being involved.

Finally, let's not forget the 50,000+ Americans who would be suddenly out of work, because of the ban, because that's the number who work in the firearms industry.  

Now, can we get back to the real work of addressing why people pull triggers? 

This entry is part of my "Gun Series" that focuses on providing insight into the gun debate and gun violence.  You can find the other entries in the series HERE.  

About the author: Sean R is a recovering conservative who owns a consulting firm specializing in strategic marketing.  He's been a competitive shooter since the early 90's and holds a High Master classification in PPC and a Master classification in USPSA.  Additionally, he's served as an instructor for gun safety and competition courses.  He lives in Raleigh, North Carolina with his overly vocal white dog, Sadie. 

The Founding Fathers, AR-15's, and Goals

  Following President Biden's SOTU speech, the topic of banning this, that, and the other firearm has come to the fore once again.  Inevitably, this has brought out the anti gunners tossing out their usual talking points.  I've already covered how it's not guns that are responsible for the increase in gun violence, along with other fallacies.  Because of how inane it was, I refused to waste time on one particular claim, but someone pissed me off on the internet and here we are.  

This particular talking point pertains to "assault weapons" (i.e. AR-15, AK47, etc.).  The argument is that when they penned the Second Amendment, the Founding Fathers couldn't have envisioned something so vile as an AR-15.  The follow on is that they wouldn't approve of such a firearm being available to civilians.  

Anyone who thinks that possesses zero grasp of the Constitution and the history of the Bill of Rights.  The 2nd Amendment protects the rights of the states to maintain militias, for the sole purpose of preventing a tyrannical central government from overreaching. (I already wrote a lengthy entry on the 2nd Amendment; go find it).  Therefore, the Second Amendment specifically applies to weapons of war, whatever they may be.  It's ludicrous to suggest the Founding Fathers would have confined these militias to using muskets, knowing technology improves everything, weapons included.  

With SCOTUS's latest ruling that the 2nd Amendment applies to personal gun ownership, any ban would be unconstitutional and shot down by the corrupt right wing judiciary. 

And in case you've forgotten, the AR-15 isn't used in warfare; the M4 is, with its three round burst capability.

At this point, I'll once again, ask those who want a ban on AR-15's what they're attempting to achieve.  I've previously pointed out how these guns contribute to a very small percentage of firearm related homicides.  In 2021 (2022 data isn't available yet), ALL RIFLES accounted for <600 homicides, so AR-15's would account for considerably fewer.  

What's really important is how many lives you'd save by eliminating the AR and similar rifles.  Here's a quick calculation with some assumptions:

For 2021, ALL rifles were used in 578 homicides 

Being generous, let's say 70% of rifle deaths were associated with AR's - 405

However, it would be disingenous to say none of those homicide would have happened; the murderer would simply choose a different weapon.  I've used a 50% factor to calculate this difference.

Putting that all together, in 2021, there would have been 202 lives saved if AR-15's didn't exist.  

On the mass homicide side of the equation, those firing AR-15's were responsible for 386 homicides, SINCE 1982.  Obviously, some percentage of these murders would have still taken place, just with a different type of firearm.  Using the same 50% factor as above, 193 lives would have been spared, were the AR not available.  Again, this is from 1982 until now.  

Because everyone likes pictures, the two charts below illustrate two things; in what context gun related homicides take place and by which type of firearm.  Now tell me again how assault rifles are killing so many people in mass shootings.

Banning the AR-15 won't move the needle on firearm related homicides, so what are you trying to accomplish?

In conclusion, I'm not unsympathetic to the cause of decreasing gun violence, but as I've said previously, it's abundantly clear some aren't interested in root causes, but attempting to achieve a pipe dream.  Furthermore, such flawed talking points are useless in changing any minds, because they're flawed.

This entry is part of my "Gun Series" that focuses on providing insight into the gun debate and gun violence.  You can find the other entries in the series HERE.  

About the author: Sean R is a recovering conservative who owns a consulting firm specializing in strategic marketing.  He's been a competitive shooter since the early 90's and holds a High Master classification in PPC and a Master classification in USPSA.  Additionally, he's served as an instructor for gun safety and competition courses.  He lives in Raleigh, North Carolina with his overly vocal white dog, Sadie.

Classified Documents And You

 Because it's on my mind, below are the answers to the two most common questions floating around regarding classified documents.  

To begin, there is no "Classified" in the code.  The three levels are Confidential, Secret, and Top Secret.  Those are the public levels; there might be levels where even the name of the classification level is secret.  This post pertains to the first two and somewhat within the context of recent discoveries at the homes of President Biden and former Vice President, Mike Pence.  

Why Didn't NARA Know The Docs Were Missing?

The simple answer is there's no central database that catalogs classified documents and the whereabouts of every copy of each.  It would be an impossible task, considering there are literally billions of these docs and countless copies of each.  This is why no one was aware that Trump, Biden, and Pence still had classified docs in their possession.  Trumps were discovered because a staff member recognized a former President shouldn't have 200+ boxes of the stuff and dropped a dime on him.

A quick example to illustrate how these things multiply:  A CIA task force conducts its weekly review, requiring a number of docs be printed for the forty people in the meeting.  A few get thrown to the Pentagon, DNI, the President, and so on.  There could literally be close to a thousand copies of several classified documents to come from that one meeting.  

Also, there are many folks with clearances outside the US government, which is necessary to actually design and build things like fighter jets.  Every final assembly and many of the subassembly drawings are classified; you can imagine the number of docs associated with that activity.  

Do we have that many secrets to need billions of documents?   

The short answer is no.  The issue of overclassification has been known to the intelligence community for years.  Overclassification is when a document doesn't really warrant to be classified, but is.  For example, a doc that compiles information found in the public domain can wind up as Secret; this happens frequently.  The mindset is better to be safe than sorry.

On the other end of a classified doc's lifespan, the intelligence community isn't the best at declassifying material that's out of date or shouldn't have been classified in the first place.  The process is time consuming, as it should be to prevent material that's still sensitive from being released.  But there are innumerable docs that could be declassified that no one's bothered to do so.  I'd be willing to bet there's still a Top Secret document evaluating the transistor's (invented in 1947) impact on defense strategy.  

Can you remove classified documents from their source?

It depends.  Constitutional officers have a lot of latitude on this versus other schmucks and members of congress.  This means a VP has the ability to remove materials the same as the President. 

A source I've found very helpful is below.

Classified Rules

LGTBQ and You

 This entry will be geared primarily toward the fine folks who lean hard to the right.  Its genesis, however, was my own reflection on the topic.  Because this is a quick and dirty one, don't look for a ton of stats; just logic and common sense.

First, let's talk about why folks are LGTBQ.  The brain is an incredibly complex organ that we still don't completely understand all of its intricacies.  While our DNA plays a role in our physical attributes, most innate behaviors are simply hard wired into our brains.  The majority of our population is wired to be attracted to the opposite sex; makes sense for the whole procreation thing.  However, for just under 10%, their wiring tells them to be attracted to the same sex as they are.  In roughly 1.5% of the population, their wiring tells them they're the opposite sex from the one they were born.  These traits are present from birth and don't just pop up at majority.  

It's really not any more complicated than that.  There are some people with anatomy that's different than their brain says they are.  

What being LGTNQ isn't:
- A sickness:  no matter what the hillbillies in the Midwest claim, you can't teach someone to no longer be gay.  That's called torture.  Again, the whole hardwiring thing.

- A choice:  Folks in the LGTBQ community suffer physical and verbal abuse, are discriminated against, and generally ostracized from society.  Many torture themselves trying to be "not gay" to fit in, but hardwiring... I assure you, no one voluntarily chooses to put themselves through that hell.  

- Grooming straight kids to be LGTBQ:  Honestly, this is one of the dumbest myths going about the community.  It isn't a club that needs new members, people!  For the really dense who believe the myth about recruiting kids because gay couples can't procreate, you may have heard about this thing called adoption.  You know, for all the unwanted babies being born because the mothers were forced to bring them to term?

- Different than straight people:  For the most part, these folks want the same things as straight people.  They want to love someone and be loved back; you know, happiness shit.  

- Pedophiles:  Every legitimate study I found online said the same thing, which is 80% of pedophiles are (supposedly) straight men, leaving the 20% remainder of bisexual and homosexual men.  Don't get me started on clergy, because that's well documented.  As I've said before, I'd consider my kids to be safer with two men in drag than with a clergyman.  

Readers should note the numerous times I've mentioned children, because that's important.  As I mentioned before, gay adults began life as gay children, who go through hell growing up.  

What that means is this:

- Gay and lesbian youth are almost four times as likely to commit suicide than their straight counterparts

- Trans youth are almost six times more likely!!!*

That's what we're doing to our children.  Those who are closed minded and full of hate, give it a rest on the whole "that's a guy in women's clothing".  If that person's brain says they're a woman and she wants to live her life as a woman, let the woman be who she is, and hope for her to find her place.  She's gone through more hell than you, most likely.

For those who continually harp on how they want to protect our children, here's your opportunity to put your money where your mouth is and not be a hypocrite.  

I get it; there's an "eww" factor.  Watching gay men kiss continues to be on the icky side for me as well.  Growing up in a rural environment, I saw the LGTBQ community (they didn't have a name then) as freaks.  But then something happened to me; I grew the fuck up.

No one's asking for you to be enthusiastic with your acceptance.  Only to not hate those who want the same thing as you, but aren't the same as you.

*per JAMA published study

Other helpful studies have been linked below.

Studies on subject

Fact or Bullshit?

 Occasionally, I'll encounter someone on the right who's consumed the Koolaid, but doesn't insult me when engaged.  Today was such a day and the context was around what this person considered as overwhelming evidence Covid vaccines were killing scores of people.  Our meeting was over something one of the worst pieces of right wing garbage, Stew Peters, posted.  (below)

This is a perfect example of the innuendo tactic I'll be mentioning in an upcoming entry.  The goal of this one was to keep his readers on the hook, believing the claim of numerous deaths caused by the Covid vaccine.  I've already debunked most of that package of nonsense here, but the person I was interacting with hadn't read the post, much like the rest of the planet.  Like many on the right, she blindly accepted what she was told by right wing influencers.  

The purpose of this quick entry is to say "don't do that" and share the process I use when I'm presented with something that would be considered a game changer.  This isn't so much a formal process, but a set of litmus tests I apply to everything.

They include:

- Confirm credibility of the source - This can include the source sharing a claim and/or the data presented

- Verify the existence of what's being presented - Can you even find the article / data in an internet search?

- If it exists, does it say what is claimed? - This one can require some time, depending on what's been presented for you to believe.  For example, I spent a few days poring through the VAERS database to validate right wing claims of widespread severe reactions to the vax.  (those claims were bullshit)  Likewise, I present factual data to provide a compelling argument that carrots are deadly.

- Can the claim be independently validated? - Can you find corroborating evidence from other sources?  This is a big one!

- Why haven't I heard about this already? - If it's so earthshattering, why am I only hearing about it from some no name influencer?  Mainstream media coverup is NOT an unacceptable answer; I outline why in this post.  

Let's walk through this particular instance.  Despite the "article" not specifying vaccines, the innuendo was there, so I'm broadening my scope to include them.   

With respect to credibility, I've encountered too many lies broadcast by right wing media to trust them on anything.  To be clear, I'm referring to empirical facts and not subjective opinion pieces.  As a recent example, one of the outlets (Newsmax, OAN, or Gateway Pundit) posted a story stating the CDC was actively investigating a strong link between the vax and strokes.  However, if you read the CDC statement, it very clearly stated they only had anecdotal evidence of the link, but would monitor the situation.  In other words, they lied to stoke fear and outrage among those who may be more vulnerable to manipulation.  I've always taken the position that if I catch someone in a lie, they're a liar.  

Considering the asshat in question for this example has posted complete fabrications at least once per day, he also lacks any sort of credibility.  

The article wasn't anywhere on line.  Mr. Staines has been good enough to compile all of his articles on his professional website and this one isn't present.  Also note the lack of any sort of identification of the publication itself.  Note this is common with the right wing.

Validation on this one is nonexistent.  There's no evidence of a spike in deaths, period. Which makes answering why I haven't heard about it from sources other than right wing influencers easy.  Not even Fox News has made a peep.  

In this example, you should reach the same conclusion I have (repeatedly).  This tweet is bullshit, meant to push a bullshit narrative.  

Another resource for true facts has been linked below.

Factual data

Evil is Welcome Here

 According to Twitter, I've been a bad boy and more than once.  Early yesterday afternoon, I received an email advising my account was locked for violating some non-specified portion of their rules.  This is my fourth suspension in the past three months, so I was rather miffed.  You'll understand why, later.  When I discovered the penalty for this latest infraction, I felt a mix of outrage and depression.  

Before addressing my latest horrible act, I think it makes sense to quickly review what previously got me thrown in Twitter jail.

The first was a result of referring to Q Bitch Sporkfoot MTG as a "classless bimbo."  That one may have just edged the TOS, but no one can argue the statement wasn't factually correct.

The next two both involved the right wing looneys' favorite crybaby teen, Kyle Rittenhouse.  I was punished for referring to him as an "attention whore" and a then, a "teenage pansy".  I take serious issue with both of those, not only because of their accuracy, but because they flat out don't violate the TOS.  In fact, one of the gif options IN THE TWITTER APP specifically says "Attention Whore"

I'll say that again:  I was suspended for using a phrase Twitter allows you to pic as a gif!

For each of these three heinous non-offenses, I received a week long timeout.  

Because rules are nothing if they don't equally apply to everyone, I happened on the tweet below that clearly violated the rules against making disparaging comments regarding someone's sexual orientation.  Stew Peters is one of the most malignant right wing slime balls on the site and was behind the Suddenly Dying movie.  Anyway, I reported the tweet and received a message from Twitter saying the tweet didn't violate TOS.  

This evil fuck calling Lindsey Graham a HOMO sure as fuck violates your TOS, Space Karen!  But the rules don't apply to everyone, now do they?

That brings us back to my latest infraction.  The offending tweet was in response to a story on Newsmax about Ron DeSatan confirming himself to be a distasteful piece of waste, by stating he was serious about making criminals out of teachers who violated his bigoted, racist laws and they would see jail time.  My response was "Except for minorities and LGTQ, who will be summarily executed."  I was intentional in my wording for two reasons.  First was to emphasize what a hateful little prick he is and second, I wanted to see how many likes such a nasty sentiment would get from the right wing idiots.  The answer is twelve (and zero challenges on being a horrible human being), which absolutely disgusts me.

At this point, you may be wondering what penalty I received for suggesting minorities and LGTBQ should be executed.  If insulting heroes of the stupid got me three, one week suspensions, surely my account would be under serious review for advocating something so vile.  Nope, I received a twelve hour suspension, which has obviously been served.  

An intelligent human being would never look at these situations and consider them as proof Elmo is treating his right wing sycophants in a more favorable manner to those he disagrees with, but it does make one wonder.