It’s been a bit since DWLawson challenged me to read and explain the findings of “the NIJ study on the effectiveness of the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons ban (included high capacity magazines as well)”…
I did read it.
Apparently DW did not. He claims the National Institute of Justice study by Prof. Christopher Koper (PDF) “shows NO evidence of any positive result from the 10 year ban.”
The authors of this study funded by the Bush Administration’s Dept. of Justice answer his challenge for me:
The Ban’s Success in Reducing Criminal Use of the Banned Guns and Magazines Has Been Mixed
• Following implementation of the ban, the share of gun crimes involving AWs declined by 17% to 72% across the localities examined for this study (Baltimore, Miami, Milwaukee, Boston, St. Louis, and Anchorage), based on data covering all or portions of the 1995-2003 post-ban period. This is consistent with patterns found in national data on guns recovered by police and reported to ATF.
• The decline in the use of AWs has been due primarily to a reduction in the use of assault pistols (APs), which are used in crime more commonly than assault rifles (ARs). There has not been a clear decline in the use of ARs, though assessments are complicated by the rarity of crimes with these weapons and by substitution of post-ban rifles that are very similar to the banned AR models.
• However, the decline in AW use was offset throughout at least the late 1990s by steady or rising use of other guns equipped with LCMs in jurisdictions studied (Baltimore, Milwaukee, Louisville, and Anchorage). The failure to reduce LCM use has likely been due to the immense stock of exempted pre-ban magazines, which has been enhanced by recent imports.
It is Premature to Make Definitive Assessments of the Ban’s Impact on Gun Crime
• Because the ban has not yet reduced the use of LCMs in crime, we cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence. However, the ban’s exemption of millions of pre-ban AWs and LCMs ensured that the effects of the law would occur only gradually. Those effects are still unfolding and may not be fully felt for several years into the future, particularly if foreign, pre-ban LCMs continue to be imported into the U.S. in large numbers.
Further on, toward the study’s concluding chapters…
10.1.1. An Agenda for Assault Weapons Research and Recommendations for Data Collection by Law Enforcement
The effects of the AW-LCM ban have yet to be fully realized; therefore, we recommend continued study of trends in the availability and criminal use of AWs and LCMs. Even if the ban is lifted, longer-term study of crimes with AWs and LCMs will inform future assessment of the consequences of these policy shifts and improve understanding of the responses of gun markets to gun legislation more generally.
Developing better data on crimes with LCMs is especially important. To this end, we urge police departments and their affiliated crime labs to record information about magazines recovered with crime guns. Further, we recommend that ATF integrate ammunition magazine data into its national gun tracing system and encourage reporting of magazine data by police departments that trace firearms. [...]
Research on aggregate trends should be complemented by more incident-based studies that contrast the dynamics and outcomes of attacks with different types of guns and magazines, while controlling for relevant characteristics of the actors and situations. Such studies would refine predictions of the change in gun deaths and injuries that would follow reductions in attacks with AWs and LCMs. [...]
(Note: The National Rifle Association and other assorted members of the “gun lobby” have opposed weapons tracing efforts, especially on a national scale.)
10.1.2. Studying the Implementation and Market Impacts of Gun Control
More broadly, this study reiterates the importance of examining the implementation of gun policies and the workings of gun markets, considerations that have been largely absent from prior research on gun control. Typical methods of evaluating gun policies involve statistical comparisons of total or gun crime rates between places and/or time periods with and without different gun control provisions. Without complimentary implementation and market measures, such studies have a “black box” quality and may lead to misleading conclusions. For example, a time series study of gun murder rates before and after the AW-LCM ban might find that the ban has not reduced gun murders. Yet the interpretation of such a finding would be ambiguous, absent market or implementation measures. Reducing attacks with AWs and LCMs may in fact have no more than a trivial impact on gun deaths and injuries, but any such impact cannot be realized or adequately assessed until the availability and use of the banned guns and magazines decline appreciably. Additionally, it may take many years for the effects of modest, incremental policy changes to be fully felt, a reality that both researchers and policy makers should heed. Similar implementation concerns apply to the evaluation of various gun control policies, ranging from gun bans to enhanced sentences for gun offenders. [...]
(all bold emphasis added; italic text indicates author’s headlines and subheads)
Long story short: Some reduction in violence was seen, but because of mitigating factors (incomplete traceability data, “immense number” of grandfathered-in weapons and magazines, availability of imported weapons, etc.) results were mixed. Given that the results were mixed, the authors indicated a continuation of the ban may have resulted in definitive reduction in violence using the banned weapons.
Long story shorter: DW was wrong to claim there were “NO” positive results. The ban worked, but was hobbled by flaws built into it.
There were some positive results in the form of reduced violence, but those results were offset because of loopholes constructed in the ban at the behest of the gun lobby.
17 comments
Comments feed for this article
September 28, 2007 at 8:16 am
c-rockforfreedom
From your link.
Similarly, the most common AWs prohibited by the 1994 federal ban accounted
for between 1% and 6% of guns used in crime according to most of several national and
local data sources examined for this and our prior study (see Chapter 6 and Roth and
Koper, 1997, Chapters 5, 6):
They are not used in Crime, Even before, and after. Most crimes are with pistols, and shotguns. Not rifles.
What is a assault pistol? I would like to know that. If its a rifle caliber pistol, those are just noise makers really. The rifle round does not get up to full speed. Not enough barrel for the powder to burn up in before leaving.
Plus the importation laws were dumb. All that did, was flood the market with cheap Eastern European mags. Stopped manufacturing of American mags. Actally cost American manufacturing jobs. Plus it raise the cost of American made mags to the government, since they were the only ones left to buy.
All the law was that, they had to be “showned” to be made before 94. So you think it took much in Eastern Europe to do that? I got some mags from them that looked brand new. Sure they were made before 1994.
USA made mags had to have a stamp for the post ban era. Which really did not matter much. They were easy to get after the fact, since mags are not serialized. Plus if you really worred about the stamp, you would just bondo the stamp over, and refinish the mags.
Like you said, it “may” do something, but honestly, it did squat. The law was meaningless. If you want to stop crime, CCW is the way to go. Putting felons who use guns in crimes away is another good thing to do. Not giving them probation like they do around here for gun crimes.
September 28, 2007 at 9:57 am
robnesvacil
The report said (you even quoted it, C-Rock): “the most common AWs prohibited by the 1994 federal ban accounted for between 1% and 6% of guns used in crime”
C-Rock then contradicts himself by writing: “They are not used in Crime”
1-6% may not sound like a big number, but when we’re talking about half a million total gun crimes in a given year — it calculates out to be a lot of crime. (In 1994, the year the ban went into effect, there were at least 503,000 crimes committed using a gun.)
1-6% of 503,000 = 5,000 to 30,000 C-Rock.
That’s not “They are not used in Crime”.
Your solution of concealed carry is like saying we need to stop forest fires by pouring gasoline on them instead of water.
I do agree with your other note on putting away felons who use guns — but some in the gun lobby have a problem with such laws in the first place (they think it’s discriminatory against gun owners).
September 28, 2007 at 11:20 am
dwlawson
So the ban worked but didn’t work? Your definition of “worked” seems to be that it would have worked if it hadn’t been “hobbled” by the grandfather clause.
Here’s the real measurement:
Were there less crimes using the banned firearms after the ban than before the ban?
Were there less crimes using any firearms after the ban than before the ban (meaning did they simply use another firearm)?
Were there less crimes using any weapon whatsoever after the ban than before the ban (did they still commit a crime but with different tools)?
Finally, can the uptick or downtick of crime be the result of some other factor?
The point is you can’t reduce crime by disarming law-abiding citizens. Since they are law-abiding and not committing crimes to begin with, taking away a firearm from them by definition won’t reduce crime. Or is it that you have the cynical view that law-abiding citizens are simply criminals who haven’t had the right opportunity yet?
By the way, I noticed that you seem to have ignored the later (Harvard published) study that I sent to you. I sent it as it represents a more recent study that is relevant to the topic of firearms and crime.
September 28, 2007 at 12:28 pm
c-rockforfreedom
Hey,
there is a federal law already on the books for felons. If your caught with a gun, or attempt to buy one, your looking at 5-10 yrs in jail. That law is not enforced.
CCW is already working in other states. Law Abiding people have a right to use technology, like guns to protect themselfs.
Plus, your in Cook Countyland. Your going to trust folks like the CPD, and the cook county sheriffs for protection? With CPD cops puttting hits on other cops, safety is not their concern right now.
September 28, 2007 at 1:23 pm
robnesvacil
DW spins … “So the ban worked but didn’t work?”
That’s a bizarre way to put it… Sounds like a true politician. Maybe you’re just upset that I poked a big hole in your claim there was “NO” evidence the ban had a positive effect seeing as how there were positive effects.
You’re looking for any excuse to negate the ban… Thus you’re looking at the lack of data and lack of conclusivity in a few areas of the study in order to trash the entire ban. But that lack of date and lack of conclusivity is a direct result of actions taken by the gun lobby to hinder the ban and the tracking of its results in the first place.
The ban was not as effective as it could have been because the gun lobby hampered it — that’s very clear from the study. That you choose to ignore this says much about your own preconceptions and biases.
Yes, there are many factors which contribute to a reduction in crime, as we’ve discussed before. The study authors discussed these factors but evaluation of them was beyond the scope of this Bush-backed study.
That said, ease of a given crime’s commission is clearly a factor in crime levels — and guns make it much easier to commit crimes.
Reasonable oversight of weapons and their paraphenalia (rather than complete lack of oversight as you and other gun extremists espouse) must be a major component of any effort to reduce crime.
As the 1994 ban showed, no one “took” guns away from anyone. Previous owners found their “babies” were grandfathered in. (The study was not conclusive on whether or not that impacted the ban in any way, though the professor states it may have negated the ban’s effectiveness. Chances are though, since the people who had their weapons grandfathered in were very likely to have been law-abiding citizens in the first place they very likely would not have started committing crimes after 1994.)
DW, you sound like such a whiney little priss — “The point is you can’t reduce crime by disarming law-abiding citizens. Since they are law-abiding and not committing crimes to begin with, taking away a firearm from them by definition won’t reduce crime. Or is it that you have the cynical view that law-abiding citizens are simply criminals who haven’t had the right opportunity yet?”
A) Which law-abiding citizens were disarmed? Current owners were grandfathered in. People could buy other firearms that weren’t banned. They could even buy European equivalents as law-abiding C-Rock says he did, etc.
B) The study indicated at least 5,000-30,000 fewer crimes were committed using automatic weapons.
C) You’re projecting when you write that you think I have a cynical view.
Are you going to run whining to the Carrys now that I’ve poked your pretentious claims full of holes? Like I said, it’s clear you didn’t read the study (or, if you did read it, you perhaps did not comprehend it). Maybe you got your bogus “NO evidence” claims from people who were spinning a storyline about the article and your li’l ears only heard what they wanted to hear.
–
For the record, I haven’t ignore the Harvard study… Haven’t had time to read it yet. Perhaps you’ll want to actually read it before I finish.
September 28, 2007 at 1:26 pm
dwlawson
So if I recall we originally got on this topic due to your friend Ban Kowtowski’s SB1007. I claimed it was a poorly written law that will not have a positive effect on violence (gun or otherwise) in IL.
Nothing you have said contradicts my assertion. While SB1007 covers a much broader base of firearms, its magazine ban is even more worthless than the Federal one was.
All SB1007 will accomplish is to prevent law-abiding citizens in Illinois from buying certain weapons. It will not prevent a criminal from using any of those weapons. No one will ever be convicted of having an illegal magazine unless their lawyer is brain dead (while I have no census figures on the number of brain dead lawyers, I figure the number is > 0).
Again I assert, why should I or anyone else be compelled to give up a basic right without even the barest proof of a positive social net gain? There must be a compelling gain to society in order that a basic right be contravened, much less infringed. Simply having a feeling or theory is a far cry from compelling.
September 28, 2007 at 1:30 pm
dwlawson
Well there you go again:
B) The study indicated at least 5,000-30,000 fewer crimes were committed using automatic weapons.
DW, you sound like such a whiney little priss
Nice ad hominem attack, usually resorted to when out classed.
Are you going to run whining to the Carrys now that I’ve poked your pretentious claims full of holes?
Please, you’ll have to do better than that.
September 28, 2007 at 1:31 pm
dwlawson
oops, italics overload. Should have been:
DW, you sound like such a whiney little priss
Nice ad hominem attack, usually resorted to when out classed.
Are you going to run whining to the Carrys now that I’ve poked your pretentious claims full of holes?
September 28, 2007 at 1:43 pm
robnesvacil
From dictionary.com…
Ad Hominem = attacking an opponent’s character rather than answering his argument
…Saying you sound like a whiney priss when you do sound like a whiney priss is not an ad hominem attack. It’s calling a spade a spade.
Besides, I had already answered and refuted your premises earlier in the comment.
–
AWs were part of the ban. You asked, “Were there less crimes using the banned firearms after the ban than before the ban?”
The answer is at least 5,000 to 30,000 fewer crimes were committed using the banned firearms.
Are you so upset that you’re being proven wrong again and again that you’re comprehension skills are grinding to a halt?
September 28, 2007 at 1:47 pm
dwlawson
The ban was not as effective as it could have been because the gun lobby hampered it — that’s very clear from the study. That you choose to ignore this says much about your own preconceptions and biases.
So given that Ban Kowtowski’s SB1007 is similarily hampered, did the NRA hold his hand as he wrote it? Or was he simply intellectually lazy and just copied out of the Federal Ban like Dodd did with the Gun Control Act of 1968. http://www.jpfo.org/cs34.htm
September 28, 2007 at 1:55 pm
robnesvacil
C-Rock,
Crime is not any lower or higher in areas of comparable demographics when the only variable is CCW or no CCW.
Studies have shown that homicides by gun have increased after states relax their concealed carry laws… even as homocide rates by other means remain steady or even decrease.
C-Rock, pouring more fuel on a fire doesn’t put it out…
(Cue comments about the Lott/Mustard study and other gun lobby-funded biased studies often used to contradict empirical data.)
September 28, 2007 at 1:57 pm
robnesvacil
Sen. Kotowski was trying to get more Republicans on board (he did).
Like I’ve said before, I would’ve been more strict had it been me working on that legislation. Sen. Kotowski was more gracious in that regard.
September 28, 2007 at 5:04 pm
dwlawson
Wow that looks like a compelling study. Doesn’t say how many crimes were committed by persons with CCW permits does it?
I don’t feel that CCW greatly affects violent crime in the aggregate either way very much. I do feel it greatly affects the outcome of a violent crime when the victim is armed.
Compare two fast food restaurant scenarios.
1. The Brown’s Chicken Massacre, claiming 7 lives
http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=News&id=159070
2. A Subway sandwich shop in Miami
http://www.theodoresworld.net/archives/2007/07/retired_marine_is_top_gun_at_s.html
Different tools, different outcomes.
September 28, 2007 at 6:01 pm
robnesvacil
DW writes, “I don’t feel that CCW greatly affects violent crime in the aggregate either way very much.”
That was the point I was making in refuting C-Rock’s claim that CCW is some magic cure-all for crime…
September 28, 2007 at 11:45 pm
dwlawson
Sure, but my point is that we don’t live life in the aggregate, we live life individually. Does it matter to the murder victim that overall crime is down or up?
September 29, 2007 at 9:57 am
CTD
B) The study indicated at least 5,000-30,000 fewer crimes were committed using automatic weapons.
Wrong. The 1994 Scary-looking Weapons Ban had NOTHING to do with automatic weapons. Automatic weapons are and were regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934. The 1994 act did not change their legal status in any way, shape or form.
September 29, 2007 at 3:37 pm
robnesvacil
DW,
If I knew you lived in the middle of a 100-acre forest with nary a neighbor in sight I’d let it pass that you think we live life individually… we don’t. We live life communally. Living in Chicago, with neighbors just feet from your own home, I’d think you’d realize that.
When guns are easy to come by, it affects all of us because it allows even the people who would choose to abuse guns (to commit crimes) easier access to those weapons.
That’s the entire basis for this debate.
You want to make it easier for everyone to get a gun.
I disagree, strongly.
–
CTD,
You missed the point entirely. There were fewer crimes. Period.
DW had originally claimed there was no evidence of a positive effect to the ban — yet there was.