Crime Stats During AWB


June 13, 2007, 04:55 PM
Can someone point me in the direction of crime stats during the AWB. Was there any impact at all in the reduction of gun related crimes during this period. Please point me to a credible unbiased source. I am interested in seeing what the true impact was.


If you enjoyed reading about "Crime Stats During AWB" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!
June 13, 2007, 05:08 PM
1996 BATF Study, mandated by the law:

Unpublished 2003/2004 study:

Bottom line, pre-ban they were used in 2% or less of firearm crimes. During the ban, it may have dropped to like 1.5%. No discernible effect on gun crime overall.

June 13, 2007, 05:29 PM
The CDC did a study of the 94 AWB. They said that it had made no change in lowering the crime statistics. Bla Bla Bla. And this is coming out of a guberment org. Plus as we all know ak's and Ebr's are the favorite weapon of choice for bangers. We all know it is the glock fourtay
I tried to google it, I came up with some references to it but not the original cdc document. Maybe it just needs to be searched another way.

Jeff White
June 13, 2007, 07:43 PM
Gun laws have almost no effect on the crime rate. Those laws that restrict the ownership and possession of guns do not lower the crime rate and those laws that encourage the possession and carry of guns don't lower it either.

The crime rate is determined by a lot of complicated socio-economic factors, the biggest factor seems to be the number of males aged 14 to 28 in the population.

Gun laws are neutral on the crime rate.


June 13, 2007, 08:08 PM
The FBI has Uniform Crime Reports from 1995 to 2005 on line here ( They discuss which crimes are committed by perps using firearms. But you need data for 1994 and at least a couple of years prior. It's likely that you will need to visit an academic or public 'depository' library for data that old.


Bureau of Justice Statistics has a page ( you can ask for the percentage of homicides by means of firearms 1976 - 2004. It doesn't have a 'all US' option, just each state and DC, but you can select all the states and get the percentages by state by year - a little simple Excel stuff and you can get the totals. Also, you can get the totals for homicide and non-negligent manslaughter by year for the whole US on this page (, 1960 - 2005; trends in total homicides give a view on whether, if a kind of weapon is limited, some kind of substitution has been made.

Neither of these data sets offers much in the way of analysis of causes.

June 13, 2007, 08:44 PM
you will need to visit an academic or public 'depository' library

Just don't take your rifle with you, the police might get the wrong impression and have flashbacks of Dallas in the '60's ;)


June 14, 2007, 07:25 AM
There was a large study done by Koper and Roth, IIRC - something like that that was funded by the DOJ. It was reported at the American Society of Criminology and has made the professsional journals. So a academic data base will find it.

They found that the ban did not have an effect on any of the standard criminal stats.

They concluded this was because:

1. The existing stocks of weapons were adequate to met the demand
2. There was almost perfect substitution of similar weapons without the silly cosmetic features listed in the ban.

Their conclusion was that the ban was ineffective as it truly was not a ban and one should try a REAL ban on the thingees.

Thus, the study has been seen as a double edged sword by both sides.

One could conclude bans don't work or you need a truly draconian ban.

It did conclusively proved that the old ban was worthless. Thus, it made those who supported it and its renewal look like idiots (Hello, George and Alberto) - you either ditch it or try a tougher one. Renewing the old one was stupid as it didn't affect anything. Thus it was intellectually dishonest for GWB to want to support. If he read the reports he would ditch it or strengthen it. Instead he went for his flip flop venial suck up to the soccer mom support position.

June 14, 2007, 07:51 AM
I've been noticing this since the AWB ended, but even more so in the past year and a half how the media has been playing up crime again.

Coincidence? Personally, I think there's an agenda at work here and I'm not talking about the "librawl media" one.

June 14, 2007, 08:06 AM
The conclusion of the unpublished study that someone listed above?

1. Very few crimes were ever committed by the guns limited by the AWB
2. Very little drop in crime as a result of the AWB
3. Limiting large capacity magazines probably has more effect on crime than banning the weapons listed in the AWB
4. There is in abundant supply of magazines, and many more came in after the AWB
5. Not enough time has passed to judge the effectiveness of the AWB ( 10 years was not enough time????)
5. IF you limit large capacity magazines, it MAY have an affect on criime
6. If you limit large cap mags, it will take a very long time to notice any difference in crime, and we probably wont be able to discern a statistical reduction.

In other words, they dont know if it worked or if it ever will work because it is impossible to statistically discern a crime reduction so far and it may not be possible to ever statistically discern a reduction in crime due to guns listed in the AWB.

In other words: IT DIDN'T WORK. It was all for show and politician's grandstanding without any basis in reality. Save for a statistically insignificant number of crimes that were committed by these weapons, they are not the choice of felons, never have been the choice of felons.

June 14, 2007, 03:16 PM
Here's a graph:

Note that the decline began BEFORE the "ban."

It should also be noted that:

(1) Rifles are almost never used in violent crimes, so even an actual ban on modern-looking rifles would not be expected to have a statistically significant effect on rifle crime (rifle crime stats:, all rifles COMBINED account for less than 3% of homicides).

(2) The Feinstein ban didn't actually ban any weapons; it just mandated subtle styling changes and prohibited marketing under any of 19 banned names.

Ban era civilian AK lookalike (2002 model SAR-1), showing how it differs from a preban or postban gun:

(3) The Feinstein ban greatly increased sales of AR-15's, civvie AK lookalikes, etc. (probably three times as many AR's were sold 1994-2004 as during the previous three decades combined, though I don't have hard figures), so the crime decrease is in the context of a sharp increase in "assault weapon" ownership.

(4) IIRC, the average number of rounds fired in the commission of a gun homicide is 2.5, so a 10-round limit would not be expected to have any significant effect on homicide rates. VERY few people are killed by the 11th and subsequent rounds in a magazine, and the Feinstein ban didn't reduce full-capacity magazine availability anyway (it just raised prices).

June 15, 2007, 08:57 AM
One could conclude bans don't work or you need a truly draconian ban.

I think that a total ban on weapons might bring down violent gun crime if all guns are banned and only police on duty are allowed to carry a guns. Possibly no guns for any LEOs except SWAT. No LEOs allowed to carry off duty. But, criminals being such would be at a distinct advantage if they could get a gun or manufacture a gun on their own. However, because of the criminal element involved with having a distinct advantage over an unarmed society, I favor going in the opposite direction and allowing all lawabiding citizens and police to have guns, except for criminals and the metnally ill. More guns, less unpredictability for the criminal element to deal with. Even criminals don't want to be shot by their armed prey.

If you enjoyed reading about "Crime Stats During AWB" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!