An Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: 1994-2003

[Harry Tuttle]

An Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003

An Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003 Report to the National Institute of Justice, United States Department of Justice By Christopher S. Koper (Principal Investigator) With Daniel J. Woods and Jeffrey A. Roth June 2004

102 pages

PREFACE Gun violence continues to be one of America’s most serious crime problems. In 2000, over 10,000 persons were murdered with firearms and almost 49,000 more were shot in the course of over 340,000 assaults and robberies with guns (see the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s annual Uniform Crime Reports and Simon et al., 2002). The total costs of gun violence in the United States – including medical, criminal justice, and other government and private costs – are on the order of at least $6 to $12 billion per year and, by more controversial estimates, could be as high as $80 billion per year (Cook and Ludwig, 2000).

However, there has been good news in recent years. Police statistics and national victimization surveys show that since the early 1990s, gun crime has plummeted to some of the lowest levels in decades (see the Uniform Crime Reports and Rennison, 2001). Have gun controls contributed to this decline, and, if so, which ones?

During the last decade, the federal government has undertaken a number of initiatives to suppress gun crime. These include, among others, the establishment of a national background check system for gun buyers (through the Brady Act), reforms of the licensing system for firearms dealers, a ban on juvenile handgun possession, and Project Safe Neighborhoods, a collaborative effort between U.S. Attorneys and local authorities to attack local gun crime problems and enhance punishment for gun offenders.

Perhaps the most controversial of these federal initiatives was the ban on semiautomatic assault weapons and large capacity ammunition magazines enacted as Title XI, Subtitle A of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. This law prohibits a relatively small group of weapons considered by ban advocates to be particularly dangerous and attractive for criminal purposes. In this report, we investigate the ban’s impacts on gun crime through the late 1990s and beyond. This study updates a prior report on the short-term effects of the ban (1994-1996) that members of this research team prepared for the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Congress (Roth and Koper, 1997; 1999).


http://www.sas.upenn.edu/jerrylee/jlc-new/Research/Koper_aw_final.pdf

 

[Kharn]

Thanks for the link, should be interesting reading.

Kharn

 

[Harry Tuttle]

The ban also prohibits most ammunition feeding devices holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition (referred to as large capacity magazines, or LCMs)

The Ban’s Reauthorization or Expiration Could Affect Gunshot Victimizations, But Predictions are Tenuous

• Should it be renewed, the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement. AWs were rarely used in gun crimes even before the ban. LCMs are involved in a more substantial share of gun crimes, but it is not clear how often the outcomes of gun attacks depend on the ability of offenders to fire more than ten shots (the current magazine capacity limit) without reloading.

• Nonetheless, reducing criminal use of AWs and especially LCMs could have non-trivial effects on gunshot victimizations. The few available studies suggest that attacks with semiautomatics – including AWs and other semiautomatics equipped with LCMs – result in more shots fired, more persons hit, and more wounds inflicted per victim than do attacks with other firearms. Further, a study of handgun attacks in one city found that 3% of the gunfire incidents resulted in more than 10 shots fired, and those attacks produced almost 5% of the gunshot victims.

• Restricting the flow of LCMs into the country from abroad may be necessary to achieve desired effects from the ban, particularly in the near future. Whether mandating further design changes in the outward features of semiautomatic weapons (such as removing all military-style features) will produce measurable benefits beyond those of restricting ammunition capacity is unknown. Past experience also suggests that Congressional discussion of broadening the AW ban to new models or features would raise prices and production of the weapons under discussion.

• If the ban is lifted, gun and magazine manufacturers may reintroduce AW models and LCMs, perhaps in substantial numbers. In addition, pre-ban AWs may lose value and novelty, prompting some of their owners to sell them in undocumented secondhand markets where they can more easily reach high-risk users, such as criminals, terrorists, and other potential mass murderers. Any resulting increase in crimes with AWs and LCMs might increase gunshot victimizations for the reasons noted above, though this effect could be difficult to measure.

 

[Harry Tuttle]

10.2.
Potential Consequences of Reauthorizing, Modifying, or Lifting the Assault Weapons Ban

10.2.1. Potential Consequences of Reauthorizing the Ban As Is Should it be renewed, the ban might reduce gunshot victimizations. This effect is likely to be small at best and possibly too small for reliable measurement. A 5% reduction in gunshot victimizations is perhaps a reasonable upper bound estimate of the ban’s potential impact (based on the only available estimate of gunshot victimizations resulting from attacks in which more than 10 shots were fired), but the actual impact is likely to be smaller and may not be fully realized for many years into the future, particularly if pre-ban LCMs continue to be imported into the U.S. from abroad. Just as the restrictions imposed by the ban are modest – they are essentially limits on weapon accessories like LCMs, flash hiders, threaded barrels, and the like – so too are the potential benefits.118

In time, the ban may be seen as an effective prevention measure that stopped further spread of weaponry considered to be particularly dangerous (in a manner similar to federal restrictions on fully automatic weapons). But that conclusion will be contingent on further research validating the dangers of AWs and LCMs.

10.2.2. Potential Consequences of Modifying the Ban We have not examined the specifics of legislative proposals to modify the AW ban. However, we offer a few general comments about the possible consequences of such efforts, particularly as they relate to expanding the range of the ban as some have advocated (Halstead, 2003, pp. 11-12).

118 But note that although the ban’s impact on gunshot victimizations would be small in percentage terms and unlikely to have much effect on the public’s fear of crime, it could conceivably prevent hundreds of gunshot victimizations annually and produce notable cost savings in medical care alone. To help place this in perspective, there were about 10,200 gun homicides and 48,600 non-fatal, assault-related shootings in 2000 (see the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports for the gun homicide estimate and Simon et al. [2002] for the estimate of non-fatal shootings). Reducing these crimes by 1% would have thus prevented 588 gunshot victimizations in 2000 (we assume the ban did not actually produce such benefits because the reduction in AW use as of 2000 was outweighed by steady or rising levels of LCM use). This may seem insubstantial compared to the 342,000 murders, assaults, and robberies committed with guns in 2000 (see the Uniform Crime Reports). Yet, gunshot victimizations are particularly costly crimes. Setting aside the less tangible costs of lost lives and human suffering, the lifetime medical costs of assault-related gunshot injuries (fatal and non-fatal) were estimated to be about $18,600 per injury in 1994 (Cook et al., 1999). Therefore, the lifetime costs of 588 gun homicides and shootings would be nearly $11 million in 1994 dollars (the net medical costs could be lower for reasons discussed by Cook and Ludwig [2000] but, on the other hand, this estimate does not consider other governmental and private costs that Cook and Ludwig attribute to gun violence). This implies that small reductions in gunshot victimizations sustained over many years could produce considerable long-term savings for society. We do not wish to push this point too far, however, considering the uncertainty regarding the ban’s potential impact.

Gun markets react strongly merely to debates over gun legislation. Indeed, debate over the AW ban’s original passage triggered spikes upwards of 50% in gun distributors’ advertised AW prices (Roth and Koper, 1997, Chapter 4). In turn, this prompted a surge in AW production in 1994 (Chapter 5). Therefore, it seems likely that discussion of broadening the AW ban to additional firearms would raise prices and production of the weapons under discussion. (Such market reactions may already be underway in response to existing proposals to expand the ban, but we have not investigated this issue.) Heightened production levels could saturate the market for the weapons in question, depressing prices and delaying desired reductions in crimes with the weapons, as appears to have happened with banned ARs. Mandating further design changes in the outward features of semiautomatic weapons (e.g., banning weapons having any military-style features) may not produce benefits beyond those of the current ban. As noted throughout this report, the most important feature of military-style weapons may be their ability to accept LCMs, and this feature has been addressed by the LCM ban and the LCMM rifle ban. Whether changing other features of military-style firearms will produce measurable benefits is unknown. Finally, curbing importation of pre-ban LCMs should help reduce crimes with LCMs and possibly gunshot victimizations. Crimes with LCMs may not decline substantially for quite some time if millions of LCMs continue to be imported into the U.S.

10.2.3. Potential Consequences of Lifting the Ban If the ban is lifted, it is likely that gun and magazine manufacturers will reintroduce AW models and LCMs, perhaps in substantial numbers.119

In addition, AWs grandfathered under the 1994 law may lose value and novelty, prompting some of their lawful owners to sell them in secondary markets, where they may reach criminal users. Any resulting increase in crimes with AWs and LCMs might increase gunshot victimizations, though this effect could be difficult to discern statistically. It is also possible, and perhaps probable, that new AWs and LCMs will eventually be used to commit mass murder. Mass murders garner much media attention, particularly when they involve AWs (Duwe, 2000). The notoriety likely to accompany mass murders if committed with AWs and LCMs, especially after these guns and magazines have been deregulated, could have a considerable negative impact on public perceptions, an effect that would almost certainly be intensified if such crimes were committed by terrorists operating in the U.S.


119 Note, however, that foreign semiautomatic rifles with military features, including the LCMM rifles and several rifles prohibited by the 1994 ban, would still be restricted by executive orders passed in 1989 and 1998. Those orders stem from the sporting purposes test of the Gun Control Act of 1968.

 

[Sam Adams]

1.0 Potential Benefits of Lifting the the Assault Weapons Ban: The United States government would cease, in a small way, the continued massive violation of the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, thereby increasing liberty for the people that the government serves and decreasing mistrust in the government.

Do you think that these guys even thought about putting something like this into their report?

 

[Kharn]

Sam Adams:
The report writers quote the VPC and the Center to Prevent Gun Violence (at least I think I got the name right, I dont want to lose my place, basically: the Brady Bunch), including using a few of their pics. Do you think they'd put something like that in there?

Kharn
(Note: I havent read the conclusion transcribed above, I'm reading it straight through and am already at Chapter 6)

 

[Sam Adams]

Given the conclusions, even without seeing the VPC and Brady Bunch references, I knew the answer. I was simply being a sarcastic wiseass. Anyhow, I will derive great joy from the expiration of this abomination - partly because of the restoration of rights, but also partly because it will cause some of the gun control types to have fits of apoplexy.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Interesting read... anyone else notice that while the percentage of "assault pistols" traced by police departments declined after the ban, the percentage of "assault rifles" increased?

Of course when the mean is around 0.1% to begin with, I guess you don't have anywhere to go but up.

 

[Hkmp5sd]

the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement. AWs were rarely used in gun crimes even before the ban.

This effect is likely to be small at best and possibly too small for reliable measurement.

it could conceivably prevent hundreds of gunshot victimizations annually and produce notable cost savings in medical care alone.

Moronic statement of the decade.

AWs are were rarely used before the ban, the effects of the ban are so small it is impossible to measure them (most semi-intelligent individuals would conclude it had no effect and is a waste of time), but it will prevent hundreds of gunshot victimizations and produce notable savings in medical care.

 

[BrokenArrow]

SOS

I checked w the 3 largest gun stores in town.

All of 'em said they sold more ARs, AKs, and LCMs in the 10 yrs after the ban than the 10 yrs before the ban.

They sold more of that type of weapon, but fewer were used in crimes.

If crime went down, it went down for other reasons. If it goes up, it will go up for other reasons too.

The AWB's coming didn't help, its going won't hurt.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Well, I finally got around to reading this in its entirety. I think there is some bias there but there is a ton of useful information as well. If nothing else, you can look at the recommendations of this report and see that large capacity magazines are going to be even more of an issue than semi-autos in future gun legislation.

 

[GEM]

I heard these guys give a summary of what seems to be in this report in Nov. 2003.

They said then, that the ban on AW and mags had no noticeable effect on any statistics. The reason was that there was almost a complete substitution of other available firearms.

There may have been a drop of usage of the banned items do to simple economics. However, overall crime rates show no effect. I'll have to read this one.

DOJ funding tends not to be overall gun friendly so this report is a setback to the gun banners for the most part. It has been used by gun friendly lobbyists in the AWB debate.

A continuation of research is what all researchers ask for, so that's pretty pro forma.

The report leads to two viable possibilities:

1. The ban is useless, so let it expire
2. The ban should be expanded so has to ban the majority of semiautos over 22LR in caliber. That would do something about the substitution problem if you were a gun controller.


Keeping it in place makes no sense. That's why I'm delighted that GWB said he would renew the ban if it came to him. I trust him to pick the most ridiculous option.

Since this info has been out for a bit, I find it astounding that GWB was not informed of this and modified his position towards #1. Oh, well.