Smith 1
Ron Smith
Professor Gooding
English 102
December 3rd, 2004
Effectiveness ofAssault Rifle Bans
Gun control has long been an issue in American politics. With gun control, gun manufacturers, enthusiasts, and gun control advocates clash over what manufacturers and firearm enthusiasts believe to be protection of our constitutional right to bear arms, and what gun control advocates claim to help reduce crime. Gun control has historically taken form through licensing, background checks, waiting periods, dealer registration, taxes on firearms, bans on certain types of firearms, and special reward agendas such as the “Guns-for-Cash” program. These diverse methods of gun control have all impacted crime rates, and our civil liberties, on varying levels. One of the most controversial gun control methods is the restrictions on certain types of firearms.
The most recently expired gun control law called for a 10-year ban of roughly 118 model and caliber variations of pistols, rifles, and shotguns with the intentions of reducing crime in the U.S. Gun makers and enthusiasts deeply opposed the ban, most commonly citing the Bill of Rights, while many citizens, victims, and almost all police agencies fight to protect society, and themselves, from guns and crime. The purpose of the 10-year ban was to remove military-styled firearms that are unnecessary for our society. The specific ban was titled “Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994.” The 10-year ban blocked the manufacturing, transfer, and possession of semiautomatic firearms designed specifically for combat. Features of such firearms include flash hiders, folding rifle stocks,threaded barrels for the use silencers, and large capacity magazines. The ban also had a “features test” provision banning firearms that had two or more of said features. The ban was enacted by President Clinton in 1994, and it expired in 2004 while President George W. Bush was in office.
There are many methods with which opponents and proponents have evaluated the effectiveness of the Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. Methods of evaluation include statistical measurements from production trends and market effects through the lethality of gun violence. The most questioned statistics come in reports both pre- and post-ban, on the number of assault rifles used in crime, analysis of guns reported and recovered by police, and the number of deaths caused by the banned firearms. Gun control advocates claim the completed research does not provide solid proof crime has been, or will be reduced. In actuality, these advocates claim crime rates have actually remained steady, or have decreased, while the number of registered firearm owners has grown significantly over past decades. Proponents of gun control claim the numbers of assault rifles in crime has been reduced, police are reporting less use of assault rifles in crime, and homicide rates have significantly dropped during the 10-year period this law was enforced. I believe that the Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 was successful at reducing crime because it reduced the number of assault weapons in society, use of assault weapons in gun crime was reduced, and homicide rates significantly dropped during the 10-year period.
According to Principle Investigator Christopher Koper, in a report to the National Institute of Justice about the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, “A[ssault] W[eapons] declined from 5.4% of gun crime traces in 1992-1993 to 1.6% in 2001-2002, a decline of 70%” (Koper 50). Additionally, gun murders maintained a steady decline year afteryear from 1994-2002, with the exception of years 2000 and 2002. With the gun control law in full effect, banned firearms were 70% less involved in gun crime in 2001-2002, compared to pre-ban years of 1992-1993 (Koper 49, incl. in table 6-1). These statistics, published by a non-partisan investigator hired by the United States government, clearly show the assault weapons ban had a significant impact on gun crime and murder rates over the first eight years. Furthermore, as stated by the Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, “After a 20-year rise, the use of firearms in serious crimes in the United States dropped by 50 percent from 1993, when the Brady Handgun Violence Protection Act was passed, until 2003” (qtd. in Adams, incl. graph #3).
Another measure of the effectiveness of this gun control law is the analysis of guns reported and recovered by police during the term of the firearm ban. “Criminal use of AW’s [assault weapons], while accounting for no more than 6%of gun crimes even before the ban, declined after 1994…by one-third or more as a share of guns used in crime” (Koper 57). This statistic tells us that even though assault weapons were not often used in gun crime, the ban furthered minimized the number. By keeping the assault weapons off of the streets, it is possible to further protect us from mass murderers, and our children from future Columbine-like massacres on school property. Seeing the number of recovered assault weapons reduced, as well as the number of assault weapons used in crime, we realize the impact of the ban not only reduces our chances of getting injured or killed, but also reduces the probability of these weapons located near you.
A final measurement of the effectiveness of this gun control bill is homicide rate. Probably the most debatable method of measurement, homicide rates and trends can be manipulated depending on the intent of the author. As an example, when James Alan Fox compiled a report about homicide trends, the rate in 1950, at 4.6, was the same as in 1963 (United States 9). However, most would wonder what happened before 1950 or after 1963 to account for the 35.7% drop in homicides David Newton was referring to in his book Gun Control: An Issue for the Nineties, when he said “homicides decreased by 35.7% [while] gun ownership increased by 250%” (Newton 40). Well, simply, the answer is the baby boom. Newton’s quoted crime rate took into consideration population size and calculated in a ratio form, while Fox’s figure was purely based on the total number. The United States experienced the baby boom during the years referenced by Newton, making the homicide rate look as if it simply dropped, but the number of homicide deaths did not. According to Fox’s report to the Department of Justice in 2004, the number of homicides increased by 23.1% from 1950 to 1963 (United States 9). This kind of statistical manipulation occurs more frequently when cited by opponents of gun control.
The most legitimate investigators and statisticians show a reduction in the homicide rates and a scaled drop in homicide trends over the 10-year spread in or during which the Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 was in place. Significant figures in the range of 34% have been notedby numerous federal investigation agencies as a result of the ban. Opponents of gun control balk at these figures claiming the methods in which they were obtained were biased and unsubstantiated. We can chalk this up to personal belief, but I would venture to guess respected individuals have prepared the dozens of pages of research to report back to the various justice departments were not biased. I tend to think gun advocates push society to question the validity of their investigations because it is a way to continue to push for gun rights versus control.
Wayne LaPierre, a former lobbyist and Chief Executive Officer of the National Rifle Association, feels our constitutional right to bear arms is put in jeopardy, and guns themselves do not have an effect on crime. LaPierre depicts gun control as an ineffective manner to control crime, which undermines the Second Amendment. LaPierre states, “Gun laws--gun bans, waiting periods, registration, licensing, gun and ammunition taxes, and a litany of restrictive measures--only divert the attention of American from true crime solutions…the inescapable fact is: criminals don’t obey laws, criminals range the street because of a failed criminal justice system” (LaPierre 118).
Gun control opponents despise gun control because it is an impediment on their right to bear arms. This heated struggle for proponents and opponents has caused authors for and against to misrepresent information in attempt to persuade readers and get them to take their side. This overdrawn battle is likely to continue, because it is important for us to retain our constitutional right to bear arms. It is also important to make sure we are doing everything possible to combat crime in our society, and not expect gun control alone to solve our problems. I agree with the gun rights activists that government can do more without making citizens sacrifice their rights, but I also believe moderation is key. Even though gun control proponents disagree with the findings on the effect of the assault weapons ban, I think it is apparent, common sense that wins us over in this specific debate.
I believe in our second amendment, and I believe it needs to be protected. However, I do not believe it is necessary to protect our individual rights to possess an AK-47 semiautomatic assault rifle. These weapons are not needed for sport, and are unnecessary forms of self protection. An AK-47 can kill you just as dead as a 44-magnum, but the 44-magnum does not hold over 10 rounds of ammunition, does not have a silencer, and does not spit rounds at the same speed as the semiautomatic. What is the point of a gun that, when you pull the trigger, fires out multiple bullets per second, silently, when you are at a shooting range? What is the point of such a weapon hunting dear? It seems obvious to me these kind of weapons are military based, are unnecessary in today’s society, and pose a severe threat to our nation’s security.
The Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 was successful in a number of ways. The law helped reduce the number of assault weapons on our streets, it helped reduce the number of gun crimes in which assault weapons were used, and it helped reduce the number of deaths caused by gun crime. In my evaluation of this law, I found it was effective and successful, it makes moral sense, and it should have been extended by President Bush while he was in office. There is no need for these weapons on our streets. These weapons are for war. Living in a nation that which has become extremely cautious when it comes to terror, I find it a bit confusing, and it strikes me odd, that we would sacrifice safety and allow these weapons to by manufactured, imported, and distributed in our neighborhoods knowing they can get into the wrong hands.
And yet, if we allow government to place gun controls, how far will they go? Would gun controls now set a precedent for further controls in the future? We remain cognizant that a free society without gun control can put our safety in jeopardy, but also realize by allowing government to regulate our constitutional right to bear arms, we can be jeopardizing our freedom. If we stop banning military weapons they could end up in the wrong hands. If we stop requiring licenses and background checks, guns could end up in the wrong hands. Without gun control we could be putting a weapon in the hands of the next mastermind of another school massacre. If we continue to allow our constitutional right to be manipulated, would we be sacrificing freedom? Bans on assault rifles have been proven effective and should continue, but we must be guarded in order to protect our civil liberty so we never lose the right to defend ourselves.
Works Cited
Adams, Bob. “Gun Control Debate.” The CQ Researcher 12 Nov. 2004 CQ Press. Paul A.
Elsner Library, MCC. 15 Nov 2004 <
Koper, Christopher S. “Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on
Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003.” National Criminal Justice Reference Service
June 2004. 15 Nov 2004 <
LaPierre, Wayne. Guns, Crime, and Freedom. Washington: Regnery, 1994.
Newton, David E. Gun Control: An Issue for the Nineties. Hillside, New Jersey: Enslow, 1992.
United States. Dept. of Justice.Homicide Trends in the United States.By James Alan Fox and
Marianne W. Zawitz. 28 Sep 2004. 15 Nov 2004
<