Crime Drops After "Assault Weapon" Ban Expires

You'd almost suspect that crime was caused by criminals rather than guns:

Nine months after the Clinton-era "assault weapons ban" expired, the FBI has released crime statistics showing a drop in homicides in 2004 -- the first such drop since 1999. The FBI report said all types of violent crime declined last year, and cities with more than a million people showed the largest drops in violent crime.
When the Clinton ban on certain semiautomatic weapons expired last September, gun control groups warned that violent crime would escalate, including violence against children.
But those "doom and gloom" forecasts have been exposed as "pure clap-trap," said SAF President Joe Tartaro.
"Where is the news media on this?" Tartaro wondered. He said if the number of homicides had gone up, reporters would be writing front-page stories linking the rise to the end of the semi-auto ban.
"But that's not the case, and the mainstream press, with the exception of an April 28 New York Times article, has been pretty quiet about it," Tartaro said.

I talk a lot about media bias here. Too much, some people say. And sometimes I think it's too much too.

But the institution charged with reporting important information to us -- information useful for making political decisions -- simply refuses to relay facts like these to us.

Posted by: Ace at 01:15 PM

Comments

1 More guns = less crime.

You know what is strongly correlated with violent crime? Proximity to a convenience store. Go figure.

Posted by: Phinn at June 08, 2005 01:32 PM (DiZv6)

2 I have yet to see the empirical evidence which supports the theory that taking guns away from law abiding citizens results in less crime. To the contrary, everytime there is a concerted effort to arm ordinary citizens, crime drops.

Yet incredibly this wholly unsupported theory persists.
It is a wonder to me.

Posted by: lauraw at June 08, 2005 01:37 PM (9EVed)

3 You may talk about media bias a lot, but it needs to be said. I still have friends that think Bush has the media under his thumb (or more often, Rove has them under his thumb, since they can't give Bush credit for anything). When I hear them say how right wing CNN has gotten I want to scream. Your daily examples keep me loaded with fresh ammunition to shoot down their insane theories. Keep up to good work.

Posted by: Tomp at June 08, 2005 01:44 PM (wJDyq)

4 Here in Minneapolis, we're keeping score

Deaths caused by conceal-carry permit owners : 1*
Deaths caused by the new light-rail transit system: 2

*At the time of this incident the gun owner was intoxicated, and in violation of the conceal-carry permit.

Posted by: Master of None at June 08, 2005 01:52 PM (2c7xL)

5 I'm as pro-gun as they get but if they're reporting for 2004, there was only 3 months as the ban expired in September. Probably not enough to conclude anything regarding the ban.

The more important stat is that while the ban was in effect, there was no effect on crime that could be tied to the ban. Of course, that's because less than one half of a percent of crime was committed with banned weapons before and after the ban.

Posted by: SayUncle at June 08, 2005 01:52 PM (CDrd/)

6 I, for one, think the media bias/squeakhole joke ratio is pretty decent here.

Posted by: spongeworthy at June 08, 2005 01:55 PM (uSomN)

7 Be careful about drawing the wrong conclusion here. The assault weapon ban ended. Violent crime dropped. This does not prove that lifting the ban *caused* the drop in violent crime.

At the very least, what it does indicate is that lifting the ban did not increase violent crime, or else there is some third factor pushing violent crime down, that made up for the rise in violent crime caused by lifting the ban (which I do not think is very likely anyway).

What I am saying is: don't make the same mistake other people do. Don't overreach and claim that lifting the ban *caused* this drop in crime. (Because it was very likely something else. Crime has been steadily dropping since the early 1990's.) Be every bit as rigorous intellectually as you would have to be if it were the Democrats in power.

Posted by: Matt at June 08, 2005 02:09 PM (rpsAy)

8 Good point Say-Uncle and Matt.

Posted by: lauraw at June 08, 2005 02:16 PM (9EVed)

9 Doesn't homicide rate normally drop as the economy improves? That could be another factor.

But yes, the media crowing about this had the homicide rate increased any at all would have been overwhelming, and they would not have thought to be as intellectually prudent as Matt advises.

Posted by: brak at June 08, 2005 02:22 PM (OuLOj)

10 Matt:
I don't think anyone is saying that the end of the ban _caused_ the drop in homicides. What they are saying is that the left was claiming that the end of the ban would cause an increase, but not only has it not increased, it has dropped.

Posted by: Tomp at June 08, 2005 02:34 PM (wJDyq)

11 Does Trackback work in Blogger?
Anyway, I linked your post.

MoS

Posted by: Man of Substance at June 08, 2005 02:37 PM (Mqr1E)

12 Most likely, the main factor in lowering the crime rate has been longer sentences for perps, keeping more criminals in jail and off the streets. The New York Times, of course, finds the causal link here utterly mystifying.

Posted by: utron at June 08, 2005 02:52 PM (CgIkY)

13 Top five reasons why no increase YET:

5. gun show season has yet to peak

4.. illegals have not heard about the ban expiration

3. Right wing NRA nuts had first dibs on machine guns and none were left for regular nuts.

2. According to PETA, all of the banned weapons are presently being used to kill animals

1. Its Bush's fault or Global Warming

Posted by: Dman at June 08, 2005 02:56 PM (m2CN7)

14 The ban didn't affect machine guns.

Posted by: SayUncle at June 08, 2005 03:06 PM (CDrd/)

15 There's a definite theme to today's blog -

Post #1 - virtual sword
Post #2 - bloody chainsaw
Post #3 - assault weapons

Looks like Ace found his old "Quake" CD again. Are we in need of an intervention? :^)

Posted by: David Ross at June 08, 2005 03:12 PM (Mi7Wp)

16 If he posts anything about a nail gun or a lightning gun I'll assume he found the Quad Damage.

Posted by: brak at June 08, 2005 03:15 PM (OuLOj)

17 The ban as written was watered down to be so narrowly defined as to be nearly useless. Various gun manufacturers simply changed one or two items, such as Colt replacing the AR-15's flash supressor with a muzzle brake, to produce a legal variant of the weapon. One of the major goals of the ban was to reduce the presence of large magazines, over 10 rounds, but the law as written did nothing to remove existing large capacity magazines and manufacturers/gun sellers stockpiled the large capacity magazines in numbers that prevented them from ever becoming rare.

Conyers/McCarthy offered an updated version of the ban in 2003 that would have closed many of the loopholes, but it failed to be enacted.

Now, while such weapons are rarely used in committing crimes generally, they do show up disproportionately in shooting deaths of police officers. This is why several police organizations, such as the International Association of Chiefs of Police and the Fraternal Order of Police, supported the ban.

Posted by: vonKreedon at June 08, 2005 03:28 PM (hF0Vm)

18 VonKreedon. These police shooting deaths you speak of. They were shot more then 10 times?

Posted by: Dman at June 08, 2005 03:35 PM (m2CN7)

19 "The ban as written was watered down to be so narrowly defined as to be nearly useless"

Because it would not have passed otherwise. It's only significance was symbolic.

"Various gun manufacturers simply changed one or two items"

None of the items they changed affected the weapons' lethality in any way, merely the appearance. Except maybe the bayonet lugs, but drive-by bayonettings have never been a problem that I know of.

"they do show up disproportionately in shooting deaths of police officers"

I'd like a cite for that. Stats I read say the officers' own handguns are the primary weapon with which police are killed.

Loophole is code for poorly written law.

Posted by: SayUncle at June 08, 2005 03:37 PM (CDrd/)

20 Dman, don't be absurd. The fuckers who commit crimes with assault weapons NEED all ten bullets/magazine, because they can't shoot worth a damn. They're lucky if one out of ten hits paydirt.

Posted by: Dogstar at June 08, 2005 03:39 PM (KgeNY)

21 vonK:

If you tell me that the LEADERSHIP of the police unions supported the ban, I'm not surprised. I would be surprised if the RANK AND FILE of said police unions supported the ban.

I know from personal experience the difference between the rank and file and the leadership as regards police unions, but much the same can often be said of unions in general.

Posted by: NickS at June 08, 2005 04:18 PM (Xroyb)

22 DMan - I can't speak to how many times each of the officers was shot at or shot. Here is a Violence Policy Center report on the 41 killed by assault weapons, of 211 officers killed in the line of duty between 1/1/1998 and 12/31/2001.

Uncle - Yeah, watered down and loopholed to irrelevancy. Regarding the prevelance of assault weapons in the killing of officers, the VPC study linked above would indicate that just less than 20% of line of duty killing of officers was the result of assault weapons. According to the FBI, of the 616 officers killed between 1994 and 2003 52 were killed with their own weapon. So about 8.5% were killed with their own weapon vs. ~20% killed with assault weapons.

Posted by: vonKreedon at June 08, 2005 04:31 PM (hF0Vm)

23 After I posted I realized that I'm not sure that the VPC study includes all line of duty deaths, which would include car accidents. The FBI study is specifically of officers who were "feloniously killed", which does not include such line of duty deaths as car accidents. FYI.

Regarding the police rank and file vs. leadership, I have no idea.

Posted by: vonKreedon at June 08, 2005 04:37 PM (hF0Vm)

24 NickS, since the rank and file cops are the only cops who ever have to look down the business end of an assault weapon, or watch the tracers coming at them in the dark, don't you think they would be opposed to those type weapons?

Posted by: Dogstar at June 08, 2005 04:40 PM (KgeNY)

25 "they do show up disproportionately in shooting deaths of police officers"

I'm curious about this. I'm just wondering if the reason for this might be that a person so inclined to shoot and kill a policman, might be the type of person attracted to the assault rifle style of weapon. In other words, there's nothing more dangerous about an assualt rifle, except for its attractiveness to people inclined to violence?

Posted by: Master of None at June 08, 2005 04:42 PM (2c7xL)

26 Master - I certainly expect that there is some selection bias wrt cop killers and assault weapons. But there are some other factors that are specific to the weapon:

* large capacity magazines that enable the killer to lay down more fire than the cop
* high muzzle velocity that enables the killer to defeat body armor
* pistol grip that enable the killer a better ability to fire a long barreled weapon from a protected position, or from the inside of a car

Posted by: vonKreedon at June 08, 2005 04:53 PM (hF0Vm)

27 You've lost cred quoting the VPC, which is just an anti-gun organization. That report is bogus for many reasons. Namely that the M1 carbine, SKS, MAK90, Mini 14 are not "assault weapons." The M1 and Mini 14 were specifically exempted from the ban. The SKS does not accept a detachable magazine (hence, i'ts not an assault weapon). And the M151A is actually a jeep. Which brings the total to 19. The VPC has to lie to scare people. And it's also odd that all those murders occured while there was a ban on.

And the number of police officers killed by 'assault weapons' per FBI data was 16 out of 1,534 between 1975 and 1992. Or 1%ish. Hardly disproportinate.

Posted by: SayUncle at June 08, 2005 04:58 PM (CDrd/)

28 Regarding your bullet points:

* large capacity magazines that enable the killer to lay down more fire than the cop

That one, I can buy.

* high muzzle velocity that enables the killer to defeat body armor

And any hunting rifle typically has a higher muzzle velocity than any 'assault weapon' as assault weapons were designed to fire medium powered rounds.

* pistol grip that enable the killer a better ability to fire a long barreled weapon from a protected position, or from the inside of a car

Now, you're just making stuff up.

Posted by: SayUncle at June 08, 2005 05:01 PM (CDrd/)

29 SayUncle. Were law enforcement agencies restricted from using pre banned magazines? if not, then the attempted killers should only be able to lay down fire just as much, not more than law enforcement unless of course law enforcement chose not to use the larger capacity mags.

Posted by: Dman at June 08, 2005 05:18 PM (m2CN7)

30 Uncle - You got a cite for your FBI statistic?

Regarding assault weapons defeating body armor, from the VPC study:

Kim Keist, a 15-year veteran, was wounded in the chest and arm despite wearing a bullet-proof vest.

Several of the bullets penetrated Chetcuti's bullet-proof vest, and more than 40 bullet casings were recovered at the scene.

Posted by: vonKreedon at June 08, 2005 05:18 PM (hF0Vm)

31 Dman - I don't think that SWATeams have a restriction on magazine size, but most officers just have a sidearm and a shotgun in the car.

Posted by: vonKreedon at June 08, 2005 05:21 PM (hF0Vm)

32 The concealed carry handgun law was passed in Texas sometime around 1999 as the result of a wave of car-jackings and subsequent rapes and murders. Following some well publisized killings of would-be car jackers by concealed handgun permittees, in less than six months the crime of car jacking completely disappeared in Texas and has never come back since! And though I haven't seen the numbers for awhile, there was no increase in gun homicides by permittees or anyone else that year.

Posted by: 72 cartridges in a pear tree at June 08, 2005 05:25 PM (dhRpo)

33 Ha! Great post. I knew about the car-jacking craze a few years ago, but didn't know it went away to that extent. There's no doubt that criminals respect the concealed handgun law. I hear or read about criminals getting shot by homeowners or concealed handgun carriers on a fairly regular basis.

Posted by: Dogstar at June 08, 2005 06:24 PM (KgeNY)

34 "Kim Keist, a 15-year veteran, was wounded in the chest and arm despite wearing a bullet-proof vest."

And any rifle would penetrate the vest. The assault weapons ban did nothing with respect to caliber. Period. It banned any caliber of gun that had certain features, whether it was a .22 or a 50 BMG. There are plenty of AR15s, for example, that fire 9mm and 22lr. In fact, ballistics show that the 5.56X45M caliber commonly used in ARs penetrates less than the typical .40S&W carried in police handguns.

As for a cite for my stat:

http://www.davekopel.com/2A/OpEds/Are_Assault_Weapons_a_Threat_to_Police.htm

BTW, you never did provide a state for your bogus claim that AWs kill police in disproportionate numbers. You linked to two unrelated pieces of info (one of which is demonstrably false) and drew a bogus conclusion. Still waiting.

Posted by: SayUncle at June 08, 2005 10:08 PM (2pMh3)

35 I should point out that vests are only designed to stop ammo typically designed for handguns.

Posted by: SayUncle at June 08, 2005 10:09 PM (2pMh3)

36 Phinn: If you click my name, I've got a convenience store crime story for you that's a little unusual. Cops, sex and convenience involving 20% of the town's police force.

Posted by: digitalbrownshirt at June 08, 2005 10:58 PM (ipjUv)

37 Its not clear to me you can draw the conclusion that the decline in crime was directly or even indirectly a result of the expiration of the assualt weapons ban. It is entirely possible it is a result of a host of other factors. Now I understand that if you are a supporter of assualt weapons, its a great arguement to make (no matter how false or unsubstantiated it maybe). I'm not saying im for or against a ban on assault weapons, however we really should take a look at the cause and effect here and determine for sure that there is a causal relationshop as opposed to a coincental one. On average the daily temperature was lower after the assulat ban than before it so maybe there were less people willing to bear the cold weather to go out and kill. Catching my drift?

Posted by: gothpunkr at June 09, 2005 04:38 PM (qbH5I)

38 The ban was useless. By definition, criminals don't quite care for the law. The weapons in questions were actually "assualt styled" weapons. You know, the weapons that looked dangerous. Banning these is like arresting women for prostitution because they dress like hookers. Besides, that 'ol argument about them guns goin' through bullet proof vest, is that most criminal already know how to defeat a bullet proof vest if they wanted to. They aim for the head.

Good that the ban expired. Bad laws should go the way of the dodo. One can only wish the same for bad lawmakers.

Posted by: icepick at June 11, 2005 05:28 AM (gsK5s)

39 Replica HandbagsReplica Handbags Wholesale - Designer handbag - Louis Vuitton Handbags Replica Discount Watches, Fashion Watches, Wristwatch, Fake Watch, Wholesale Watches, Jewelry Watches, Replica Jewelry Watches. Wow, I have got to tell everybody that I was Replica Handbags pretty apprehensive about receiving another cheap Replica Handbags replica at www.buy-replicas.com! I just received my replica watches rolex Mulberry Replica Watches watches today, Replica HandBags and it is without a doubt, the best replica watches replica I ve seen. Clean machining between the case lugs, and Replica Handbags a band that is properly fitted to the case were the first two things I inspected upon arrival. Highly satisfied with these, I then observed screws instead of pins and Replica Handbags proper Replica handbags markings, Replica Handbags etc. The fit and finish Replica Handbags of this replica is outstanding, and I will be back for more watches in the future. I recommend this website to anyone who is Replica Handbags planning to Replica Handbags buy a replica.

Posted by: replica watches at August 26, 2009 06:40 AM (pspjR)

40 Hi! QjCvEaLA

Posted by: vEGEHshe at November 12, 2009 08:47 PM (K/kdc)

Posted by: replica watches at November 17, 2009 06:24 AM (xpuiO)

Posted by: replica watches at November 17, 2009 08:58 AM (xpuiO)

Posted by: replica watches at November 18, 2009 12:17 AM (C/zDM)

Posted by: replica watches at November 18, 2009 03:30 AM (C/zDM)

Posted by: replica watches at December 04, 2009 10:56 AM (bsW/x)

Processing 0.01, elapsed 0.0286 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0127 seconds, 54 records returned.
Page size 57 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.7 alpha.