Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

The defunct assault weapons ban and mass shootings

Posted in:

Illinois

In 2019, we published a population-based study analyzing the data in a bid to evaluate the effect that the federal ban on assault weapons had on mass shootings, defined by the FBI as a shooting with four or more fatalities, not including the shooter. Here’s what the data shows:

Before the 1994 ban:

From 1981 – the earliest year in our analysis – to the rollout of the assault weapons ban in 1994, the proportion of deaths in mass shootings in which an assault rifle was used was lower than it is today.

Yet in this earlier period, mass shooting deaths were steadily rising. Indeed, high-profile mass shootings involving assault rifles – such as the killing of five children in Stockton, California, in 1989 and a 1993 San Francisco office attack that left eight victims dead – provided the impetus behind a push for a prohibition on some types of gun.

During the 1994-2004 ban:

In the years after the assault weapons ban went into effect, the number of deaths from mass shootings fell, and the increase in the annual number of incidents slowed down. Even including 1999’s Columbine High School massacre – the deadliest mass shooting during the period of the ban – the 1994 to 2004 period saw lower average annual rates of both mass shootings and deaths resulting from such incidents than before the ban’s inception.

From 2004 onward:

The data shows an almost immediate – and steep – rise in mass shooting deaths in the years after the assault weapons ban expired in 2004.

Breaking the data into absolute numbers, between 2004 and 2017 – the last year of our analysis – the average number of yearly deaths attributed to mass shootings was 25, compared with 5.3 during the 10-year tenure of the ban and 7.2 in the years leading up to the prohibition on assault weapons.

* Newsweek…

posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Jul 6, 22 @ 9:49 am

Comments

The rise of social media also seems to mirror the rise in shootings/deaths from 2004-2017.

Another piece of this puzzle worth thinking about.

Comment by JS Mill Wednesday, Jul 6, 22 @ 10:03 am
Gun regulations decreasing + gun availability increasing = greater opportunity for gun violence and death. This should be obvious.

Comment by The Real Downstate Wednesday, Jul 6, 22 @ 10:09 am
It’s the guns, stupid.

Comment by Three Dimensional Checkers Wednesday, Jul 6, 22 @ 10:18 am
The principle that a weapon is to dangerous for the public, was established in the 1930’s when weapons like the BAR and the Thompson were banned. The AR15 types on semi auto with a 30 round mag, rival those weapons in lethality due to lower recoil and controllability. Lifting the 1990’s ban let them be sold in their millions and we are stuck with them now. Might as well make the older ones legal now. I’m sure Clarence Thomas would agree. Taking off my liberal hat, I would like a Tommy gun myself.

Comment by Anotheretiree Wednesday, Jul 6, 22 @ 10:47 am
When did the Columbine High School massacre occur? 1999?

The common elements are young men on psychotropic drugs, police & family ignoring signals, etc.

I don’t think the evidence presented is conclusive. Ban or no, even teens will figure a way around it.

Comment by Retired Army Colonel Wednesday, Jul 6, 22 @ 10:50 am
The data doesn’t surprise, but it doesn’t matter either. Assault rifles and their sellers have won over the hearts and minds of right and their judicial appointments.

Comment by Norseman Wednesday, Jul 6, 22 @ 10:52 am
I had 2 takeaways

1) In general, long term legal AR-15 style gun owners retained their weapons during the ban and didn’t normally cause problems

2) It appears, repeat appears (as opposed to statistical analysis), that it is often new / recently purchased firearms used in these mass shootings. Maybe there should be more stringent scrutiny of first time purchasers.

Comment by RNUG Wednesday, Jul 6, 22 @ 10:56 am
===When did the Columbine High School massacre occur?===

And that proves you didn’t even bother to read the post before commenting.

Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Jul 6, 22 @ 11:04 am
“Maybe there should be more stringent scrutiny of first time purchasers.”

I’d be in support not allowing anyone under the age of 30 to purchase or possess any firearm that accepts a detachable magazine. And that is coming from a “gun guy”.

Comment by sulla Wednesday, Jul 6, 22 @ 11:09 am
The Highland Park assault weapons ban that was passed before the sunset of Brandon Phelps’ concealed carry bill in 2013 exempted police and *retired* police. If these AR15 type firearms are so inherently bad, why do retired cops get to keep theirs?

Comment by Elmer Keith Wednesday, Jul 6, 22 @ 11:59 am
Elmer said “The Highland Park assault weapons ban that was passed before the sunset of Brandon Phelps’ concealed carry bill in 2013 exempted police and *retired* police. If these AR15 type firearms are so inherently bad, why do retired cops get to keep theirs?”

This is almost in every gun control bill. Why is easy? police unions would fight a bill that restricts their members. But you are absolutely correct, if something is so dangerous, why does a RETIRED LEO need it?

Comment by Ron - In Texas Wednesday, Jul 6, 22 @ 12:17 pm
== why does a RETIRED LEO need it? ==

Maybe to protect themselves from some of the people they arrested / got locked up?

Comment by RNUG Wednesday, Jul 6, 22 @ 12:46 pm
Elmer, in what world are assault rifles, which are nothing more than tools for mass killing, anything other than inherently bad?

Comment by LakeCo Wednesday, Jul 6, 22 @ 12:50 pm
RNUG… other people also need to protect themselves. But if the weapon is inherently dangerous then its either controlled or not. My neighbor is a 55 year old retired officer with 5 years off so far. no one is kicking in his door. He can’t strap it on and carry it down the street…

Its to keep the police unions from fighting the bill. Just like the Cali laws that only certain handguns can be owned by civis, but any cop or retired cop can privately buy any handgun. Its not logical.

Comment by Ron - In Texas Wednesday, Jul 6, 22 @ 12:58 pm
Regardless of your feelings on the firearms in question the study doesn’t address that the assault weapons ban was entirely cosmetic so could not be the source of the increase or decrease. Meaning that the lethality of an “Assault weapon” in 1993 was exactly the same during the ban and it was equally accessible. There could be some correlation with magazine capacity but the study would have to address that no magazine was taken out of circulation and that firearms with detachable magazines are designed to be rapidly reloaded.

Comment by LongTimeLurker Wednesday, Jul 6, 22 @ 1:01 pm
Lurker - the impact of the ban is heavily disputed and stats can support both or something in between (e.g. mass shootings did not increase for about 7 years after the ban ended). Add in a general drop in crime in the late 90s - perhaps attributable to more incarcerations - and there are many factors to chew over.

Comment by Original Anon Wednesday, Jul 6, 22 @ 1:49 pm
“Ban or no, even teens will figure a way around it.”

That’s why you hear about so many teens renting cars.

– MrJM

Comment by MisterJayEm Wednesday, Jul 6, 22 @ 3:04 pm
when you are digging an hole and trapped, stop digging. stop selling assault weapons. Illinois, we can ban the sale here.

Comment by Amalia Wednesday, Jul 6, 22 @ 4:22 pm
== stop selling assault weapons ==

If by assault weapons, you mean semi-automatic rifles, I doubt you could make a ban legal today. The AR-15 style rifles are the most common firearm today, and the most recent SCOTUS decisions cast a lot of doubt on being able to ban their sale. They were pretty clear about what is in common use today.

You can likely place some restrictions on them via regulations, but I doubt a complete ban would survive in the current legal environment.

Comment by RNUG Wednesday, Jul 6, 22 @ 4:38 pm