I need any solid* links proving gun violence decreases when there is an assault weapons ban

[LaydeeBug]

Last edited Sun May 5, 2013, 10:22 AM - Edit history (1)

and/or the ban on huge clips.

Yesterday, at brunch with the girls, some of them were saying that "it wouldn't matter because then the only ones who will have them is the criminal, blah, blah, blah"

Normally I am in it all 'rough and tumble style', but this will need more...tact.

If anyone has anything handy, I'd surely appreciate it.

*I originally posted "verifiable" in the title and it caused some confusion. Sorry. That's my fault and why I changed it

[malaise]

1. Just say Australia

and tell them to google the facts

[Cleita]

17. I was going to say the same.

There is a load of information out there about how Australia turned gun violence around in their country. There isn't just one link.

[Kolesar]

2. Didja' google it?

There's the Brady campaign page, too. Have a nice Sunday

[LaydeeBug]

5. yes. nt

[newmember]

3. It would be easier if you use handgun bans

UK for instance

[pipoman]

6. Just word it carefully so hopefully nobody compares

overall murder/violent crime rates before and after, since there has not been any discernible reduction in violent crime which can be connected to the gun bans..

[pipoman]

4. Pretty sure there is no "verifiable links"

because there is no verifiable evidence it changes anything, which is one reason why the 1994 AWB wasn't renewed by a Democratic congress...

[newmember]

7. You are probably correct on that

There are countries that have restricted handgun ownership
where gun deaths did drop significantly

[pipoman]

8. It goes to the red car example..

if red cars are banned, red car death rates will plummet..however car death rates will remain unchanged..

[newmember]

10. I will disagree to a point

Japan has strict regulations on any handgun ownership but they still are allowed to own a rifle in the home
and bring it to a fire range. There is a license process they have to go through.

There was a time there not too long ago anyone could have a handgun there and carry it.
In my humble opinion we have it back wards here when we go after rifles.

[gejohnston]

29. but there is no evidence that has anything to do with their murder rate

classic example of post hoc ergo propter hoc. That is the same with UK or Australia. While there was one study that claims that NFA led to a drop, but three other studies counter that. Murder rates did not go down. While Semi auto rifles are now banned in Australia, gun ownership is back to pre NFA levels and ownership is slightly increasing.
Can't say UK, because UK's didn't drop after the ban. It was always that low if not lower. Even if it did, see above logical fallacy. It is just as absurd as the NRA claiming that concealed carry liberalization led to the lower violent crime and murder rates we have now.

In 2004, the National Academy of Sciences reviewed 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications and some empirical research of its own about guns. The Academy could not identify any gun restriction that had reduced violent crime, suicide or gun accidents.

http://jurist.org/forum/2013/02/don-kates-crimonology-firearms.php

[edhopper]

12. I think you are still refering to the AWB

newmember is talking about countries that reduced guns, and where the death rate dropped thereafter.

[pipoman]

14. They are always very careful to say "gun death/murder rate"

without mentioning overall death/murder rate..

[edhopper]

19. Seemed to reduce both in Australia

and a big difference in overall suicides.
And no mass killings since enacted.

[morningfog]

30. Australia scares the shit out of the gun radicalists.

[gejohnston]

31. not quite true

they had two since then. One by arson. None by gun.
They didn't have any before the 13 year string of them either. It started with a shoot out between two rival gangs, and ended with Port Author. Since there was no change in gun laws that preceded it, one can't really conclude that gun laws had anything to do with it.

While suicide rates in Australia is trending down, Australia's gun ownership rate is about the same as it was before pre NFA and was never very high, at least compared to North America and Europe. In fact, It is lower than Iceland's.
In short, Australia's gun ownership rate is largely unchanged, maybe slightly higher or lower but suicide rates are still dropping. That could have to do with a Labour govt being in charge instead of the right leaning Liberal party. BBC did a study showing a correlation that Australia's suicide rate rises during a right of center government and drops during a left of center government, a trend that has been consistent for at least 100 years. NFA was put in place when right winger John Howard was PM.

[LaydeeBug]

20. Really? That is a highly disingenuous statement about the Democratic Congress...really.

http://smartgunlaws.org

And since George W Bush wasn't backing the ban renewal despite having campaigned on it, the ban was not renewed.

wow

[pipoman]

25. He stated he would sign

the extension if it made it to his desk, which it didn't..No, congress knew that the constitutional challenges coming down the pike would likely prevail hurting the chances to ever regulate "assault weapons" again..

Oh and it was not sent to him for renewal by the Democratic congress..

[66 dmhlt]

9. Here Are Some Solid Studies ...

Although they actually looked at a corollary to your request:
States with LAX Gun Laws Had HIGHER Rates of Gun Violence

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/04/03/1811311/study-states-with-loose-gun-laws-have-higher-rates-of-gun-violence/
http://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/AmericaUnderTheGun.pdf
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/01/the-geography-of-gun-deaths/69354/
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/02/13/1589161/study-gun-homicides-increased-25-percent-after-missouri-background-check-laws-repeal/

[LaydeeBug]

22. thank you. thank you very much. nt

[uponit7771]

11. Here you go, number of mass murders by assault weapons DOUBLED after ban lifted

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/17/everything-you-need-to-know-about-banning-assault-weapons-in-one-post/

[LaydeeBug]

24. thank you. I appreciate it, nt

[baldguy]

13. What do you mean by "verifiable"?

On one side you have reasonable people telling the truth, like Dianne Feinstein. And on the other you have the NRA & its cohorts, which are mostly known for their unreasonable positions and for the lies they spread.

[LAGC]

15. DiFi telling the truth?

[baldguy]

16. Compared to the NRA? There's no contest.

[LAGC]

18. True, but that's setting the bar pretty low, don't you think?

[nadinbrzezinski]

26. Since her stats came from the FBI

I guess the FBI lied

[LaydeeBug]

21. I mean, not from "The Blaze" (Rw example, I know but still) or World Net Daily. nt

[greatlaurel]

23. Do a search on Mother Jones magazine.

They have an extensive number of articles about gun violence. They have a graph that clearly shows a drop in mass shootings after the ban and a great increase after it was allowed to expire. Everyone should print it out and send that graph to legislators.

I'll post a link later. Have to go to a funeral. Sorry to be in a hurry.

Their argument is completely refutable by the facts and figures, but it sticks in peoples' minds because it is simple.

Brady Campaign is also good.

[premium]

28. Perhaps you should read this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

Expiration and effect on crime

Opponents of the ban claimed that its expiration has seen little if any increase in crime, while Senator Diane Feinstein claimed the ban was effective because "It was drying up supply and driving up prices."[7]

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention studied the "assault weapon" ban and other gun control attempts, and found "insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence," noting "that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness."[8] A 2004 critical review of research on firearms by a National Research Council panel also noted that academic studies of the assault weapon ban "did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence" and noted "due to the fact that the relative rarity with which the banned guns were used in crime before the ban ... the maximum potential effect of the ban on gun violence outcomes would be very small...."[9]

In 2004, a research report submitted to the United States Department of Justice and the National Institute of Justice found that should the ban be renewed, its effects on gun violence would likely be small, and perhaps too small for reliable measurement, because rifles in general, including rifles referred to as "assault rifles" or "assault weapons", are rarely used in gun crimes.[10] That study by Christopher S. Koper, Daniel J. Woods, and Jeffrey A. Roth of the Jerry Lee Center of Criminology, University of Pennsylvania found no statistically significant evidence that either the assault weapons ban or the ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds had reduced gun murders. However, they concluded that it was "premature to make definitive assessments of the ban's impact on gun crime," and argue that if the ban had been in effect for more than nine years, benefits might have begun to appear.[11]

Research by John Lott in the 2000 second edition of More Guns, Less Crime provided the first research on state and the Federal Assault Weapon Bans.[12] The 2010 third edition provided the first empirical research on the 2004 sunset of the Federal Assault Weapon Ban.[13] Generally, the research found no impact of these bans on violent crime rates, though the third edition provided some evidence that Assault Weapon Bans slightly increased murder rates. Lott's book The Bias Against Guns provided evidence that the bans reduced the number of gun shows by over 20 percent.[14] Koper, Woods, and Roth studies focus on gun murders, while Lott's looks at murder, rape, robbery, and aggravated assaults. Unlike their work, Lott's research accounted for state Assault Weapon Bans and 12 other different types of gun control laws.

The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence examined the impact of the Assault Weapons Ban in its 2004 report, On Target: The Impact of the 1994 Federal Assault Weapon Act. Examining 1.4 million guns involved in crime, "in the five-year period before enactment of the Federal Assault Weapons Act (1990-1994), assault weapons named in the Act constituted 4.82% of the crime gun traces ATF conducted nationwide. Since the law’s enactment, however, these assault weapons have made up only 1.61% of the guns ATF has traced to crime."[15] A spokesman for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) stated that he "can in no way vouch for the validity" of the report.[16]

Sen. Feinstein was wrong, either intentionally or unintentionally, it wasn't drying up the supply, all the manufacturers did was change a few cosmetic features, rename the weapon, and continue to sell them and demand for them skyrocketed, plus, all those pre ban that were already owned, they were grandfathered in.

[nadinbrzezinski]

27. Mother Jones magazine, who are using DOJ data