1, Introduction
In the next section of this paper, a brief review of the United States Federal Assault Weapons Ban (FAWB) is discussed. In the third section, the two major mass shootings that prompted the enactment of the FAWB are presented. The fourth section discusses briefly the firearms bans and effects in Australia, Canada, and France.
The fifth section presents the statistics, studies, and arguments proposed by opponents and proponent of stricter gun control. Opponents argue that mass shootings use assault weapons and generally not the firearms owned by the general public. They state the Constitution and other legislation given them the right to bear arms and that reinstitution of the FAWB would not decrease crime involving small guns. Opponents actually present instances of times when citizens carrying firearms did or might have stopped mass killings. Proponents cite studies concluding stricter gun control decreases criminal violence involving firearms. They point to studies that show suicides are less likely to be successful when firearms are not available.
This paper will study the history of gun control in the United States and its impact on crime in order to argue that while federal restrictions on guns will reduce violent firearms crime, allowing screened members of the general population to carry firearms will reduce violent crime overall.
2. The Federal Assault Weapons Ban
There has been a solitary gun control law passed in the United States: The Federal Assault Weapons Ban (FAWB) of 1994 (Congress.gov, 2016). The law, which was in effect for a limited span of 10 years, was aimed only at regulation of semi-automatic weapons (assault firearms) and large capacity ammunition magazines. The ban was placed only on assault weapons because statistics show the number of fatalities are 57 percent higher and there are more than 135 percent more victims injured during mass shootings when this type of firearm is used, primarily due to the ability to hold large amount of ammunition and to fire for relatively long periods without reloading (Mayors Against Illegal Guns, 2010).
It is unclear if the purpose of the AWB was to study the effects of the law since there was a specific timeframe placed on it. However, there were issues associated with the process. Weapons manufactured prior to September 13, 1994 were allowed to remain available through a “grandfather clause”, which influences evaluations of the impact of the legislation (Chu, 2013); more than 200 million assault firearms stayed legally in circulation (Steiner, 2015). In addition, the definition of “assault weapons” contained in the AWB lists eighteen types of firearms with specific feature; this allows manufacturers to make slight adjustments to keep the weapon out of the jurisdiction of the law.
3. Incidences Leading to the FAWB.
The Federal Assault Weapons Ban was placed in effect deliberately for only ten years as a measure against limiting the access of non-military personnel to semi-automatic assault weapons. President Bill Clinton put the law into effect in September 1994 as a direct response public demand following two incidences of mass shootings in the state of California. One shooting resulted in the death of five children and their teacher in a fast-food restaurant in 1984 (Video: July 19, 1984: Massacre At Mcdonald's, 1984); the other occurrence took place in 1993 in a law office in San Francisco where eight people were killed and another six were wounded in a law office in 1993 (tribunedigital-baltimoresun, 1993).
The Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired on September 13, 2004. It has not been renewed for a number of reasons including the ongoing debate about its effectiveness, but there was a movement to reinstate the law in 2012 when six adults and twenty children were murdered at the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting (Barron, 2012).
4. Effects of Gun Control in Other Countries
The 1996 National Firearms Agreement in Australia supplies statistics for both sides of the gun control debate. Originally, some types of guns were allowed, but more strict laws were instituted in 2002 (Taylor and Jing, 2015). The numbers show significant decreases in gun violence, particularly attempted murder and armed robbery. The Australian Institute of Criminology reports that while the number of murders did rise slightly in 1997, reaching a peak in 1999, the year 2007 (most recent year for government reporting) saw the lowest numbers on record (Aic.gov.au., 2009; Hening, 2009). However, the University of Melbourne argues that there is little evidence to point to the law having any significant effect (Chapman, 2013). Leigh and Neill (2010) state that there has been fewer incidences of reported gun violence, but considers the decline started before the law was enacted and may be a reflection of a combination of the prohibition and other types of increased law enforcement efforts.
Kates and Mauser (2007) conducted a study on Canadian gun legislation passed in 1977 and 1991 and concluded that there was no either no effect on crimes committed with firearms or that there was even a marginally increased result seen.
The most recent highly publicized mass shooting outside the United States took place in November 2015 when three gunmen located in various public areas with large numbers of people in Paris, France opened fire and murdered over 153 people and wounding hundreds more (Mullen, Melvin & Armstrong). Directly following the attack, the debate over the inability of the general population to protect itself due to the strict gun laws in place in that country (Alpers, 2015)
5. Discussion of the Topic: Arguments by Opponents and Proponents of Stricter Gun Control.
The National Rifle Association issued a stated in 1993 stating that only one percent of violent crime uses assault weapons and the Department of Justice supported this claim in statistics released in 1999 (Roth and Koper, 1999). Statistics show that rifles are used in only 2.6 percent of all murders in the United States (www2.fbi.gov, 2016).
Attempts by opponents of gun restriction to challenge legislation in court on the basis of violating the Constitutional Second Amendment Right to Bear Arms, the Commerce Clause, and the Equal Protection Clause have all been unsuccessful (Chu, 2013).
A study by Gerney, Parson, and Posner (2013) attempted to produce reliable numbers to compare reported crimes using firearms with how strict various state laws are concerning them. The researchers collected information from 50 American states and found the states with the highest statistics for crimes involving guns were also in the top 25 states listed as being the most lax with gun control laws. While the conclusion was that weak gun control laws result in higher number of crimes with guns, three other analyses show when citizens carry firearms there is more crime (Ayers and Donahue, 2002; Guis, 2013), which contrasts with Kates and Mauser (n.d.) who report no significant effect. It is speculated that the statistical analysis methods used by the researchers are responsible for the variances.
In the report by Gerney et al. (2013), the proposal is made that when a state has weak gun control policies, firearms travel across state lines into neighboring states. Evaluation of this statistic is difficult, but the researchers concluded that nine of the states with the weakest gun restrictions were in the top seventeen states from which firearms went to bordering areas in order to commit crimes. Statistics gathered for 2009 demonstrated that almost 50 percent of the guns confiscated by law enforcement that came from other states were supplied by only 10 states (Mayor Against Illegal Guns, 2010).
The statistics regarding suicides committed with guns should be noted. The associate director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center at the Harvard School of Public Health states that, “If every life is important, and if you’re trying to save people from dying by gunfire, then you can’t ignore nearly two-thirds of the people who are dying” (Miller, Hsph.harvard.edu n.p.). If an individual attempts to kill himself with a firearm, death occurs approximately 85 percent of the time (Kates and Mauser, 2006). The Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence (2015) reports that gun suicide rates are almost double when the population has large numbers of gun ownership. In addition, The Harvard School of Public Health states that in 2010 the number of people killing themselves with a gun were higher than the number killed by someone else’s gun at 19,392 vs. 11,078 (Hsph.harvard.edu). However, a study conducted in 2013 found that if a household has at least one gun in it, a person attempting suicide will generally not use it (Miller et al. 2013); this may be due to the respect gun owners have for their firearms.
Of course, gun violence most often on the media involves mass shootings. The shooter does not generally know the victims and these types of events are becoming more frequent. The proposed legislative changes by President Barack Obama in 2016 is a reaction to these outbreaks (Ncsl.org., 2016). However, the number of people killed in these occurrences are small when compared with the total numbers of those who die from gunshot wounds. Over 31,000 individuals expire every year in the United States from firearms, but only an average of 55 are victims of mass shootings (Brent, Birmaher and Miller, 2013). The significance of these numbers is that when considering gun control legislation, mass shootings should not be the first consideration, as horrific as they are. Since most mass shootings involve assault weapons, this is why some opponents of the AWB believe it was ineffective in reducing crime with firearms.
The topic of citizens carrying guns during moments of mass shooting is illustrated by the incident at the University of Montreal in 1989 when one man walked the halls of the school, killing 14 and wounding another 13 (Kates and Mauser, n.d.). Although more than 100 people were within sight of the shooter, not a single person tried to stop him because no one was armed. Lott and Mustard (1997) determined there are 7.6 fewer murders and 5 percent less rapes when citizens are permitted to carry small-caliber handguns. In a similar incident, an armed man began shooting outside a church in Colorado Springs in 2007, not realizing there was an armed off-duty policewoman present; she was forced to kill him in self-defense when he turned his weapon on her (Bird, 2008). No one else was injured.
In the event of a mass shooting, the perpetrator want to make a statement and does not expect to survive; if he is aware there are armed people to stop him quickly, this is a deterrent (Lott, 1998). In the event of a public shooting, there is no warning for police to act as a deterrent and armed citizens may be the only form of defense.
5. Conclusion
Statistics concerning gun control are often difficult to interpret and obtain. There are many external influences such as age and economics, and studies sometimes contradict each other. There does not seem to be an argument that there is a significant decrease in parts of America that have rigid gun control. The effects of legislation directed only toward assault weapons were positive, especially when there is little need for non-military personnel to own such weapons.
In conclusion, there are good arguments presented by both sides of the debate on gun control. For instance, in the case of a suicidal person, lack of access to a firearm may necessitate the selection of a less effective method which would increase the chance for survival. Yet, it has been shown that in states where members of the general population carry weapons, there are fewer incidences of mass shooting and less guns available for violent crime since those guns are generally untraceable. The proposals by the government to not only decrease accessibility to assault weapons but to improve the registration and background check processes shows that it is not the desire to take firearms away from responsible citizens – only from irresponsible ones.
References
Aic.gov.au. (2009). Australian Institute of Criminology - page not found. Retrieved 1 February
2016, from http://aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/facts/1-
20/2009/1%20recorded%20crime.html.
Alpers, P. (2015). Guns in France — Firearms, gun law and gun control. Gunpolicy.org.
Retrieved 1 February 2016, from http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/france.
Ayres, I., & Donohue, J. (2002). Shooting Down the More Guns, Less Crime Hypothesis.
Ssrn.com. Retrieved 1 February 2016, from http://ssrn.com/abstract=351428
Barron, J. (2012). Children Were All Shot Multiple Times with A Semiautomatic, Officials Say.
New York Times. [online] Available at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/16/nyregion/gunman-kills-20-children-at-school-in-connecticut-28-dead-in-all.html?_r=0 [Accessed 23 Feb. 2016].
Bennett, W. (2012). The case for gun rights is stronger than you think - CNN.com. CNN.
Retrieved 1 February 2016, from http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/19/opinion/bennett-gun-
rights/index.html
Bird, C. (2008). The concealed handgun manual. San Antonio, Tex.: Privateer Publications.
Brent, D., Birmaher, B. and Miller, M. (2013). Dr. Brent et al. reply:. Journal of the American
Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 52(10), pp.1093-1095.
Chapman, S. (2013). Australia's gun control: Success or failure? Chicago Tribune. Retrieved
control-in-australia-20130118_1_gun-control- mandatory-gun-gun-deaths.
Chu, V. (2013). CRS Report for Congress Prepared For Members and Committees of Congress
Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Legal Issues. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research
Service.
Congress.gov. (2016). H.R.3355 - 103rd Congress (1993-1994): Violent Crime Control and Law
Enforcement Act of 1994. Retrieved 1 February 2016, from
https://www.congress.gov/bill/103rd-congress/house-bill/3355
Farley, R. (2016). Did the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban Work?. [online] Factcheck.org. Available
at: http://www.factcheck.org/2013/02/did-the-1994-assault-weapons-ban-work/
[Accessed 23 Feb. 2016].
Feinstein.senate.gov., (2016). Diane Feinstein. [online] Available at: http://Feinstein.senate.gov.
[Accessed 23 Feb. 2016].
Gerney, A., Parsons, C., & Posner, C. (2013). America under the Gun: A 50-State Analysis of
Gun Violence and Its Link to Weak State Gun Laws.. Center for American Progress.
Retrieved 1 February 2016, from https://www.americanprogress.org/wp-
content/uploads/2013/03/AmericaUnderTheGun.pdf
Gius, M. (2013). An examination of the effects of concealed weapons laws and assault weapons
bans on state-level murder rates. Applied Economics Letters, 21(4), pp.265-267.
Gopnik, A. (2012). The Simple Truth about Gun Control. The New Yorker. [online] Available at:
http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the-simple-truth-about-gun-control
[Accessed 23 Feb. 2016].
Henig, J. (2009). Gun Control in Australia. Factcheck.org. Retrieved 1 February 2016, from
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/gun-control-in-australia/.
Hsph.harvard.edu, (2013). Guns & Suicide: The Hidden Toll | Magazine Features | Harvard
T.H. Chan School of Public Health Magazine Features. [online] Available at:
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/magazine-features/guns-and-suicide-the-hidden-toll/ [Accessed 23 Feb. 2016].
Kates, D. and Mauser, G. (n.d.). Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A
Review of International Evidence. SSRN Electronic Journal.
Koper, C. (2004). Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun
Markets and Gun Violence, 1994- 2003. Washington, DC: United Stated Department of
Justice.
Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. (2015). Gun Laws Matter 2012: Understanding the Link
Between Weak Laws and Gun Violence. [online] Available at:
http://smartgunlaws.org/gun-laws-matter-2012-understanding-the-link-between-weak-
laws-and-gun-violence/
Leigh, A., & Neill, C. (2010). Do Gun Buybacks Save Lives? Evidence from Panel Data.
American Law and Economics Review, 12(2), 509-557.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/aler/ahq013
Lott, J. (1998). More guns, less crime. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lott, Jr., J., & Mustard, D. (1997). Crime, Deterrence, and Right‐to‐Carry Concealed Handguns.
The Journal of Legal Studies, 26(1), 1-68. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/467988
Mayors Against Illegal Guns, (2010). Trace the Guns: The Link Between Gun Laws and
Interstate Gun Trafficking. [online] NY Times. Available at:
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/us/20100927-guns-report.pdf [Accessed 23
Feb. 2016].
Miller, M., Warren, M., Hemenway, D. and Azrael, D. (2013). Firearms and suicide in US cities.
Injury Prevention, 21(e1), pp.e116-e119.
Mullen, J., Melvin, D. and Armstrong, P. (2015). Terror in Paris: What we know so far. [online]
CNN. Available at: http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/13/europe/paris-attacks-at-a-glance/ [Accessed 23 Feb. 2016].
Ncsl.org. (2016). President Obama’s 2015 Executive Actions on Gun Control. Retrieved 1
February 2016, from http://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/summary-
president-obama-gun-proposals.aspx
Newton, M. (2007). The encyclopedia of American law enforcement. New York: Facts on File.
Roth, J. and Koper, C. (1999). Impacts Of The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban: 1994–96.
Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
Steiner, M. (2015). Criminal Law. Crimes, Legal Information & Lawyers |
CriminalDefenseLawyer.com. [online] CriminalDefenseLawyer.com. Available at:
http://CriminalDefenseLawyer.com. [Accessed 23 Feb. 2016].
Taylor, B. and Jing, L. (2015). Do Fewer Guns Lead To Less Crime? Evidence from Australia.
International Review of Law and Economics, 22, pp.72-78.
tribunedigital-baltimoresun, (1993). Gunman kills 8, self, terrorizes S.F. high-rise Motive
believed to be failed deal. [online] Available at: http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1993-
07-02/news/1993183014_1_ferri-floor-by-floor-pettit [Accessed 23 Feb. 2016].
Video: July 19, 1984: Massacre At Mcdonald's, (1984). [TV programme] ABC News.
Www2.fbi.gov., (2016). FBI Static Website. [online] Available at: http://WWW2.fbi.gov.
[Accessed 23 Feb. 2016].
