More guns = less crime.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Good point Say-Uncle and Matt.

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.

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.

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

MoS

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.

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

The ban didn't affect machine guns.

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? :^)

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

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.

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

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

"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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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

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.

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?

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.