Talk:Federal Assault Weapons Ban

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2022
This is a paragraph in the intro section and it does not accurately reflect reality:

Studies have shown the ban had little effect on overall criminal activity, firearm homicides, and the lethality of gun crimes. There is tentative evidence that the frequency of mass shootings may have slightly decreased while the ban was in effect.[2]

It is clearly written with bias and should be updated.

For instance:

Meanwhile, Louis Klarevas, a research professor at Teachers College at Columbia University, studied high-fatality mass shootings (involving six or more people) for his 2016 book “Rampage Nation.” He said that compared with the 10-year period before the ban, the number of gun massacres during the ban period fell by 37 percent and that the number of people dying because of mass shootings fell by 43 percent. But after the ban lapsed in 2004, the numbers in the next 10-year period rose sharply — a 183 percent increase in mass shootings and a 239 percent increase in deaths.

In what world is a 43 percent decrease "slight" while the increases of 183 percent and 239 percent respectively after the ban expired are clearly significant.

One can reasonably disagree on the overall significance which is why I'd suggest editing this to be straightforward by presenting these stats and allowing the reader to determine if they think these decreases of incidents during the ban were slight or not and if the increases after the ban were significant or not.

So please change this paragraph:

Studies have shown the ban had little effect on overall criminal activity, firearm homicides, and the lethality of gun crimes. There is tentative evidence that the frequency of mass shootings may have slightly decreased while the ban was in effect.[2]

To the following:

While studies have shown the ban may have had little effect on overall criminal activity, there is evidence that compared with the 10-year period before the ban, the number of gun massacres during the ban period fell by 37 percent and that the number of people dying because of mass shootings fell by 43 percent. But after the ban lapsed in 2004, the numbers in the next 10-year period rose sharply — a 183 percent increase in mass shootings and a 239 percent increase in deaths.

Thank you Truthaddictgotaheadrush (talk) 11:07, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:01, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with the propposed change. Much more accurate synopsis of the cited studies. Colterc (talk) 16:37, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Step one would include giving a link to the study. Setting the threshold at 6 makes it suspect IMO due to the small numbers at that level. North8000 (talk) 18:14, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

it shouldnt be in the intro at all. It might preface the Effects section but as an introduction to what the Federal Assault Weapons Ban is? Completely unrelated biased commentary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.155.70.217 (talk) 04:17, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Federal Assault Weapons Ban
Please add statistics of the rocketing deaths due to the weapons that were banned

AFTER

the ban was lifted.

compare how many deaths were caused before and AFTER the ban was lifted for a more complete and accurate report. thank you 47.184.160.103 (talk) 23:26, 1 June 2022 (UTC)


 * found a source Northwestern Study Says 1994-2004 Federal Assault Weapons Ban Worked | Chicago News | WTTW Cwater1 (talk) 15:49, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

add stats of deaths with these weapons AFTER the ban was lifted
Please add statistics of the rocketing deaths due to the weapons that were banned

AFTER

the ban was lifted.

compare how many deaths were caused before and AFTER the ban was lifted for a more complete and accurate report. thank you 47.184.160.103 (talk) 23:29, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Which firearms? The law affected common pistols as well as rifles that are more commonly associated with the term. North8000 (talk) 01:01, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Rephrased lead
I added the tag after reversion of my removal of the sentence: "The scientific consensus among criminologists and other researchers is that the ban had little to no effect on firearm deaths or the lethality of gun crimes." The following statements are in the "Effects" section: Where's the "scientific consensus"? WCCasey (talk) 00:30, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * "mass-shooting fatalities were 70% less likely to occur during the 1994 to 2004 federal ban"
 * "bans significantly reduce mass shooting deaths"
 * "in 2016 one in four law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty were killed by an assault weapon."
 * "expiration of the FAWB in 2004 'led to immediate violence increases within areas of Mexico located close to American states where sales of assault weapons became legal. The estimated effects are sizable"
 * "insufficient evidence'"

Of your posts, two were too brief/vague to review. The other three were in essence anecdotal which do not establish your argument, but in wiki-terms, require substantial editor wp:or/wp:synthesis to derive/support from your asserted conclusion from them. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:42, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Huh? As noted, the "anecdotal" posts are quotes from the summaries of various studies listed in the "Effects" section of this article, which is the only sourcing provided for the paragraph containing the "scientific consensus" sentence. I ask again: where's the supposed "scientific consensus"? WCCasey (talk) 15:12, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with @WCCasey the Effects section does not appear to support that lead paragraph at all. &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 21:12, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

From a general discussion standpoint, many things point to that being an accurate summary. It was the conclusion of the big heavy-weight neutral sources in the section. And the ones that say the opposite look to be cherry picked small or biased sources. Also from basic math....the ban really had little effect on ownership of these and the incidence of the use of these types of firearms in murders is mathematically very small. But there is a valid wiki-argument that creation of that sentence in the lead, in a controversial area goes too far into editor synthesis rather than being just summarization. Perhaps there is an authoritative neutral meta study (a study of studies) that we can include / use / be guided by? Or maybe one of the given sources is such? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:44, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I just took a closer look.  The text says that the Rand summary came from a summary of 13,000 studies. I think that they are also known as a neutral heavyweight.Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:47, 21 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I support the part of your edit which removed the Columbine statement: "The Columbine High School massacre, in which two shooters murdered 13 people," because this is Original Research. The sources never said what the statement did, but I lost my edit warring to remove this with another editor some years ago.

It would be helpful if you did multiple smaller edits rather than a few large edits; that makes it is easier for others to leave your good edits and revert your controvertial/disputed ones, as well as it making it easier for others to follow what you are doing. I recommend you make deletions separately to additions, justifying each deletion, and re-organizations separately as well. Thanks! --- Avatar317 (talk) 22:35, 21 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I saw your revert. I've started with restructuring the effects sections. No content was removed. I just introduced some sub-headings and clarified some of the sources reported.
 * I propose a more neutral lead compared to the current to better reflect the contents of the effects section:
 * Research regarding the effects of the ban is limited and inconclusive. There is insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of the ban on reducing the overall homicide rate. The ban was in effect for a limited period of time and the majority of homicides are committed with weapons which are not covered by the AWB. There is however some evidence that the ban has had an effect on mass shootings.
 * This is in line with the conclusions of the RAND reviews so I think @North8000 would also agree it is a neutral summary. Maybe we should actually use the two reviews as sources directly? What do you think? &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 22:59, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @Avatar317 I see you have reverted my edit that reorganises the effects section . You stated that you: oppose your re-write of the RAND section which removed the text "RAND Corporation reviewed almost 13,000 studies related to gun violence and their support of 18 classes of gun policy. ... Of the studies determined to have sufficient methodological rigor for inclusion, four were found applicable": the two relevant RAND reviews linked in the article cover 5 studies each. The other 12.990 articles relate to other unrelated gun policies not relevant to Assault Weapon Bans. So it has no place in this article. Let me know if you have any other objections or I will restore.  &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 23:15, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, I looked at RAND's site, and you are right about the 12,990 studies, that part can be removed because it is not applicable (I hadn't checked the source when I reverted that - 13k studies is for their OVERALL gun project). So that part of your edit is ok.  Can you please still do smaller edits so that it is clear when you REmove content vs. just move content?  And then give explanations for the removals. Thanks!
 * Also, I'm fine with your split to three classes of studies, but in the past other editors (medical people) liked reverse chronological order for studies. I don't have a preference myself, and I don't know that there is any consensus on this article one way or the other. --- Avatar317 (talk) 23:57, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @Avatar317 if you examine the diff the edits are very few. I will recap here all changes in detail so you can review them:
 * - I've created 3 sub headings: Studies of firearm homicides, Studies of mass shootings, Studies of gun violence
 * - I've moved the sentence and relative quote: A 2017 review found that there was no evidence that the Federal Assault Weapons Ban had a significant effect on firearm homicides. to the beginning of the "Studies of firearm homicides" section and I have expanded it as it is a systematic review and quite relevant.
 * - I've separated the RAND reviews into two paragraphs. One in the "firearm homicide" section and one in the "mass shooting" section with more precise texts summarising the results.
 * - I've slightly modified the "2015 study by Mark Gius" section as it did not reflect the conclusions of the study accurately
 * Let me know if any of those edits presents problems for you or I will reinstate the changes. Thanks &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 00:26, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for detailing this. I will look through it shortly and let you know.  Thanks. --- Avatar317 (talk) 00:32, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks I've made a couple of subsequent edits. I tried being as clear as possible in the edit summaries but let me know if anything isn't clear.
 * A rephrasing of the lead is in order as it does not accurately reflect the consensus of most of the sources in the effects section.
 * I would summarise the consensus of the sources as follows:
 * 1. Research regarding the effects of the ban is limited and inconclusive.
 * 2. There is insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of the ban on reducing the overall homicide rate. The ban was in effect for a limited period of time and the majority of homicides are committed with weapons which are not covered by the AWB.
 * 3. There is however some evidence that the ban has had an effect on reducing fatalities and injuries from mass shootings, as assault weapons are more frequently used for those crimes.
 * I've preferred reviews as the sources for those statements. I would say the sourcing is pretty solid. Agree? @Avatar317 @North8000 @WCCasey &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 15:23, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I wasn't pinged but I do watch this page  I think those summary sentences are good but one question.  Should #3 indicate a casual or correlated claim? Springee (talk) 16:23, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @Springee if I understand your question correctly do you think this wording would be better? I think it might be a bit more precise.
 * 3b. Assault weapons are more frequently used for mass shootings and there is some evidence that the ban has had an effect on reducing fatalities and injuries from those crimes. &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 18:32, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * My question is does the study say there is a casual relationship or just a statistical correlation? We shouldn't imply a casual if the papers only say correlation.  I'm asking vs telling btw. Springee (talk) 18:54, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The papers and reviews indicate there is evidence of a casual relationship. &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 19:29, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you provide quotes from sources, because all the sources I've seen say a statistical correlation, NOT causation. --- Avatar317 (talk) 21:17, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * From the sources you list after statement 3:
 * 1) RAND: "inconclusive evidence for the effect of assault weapon bans on mass shootings."
 * 2) DiMaggio: "federal ban period was associated with a statistically significant"
 * 3) Gius2014: "bans have statistically significant and negative effects on mass shooting fatalities"
 * - none of these state causality. --- Avatar317 (talk) 21:26, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Regardless, I'm ok with the new lead, with "tentative evidence". --- Avatar317 (talk) 21:35, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * If I'm not mistaken, most studies found correlation but did not have a control group and therefore could not establish causality (we would need another USA in a parallel universe where the FAWB was not enacted during the same period). However, the RAND review also identified a causal relationship between high capacity magazines (banned by the FAWB) and mass shootings: "we find limited evidence that high-capacity magazine bans reduce mass shootings." &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 23:02, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I do agree that the current lead sentence is problematic. The impression that it leaves is an overreach, and, analyzed literally, it is sort of a spun way to say "inconclusive" but I think that any attempt to derive conclusions from what is basically inconclusive is not a good idea. North8000 (talk) 17:51, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I support those statements, with two minor changes:
 * 2) " limited period of time and the majority of homicides" --> "...vast majority of homicides". I think the numbers are like 90+% are committed withOUT an assault weapon.
 * 3) "There is however some evidence" --> "There is tentative evidence" - The word "tentative" was chosen some years ago in discussions because of the lack of conclusive causative evidence and the conclusion from multiple studies that a longer timeframe for the ban might have produced evidence. That term avoids claiming a causation where there is no solid evidence of one. --- Avatar317 (talk) 18:44, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree with all points. How about the 3B option above? Do you prefer it to 3? &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 18:47, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I prefer 3 (to 3B) because I think the wording flows better in paragraph form that the lead will have. (I guess we could have a bullet-pointed/numbered lead and than 3B would be fine also.) --- Avatar317 (talk) 18:54, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Item 2 sentence pertaining to ban length and homicides is not cited in the quoted sources. Both those sources would support the previous sentence. Is there a better citation to use for the FAWB length and the majority of homicides are not caused by assault weapons? Inomyabcs (talk) 19:38, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Sources for those statements are in the "Effects" section. The lead is not required to have citations, per WP:LEADCITE. --- Avatar317 (talk) 21:57, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I know that this not a Wikipedian argument regarding the article but a 30,000 foot view might be helpful. Being a law that was only in existence for 10 years which mostly only affected new purchases, with it's signature target type of gun being a type of firearm used on only a tiny fraction of homicides, it's pretty mathematically impossible for it to have had any significant effect on the overall amount of such crimes, but also that the lack of such an effect is not very meaningful. North8000 (talk) 20:13, 29 March 2023 (UTC)


 * You're totally right. Now if you can find a published expert who gives the same analysis as you, we could add that quote to the article.  Makes me think of the comments by several economists about Universal Basic Income "experiments".  They say that any UBI "experiment" with an end date is not realistic, since when people know their basic income will end they don't quit their jobs, but if they know that their UBI will never end then they might.  So NOT a valid experiment.  Likewise here.  But this wasn't designed or intended to be, either. --- Avatar317 (talk) 22:09, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Can't run experiments with people's lives. It's impossibile to measure the effects of any kind of similar ban in a scientifically controlled manner due to obvious ethical reasons. Science will never be able to precisely measure those effects. You can observe correlation (which is pretty evident) but can't definitively prove causation.
 * In any case: this was an old discussion and we have already modified the article according to consensus. Maybe we should close it so that new editors know the previous consensus? @Avatar317 ok for you? &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 12:22, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I've not gone deep enough on the article to have an opinion on that question so I'll step aside and let y'all decide. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:31, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry @North8000 I realise my tagging of Avatar might have looked like an attempt to cut you off. Not my intention at all of course! Just trying to avoid time waste by editors that arrive months after and want to see the conclusions of the discussion quickly. If you see any problem or possibile improvement please propose an edit! &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 17:10, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * No worries. All is good. :-) <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 17:18, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with closing the discussion, thanks. --- Avatar317 (talk) 20:35, 30 March 2023 (UTC)