Talk:Federal Assault Weapons Ban/Archive 10

Impact
Well there was no impact on overall crime there appears to be a decrease in mass shootings per the sources in this article. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 04:08, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

State level murder rates
Research done by Mark Gius found that state level assault weapons ban had no significant effect on gun related murder rates and federal ban was associated with a 19% increase in gun related murders. This information shows the effects on the state level verses the federal level.

Gius, Mark. “An Examination of the Effects of Concealed Weapons Laws and Assault Weapons Bans on State-Level Murder Rates.” Applied Economics Letters., vol. 21, no. 4, 2014, pp. 265–267., doi:10.1080/13504851.2013.854294. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian112233 (talk • contribs) 01:04, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Effect on the rate of mass murders due to ban?
Bernie Sanders just made a tweet that says mass shootings went down 43% due to the ban. The intro of the article makes it sound like the ban had no real effect. Can someone please look into this and see what is actually correct? I just want to get the real picture, and I also don’t want this article to be misleading to anyone reading it. 136.158.30.76 (talk) 23:43, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Summary sentence is misleading
The last sentence in the third paragraph is misleading and clear editorialization. "There is tentative evidence that the frequency of mass shootings may have slightly decreased while the ban was in effect" is not supported by the studies that are referenced in the very citation for this sentence ("Effects" section on the page). Examining each qualifying word in the sentence in question:

"There is tentative evidence that the frequency of mass shootings may have slightly decreased while the ban was in effect"

1. "tentative" - given the depth and breadth of data and findings of all the studies cited, there is no need to call the conclusion "tentative."

2. "may have" - Precious few studies can conclusively prove anything without a shadow of a doubt, and DiMaggio states that "No observational epidemiologic study can answer the question whether the 1994 US federal assault ban was causally related to preventing mass-shooting homicides." Yet the statistical rigor applied to the DiMaggio study and the 2015 study by Mark Gius - in which neither study pointed to confounding data - calls the need to equivocate with such language into serious question.

3. "slightly" - There is no justification in any of the cited literature for this qualification. a) the 2019 DiMaggio study found that mass shooting fatalities were 70% less likely to occur - no statistician would call a 70% reduction of anything "slight".  b) Gius said "...the federal ban had a significant and negative effect on mass shooting injuries." Significant is not slight. c) The 2015 Lemieux et. al study concludes that "a small decline was evident during the 1994-2004 Federal Assault Weapon Ban," yet the report makes a serious qualifier, saying that due to the constraints placed on what was considered a mass shooting, the study "could be said to significantly understate the problem. A full study of mass shootings arguably should include cases with smaller numbers of fatalities and also include injuries."  d) the 2018 Rand study included the following notes: "The author found a large and statistically significant association between implementation of the federal assault weapon ban and reductions in mass shooting deaths and injuries. However, because the model included an indicator for years prior to and after the federal ban as a control but there was no comparison group, the analysis of the federal ban does not meet our criteria for inclusion."

The sentence should be changed to: "There is evidence that the frequency of mass shootings decreased while the ban was in effect."

Colterc (talk) 13:48, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Text needs be corrected.
Effects -> Overall Crime

“A 2017 review found that there was no evidence that ban had a significant effect on firearm homicides.[28]”

Reference: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/article-abstract/2582989

Text from Reference: We found evidence that stronger firearm laws are associated with reductions in firearm homicide rates. The strongest evidence is for laws that strengthen background checks and that require a permit to purchase a firearm. The effect of many of the other specific types of laws is uncertain, specifically laws to curb gun trafficking, improve child safety, ban military-style assault weapons, and restrict firearms in public places.

—-

The text from the reference does NOT indicate or imply that there is “no evidence that ban had a significant effect on firearm homicides.”

Text from reference states, “The effect of many of the other specific types of laws is UNCERTAIN.” Therefore, the results of the study is inconclusive and undetermined. I suggest that text should be corrected in reference to the source. 2Pacalypto (talk) 14:27, 27 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Please review the related discussions in the archives. Also, this is a specific type of firearms law.  Your quote says "stronger firearms laws" but then goes on to talk about background checks and purchase permits.  Those are not specific to the specific law that is the subject of this article.  Springee (talk) 17:03, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.31.160.240 (talk) 13:52, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

In the 'effects' section, the list of studies etc. should be in a consistent chronological order. They are in reverse chronological for half of the article, then are in no particular order.