Applying simple math to the effectiveness of an Assault Weapons Ban

[IfItFliesItDies]

I was feeling curious and inspired tonight so I decided to do some research and use one of the things anti-gunner's hate the most: math.

Let's try some simple math here.

According to a Congressional Research Survey as of 2009 there are 310 million legally owned firearms in the United States.

How many crimes in the U.S. involved guns? Not just murder, all crime. Robbery, assault, rape, etc. We'll use the 2008 numbers since the total number of crimes involving guns in 2009 is not readily available yet. The number for 2008 will invariably be higher than that of 2009 since crime of all kind has been steadily decreasing in the United States since 1992. According to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) in 2008, 303,880 victims of violent crimes stated that they faced an offender with a firearm.

Let's make a few outlandish assumptions. Let's assume that every gun used in crime was a legally owned gun, which is a huuuuuge stretch. Let's also assume that no individual gun was ever used in more than one of these roughly 300,000 crimes. Again, this is another huuuuuuge stretch.

Now we'll do some simple division. 303,880/310,000,000 = 0.00098 or 0.098%. Using these assumptions and these number, 0.098% of firearms in the United States are used in crime.

Still not enough? You don't want to ban all guns just those scary AR-15's that can "mow down dozen's in seconds" and "no civilian should ever own?" We'll then let's look at those.

We can't know for sure exactly how many AR-15's are in the U.S., but using manufacturing, importing and sales numbers as well as trends in growth of sale and manufacturing we can get a pretty good estimate.

Using these number and factors, slate.com estimates that as of 2012 there are roughly 3,750,000 legally owned AR-15's in the United States. This estimate is also likely on the low side since it does not account for AR-15's that were pieced together from individual parts obtained over time, which is a common hobby among gun enthusiasts.

According to the FBI, assault weapons are used in 1% of gun crimes and .20% of violent crime. We'll make the same assumptions as before that all of the guns in these crimes are legally obtained and used only in one of the individual crimes. We'll also use the crime numbers from 2008 which will again be higher than the number of gun crimes in 2012 due to the trend of decreasing crime in the U.S.

1% or 0.01 x 303,880 = 3,039

3,039/3,750,000 = 0.00081 or .081%. Even lower than the previous number.

And keep in mind that the denominator in this equation is simply the number of AR-15's in the country and the numerator is the number of guns crimes where assault weapons were used. It does not take into the other firearms that would fit the definition of an assault weapon. If those were taken into account, the percentage would be even lower.

So are we to ban or severely limit the use of these scary assault weapons for every law abiding citizen who owns one over the .081% who use them in crime? A far higher percentage of people abuse welfare, insurance, prescription drugs, and even children. Are we to ban all of them as well?

Let's put a few more number into perspective. The same FBI numbers estimate that roughly 1% of all homicides are committed with an assault weapon. In 2009 there were 16,799 homicides in the United States.

0.01 x 16,799 = 168

If an total assault weapons ban were to be passed in the United States and if it were followed to the absolute letter with absolutely no violation of said law, it would save approximately 170 lives a year. But it would in turn violate the rights of millions of law abiding citizens.

For perspective, according to the CDC and estimated 36,000 people die from the flu each year. In 2011 500 people were killed with hammers, bats, and clubs. 728 people were killed by another's bare hands.

Any ban or limitation of these weapons would be nothing other than symbolic. In fact, the original 1994 AWB was cited as being precisely that by the Washington Post.

"No one should have any illusions about what was accomplished (by the ban). Assault weapons play a part in only a small percentage of crime. The provision is mainly symbolic."

Stop thinking on emotion and stop sacrificing freedom for an illusion of safety and security. It's time for American's to get their priorities in order.

 

[Bill Baldwin]

Great research, however, the gun controllers don't want to ban 'military style assault weapons' because they're used in crime. They want to ban these weapons because it's in the public mind and they think they can push it through. If there is an AWB 2.0, and if it's permanent, don't expect the gun grabbers to stop. Just like in the current proposed ban, the term 'assault weapon' was re-defined from last time. If this one is passed, the term 'assault weapon' will be re-defined again to include hunting rifles. (putting on my gun grabber hat) Who needs a .30-06 to shoot at deer? If you have to use a military style sniper round like that, you're not a real hunter. Who needs that .308 military round to hunt with? If you can't use a .270 to take down a deer, you're not a legitimate hunter. As far as you sportsmen (and women), why do you need anything bigger than a .22? and why do you need a semiautomatic. A true sport shooter will only need a bolt action and if you can't compete with only a bolt action, you're not a true sport shooter. As far as you shotgun hunters. Why do you need a shot shell that shoots out dozens of .30 caliber pellets? You're not a true hunter if you can't hit your target with a single round, and you don't need that 12 gauge slug either, that's just not right to use that artillery round on Bambi. As far as home defenders, that GA mom used a six shot .38 caliber revolver to defend herself, you don't need anything more than that. (taking gun grabber hat off) That is until all gun crimes are committed with a .38 caliber revolver, then we'll only need a single shot pistol.

The gun grabbers aren't focus on what can be accomplished today, they're focused on what can be started today and finished up in a few years. While the information in the OP needs to be sent to the elected public servants and shouted from the rooftops, we also need to be vigilant about no new gun control laws.

 

[IfItFliesItDies]

Great research, however, the gun controllers don't want to ban 'military style assault weapons' because they're used in crime. They want to ban these weapons because it's in the public mind and they think they can push it through. If there is an AWB 2.0, and if it's permanent, don't expect the gun grabbers to stop. Just like in the current proposed ban, the term 'assault weapon' was re-defined from last time. If this one is passed, the term 'assault weapon' will be re-defined again to include hunting rifles. (putting on my gun grabber hat) Who needs a .30-06 to shoot at deer? If you have to use a military style sniper round like that, you're not a real hunter. Who needs that .308 military round to hunt with? If you can't use a .270 to take down a deer, you're not a legitimate hunter. As far as you sportsmen (and women), why do you need anything bigger than a .22? and why do you need a semiautomatic. A true sport shooter will only need a bolt action and if you can't compete with only a bolt action, you're not a true sport shooter. As far as you shotgun hunters. Why do you need a shot shell that shoots out dozens of .30 caliber pellets? You're not a true hunter if you can't hit your target with a single round, and you don't need that 12 gauge slug either, that's just not right to use that artillery round on Bambi. As far as home defenders, that GA mom used a six shot .38 caliber revolver to defend herself, you don't need anything more than that. (taking gun grabber hat off) That is until all gun crimes are committed with a .38 caliber revolver, then we'll only need a single shot pistol.

The gun grabbers aren't focus on what can be accomplished today, they're focused on what can be started today and finished up in a few years. While the information in the OP needs to be sent to the elected public servants and shouted from the rooftops, we also need to be vigilant about no new gun control laws.

And therein lies the danger of an AWB. I largely symbolic action that will do absolutely nothing to curtail gun violence and they will start calling for more bans. It's a slippery slope that ultimately leads to the people being disarmed.