1994 Assault Weapons Ban
Text Version
What it is
In 1994, President Clinton signed a 10-year Federal Assault Weapons Ban to combat mass shootings, which expired in 2004. It banned the possession, manufacture, and transfer of semi-automatic assault weapons and the transfer or possession of large-capacity ammunition devices that carried more than 10 bullets. Notably, the bill also had a “Grandfather Clause” which exempted weapons produced before the bill went into effect from this regulation. Due to recent gun violence, figures like former Vice President, Joe Biden, have pledged to renew and strengthen this law with clauses about gun modifications and a buyback program.
The case for it
Advocates argue that the law reduced mass shooting deaths and lethality, which both sharply increased after the ban expired. In response to criticisms that it did not affect gun violence, others emphasize that because pre-ban weapons and magazines were exempted, the full effects of the law would only gradually unfold. They also reference studies finding that a new ban would reduce shootings, and prevent further spread of particularly dangerous weapons. Finally, others argue that large capacity magazines, banned under the law, make shootings considerably more lethal.
The case against it
Critics argue that the overly specific definition of “assault weapon” rendered the law vulnerable to many loopholes. They emphasize that the ban only applied to weapons and magazines created after the law’s enactment. As a result, critics reference some studies finding that while in effect, the law’s gun violence benefits were minimized by assault weapons’ small share of gun crimes, and outweighed by non-banned semiautomatics use. Finally, others criticize banning particular kinds of weapons, and basing ban criteria on “cosmetic features” like attachable accessories.
Sources
Congress.gov: "H.R.4296 - Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act"
ABC: "Understanding the 1994 assault weapons ban and why it ended"
Politifact: "Did mass shooting deaths fall under the 1994 assault weapon ban? Checking Bill Clinton's claim"
NPR: "The U.S. Once Had A Ban On Assault Weapons — Why Did It Expire?"
Mic: "What happened the last time the US banned some semi-automatic guns"
New York Times: "Opinion | Joe Biden: Banning Assault Weapons Works"
The Hill: "Congress must reinstate assault weapons ban"
Roll Call: "First House Republican backs renewed assault weapons ban"
Washington Post: "Analysis | The real reason Congress banned assault weapons in 1994 — and why it worked"
FactCheck.org: "Did the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban Work?"
Foundation for Economic Justice: "Studies Find No Evidence That Assault Weapon Bans Reduce Homicide Rates"
Los Angelos Times: "Op-Ed: The assault weapons ban didn't work. A new version won't, either"
Click here to view the full Research Outline!
In 1994, President Clinton signed a 10-year Federal Assault Weapons Ban to combat mass shootings, which expired in 2004. It banned the possession, manufacture, and transfer of semi-automatic assault weapons and the transfer or possession of large-capacity ammunition devices that carried more than 10 bullets. Notably, the bill also had a “Grandfather Clause” which exempted weapons produced before the bill went into effect from this regulation. Due to recent gun violence, figures like former Vice President, Joe Biden, have pledged to renew and strengthen this law with clauses about gun modifications and a buyback program.
The case for it
Advocates argue that the law reduced mass shooting deaths and lethality, which both sharply increased after the ban expired. In response to criticisms that it did not affect gun violence, others emphasize that because pre-ban weapons and magazines were exempted, the full effects of the law would only gradually unfold. They also reference studies finding that a new ban would reduce shootings, and prevent further spread of particularly dangerous weapons. Finally, others argue that large capacity magazines, banned under the law, make shootings considerably more lethal.
The case against it
Critics argue that the overly specific definition of “assault weapon” rendered the law vulnerable to many loopholes. They emphasize that the ban only applied to weapons and magazines created after the law’s enactment. As a result, critics reference some studies finding that while in effect, the law’s gun violence benefits were minimized by assault weapons’ small share of gun crimes, and outweighed by non-banned semiautomatics use. Finally, others criticize banning particular kinds of weapons, and basing ban criteria on “cosmetic features” like attachable accessories.
Sources
Congress.gov: "H.R.4296 - Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act"
ABC: "Understanding the 1994 assault weapons ban and why it ended"
Politifact: "Did mass shooting deaths fall under the 1994 assault weapon ban? Checking Bill Clinton's claim"
NPR: "The U.S. Once Had A Ban On Assault Weapons — Why Did It Expire?"
Mic: "What happened the last time the US banned some semi-automatic guns"
New York Times: "Opinion | Joe Biden: Banning Assault Weapons Works"
The Hill: "Congress must reinstate assault weapons ban"
Roll Call: "First House Republican backs renewed assault weapons ban"
Washington Post: "Analysis | The real reason Congress banned assault weapons in 1994 — and why it worked"
FactCheck.org: "Did the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban Work?"
Foundation for Economic Justice: "Studies Find No Evidence That Assault Weapon Bans Reduce Homicide Rates"
Los Angelos Times: "Op-Ed: The assault weapons ban didn't work. A new version won't, either"
Click here to view the full Research Outline!