Reasons for the Ineffectiveness of Assault Weapon Legislation

Reasons for The Ineffectiveness of Assault Weapon Legislation

Running head: Reasons for The Ineffectiveness of Assault Weapon Legislation


Jon Phillips

Updated: February 1, 2011

1


Abstract

Given recent events surrounding the attempted assassination of Congresswoman

Gifford, and the deaths of six victims in Tucson, calls for new gun control legislation

have surfaced. However, past legislative attempts for restricting access to firearms, to

increasing public safety, have failed to achieve desired results. Potentially the most

restrictive of these laws, Title XI of the Violent Crime and Law Enforcement Act of

1994, contained provisions banning nineteen specific firearms and others manufactured

with accessories considered to make firearms more dangerous. Additionally, magazines

capable of holding more than ten rounds of ammunition could no longer be imported or

manufactured in the United States. The arguments centered on whether there were

legitimate uses for these firearms, or high capacity magazines, and their potential use by

criminals. The intention of this law was to reduce violent crime rates in the United

States, but it was built upon two misconceptions. First, the statistical data available at the

time of the enactment of this law did not support the ban and violent crime rates remained

unaffected during the ten years that followed. Second, the civilian use “assault weapons”

are no more dangerous than conventionally designed firearms with or without the

addition of the certain accessories or presence of high capacity magazines.

2


The Reasons for The Ineffectiveness of Assault Weapon Legislation

I. Introduction

In an effort to reduce crime, the Violent Crime and Law Enforcement Act of 1994

contained provisions banning specific firearms defined as “assault weapons” and the production

of “high capacity” magazines. The purpose of the law was to reduce the number of firearms

criminals had available during the commission of a crime. Proponents of the ban claimed that

features of these specific firearms made them more dangerous to public safety and that there was

no lawful reason for ownership outside of military or police use. However, gun-right advocates

paint a different picture of a law-abiding citizen using these firearms for sport, hunting, and

protection. Ultimately, statistical data showed the limited use of these newly banned firearms by

criminals. As written this law could not have a discernable effect on crime rates in the United

States.

II. Who Are The Gun Control Advocates Against Assault Weapons And What Methods Do

They Use?

There are many groups, companies, and individuals who advocate and fund efforts to

establish more gun control laws. The National Rifle Association (2008) maintains an extensive

list of these groups in a published fact sheet on their website. Of the gun control advocacy

groups, possibly the most prominent in the news and other media is the Brady Campaign.

The Brady Campaign got its start from the efforts of Jim and Sarah Brady. Jim Brady

was a shooting victim during the 1981 assassination attempt of Ronald Reagan by John

Hinckley, Jr. According to the Brady Campaign website (n.d.), “She and Jim knew the National

Rifle Association bore heavy responsibility for the easy availability of guns like those that shot

3


Jim . . .”. Their website claims they are not a gun ban organization, but are for the passing

“sensible gun control legislation” (Brady Campaign, n.d).

The media is one of the many outlets used by gun control advocates to effectively further

their cause. One gross example of misrepresentation aired on CNN in 2003, as the end of assault

weapon and high capacity magazine ban drew near. As reported by The Washington Post

(2003), Broward County, Florida Sheriff Ken Jenne conducted an interview with a CNN reporter

to demonstrate the vast differences between a banned assault weapon and one that could be

legally owned. During the demonstration, a detective first fired several shots from the banned

firearm into a brick creating a large hole. He continued the demonstration by showing the

destructive power of the same firearm in full automatic mode, despite this function not being

available since the National Firearms Act of 1934. According to the Washington Post (2003),

the final stage of the experiment was to show the major differences of shooting another brick

with a legal version of the same rifle. Presenting the apparent lack of damage done to the brick,

Jenne gave the impression that the legal version was much less powerful and dangerous than the

banned assault weapon. Under scrutiny, however, the detective later admitted he was shooting at

the ground and CNN later aired a second segment apologizing for their mistake (CNN rapped

over gun segment. 2003). Of additional interest in this article, Jenne, a former legislator for the

state of Florida, voted to ban several types of rifles as assault weapons (CNN rapped over gun

segment, 2003).

The lobbying efforts from groups such as the Brady Campaign and the demonstration

conducted for CNN are merely two examples of the tools used by gun control organizations and

advocates. The methods are expressly designed to sway both political and public opinion in an

4


effort to bring about greater gun control policies. This is done despite the little evidence that

more gun restrictions will increase public safety.

III. Who Advocates The Private Ownership of Assault Weapons and What Methods DO

They Use?

There are also many gun owner advocates across the United Sates. Some of these, such

as the Virginia Citizens Defense League, operate primarily at the state or local level to promote

gun ownership rights. On the national scene, there are also several prominent groups. Of these

groups, the National Rifle Association (NRA) is the largest and oldest pro-gun organizations.

According to the NRA (n.d.), they were started in 1871 as a means to "promote and

encourage rifle shooting on a scientific basis.” Not until 1975, after the creation of the National

Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA), was a concerted effort made to

lobby against what was deemed as attacks on the Second Amendment rights of all Americans.

The NRA also maintains educational programs for law enforcement entities and people around

the United States. On such program, Eddie Eagle, teaches children proper gun safety and what

to do if they find an unattended gun (NRA, 2008).

It could be argued that gun advocates are at a disadvantage in regards to media coverage.

One would be hard pressed to remember the last pro-gun news article in print or on television,

unless it is from an outlet specifically dedicated to the subject. Instead, pro-gun organizations

such as the NRA produce their own material on the Internet or in monthly periodicals. The

magazine American Rifleman is one periodical, which supports legal firearm use and includes,

among other topics, an armed citizen report of legal firearm use in defense of life or property.

Of the many state and federal level groups, the NRA may be the most vocal pro-gun

advocate group n the United States. They were staunch advocates against the assault weapon

5


and high capacity bans. As a political group, they effectively lobbied to allow the ban to sunset

in September 2004 (Brady Campaign, n.d.).

IV. How Are Assault Weapons Defined and Problems With The Definition

The term assault weapon was unknown prior to the late 1980s. Then gun control

advocates started an effort to bring about legislative action to ban certain firearms thought to

pose significant risk to the American public (Koper, 2004, p. i). According to the NRA-ILA

(2008), Josh Sugarmann first used the term “assault weapon” in 1988. At the time, Sugarmann

was a spokesperson for the gun control advocate group New Right Watch (NRA-ILA, 2008).

Though a handful of states had produced their own laws defining assault weapons, the federal

government officially defined the term “assault weapon” with the passing of the Violent Crime

and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives,

2005).

Under Title XI of this new federal law, certain firearms were either specifically banned

by name or if they included certain components or accessories. According the Brady Campaign,

the named components allowed criminals to use these weapons more efficiently and with

increased deadliness (n.d.). The Brady Campaign further justified their position claiming that

there was no legitimate use for these weapons for sporting, hunting, or personal protection (n.d.).

Conversely, opponents of the new law claim the banned firearms were not only used in

sanctioned sporting events (NRA-ILA, 2004), but also in the defense of life and property (Poe,

2001, p. 154).

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE) (2005) listed the

nineteen specific firearms models banned by federal law. In addition, any firearm incorporating

a removable magazine and the ability to accept two accessories listed under 18 U.S.C. § 921 (30)

6


were also banned. These accessories included either a folding or telescoping stock, pistol grip,

bayonet mount, flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one, and grenade

launcher.

Though the Brady Campaign (n.d.) repeatedly declared that folding or telescoping stocks

allow easy concealment, federal law stipulates that all rifles must have a minimum barrel length

of sixteen inches, making concealment difficult. In fact, the actual weapon of choice for

criminals is the .38 caliber handgun, due to its compact size and large caliber (Zawitz, 1995, p.

5). Conversely, for law-abiding citizens the telescoping stock does afford a measure of

adjustment to the user’s physical size and thickness of clothing. For instance, a smaller shooter

can reduce the over length of the firearm, ensuring proper positioning of their finger on the

trigger. This is also true if the shooter puts on a thick jacket and needs to adjust the firearm to

accommodate the extra padding.

The Brady Campaign also proposed that the incorporation of a pistol style grip affords

increased stability of the firearm during rapid rates of fire and when “shooting from the hip”

(n.d.). However, this argument does not account for all handguns, which use a “pistol style”

grip. The NRA-ILA goes one step further to disqualify this reasoning, stating that these firearms

“aren’t designed to be ‘sprayed from the hip’ as indicated by the fact that they possess sights,

which can only be used when held at eye level” (2008).

Another of the banned accessories, the flash suppressor, is a small component normally

threaded onto the muzzle to reduce the flash emitted after each shot is fired. This is

accomplished by allowing remaining propellant to be burned. While these devices may reduce

the overall size of the flash emitted from the barrel, it does not hide it completely. The

advantage of such a device is more for the user in that it reduces the bright flash that may be

7


experienced while using certain types of sights (i.e., scopes). To counter, gun control advocates

point to the easy addition of sound suppressors if the flash suppressor is removed (Brady

Campaign, n.d.), but sound suppressors were already made illegal without special permits under

the National Firearms act of 1934.

On the AR style rifle banned by the Violent Crime and Law Enforcement Act of 1994

(Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, 2005), the bayonet lug is molded in the

front sight-gas block assembly. This component is necessary in the design and operation of the

rifle and has been used since the rifle first appeared in 1958. It is possible that some companies

carry on this design, since changes in manufacturing may require additional and unnecessary

cost. Furthermore, there is no data suggesting the criminal use of an attached bayonet during the

commission of a crime.

The National Firearm Act of 1938 has already banned the private ownership of grenade

launchers 56-years before the passing of the Violent Crime and Law Enforcement Act of 1994

(Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, 2005). These devices are considered

destructive by definition and are used for military application only. Using the AR style rifle as

an example, the only difference in this regard from any other rifle is a machined groove on the

barrel. The presence of this groove is useless since the grenade launcher and ordinance is not

available outside military use.

To complicate gun laws further, states such as California, Connecticut, Massachusetts,

New Jersey, and New York developed their own assault weapon definitions and bans (NRA-ILA

2008). The definitions adopted by these states are more stringent than the federal designation

and typically name more than the nineteen original firearms specified in the 1994 federal ban.

8


Residents of these states must not only comply with federal law, but their more restrictive state

laws as well.

Gun control advocates such as the Brady Campaign like to point out the similarities of

the guns defined as assault weapons to those used by the military (n.d.). In addition, the Brady

Campaign website often uses the term “machine gun” interchangeably when referring to firearms

sharing the appearance to military only firearms (2009). Unfortunately, this calculated effort

leaves out one major difference between the military assault rifle and the assault weapons

defined by the 1994 law. Military assault rifles have the additional ability to fire in full

automatic mode, meaning the weapon will continue to shoot as long as the trigger is fully

depressed and ammunition is available. These weapons are not available to the general public,

without special licensing requirements, and the law specifically forbids the manufacturing of any

firearm that could be readily converted to fire in full automatic mode.

As one of the major aspects of Title XI of the Violent Crime and Law Enforcement Act

of 1994, the banning of specific firearms or firearms with certain details was doomed to fail.

Criminals preferred small, high caliber guns because of increased concealment capability

(Zawitz, 1995) not afforded by a rifle of any shape, as long as it meets the requirements

established in 1934. Since the law did not affect the weapon of criminal choice, it was

improbable that violent crime and murder rates would be reduced by the ban.

V. How are high capacities magazines defined and does the size really matter?

High capacity magazines or “large capacity ammunition feeding devices”, are defined as

any devices that allows the feeding of ammunition to a firearm with a capacity of more than ten

rounds (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, 2005). The definition also

stipulates that the device must be manufactured after 1994 for the term to apply. This means that

9


magazines manufactured prior to 1994, even with a capacity greater than ten rounds of

ammunition, are not considered large capacity ammunition feeding devices or the more

commonly used term “high capacity magazines.”

According to Carter (2006), high capacity magazines have the potential of increasing the

number of gunshot wounds per victim. Yet, as Roth and Koper (2005) pointed out in their report

to the National Institute of Justice, “The ban has failed to reduce the average number if victims

per gun murder incident of gunshot wound victims.” Gun control advocates use rare instances of

mass killings for their reasoning in banning high capacity magazines (Brady Campaign, 2009).

But this does not mean there are not legitimate purposes for the private ownership of such

devices.

The problem with the collected data is the lack of firearm magazine capacities recovered

after crimes. Roth and Koper’s (1999) report to the Department of Justice recommended this

information be included in any future reporting process to better understand if there is a

significant cause and affect. Roth and Koper’s analysis was submitted five years after the ban

took affect meaning there was no previous evidence to suggest the high capacity magazine ban

would reduce crime.

The NRA-ILA and other pro-gun advocates have commented on the legitimate purpose

of pre-ban high capacity magazines (2008). The given reasons vary from sporting aspects to the

protection of life and property. For sport, there are several national and state events that require

the use of high capacity magazines during competition. For the protection of life and property,

Poe (2001) points out the legal use of assault weapons with high capacity magazines during the

1992 Los Angeles riots that led to more than 50 deaths and significant property damage. During

this uprising, business owners stood vigilant watch over their stores and shops, using assault

10


weapons and shotguns, after police were forced to retreat (Poe, 2001, p. 154). There is no way

of calculating the potential number of deaths of amount of property damage had these

businessmen and women not been afforded the tools to protect themselves and property.

To determine possible variance between pre-ban and post-ban magazines, a non-scientific

test was conducted at a local range to determine potential firing rates. The test was not

conducted with a rifle defined as an assault weapon, but with a Browning 9mm handgun due to

limitations of the indoor range. The steps for loading, firing, changing magazines, and bringing

the firearm to battery (ready to shoot) are similar in method and operation between the semi-

automatic pistol and assault weapon. Each test was conducted three times to provide an average.

The first test was conducted using post-ban ten round magazines (twenty rounds total).

Two magazines were loaded and the first inserted in the firearm with a round chambered. The

time started when the first round was fired and stopped after the gun was emptied, reloaded, and

the second magazine was emptied into the target. After completing this three times, the average

time to fire twenty rounds was calculated at 8.57 seconds or 0.428 seconds per round.

The second test was similar to the first with the exception of using two pre-ban fifteen

round magazines (thirty rounds total). Again, the firearm was loaded with the first magazine and

the timer started when the first round was fired and stopped when the thirtieth round was fired.

A magazine change was performed after the first fifteen rounds were emptied. After three series

of this test was conducted, the average time was computed at 11.07 seconds or 0.368 seconds per

round fired.

What this test shows was that the average time expended per round only increased by six-

hundredths of a second (.06 seconds) when using pre-ban high capacity magazines. It also

proved that accuracy was severely hampered in the desire to increase speed as many of the

11


bullets failed to hit the target. Merely slowing the rate of fire to one round every two seconds

ensured all rounds effectively hit the desired target. (Please note the person conducting this trial

had received prior training and is experienced using a variety of firearms.)

With the lack of accurate statistical data available regarding the use of high capacity

magazines during the commission of violent crimes (Roth & Koper, 1999, p. 9), one must

wonder what affect the 1994 law was supposed to have. The law was intended to reduce the

instances of criminals entering a building or schoolhouses reeking massive casualties, but there is

no indication that this was the case. In the end, the law was ineffective in what it set out to do

from the start.

VI. Are Assault Weapons More Powerful Than A Standard Rifles Of The Same Caliber?

Gun control advocates typically use the term “high powered” when referring to firearms

classified as assault weapons under the Violent Crime and Law Enforcement Action of 1994. A

look at the Brady Campaign’s (n.d.) website, assault weapons are also classified as “mass

produced mayhem.” The Brady Campaign’s (n.d.), claim is that these firearms are more

attractive to criminals because of the extensive power they possess. However, Deputy Chief of

Police Joseph Constance of the Trenton, New Jersey Police Department testified before the

Senate Judiciary Committee, “Assault rifles have never been an issue in law enforcement. I have

been on this job for 25 years and I haven’t seen one drug dealer carry one [assault rifle]. They

are not used in crimes, they are not used against police.” (Volokh, 2004).

The power of a firearm is largely due to the caliber. A .22 caliber rifle for example

would be much less powerful than a rifle of a larger caliber, not because of the attachments the

rifle may or may not have, but because of the characteristics of the cartridge the rifle fires.

12


Bullet velocity and energy is what determines power. Yet proponents of the assault weapon ban

look beyond this information in an attempt to stake their claim.

Major ammunition manufactures typically post ballistic characteristics of their product on

websites making it readily available to consumers. A common round used in one of the banned

firearms is the .223 caliber cartridge (similar to the NATO 5.56mm used by the military M-16

assault rifle). This cartridge is used in many sporting and hunting activities and in a wide variety

of rifles. Though the characteristic of the cartridge fails to change when loaded in different

firearms, gun control advocates indirectly argue that they are more powerful when shot from an

assault weapon (Brady Campaign, 2009).

Like tools in a toolbox, different cartridges are designed to serve different purposes. For

example, the .223 caliber cartridge may be used for small game, varmints, and target practice.

Another potential “tool” is the larger caliber 30-06 cartridges used for medium to large game.

When comparing these two cartridges, a difference in actual power can be determined.

Using the .223 full metal jacket boat-tailed cartridge (Federal Premium Ammunition,

n.d.) as an example, the velocity of the bullet is expected to be just over 3200 feet per second.

This measurement is initially measured at the muzzle and at specific intervals during its flight.

As the bullet travels its ballistic path, or arch, it slows to less than 1700 feet per second near the

end of its effective range. While the initial energy of this bullet starts out at 1282 foot pounds at

the muzzle, it drops to just over 300 foot pounds towards the end of its path.

In comparison, the 30-06 caliber full metal jacket boat-tailed cartridge (Federal Premium

Ammunition, n.d.) displays much different characteristics. The larger bullet is somewhat slower

than the smaller .223 caliber bullet as it exits the muzzle of the rifle at 2910 feet per second, but

it maintains a much higher velocity at the end of its range at 1877 feet per second. Still, the

13


bullet is traveling almost 600 feet per second faster than the smaller .223 caliber bullet. When

studying the two bullet’s energy, a much larger difference can be seen. The larger 30-06 bullet

exits the muzzle at 2820 foot pounds of force, more than double than the smaller .223 caliber

bullet. At the end of its effective range, the 30-06 still retains 1173 foot pound of force, or 834

foot pounds more than the .223 caliber bullet.

Barrell length does play a role in the ballistics of a bullet when it has been fired.

Typically the longer the barrel length, within reason, the more time the bullet has to stablize

adding to potential accuracy. Also, the gases produced when the cartridge propellent is

consumed gives additional time to expand, forcing the bullet to travel at higher speeds with more

energy. Since the firearms listed in the assault weapon ban usually have slighly shorter barrels

than their non-banned versions, it can be assumed the banned rifles are technically less

“powerful.”

This analysis shows the dramatic difference of two different cartridges in velocity and

energy produced when test fired. The smaller of these two cartridges, the .223, is used in many

AR style rifles specifically banned under the Violent Crime and Law Enforecment Act of 1994

(Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, 2005). However, it is much less

powerful than the 30-06 cartridge used in a variety of non-banned rifles.

VII. Are assault weapons and high capacity magazines used in crimes?

There is no argument that assault weapons have been used in the commission of violent

crimes. However, there is disagreement as to the extent assault weapons have been used. For

example, New York claimed more than 16-percent of homicides occurred at the hands of

criminals with assault weapons (Volokh, 2004). However, Volokh (2004) states that this number

is inflated by a definition created by the state of New York classifying almost “all firearms sold

14


in the U.S. after 1987” as assault weapons. New York’s more restrictive definition was meant to

include all center-fire rifles and shotguns holding more than six rounds and pistols holding more

than ten rounds, but the definition was never passed into law (Volokh, 2004). When using only

the federal definition of assault weapon, the number drops dramatically to an estimated 1.5-

percent, before the ban took affect in 1994 (Koper, 2004).

Zawitz (1995) reports that the data illustrates criminal preference for guns that were

“easily concealable, large caliber, and well made.” This rules out the assault rifle, which has a

much greater length making it difficult to conceal. In addition, Zawitz (1995) continues his

report showing that the majority of police officers are killed with a handgun, not an assault

weapon. In this case, the .38 caliber revolver was used 25.2-percent of the time from 1982 to

1993 (Zawitz, 1995, p. 5). Additionally, since a removable magazine does not feed the revolver,

it was not further restricted by the high capacity magazine ban.

With the available data showing that assault weapons, as defined by federal law, are used

only in a handful of cases, it is no wonder the 1994 ban failed to reduce violent crime rates in the

United States. The lack of data to support a high capacity magazine ban is equally as

troublesome. This leaves the question of why legislators would select the least used firearm to

ban. The reality of the situation is that assault weapons are not the desired weapons of choice

because of the limiting factors they pose. As Koper (2004) wrote, “This law prohibits a

relatively small group of weapons considered by ban advocates to be particularly dangerous and

attractive for criminal purposes.”

VIII. Are there legal uses for assault weapons?

There are many legitimate uses for firearms defined as assault weapons under the 1994

ban. For example, there are sanctioned shooting competitions, hunting, and personal protection.

15


While it is proven that criminals rarely use an assault weapon for violent crimes, thousands of

law-abiding citizens use these firearms for legal purposes.

As a sporting rifle, the so-called assault weapon is used in many local and national level

competitions. Probably the largest event, which includes rifle competition, is held annually at

Camp Perry, Ohio. Similar events are held throughout the country at various ranges.

The potential accuracy and dependability of the rifles listed in the assault weapon ban

make them ideal for lightweight hunting application. Varmint hunting for small game is a

popular sport in many parts of the country. Because of the size and quick responses of the

quarry, a rifle that is capable of shooting long distances without using a large caliber bullet is

normally preferred. (Note: potential accuracy is largely dependent on the ability of the shooter.

A very accurate rifle in the hands of a novice will not produce the same result as someone with

proper training and practice.)

Finally, the protection of life and property is another use for the assault rifle. The NRA-

ILA (2008) estimates that firearms are used in self-defense over 2-million times annually, yet

these cases are rarely seen on the evening news. A dramatic example of this, as Lott (2000)

describes, is that of property owners defending themselves and stores after the Los Angeles riots

broke out in 1992. These private owners took up arms to defend themselves while law

enforcement was forced to withdrawal (Poe, 2001). Meanwhile, as Poe (2001) reported, more

than 50 people died and $1 billion in property damage was suffered at the hands of rioters.

There is only speculation as to the potential extent of death or damage had it not been for armed

citizens.

These are just three examples of the use of firearms deemed dangerous by law-abiding

citizens. While proponents of the ban point at certain features of the rifle and claim they are

16


unsuitable or unneeded for private citizens, the argument fails to explain away the thousand of

gun owners who legally use these firearms daily. Ultimately, the most significant of these

examples is personal protection and the ability to adequately defend life, home, or place of

business.

IX. Conclusion

In summary, the Violent Crime and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 was a failure from the

start. The firearms and high capacity magazines the law prohibited were the least used weapons

for criminal activity and the ban did nothing to reduce violent crime rates in the United States.

There was no statistical justification to implement the law and past data pointed in more probable

directions. As NRA spokesperson, Wayne LaPierre, claimed, “This whole ban was lied into law

10 years ago, . . .” (CNN rapped over gun segment, 2003). The firearm components specifically

listed in the assault weapon ban fail to make these firearms any more dangerous than those

without them. Furthermore, high capacity magazine data had not been documented sufficiently

to justify claims that they make a firearm more deadly. In fact, the available information

suggests that the 10-round cap placed on magazines failed to reduce the number of victims per

incidents during the ten-year ban. Re-implementing the assault weapon or high capacity

magazine ban would not have prevented the events in Tucson on January 8, 2011.

17


References

Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. (n.d.). Assault weapons and other military-style

weapons. Brady Campaign. Retreived June 12, 2009, from

http://www.bradycampaign.org/ issues/assaultweapons/.

Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. (n.d.). About the Brady Campaign. Brady

Campaign. Retrieved June 12, 2009, from http://www.bradycampaign.org/about/.

Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. (2009). Example of assault weapons violence:

Reported since ban expired in 2004. Brady Campaign. Retrieved June 1, 2009, from

http://www.bradycampaign.org/xshare/pdf/assault/awb_violence.pdf.

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. (2005). Federal Firearms Regulations

Reference Guide. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Carter, G. L. (2006). Gun control in the United States: A reference handbook. Santa Barbara,

CA: ABC-CLIO.

CNN rapped over gun segment. (2003, May). The Washington Post, p. unknown.

Federal Premium Ammunition. (n.d.). [Graphical illustrations of ballistic information for

the .223 Remington (5.56X45MM) full metal jacket boat-tail cartrdge]. Retrieved June

18, 2009, from http://www.federalpremium.com/products/details/rifle.aspx?id=69.

Federal Premium Ammunition. (n.d.). [Graphical illustrations of ballistic information for the

30-06 Springfield full metal jacket boat-tail cartrdge]. Retrieved June 18, 2009, from

http://www.federalpremium.com/products/details/rifle.aspx?id=73.

Lott, J. R. (2000). More guns, less crime: Understanding crime and gun-control laws. Chicago,

IL: University of Chicago Press.

18


Koper, C. S. (2004). Updated assessment of the federal assault weapon ban: Impacts on gun

markets and gun violence, 1994-2004. Philadelphia, PA: Jerry Lee Center of

Criminology.

National Rifle Association (NRA). (n.d.). About us. NRA. Retreived June 13, 2009, from

http://home.nra.org/ #/home.

National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA). (2008). National

organizations with anti-gun policies. NRA-ILA. Retrieved June 13, 2009, from

http://www.nraila.org/ issues/factsheets/read.aspx?id=15

National Rifle Association Institute For Legislative Action (NRA-ILA). (2008). Semi-

automatic firearms and the assault weapon issue. NRA-ILA. Retrieved June 13, 2009,

from http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=238.

Poe, R. (2001). The seven myths about gun control: Reclaiming the truth about guns, crime, and

the Second Amendment. New York: Three Rivers Press.

Roth, J. A., & Koper, C. S. (2005). Bureau of Alcohol, Tobaccos, Firearms, and Explosives:

Federal firearms regulations reference guide. Washington, DC: Government Printing

Office.

Timed Trial. (2009). [Timed trial comparison between pre-ban and post-ban magazines].

Retrieved June 16, 2009.

Volokh, E. (2004). Journalist's Guide to Gun Policy Scholars and Second Amendment Scholars.

Federal assualt weapons ban: Policy briefing book. Retrieved June 15, 2009, from

http://gunscholar.com.

Zawitz, M. W. (1995). Bureau of Justice Statistics selected findings: Guns used in crimes.

Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

19

Documents

Reasons for the Ineffectiveness of Assault Weapon Legislation