• Revision ID 88803 REVISION
  • 2018-09-18 08:23:06
  • by Deleted User (talk | contribs)
  • Note: clarification of rand study
 
   
Title Title
Fact check: Bill Clinton's tweet about Assault Weapons ban Fact check: Bill Clinton's tweet about Assault Weapons ban
Summary Summary
His tweet on September 13 claimed the Assault weapons ban "led to a 33 year low" in the murder rate. His tweet on September 13 claimed the Assault weapons ban "led to a 33 year low" in the murder rate.
Highlights Highlights
Content Content
[embed]https://twitter.com/BillClinton/status/1040354286373416960[/embed] [embed]https://twitter.com/BillClinton/status/1040354286373416960[/embed]
As president, Bill Clinton signed the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban">Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act</a> (link contains a definition of "assault weapon" under the ban) into law in 1994. This law expired in September 2004.This bill was also known as the Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB). As president, Bill Clinton signed the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban">Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act</a> (link contains a definition of "assault weapon" under the ban) into law in 1994. This law expired in September 2004.This bill was also known as the Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB).
<strong>Claim:</strong> <strong>Claim:</strong>
His tweet claimed that the ban "led" to a drop in murder rate, the lowest in 33 years. His tweet claimed that the ban "led" to a drop in murder rate, the lowest in 33 years.
Studies do not bear this out. While the murder rate did drop during the ban in the United States, it had been dropping <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/sunday-review/the-assault-weapon-myth.html">before</a> (<em>New York Times</em>) and also continued to drop after it was lifted. If the ban had an effect, it would likely show a increase in the rate of drop after the ban or an decrease (or perhaps even a rise) in murder after it was lifted. Studies do not bear this out. While the murder rate did drop during the ban in the United States, it had been dropping <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/sunday-review/the-assault-weapon-myth.html">before</a> (<em>New York Times</em>) and also continued to drop after it was lifted. If the ban had an effect, it would likely show a increase in the rate of drop after the ban or an decrease (or perhaps even a rise) in murder after it was lifted.
While there have only been a few studies, the available ones do not show this pattern. While there have only been a few studies, the available ones do not show this pattern.
A <a href="https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf">study</a> commissioned by th<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Institute_of_Justice">e National Institute of Justice</a> concluded that A <a href="https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf">study</a> commissioned by th<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Institute_of_Justice">e National Institute of Justice</a> concluded that
<blockquote>[W]e cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence. And, indeed, there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence, based on indicators like the percentage of gun crimes resulting in death or the share of gunfire incidents resulting in injury, as we might have expected had the ban reduced crimes with both AWs and LCMs.</blockquote> <blockquote>[W]e cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence. And, indeed, there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence, based on indicators like the percentage of gun crimes resulting in death or the share of gunfire incidents resulting in injury, as we might have expected had the ban reduced crimes with both AWs and LCMs.</blockquote>
In another study by one of the authors (Christopher Koper) of the previous study <a href="https://www.factcheck.org/2013/02/did-the-1994-assault-weapons-ban-work/">suggested</a> that the ban did not work but had it remained in effect for longer, it might have had some effect in reducing shootings. In another study by one of the authors (Christopher Koper) of the previous study <a href="https://www.factcheck.org/2013/02/did-the-1994-assault-weapons-ban-work/">suggested</a> that the ban did not work but had it remained in effect for longer, it might have had some effect in reducing shootings.
<blockquote>The ban did not appear to affect gun crime during the time it was in effect, but some evidence suggests it may have modestly reduced gunshot victimizations had it remained in place for a longer period.</blockquote> <blockquote>The ban did not appear to affect gun crime during the time it was in effect, but some evidence suggests it may have modestly reduced gunshot victimizations had it remained in place for a longer period.</blockquote>
A review of literature study by the Rand Corporation showed that the evidence was <a href="https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/ban-assault-weapons/violent-crime.html">inconclusive</a>. They also found that the effect was <a href="https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/ban-assault-weapons/mass-shootings.html">inconclusive</a> for mass shootings.  A review of literature study by the Rand Corporation showed that the evidence was <a href="https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/ban-assault-weapons/violent-crime.html">inconclusive</a> for reducing homicide. They also found that the effect was <a href="https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/ban-assault-weapons/mass-shootings.html">inconclusive</a> for mass shootings.
<strong>Fact check:</strong> <strong>Fact check:</strong>
Had Clinton said that his ban might have worked had it been given more time, we might have rated it "unconfirmed" or even "probably true". Had Clinton said that his ban might have worked had it been given more time, we might have rated it "unconfirmed" or even "probably true".
But his claim is for the period for which it was in effect. We rate it <strong>likely false</strong>. But his claim is for the period for which it was in effect. We rate it <strong>likely false</strong>.
Categories Categories
Crime Crime
Article type Article type
Tags Tags
Author byline Author byline
No No
Has hero Has hero
No No
Hero Alignment Hero Alignment
Hero Image URL Hero Image URL
None None
Featured Image URL Featured Image URL
Sources Sources

Subscribe to our newsletter

Be the first to collaborate on our developing articles

WikiTribune Open menu Close Search Like Back Next Open menu Close menu Play video RSS Feed Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Follow us on Instagram Follow us on Youtube Connect with us on Linkedin Connect with us on Discord Email us