Journal of Quantitative Criminology

, Volume 18, Issue 3, pp 239–266 | Cite as

The Impact of the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban on Gun Markets: An Assessment of Short-Term Primary and Secondary Market Effects

Article

Abstract

The reactions of the gun market, including those of producers, wholesalers, retailers, and consumers, play an important role in shaping the potential impact of gun control policies on gun crime. As a case in point, this paper examines the federal Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, which bans a group of military-style semiautomatic firearms (i.e., assault weapons). Using a variety of national and local data sources, we assess the short-term (1994–1996) impact of the assault weapons ban on gun markets, examining trends in prices and production of the banned weapons in legal markets and assessing the availability of the banned weapons in illicit markets as measured by criminal use. Prices of assault weapons rose substantially around the time of the ban's enactment, reducing the availability of assault weapons to criminal users in the very short run. However, a surge in assault weapon production just before the ban caused prices to fall in the months following the ban. Implications of the findings for assessing this and other gun control policies are discussed.

semiautomatic assault weapon 1994 Crime Act gun markets hedonic price analysis ATF gun traces 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. American Medical Association Council on Scientific Affairs. (1992). Assault weapons as a public health hazard in the United States. JAMA 267: 3067-3070.Google Scholar
  2. Beck, A., Gilliard, D., Greenfeld, L., Harlow, C., Hester, T., Jankowski, L., Snell, T., Stephan, J., and Morton, D. (1993). Survey of State Prison Inmates, 1991, Bureau of Justice Statistics, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  3. Berndt, E. R. (1990). The Practice of Econometrics: Classic and Contemporary, Addison Wesley, Reading, MA.Google Scholar
  4. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. (1995). The National Tracing Center 1994 Yearend Report, United States Department of the Treasury, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  5. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. (1997). Crime Gun Trace Analysis Reports: The Illegal Youth Firearms Markets in 17 Communities, United States Department of the Treasury, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  6. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. (2000). Commerce in Firearms in the United States, United States Department of the Treasury, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  7. Cook, P. J., and Leitzel, J. A. (1996). “Perversity, futility, jeopardy”: An economic analysis of the attack on gun control. Law and Contemp. Problems 59: 91-118.Google Scholar
  8. Cook, P. J., Molliconi, S., and Cole, T. B. (1995). Regulating gun markets. J. of Crim. Law and Criminology 86: 59-92.Google Scholar
  9. Cox Newspapers. (1989). Firepower: Assault Weapons in America, Cox Enterprises, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  10. Fjestad, S. J. (1994). Blue Book of Gun Values, 15th ed., Blue Book Publications, Minneapolis.Google Scholar
  11. Kennedy, D. M., Piehl, A. M., and Braga, A. A. (1996). Youth violence in Boston: gun markets, serious youth offenders, and a use-reduction strategy. Law and Contemp. Problems 59: 147-196.Google Scholar
  12. Kleck, G. (1997). Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control. Aldine de Gruyter, New York.Google Scholar
  13. Kleck, G. (2001). Impossible policy evaluations and impossible conclusions: A comment on Koper and Roth. J. Quan. Criminology 17: 74-80.Google Scholar
  14. Kopel, D. B. (1995). Assault weapons. In Kopel, D. B. (ed.), Guns: Who Should Have Them? Prometheus Books, Amherst, NY, pp. 159-232.Google Scholar
  15. Koper, C. S., and Roth, J. A. (2001a). The impact of the 1994 federal assault weapon ban on gun violence outcomes: An assessment of multiple outcome measures and some lessons for policy evaluation. J. Quan. Criminology 17: 33-73.Google Scholar
  16. Koper, C. S., and Roth, J. A. (2001b). A priori assertions versus empirical inquiry: A reply to Kleck. J. Quan. Criminology 17: 81-88.Google Scholar
  17. Lenett, M. G. (1995). Taking a bite out of violent crime. Univ. Daytona Law Rev. 20: 573-617.Google Scholar
  18. McCleary, R., and Hay, R. A. (1980). Applied Time Series Analysis for the Social Sciences. Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.Google Scholar
  19. Murtz, H. A., and the Editors of Gun Digest. (1994). Guns Illustrated, 1994, DBI Books, Northbrook, IL.Google Scholar
  20. Pierce, G. L., Briggs, L. R., and Carlson, D. A. (1998). National Report on Firearm Trace Analysis for 1996-1997, Northeastern University, Boston.Google Scholar
  21. Roth, J. A., and Koper, C. S. (1997). Impact Evaluation of the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act of 1994, The Urban Institute, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  22. Roth, J. A., and Koper, C. S. (1999). Impacts of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban: 1994-1996 (Research in Brief ), National Institute of Justice, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  23. Sheley, J. F., and Wright, J. D. (1993). Gun Acquisition and Possession in Selected Juvenile Samples (Research in Brief ), National Institute of Justice, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  24. Wintemute, G. J. (1994). Ring of Fire: The Handgun Makers of Southern California, Violence Prevention Research Program, University of California, Davis.Google Scholar
  25. Wright, J. D., and Rossi, P. H. (1986). Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms, Aldine de Gruyter, New York.Google Scholar
  26. Zawitz, M. W. (1995). Guns Used in Crime, Bureau of Justice Statistics, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Jerry Lee Center of CriminologyUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphia

Personalised recommendations