DOCSLIB.ORG

Patterns of Gun Trafficking

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Patterns of Gun Trafficking Patterns of gun trafficking: An exploratory study of the illicit markets in Mexico and the United States A thesis presented for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Security Science David Pérez Esparza Department of Security and Crime Science Faculty of Engineering Sciences University College London (UCL) September, 2018 1 Declaration I, David Pérez Esparza confirm that the work presented in this thesis is my own. Where information has been derived from other sources, I confirm that this has been indicated in the thesis. 2 Abstract This thesis aims to explain why, against the background of a fairly global crime drop, violence and crime increased in Mexico in the mid-2000s. Since most classical hypotheses from criminological research are unable to account satisfactorily for these trends, this study tests the explanatory power of a situational hypothesis as the main independent variable (i.e. the role of opportunity). In particular, this involves testing whether the rise in violence can be explained by an increase in the availability of illegal weapons in Mexico resulting from policy changes and rises in gun production in the bordering U.S. To conduct this study, the thesis develops and implements an ad hoc analytic strategy (composed of six steps) that helps to examine each gun market (i.e. pistols, revolvers, rifles, and shotguns) both in the supply (U.S.) and in the illegal demand for firearms (Mexico). Following this market approach, the study finds that patterns of gun production in the U.S. temporally and spatially coincide with the patterns of gun confiscation (and violent crime) in Mexico. More specifically, analyses suggest that changes in illegal gun availability (across time and space) provide a better explanation for the observed difference in state-level homicide in Mexico than traditional hypotheses. The thesis presents additional analyses in favour of the situational hypothesis (through triangulation) and reports the findings of novel interviews with law enforcement officers with experience on gun trafficking in the U.S.-Mexico context. The study concludes by reviewing the key findings concerning the illicit markets between Mexico and the U.S., their theoretical and policy implications, as well as possible avenues for future research. 3 Impact statement Between 2005 and 2011, more than 52,000 civilians were killed with a gun in Mexico. During the same period, around 105,000 guns were confiscated in this country. While Mexico has one of the most restrictive gun policies in the world, the availability of illegal guns has increased substantially. Gun violence has become the leading cause of death, triggering a reverse in the life expectancy of the Mexican population, for the first time in recorded history. This thesis aims to provide a comprehensive analysis concerning gun trafficking in this country. The research presents new spatial and temporal patterns regarding the supply and demand for guns. It is estimated that these analyses can provide policymakers, health specialists, and crime prevention practitioners with a background to design and implement crime-reduction initiatives based on empirical evidence. 4 Acknowledgements First of all, I wish to thank my supervisors, Professor Shane D. Johnson and Doctor Paul Gill, for their guidance, time and support. Both have been consistently very kind and generous. I am particularly indebted and grateful for all their patience, recommendations and advice throughout my doctoral research. I would also like to extend thanks to many people and organisations who generously contributed to the work presented in this thesis. I am very grateful to the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office and to CONACYT for their generous financial support. I am also deeply indebted to all academics and security officers who shared their perspectives and enriched this thesis. I wish to show gratitude to a number of friends whose support has been very meaningful during this period. I would like to thank Ana, Eugenio, Helden, Juan, Martin, Christian, Francisco, Rodrigo, Fernando, Carola, Edgar, Fede, René and many others for all we have shared. Profound thankfulness goes to my friends Florian and Ciro, who were always there supporting me. Special mention also goes to my family, and particularly to my sisters, Elsa and Tania, who have always helped and supported me in many ways through the years. Last but not least, I am particularly grateful to my parents, Elsa and Jesus, for all their unbelievable guidance and continuous support. They are the most important persons in my life, and I dedicate this thesis to them. 5 Contents Chapter 1 . Introduction ...................................................................................... 15 1.1. Background and motivation ......................................................................... 15 1.2. The limitations of existing explanations for crime increase in Mexico........... 17 1.3. Situations and opportunities ........................................................................ 20 1.4. The trafficking of guns and the market approach ......................................... 22 1.5. Structure of the thesis ................................................................................. 23 Chapter 2 . Literature review ............................................................................... 28 2.1. Explanations for crime and crime increase .................................................. 28 2.1.1. Crime-related paradigms....................................................................... 31 2.1.2. Positivistic paradigm ............................................................................. 33 2.1.3. Rational choice ..................................................................................... 39 2.1.4. A critical appraisal of opportunity theories ............................................. 51 2.2. The study of firearms trafficking ................................................................... 57 2.2.1. The scope of firearms trafficking ........................................................... 58 2.2.2. Defining firearms trafficking ................................................................... 61 2.2.3. Distinctive features of firearms trafficking .............................................. 64 2.3. Firearms trafficking: the market approach ................................................... 72 2.4. More guns, more crime? A background to existing debates ........................ 80 Chapter 3 . The security challenge ..................................................................... 85 3.1. Introduction ................................................................................................. 85 3.2. Patterns of homicide in Mexico .................................................................... 89 3.3. Gun trafficking as explanatory variable for homicide increase ..................... 95 3.3.1. Changes in U.S. federal gun policy ....................................................... 95 3.3.2. Stability and stringency in Mexico’s federal gun policy .......................... 98 3.3.3. Testing gun trafficking between the U.S. and Mexico .......................... 102 3.4. Method and Results .................................................................................. 107 3.4.1. Data .................................................................................................... 107 3.4.2. Data on firearm production in the U.S ................................................. 111 3.4.3. Data on illegal firearm availability in Mexico ........................................ 114 3.4.4. Data on homicide in Mexico ................................................................ 115 3.5. Inferential Analyses ................................................................................... 117 3.5.1. Were changes in gun law associated with gun production in the U.S.? 117 3.5.2. Was the illegal availability of firearms in Mexico associated with gun production in the U.S.? ................................................................................. 118 6 3.5.3. Was illegal gun availability in Mexico associated with the increase in homicide? ..................................................................................................... 121 3.6. Conclusion ................................................................................................ 127 Chapter 4 . Understanding the supply: gun production in the U.S. ............... 130 4.1. Introduction ............................................................................................... 130 4.2. Manufacturing relocation ........................................................................... 133 4.2.1. Gun reforms as a contributing factor for relocation .............................. 136 4.2.2. A case for relocation ........................................................................... 139 4.2.3. Agglomeration economies and specialisation ...................................... 141 4.3. Data and methods ..................................................................................... 145 4.3.1. Data .................................................................................................... 145 4.3.2. Analytic Strategy ................................................................................. 145 4.4. Results ...................................................................................................... 158 4.4.1 National (aggregate) trends ................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • National Shooting Sports Foundation Inc. As Amicus Curiae in Support of the Petitioners ______
    No. 20-843 In the Supreme Court of the United States _____________ NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSOCIATION, INC., ROBERT NASH, BRANDON KOCH, PETITIONERS v. KEVIN P. BRUEN, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SUPERINTENDENT OF THE NEW YORK STATE POLICE, RICHARD J. MCNALLY JR., IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS JUSTICE OF THE NEW YORK SUPREME COURT, THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT, AND LICENSING OFFICER FOR RENSSELAER COUNTY, RESPONDENTS _____________ ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT _____________ BRIEF OF THE NATIONAL SHOOTING SPORTS FOUNDATION INC. AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF THE PETITIONERS _____________ LAWRENCE G. KEANE JONATHAN F. MITCHELL National Shooting Counsel of Record Sports Foundation Inc. Mitchell Law PLLC 400 North Capitol Street 111 Congress Avenue Suite 475 Suite 400 Washington, D.C. 20001 Austin, Texas 78701 (202) 220-1340 (512) 686-3940 [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for Amicus Curiae QUESTION PRESENTED The Second Amendment provides that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” U.S. Const. amend. II; see also McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) (incorporating the Second Amendment against the States). The State of New York prohibits indi- viduals from carrying pistols or revolvers outside the home unless they obtain a license, and it prevents these licenses from being granted unless the applicant demon- strates “proper cause for [its] issuance.” N.Y. Penal Law § 400.00(2)(f). The statute does not define “proper cause,” but the courts of New York interpret this phrase to re- quire an applicant to “demonstrate a special need for self- protection distinguishable from that of the general com- munity or of persons engaged in the same profession.” Klenosky v.
    [Show full text]
  • A New York City Rifle and Shotgun Permit Application
    LICENSE DIVISION APPLICATION — RIFLE / SHOTGUN PERMIT RIFLE / SHOTGUN SECTION PD 641-040 (Rev. 03-13) 120-55 Queens Blvd, B-11 Kew Gardens, New York 11424 718-520-9300 1. Complete each form as directed and answer all questions. All entries must be clearly printed in ink (Blue or Black) or typed. 2. The minimum age to receive a permit is 21. 3. If you were ever arrested for any crime or violation you must submit a certifi cate of disposition from the court concerned indicating the offense and the fi nal disposition of the charges. You must do this even if the case was dismissed, the record sealed or the case nullifi ed by operation of law (i.e. Youthful Offender status). The New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services will report to us every instance involving the arrest of an applicant. Do not rely on anyone’s representation that you need not list a previous arrest. ANY OMISSION OF A PREVIOUS ARREST MAY RESULT IN THE DENIAL OF YOUR APPLICATION. You must submit a notarized statement explaining the circumstances of the arrest. 4. If you were ever convicted of a felony, before your application can be considered, you must apply for a Certifi cate of Relief from Forfeitures and Disabilities from New York State. 5. If you were ever convicted of a Serious Offense you must get a New York State Certifi cate of Relief from Forfeitures and Disabilities. Serious Offenses are listed in Section 265.00(17) of the Penal Law. They include any offense involving drugs or narcotics, any sex offense, any violation of the laws pertaining to the illegal use or possession of a pistol or other dangerous weapon, possession of burglars tools and receiving stolen property.
    [Show full text]
  • The Swerve to “Guns Everywhere”: a Legal and Empirical Evaluation
    BOOK PROOF - DONOHUE (DO NOT DELETE) 8/5/2020 4:04 PM THE SWERVE TO “GUNS EVERYWHERE”: A LEGAL AND EMPIRICAL EVALUATION JOHN J. DONOHUE* I INTRODUCTION There has been a profound shift in the legal landscape concerning firearms over the last forty years. Before then, substantial state restrictions—even complete prohibitions—on gun carrying were quite common, and they enjoyed considerable support among Republican voters and politicians. Today, the large majority of states confer the “right-to-carry” (RTC) with little or no restriction. After unwisely granting cert and proceeding with oral argument in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. City of New York, in which the U.S. Supreme Court was asked to create an individual right under the Second Amendment to carry guns outside the home, the Court chose to leave this question for another day.1 One argument frequently used to justify this expansion of the Second Amendment is that good guys with guns can quickly thwart mass shootings. Yet since the end of the federal assault weapons ban in 2004, deaths from mass shootings have been rising sharply even as lawful gun toting has increased substantially.2 Moreover, a growing body of evidence suggests that allowing expanded gun access outside the home has increased violent crime. While New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, which involved an idiosyncratic and moot provision of city law, would have been a terrible vehicle to make new constitutional law, it did have the potential to either confine the Copyright © 2020 by John J. Donohue. This Article is also available online at http://lcp.law.duke.edu/.
    [Show full text]
  • New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n V. Cuomo Opinion
    New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Cuomo United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit December 9, 2014, Argued; October 19, 2015, Decided Reporter 804 F.3d 242 *; 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 18121 ** semiautomatic assault weapons and large-capacity US Supreme Court certiorari denied by Shew v. Malloy, magazines do not violate the Second Amendment, and 2016 U.S. LEXIS 3959 (U.S., June 20, 2016) that the challenged individual provisions are not void for vagueness. The particular provision of New York's law Prior History: [**1] On Appeal from the United States regulating load limits, however, does not survive the District Court for the Western District of New York. requisite scrutiny. One further specific provision— Connecticut's prohibition on the non-semiautomatic On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Remington 7615—unconstitutionally infringes upon the District of Connecticut. Second Amendment right. Accordingly, we AFFIRM [*248] in part the judgment of the District Court for the District of Connecticut insofar [**5] as it upheld the Judges: Before: CABRANES, LOHIER, and DRONEY, prohibition of semiautomatic assault weapons and large- Circuit Judges. capacity magazines, and REVERSE in part its holding with respect to the Remington. With respect to the Opinion by: JOSÉ A. CABRANES judgment of the District Court for the Western District of New York, we REVERSE in part certain vagueness Opinion holdings, and we otherwise AFFIRM that judgment insofar as it upheld the prohibition of semiautomatic assault weapons and large-capacity magazines and [*247] JOSÉ A. CABRANES, Circuit Judge: invalidated the load limit.
    [Show full text]
  • Universal Background Checks” & Burdening Access to Human Rights Written By: Matthew Larosiere, Joseph Greenlee, and Adam Kraut
    2 FIREARMS POLICY COALITION FIREARMS POLICY COALITION 3 “Universal Background Checks” & Burdening Access to Human Rights written by: matthew larosiere, joseph greenlee, and adam kraut Executive Summary transfers to prohibited persons; law-abiding people already follow those laws, while criminals already “ niversal background checks” require that a violate them. Ubackground check be conducted anytime a fire- Nor do universal background checks address the arm is transferred between two private parties.1 Fed- problem of mass-shootings—which constitute an eral law already requires anyone who purchases a exceedingly small percentage of gun violence and a firearm from a licensed dealer to undergo a back- mere fraction of homicides to begin with. Nearly ground check.2 Universal background checks extend every mass-shooter in recent history would have—or that requirement to purely private and intrastate did—pass a background check, and a few that back- transactions. ground checks should have prevented passed the Background checks are relatively recent gun con- check anyway, because the system failed. trols. There is no colonial or founding era basis for That universal background checks would have lit- such laws, aside from discriminatory restrictions on tle effect on crime is especially problematic when persons who were not considered citizens. Rather considering the burden they place on law-abiding than require government permission to own fire- individuals. Background checks make it more diffi- arms, the historical practice in America was for the cult and more expensive to acquire a firearm for government to require firearm ownership. Only in self-defense, to lend a firearm to a family member or the twentieth century did some states start requiring friend in danger, to train with firearms at the gun all purchasers to demonstrate good moral character, range, and to share a firearm when hunting.
    [Show full text]
  • The US Gun Violence Crisis: Human Rights Perspectives and Remedies
    LEGAL STUDIES RESEARCH PAPER SERIES PAPER NO. 19-01-11 January 18, 2019 Harris Institute Report The U.S. Gun Violence Crisis: Human Rights Perspectives and Remedies By Leila Nadya Sadat Director, Whitney R. Harris World Law Institute James Carr Professor of International Criminal Law Madaline M. George Fellow, Whitney R. Harris World Law Institute HARRIS INSTITUTE REPORT The U.S. Gun Violence Crisis: Human Rights Perspectives and Remedies By Leila Nadya Sadat Director, Whitney R. Harris World Law Institute James Carr Professor of International Criminal Law Madaline M. George Fellow, Whitney R. Harris World Law Institute January 18, 2019 DRAFT Table of Contents Annex 1: Glossary of Terms.....................................................................................................................107 i DRAFT Table of Contents ii DRAFT Annex 1: Glossary of Terms...................................................................................................................107 iii DRAFT List of Figures Figure 1: Deaths per 100,000 people from Firearms & Motor Vehicle Traffic Events,. 1950 – 2010........................................................................................................................................... 5 Figure 2: Total Gun-Related Deaths versus Vehicle-Related Deaths of Young Americans, .. 1999- 2016............................................................................................................................................. 8 Figure 3: Worst Mass Shootings in the United States Since 1991
    [Show full text]
  • Case 3:19-Cv-01537-BEN-JLB Document 115 Filed 06/04/21 Pageid.10515 Page 1 of 94
    Case 3:19-cv-01537-BEN-JLB Document 115 Filed 06/04/21 PageID.10515 Page 1 of 94 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 JAMES MILLER, et al., Case No.: 19-cv-1537-BEN (JLB) 11 Plaintiffs, DECISION 12 v. 13 ROB BONTA, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of 14 California, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 I. INTRODUCTION 18 Like the Swiss Army Knife, the popular AR-15 rifle is a perfect combination of 19 home defense weapon and homeland defense equipment. Good for both home and battle, 20 the AR-15 is the kind of versatile gun that lies at the intersection of the kinds of firearms 21 protected under District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) and United States v 22 Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). Yet, the State of California makes it a crime to have an AR- 23 15 type rifle. Therefore, this Court declares the California statutes to be unconstitutional. 24 Plaintiffs challenge a net of interlocking statutes which impose strict criminal 25 restrictions on firearms that fall under California’s complex definition of the ignominious 26 “assault weapon.” Hearings on a preliminary injunction were consolidated with a trial on 27 the merits pursuant to F.R.C.P. Rule 65(a)(2). Having considered the evidence, the Court 28 1 19-cv-1537-BEN (JLB) Case 3:19-cv-01537-BEN-JLB Document 115 Filed 06/04/21 PageID.10516 Page 2 of 94 1 issues these findings of fact and conclusions of law,1 finds for the Plaintiffs, and enters 2 Judgment accordingly.
    [Show full text]
  • Impacts of the 1994 Assault Weapons
    NT OF ME J T US U.S. Department of Justice R T A I P C E E D B O J C S Office of Justice Programs F A V M F O I N A C I J S R E BJ G O OJJ DP O F PR National Institute of Justice JUSTICE National Institute of Justice R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f Jeremy Travis, Director March 1999 Issues and Findings Impacts of the 1994 Assault Discussed in this Brief: This study examines the short-term impact Weapons Ban: 1994–96 (1994–96) of the assault weapons ban on gun markets and gun- by Jeffrey A. Roth and Christopher S. Koper related violence as contained in Title XI of the Federal Violent Crime On January 17, 1989, Patrick Edward zines. The legislation required the Attor- Control and Law Enforcement Act Purdy, armed with an AKS rifle—a ney General to deliver to Congress within of 1994. Title XI prohibits the semiautomatic variant of the military 30 months an evaluation of the effects of manufacture, sale, and possession AK–47—returned to his childhood the ban. To meet this requirement, the of specific makes and models of military-style semiautomatic fire- elementary school in Stockton, California, National Institute of Justice (NIJ) funded arms and other semiautomatics and opened fire, killing 5 children and research from October 1995 to December with multiple military-style features wounding 30 others. Purdy, a drifter, 1996 to evaluate the impact of Subtitle A.
    [Show full text]
  • “Assault Weapon” Myths
    “ASSAULT WEAPON” MYTHS E. Gregory Wallace Scary black rifles that spray bullets like machine guns. Military arms designed solely for killing on the battlefield. Weapons of choice for mass shooters. These are common descriptions of so-called “assault weapons,” a favorite target for those who want to eliminate gun violence by eliminating guns. Several states and localities currently ban “assault weapons,” as did the federal government from 1994-2004. In response to recent mass shootings, bills have been introduced in Congress to create a new national ban. Lawmakers and judges often use these descriptions to justify such bans. But are the descriptions factual? If not, what does that say about the laws and court decisions that rely on them? While there is no generally agreed-upon definition of “assault weapon,” laws banning such weapons typically criminalize possession or transfer of semiautomatic rifles with detachable magazines and at least one specified feature such as a pistol grip, telescoping stock, flash suppressor, barrel shroud, bayonet mount, or grenade launcher.1 Other “assault weapon” bans prohibit certain semiautomatic rifles, shotguns, and pistols by name and by features, along with any copies, duplicates, or variants.2 The main target of these bans is the AR-15 rifle, the most popular rifle in America, owned by millions for lawful purposes including self-defense.3 The AR-15 looks like a fully automatic military M4 carbine or M16 rifle, but it has a semiautomatic firing system like most modern handguns. Legislatures imposing “assault Professor of Law, Campbell University School of Law. Professor Wallace is a competitive shooter and certified firearms instructor.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Firearms Licensees Newsletter
    . @ FFLNEWSLE’ITER AUGUST 1997 VOLUME 1 FEDERAL FIREARMS LICENSEE INFORMATION SERVICE PROVIDED BY THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO AND FIREARMS WASHINGTON, DC - LEGISLATIVE ISSUES The prohibition applies to persons convicted of On September 30, 1996, The Omnibus such misdemeanors at any time, even if the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997 (the conviction occurred prior to the effective date of Act), was enacted. This legislation made the law, September 30, 1996. Whether a amendments to the Gun Control Act (GCA) “conviction” has occurred is determined by the which became effective upon the date of law of the jurisdiction where the proceedings enactment. These amendments included a new were held. The conviction would not be category of prohibited person and new rules for disabling if it has been expunged, set aside, the disposition of curio and relic firearms. The pardoned, or the person has had his or her civil Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) rights restored (if the law of the applicable is in the process of drafting regulations to jurisdiction provides for the loss of civil rights implement this legislation. upon conviction for such an offense) AND the person is not otherwise prohibited by the law of New prohibited person category the jurisdiction in which the proceedings were held from receiving or possessing any firearms or The GCA was amended to make it unlawful for ammunition. any person convicted of a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” to ship, transport, possess, or Curio and relic sales receive firearms or ammunition. It is also unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise The GCA was amended to allow licensees to sell dispose of a firearm or ammunition to any person curio or relic firearms to other licensees away knowing or having reasonable cause to believe from their licensed premises.
    [Show full text]
  • § 921. Definitions
    18 U.S.C.A. § 921 United States Code Annotated Currentness Title 18. Crimes and Criminal Procedure (Refs & Annos) Part I. Crimes (Refs & Annos) Chapter 44. Firearms (Refs & Annos) § 921. Definitions Pub.L. 103-322, § 110105(2), effective Sept. 13, 2004, repealed par. (30), which read: “The term ‘semiautomatic assault weapon’ means-- “(A) any of the firearms, or copies or duplicates of the firearms in any caliber, known as-- “(i) Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models); “(ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil; “(iii) Beretta Ar70 (SC-70); “(iv) Colt AR-15; “(v) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC; “(vi) SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9, and M-12; “(vii) Steyr AUG; “(viii) INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9 and TEC-22; and “(ix) revolving cylinder shotguns, such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12; “(B) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of-- “(i) a folding or telescoping stock; “(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon; “(iii) a bayonet mount; “(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and “(v) a grenade launcher; “(C) a semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of-- “(i) an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip; “(ii) a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer; “(iii) a shroud that is attached
    [Show full text]
  • Another Ban on “High-Capacity” Magazines?
    ® NSSF FAST FACTS ANOTHER BAN ON “HIGH-CAPACITY” MAGAZINES? THE EVIDENCE SHOWS IT WOULD NOT REDUCE CRIME RATES Magazines for firearms in suggest “relatively few attacks common use on America’s shooting involve more than 10 shots fired” ranges, kept at home, or lawfully and that studies on the number of carried by millions of citizens today shots fired “show that assailants fire vary in their ammunition-carrying less than four shots on average.”iii capacity. Depending on the make Further, research has shown that magazine capacity and model of firearm, magazines criminal misuse with pistols is not limitation had reduced provided by manufacturers as significantly more likely to result in crime.vii standard equipment for handguns injuries or fatalities than in cases Another study, commissioned and rifles often accommodate 15 to involving revolvers.iv by Congress, found that these bans 30 rounds of ammunition. While so-called “assault rifles” were not effective in reducing crime These magazines offer are rarely used in crime, those because “the banned weapons recreational and competitive criminals using them were actually and magazines were never used shooters, as well as those citizens less likely to have fired the gun than exercising their right to carry a those carrying a single-shot firearm.v • According to studies by the Centers firearm or keep one at home for self- Banning magazines for for Disease Control (CDC) and the defense, the choice of magazine firearms based on an arbitrary Urban Institute the “Assault Weap- that should be theirs to make. limit on capacity has often been on Ban” (AWB), which restricted The average number of rounds proffered as a “common sense” magazine capacity, did not reduce fired in the course of a criminal measure to reduce crime rates, crime rates.
    [Show full text]