Here's a link to the Executive Summary of the study MasterBlaster posted about, for those who're in a hurry:
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/jerrylee/research/aw_exec2004.pdf
It should be noted that there are a couple sides to this study, and they're not all good news if you're against the AWB...
As noted, the study shows that people have been up in arms (pardon the pun) about Assault Rifles for no practically good reason. This is hysterical since even
Republicans have commented that Assault Rifles shouldn't necessarily be legal for civilians to own (
http://www.ontheissues.org/Domestic/Michael_Steele_Gun_Control.htm), and are in fact "overkill" (another pun! But not by me, this time). But there it is, in black and white: Assault Rifles were used in only a tiny percent of violent crimes before the ban, and though the number dropped during the ban, it was only a small percent of a small percent...and the reasons may have had nothing to do with the ban, according to the researchers.
The flip side is that Large Capacity Magazine use has gone up in violent crimes, and there's some evidence to suggest a correlation between the criminal use of high capacity mags and an increased number of victims in those crimes (which, strictly by the numbers, makes a basic sort of sense...like more shots on goal).
So is it possible we could see a new version of the old ban emerge where LCMs are banned, but NOT Assault Weapons? That would likely be a harder sell than the inverse (ban AWs but not LCMs), which ironically, would make even less difference to victims of violent crime.
