新的研究显示，克林顿时代的攻击性武器禁令确实奏效

　　斯坦福大学的研究人员发表了一项新的分析，支持现代枪支控制运动的一个支柱:对通常被称为“突击”武器的军用步枪的未来禁令。

　　斯坦福大学法学教授约翰·多诺霍和学生提奥多拉·布劳塔的研究发现，从1994年到2004年，克林顿时代的联邦攻击性武器禁令与大规模枪击事件和这些枪击事件的受害者显著减少有关。

　　根据该研究的初步草案，将在杂志上发表法律与当代问题在攻击性武器禁令颁布前的十年里，大规模枪击事件增加了33 %,相关死亡人数增加了65%。(因为大规模枪击的原始数量如此之低，这仅与另外两起事件相关。)

　　在禁令颁布后的几十年里，结果开始了。禁令于2004年到期十年后，大规模枪击事件增加了两倍多，死亡人数激增了四倍多。

　　如果当前大规模枪击事件的速度和由此造成的致命性保持不变，那么在当前十年期(2014年至2024年)，大规模枪击事件的数量将增加8起，受害者人数将比前十年增加326人。

　　在美国暴力犯罪率普遍下降的同时，大规模枪击事件急剧增加。事实上，自1984年以来，暴力犯罪事件一直呈下降趋势，尽管大规模枪击事件似乎正朝着相反的方向激增。

　　禁令不仅与更少的受害者和事件有关，而且在禁令有效期内，每起事件的致命性也更小。

　　该研究还指出，一个关键的统计数据破坏了枪支权利支持者关于“好人”对大规模枪击事件第一反应者的效力的长期争论点。

　　该报称:“过去15年，导致6人或6人以上死亡的公共大规模枪击案件急剧增加——在此期间，携带枪支外出的法律能力大幅提高。”。

　　枪支权利支持者长期以来一直认为，致命暴力的解毒剂是更多的武装公民，但携带枪支的法律框架的扩大并未能减少美国自2004年以来目睹的猖獗的大规模暴力。

　　在最近8月初发生的一次大屠杀中，一名持枪歹徒在俄亥俄州代顿杀害了9人，一名武装警察赶到现场，在32秒内击毙了行凶者。然而，尽管反应异常迅速，枪手仍然能够进行大规模屠杀。

　　可以肯定的是，鉴于目前流通的攻击性武器数量庞大，禁令存在重大且潜在的系统性缺陷，导致许多人对此持怀疑态度。(估计各不相同，但是目前在美国流通的突击步枪大约有500万到1500万支。)

　　最大的缺点是国会没有能力为攻击性武器制定一个适当的、合理的定义，这个定义可以在不同的制造商之间得到一致的应用。立法者，其中许多人对枪支不了解，似乎在不同的型号和品牌中挑选了樱桃，将特定的武器排除在合法流通之外，也在其他情况下提供了禁令豁免。法律还特别指出了攻击性武器不太重要、表面上看似肤浅的特征，这些特征使步枪看起来更具威慑力，但不会增加杀伤力。

　　正如多诺霍在最近的一篇专栏文章中指出的，并不是所有的研究都证实了他的发现。国家司法研究所的一项早期研究在禁令到期时发表，结果喜忧参半。这一分析最终得出结论，人们“不能将禁令与该国最近枪支暴力事件的任何下降相提并论”，因为用于犯罪的高容量杂志的数量并没有减少。当时流通的攻击性武器数量之多将确保“法律的效果只会逐渐显现。”

　　25年后，多诺霍的研究试图构建一个比研究人员在早期发现的更明确的叙述。

　　根据最近的民意调查，尽管这项法律似乎是随意制定的，但如果今天颁布，美国人会支持类似的提议。蒙莫斯大学在9月份的一项调查中发现，大多数美国人目前支持全面禁止未来销售攻击性武器。

　　此外，最近一项来自小山建立了对攻击性武器控制的更强烈的支持。59%的登记选民表示支持强制性回购计划，如2020年民主党总统候选人贝托·奥鲁克提出的计划。枪支权利团体长期以来一直嘲笑这样一个项目为“没收”，蒙莫斯的民意调查没有衡量大多数人对这一倡议的支持。

　　但是枪支管制的政治正在迅速变化，甚至传统上对监管持怀疑态度的团体也愿意支持遏制枪支暴力的适度措施。在小山在美国的调查中，51%的共和党人表示他们可以支持禁止未来销售攻击性武器。
 

Critics Say Proposed Dam Will Severely Impact Wildlife, Sacred Sites

　　Stanford University researchers have published a new analysis supporting a pillar of the modern gun control movement: a prospective ban on military-style rifles commonly known as "assault" weapons.

　　The research from Stanford Law professor John Donohue and student Theodora Boulouta found that from 1994 to 2004, the Clinton-era federal assault weapons ban was associated with a marked decrease in mass shootings and victims of those shootings.

　　According to a preliminary draft of the study, set to be published in the journal Law and Contemporary Problems, in the decade preceding the assault weapons ban, there were 33 percent additional mass shootings and 65 percent more associated fatalities. (Because the raw number of mass shooting was so low, this only correlates to an additional two incidents.)

　　In the decades following the ban, the results were exceedingly start. Ten years after the ban expired in 2004, the number of mass shootings more than tripled and the number of fatalities spiked more than fourfold.

　　If the current pace of mass shootings and resultant lethality holds, the current decennial period (2014 to 2024) will see the number of mass shootings grow by an additional eight incidents and the number of victims rise by 326 compared with the previous decade.

　　This steep increase in mass shooting events is occurring at the same time as violent crime rates generally have decreased across the United States. In fact, since 1984, violent crime incidents have sloped consistently downward, even though mass shooting events appear to be surging in the opposite direction.

　　Not only was the ban associated with fewer victims and incidents, but the deadliness of each incident during the lifetime of the ban was also lesser.

　　The study also notes a key statistic that undermines a long-held talking point from gun-rights supporters about the efficacy of "good guy" first responders to mass shooting incidents.

　　"Cases of public mass shootings in which six or more individuals die have been growing sharply over the last 15 years – a period when the legal ability to carry guns outside the home has increased dramatically," the paper said.

　　Gun-rights supporters have long argued that the antidote to lethal violence is more armed citizens, but the expansion of legal frameworks for carrying firearms has not managed to abate the rampant mass violence America has witnessed since 2004.

　　In one recent massacre in early August, in which a gunman killed nine people in Dayton, Ohio, an armed police officer arrived on scene and shot the perpetrator dead within 32 seconds. Still, despite that unusually swift response time, the gunman still was able to commit a mass slaughter.

　　To be sure, the ban had significant and potentially systemic defects that have led many to view it with skepticism given the sheer amount of assault weapons currently in circulation. (Estimates vary, but there are anywhere from around five to 15 million assault-style rifles currently in circulation in the United States.)

　　The greatest drawback was Congress' inability to set forth an adequate, rational definition of assault weapon that could be applied consistently across different manufacturers. Lawmakers, many of whom are not knowledgeable about firearms, appear to have cherry picked among different models and brands to exclude specific weapons from legal circulation, also providing exemptions to the ban in other cases. The law also singled out less significant, seemingly superficial hallmarks of assault weapons that make the rifles appear more intimidating but don't increase lethality.

　　As Donohue noted in a recent op-ed, not all studies have confirmed his findings. An early study from the National Institute of Justice, published upon the ban's expiration, provided mixed results. That analysis ultimately concluded that one "cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation's recent drop in gun violence," because the number of high-capacity magazines used in crime had not decreased. The sheer number of assault weapons that had been in circulation at the time would ensure that "the effects of the law would occur only gradually."

　　Donohue's study 25 years later attempts to construct a more definitive narrative than researchers had been able to achieve in the early aughts.

　　Despite the haphazard way the law appears to have been devised, Americans would back a similar proposal if enacted today, according to recent polling. A majority of Americans currently supports a fully-realized ban on future sales of assault weapons, Monmouth University found in a September survey.

　　Furthermore, a recent poll from The Hill established more fervent support for controls on assault weapons. Fifty-nine percent of registered voters reported endorsing a mandatory buyback program, such as that proposed by 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Beto O'Rourke. Such a program has long been derided by the gun-rights community as 'confiscation,' and the Monmouth poll didn't measure majority support for this initiative.

　　But the politics of gun control are changing quickly, and even traditionally regulation-skeptic groups are willing to back modest measures to curb gun violence. In The Hill's survey, 51 percent of Republicans indicated they could support a ban on the future sale of assault weapons.