Gentlemen,

My fiance is a graduate student in Criminology.  She has a paper due this semester where she has to propose a research study.  She is interested in pursuing a topic related to issues surrounding the use of firearms and related laws.

For example, some general topics she has been considering are:

1) "Have crime rates risen or fallen since the expiration of the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994?"
2) "Where the provisions of the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 justified, or were they a result of media sensationalism?"
3) "Do crime rates increase or decrease as gun ownership increase?"


She is searching for a research question that she can propose a study that could answer it.  It's likely that she would not carry out the actual study immediately, but rather over the course of the next few years.  Also, the research question needs to be something that hasn't been answered numerous times already.  The question needs to be sociological in nature, as in gun laws having to do with society.

If anyone has any ideas for a good research question, feel free to share.

-Jim

NFA and it's impact on crime.

Is it really worth it?

CRC

I did similar papers years ago, so I really can't remember all my sources; but the FBI has annual reports on crime rates they publish annually, any good university library should have them.  They provide good stats on virtually every type of crime, and the demographics involved.

ETA:  Damn, beat to it.  Yes, the FBI Uniform Crime Reports.

Going to be tough to find material for the first one......it only expired last month.

How about something more lofty like, "Gun Control countries and their Crime Rates"  hypothesis based around gun control {i.e.registration, confiscation and manufaturing limitations} do not end or siginifcantly reduce crime.  Hell, you could use DC if you want -- but Great Britain would be another example.

Like mentioned above, check for pure crime rates in countries like Australia and Great Britian and match them to dates their anti-gun laws went into effect.  Also, it is worth mentioning a number of different countries that included gun control as a preclude to geneocide... there is a pretty good list of them but the only two I can think of right now is Laos and Nazi Germany.

Racism and the History of Gun Laws.

Dred Scott etc. to the ban on guns (and the talk of it's repeal)  in Washington D.C.

I think Michael Moore could even help you make the case.  His theory is that gun-owners have inordinate fear.  I believe he is incorrect and that those that need legitimate and timely means of self-defense are city dwellers hindered by local laws that cause real fear....because they have been disarmed and left to depend on the government  (police).

Now that is a good one.

Many gun laws in the south were passed to disarm Blacks.

CRC

Quoted:

You'll find the NFA works as was likely originally intended, as there was only one crime committed with a legally registered FA, and that was in 1993, by a cop.  The department owned the weapon, IIRC.

Based on your posit as to the effectiveness of the 1934 Act, I would conclude that the registration, transfer and tax provisions of the NFA should be used as a model for all gun ownership laws.

Quoted: Quoted: NFA and it's impact on crime. Is it really worth it? CRC You'll find the NFA works as was likely originally intended, as there was only one crime committed with a legally registered FA, and that was in 1993, by a cop.  The department owned the weapon, IIRC.

Just like the original drug laws nothing was really banned, there was simply licensing and taxes to pay.  In the case of the NFA the taxes were confiscatory, $200 for a $20 shotgun, or even cheaper silencer.  I wonder how people would react to confiscatory taxes on their beloved SUVs or Computers, or heck why not go all the way and have it on kids.  People just went to sleep, it's pretty damn obvious.  The fear mongers did a good job.

1) "Have crime rates risen or fallen since the expiration of the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994?"

Can't do this one until much more time has passd.

2) "Where the provisions of the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 justified, or were they a result of media sensationalism?"

This is excellent.  You can add to this the media hysteria as the bas was about to expire.  Concentrate on the wild claims made, and the reality of the AWB.  For example, "Machine guns on the streets" (no, that was taken care of by '34 NFA), "AW's the preferred guns of criminals" (no, handguns in the same models and calibers preferred by police), etc.

3) "Do crime rates increase or decrease as gun ownership increase?"

"More Guns, Less Crime" by John Lott.  And many other studies have shown an inverse relationship.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: NFA and it's impact on crime. Is it really worth it? CRC You'll find the NFA works as was likely originally intended, as there was only one crime committed with a legally registered FA, and that was in 1993, by a cop.  The department owned the weapon, IIRC. Just like the original drug laws nothing was really banned, there was simply licensing and taxes to pay.  In the case of the NFA the taxes were confiscatory, $200 for a $20 shotgun, or even cheaper silencer.  I wonder how people would react to confiscatory taxes on their beloved SUVs or Computers, or heck why not go all the way and have it on kids.  People just went to sleep, it's pretty damn obvious.  The fear mongers did a good job. Go ahead, try to repeal the NFA. Then watch helplessly as the gunhaters endlessly parade around films from the Roaring '20s showing gangsters shooting up each other and innocents with FA weapons. It isn't fear.  It is fact that registration of FA weapons plus severe crackdown on criminals plus police attaining means of field commo plus relegalizing alcohol ended the gang violence of the Roaring '20s. However, you will have to anticipate that and roll those facts out with your first attack on the NFA. ETA - you'll also have to find a way to address the line of "There has been one crime with an legal FA weapon  since 1934, so the NFA works" and do it convincingly.  Can you?

um... but who were the people using the FA weapons to commit crimes in the 20s?  HARDCORE GANGSTERS.  NFA didn't disarm the mafia.  The mafia just got broken up by the G men.
Its the same flawed logic they try to use to ban any gun. "make it illegal to have guns and criminals will give up their guns."  that is utter BS.  The only thing the NFA ever did was make FA gun ownership a privelege reserved for the rich.

Quoted: The only thing the NFA ever did was make FA gun ownership a privelege reserved for the rich.

Today, yes.

20 years ago, no. Any schmo with a grand and patience could pick up an M16, provided he wasn't a criminal.

ETA: Ok, I'm oversimplifying...need to live in a "Free" state, blah blah blah. Point is, except for some real rare pieces (Johnson automatics, for one), prices were pretty stable and inexpensive compared to today. The real kicker was the paperwork. Today...if you can afford one...the paperwork is just a mere trifle.