Was the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban effective?

issue revision:

I think it should be "Did the expired 1994 Assault Weapons band effectively curb gun abuse?" but I agree the "ten years" part can be eliminated. Also, I think this one is pretty much ready to go through.

Incidentally, this is exactly the kind of question that is most useful for discussion - it identifies who passed the law, avoiding all sorts of federalism dodges and procedural uncertainties, it identifies a specific type of law, which includes its own references to specific goals (and unstated goals which might also have been achieved - or which should never have been goals at all) - and it admits considerable bodies of evidence on both sides.

Whatever the phrasing, this is an excellent question.

A fair question.  Perhaps it can be condensed, since it's already open-ended.  Suggested:

Was the 1994 Assault Weapons ban effective?
Yes/No

That leaves open all the different positions based on "what is effective" and other concerns, avoids the left-leaning tendencies, and goes beyond a simple statistics debate.  (I'm less optimistic about such debates -

"Gun abuse dropped 10%" "But not because of the gun control law" "But the law helped" "How do you know?" "Cum Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc" "Huh?" "This happened, then that happened, therefore this caused that" "But that's a fallacy" "So what? It's also our national security policy" "You're stupid" "No, you're stupid" "Then my stats show that the national intelligence rate declined because of the assault weapons ban, and you're the best illustration... (Argh..sorry...)

I agree, in questions like this it's probably better to leave the answers as open as possible.

I see Matt's point as well, and I like Clark's suggestion to just make the answers yes or no. It's certainly less restrictive, and will open up the question to those who may have reasons other than the two original answers to back up where they stand.

I think I see what you mean, Matt. I think that the anwers fit the question, though. I think your idea stems from the question itself which, I may be wrong, but I think it's non partisan:
"Did the 1994 AW Ban fulfill its purported duties?"
"Yes"
"No"

If the question were more along the lines of, "Do you think the AW Ban was a good idea?" there would be more extreme answers on each side.

But still, as it stands, whether someone agrees with the law or not, they can comment on whether or not it worked and if they find it to have been ineffective they can go on to say why: "it didn't work because these kinds of laws never work": this is what I think the right wing perspective would be, and I think it will still emerge in debate.

Maybe I should just change the answers to "yes" or "no"?
Do people think this would help?

I like the question, but am concerned (even though I'm a lefty) that both proposed answers are left-leaning. Essentially you have a choice of "It was successful," or "it wasn't becasue it wasn't strict enough." Perhaps a third choice is needed. Problem is, I can't think of one. . .

Yes, this is an excellent question.

Because there are statistics available for reference, it might even lead to one of those situations that Nick talks about, where somebody starts out on one side and becomes convinced by the arguments of others that the opposite is in fact the case.

I agree, because even if the numbers bear out, we can disagree on how much of that is due to the assault weapons ban. Good question.

Reasonable people constantly argue about the interpretation of the same statistics. There are articles and opinions and statistics supporting each side of the issue. There was lots of debate concerning its effectiveness when it was allowed to expire so I imagine there will still be plenty of people that want to talk about it.

Did the assault-weapons ban limit assault-weapon sales in its ten years?  I'm worried that it's a question of straight-up fact, and that reasonable people would have little to disagree about.  Once we know what the numbers are, what's the next question?