Rifle Murders Declined After Federal ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban Expired, New FBI Data Analysis Finds
As the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to decide whether states can ban AR-15s and other commonly owned semiautomatic rifles, a new analysis of FBI crime data is challenging one of the gun-control lobby’s central arguments. Despite decades of warnings about the supposed dangers of these firearms, rifles account for a smaller share of firearm murders today than they did when the federal government’s so-called “assault weapons” ban was in effect.
According to a November 4 analysis published by the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC), rifles accounted for an average of 4.9% of firearm murders during the federal ban from 1995 through 2004. After the ban expired, that figure fell to just 3.6%, even as the estimated number of AR-15s and AK-47s in civilian circulation increased dramatically.
The findings arrive ahead of December 2, 2026, when the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins, two consolidated cases challenging bans on commonly owned semiautomatic rifles. The cases could determine whether politicians can continue prohibiting America’s most popular rifle platform despite its widespread lawful ownership and the constitutional protections recognized in District of Columbia v. Heller.
The Federal Assault Weapons Ban Did Not Reduce Rifles’ Share of Firearm Murders
The CPRC analysis, published by economist John Lott’s research organization, examined FBI Uniform Crime Reporting data covering the years before, during, and after the federal assault weapons ban, which took effect in September 1994 and expired in September 2004.
The numbers tell a story that supporters of renewed rifle bans would rather ignore.
Before the federal ban, rifles accounted for an average of 4.8% of firearm murders. During the ban, from 1995 through 2004, that percentage was 4.9%. Following the ban’s expiration, the average declined to 3.6%. Even when CPRC limited its post-ban comparison to the first ten years following expiration, rifles accounted for only 3.86% of firearm murders.
In other words, the percentage of firearm murders involving rifles was slightly higher during the federal ban than before it, and considerably lower after the restrictions expired.
CPRC also conducted statistical comparisons of the different periods. The organization reported no statistically significant difference between the pre-ban and ban-era percentages. However, the decline between the ban-era and post-ban averages was statistically significant under its reported two-tailed t-test.
The difference between 4.9% and 3.6% represents approximately a 27% relative decline in rifles’ share of firearm murders.
These figures do not establish that allowing the federal ban to expire caused the decline. They do, however, undermine the argument that prohibiting certain semiautomatic rifles was necessary to reduce the proportion of firearm murders involving rifles.
It is also important to understand what the FBI data measure. The rifle category includes all types of rifles, not exclusively AR-15s, AK-47s, or firearms covered by assault weapons legislation. The numbers therefore describe the broader category of rifles, rather than establishing a separate murder rate for any particular semiautomatic platform.
That distinction makes the findings especially relevant. Even when every category of rifle is included, rifles account for only a small fraction of firearm murders.
AR-15 Ownership Surged While the Rifle Murder Share Declined
Perhaps the most revealing finding is what happened to rifle ownership during the same period.
According to CPRC, the estimated number of AR-15s and AK-47s per 100 Americans increased from approximately one in 2004, when the federal ban expired, to 10.2 in 2025. That represents roughly a tenfold increase in the estimated prevalence of these firearms relative to the population.
During those years, AR-15-style rifles became increasingly common among American gun owners. They are used for home defense, recreational shooting, competition, hunting, and a variety of other lawful purposes. The platform’s modular design, manageable recoil, familiar controls, and extensive availability of parts and accessories have helped make it one of the most recognizable firearms in the country.
Yet the tremendous expansion in estimated ownership did not produce the corresponding increase in rifles’ share of firearm murders that opponents of these firearms have repeatedly warned about.
The ownership estimates come from CPRC’s analysis, rather than the FBI’s crime reporting system. Nevertheless, the contrast between the organization’s estimated growth in AR-15 and AK-47 prevalence and its reported decline in rifles’ share of firearm murders deserves attention.
If the proliferation of these rifles were the public-safety catastrophe gun-control organizations portray it to be, the historical trend presents an obvious question: Why did rifles account for a smaller share of firearm murders after the federal ban expired?
The research does not establish a causal relationship between rifle ownership and changes in murder statistics. But it does challenge the simplistic assumption that more civilian-owned semiautomatic rifles necessarily translate into a larger proportion of murders committed with rifles.
The Supreme Court Is About to Decide the Future of AR-15 Bans
The timing of CPRC’s analysis could hardly be more relevant.
On December 2, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in Viramontes v. Cook County, No. 25-238, and Grant v. Higgins, No. 25-566. The consolidated cases challenge restrictions imposed by Cook County, Illinois, and Connecticut on AR-15s and other commonly owned semiautomatic rifles.
As AmmoLand previously reported, Cook County and Connecticut are defending their prohibitions by arguing that widespread lawful ownership does not necessarily prevent governments from banning firearms they characterize as unusually dangerous.
Cook County’s October 21 Supreme Court brief goes so far as to argue that the common use of AR-15s is not determinative of constitutional protection. Its position would allow governments to acknowledge that millions of law-abiding Americans own these rifles while still claiming the authority to prohibit them.
The gun-control lobby has taken similarly aggressive positions.
In amicus briefs supporting the bans, Giffords Law Center argued that the Supreme Court should overturn its landmark 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen if that ruling requires striking down the restrictions. Virginia’s attorney general, meanwhile, argued that AR-15s are not protected arms under the Second Amendment.
These arguments seek to give governments broad authority to prohibit firearms based on their alleged dangerousness, even when those arms are commonly possessed by law-abiding Americans.
The CPRC findings raise serious questions about the public-safety narrative surrounding those efforts. Rifles account for a small percentage of firearm murders, and their share declined after the expiration of a federal ban targeting certain semiautomatic firearms.
But there is an even more fundamental constitutional problem with the government’s position.
The Second Amendment Does Not Depend on Crime Statistics
The right to keep and bear arms is not a privilege that government officials may revoke because they believe a particular firearm is unnecessary, politically unpopular, or too effective for civilian ownership.
In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court recognized that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms and specifically emphasized arms in common use for lawful purposes. In Bruen, the Court rejected the use of open-ended judicial interest balancing to justify restrictions on that right, requiring governments to demonstrate consistency with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.
The constitutional question before the justices is not whether politicians believe banning AR-15s would produce a desirable public-policy outcome. It is whether the government possesses the constitutional authority to prohibit Americans from owning arms that are commonly possessed for lawful purposes.
As 27 states argued in a Supreme Court brief supporting the gun owners, governments cannot simply declare that citizens have no need for commonly owned rifles and prohibit their possession.
Nor does the fact that criminals occasionally misuse a particular category of firearm eliminate the constitutional rights of millions of Americans who obey the law.
The same principle applies to handguns, which are involved in far more murders than rifles. The Supreme Court did not uphold the individual right to possess handguns in Heller because handguns were rarely misused. It recognized that the Constitution protects their lawful possession despite their involvement in crime.
The Second Amendment does not require Americans to prove that their chosen firearms have sufficiently favorable crime statistics before exercising their rights.
The Numbers Challenge the Justification for Rifle Bans
For decades, gun-control organizations have portrayed AR-15s and similar semiautomatic rifles as uniquely dangerous weapons that must be removed from civilian hands. That argument has been used to justify restrictions on firearms owned by millions of Americans who have committed no crime.
The latest CPRC analysis provides an important factual counterpoint. Rifles accounted for an average of 4.9% of firearm murders during the federal assault weapons ban, compared with 3.6% after its expiration. That decline occurred during a period in which the estimated prevalence of AR-15s and AK-47s increased substantially.
These findings do not settle every debate about firearms and violent crime, nor do they independently determine the constitutionality of any particular law. What they demonstrate is that the historical data do not support the simplistic narrative that allowing Americans to own more semiautomatic rifles inevitably produces a larger share of firearm murders involving rifles.
With the Supreme Court preparing to consider the constitutionality of AR-15 bans, those facts deserve far more attention than the emotional appeals and misleading descriptions of firearms routinely employed by gun-control advocates.
But even if the statistics were different, the constitutional principle would remain unchanged.
Americans do not possess the right to keep and bear arms because the government has determined that their firearms are statistically acceptable. They possess that right because the Constitution recognizes and protects it.
The Second Amendment is not a public-safety exemption granted at the discretion of politicians. It is an individual right, and the government has no authority to ban commonly owned arms simply because it disapproves of what Americans choose to own.
About Duncan Johnson:
Duncan Johnson is a lifelong firearms enthusiast and unwavering defender of the Second Amendment—where “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. A graduate of George Mason University, he enjoys competing in local USPSA and multi-gun competitions whenever he’s not covering the latest in gun rights and firearm policy. Duncan is a regular contributor and editor-in-chief for AmmoLand News and is responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.