The Effect of Large-Capacity Magazine Bans on High-Fatality Mass Shootings, 1990–2017

Louis Klarevas, PhD; Andrew Conner, BS; David Hemenway, PhD


Am J Public Health. 2019;109(12):1754-1761. 

In This Article

Abstract and Introduction


Objectives: To evaluate the effect of large-capacity magazine (LCM) bans on the frequency and lethality of high-fatality mass shootings in the United States.

Methods: We analyzed state panel data of high-fatality mass shootings from 1990 to 2017. We first assessed the relationship between LCM bans overall, and then federal and state bans separately, on (1) the occurrence of high-fatality mass shootings (logit regression) and (2) the deaths resulting from such incidents (negative binomial analysis). We controlled for 10 independent variables, used state fixed effects with a continuous variable for year, and accounted for clustering.

Results: Between 1990 and 2017, there were 69 high-fatality mass shootings. Attacks involving LCMs resulted in a 62% higher mean average death toll. The incidence of high-fatality mass shootings in non–LCM ban states was more than double the rate in LCM ban states; the annual number of deaths was more than 3 times higher. In multivariate analyses, states without an LCM ban experienced significantly more high-fatality mass shootings and a higher death rate from such incidents.

Conclusions: LCM bans appear to reduce both the incidence of, and number of people killed in, high-fatality mass shootings.


The recent spate of gun massacres in the United States has re-energized the debate over how to prevent such tragedies.[1] A common response to high-profile acts of gun violence is the promotion of tighter gun legislation, and there is some evidence that laws imposing tighter restrictions on access to firearms have been associated with lower levels of mass shootings.[2] One proposal that has received renewed interest involves restricting the possession of large-capacity magazines (LCMs).[3–5] This raises an important question: what has been the impact of LCM bans on high-fatality mass shootings?

In an attempt to arrest an uptick in mass shooting violence in the early 1990s, Congress in 1994 enacted the federal assault weapons ban, which, among other things, restricted ownership of certain ammunition-feeding devices.[6,7] The law, which contained a sunset provision, was allowed to expire a decade later. Pursuant to that ban (18 USC §921(a) [1994]; repealed), it was illegal to possess LCMs—defined as any ammunition-feeding device holding more than 10 bullets—unless the magazines were manufactured before the enactment of the ban. LCM restrictions are arguably the most important component of assault weapons bans because they also apply to semiautomatic firearms without military-style features.[8,9]

Beginning with New Jersey in 1990, some states implemented their own regulations on LCMs. Today, 9 states and the District of Columbia restrict the possession of LCMs. The bans vary along many dimensions, including maximum bullet capacity of permissible magazines, grandfathering of existing LCMs, and applicable firearms. Moreover, overlaps sometimes exist between assault weapons bans and LCM bans, but not in all states. For example, California instituted a ban on assault weapons in 1989, but LCMs remained unregulated in the state until 1994, when the federal ban went into effect. In 2000, California's own statewide ban on LCMs took effect as a safeguard in the event the federal ban expired, which happened in 2004.[10,11]

LCMs provide a distinct advantage to active shooters intent on murdering numerous people: they increase the number of rounds that can be fired at potential victims before having to pause to reload or switch weapons. Evidence shows that victims struck by multiple rounds are more likely to die, with 2 studies finding that, when compared with the fatality rates of gunshot wound victims who were hit by only a single bullet, the fatality rates of those victims hit by more than 1 bullet were more than 60% higher.[12,13] Being able to strike human targets with more than 1 bullet increases shooters' chances of killing their victims. Analyses of gunshot wound victims at level I trauma centers have suggested that this multiple-impact capability is often attributable to the use of LCMs.[14,15]

In addition, LCMs provide active shooters with extended cover.[16] During an attack, perpetrators are either firing their guns or not firing their guns. While gunmen are firing, it is extremely difficult for those in the line of fire to take successful defensive maneuvers. But if gunmen run out of bullets, there are lulls in the shootings, as the perpetrators are forced to pause their attacks to reload or change weapons. These pauses provide opportunities for people to intervene and disrupt a shooting. Alternatively, they provide individuals in harm's way with a chance to flee or hide. Legislative endeavors that restrict access to LCMs are implemented with the express objective of reducing an active shooter's multiple-impact capability and extended cover.[10]

Although mass shootings have received extensive study, there has been little scholarly analysis of LCM bans.[17–24] The studies undertaken that have broached the subject of ammunition capacity have primarily concentrated on the effect of LCM bans on violent crimes other than mass shootings or on the impact of the assault weapons bans on mass shootings.[25–27]

Evidence suggests that firearms equipped with LCMs are involved in a disproportionate share of mass shootings.[10,20,28] Proponents of LCM bans believe that without LCMs, fewer people will be killed in a mass shooting, other things equal. In turn, fewer shootings will cross the threshold required to be classified as what we call a "high-fatality mass shooting" (≥ 6 victims shot to death). If LCM bans are effective, we should expect to find that high-fatality mass shootings occur at a lower incidence rate when LCM bans are in place, and fewer people are killed in such attacks. But have LCM bans actually saved lives in practice? To our knowledge, the impact of LCM bans has never been systematically assessed. This study fills that void.