What the Hell Is an 'Assault Weapon'?

[sans maitre]

http://reason.com/blog/2013/01/16/what- ... ult-weapon
What the Hell Is an 'Assault Weapon'?
Jacob Sullum|Jan. 16, 2013 6:53 pm

Making the case for a new and improved "assault weapon" ban, the White House predictably complains that "manufacturers were able to circumvent the [1994] prohibition with cosmetic modifications to their weapons." As I have said before, what President Obama describes as circumvention was actually compliance, because the definition of "assault weapon" hinged on those "cosmetic" features. In other words, the law targeted guns based on features, such as bayonet mounts and threaded barrels, with little or no practical utility in the hands of mass murderers (or ordinary criminals). The same is true of New York's brand-new "assault weapon" ban, which benefited from more than two decades of experience with "circumvention" (starting with California's 1989 law), and it will be true of whatever new definition Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) proposes. The underlying problem is that there is no essential, objectively identifiable "assaultness" that makes these arbitrarily chosen weapons especially threatening. They are not even the weapons of choice for mass shooters, who prefer ordinary handguns.

One therefore wonders what Michael Shermer, publisher of Skeptic magazine and a self-described libertarian, was thinking when he wrote this in a recent Los Angeles Times op-ed piece:

Renewing a ban on assault rifles could result in a net gain in that many mass murderers have relied on such weapons. Yes, they could still use other sorts of guns. And yes, law-abiding gun owners will howl. But we don't find it too great an imposition on liberty to ban private ownership of military grade weapons. Why not add semiautomatic assault weapons to the list?

Maybe because, unlike machine guns carried by soldiers, "assault weapons" are no more dangerous than the guns that fail to qualify for that label because they lack a functionally insignificant feature. Constitutional (and libertarian) issues aside, this distinction is objectionable because it is based on a fraud.

Tom Diaz, author of The Last Gun: How Changes in the Gun Industry Are Killing Americans and What It Will Take to Stop It, agrees. Sort of. Here is what he says about banning "assault weapons" in a recent blog post:

It is well understood that the 1994 law was a failure in large part because its definition of what constituted an assault weapon was a fanciful agglomeration of "bells and whistles," most of which had absolutely nothing to do with what makes assault weapons so dangerous. An effective law will focus on one prime feature—the ability to accept a high-capacity magazine.

Now we are getting somewhere. A gun that can accept a "high-capacity magazine" (i.e., a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds) is functionally different from a gun that cannot. But if every firearm fitting that description were banned, many commonly used guns would be illegal, including popular pistols made by Glock, Sig Sauer, Smith & Wesson, Ruger, and Walther. So would various hunting and target rifles that accept detachable magazines but are not currently considered "assault weapons." Revolvers would still be legal, as would shotguns, single-shot weapons such as bolt-action rifles, and semiautomatic firearms that have to be reloaded after firing 10 (or fewer) rounds. This would be a big change to the gun market, though not terribly effective without mass confiscation, given all the millions of noncompliant weapons already in circulation.

But if this is what gun controllers really want, they have a funny way of saying it. Why would they talk about "assault weapons" at all if what they have in mind is a ban on every gun capable of firing more than 10 rounds without reloading? Maybe because they thought they could back their way into a broad gun ban by pushing a half-assed, nonsensical law that was bound to fail.

[piston]

[piston]

Interesting to read about the "black gun" debate, the origin of that term, how liberals have appropriated it for political incorrectness purposes, etc. But anyone who has shot a gun pretty well knows the difference between a hunting gun and an assault rifle, whether the function on the latter is on number one or on number three.

[John F]

Evading the issue by trying to redefine it out of existence isn't going to work this time, or I hope not. For me, an "assault weapon" (or, more generally, a weapon that private civilians shouldn't be allowed to possess) is any automatic or semi-automatic weapon, as opposed to one that fires only each time you pull the trigger, that shoots projectiles that can maim or kill a human being. Is there any other rational definition?

[sans maitre]

Evading the issue by trying to redefine it out of existence isn't going to work this time, or I hope not. For me, an "assault weapon" (or, more generally, a weapon that private civilians shouldn't be allowed to possess) is any automatic or semi-automatic weapon, as opposed to one that fires only each time you pull the trigger, that shoots projectiles that can maim or kill a human being. Is there any other rational definition?

so guns that only fire one round per trigger pull are OK?

[Steinway]

"so guns that only fire one round per trigger pull are OK?"

If one needs a gun at all, one round per pull is fine with me. If you use a weapon for killing a deer or a bunny, if you miss your target, the animal deserves to live. If you're defending your home from an invader, pull the trigger twice.

Stop the hypocritical comments about defining an automatic weapon. Anyone with a brain knows damn well what we're talking about and these guns should only be possessed by law enforcement and the military and have no legitimate place in private hands. If you need to get your rocks off by firing these things, go to a rifle range and shoot guns that are kept there under lock and key.

How many children would have died if the nutcases were limited to one trigger pull per shot?

Let the Federal government offer to buy back any weapon from the public for twice their cost, ban all future sales and begin the process of bringing some sense about this menace into the real world. The NRA and their power over the elected officials of this country can be stopped because the polls clearly show what the American people feel about these issues. Using the 2nd Amendment argument when speaking of gun controls is completely hypocritical and is a total evasion of what this is all about.

If the Founders of the Constitution were alive today and saw the reality of how this Article has been so grossly distorted, they'd be the first to revise the wording about militias and the rights for individuals to possess guns, especially the modern versions now readily available.

[sans maitre]

If one needs a gun at all, one round per pull is fine with me. If you use a weapon for killing a deer or a bunny, if you miss your target, the animal deserves to live. If you're defending your home from an invader, pull the trigger twice.

Stop the hypocritical comments about defining an automatic weapon. Anyone with a brain knows damn well what we're talking about and these guns should only be possessed by law enforcement and the military and have no legitimate place in private hands. If you need to get your rocks off by firing these things, go to a rifle range and shoot guns that are kept there under lock and key.

How many children would have died if the nutcases were limited to one trigger pull per shot?

but it is already illegal for citizens to own weapons that fire more than one round per trigger pull

[Cosima___J]

Here's an article from the Wall Street Journal that presents some interesting facts:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... stpop_read

[Steinway]

Here's a quote from an article in Slate.com..

" In Australia, a shooting massacre in 1996 prompted the government to ban the sale of semiautomatic eapons , buy back those in circulation ,and require gun purchasers to register all weapons under their own names. Gun deaths there dropped 59 % over the following decade, with not a single mass shooting since."

I'm sure our Australian friends here can verify the accuracy of this.

[piston]

True, but what has been the reaction here, in the USA. On Market Place, last night, they interviewed a gun store owner from Wyoming. Sales have been so incredibly brisk that the owner's problem is to restock. Guns hardly get through his store doors and they get sold, immediately.

So, the difference between Australia and the USA is entirely cultural in nature, not constitutional.

[barney]

If one needs a gun at all, one round per pull is fine with me. If you use a weapon for killing a deer or a bunny, if you miss your target, the animal deserves to live. If you're defending your home from an invader, pull the trigger twice.

Stop the hypocritical comments about defining an automatic weapon. Anyone with a brain knows damn well what we're talking about and these guns should only be possessed by law enforcement and the military and have no legitimate place in private hands. If you need to get your rocks off by firing these things, go to a rifle range and shoot guns that are kept there under lock and key.

How many children would have died if the nutcases were limited to one trigger pull per shot?

but it is already illegal for citizens to own weapons that fire more than one round per trigger pull

REally? Why are so many around then?

[barney]

Here's a quote from an article in Slate.com..

" In Australia, a shooting massacre in 1996 prompted the government to ban the sale of semiautomatic eapons , buy back those in circulation ,and require gun purchasers to register all weapons under their own names. Gun deaths there dropped 59 % over the following decade, with not a single mass shooting since."

I'm sure our Australian friends here can verify the accuracy of this.

Yes, it is true. I recounted the statistics on another thread on this board. In the years leading up the gun buyback there were several massacres (defined as four or more fatalities); in the 16 years since, none.

I see no reason to suggest that Australians are intrinsically nicer, more moral, more intelligent or more socially minded than Americans. Why is our per capita average murder by shooting (or indeed all murders) so tiny by comparison. Surely it is because we don't have your lunatic gun laws or any equivalent to the moral monstrosity that is the NRA. That is one collection of sick, twisted individuals.

[sans maitre]

Here's a quote from an article in Slate.com..

" In Australia, a shooting massacre in 1996 prompted the government to ban the sale of semiautomatic eapons , buy back those in circulation ,and require gun purchasers to register all weapons under their own names. Gun deaths there dropped 59 % over the following decade, with not a single mass shooting since."

I'm sure our Australian friends here can verify the accuracy of this.

Australia has about the same population as the state of Texas and aside from Ft Hood, which was an act of terrorism, there has not been a mass shooting in the state for about the same amount of time

[sans maitre]

actually that is not correct, there was a university mass shooting in 2002 in Melbourne

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monash_University_shooting

so Texas has had fewer mass shootings than Australia over the past 15 years

[barney]

Yes, it was shocking.But it doesn't count as a massacre because that requires 4 dead.

Have you any idea of the number of deaths by gunshot in Texas and Australia in the past 15 years? You can include or exclude suicide, according to the convenience of your argument. I do suspect Texas would vastly outstrip Australia - but that is only a suspicion.

[barney]

PS: Not sure you get to exclude Fort Hood. That was certainly deaths by gunshot. And I'm sure all victims of mass-murderers are terrified when the gun is turned on them.

[Teresa B]

Here's a quote from an article in Slate.com..

" In Australia, a shooting massacre in 1996 prompted the government to ban the sale of semiautomatic eapons , buy back those in circulation ,and require gun purchasers to register all weapons under their own names. Gun deaths there dropped 59 % over the following decade, with not a single mass shooting since."

I'm sure our Australian friends here can verify the accuracy of this.

Yes, it is true. I recounted the statistics on another thread on this board. In the years leading up the gun buyback there were several massacres (defined as four or more fatalities); in the 16 years since, none.

I see no reason to suggest that Australians are intrinsically nicer, more moral, more intelligent or more socially minded than Americans. Why is our per capita average murder by shooting (or indeed all murders) so tiny by comparison. Surely it is because we don't have your lunatic gun laws or any equivalent to the moral monstrosity that is the NRA. That is one collection of sick, twisted individuals.

Yes. And of course, the NRA has become the monstrosity it is with the assistance of gun manufacturers who benefit so wonderfully from the stupidity of those who rush out to buy weapons in knee-jerk response to ads.

[barney]

good point. Looking at who is benefiting is always a good place to start.

[Agnes Selby]

Here's a quote from an article in Slate.com..

" In Australia, a shooting massacre in 1996 prompted the government to ban the sale of semiautomatic eapons , buy back those in circulation ,and require gun purchasers to register all weapons under their own names. Gun deaths there dropped 59 % over the following decade, with not a single mass shooting since."

I'm sure our Australian friends here can verify the accuracy of this.

Yes, that is 100% true.