December 17, 2012
-
What is an “Assault Weapon”?
In the wake of the recent school shooting, politicians are starting to talk about placing a “ban on assault weapons.”
Here’s the problem: “assault weapon” does not mean what you think it means.
It sounds like a scary thing, right? Dangerous weapons of war. Things that kill lots of people. But the fact is that whether or not a rifle is considered an “assault weapon” has almost nothing to do with how well it kills.
What many people are thinking of when they say “assault weapon” is actually an Assault Rifle. An assault rifle is defined as a select-fire automatic rifle with medium-grade ammunition.
And here’s the thing: since 1986, almost no civilian in the United States can own an assault rifle unless it was grandfathered in. Regulation of assault rifle ownership is extremely tightly regulated. Civilians who own AK-47s and the like have had them modified to be semi-automatic. The Connecticut shooter wasn’t using an assault rifle.
As opposed to the technical term “assault rifle,” “assault weapon“ is a political term. Its only official definition lies in the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban, which lists a set of features–cosmetic accessories–which make a rifle an “assault weapon.” (Civilians cannot own a rifle that possesses more than two of these features.) These features include:
Folding stocks
Collapsible stocks
Pistol Grips
Flash Suppressors
Barrel Shrouds
Bayonet LugsNotice that almost none of these have to do with how powerful the rifle is, how large the caliber is, or how effectively it kills. There are rifles chambered in .22LR (a varmint round for hunting rabbits) that are considered “assault weapons” under this ban.
All that we know so far about the rifle that Adam Lanza stole from his mother is that it was a semiautomatic .223 Bushmaster. Most news reporters keep using the terms “high powered rifle” and “military style rifle,” almost meaningless terms: my guess is that it was something in the style of an AR-15. But that’s the key word. “Style.” Whether or not that gun was an assault weapon has to do with “style.”
Many deer rifles–some of the best deer rifles, in fact–are semiautomatic, sometimes magazine-fed. (Granted, the mags are usually smaller-capacity, but still.) They are not “assault weapons,” they do not look military, but the fact is, such a deer rifle could have been equally deadly in this school shooting than the Bushmaster that was used. The .223 is one of the smallest centerfire cartridges in terms of diameter, and it isn’t enough for hunting anything bigger than a coyote. A larger-caliber deer rifle could have fired just as quickly, reloaded just as quickly, and yet delivered more impact trauma.
Even non-semi-automatic rifles could have been almost as deadly. A lever-action or pump-action must have its action manually cycled between shots, but that happens very quickly, and one can top-up its magazine without having to remove it. What about those?
So my question is: how much would a further “assault weapon ban” accomplish? If it isn’t really the style of gun that made this killing so deadly, what would banning that style do?
…
There’s a form of gun control that I am highly in favor of, and that I don’t see being discussed enough.
That is, control of one’s own guns.
The fact is, these weren’t Adam Lanza’s guns, they were his mother’s. And his mother, I should point out, was his first victim.
As a responsible gun owner, I have to ensure that my firearms do not get into anyone’s hands but my own, with the possible exception of a trusted spouse. Leaving a rifle in a closet or under the bed is unacceptable–and doubly so with a handgun. At any point when my rifle is unattended, it should be locked up, the ammunition should be locked up in a separate place, and perhaps even the bolt removed and locked in a third place.
Lanza should never have been able to access guns that did not belong to him. That is gun control that I will support. All this other stuff, all these proposed bans, I can’t see them helping much.
Comments (10)
I do think that the more weapons are resricted, the less people will kill with them. But you are right, control of one’s own weapons is very important.
The problem with even that type of gun control is that it renders the weapon effectively useless for self defense. I have an even better idea. Each person is responsible for his own actions and we don’t give away our freedoms for the silly idea that restriction of them will cause our lives to be any safer. My grandmother, as a young child, was able to grab the shotgun that was kept over the door of the house and shoot through the door and prevent further intrusion by a man who was trying to break into their house. If she hadn’t had quick access, the damage would have been done by the time she found her parents and got a gun out of a safe, then proceeded to load it.. As a child I learned very young that I was in big trouble if I handled a gun improperly. Just saying that personal responsibility for our own actions is the only real solution, because these bad things will happen from time to time with or without strict gun laws. He had no prior record and the crime was thought out, so he could have purchased a rifle similar to what he used, with little inconvenience, then gone and committed the crime.
Other than personal “control” of one’s own weapons and ammo, any control imposed by outside forces changes the whole of the right to defend oneself. Killing innocent persons – or anyone else not in self-defense is already illegal. Crime prevention begins with the individual. Punishment for crimes is the government’s millieu via the courts enforcing the law. All of the emotion, though understandable, clouds the plain issues. Emotion says “let’s disarm all the citizens.” Yeah, right. Try disarming a criminal before the weapon is known of and used….police state, anyone.
No “gun control” demands are logical. Trying to argue against them with logical discussion is a waste of time, even as well done as this.
Oh I could not agree with you any more. If you make guns illegal on those who ignore the law will have them, look at Japan.. the Yakuza are the only ones with guns. But well said! I say train and arm the teachers and end this from happening and stop talking about the idiots who try this crap. I don’t want to know his name or see his picture. His reason doesn’t mean anything to me… he was a nut case. So just don’t talk about those people.
Thank you for this. Particularly, thank you for defining “assault weapon” and “assault rifle” – these terms are thrown around pretty often in cases like this, and a lot of people seem to misunderstand what they actually mean.
I have a handgun that I use just go to the shooting range and target shoot with. My dad got me the gun, but before he got me any ammo, I had to take a gun safety course. When I got pregnant with my son, I went out and got a combination lock gun locker. My son’s almost 5 and has no idea about or access to the locker. I plan to keep it that way.
I feel like we have more gun violence than ever now, even though the gun restrictions in our country have never been tighter. If the laws worked, it should be the opposite.
Chris, this is a fantastic article! While I don’t agree 100% with the second part (as someone else noted, this pretty much decimates the idea of having guns in your home for self-defense), the explanation of the differences between an “assault weapon” and an “assault rifle” is invaluable. Great job!
I’m going to share this with my Facebook friends.
@lightnindan - @SpiderDad - Regarding that second part: even with my locked gun case and locked ammo box, I can go from unarmed and keyless to loaded-and-chambered in under 30 seconds, possibly under 20. There are two lock-from-the-inside doors between my bedroom (home of my rifle) and the staircase to the main floor, so if I’m running to arm myself the doors should buy me at least that much time. If we’re talking a no-time-for-that scenario, as in, waking up to find an armed intruder already at my bedside, well, that’s close quarters–I’d be reaching for the tomahawk under my bed instead. (Heh. I’ve thought this through probably more than is healthy.)
@OutOfTheAshes - If this were Facebook, I’d click the “Like” button on that reply.