The "Assault" Weapons Ban

The "Assault" Weapons Ban

The term "assault weapon" is rather vague; it does not refer to any type of firearm present in the common vernacular of gun enthusiasts or in military classifications, and since practically all weapons are used for "assault", it is difficult to distinguish how these weapons, and more specifically firearms, could be seperated from the over-all majority of weapons. Furthermore there is little to no indication of how these weapons are more dangerous in general mentioned in common conversation, what element they possess that makes them unwarranted for use by civilians, or even the type class of which type of weapon they refer to, including firearms, swords, knives, or other such weapons.

The term is relatively vague; so vague in fact, that the term could apply to almost anything, including an "assault weapons ban", which refers to arbitrary and cosmetic features of a firearm and even some knives. Clearing up some common misconceptions, such as confusing an assault weapons ban with military style weapons, "large caliber", and even fully automatic weapons with semi-automatic weapon, is important for rational discourse on the topic of gun control. If we don't know what we are banning, how can we be sure it will have a positive impact? Anyone who rushes towards a political measure that would effect hundreds of millions of people without considering the consequences, that is even reading the bill or understanding what it would entail is guilty of placing their own ego and zeal for gun control ahead of the well being of this country, and possibly many other country's. A zealot, in this context, is someone who redoubles their efforts while losing sight of their goals. The goal is not gun control, but to save lives, and if this measure fails to do this or even works against it, wouldn't that imply that it's a bad measure? Jumping on board because it's popular or it's "gun control" is just as dangerous as being against something without having any knowledge of what it is. Putting blind faith behind a goal you've literally thought nothing about and don't know what it is means the country could end up anywhere, and you would be responsible for it for nothing other than being too lazy to even read what an assault weapon's bill was. It's quite honestly terrifying how many people will jump at the chance to support something without even knowing what it is, which is an issue that quite honestly supersedes gun control. If you don't know what something is, don't vote, or at least attempt to educate yourself.

So, first thing's first; what even is the assault weapon's ban? To begin, approximately 2% [1][2][3] of all weapon's used for murder would qualify as an "assault weapon", making it unrealistic target to dramatically, if at all lower murder rates, and around 9.7% of mass shootings. [4] Not surprisingly, studies on the subject have revealed almost no impact on lowering crime. [5][6] Specifically, according to a National institute of Justice (NIJ) study, there was no increase in the lethality of shootings when the assault weapon's ban was removed, and assault weapons were not found to kill more people per shooting event. They are among the most common weapon's used in self defense, and removing them from civilian hands would likely not in any way reduce murder rates. They are not required or needed to facilitate murders. Murders can be committed with a variety of different weapons, many that are not even guns, and supposed "high power" assault weapons in reality contribute very little to the murder rate, making them perhaps not as dangerous as many imply. These are just the face value, obvious statistics; but why, in effect, is this the case? To find out, we actually have to look at the assault weapon's bill itself.


What an Assault Weapon's Ban would entail
The Federal assault weapon's bill [1][2][3] would ban a number of supposedly lethal features on various firearms, magazines over 10 rounds for rifles and pistols or 5 rounds for shotguns, and an additional 150+ firearms by name, even if the criteria mandated by the bill was otherwise met. These supposed "assault features" include adjustable stocks, pistol grips, forward grips, thumbhole stocks, barrel shrouds (which are not the shoulder thingy that goes up), bayonet mounts, and other common accessories. It's difficult to imagine how anyone could possibly believe that an adjustable stock or barrel shroud dramatically impacts the lethality of a weapon. The bullet doesn't gain mass, energy, velocity, or defy the laws of physics, and yet the stock itself is supposedly going to make the weapon more deadly.

For those of you who are unaware, an adjustable stock is, just that, a stock that can adjust to the user's shoulder. When fitting a stock to someone, who may be unusually short or tall, or have long or short arms, it's comfortable to simply, have a weapon that can be adjusted or custom fit to the shoulder of any user. Rather than going out and buying a stock that perfectly fit your shoulder (which is basically impossible in mass production), one can simply, adjust the stock to fit their shoulder. So, why would this be illegal in an assault weapon's ban? Why should it be illegal? Not only are the claims unsubstantiated that it would actually reduce violence in any way, but no actual reason is given by any of the proponents of the bill why this particular feature needs to be banned specifically. It merely discriminates against people of abnormal size who would have trouble holding on to an "average" sized weapon. It's quite frankly, an embarrassment that a feature like this got added to a federally recognized bill that was almost passed with a 40 out of 100 support in the senate. And this is not the only such feature.

The next would be a pistol grip. This is essentially a pistol that is curved slightly, similar in appearance to a pistol grip. The design of the grip is as such to where a user does not need to significantly pronate or extend their wrist to keep it pointed at the ground, or in the safety position. In essence, it makes the gun more comfortable to hold on to and allows a user to not be accidentally pointing it at someone, or risk carpel tunnel syndrome. Without a pistol grip, or a similar designed grip which would also be banned (the thumbhole stock), a user experiences significant pain and a chance for wrist damage to keep the gun pointed at the ground, or the safest position. This can have no practical means of benefit for reducing gun violence as accidents would be far more likely without comfortable grips. Imagine a steering wheel shaped in a way that hurts you hands; is likely to reduce accidents with cars, or increase them? Now imagine the same with guns. This can only end badly. A forward grip is essentially a grip on the gun shaped like a pistol grip, but not next to the trigger and safety. This would also be banned in the bill. It's hard to imagine what thought, if any went in to designing the bill and banning these specific features.

Then next is the barrel shroud, famously misrepresented by a supporter of the bill as "the shoulder thingy that goes up". A barrel shroud's purpose is simple; keep the user from being burned. It basically is just a handguard on the barrel to keep one from directly contacting it. This seems rather draconic and likely to once again, be more likely to cause fatal accidents when people reflexively wince after burning themselves, rather than stop a mass shooter. The most ridiculous feature, of all features banned is the banning of a bayonet attachment, that is the ability to attach a knife to your gun. As if attaching a knife to a gun would significantly increase the lethality of a weapon so much it needs to be illegal, compared to guns without knives attached. It's worth nothing that any of these features can be easily got around; one can carve gun accessories out of wood or use a 3-d printer to replicate them as they have no moving parts and are relatively simple, and in some cases can be replicated by features not technically connected to a the gun (such as an oven mitt to absorb heat). None of these features categorically eliminate the ability to kill lots of people, increase lethality or even show a measure of common sense behind them. So why are they on the bill to potentially be banned for the rniter nation? My only thought is that proponents of the bill haven't looked to closely at it., and this don't know. Any educated person would obviously oppose such ridiculous measures.

Now on to the few measures that at least have some semblance of thought or reason behind them. The first would be banning rocket launcher or grenade launcher attachments. While this is a good idea, it's actually been highly regulated since 1934. Rocket launchers and grenade launchers, in fact any explosive projectile, has been illegal for over 80 years. According to the NFA laws established in 1934, one cannot legally own a "Destructive Device", which includes grenade launchers, without extensive government oversight. Therefore it's a bit redundant to re-ban something on an assault weapon's ban it is already, essentially, banned. So while I agree on the assessment, the fact it is already illegal means this part of the bill likely will have no impact (I suppose they failed to do their homework on what was already banned?).

Perhaps the only logical measure among the bunch is to restrict magazine capacity to 10 rounds. After all, there is some logic among this. If a person only has 10 rounds in their magazine, how is it technically feasible that they can shoot more than 10 rounds? Obviously, a mass murderer couldn't shoot more than 10 people with only 10 bullets and, America is saved. Unfortunately, there's a number of problems with this theory. First, a murderer can simply reload, that is replace the magazine or clip, and therefore put more bullets in to a gun. Running out of bullets is a temporary issue that can be fixed by simply adding in more bullets, which can take less than 2 seconds to perform. Given that a person likely cannot significantly outrun an attacker or a bullet in under 2 seconds, this is unlikely to provide any realistic benefit. Most shooters shoot less than 1 bullet every 2 seconds anyways, meaning that it likely would have very little if any real tangible impact.

One has to ask the question? Why 10 rounds? Why not, 11, or 12? Why not 8? Why was 10 chosen? Is there some study that's been done that proves that 10 rounds is just enough rounds per magazine to be used in self defense but just too few to be used in a mass murder? Or is it completely random, drawn out of a hat to provide an arbitrary baseline? What good is there to banning one of these magazines, making a criminal out of otherwise innocent people and consuming police manpower on arresting people with these devices if it won't actually drop or deter crime? For the few credible studies that exist on the subject, such as by those of renowned gun violence criminologist Gary Kleck, it makes very little if any difference how many rounds are in a magazine. A person can simply carry 10, or 20 10-round magazines and make up for their smaller capacity by carrying, more. [1][2][3] Therefore, it's very unlikely it would save any lives, and there is no proof it would do so. The deadliest mass shooting in the world occurred largely with a 10 round pocket pistol in Norway, killing 67 people, although at least one extended magazine was used. 57 out of the 67 people killed were killed by gunshots to the head, in a situation that would make caliber largely irrelevant, largely by shooting people who had already been shot or sneaking up on them.When looking at the majority of mass shootings, less than 10% used an assault weapon, and they were no deadlier on average than shootings that did not use them. As a result, there is no evidence to back up the assertion that 10 round magazine bans would lower the murder rate, the number of people killed in an individual event, or many things like it.

The fundamental premise to gun bans rests almost entirely upon a very specific notion that guns are unusually deadly in comparison to other methods of murder. While difficult to prove in some cases, such as in comparison to stabbings, given that global lists of mass stabbings are generally incomplete, it is possible to compare to other forms of attack. The entire notion that guns are more deadly than other commonly available weapons or methods of murder, many that don't require a permit or background check at all to obtain, with little to no regulations, is more or less wrong, which dismantles a key fundamental proponent to gun control. Why ban guns if they pose no greater risk than a car, pack of matches, bug spray or fertilizer? All of these methods of murder can and have killed more people, such as with vehicle ramming attacks, arson, mass poisonings, and mass bombings. While sad, the deadliest single person mass shooting in the world killed 67 people in Norway, while the deadliest in the U.S. killed 58. [1][2][3][4] In the U.S., the second deadliest killed 49, the third deadliest killed 33, the fourth deadliest killed 27, and the fifth deadliest killed 26. Less than 30 have killed 10 or more people as of 2018, although this figure is subject to change. In the United State's, approximately 78 mass public shootings which killed 4 or more people, occurred between 1982 and 2012 according to congress, and according to Mother Jones, approximately 110 mass shootings which killed 4 or more people have occurred since the 1980's. According to another source, mass shooting tracker, approximately 350-450 mass shootings occur per year, however these are only figures resulting in 3 or more injured, as opposed to the 4 or more killed figure. When in comparison to mass shooting tracker data, around 1% of mass shootings kill 4 or more people, and less than 30 have killed more than 10 people. The average mass shooting kills 1.6 people and injures 5 per year according to the three or more injured statistic, and only a handful have killed more than 4 people.

A simple incomplete list of truck bombings reveals that far more people die per attack of this type. Keeping in mind that the deadliest mass shooting in the world killed 67 people and only 30 have killed more than 10, in 2017 alone for example at least 587 people were killed in Mogadishu, in Aleppo 126+, in Hillah 125, in Baghdad 323+, and in Kabul 90+, with mass bombings frequently killing more than 10. [1] Most bombings are done with fertilizer, specifically ammonium nitrate, which is easily obtained and poorly regulated, being widely available to most farmers. Perhaps the deadliest bombing occurred in Iraq, known as the Yadizi bombing, killing 796 people and injuring 1500 people, far more than guns ever have, with bombings consistently killing more people per attack. A notable attack occurred in India, killing 206 people and injuring nearly 700, with a pressure cooker, a simple cooking device, and similarly powered explosives such as TATP can be made from antibacterial cleanser and fingernail polish, while nearly 200 were killed and 2000 injured in the Madrid train bombings using a type of ammonium nitrate bomb (Goma-2). The Oklahoma city bombing killed 168 people and injured over 680, in the United States, and was done with a fertilizer bomb as well, far deadlier than any mass shooting not only in the U.S., but the world. Assault weapon's, by comparison, kill far less people. Arson is another common form of death, with a notable incident in Iran killing over 420 people in the Cinema rex fire, 173 people in Australia and injuring 454, and the 9/11 attacks killing nearly 3000 with a combination of a vehicle ramming attack and arson. The Salang tunnel fire killed nearly 2700 people, although the exact details of the event were obfuscated by the Russian government, making it difficult to know if it was an accident or an act of arson. A vehicle ramming attack in France killed 86 people and injured 458 with a truck, in Barcelona combined attacks killed 16 people and injured over 160, and several more attacks have occured. A notable attack occurred in New York, which killed 8 people, and if was a shooting would be one of only approximately 50 such events to have occurred in the U.S., equating to being more deadlier than 99.95% of shootings. The simple reality is that other more deadly weapons are available, and won't be removed in a gun ban, and likely can't be banned by themselves, be it fertilizer, cars, flammable substances or the like. Then, it doesn't make sense to ban assault weapon's for their comparative deadliness, or highly regulate them, when by comparison they are not only not more deadly in comparison to other firearms, but to other common forms of attacks. According to a congressional study authorized by Obama, more people use guns to defend themselves than are victims by them, and thus even if you could for some reason save "just one life", you would need to be able to save for more than this to make up for the lack of ability for people to defend themselves.



Ultimate End
It's difficult to say that the assault weapon ban could achieve it's ultimate end of saving lives. The list of features banned are arbitrary and despite being labeled as ultra-deadly "military features" which, technically aren't military features and technically aren't deadly, seem to in any case contribute very little to the overall crime rate. It's likely that given it's such low contribution to murder rates that it could be easily replaced by other firearms or weapons and have just as high a death rate present, comprising just 2% of all weapon's used in murder. The other features of the bill are overly redundant in their re-banning of other illegal things or are barely supported by the facts.

But even if we say that all of these features are somehow ultra deadly and need to be banned, banning them wouldn't be enough for those who have crafted the bill. An additional 153 names of weapon's have been added to the bill, and weapons even closely resembling their "style" would be made illegal. This means even fi all the non-assault features are met, the majority of firearms in the U.S. would be banned by name in any case. If these features are so deadly, what was the point of banning them if you were just going to ban firearms without them anyways? In addition, due to a clause which allows more guns to be added to the list, it is possible that even more guns could potentially be banned after the bill is even passed, with no oversight as to what guns can or cannot be banned. This would give them the potential to ban virtually any firearm they chose, rather than just the one's currently mentioned. So even if we as citizens comply with their demands, the majority of our firearms will be banned anyways.

The concept of an assault weapon's ban is fairly arbitrary to begin with. The term "assault" and "weapon" as so vague as to be virtually meaningless. Almost anything can be used as a weapon, and almost any weapon can be used for assault. As compared to weapon's not used to "assault" people, such as, "chocolate" weapons? What weapon is not used to assault? Perhaps, "deadly" weapons or, lethal firearms or even, the emphasis on firearms would be nice. "Lethal gun" ban might make more sense, albeit they are in fact banning certain types of knives with this bill (bayonets) as well. A two-by four with a nail in it is a weapon that can legally be used for assault, but will it be banned by this bill? To be conveyed by such vague rhetoric seems almost nauseating, as much as "military-style" weapons and the like supposedly needing to be banned. Not only are most military firearms actually illegal, but they have yet to demonstrate why they need to be banned or that they are even more lethal to begin with. Not all weapon's used by the military are especially deadly, or even deadly at all. Tear gas, pepper spray and even non-lethal microwave weaponry are used. Bolt action rifles, pump action shotguns and non automatic or semi-automatic weapons are already widely used in the military. Of course, one is likely referring to a specific military weapon, but making the distinction that it's military at all is irrelevant.

Something isn't banned because it is in the military; this is the classic failure of circular reasoning. Clearly, something is banned due to it's danger. A nuclear bomb is only used by the military because it can destroy an entire city and leaves behind radioactive waste that can be harmful to the environment for years to come. Clearly, no civilian should have it. It is not banned because it is in the military, it's that only military members are allowed to use it because it is banned. Therefore saying "well, it's banned, so therefore it should be banned" or "it's in the military so, therefore it should be banned" is obviously circular reasoning. A plethora of other weapon's, such as the BAR, M1 Garand, Remington 700 and Mossberg 500 aren't banned in the bill, despite being used by the military. Banning something because it's used by the military makes very little sense, since the military actually uses everything from knives, to handguns to hunting weapons. And it fundamentally ignores the fact that things are only banned because they are demonstrated to be unusually dangerous. If no specifics on it's danger can be clarified, than it likely is not particularly more dangerous than any other firearm, and has no reason to be banned. Vague rhetoric and bandwagon mentalities unfortunately contribute to the success of bill's such as this. For true, sensible gun laws to be established we must first ignore the nonsensical one's that, at the very best, would do damage to our average citizenry.