On the Assault Weapons Ban
So it looks like the Brady Campaign is prepared to lose the pending Heller vs. DC court case and will have to deal with the fact that the second amendment will probably be decided to be an individual right. Speaking on the subject, Brady Campaign attorney David Hennigan, explaining the sorts of legislative efforts the group can pursue that will not interfere with the results of the case, recently said, “Universal background checks don’t affect the right of self-defense in the home. Banning a super dangerous class of weapons, like assault weapons, also would not adversely affect the right of self-defense in the home.”
Now I’m all for universal background checks; they’re quick, unintrusive, and actually work to prevent people legally banned from buying guns from doing so. In cases where they’ve failed, loopholes that prevented information from being shared with the database are to blame, and are being closed. ((It may be worth mentioning that both the Brady Campaign and the NRA supported this bill. Democratic New York senator Charles Schumer said, “When the N.R.A. and I agree on legislation, you know that it’s going to get through, become law and do some good.”))
But it’s the second part of Hennigan’s argument that puzzles me. He describes assault weapons as a “super dangerous class of weapons.” Now, first of all, can anyone tell me exactly what an “assault weapon” is? Well, it must be big, mean, nasty, and serve no purpose other than to kill massive numbers of innocent people as quickly as possible, right?
Actually, it turns out there’s an interesting legal definition of “assault weapon”. Though the federal ban on so-defined weapons expired in 2004, many states have copied the ban’s wording or instituted similar ones themselves.
Perhaps it’s time to look at the law in question. Here in New York, for example, the law ((It’s on page 275, center column)) defines an “assault weapon” as a semiautomatic rifle capable of accepting a detachable magazine and two of the following:
- Folding or telescoping stock
- Pistol grip
- Bayonet mount
- Flash suppressor or the capacity to accept one
- A built-in grenade launcher
OR a semiautomatic shotgun with two of the following:
- Folding or telescoping stock
- Pistol grip
- Magazine capacity of six shells or greater
- Detachable magazine
OR a semiautomatic pistol capable of accepting a detachable magazine and two of the following:
- Magazine that attaches outside of the pistol grip
- Capacity to accept a flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or barrel extender
- Barrel shroud
- Unloaded weight of greater then 49 ounces
In addition, any weapon capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition is an assault weapon. Also, weapons that are semiautomatic versions of fully-automatic ones and are assault weapons, as well as several rifles mentioned by name, such as AK-47s.
Now if you’re not a gun person, this list probably reads like gibberish. “Barrel shroud?” Well, that sounds dangerous. Flash suppressor? bayonet mount? Grenade launcher!?! Gosh, these weapons are just overflowing with danger! Ban them quick! ((in all seriousness, though, I do agree that grenade launchers should be illegal.))
Well, okay. let’s take a look at some assault weapons, then:
Well, here’s an intimidating blunderbuss! This wicked-looking monster of Turkish origin appears as though it would be right at home in the hands of a deranged mall shooter. That collapsable stock can even hold extra ammunition, perfect for those especially crazed slaughterfests. This insane weapon surely must be illegal, right? It even looks unbelievably dangerous! Time to consult our checklist. Remember, a gun must have at least 2 “assault weapon” characteristics to be an assault weapon.
Though I don’t know for sure, its magazine looks to be able to hold at least seven shells (strike 1), and that plus its pistol grip (strike 2) and folding stock (strike 3) easily make it an assault weapon. Only it isn’t! You see, this monster is a pump-action shotgun, and the assault weapons ban only addresses semi-automatic shotguns. Whoops! The fact that you have to rack the slide after every shot, wasting half a second, means that this weapon is 100% legal! But… Hennigan said that the law banned a “super-dangerous class of weapons”. This shotgun sure looks “super dangerous” to me! What’s going on here?
Now how about this frightening hand-cannon:
This is a Smith & Wesson model 500, a .50 caliber revolver. This one has a scope for picking off grandmothers and orphans, and fires finger-sized bullets perfect for murdering innocent children. Seems like this elephant gun is a textbok assault weapon, right? Well, not according to the law. The only “assault weapon” feature this gun would possesses is that it weighs more than 50 ounces, but, amusingly enough, the ban didn’t address revolvers at all. This gun is 100% legal!
Okay, so enough of this. Sooooooo, what is an assault weapon? Well, here’s some woman firing one, a Glock 26:
Look at how unbelievably dangerous that gun is! It holds 11 rounds of 9mm ammunition! ELEVEN ROUNDS I tell you! My god, think of how many people you could assault with 11 death-dealing bullets; 11 I bet!
Hmm, this is a little strange. It seems that there are a number of weapons that seem suitable enough for assaulting people with that aren’t banned, yet some rather innocuous guns are illegal. Why?
For pistols, it’s the 10-bullet magazine restriction, primarily. There are a number of pistols that hold large numbers of bullets not because they’re designed for mass murder, but because it’s practical for the design or application. Police could certainly use more bullets, as could the military, and these weapons are more appealing to consumers compared to ones with lower ammunition capacities.
And the truth is, all guns are “super dangerous” if used improperly, e.g. by criminals, children, or the insane. The two powerful and legal guns pictured above both have legitimate uses: the shotgun would make a perfect home-defense gun due to its lack of a long, unwieldy stock, and the Model 500 .50 caliber revolver is intended for hunting. The Glock 26 also has legitimate uses: self-defense. Neither of the larger guns are concealable enough for a criminal to favor; in fact, they prefer small revolvers less than a quarter the size of the Model 500. If “super dangerous” is a codeword for commonly “used in crimes,” then “super dangerous” firearms are actually cheap revolvers! And as luck would have it, there’s been a legislative effort to ban so-called junk guns. The only problem with this is that it’s blatantly classist. To say that criminals prefer cheap guns is irresponsibly ignorant of that fact that cheap guns are the only ones poor people can afford. To put an effective price minimum on guns is to deny the poor the right to self-defense. That’s certainly something that both Democrats and Republicans could band together to oppose!
As usual, it’s all about the user. The most wicked-looking gun can be used to protect a family, and the smallest peashooter is still enough to intimidate an unaware victim into surrendering property or capitulating to home invasion or rape. Bans just aren’t the answer, and especially ones with such arbitrary restrictions.
Categorised as: Guns
It seems the most productive avenue for regulation would be heavily restricting guns based on how concealable they are, regardless of caliber, magazine size, or price tag. Criminals of all income levels prefer weapons they can stuff in their pockets or hide inside their jackets. Pistols, revolvers, machine pistols, and mini-submachine guns should be the ones most restricted to the public.
Extensive background checks and mandatory psychological evaluations should cover it after that. Once you verify to the best of your abilities that a potential gun owner hasn’t been a criminal and doesn’t seem to be in danger of going apeshit pants-on-head bonkers, you’ve done all that is humanly possible as a gun seller.
As for bans, bans on selling anything won’t do shit if the manufacturing of said item is completely legal. Banning the manufacturing of said item, if said item has a market, still won’t prevent people from manufacturing that item to sell on the black market. Of course, making an illegal nuclear bomb is much more difficult than making illegal booze, but it can still be done.
It’s an interesting idea, but Vermont has no licensing or permit requirements to either buy handguns or carry them concealed, and it has the 2nd lowest crime rate in the nation.
The fact is that criminals prefer handguns because everybody prefers handguns. That said, there’s some evidence that revolvers are more popular among criminals because compared to semiautomatic pistols, they’re cheaper, more reliable, easier to operate, and don’t leave empty brass lying around (for the cops to find, in this case). But these same traits can also make revolvers good choices for law-abiding citizens for basically the same reasons.
If we’re already doing background checks and psychological evaluations, what’s the need for further restriction? If a criminal for some reason sneaks through this net (after having already arrived at the decision not to steal or illegally buy a gun), are they really going to be deterred by something like a waiting period, an ammunition purchase restriction, or something like that?
Again, what’s to stop criminals from buying from street dealers or stealing guns from the homes of legal owners when they’re out and about?
Honestly, I think the background check is good enough. From a legislative standpoint, regulating handguns certainly makes far more sense than defining a made-up category of guns to demonize that doesn’t even include the most commonly used ones by criminals, but I’m still dubious that such a (much more reasonable) thing would do much good at all.
“Now I’m all for universal background checks;”
This is the way that Gun Controller’s like Brady work; they propose something that “sounds reasonable”, split off hunters from defensive shooters, or vice versa, pass some silly law that doesn’t work, then another then another, when the truth is:
No gun control works. Not even NICS/Brady background checks.
NICS/Brady Background checks simply don’t provide any benefits — as counter-intuitive as that might SOUND.
NICS/Brady Background checks are NOT even ENFORCED on CRIMINALS when they violate this law.
None of the CDC, the National Academy of Sciences of Sciences, nor DoJ were able to find that ANY gun control reduces VIOLENT CRIME, MURDER, SUICIDE or ACCIDENTS in any significant manner.**
Less than 100 criminals are prosecuted each year for Brady/NICS violations — and the vast majority of these are because the authorities needed to arrest or prosecute a criminal but can’t make the real charge stick, or needs a
“predicate felony” for a conspiracy or RICO charge.
Brady/NICS background checks just don’t ACCOMPLISH ANYTHING, cost BILLIONS, infringe rights, and are NOT EVEN ENFORCED.
*Review of the ATF’s Enforcement of Brady Act Violations Identified Through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System Office of Inspector General’s (OIG) Draft Report: Review of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ Enforcement of Brady Act Violations Identified through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. A-2004-001 http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/reports/ATF/e0406/final.pdf
**Don B. Kates and Gary A. Mauser, “Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International Evidence” (June 6, 2006). ExpressO Preprint Series. Working Paper 1413.
http://law.bepress.com/expresso/eps/1413
http://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6426&context=expresso
<<In this connection two recent studies are pertinent. In 2004 the U.S. National Academy of
Sciences released its evaluation from an review of 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government
publications and some empirical research of its own. It could not identify any gun control that had
reduced violent crime, suicide or gun accidents.(15) The same conclusion was reached in a 2003
study by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control’s review of then-extant studies”(16)
(15) Charles F. Wellford, John V. Pepper, and Carol V. Petrie (eds.),
FIREARMS AND VIOLENCE: A CRITICAL REVIEW
(National Academy of Sciences, 2004). It is perhaps not amiss to note that the review panel,
which was set up during the Clinton Administration, was almost entirely composed of scholars who, to the extent
their views were publicly known before their appointments, favored gun control.
(16) “First Reports Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Violence: Firearms Laws” (CDC,
2003)
Assault weapons are terrifyingly, stupendously dangerous. We can only thank the stars above that criminals are SO STUPID that they choose to use handguns over rifles 97% of the time, and when they do use rifles, it’s only rarely the case that they have a bayonet lug or rocket launcher attachment. Try to imagine the kind of violence that would spiral out of control if criminals could bayonet you after shooting you, to make sure you’re dead. Fortunately, we have have the Brady Bunch… er, Campaign, to save us from this nightmare scenario.
@HerbM
Heh, let’s duel with the USDOJ statistics!
According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics report, there have been 1.5 million NICS denials out of 79 million NICS checks—just under a 2% rejection rate. While there may have only been around 100 prosecutions per year, 1.5 million people have been prevented from buying firearms because of legal ineligibility. That hardly seems like a failure. What it does tell me is that career criminals don’t tend to go to gun stores and try to buy guns; they steal them or buy them from shady street dealers. But there are plenty of people, often crazy, like Seung-Hui Cho who should not be able to walk into a gun store and exit with a gun, and who have no criminal or underworld connections that would allow them to acquire guns illegally and are not socially apt enough to convince another to do it for them. For these people (like Cho), their only hope of getting a gun would be through the carelessness of others or exploitation of background check loopholes.
In fact, in the case of the Virginia Tech massacre, the background check Cho underwent would have succeeded in preventing him from buying a gun if the appropriate information about his mental condition had been in the database. So in the wake of the shooting, the loophole was closed, and now registered mental defectives in Virginia cannot buy guns. This strikes me as a good thing. Sure, a repeal of the gun-free zone law and CCW-carrying professors or students could also have prevented the massacre, or at least possibly lessened its severity, but if the background check had all the information it was supposed to have, it could likely have been prevented entirely.
Now, if you don’t think that there should be any classes of people barred from buying firearms, then I can see how you wouldn’t like the idea of background checks, since they’re a method to enforce that regulation. But if you do think that there are some people who shouldn’t be allowed to buy guns, then doesn’t it make sense that we should try our hardest to make sure that our system for enforcing that law functions properly?