Fallacies of the Assault Weapons Ban
Abstract
Violent crime is a growing problem in our country. Politicians are always looking for new laws to impose on their people in order to combat the problem. Unfortunately, some of these laws are written by individuals who do not possess a thorough knowledge of the topic they are attempting to regulate. One example of these laws is the Federal Assault Weapons Ban that was in place from 1994-2004. This law made it illegal to produce or purchase a firearm that had certain cosmetic features which had no effect of the lethality of the firearm when used as a weapon. The politicians had essentially banned firearms that they deemed looked scary. Now there is a push for a renewed Federal Assault Weapons Ban. It is imperative the people know that this infringement on our Second Amendment rights is constructed around banning firearms based on how they look instead of how effective they are as weapons.
Fallacies of the Assault Weapons Ban There are many political issues in the world that incite strong emotional reactions from people from all walks of life. These issues can turn the tide of a political campaign because of the emotions involved with them. Quite often, the most emotion inspiring issues are related to individual rights and public safety. A major issue that is constantly debated by opposing interest groups is gun control. This is a topic that creates a firestorm of debate between people all over the country. On one side, there are the gun owners who believe the Second Amendment to the constitution is absolute and that citizens of the United States should be permitted to own any firearms they want. On the other side, there are gun prohibition groups who believe that all firearms should be banned. Both of these points of view are the extreme ends of the spectrum. Most people tend to be in favor of reasonable restrictions on the ownership of firearms. But what is reasonable? There are many examples of reasonable gun control; however, the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 was not a reasonable form of gun control. The voters realized this. After 10 years of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban being in place, it was allowed to quietly expire. But now, the gun prohibition groups are pushing hard to create a new, stricter assault weapons ban. This should not be allowed to happen. The Federal Assault Weapons Ban was not a reasonable form of gun control because it banned firearms based on their cosmetic appearance instead of how lethal they are. This ban was based on unfounded fears of criminals using assault weapons to commit horrendous crimes and failed to actually remove firearms that are equally powerful from the streets of America. Most importantly, this ban violates the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.

They Look Scary Until the early 1990’s, there was no legal definition of what constituted an assault weapon. The only definition was contained within the United States Defense Intelligence Agency’s book titled Small Arms Identification and Operation Guide. This book states that assault weapons are "short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachinegun and rifle cartridges." (Morgan and Kopel, 1991). The definition of an assault weapon, when it comes to the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, is any semi-automatic which accepts detachable magazines and possesses more than two of the following features: folding or telescoping buttstock, pistol grip, bayonet mount, threaded barrel, flash hider, or a grenade launcher (Koper, 2004). These definitions are obviously very different from each other. The Defense Intelligence Agency’s definition describes a weapon which is capable of firing either fully automatic or semi-automatic and then goes on to describe how powerful the weapon is. On the other hand, the legal definition of an assault weapon merely describes them based on cosmetic features that have no effect on the firearms lethality when used as a weapon. Therefore, the Federal Assault Weapons Ban was based around the idea that firearms that look a certain way should be banned. The first characteristic of the legal definition of an assault weapon is that it has a folding or collapsible stock. A folding stock allows a person to make the firearm smaller and easier to transport. However, firearms with folding stocks are often singled out by gun prohibition groups because they believe that the folding stocks make the firearms easier for criminals to conceal (Kopel, 1994). A folding stock makes the firearms smaller and easier to conceal. A rifle with a folded stock is still a fairly large firearm. If criminals were seriously concerned with being able to conceal weapons, they would all be using handguns which are easily concealed. The next characteristic is a pistol grip. The gun prohibition groups like to say that the pistol grip was added to so-called assault weapons to make it easier for the operator to rapidly fire a large amount of bullets with the rifle down by their hip. Again, this claim is inaccurate. The main reason for a pistol grip on a rifle is comfort and ergonomics (Kopel, 1994). The pistols grips make the rifle more comfortable to hold from a shouldered position because the angle of the users wrist is much more natural. To the contrary, when the user would fire a rifle with a pistol grip from their hip, this forces their wrist into a very uncomfortable angle. This angle effectively negates the benefits of the pistol grip. Bayonet mounts are next on the list of assault weapon characteristics. A bayonet mount is a small piece of metal that allows a person to mount a knife to the end of their rifle. According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF) there has never been a crime committed where the perpetrator had a bayonet fixed to the end of a rifle (Kopel, 1994). There is effectively no historical basis why rifles with bayonet mounts should be regulated. Another feature that was deemed to be a characteristic of an assault weapon is a threaded barrel. Having the barrel of a rifle threaded allows the user to attach a variety of devices to the end of their rifle. One such device is commonly referred to as a flash hider. There is a common misconception about the purpose of a flash hider. The gun prohibition groups say that flash hiders allow a person to fire a firearm at night and it eliminates the flash from the muzzle. This is very inaccurate. Muzzle flash is caused by gun powder burning outside of the barrel of the rifle. This happens because the barrel wasn’t long enough for it all to burn inside of the barrel. The only way to completely eliminate muzzle flash it to make rifles have a longer barrel so that all of the gun powder burns inside the barrel. The term flash hider is counterfactual. The proper name for these devices is a flash suppressor. The purpose of a flash suppressor is to redirect the muzzle flash so it goes to the side of the shooter. The reason for this is so when the firearm is fired in dark conditions, the muzzle flash doesn’t temporarily blind the user (Kopel, 1994). The last feature on the list of assault weapon characteristics is the presence of a grenade launcher on the rifle. There is no reason for grenade launchers to even be included in the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. Grenade launchers have been strictly regulated in the United States since the Gun Control Act (GCA) of 1968. Under the GCA, grenade launchers as well as grenades are referred to as destructive devices. In order for the average American to own a grenade launcher, they have to pay a $200 tax and pass a through background check conducted by the FBI. They would also have to go through the same process and pay the same tax for any grenades they wish to purchase. However, high explosive grenades are not available for civilians to purchase in the United States. Because of this, there is no reason to regulate firearms because they can have a grenade launcher attached to them.
Assault Weapons and Violent Crime It is a very common assumption that because of their military style appearance, assault weapons are commonly used by criminals while carrying out violent crime. This is in fact a very inaccurate assumption. The state of California has some of the biggest restrictions on the ownership of Assault Weapons in the United States. Politicians from California are some of the most vocal supporters of renewing the Federal Assault Weapons ban. However, the threat faced to the public by people owning assault weapons is simply unproven. According to a report put together by the California Department of Justice in 1990, of 963 firearms analyzed by police crime labs from being used in a homicide or aggravated assault, only 36 of these firearms were considered assault weapons (Kopel, 1994). That is less than 4%. On a national level, the percentage of firearms uses in violent crime is even less common. Out of all the homicides perpetrated in the United States, less than 4% of them involve the use of a rifle. Of these homicides committed with rifles, less than 1% are carried out with a caliber bullet that could possibly be fired from an assault weapon (Kopel, 1994). Another common belief which comes from people who want to renew the Federal Assault Weapons ban is that these types of firearms are commonly used against police officers. This is another inaccurate claim. Between the years 1975 and 1992, there were 1,534 police officers murdered in the line of duty. Out of all those murdered officers, only 16 of them were killed by criminals using assault weapons (Kopel, 1994). A study that was published by the Journal of California Law Enforcement in 1991 reported the most common weapons used against police officers in California was the .38 special and .357 magnum revolver (Kopel, 1997). Neither of these firearms are assault weapons. They are both handguns. How Effective was the Ban? For a 10 year period beginning in 1994, the Federal Assault Weapons Ban was in place. During this time, it was illegal for gun manufacturers to make firearms that fit the legal definition of an assault weapon for the purpose of selling them on the civilian firearms market. There are many differing opinions on how effective the ban was. When the ban began, it exempted 1.5 million assault weapons which were already in the hands of the American public (Sontag, 2005). Basically, any assault weapon that was manufactured prior to September of 1994 was still legal to own by anyone who was legally able to own a firearm. While the ban was in effect, gun manufacturers changed the firearms they created in order to comply with the law banning assault weapons. They basically continued making the same firearms but they removed the features that made them fit the legal definition of an assault weapon. According to the Violence Policy Center, there were 1.17 million of these firearms created while the assault weapons ban was in effect (Sontag, 2005). These so-called copycat firearms which were created during the ban were functionally identical to the firearms that were banned. Because of this, these weapons had the same killing power as the weapons that were banned. One would think that since there were equally lethal weapons still being produced, they would be on the streets being used to commit violent crimes. However, this is not that case at all. According to statistics from the BATF, weapons banned in the Assault Weapons Ban accounted for 4.82% of the gun-crime traces conducted from 1990-1994. During the Assault Weapons Ban, these weapons accounted for only 1.6% of the gun-crime traces conducted by the BATF (Ove, 2004). On the surface, these statistics make it appear that the ban was effective. But when we figure in crimes committed during the Assault Weapons Ban with the copycat weapons, the statistics still show a 45% decline in crimes committed with these types of weapons (Ove, 2004). While there obviously was a decline in gun related crimes beginning in the early 1990’s, there is no evidence that the Assault Weapons Ban had anything to do with this decline. A study done for the National Institute of Justice said that it could not “clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s drop in gun violence.”(Sontag, 2005).
What about the Second Amendment? Starting at a young age, students in American public schools are educated on the countries Bill of Rights. Included in the Bill of Rights is the Second Amendment to the Constitution. This amendment states, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The Second Amendment is often used by gun rights groups to support their cause, but at the same time the gun prohibition groups attempt to downplay its significance. The prohibition groups claim that the amendment is referring to the National Guard being able to have weapons in which to defend the American mainland. This is an inaccurate assumption as the National Guard did not exist when the Second Amendment was written. The next part of the Second Amendment that gun prohibition groups target is that it does not explicitly state what types of arms the American people are entitled to have. They believe that as long as people are allowed to possess some sort of firearm, they are being granted their right to bear arms. In the 1939 court case of the United States vs. Miller, the Supreme Court of the United States provided its most extensive analysis of the Second Amendment (Morgan and Kopel, 1991). In this analysis, the Court unanimously defined a militia as being “all males physically able of acting in concert for the common defense.” (Morgan and Kopel, 1991). The Supreme Court also went on to say that the militia was to “appear bearing arms provided by themselves.” (Morgan and Kopel, 1991). So, the Supreme Court has stated that the militia is all American men able of fighting and they are to do so by using their personally owned weapons. Where do assault weapons come into play with this? Well, the purpose of a militia is the defense of the United States mainland. It would be unreasonable to think that these militiamen would have to defend their country using bolt action rifles that were limited by law to only being able to hold a small number of bullets at a time. Gun prohibition groups commonly refer to assault weapons as being weapons of war. If the countries militiamen are tasked with defending the country, they should be able to use weapons that are most effective for the task. The Supreme Court agrees. The unanimous opinion of the Supreme Court recognized that the right to bear arms included arms that were “part of the ordinary military equipment” or which could “contribute to the common defense.” (Morgan and Kopel, 1991). The Supreme Court was referring to weapons of war when they said this. This proves that the prohibition of assault weapons, or any other military type firearm, is unconstitutional.
Conclusion
Gun control is an issue that takes aim at the Bill of Rights. Because of this, it is a very important topic to people across the country. The Federal Assault Weapons Ban was a piece of legislation that inspired intense debate in the early 1990’s. Gun prohibition groups spoke loudly about how we were all in imminent danger if these so-called assault weapons were allowed to stay in the hands of the citizens of the United States. They were successful in swaying the opinion of most people to support their cause. But was the Federal Assault Weapons Ban really a worthwhile and necessary piece of legislation? No, it was not. This ban targeted firearms that simply looked more intimidating without any regard for how powerful they were. Even worse, the claims that criminals were using these weapons to great effect while committing crimes were simply unable to be backed up with statistics that supported these claims. Lastly, how effective was the Federal Assault Weapons Ban? Because it only banned firearms based on a few cosmetic features, equally powerful weapons were still allowed to be produced and sold to the average American civilian. Even with these equally powerful weapons being sold to the public, the rate of gun crimes being committed in America plummeted throughout the 1990’s. Because of these reasons, it is imperative that the American people oppose another assault weapons ban that will only make it more difficult for law abiding citizens to enjoy their hobby while doing nothing to keep powerful weapons off of the streets of America.

References
Kopel, D. B. (1994). Rational Basis Analysis of "Assault Weapon" Prohibition. Journal of Contemporary Law, 20, 381-417.
Kopel, D. B. (1997). Are So-called "Assault Weapons" A Threat to Police Officers? Retrieved from Second Amendment Project, Golden, CO. Web site: http://www.davekopel.com
Koper, C. S. (2004). Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets And Gun Violence, 1994-2003. Retrieved from National Institute of Justice, Washington, DC. Web site: http://www.ncjrs.gov
Morgan, E., & Kopel, D. (1991). The Assault Weapon Panic: "Political Correctness" Takes Aim at the Constitution. Retrieved from Guncite, Drums, PA. Web site: http://www.guncite.com
Ove, T. (2004). Assault Weapon Ban's Effectiveness Debated. Retrieved from Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Pittsburgh, PA. Web site: http://www.post-gazette.com
Sontag, D. (2005, April 25) Assault weapons ban comes to end: A dud? New York Times, 17.