Assault Weapon Ban - does it work?

Does an assault weapon ban provide us with a more peaceful society? Well, backers like Senator John Kerry sure seem to think so. What does it mean, and how does it work?

And, most importantly, do gun bans like this have a positive effect on reducing crime, preventing accidents, and reducing or preventing suicides? The Libertarian in me says "no" but the proponents of such laws say otherwise.

It's clear why "no" is the right answer - first and foremost, laws like this don't apply to criminals.

Moreover, it isn't a crime to have an accident, and suicide and it's methods are an individual choice, not any of my business and therefore not any business of my government either.

The Concept and Objectives

The concept isn't really all that clear. An "assault weapon" is defined based on features. For example a rifle with two or more features like pistol grip, bayonet lug, collapsing or folding stock, flash suppressor and auto-loading receiver action are defined as "assault weapons" no matter how the weapon might be used.

There are specific features for handguns and shotguns as well, but let's not go into such detail here. For purposes of discussion, let's just stay with the example of a rifle.

The ban also restricts the manufacturing of high capacity magazines for use in assault weapons and other firearms. The magazine capacity limit was ten rounds of ammunition.

Objectives of the law are:

1. Eliminate the availability of high powered and high capacity military style weapons.
2. Make certain "assault weapon" features unavailable in combinations of two or more.
3. Reduce crimes committed with these weapons.

Effects of the law are:

• Allowed gun dealers to sell out their stock of "assault weapons" at elevated prices before the ban takes effect.
• Raises the price of similar firearms immediately before the ban goes into effect.
• An assault weapon ban increases the sales of guns in general based on the fear that more restrictive laws will be passed.
• Bumps up the sales of high capacity magazines before and shortly after the ban.
• Forces firearms manufacturers to retool to create new models of guns that comply with the feature restrictions of the assualt weapon ban.

Does it Prevent or Reduce Crime?

Criminals rarely use assault weapons in violent crimes. They are large and so not easily concealed. They are heavy and therefore not conducive to carrying around all day. And, they aren't as nimble as a handgun for close quarters "work" like that required at a liquor store or other "stop and rob" convenience store.

The choice of weapon for the criminal is the hand gun. It is easy to conceal, easy to carry, and plenty powerful and intimidating, regardless of its caliber.

"Assault weapons" have been used for crimes like bank robberies, drive-by shootings and school shootings, but these are rare. The hand gun is by far the preferred weapon for criminals.

Does it Prevent or Reduce Accidents?

Limiting the features by instituting an assault weapon ban does nothing to prevent or reduce accidents. Firearms accidents are not the result of pistol grips, flash suppressors or folding stocks. They are the result of careless handling and use of firearms.

Expecting a reduction in accidents based on prohibiting certain features on a weapon would only be possible if those features promoted unsafe handling or use of the weapon. Such is not the case with an assault weapon ban.

Does it Prevent or Reduce Suicides?

Suicide by firearm can be accomplished using many other styles of weapon, including a knife. I've know of plenty of shot gun suicides, but none with an assault weapon. Besides, isn't suicide a personal choice, and not a matter of availability of options? Of course it is, so an assault weapon ban will have no influence on suicide - it's just another excuse for more illogical laws.

Besides, what ever happened to sleeping pills, carbon monoxide poisoning and jumping off of a tall building? Have all those methods of suicide become unpopular?

Let's stop making excuses for passing laws and start understanding that we need sound reasoning behind legislation. Of course, that would require clear thinking and rationale individuals to propose, discuss and pass the legislation, and that seems to be our most significant obstacle - we just don't seem to be able to put people like that into public office.

My Observations

I object to the idea of an assault weapon ban based on several considerations.

• The an assault weapon ban is another example of a law that only applies to the law-abiding. Instead, we should be focusing our laws on criminals, and leave the responsible citizen alone.

• As a crime fighting law, it does nothing. Criminals already have all the assault weapons they want. And, if they want more, they can buy them on the black market.

• Such a gun ban only prohibits the manufacture of assault style weapons and high capacity magazines. It doesn't outlaw the sale and possession of such guns and magazines. So, what is the point? If they are so bad, why aren't they made illegal to own?

  It's clear to me that an assault weapon ban is just the first step in making such weapons illegal. Step one, make them illegal to manufacture. Step two, make the illegal to own.

• The law allows for misapplication, much like the days of prohibition where the 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibited the "manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors". Enforcement nevertheless involved raiding clubs and private homes to confiscate and destroy liquor, and arrest people consuming it. Despite the fact that owning liquor or consuming it was not prohibited by the 19th Amendment.

  Misapplication of an assault weapons ban is so easy to do. Like prohibition, if you can't legally buy one, we'll take it away from you because we believe you shouldn't have one either.

• This type of law interferes with free trade of an otherwise legal product. We aren't restricting knives with double edges or baseball bats that have a rubber grip, so we shouldn't do that for other products simply out of fear that someone might misuse them. Instead, punish those that misuse the product.

• This is another preventive law. We hope that violent crime will be prevented by an assault weapon ban, but they are rarely used in criminal activity. Instead, we'd be better off focusing on real preventive measures for known criminals.

• There is nothing intrinsically evil about a pistol grip, a flash suppressor, or a folding stock. And why are we concerned about a small piece of metal on the end of the barrel that allows a bayonet (a long knife) to be attached to the muzzle of a rifle? Apparently the knife on the end of the rifle is of some real concern. When is the last time you heard of a criminal making a bayonet charge?

• An "assault" weapon ban simply opens the door to restricting other weapons simply by describing what they can be used for. We have already seen attempts to ban "sniper" rifles, and auto-loading shotguns, following the same rationale as the assault weapons ban.

You can see this mentality at work in other countries when certain weapons were banned. People lined up and turned in all their weapons, even the ones that weren't labeled as "bad" by the government.

What does it matter if you have an assault weapon. The nature of the weapon is based on how you use it. You can bet when assault style weapons are used to defend families in their homes, the aren't labeled as home defense weapons, even though that is exactly how they're used.

And, lastly, we now have Attorney General Holder promoting re-establishment of an assault weapon ban (that had no affect on crime the first go-round) using the excuse that drug wars in Mexico are being fueled by assault weapons purchased in the United States. When all our experience shows that assault weapons aren't the problem in this country, we find another country to point to.

And, once again, the solution is take away firearms from the law-abiding based on what criminals are doing. We need to refocus on the criminals and leave the law-abiding alone.

We have to remember, it's not the gun, it's the people behind the guns that are dangerous. You don't have to be a Libertarian to understand that.

Let's focus on laws that restrict criminals, and then we'll be doing something about gun crime. Otherwise, we're just bothering law abiding citizens with more gun control when we promote assault weapon ban legislation.



For a glimpse at how you can get training on defending yourself with "assault" weapons, and many other types of weapons, take a look at the following links:

Front Sight
Front Sight in Black Belt Magazine
Ignatius Piazza in Las Vegas Mercury
Ignatius Piazza
Front Sight Blog
Ignatius Piazza in Gun World the magazine
Front Sight in BBC
Front Sight in London Times
Ignatius Piazza in Las Vegas Review
Ignatius Piazza in Times Democrat

Done with Assault Weapon Ban, take me back to Gun Control