The term "assault weapon" is at the head of the efforts by gun control advocates to regulate military-style firearms. But what weapons actually make the cut?
On Wednesday, President Obama fired his opening salvo in what's shaping up to be a protracted legal battle over guns, signing 23 executive actions to bolster the government's existing regulations and improve the national background check system. He then asked Congress to reinstate the now-defunct Federal Assault Weapons Ban, a law that once banned outright the sale and production of certain types of "assault weapon", a class of firearms that's squarely in the crosshairs of gun control advocates. With the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting still fresh, there may yet be enough impetus to make a federal assault weapon law stick, but before Congress can get to work on a bill, Washington needs a working definition to qualify a firearm as an "assault weapon". Even if AWB '94 were resurrected, its criterion for assault weapon was problematic because it relied heavily on how a firearm looked, not how it worked, and bore no weight on fully automatic weapons. A truly effective federal prohibition of assault weapons should qualify a firearm based on its design, intended use, and common application in the field by its intended user. In addition, the law would need to be expansive enough to address subtypes of assault rifles, including service rifles, designated marksman rifles (DMR), battle rifles, and carbines. …
Article comments
26 - Glenn Contrarian
Baronius -
Why not all four?
27 - Glenn Contrarian
And while we're at it, why can't we all be honest about the whether a lack of firearms correlates with high murder rates? Generally speaking (which means there are a few exceptions...but the existence of an exception does not disprove the rule), nations that have a high rate of firearm ownership (or are third-world nations) are significantly more likely to have high murder rates. Note that I did NOT say "firearm-related murder rates", but overall murder rates.
Australia - a big bugaboo of conservatives since they got rid of their worst firearms - has a little over one-fifth of America's murder rate. Japan - which is an almost gun-free nation (firearms are strictly prohibited there) - has a murder rate that is about one-twelfth our own.
Our murder rate is 4.8 per 100K. Conservatives howl about Obama trying to make America like Europe...but the highest rate among any nation in Western Europe is Liechtenstein at 2.8 per 100K.
And if sensible gun laws were SO ineffective, then one would expect that Canada's rate would be significantly higher than the 1.6 per 100K that it is, given how easy it is for Americans to smuggle arms across the border to sell to criminals who can't get them legally there.
Guns don't kill people - but guns make it a whole lot easier to kill people...and it's much harder (physically AND emotionally) to kill someone face-to-face with a knife than it is from ten feet or more with a gun.
We can't blame the difference between Canada's and America's murder rates on access to illegal firearms, or on different rates of playing violent video games, or on having a tyrannical society. The ONLY significant differences are that in America, gun ownership is not effectively regulated, assault rifles and high-capacity clips are legally available, and we have a culture that is so deathly afraid that the guv'mint's a-gonna come take our guns away - just look at what Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said in a recent e-mail:
"You and I are literally surrounded. The gun-grabbers in the Senate are about to launch an all-out-assault on the Second Amendment. On your rights. On your freedom...[T]hey're coming for your guns,"
That's the fear-mongering that is the single biggest factor in keeping our murder rate so high. Yep - the sound of innocent American citizens being shot by criminals (and idiotic family members) with easy access to guns...that's the sound of FREEDOM!!!!
28 - Igor
Well I think my personal odyssey in search of a defensive handgun is finished. Attractive as the Taurus Judge or the Bond Arms Snake Slayer are, I think they will not serve me well. Probably, the thing will end up in a drawer gathering dust. I'd have to carry it with me every day, every where, for many years. It'll never happen. The damn gun will increase my chances of getting killed by being a handy weapon for some burglar.
I had a .22 magnum in the 60's and that's what happened to it: the day after my neighbor was burglarized (I slept thru it) I sold the thing.
29 - Doug Hunter-
#27
Maybe people where murder is uncommon don't feel the need to defend themselves with guns. If you want to be honest about looking at the issue perhaps you should consider that whites are about 60% more likely to own a gun than blacks, yet blacks are about 600% more likely to murder someone than whites. Makes me think there's something other than gun ownership that is the driver. Again, we're legislating to the lowest common denominator, inner city blacks can't keep from shooting each other with handguns so rural NRA members have to give up their rifles... I'm not really following the logic but I suppose one should never let a crisis go to waste when it affords an opportunity for more government power!!!