Assault on guns
P.T. Anderson
Assault on guns
Control advocates obscure the issue
By Stephen Chapman
Politicians don't feel obligated to smoke crack on camera to demonstrate
the dangers of drug abuse or get behind the wheel of a car after several
drinks to inveigh against drunken driving. But Treasury Secretary Lloyd
Bentsen and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Schumer somehow
couldn't find a way to rouse public concern about "assault weapons"
without firing off a few rounds at a target range.
I imagine the effect was not what they had intended. A lot of Americans
who saw Bentsen with his AR-15 rifle and Schumer with his Tec-9 pistol
probably exclaimed, "Say, that looks like fun!" Others may have concluded
that the demonstration simply dramatized the folly of allowing dangerous
weapons in the hands of anyone connected to the federal government.
But it also served to underline the character of the campaign to ban
"assault weapons," which from the outset has been composed of 10 parts
vapor to one part substance. The advocates have done more to confuse that
to inform, which is a shrewd tactic given the scarcity of facts on their
side. Last year, their effort was enough to persuade the Senate to
approve a measure forbidding the sale, manufacture or possession of 19
different guns. This week, the House is supposed to consider the idea.
Much is made of the menacing appearance of the guns that would be
prohibited. That's because appearance is about all that separates them
from supposedly legitimate sporting arms. But looks, it should be
unnecessary to note, don't kill.
The Tec-9 certainly lacks a cuddly exterior, but it won't kill you any
more quickly or permanently that an ordinary 9mm handgun. About the only
advantage enjoyed by the Tec-9 is a 32-shot clip, but the bill already
bans clips of more than 10 rounds. It's hard to see what this restriction
achieves, since any minimally clever thug can carry more than one clip and
reload in an instant.
This bill doesn't attempt to get rid of every "assault weapon" in America
or, in fact, any of those that already exist -- only new ones will be
illegal. But even if it did, the effect on crime would be something close
to undetectable. Last year, Chicago police confiscated more than 20,000
firearms. Of those, only 422 (about 2 percent) fell into the category of
"assault weapons." Virtually all of the rest were garden-variety rifles
and pistols -- the kind the "assault weapon" bill explicitly protects.
The most dangerous weapon around is the humdrum .38 revolver, which in
1993 accounted for more than one out of every four gun murders in Chicago,
surpassing any other firearm. But, as Northwestern law professor Daniel
Polsby points out, no one has recommended a ban on .38 revolvers. That's
because any fool can see that criminals would simply substitute another
equally lethal firearm. Why then, ask Polsby, do people assume that a
crook deprived of his AR-15 will suddenly be rendered harmless?
During one committee hearing, Schumer charged that "assault weapons" are
18 times more likely than others to be used in the murder of a police
officer and 19 times more likely to be traced to a crime. Two calls to
his office in search of evidence to support that claim, however, yielded
absolutely nothing. Contrary to what you might think from all this
hysteria, the rate at which police officers are killed on duty has been
dropping over the last 20 years, impervious to the supposed epidemic of
doomsday guns.
President Clinton says, "It's amazing to me that we even have to have this
debate," describing the ban as a "lay-down no-brainer." But it shouldn't
be surprising to find skepticism about a measure that tries to outlaw one
class of weapons for no obvious reason. Like most gun control measures on
the books, this one is likely to fail. And like most of its predecessors,
its failure will be used to justify new regulations, which will be a
genuine burden to the law-abiding and a minor annoyance to criminals.
America was not a safe place before the rise of "assault weapons," and it
has not gotten more dangerous since. That should make us wonder if the
problem might lie not in our guns, but in ourselves.
--
PT Anderson
nosr...@indirect.com
thom...@onramp.net
1) If Assault Weapons pose no more danger to policemen than standard
pistols, then why are so many police groups lining up behind the AW ban?
2) If they are no different from other guns, except for "cosmetics", why do
they cost so much more, and are so prefered by drug dealers and teenage gangs?
3) What "legal" use is there for them?
Hunting?
Self defense?
Taking out some punk dealing on your "turf"?
Mike Light
: 1) If Assault Weapons pose no more danger to policemen than standard
: pistols, then why are so many police groups lining up behind the AW ban?
Maybe the police feel safer when fewer citizens are armed.
: 2) If they are no different from other guns, except for "cosmetics", why do
: they cost so much more, and are so prefered by drug dealers and teenage gangs?
Depending on the weapon, they may cost more or less than a "normal" hunting
gun. If you have a gun which is designed for military conditions, such
as the Heckler & Koch SP-89, with the mechanism inside a tube for protection
from the elements, capable of enduring rough conditions, with easy mounting
of a laser sight and other accoutraments, you have to pay more.
As for being "preferred" by drug dealers and teenage gangs, perhaps a
gang member likes a weapon which isn't a run-of-the-mill twenty-year-old
revolver, when they can find one.
: 3) What "legal" use is there for them?
: Hunting?
Sure! All are useful for smaller animals, and a few can take on big game.
: Self defense?
Definitely. Around my neck of the woods it is common to hear of a gang
of five or six thugs breaking into a home even when the owners are there.
Being able to shoot more than 10 times between reloads would be a definite
plus in such a situation.
: Taking out some punk dealing on your "turf"?
Criminals will always be able to find a tool which assists them
in their "career". Why worry about a $1000 fine and six months in
prison when you are already doing a crime which can get you 20 years?
-- Mike Light
Christopher Morton
>
> 1) If Assault Weapons pose no more danger to policemen than standard
> pistols, then why are so many police groups lining up behind the AW ban?
Because the groups which are doing so have a POLITICAL agenda. It has NOTHING
to do with crime.
> 2) If they are no different from other guns, except for "cosmetics", why do
> they cost so much more, and are so prefered by drug dealers and teenage gangs?
1) A Colt HBAR or a Springfield M1A cost more than SOME other rifles because
they're TARGET rifles. When's the last time you priced a Remington 40X?
2) They AREN'T preferred by criminals. There is NO statistical basis for
the claim that they ARE. Small handguns are favored by criminals. I suggest
that you try to stick an HBAR in your waistband.
> 3) What "legal" use is there for them?
> Hunting?
An M1A will kill a deer just as dead as a Remington 700 will. Of course I
don't hunt, so I don't CARE. The 2nd amendment makes no mention of hunting
anyway.
> Self defense?
You BET, and from criminals in AND out of government. The last time *I*
defended myself with a firearm, I used an H&K HK93.
> Taking out some punk dealing on your "turf"?
>
How about taking out some punk in a Black uniform rounding up Jews on your
"turf"? How about the same punk rounding up Japanese Americans?
Of course you've left out target shooting, but considering your other
statements, you may not have HEARD of that. You probably don't even know
that there are ONLY three rifles permitted in service rifle competition. This
assinine bill bans TWO of them.
--
=====================================================================
Benito Mussolini : Old Socialist ===> New Fascist | Jail to the
Bill Clinton : Old Democrat ===> New Democrat | Chief!
Gary Carlson
>
> 1) If Assault Weapons pose no more danger to policemen than standard
>pistols, then why are so many police groups lining up behind the AW ban?
>
Ahhhh, the first fallacy! Most street cops *DON'T* believe the AW
ban will do any good! Unfortunately, the media doesn't care about
Joe Blow cop's opinion, but rather focus on the anti-gun, anti-rights
bureacrats that run police departments. If you think all police
groups are for the A.W. ban then you should call the Law Enforcement
Alliance of America (1-800-766-8578). They will be more than happy
to set the record straight for you!
> 2) If they are no different from other guns, except for "cosmetics", why do
>they cost so much more, and are so prefered by drug dealers and teenage gangs?
>
Fallacy number two! The so-called assault weapons are *not* the preferred
weapon of drug dealers and teenage gangs! If you quit listening to the
Channel 7 news and do a little research at the library, you might find
that handguns and shotguns are the weapons of choice. If you really
doubt this, may I suggest getting statistics from the Department of
Justice? As for cosmetics, they are no different from any other
slide-action rifle. They fire one round for every trigger pull. This
nonsense created by the media that assault weapons are fully automatic
illustrates journalistic bankruptcy. Fully automatic weapons have
been severely restricted since 1934. Finally, the only reason they cost
more is because of the laws of supply and demand. When bans are
looming, sensible people start buying, supplies go down, and prices
go up.
> 3) What "legal" use is there for them?
> Hunting?
> Self defense?
> Taking out some punk dealing on your "turf"?
>
>
The last time I checked, going to the desert or the range constitutes
a legal use. Some people do use them and more innoculous slide-action
weapons for hunting. Despite what the whopper-telling media would like
everybody to believe, hunters don't spray bullets at Bambi either! If
you don't believe they have application in self-defense, just ask
the Koreans in the Los Angeles Riots, who stood on their rooftops
with Mini-14's, about application. Some of their buildings were
the only ones standing after the riots.
Gary Carlson
Dan Day
>
> 1) If Assault Weapons pose no more danger to policemen than standard
>pistols, then why are so many police groups lining up behind the AW ban?
God, I just *love* bursting people's unsupported media-induced falsehoods.
Read on, and when you begin to realize how badly informed you've been,
perhaps you'll begin to question some of the other garbage that you've
been spoonfed. Also ask why, if all this relevant information is
available, the media, which is supposed to research things, has either
not bothered to do so, or has not seen fit to report it. If you do
nothing else, at least read the paragraph below that discusses the poll
results of rank-and-file police officers, wherein about 80-85%
*oppose* a ban on assault weapons.
Actually, the police *aren't* lining up behind the AW ban. Clinton paraded
around a number of police *chiefs*, which are politically appointed and
reflect the mayor's biases more than any real-life police street smarts.
Ask any beat cop what he thinks of the head honchos in the department.
I've asked three recently, they all thought the ban was incredibly
stupid and would make no difference whatsoever. I asked all three
what they thought of me, a private citizen, owning an "assault
weapon" as defined in the bill. They said they had no problem with it.
Lest you think these are rural cops, let me mention that they were
from the Houston Police Department.
More specific info, from Eric Morgan and David Kopel article "The 'Assault
Weapon' Panic" (copies of the entire, well-researched article available upon
request):
##### Begin included text
B. The Police Viewpoint
Although police statistics are the most reliable source of information
about actual criminal use of "assault weapons," another potential source of
information is police officers.
To a person who acquired all his information from publications like
_Newsweek_, it would be clear that the police unanimously (and desperately)
want "assault weapon" prohibition. And in fact, most major city police
chiefs do support some kind of restrictive legislation. But even though many
media consider the viewpoints of big-city chiefs to represent the viewpoint
of all law enforcement, chiefs do not speak for rank-and-file officers any
more than Lee Iacocca speaks for all the auto workers.
Police firearms examiners (who catalogue and study all crime guns seized
by their department) tell a very different story from the politically-minded
chiefs. All seven of the firearms examiners in Dade County (Miami), Florida,
have stated that the use of "assault weapons" in shootings in the county has
been _declining_ throughout the last decade.{87} According to George R.
Wilson, the chief of the firearms section of the Washington, D.C.,
Metropolitan Police, drug dealers most commonly use sophisticated nine
millimeter pistols.{88} Lieutenant Reginald Smith, a spokesman for the
District's police department stated, that "assault weapons" were seen by his
department "occasionally, but it's rare. The vast majority of weapons we see
are revolvers or pistols."{89} Detective Jimmy L. Trahin of the Los Angeles
Police Department's Firearms/Forensics Ballistics Unit testified before
Congress that he did not consider "assault weapons" to be the weapons of
choice of L.A. criminals.{90} (V.G. Gunises, whose SEY YES organization in
South Central Los Angeles works to help former gang members, pointed out that
most Los Angeles gang killings involve handguns.{91}) Lieutenant James
Moran, the commander of the New York City Police Department Ballistics Unit,
told reporters that NYPD experience was quite different from some press
claims. "A rifle is not what is usually used by the criminals. They'll have
handguns or sawed off shotguns. . . . These drug dealers are more inclined to
use the 9 mm pistol than go to a cumbersome AK-47 rifle."{92}
One reason that the firearms examiners have not been heard in the
prohibition debate is the some politicians have deliberately avoided asking
them for their opinion. An internal memorandum from the California Attorney
General's office revealed that as the Roberti-Roos "assault weapon"
prohibition was being rushed through the California legislature, Senator
Roberti and Attorney General Van de Kamp made a conscious
decision: "Information on assault weapons would not be sought from forensic
laboratories as it was unlikely to support the theses on which the
legislation would be based."{93}
Some police chiefs have attempted to suppress dissenting voices in their
department. For example, in San Jose, former police chief Joseph McNamara
wrote fund-raising letters for Handgun Control, Inc., on official city
stationary, and claimed to represent what "every police officer" believed. In
1989, one of McNamara's officers, a firearms instructor named Leroy Pyle, was
subpoenaed by the California legislature and legally required to testify
before that body. Officer Pyle did so, on his own time, and out of uniform.
The next day, Pyle was suspended from duty, and McNamara attempted to fire
him.{94} In Cincinnati, Lieutenant Harry Thomas has been harassed for
speaking out (on his own time and out of uniform) against the gun prohibition
policies favored by the police hierarchy.
To counter the statements of pro-rights rank-and-file officers such as
the firearms examiners or Leroy Pyle, Handgun Control, Inc. often points to
the Fraternal Order of Police. The FOP is the largest rank-and-file police
organization in the country; its head, Dewey Stokes, supports "assault
weapon" control, and Stokes was recently re-elected to his position despite
a challenge from a pro-gun officer.{95}
Handgun Control's respect for the views of the FOP appears, however, to
be a sometimes thing. In New Jersey, the state chapter of the FOP opposed
Governor Florio's severe "assault weapon" ban (which even applied to BB
guns). National FOP President Dewey Stokes backed up the New Jersey chapter,
because the New Jersey ban was so extreme. Nevertheless, Handgun Control
pushed for (and won) the draconian New Jersey ban, claiming all the while to
be responding to the cries for help from law enforcement.
While the largest rank-and-file police organization, the FOP supports
"assault weapon" control (at least for controls less severe than New
Jersey's), the second-largest rank-and-file organization, the American
Federation of Police, opposes such controls. Unfortunately, neither
organization has polled its membership on the subject. (FOP head Stokes has
been repeatedly asked to conduct a poll, and has refused.)
What limited polling of law enforcement has been done does not support
the claims of Handgun Control, Inc., that all the police want "assault
weapon" prohibition. The Florida chapter of the Fraternal Order of Police
polled its membership, and found 75% opposed to an "assault weapon" ban. The
most recent poll of police opinion was carried out by _Law _Enforcement
_Technology_ magazine in March 1991. The results were reported in the
July/August 1991 issue: "75% do not favor gun control legislation ... with
street officers opposing it by as much as 85 %." In particular, 78.7%
opposed a ban on "assault weapons." (About 37 % of top management supported
a ban, and about 11% of street officers.){96}
Every spring the National Association of Chiefs of Police (NACOP) conducts a
nationwide survey of command-rank police officers (not just top management or
chiefs). The survey includes all command-rank officers, including those who
do not belong to NACOP. Ninety-five percent said that they believed a citizen
should have the right to purchase any type of firearm for sport or self-
defense.
Neither the _Law _Enforcement _Technology_ nor the NACOP surveys may be
statistically precise, since the surveys were compiled from respondents who
voluntarily mailed in a reply. But at the very least, the surveys indicate
that Handgun Control, Inc's claim to have the near-unanimous support of the
law enforcement community is false.
In sum, while "assault weapons" may appear menacing, both local and
national crime statistics do not indicate that the so-called "assault rifles"
are a serious crime or drug problem.
References:
87. Florida Assault Weapon Commission Report (Tallahassee: Florida Dept. of
State, 1990), at 156-57.
88. Wall St. J., April 7, 1989, at A12, col. 3.
89. Wash. Post, March 6, 1989, at B1, col. 6.
90. SENATE REPORT, _supra, note 6, at 18.
91. L.A. Times, Feb. 8, 1989, at I20, col. 4.
92. N.Y. Times, Feb. 5, 1989, at E26, col. 5.
93. Memorandum to Patrick Kenady, Assistant Attorney General, February 14,
1991, at 2.
94. The formal pretext for suspending Pyle was that he had appeared (not in
uniform) in a video explaining the difference between automatics and
semiautomatics, and in that video had stated that he was a San Jose police
officer, but had not expressly stated that his views were not the official
views of his department. The rather severe discipline meted out to Pyle
seemed odd in light of the fact that Chief McNamara himself wrote political
fundraising letters for Handgun Control, Inc. on official city stationary.
95. One percent of the approximately 225,000 Fraternal Order of Police
members attended the convention, and Stokes won the vote 68% of the
attendees. It might be that delegates to the police conventions, like
delegates to NRA conventions, or to Democratic or Republican conventions,
hold views more extreme than held by the membership as a whole.
96. Two thousand police officers participated in the Law Enforcement
Technology magazine survey, only a few hundred less than voted at the
Fraternal Order of Police convention. Because participation in the _Law
_Enforcement _Technology poll or attendance at the FOP convention were both
affirmative acts of a non-random sample, neither the _Law _Enforcement
_Technology poll nor the FOP convention vote is necessarily a statistically
valid sample of police opinion.
Dan Day
>they cost so much more, and are so prefered by drug dealers and teenage gangs?
"I love bursting your naive bubble, volume IIb", in which I explain to
you why "they cost so much more":
1. They don't, as a rule. Fancy hunting rifles are just as
expensive, and often much more, than so-called "assault weapons".
Before the ban hysteria, you could get a TEC-9 for about $250,
less than the cost of most pistols. Even the higher-end
"assault weapons" used to be reasonably priced.
2. They're now more expensive because of the ban, and because
the media attention has made them in demand, which runs up
the price:
###### Begin included text, from "The 'Assault Weapon' Panic" by Eric Morgan
###### and David Kopel:
Ironically, proposals to ban "assault
weapons" have encouraged consumers to buy military-style semiautomatic
firearms.{108} The press hype surrounding so-called "assault weapons" and
the threat of future bans has venerated a greater demand for the weapons as
well as large price increases.{109} If one goal of such legislation is to
limit the proliferation of certain firearms, recent efforts have been
counterproductive. In fact, the number of some types of "assault weapons" in
the hands of the public may have as much as doubled in the last three years,
thanks to media hype.
References:
108. _See Lamar, _Gunning _for _Assault _Rifles, TIME, March 27, 1989, at 39.
Wild Sports Enterprises, one of Northern California's largest gun shops,
began selling 30 Kalashnikov rifles a day, even when the price was increased
from $300 to $1,000 per rifle. Before the press furor began, this same shop
only sold one Kalashnikov per week. _Id.
109. L.A. Times, Feb. 24, 1989, at V1, col. 4.
242. _Id. at A19, col. 3. In fact, the study showed that after one episode of
Miami Vice featured the Bren 10, gun stores were flooded with demands for the
unusual weapon and the price has now reached $1200 per gun. _Id.
Dan Day
>they cost so much more, and are so prefered by drug dealers and teenage gangs?
"I love bursting your naive bubble, volume IIc", in which I demolish
your assumption that they're "prefered [sic] by drug dealers and
teenage gangs":
###### Begin included text, from "The 'Assault Weapon' Panic" by Eric Morgan
###### and David Kopel:
III. SO-CALLED "ASSAULT WEAPONS" ARE RARELY USED IN CRIME.
Senator DeConcini, in introducing S. 747, asserted that "assault
weapons" were the "weapons of choice" of gangs and drug dealers, and
suggested that his bill would reduce the "carnage" created by individuals
engaged in the illegal drug trade.{62} Indeed, the stated purpose of S. 747
was to "reduce the number of deaths and injuries attributable to assault-type
semi-automatic firearms abuse by drug traffickers and violent criminals."{63}
With a similar flourish, the California legislature passed the "Roberti-Roos
Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989," a more extensive ban than S. 747, after
finding that rapid-fire assault weapons are "a threat to the health, safety,
and security of all citizens of this state." {64}
While such attempts to address drug and crime problems are often well-
meaning, little evidence exists that assault weapon statutes are necessary to
protect the public from drug-related violence or other criminal activity.
Semiautomatic firearms, though sometimes sinister in appearance, are simply
not the "weapons of choice" of criminals and drug dealers.
A. Statistics Regarding Gun Crime
The following statistics summarize the findings of all official police
statistical surveys which are known to the authors. The data is the most
recent available information known to the authors.
_Akron_. Police seize about 400 weapons a year, and only two percent of
these could arguably be classified as "assault weapons."{65}
_Baltimore _County_. During the first 9 months of 1990, out of 644
weapons logged in to the Baltimore County Police Property Room, only 2 were
"assault weapons." Out of 305 murders in the City of Baltimore in 1990, only
7 (2.3 %) involved rifles and shotguns of any kind, much less politically
incorrect semiautomatic rifles or shotguns.{66}
_Chicago_. From 1985 through 1989, only one homicide was perpetrated
with a military caliber rifle.{67} Of the 17,144 guns seized by the Chicago
police in 1988, 175 were "military style weapons."{68}
_Denver_. A gun-by-gun examination of the firearms in Denver police
custody as of early 1991 found 14 "assault weapons" (by Denver's broad
definition) among the
1,752 crime guns. Only one of those guns had been used in a crime of violence
(an aggravated assault).{69}
_Florida_. Florida Department of Law Enforcement _Uniform _Crime
_Reports_ for 1989 indicate that rifles of all types accounted for 2.6% of
the weapons used in Florida homicides.{70} The Florida Assault Weapons
Commission found that "assault weapons" were used in 17 of 7,500 gun crimes
for the years 1986-1989.{71}
_Los _Angeles_. Of the 4,000 or more guns seized by police during 1988,
only three percent would fall under even an expansive definition of "assault
weapon. {72}
_Maryland_. The experience of law enforcement officials in Maryland has
also failed to reveal a problem with so-called "assault weapons."{73} In
1989-90, there was only one death involving a politically incorrect
semiautomatic rifle in all 24 counties of the State of Maryland.{74}
_Massachusetts_. Of 161 fatal shootings in Massachusetts in 1988, 3
involved "semiautomatic assault rifles."{75}
_Miami_. The Miami police seized 11,283 firearms from January 1, 1989
to
September 15, 1991. Of these, 445 (3.3%) were on the broad list of "assault
weapons" in the 1991 bill sponsored by Representatives Stark and Green.
_Minneapolis_. From April 1, 1987 to April 1, 1989, the Minneapolis
police property room received 2,200 firearms. Of the 2,200 guns, 8 were
"semiautomatic assault rifles."{76}
_New _Jersey_. According to the Deputy Chief Joseph Constance of the
Trenton New Jersey Police Department, in 1989, there was not a single murder
involving any rifle, much less a "semiautomatic assault rifle," in the State
of New Jersey.{77} No person in New Jersey was killed with an "assault
weapon" in 1988.{78}
_New _York _City_. Of 16,000 guns seized by New York City police in
1988, only 80 were "assault-type" rifles.{79}
_San _Diego_. Of the 3,000 firearms seized by the San Diego police in
1988-90, only 9 are "assault weapons" under the California definition.{80}
_San _Francisco_. Only 2.2% of the firearms confiscated in 1988 were
military-style semiautomatics. {81}
_Washington, _D.C._ Of the 3,000 or more weapons that the police
confiscated in 1988, not one was a "semiautomatic assault rifle."{82} The
_Washington _Post_ writes: "law enforcement officials say that the guns have
not been a factor in the area's murder
epidemic." The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms found that only one
murder in Washington D.C. in 1988 was perpetrated with a rifle of any
kind.{83}
_National _statistics_. Less than four percent of all homicides in the
United States involve rifles of any type. No more than 8/10th of 1% of
homicides are perpetrated with rifles using military calibers. (And not
all rifles using such calibers are usually considered "assault weapons.")
Overall, the number of persons killed with rifles of any type in 1990 was
lower than the number in any year in the 1980s.{84} Thus, Senator Joseph
Biden's pronouncements that "assault weapons" are the cause of America's
rising homicide rate are not well-founded.
While persons reading _Newsweek_ might infer that police officers by the
score are being murdered by "assault weapons," police officer deaths in the
line of duty are at the lowest level since 1968. The percentage of police
homicides perpetrated with "assault weapons" is about 3%, a figure that has
stayed constant throughout the last decade. The _Journal _of _California _Law
_Enforcement_ wrote: "It is interesting to note, in the current hysteria over
semi-automatic and military look-alike weapons, that the most common weapon
used to murder peace officers was that of the .38 Special and the .357 Magnum
revolver." The _Journal_ found that "Calibers which correspond to military-
style shoulder weapons" accounted for 8% of firearms used to murder police
officers in California.{85}
Against the mass of police statistics, the anti-gun lobbies have offered
two types of evidence. The first is unsubstantiated claims from law
enforcement administrators such as former Drug Enforcement Agency head John
Lawn that "assault weapons" are the weapon of choice of drug dealers or other
criminals. Unsupported by statistical evidence, and coming from
administrators with a clear political agenda, the unsubstantiated claims
cannot be considered more persuasive than actual police statistics.
The gun prohibition lobby also offers a study done by two reporters from
the Cox newspaper chain. The reporters examined records of gun traces
conducted by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and found that for
drug offenses, "assault weapons" were involved in approximately 10% of the
traces. Although the Cox study is (if valid) further proof that "assault
weapons" are hardly the "weapon of choice" of drug criminals, the study did
lend some support to the prohibition forces, in that "assault weapons"
(narrowly defined) are less than 10% of the firearms stock; if the guns
amount to 10% of all drug guns, then the "assault weapons" would be
disproportionately involved in drug crime.
The problem with Cox is that its data does not fit the police data. The
Cox report gave trace percentages for both the nation as a whole, and for
selected major drug cities. As detailed above, the police statistics for the
major cities report far less prevalence of "assault weapons" than the Cox
report claimed to find.
Cox's problem may be that BATF traces are not an accurate indicator of
which guns are used in crime. It may be true that police, in the rare instances
when they confiscate an "assault weapon" are more likely to request a BATF
trace. One reason may be that most "assault weapons" were manufactured after
the Gun Control Act of 1968, and therefore have a serial number, and
therefore can be traced.{86}
References:
62. 135 CONG. REC. $ 3634 (daily ed. April 11, 1989). Other witnesses have
testified to Congress in 1988 when the Brady Bill was under consideration,
that the "Saturday night special" was the weapon of choice of drug dealers.
_Hearings, _supra note 18, at 62.
63. SENATE REPORT, _supra note 6, at 1-2. The title of S. 747 was "The Anti-
drug, Assault Weapons Limitation Act of 1989."
64. Roberti-Roos, _supra note 6, at $ 12275.5.
65. Hearings, _supra note 18, at 77 (quoting a March 13, 1989 article in the
Akron Beacon-Journal that included an interview with Akron patrolman Robert
Offret. Offret works in the patrol's property room).
66. _Id.
67. Jay Edward Simkin, "Control Criminals, Not Guns," Wall St. J., March 25,
1991.
68. "Chicago Police Back Assault Weapon Ban Approved by Senate," Southtown
Economist, June 12, 1990.
69. Reply Brief of State of Colorado, _Robertson, _et _al, _plaintiffs,
_State _of _Colorado, _plaintiff-intervenor _v. _City _and _County _of
_Denver, no. 90CV603 (Colorado district court), at 13-15.
70. American Shooting Sports Coalition, Inc., _ASSC _Analysis _of _S. _747
_as _Revised.- _DeConcini _"Anti-Drug _Assault _Weapons _Limitation _Act"
(Fort Washington, Pennsylvania, 1990), p. 5.
71. "Assault Weapons/Crime Survey In Florida For Years 1986, 1987, 1988,
1989" (1990).
72. SENATE REPORT, supra note 6, at 18 (testimony of Detective Jimmy L.
Trahin of the Los Angeles Police Department Firearms/Forensics Ballistics
Unit). Trahin's calculations were based on S. 386's broader definition of
"assault weapon."
73. Letter of Thomas E. Hickman, State's Attorney for Carroll County,
Maryland, submitted to the Maryland Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee,
February 14, 1991, p. 1-3.
74. _Ibid.
75. Trooper M. Arnold, Massachusetts State Police, Firearms Identification
Section, "Mass State Police Ballistics Records." As of March 14, 1990, no
such guns had been used in a fatal shooting that year in Massachusetts.
76. Sgt. W. Reins, Memorandum to Chief J. Laux, April 3, 1989.
77. Testimony of Deputy Chief Joseph Constance of the Trenton New Jersey
Police Department, before the Maryland Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee,
March 7, 1991, p. 3.
78. "Florio Urges Ban on Assault Rifles, Stresses His Support for Abortion,"
Newark Star-Ledger, July 18, 1989, at 15.
79. Lt. Moran of the New York City Police Ballistics Unit, in _White _Plains
_Reporter-Dispatch, March 27, 1989 (Associated Press report).
80. "Smaller Guns are 'Big Shots' with the Hoods," S.D. Union, Aug. 29, 1991
(report of study by city's firearms examiner).
^LTHE "ASSAULT WEAPON" PANIC 54
81. _Hearings, _supra note 18, at 68.
82. Wall St. J., April 7, 1989, at A12, col. 3 (statement of George R.
Wilson, chief of the firearms section of the Metropolitan Police Department).
_See _also Wash. Post, March 6, 1989, at BI, col. 6 (Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, and Firearms statistics show that less than 10% of weapons seized in
the District in 1988 were rifles of any type, and that out of 72 murder
weapon traces, only one weapon was a rifle of any type).
83. Kent Jenkins, "Calls for Ban Boost Assault Rifle Sales: Weapons Not
Considered Factor in Killings," _Washington _Post, March 6, 1989, page B1.
84. _Hearings, _supra note 18, at 73. In 1990, 3.7% of homicides were
perpetrated with rifles. FBI, Uniform Crime Reports, CRIME IN THE UNITED
STATES 1990 (1991).
85. "A Decade of Peace Officers Murdered in California: The 1980s," _J. _of
_Calif. _Law _Enf., at 6-7.
86. Gun prohibitionists sometimes also note that the percentage of "assault
weapons" used in crime has increased (although, as detailed above, the city-
by-city police reports do not always support this claim). Since the number of
"assault weapons" (narrowly defined) has risen by 500% from 1986 to 1990, it
would not be surprising to see an increased percentage appear in crime. The
larger a percentage of the overall gun stock that any type of gun represents,
the more often it might be expected to appear in crime statistics. The rise
in "assault weapons" as a percentage of crime guns is far less than the rise
of general ownership of the weapons. The result supports the hypothesis that
"assault weapons" are disfavored as crime guns since their bulk makes
them difficult to conceal. _See S.D. Union, Aug. 29, 1991 (police firearms
examiner reports that criminals continue to prefer small, concealable
handguns).
One widely-circulated factoid is the claim that an "assault weapon" is
"20 times more likely" than an ordinary gun to be used in a crime. The "20
times" figure is derived by claiming that "assault weapons" are only 1/2 of
1% of the gun stock, and since they are involved (according to Cox) in 10%
drug traces, that an "assault weapon" is 20 times more likely to be misused
than other guns (10% being 20 times .5%). The obvious fallacies of the
calculation are the incorrect assumption that "assault weapons" are only .5%
of the firearms stock (when they are at least 1.5%, see note 53, _supra), and
assuming that being involved in 10% of BATF drug traces is the same as being
involved in 10% of all crime.
Supporters of gun prohibition speaking on the floor of the U.S. Senate
asserted that the 15 DeConcini guns were "used last year [1989] in over 30%
of attacks on police officers by drug dealers, street gangs and
terrorists." J. Harper Wilson, Chief of the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting
Section (the nation's center for crime statistics), was asked by an NRA
researcher if there was any crime reporting data he knew of which supported
the 30% claim. He replied: "The UCR Section does not collect data that you
requested, and is unaware of any agency that does." J. Harper Wilson, letter
to Dr. Paul Blackman, Sept. S, 1990, at 2. The NRA researcher posed a follow-
up question: "Assuming precise data on firearms used in assault --
particularly broken down by type of assailant -- are not available, is there
any reason to believe the 30% figure is approximately correct? What sorts of
firearms are generally used in fatal and non-fatal assaults on law
enforcement officers? Are there any noticeable trends, particularly among the
above-named [DeConcini 17] guns?" The FBI office's reply was: "a. No." (There
is no reason to believe the 30 % figure is credible.); "b. Many different
makes" (are used in attacks on police officers); and "c. No." (There are no
trends involving types of guns used in attacks on officers, and no trends
involving the 17 DeConcini gun types). _Id.
In other words, the 30% figure was dismissed by FBI as having no
credible basis. The figure was nevertheless fed to U.S. Senators by gun
prohibitionists with little regard for truth, repeated on the floor of the
Senate by Senators who staffers apparently had little ability to verify the
truth, and will likely continue be used on the floor of the U.S. House of
Representatives and in state legislatures for years to come, even though the
FBI has stated in print that the figure has no credibility.
Dan Day
> Hunting?
> Self defense?
> Taking out some punk dealing on your "turf"?
"I love bursting your naive bubble, volume IIIb", in which I demolish
your apparent assumption that so-called "assault weapons" are useless for
self defense:
###### Begin included text, from "The 'Assault Weapon' Panic" by Eric Morgan
###### and David Kopel:
The simplicity of design and ease of use of the gun (nothing except a
revolver is easier to load and shoot) also makes the gun well-suited for
self-defense for persons who are not gun aficionados. The ease of use is,
however, no advantage from the viewpoint of gun prohibitionists.
Councilwoman Cathy Reynolds, sponsor of Denver's gun prohibition, complained
that the guns "are very easy to use."{56}
Enhanced accuracy makes semiautomatics (especially the politically
incorrect rifles) the best self-defense guns in many situations. The firing
of any gun produces recoil ("kick"). Recoil makes it more difficult to aim
and control a shot. Guns with lesser recoil are easier to fire safely, and
better-suited for self-defense. People without a great deal of upper body
strength -- such as some women, the elderly, or the frail -- may find a low-
recoil gun to be the only kind they can use successfully for self-defense.
In a semiautomatic, the energy from the gun-powder explosion is directed
forward (rather than backwards towards the shooter). The energy is used to
load the next cartridge into the firing chamber, ready for a new trigger
squeeze. As a result,
semiautomatics have lower recoil than other guns, and are therefore quite
appropriate for use in situations where accuracy is crucial for safety, such
as self-defense in an urban environment.
In addition, some of the politically incorrect semiautomatic rifles have
a pistol grip in front of the trigger guard. The pistol grip helps stabilize
the firearm, to keep the barrel from rising after the first shot, and thereby
stay on target for a follow-up shot.
Guns with folding stocks are sometimes singled out for harsh treatment.
For example, the New Jersey legislature's "assault weapon" ban outlawed only
models of the Ruger Mini-14 which have a folding stock. A folding stock makes
a gun shorter, and hence more maneuverable in a confined setting such as a
home, and hence harder for an attacker to take away.{57} Maneuverability
and retainability are of little value in duck blinds and skeet ranges -- the
places where the gun prohibition lobby is currently willing to concede the
legitimacy of gun use. Maneuverability and retainability can make the
difference between life and death in a home under attack by a burglar, and it
is in the home, not in duck blinds, where the Constitution more clearly
guarantees the right to bear arms.
Under legislation sponsored by Representative William Hughes in 1990,
any gun which could accept a bayonet could be considered an illegal "assault
weapon." Bayonets are obviously of no sporting utility, although they could
be marginally useful in the
personal and civil defense contexts that are at the core of the Second
Amendment.{58} The major problem with the bayonet-ban, however, is that any
rifle can accept a bayonet, thanks to after-market bayonet adapters.
Moreover, it might be wondered how many, if any, crimes have ever been
committed by criminals charging their victim with a bayonet.
The sum of all the features described above makes many of the
politically incorrect semiautomatic rifles well-suited for defense against
many types of crime. Other "assault weapons," too, may have special defensive
utility. For example, the broadest definition of "assault weapon" encompasses
a semiautomatic firearm with a detachable or large-capacity magazine. Gulf
Coast pleasure boaters have been stocking up on such guns, including Uzi
pistols. Why? Because drug smugglers sometimes pull alongside pleasure boats,
murder all the passengers, use the boat to transport a load of drugs to the
mainland, and then abandon the boat. The drug runners do their killing with
rapid-fire guns stolen from the military, or bought on the same international
black market that supplies cocaine by the pound.
Boat owners who hope to survive an encounter with the smugglers must arm
themselves with reliable weapons capable of firing accurately at several
attackers in succession.
Anyone who reasonably fears attack by a gang could reasonably conclude
that a semiautomatic rifle or pistol is the most effective device to protect
his or her family from murder.
In rural areas, farmers who may confront a bear attacking their
livestock also carry semiautomatics. Bears do not fall down after being shot
just once. In urban areas, criminals under the influence of drugs are often
not stopped by one shot, and sometimes not stopped by several shots. The
capacity to keep firing at an attacker until the attacker stops may determine
if the victim lives or dies.
That the guns to be prohibited may sometimes be the best firearms for
self-defense does not matter to some advocates of prohibition. As New York
City Mayor David Dinkins responded to self-defense arguments: "I'm telling
you this nonsense that the Constitution entitles us to a weapon to defend
ourselves is not an appropriate response to [gun prohibition]
legislation."{59} Mayor Dinkins, whose 24 hour-a-day government bodyguards
don tuxedos for the Mayor's black-tie evening social functions, need not
concern himself with the "nonsense" of personally owning a gun for self -
defense. Most Americans are not so fortunate.
F. So-called "Assault Weapons" Have Practical Utility for Modern
Conditions.
So-called "assault weapons,' particularly the politically incorrect
semiautomatic rifles, are well-suited for personal defense against
criminals.{209} More significantly, from a Second Amendment viewpoint, they
are well-suited for community defense against dangers both internal and
external.
1. Domestic Disorder
Americans watched in horror when television showed the Cambodian school
children killed by a deranged criminal with a Kalashnikov rifle, in a
Stockton, California, schoolyard in January 1989. America's "Drug Czar"
William Bennett informed the American people that Kalashnikovs were guns made
only for drug traffickers, like the Crips and Bloods gangs in Los Angeles.
Through Bennett and the television networks, America heard one story about
semiautomatic rifles. Another, equally dramatic story, never was heard
outside Los Angeles. In May 1988, the Bloods attacked a Los Angeles housing
project containing Cambodians. The Cambodians fought back with M1s and
Kalashnikovs and drove away the Bloods."{210}
To defend a neighborhood from Bloods on Piru Street, Los Angeles, "some
block clubs had to resort to armed guerilla warfare," reports the _Washington
_Times_. One block club leader met with Mayor Bradley, with Police Chief
Daryl Gates, and with the city attorney (all vocal gun prohibitionists) and
achieved nothing. Drug dealers continued to shoot at block club members, but
now the block club fired back. After club leader Norris Turner shot and
wounded two gang members who had tried to ambush and kill him on the street,
Turner threatened to call the media. Police presence increased, and the
neighborhood was cleaned up.{211}
The War on Drugs took on a new meaning in September 1989 in Tacoma,
Washington, where angry citizens gathered for an anti-crime rally. Spurred by
the rally,
an off-duty sergeant organized a dozen off-duty Army Rangers and went into
free-fire combat with neighborhood crack dealers. Up to 300 rounds of
handgun, shotgun, and semiautomatic rifle fire were exchanged. No fatalities
resulted, and Washington Governor Booth Gardner praised the gunmen: "They
were very good shots. They weren't shooting to harm. They were shooting to
make a point, I think." The police mediated a truce, whereby the drug
dealers agreed to stop dealing in the streets, and the neighborhood agreed to
put away its guns.{212}
Citizens of the United States have often used personal sidearms to aid
law enforcement officials in restoring public order.{213} In 1977, a
blizzard in Buffalo, New York, and a flood in Johnstown, Pennsylvania, both
prompted local officials to call for citizens to arm themselves and restore
the public order.{214} In other situations, as in the aftermath of an
earthquake or hurricane, there not even may not even be any public officials
around to urge citizens to protect themselves. In the chaotic frontier
circumstances of an area after a natural disaster -- or the modern inner city
under day-to-day conditions -- a reliable, rugged, easy to operate firearm is
the type of arm which is most necessary for the protection of life.
2. National Defense
The most recent instance in which people of the United States mobilized
"bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the
time" to defend their nation was during World War II.
After Pearl Harbor the citizen militia was called to duty. Nazi
submarines were constantly in action off the East Coast. On the West Coast,
the Japanese seized several Alaskan islands, and strategists wondered if the
Japanese might follow up on their dramatic victories in the Pacific with an
invasion of the Alaskan mainland, Hawaii, or California. Hawaii's governor
summoned armed citizens to man checkpoints and patrol remote beach
areas.{215} Maryland's governor called on "the Maryland Minute Men,"
consisting mainly of "members of Rod and Gun Clubs, of Trap Shooting Clubs
and similar organizations," for "repelling invasion forays, parachute raids,
and sabotage uprisings," as well as for patrolling beaches, water supplies,
and railroads. Over 15,000 volunteers brought their own weapons to duty.{216}
Gun owners in Virginia were also summoned into home service.{217}
Americans everywhere armed themselves in case of invasion.{218}
After the National Guard was federalized for overseas duty, "the
unorganized militia proved a successful substitute for the National Guard,"
according to a Defense Department study. Militiamen, providing their own
guns, were trained in patrolling, roadblock techniques, and guerilla
warfare.{219} The War Department distributed a manual recommending that
citizens keep guerilla weapons on hand.{220}
References:
56. Cathy Reynolds, _Headlines (newsletter).
57. Not all the useful defensive accessories are on the "assault weapons"
which are rifles. Imagine a parent confronted with a drug and alcohol-crazed
burglar. Shooting the burglar might be the only way to save nearby children
from violence. But a conventional hunting rifle cartridge would penetrate the
criminal, then a wall, and might hit a child. The parent would be better off
with a shotgun loaded with light birdshot -- to knock the burglar down, but
not penetrate a wall.
On the other hand, suppose the burglar's entry had transpired a little
differently. The whole family might be huddled in one room, while the burglar
kicked and banged at the creaking door. Then the optimal self-defense shot
would be a slug from a shotgun -- to crash through the thick door and into
the burglar.
In short, different home family defense situations require different
ammunition. An excellent gun for home defense, then, would be a shotgun for
which the shooter could rapidly select different loads. There is such a gun.
It is called the Striker 12, because it is a shotgun with an external
rotating cylinder. The shooter can quickly dial any of 12 different rounds.
58. _See part V, _infra.
59. "Council Panel OKs Ban on Assault Weapons," _New _York _Post, July 25,
1991.
210. _Los _Angeles _Times, May 13, 1988, at U, 3.
211. "Block Clubs Wage the Battle," _Washington _Times, November 25, 1988, p.
C6.
212. "Drug Battle Truce," _Rocky _Mountain _News, September 29, 1989, p. 4;
"Anti-Drug Gun Battle Spurs Demand for Firearms," _Gun _Week, November 3,
1989, p. 9, citing _Spokane _Chronicle.
213. 135 CONG. REC. S1869-70 (daily ed. Feb. 28, 1989).
214. _Hearings, _supra note 18, at 77.
215. Alan Gottlieb, "Gun Ownership: A Constitutional Right," _Northern
_Kentucky _Law _Review 10 (1982): 138.
216. Governor O'Conor of Maryland delivered a radio address on March 10,
1942, at which he called for volunteers to defend the state: "[Tlhe
volunteers, for the most part, will be expected to furnish their own
weapons. For this reason, gunners (of whom there are sixty thousand licensed
in Maryland), members of Rod and Gun Clubs, of Trap Shooting and similar
organizations will be expected to constitute a part of this new military
organization." State Papers and Addresses of Governor O'Conor, vol III, p.
618, quoted in Bob Dowlut, "The Right to Bear Arms: Does the Constitution or
the Predilection of Judges Reign?" _Oklahoma _Law _Review 36 (1985): 76-77,
n. 52. See also D. Kates, _Why _Handgun _Bans _Can't _Work 74 (1982), citing
Baker, "I Remember 'The Army' with Men from 16 to 79," _Baltimore _Sun
_Magazine, November 16, 1975, p. 46.
217. M. Schlegel, _Virginia _On _Guard-Civilian _Defense _and _the _State
_Militia _in _the _Second _World _War (Richmond: Virginia State Library,
1949), pp. 45, 129, 131. According to Schlegel, the Virginia militia "leaned
heavily on sportsmen," because they could provide their own weapons. Ibid.,
p. 129; quoted in Bob Dowlut, "State Constitutions and the Right to Keep and
Bear Arms," _Oklahoma _City _University _Law _Review 2 (1982): 198.
218. "To Arms," TIME, March 30, 1942, p. 1.
219. Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense, _U.S. _Home _Defense
_Forces _Study (March 1981), pp. 32, 34, 58-63, quoted in Dowlut, "State
Constitutions," p. 197.
220. Originally printed as Bert Levy, _Guerilla _Warfare (New York: Penguin
Books, 1942), p. 55; reprinted as B. Levy, _Guerilla _Warfare (Panther
Publications: 1964), p. 56; quoted in Dowlut, "State Constitutions," p. 198,
n. 91.
Dan Day
>they cost so much more, and are so prefered by drug dealers and teenage gangs?
"I love bursting your naive bubble, volume IIa", in which I demolish
your assumption that they're different from other guns in ways
beyond cosmetics:
###### Begin included text, from "The 'Assault Weapon' Panic" by Eric Morgan
###### and David Kopel:
In sum, the types of weapons targeted by current legislation are not
assault rifles at all; the prohibited "assault weapons" are only capable of
semiautomatic fire. This definitional problem is more than a semantic quibble
because it can limit any possibility that the so called "assault weapon"
legislation will alleviate the problems targeted in its passage. Legislating
against semiautomatic firearms that happen to look like military weapons does
not draw any meaningful distinctions between those firearms that are banned
as "assault weapons" and those that are not.{33} The attempt to single out
some semiautomatics as uniquely dangerous is not based on significant
functional characteristics of those guns, as the next section details.
E. Features that Semiautomatic "Assault Weapons" Share with other
Semiautomatics and other Firearms
Little functional difference exists between military look-alike
semiautomatic firearms and semiautomatic firearms of a more traditional
design. When the "assault weapon" furor first erupted, the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco and Firearms explained to Congress:
The AK-47 is a select fire weapon capable of firing 600 rounds per
minute on full automatic and 40 rounds per minute on semiautomatic.
The AKS and AK-47 are similar in appearance. The AK-47 is an NFA
[National Firearms Act of 1934] type weapon, having been
manufactured as a machine gun. The AKS is difficult to convert,
requiring additional parts and some machinery ... _The _AKS _is _a
_semiautomatic _that, _except _for _its _deadly _military
_appearance, _is _no _different _from _other _semiautomatic
_rifles. _As _a _matter _of _fact, _the _identical _firearm _with
_a _sport _stock _is _available _and, _in _appearance, _no
_different _than _other _so-called _sporting _weapons_.{34}
(emphasis added).
This section examines the features which gun prohibitionists claim
distinguish semiautomatic "assault weapons" from other semiautomatics, and
from other firearms.
1. Ammunition capacity.
Some bills, such as Senator Howard Metzenbaum's S.386, have tried to use
the capability to accept large-capacity ammunition magazines in
distinguishing between acceptable semiautomatics and "assault weapons."{35}
However, a distinction based on
the ability of a weapon to accept a large magazine is pointless because any
weapon capable of accepting a box magazine can utilize a magazine of
indeterminate capacity.{36}
The only meaningful way to ban a gun based on its potential large
ammunition capacity would be to outlaw all guns which can accept detachable
magazines. Such a ban is a political impossibility in the United States.
A more logical approach to controlling ammunition capacity would be to
regulate or outlaw magazines that hold more than a certain number of rounds,
as President Bush has proposed. The main objection to magazine control is
that there would be little if any practical gain in public safety. Since it
requires only about 1.5 seconds to change a magazine, criminals could fire
three 10 round magazines in essentially the same time they could fire two 15
round magazines.
2. Rate of Fire.
The rate of fire on a semiautomatic is determined by how fast the
shooter can squeeze the trigger. Thus, all semiautomatics have the same
effective rate of fire. It is incorrect to claim that the semiautomatics
dubbed "assault weapons" have a different rate of fire from semiautomatics
which the anti-gun lobby considers "sporting guns."
Moreover, common hunting shotguns that are not even semiautomatic are
potentially more lethal than semiautomatics.{37} The Winchester Model Twelve
pump action shotgun can fire six "00 buckshot" shells, containing large, .33
caliber shotgun pellets, in three seconds.{38} Since each "buckshot" shell
contains twelve of these .33 caliber pellets, the non-semiautomatic
Winchester shotgun can fire seventy-two potentially lethal projectiles in
three seconds.{39} The Remington Model 1100 12-gauge shotgun is a popular
semiautomatic duck hunting gun,{40} and it can dispatch 72 buckshot pellets
in two and one half seconds.{41} The rate of fire of a semiautomatic
Kalashnikov like the AKS is forty shots per minute.{42} Either the Model 12
or the Model 1100 shotguns, neither of which is currently considered an
"assault weapon," is potentially more dangerous than the proscribed weapons
that have a more evil-looking "military" styling.{43}
3. Difficulty of Conversion to Full Automatic.
According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, so-called
"assault weapons" are "difficult to convert."{44} Expert police testimony
to the California Legislature said the guns "are not easily and readily
convertible."{45}
4. Cartridge Lethality.
As detailed above, real assault rifle ammunition is "intermediate" in
caliber between handgun ammunition (such as for a Colt .45) and full battle
rifle ammunition (such as for a Browning Automatic Rifle). Ammunition for the
politically incorrect semiautomatic rifles that look like assault rifles is
in the same intermediate calibers.{46} As intermediate caliber weapons, the
politically incorrect semiautomatic rifles do not fire the deadlier, high-
caliber ammunition used by guns designed especially for big-game hunting.
Although some prohibitionists have claimed "assault weapons" fire a
high-velocity bullet which produces unusually large gaping wounds, there is
no scientific support for this theory.{47} The AKS rifle (a Kalashnikov
variant) achieves 1,445 foot pounds of kinetic energy per second. (The number
is a combination of bullet weight and velocity.) In contrast, the 30-'06
hunting rifle creates 2,820 foot-pounds of energy.{48} Even Handgun
Control's own videotape rejects the science fiction velocity theory.{49}
Ironically, the intermediate calibers used in real assault rifles (and
in politically incorrect semiautomatics which look like assault rifles) have
actually been designed not to kill. The theory is that wounding an enemy
soldier uses up more of his side's resources (to haul him off the battlefield
care for him) than does killing an enemy. Col. Martin L. Fackler, M.D.,
Director of the United States Army Wound Ballistics Lab (the only research
center in the world which studies wound ballistics), states:
Military bullets are designed to limit tissue disruption -- to
wound rather than kill. The full-metal-jacketed bullet is actually
more effective for most warfare; it removes the one hit and those
needed to care for him . . . newspaper descriptions comparing their
effects with a grenade exploding in the abdomen . . . must cause
the thinking individual to ask: . . .how is it possible that 29
children and one teacher out of 35 hit in the Stockton schoolyard
survived . . .? If producers of assault rifles had advertised
their effects as depicted by the media, they would be liable to
prosecution under truth-in-advertising laws.{50}
5. Never Used by the Military
Although the anti-gun lobby asserts that so-called "assault weapons" are
"weapons of war," the claim is false. Because the guns are all semiautomatic,
and incapable of automatic fire, they are not used by any army in the
world.{51}
6. Commonly Owned.
American civilians have owned semiautomatics since the 1890s, and
currently an estimated twenty to thirty million own the firearms covered by
the broader definitions of "assault weapon."{52} Americans own approximately
3.3 million politically incorrect
semiautomatic rifles with a military appearance.{53}
G. Summary: The Difference between Guns and Pornography
Said Los Angeles County Sheriff Sherman Block, "Semiautomatic assault
weapons in their present legal incarnations are not inherently more deadly
than their more conventional hunting-style cousins."{60} Former Attorney
General Richard Thornburgh expressed the same idea when he told the Senate
Judiciary Committee that the Committee's "assault weapon" legislation had
nothing to do with the function of the banned guns, but instead seemed to
focus on whether the gun had a black plastic stock. Current legislation that
attempts to ban these improperly defined classes of "assault weapons" will
not remove any unusually dangerous weapons from the public sphere.
How could legislatures expend so much energy on outlawing guns which,
except for appearances, are no more dangerous than many other guns?
The answer is that most of the legislators who wrote and voted the gun
bans have never actually studied the functional characteristics of "assault
weapons." Gun bans are not drafted by technical experts who compare guns at
a firing range. Instead, the California gun list (which is the source of the
list in most other gun-banning jurisdictions) was derived by flipping through
a picture book of guns, and picking out the guns which looked most
menacing.{61} When one of the sponsors of the California gun ban was
challenged about what an "assault weapon" really was, the Senator replied
that he knew one when he saw one.
The Senator's reply directly echoed former Supreme Court Justice Potter
Stewart's claim about pornography, "I know it when I see it." Pornography,
however, _is_ the picture; the social harm said to be caused from pornography
depends on the nature of the picture and its effect on the viewer. Whether
the picture is real or is a computer simulation is irrelevant.
In contrast, "assault weapons" are not pictures of guns. "Assault
weapons" are guns. A picture cannot convey the gun's rate of fire or many
other features that make a particular gun unique. Indeed, relying on pictures
of guns rather than on functional tests of guns can lead to embarrassing
results. California, for example, has outlawed an "semiautomatic assault
weapon" dubbed the "Encom CM-55" shotgun. In a picture book, the CM-55
shotgun appears particularly "Military," since it has large pistol grip and
a ventilated barrel. But despite appearances, the CM-55 is not an "assault
weapon," or even a semiautomatic. The CM-55 is a single-shot weapon. Its
ammunition capacity is one shot. After firing the one shot, the CM-55 must be
manually reloaded. But because of the CM-55's threatening appearance, the gun
is now an illegal "assault weapon" in California.
The problem with the CM-55 symbolizes the problem with the whole
"assault weapon" issue. The guns which are banned are not functionally more
dangerous than guns which are not banned. "Assault weapon" bans are based on
pictures and appearances rather than reality.
References:
33. Several senators noted, "The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms
has no definition of 'assault weapon.' The military definition -- a selective
fire weapon capable of firing in either an automatic or a semiautomatic mode
-- is inapplicable to the commercial arena." _See SENATE REPORT, _supra note
6, at 16. The senators also stated that the definition was inapplicable
because military-style semiautomatics are not
distinguishable in function or in dangerousness from other more traditional
semiautomatic designs. Id. at 17.
Since then, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms has coined its
own definition of "semiautomatic assault rifle." The definition is a set of
criteria which BATF used to bar semiautomatic rifles from import. The barred
rifles, BATF said, "generally met" the criteria of: "a. military appearance,
b. large magazine capacity, and c. semiautomatic version of a machinegun."
_Report _and _Recommendation _of _the _ATF _Working _Group _on _the
_Importability _of _Certain _Semiautomatic _Rifles, July 6, 1989, at 5.
BATF technical experts had proposed that only a few guns be barred from
import, but their decision was overruled by the White House. BATF currently
allows imports of the cosmetically altered versions of the banned guns, in
which folding stocks have been replaced by fixed wooden stocks and bayonet
lugs removed.
34. _Hearings, _supra note 18, at 70. _See _also Milek, _Shooting _Bench,
GUNS & AMMO, November 1989, at 16 (stating that, for example, the military-
style HK-91 is just a like-chambered variant of the HK-770 Sporter, and that
there are no real differences between weapons labeled as "assault weapons"
and sporting rifles such as the semiautomatic Remington Model 7400 Sporter).
35. _See _supra note 17.
36. _Hearings, _supra note 18, at 68.
37. _Id.
38. _Id. _See _also Steele, _Guns _for _Today's _Detectives, PETERSON'S
HANDGUNS, October 1989, at 56, 60 (stating that Federal Witness protection
teams have chosen Remington Model 870 pump shotguns because "the shotgun at
close range comes closer in achieving total stopping efficiency than anything
else").
39. 135 CONG. REC. S1873 (daily ed. Feb. 28, 1989).
40. Handgun Control, Inc. co-chairman Nelson Shields uses this shotgun for
sport. _Id.
41. _Id.
42. _See Ezell, _Supra note 19, at 164.
43. 135 CONG. REC. S1873-74 (daily ed. Feb. 28, 1989).
44. Statement of Edward D. Conroy, Deputy Associate Director, Law
Enforcement, BATF, before U.S. Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution, Feb.
10, 1989, at 1; N.Y. Times, Apr. 3, 1989.
45. Detective Jimmy Trahin, Firearms/Forensics Ballistics Unit, LAPD, before
Calif. State Assembly, Feb. 13, 1989.
46. _See Milek, _Shooting _Bench, GUNS & AMMO, November 1989, at 16.
47. The banned pistols are mostly in the .45 or 9mm calibers, and have the
same velocity as any other pistol in that caliber. The banned rifles are
mostly .308, 7.62 x 39mm, or .223 caliber. Therefore, they have equal
or lesser velocity than standard hunting weapons; most hunting weapons fire
a larger caliber, and are designed to kill large animals a long distance
away, rather than to wound humans a short distance away.
48. "Firearms Market Thrives Despite an import Ban," N.Y. Times, Apr. 3,
1989.
49. Handgun Control, Inc., "The Deadly Distinction" videotape (Interview with
Dr. Hermann, Director of Institute for Forensic Sciences. The Uzi bullet is
"slightly larger and slightly faster than the .38 special [a medium-sized
handgun bullet]. It does not produce a large cavitary destructive wound
through the body.")
50. Wall St. I., April 10, 1989, at A13, col. 1 (letter to the editor); _see
_also Maddox, _Facts _Don't _Seem _to _Matter _in _Ak-47 _Debate, Charlotte
Observer, Oct. 29, 1989, at B1, cols. 2-4 (noting that the objective of
combat fire is "to wound rather than kill").
51. The lack of automatic capability is most important in regards to the
rifles. The military does use the same semiautomatic handguns that civilians
own, such as the Beretta 92 or the Colt 1911. One pistol on most "assault
weapon" lists, the Uzi pistol, actually is used by an army (Israel's).
52. 135 CONG. REC. $ 3015 (daily ed. March 17, 1989). Some civilians own
military-look semiautomatic rifles as part of rifle collections or as
nostalgic reminders of service in the military. _See, _e.g., _Commemorative
_M-16 _Offer, GUNS & AMMO, June 1989, at 7 (offering Vietnam veterans an
engraved, semiautomatic version of their service rifle with a frame for wall-
mounting). Even such benign commemorative would fall within the sweep of
legislation like S. 747 because they could conceivably be taken out of the
frame and fired.
53. Institute for Research on Small Arms in International Security, "Assault
Rifle Fact Sheet #2: Quantities of Semi-automatic 'Assault Rifles' Owned in
the United States" (1989) at 1. The exact estimate was 3,335,610.
60. L.A. Times, Feb. 24, 1989, at V5, col. 3. Block also stated that Patrick
Purdy could have "wreaked equal havoc" in Stockton with a number of other
more common semiautomatics, and that "a semiautomatic rifle is
a semiautomatic rifle, whether it was designed for military or other
purposes, and the reality is that semiautomatic military weapons have been
available for many years, certainly since World War II." _Id.
61. State of Florida, Commission on Assault Weapons, _Report (May 18, 1990),
summary of March 18, 1990 meeting, at 3 (Commission member stating that
California "chose those weapons from a book of pictures").
Dan Day
> Hunting?
> Self defense?
> Taking out some punk dealing on your "turf"?
"I love bursting your naive bubble, volume IIIa", in which I demolish
your apparent assumption that so-called "assault weapons" are useless for
hunting:
###### Begin included text, from "The 'Assault Weapon' Panic" by Eric Morgan
###### and David Kopel:
IV. THE MANY SPORTING USES FOR FIREARMS LABELED "ASSAULT WEAPONS" -- AND WHY
MOST SUCH USES ARE IRRELEVANT
Supporters of "assault weapon" legislation assert that they are not
impinging on the right to bear arms because "assault weapons" are not
"sporting guns." In fact, many "assault weapons" are well-suited for target
shooting and other sports.
The fact that some "assault weapons" are related in design history to
military firearms does not mean that they are unsuitable for field sports.
After all, firearms styled after military weapons have been the favorites of
sportsmen throughout United States history and semiautomatic rifles that look
like military rifles are no exception.{128}
That most "assault weapons" are well-suited for sports, however, has
little to do with why society should encourage their ownership.
A. Hunting
Proponents of laws against semiautomatics enjoy making the strawman
argument that no-one requires a 30 round magazine to go hunting. The point is
true, and it is already illegal in every state to hunt with more than a
specified number of rounds (usually 3 to 6) in the magazine. The fact that 30
round magazines are not useful for hunting, however, has nothing to do with
whether guns that can use small or large magazines (e.g. most semiautomatics)
are good for hunting.
It is also true that politically incorrect semiautomatic rifles are not
as accurate at long distances as traditional bolt-action hunting guns. The
longer barrel length and tighter chambering of the bolt action guns gives
them greater long-ranger accuracy (especially for a single shot) than is
enjoyed by most semiautomatics. (The semiautomatics' pistol grips and low
recoil improve accuracy for repeated shots at shorter ranges, as discussed
above at page 26, but the bolt action's advantages become more important for
single shots at longer distances.)
One other disadvantage of "assault weapons" as big-game hunting guns is
that they fire only intermediate-sized cartridges, and not the large
cartridges necessary to kill large animals such as moose or elk from far
away. Thus, it is not surprising that most hunting guides (who tend to
specialize in big game) do not place semiautomatic "assault weapons" at the
top of their recommendation list for hunting rifles.
Nevertheless, many hunters do prefer to use a Kalashnikov or Colt AR-15
Sporter rifle.
First of all, the intermediate caliber cartridge used in most "assault
weapons" is adequate for game no larger than deer at reasonable
distances.{129} Significantly, the ruggedness and durability of "assault
weapons" makes them well-suited for the rough outdoor conditions of
hunting.{130}
Further, the low-recoil semiautomatic mechanism and pistol grip make an
accurate second shot easier. That is why a Finnish company has designed a
Kalashnikov especially for hunting, the Valmet Hunter, which is especially
prized for its quick follow-up shots. Similarly, Rugers and Colts are
particularly popular as ranch or varmint-control rifles.{131} The
destructive power of a single cartridge is low enough for the guns to be
usable on rodents, and the greater accuracy of the follow-up shots makes the
guns more effective.
B. Competitive Target Shooting
Some politically incorrect rifles, such as the Colt AR-15 Sporter and
the HK-91
are among the best-built rifles that a citizen can purchase. With sterling
accuracy (at shorter distances), they are valuable target rifles.{132}
For competitive target-shooting, the military design background of some
"assault weapons" makes them the most preferred of all firearms. The apex of
the world of target shooting is the national target matches held every year
Camp Perry, Ohio, under the supervision of the federal government's Civilian
Marksmanship Program.{133}
In fact, the Colt AR-15 Sporter and its ancestors, loaded with 20 or 30
round magazines, have long been _required_ weapons in some Civilian
Marksmanship competitions.{134} Most of the other politically incorrect
rifles outlawed by the gun bans are usable in other Civilian Marksmanship
events, and are highly prized competition target guns.{135} Before the
"assault weapon" controversy erupted, the firearms experts with the
California Department of Justice had privately warned that "assault weapon"
legislation would devastate the world of target competition.{136}
That the federal government has for many decades encouraged civilians to
purchase and practice with firearms like the Colt indicates that the
assertions of gun prohibitionists that such firearms have "no legitimate use"
is false. Few gun uses could more legitimate that government-sponsored target
competition.
C. The Irrelevance of Sports
Persons who claim that the Second Amendment protects only "sporting
guns" implicitly assert that protection of recreational hunting and target
shooting was seen by the authors of the Bill of Rights as some particularly
important activity to a free society. The framers, as the "sporting gun"
theory goes, apparently intended to exalt sports equipment used in
recreational hunting to a level of protection not enjoyed by equipment for
any other sport. It is true that the framers did see sport hunting as an
activity better suited for building good character than other sports.{137}
Nevertheless, it is difficult to believe that the Framers would follow an
amendment guaranteeing speech, assembly, and the free exercise of religion
with an amendment protecting sporting goods.
Moreover, to the extent that there is a real conflict between public
safety and sports equipment, public safety should win. Except for shooting in
Department of Civilian Marksmanship programs, which have been created to
enhance civil preparedness, recreational use of "assault weapons" does not
directly enhance public safety.{138} Hence, if "assault weapons" posed a
substantial threat to public safety, control would be in order because
protecting many people from death is more important than enjoying sports.
One reason that "assault weapon" bans are improper is that government
statistics prove that "assault weapons" are no more threat to public safety
than any other gun; the "safety vs. sports" conflict is non-existent.
Reflecting a sports-based theory of gun ownership, "assault weapon"
prohibitionists claim that these guns have no purpose except to kill. As a
factual matter, the claims are incorrect. The guns, as detailed in this
section, are frequently used for sports. And ironically, the guns have the
distinction of being the only firearms ever designed to wound rather than to
kill. (See p. 9, _infra_.) But even if the gun prohibitionists' claim were
correct, it would do nothing to militate for a ban on the guns.
Only if all killing were wrong would a gun made for killing be
illegitimate.{139} American law clearly guarantees the natural right to
self-defense, including the right to take an aggressor's life if necessary.
Semiautomatics do not deserve Constitutional protection because they are
sometimes used for hunting. Rather, they deserve protection because they are
militia guns -- because they are made for personal and national defense, as
the next section elaborates.
References:
128. "The single-shot, level-action, and bolt-action rifles which copied the
19th century military firearm in design were the universal choice of
sportsmen until World War I. By World War II, the United States was the
only nation using semiautomatic firearms as standard equipment, and in the
1950's, civilians, too, sought semiautomatic designs for hunting rifles.
There is nothing new about the popularity of military-style firearms,
and there is nothing new about the semiautomatic mechanical action itself.
What is new is the cosmetic appearance of some semiautomatic firearms, as
once again some civilian shooters favor firearms resembling those used by the
military." _Hearings, _supra _note 5, at 68.
129. Jamison, _.223, _.308, _.30-06, _.45-70.: _The _U.S. _Military's
_Fearsome _Foursome, SHOOTING TIMES, March 1990, at 36. This article
notes that four modern military cartridges, and the military-style
semiautomatics that chamber them, have become very popular with hunters. The
author particularly highlights the use of the .223 cartridge by ranchers
attempting to control the populations of varmints such as gophers and
coyotes.
130. _See p. 10, _supra.
131. Milek, _Shooting _Bench, GUNS & AMMO, November 1989, at 16.
132. L.A. Times, Feb. 24, 1989, at V1, cols. 2, 4.
133. _Hearings, _supra note 18, at 70.
134. The Colt AR-15 has an excellent reputation for accuracy and reliability
and has been a preferred rifle in target competitions, which include courses
of fire of under 600 yards. NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION, M-16 AR-15 (1987, NRA
Book Service). In 1977, at Camp Perry, Ohio, these M16 rifles were used by
several shooters of the National Trophy Individual Match event, and they have
also been used in NBPRP and other NRA matches. Id. at 12.
135. 135 CONG. REC. 1872 (daily ed. Feb. 23, 1989).
136. S. Helsley, Acting Assistant Director, Investigation and Enforcement
Branch, memorandum to G. Clemons, Director, Division of Law Enforcement, Oct.
31, 1988, at 4 ("a ban would devastate competitors in California ... assault
weapons cannot be defined in a workable way ... we should leave the issue
alone.").
137. Thomas Jefferson advised his nephew: "Games played with a bat and ball
are too violent, and stamp no character in the mind ... [A]s to the species
of exercise, I advise the gun." J. Foley, THE JEFFERSON ENCYCLOPEDIA (1967),
at 318. Were Jefferson to visit a high school shooting competition, and then
a high school football game where students cheered as a player was slammed to
the ground, Jefferson might think his earlier view confirmed.
138. Because of budget constraints, the DCM program will lose its federal
subsidy. That the program must become financially self-sufficient does not
prove that it is no longer important. Many important federal programs, such
as aviation safety and airport construction, are financed by user fees.
139. It might be interesting to ask the anti-gun lobby why a gun designed to
kill an innocent game animal is more legitimate than a gun designed to
protect an innocent human being against a criminal attack.
Brad Isley
>34. _Hearings, _supra note 18, at 70. _See _also Milek, _Shooting _Bench,
>GUNS & AMMO, November 1989, at 16 (stating that, for example, the military-
>style HK-91 is just a like-chambered variant of the HK-770 Sporter, and that
>there are no real differences between weapons labeled as "assault weapons"
>and sporting rifles such as the semiautomatic Remington Model 7400 Sporter).
[Pro-gunner here]
Just a picky little note here. I hear the pro-gun side say, "There is no
real difference..." a lot and it is mostly true. The point that everybody
misses (and perhaps it's a good thing that they DO miss this point) is:
The semi-auto weapons that are crippled full-auto weapons are capable
of a _sustained_ high rate of fire. Take an M14 and a .308 Remington
7400 to the range and fire them both continuously. See which one melts
down first. The 7400 will slag while the M14 happily purrs along all day.
(I'll leave out the sustained rate of fire limitations, which make it
clear that the M14 cannot fire 60 rounds/min all day. But you get the
general picture.)
(OOPS! I LET THE SECRET OUT! OH NO!!!)
--
br...@slammer.atl.ga.us (Brad Isley) +1 404 925-9663(H) 493-2484(W)
Crankin' Carl
Isley) wrote:
> [Pro-gunner here]
>
> Just a picky little note here. I hear the pro-gun side say, "There is no
> real difference..." a lot and it is mostly true. The point that everybody
> misses (and perhaps it's a good thing that they DO miss this point) is:
>
> The semi-auto weapons that are crippled full-auto weapons are capable
> of a _sustained_ high rate of fire. Take an M14 and a .308 Remington
> 7400 to the range and fire them both continuously. See which one melts
> down first. The 7400 will slag while the M14 happily purrs along all day.
> (I'll leave out the sustained rate of fire limitations, which make it
> clear that the M14 cannot fire 60 rounds/min all day. But you get the
> general picture.)
>
> (OOPS! I LET THE SECRET OUT! OH NO!!!)
What's your point?
The "no real differences" argument is used to point out how foolishly
arbitrary the AW ban is. But it's only one of the arguments that can be
used. Gun bans are simply non-sequitor. The capability of sustaining a
"high rate of fire" is not germain...
--
( ( ( Igor, hand me that ice cream scoop!
) ) ) Ice cream scoop? Are you sure?
( ( ( Yes, dammit! This is brain surgery,
Carl Castrogiovanni '. ___ .' not rocket science!
GTE Laboratories ' (> <) '
----------------------ooO-(_)-Ooo-----------------------------------------
proc...@delphi.com
You cannot fire an M-16 more than 150 rounds or so quick fir without
"cooking off" rounds. In fact, the ability to fire long-term without
overheating ( as much ) is one of the differences between "assault
guns" and full machine gune.
PHP