The Term "Assault Rifle" as Dangerous as Weapon Itself?
When pro-gun blogger Eric at Gunmart Blog wrote that he does not care for the term “modern sporting rifle,” which NSSF has been promoting to describe AR-platform rifles for the last two years, well, he’s entitled to his opinion. However, when he wrote “perhaps we should just embrace the term ‘assault rifle,’ then he becomes an accessory to those who want to ban these sporting firearms. To underscore this point, the vehemently anti-gun Violence Policy Center promoted Eric’s post on its social media outlets. Good exposure for a blogger; wrong audience, though.
And that’s the problem. Whenever someone in the gun-owning community mistakenly calls an AR-platform rifle an assault rifle or an automatic rifle, they are assisting anti-gun organizations and lawmakers who are eager to introduce legislation to restrict ownership of these and potentially other semiautomatic firearms. (By the way, the AR stands for ArmaLite, the company that developed the rifle in the 1950s, and not assault rifle or automatic rifle. See other MSR facts.)
Incorrect labeling of AR-style firearms by gun owners, not to mention anti-gun groups, is what caused NSSF to launch its Modern Sporting Rifle education program. NSSF has driven a broad-based and expensive communications effort to encourage gun owners to better understand AR-platform rifles–that they are not assault rifles, that they are semiautomatics firing one round with each pull of the trigger just like other semiautomatic sporting rifles and that they are in common use for target shooting and hunting. Additionally and importantly, we’ve helped those who reacted to the MSR’s military look to understand how for more than a century civilian sporting rifles have evolved from their military predecessors–such as the bolt-action Springfield 30-06 after World War I and semiautomatic rifle after World War II. The MSR follows in that tradition.
To date, NSSF has had a great response to its educational initiative. The term modern sporting rifle has been widely adopted by the firearms industry and by many leading media outlets.
NSSF continues to ask that media, gun owners and others use the term modern sporting rifle when describing AR-platform rifles, but if for some reason you cannot bring yourself to do so, then we ask you to refer to these firearms by their proper model name and number. Those from the gun-owning community who label them assault rifles are damaging an industry and potentially the right to own these popular semiautomatic rifles. They will also find that those individuals who like their columns best are not their friends.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
Sign-Up Now for the Opposing Views Daily Newsletter
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
I have backed away from nothing. My statement stands. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment as it was written has not changed in over 200 years. As for rate of fire, it's a semi-auto. Every semi-auto on the planet has the same rate of fire: as fast as you can pull the trigger. Again, I hate to repeat myself but you're forcing me to. You are indeed speaking from conjecture. What you are saying is that if civilians have military weapons there will be bloodbaths. Well Brady has said that about every single pro-gun law that has ever been passed and what have we seen as a result? A reduction in crime while the number of guns skyrockets. How is it they have been wrong for 20 years running but you're right by proposing basically the same thing?
You are putting words in my mouth. I said that military weapons are more dangerous than civilian weapons and should not be in general circulation. A misfire or accidental discharge with a MK19 or an M203 or a .50 is much worse than a .410 going off when you drop it. You can see a similar effect with hunting regs where high powered rifles are no longer allowed close to populated areas. I live in Michigan and there is the "shotgun line" for deer hunting. Prior to the shotgun rules, we would hear of stray shots taking out someone in a neighborhood or farmhouse every deer season. The accidental death rate went down when high powered hunting weapons were regulated in Michigan. The prevalence of automatic weapons in gangs led to a huge surge of murders, leading to the peak of 1993. General military weapons have not been available to the public, and things like the Barret are so expensive that few street criminals can justify $10k on a sniper weapon. So.. please don't confuse gun ownership in general with ownership of specific types of weapons and safety regulations in general.
With respect to rate of fire, you don't understand guns if you sum it up as "as quickly as you can pull the trigger." That is simply not true. The rate of fire for semiautomatic weapons is somewhere between 30 and 90 rounds per minute and varies by make, caliber, and modifications to the firing mechanism and body of the weapon such as bushings, ports, etc. The accuracy of a semi related to the rate of fire is also very important in terms of safety. For example, take an unported shotgun with five rounds of 3 1/4" magnum buckshot and see if you can stay on target pulling the trigger as fast as you can. I used to tune .45 ACP handguns for competition, and not all semi-automatic weapons are equivalent in their effective rates of fire.
Also, the crime rate itself has fallen across all states and almost all developed countries regardless of whether gun laws have been liberalized or not. Look at the stats... the effect is universal. The NRA and others have said this is due to liberalized gun laws, but the correct answer is "in spite of liberalized gun laws," meaning reducing gun regulation did not make crime go up. In Canada, the murder rate has dropped more than in half since banning hand guns, but our violent crime rate also fallen everywhere whether there were liberalized carry laws or not. Both sides of the gun argument have used the crime rate incorrectly in their conclusions.
One interesting statistic - the higher the gun ownership rate, the more gun related deaths. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to guess that one, but it ties to the safety issue I have been trying to raise which you summarily reject:
http://www.vpc.org/press/0905gundeath.htm
I am not advocating gun grabbing. I am saying reasonable limits are reasonable, and you don't agree... I get it. You're using a very strict interpretation of the second amendment. I am using a pragmatic argument that still respects gun ownership while establishing limits.
I think we both agree the label "assault weapon" is meaningless. Our differences are where you go from there.
Guess we can stop arguing.... or at least, I'll stop now.
I'm no longer going to respond to comments about weapons like the MK19 and M203. I've repeatedly said I wasn't talking about that kind of weapon. Drop it or argue with yourself. Your choice.
Back to rate of fire: What semi-auto cycles at the rate of one round every two seconds? 30 rounds per minute is ridiculously slow. Even a $189 Hi Point will cycle as fast as normal person can pull the trigger. Bringing accuracy into it is also irrelevant. We're only talking about how fast the weapon itself will spit out ammo. I've never fired a semi-auto, no matter how cheap that wouldn't keep up with a person's trigger finger.
You might want to review your stats on whether or not gun regulation increases crime. D.C. saw an almost immediate and measurable increase in crime after their gun ban went into effect. The same is true for Chicago and Oak Park, Ill. The inverse was true when Kennesaw, GA passed its law mandating that anyone legally allowed to was required to own a gun. Across the nation the most dangerous places to live are the places with the strictest gun control. That's why places that score a zero on the Brady score card, e.g. Utah, have very low crime rates over all. And they (gasp) allow carry on college campuses as well. I wonder why there aren't any mass shooting at Utah universities. Probably just a coincidence.
Another thing about your stats on guns and crime. Don't claim there's no correlation and then post a link to a VPC article that claims that there is a direct correlation. Pick a side. Either there is a correlation and you take the good with the bad, or there isn't. You want it both ways, but it doesn't work that way.
By the way, thanks for your service and for the debate.
CRW,
The "AR" in AR-15 stands for Armalite, the company that developed the rifle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armalite And as the people from NSSF point out, according to the government, the term Assault Rifle is by definition a automatic weapon, not the semi-auto models sold to civilians.
Regards
Okay... I was lazy in finding out what "AR" stood for. Thank you for the correction. 2 minutes on google would have kept me from making this error. However, I think the term "assault rifle" is more ambiguous. My A3 was never fully automatic, and it was a military issued assault rifle. The argument for the A3 was that for an infantry weapon, full-auto was not very effective, but a three round burst could be. Fully auto bipod machine guns like a SAW or M60 had a different mission purpose and were more effective than a fully automatic rifleman weapon. People have tried to make the definition of "assault rifle" more precise, but it is not that clear. Coming back to my post, I think it would be helpful if the court could set limits on the rate of fire even for semi-automatic weapons as well as ballistic limitations to help clearly define the limits between "sporting weapons" and "military weapons." When it comes to side arms, there is no difference, but there should be clear lines for everything else. For example, I really don't see how anyone could justify allowing civilians to own a Barret .50. Some things like a 40MM are crystal clear - no civilian ownership, the problem is establishing a bright line, which has never happened in the legal sense. Rather than focusing on the design of a weapon, I would rather focus on the ballistics and rate of fire.
The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to ensure that civilians were allowed to have the same weapons as the military so they would have the ability to stand against a tyrannical government with a standing army. What you propose is completely antithetical to that purpose.
Not true, or at least SCOTUS has not not interpreted the constitution to mean there must be parity between the military and private citizens... See Miller vs. the United States and DC vs. Heller. A particularly relevant quote from Heller: "Miller stands only for the proposition that the Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons. It is particularly wrongheaded to read Miller for more than what it said, because the case did not even purport to be a thorough examination of the Second Amendment."
The government has the right to regulate within reason the type of weapons available to the public. For example, a private citizen may not purchase nor own a nuclear weapon on the extreme end of things, nor can he own guns such as a phalanx. The problem is the upper limit has not been established, and it should be.
By the way, the idea that the private citizens have matching weapons with the military to fight off the "government" is an anachronism. A group of marines with a Mark19, a .50, and a platoon of riflemen with squad level automatic weapons could hold off hundreds if not thousands of civilians. Not since the civil war has a weapon raised in anger ever had a lasting impact on the government.
The Supreme Court has also said that police in Illinois who kidnapped, tortured, and denied legal representation and due process to a citizen and then extradited him to Michigan did nothing wrong, so forgive me if I don't take everything they say as indicative of the original intent of the framers of the Constitution. (Frisbie v. Collins, 1952) When looking for what the framers intended I use their own words and writings as a guide. They were pretty clear on this whether the Supreme Court chooses to recognize it or not.
Do you understand the word "anachronism?" This means something that is a throwback which is no longer appropriate today. When the framers wrote the constitution, men mostly carried single shot muskets. Also, the distant British government had seized arms as a way of pacifying the locals, making gun ownership a particularly sticky issue. The framers never envisioned an M60 or an AR15 or a Barret .50. The framers intended for citizens to have arms for self-protection, and other reasonable uses, and SCOTUS has vigorously defended this recently with its overturning of overly restrictive gun laws and outright bans. Yes... SCOTUS respects the second amendment. However, the ideas of parity with the military or fighting off a tyrannical government are simply anachronistic. The Supreme Court has made reasonable allowances for the liberal sale and ownership of personal firearms. This is much different from saying the framers intended for Bubba in his pick-um-truck to have the ability to go buy a SAW at Walmart. The framers died a long time ago, and I am sure they would write a different constitution today than what they wrote in 1787. The constitution has to be interpreted in the context of what is and not what was. If we all still carried single shot weapons, I am sure there would be no gun control advocates (or at least many fewer). However, that limitation ended quickly.
The supreme court is not infallible, and decisions will be overturned over time with the most obvious examples being slavery, and civil rights cases. When one court gets it wrong, it is up to future generations to challenge these mistakes to "get it right." The constitution was not written by god. It was written by men and it must be interpreted by other human beings with the good sense to know that what was true in 1787 is not necessarily true today.
No right in the constitution is unlimited. This applies to all of the amendments, including the second.
I'm sorry Mr. Condescending Internet Man. I know full well what the word means. I also know that framers weren't ignorant enough to think that technology had evolved as far as it would. They knew there was a time that bows and arrows and even sticks and rocks were the most advanced weapons of the day, so to think that the thought never crossed their mind that weapon technology could improve is rather insulting. I also know that the framers meant for the Constitution to be a limit on the government's powers, not a grant of unlimited, unchecked power regardless of what our current government thinks. Another thing I know is that your analogy of buying a SAW at Wal Mart is a straw man. So is your argument that no right is unlimited. Nobody is making either of these claims so you either like attempting to put words in peoples' mouths or you enjoy arguing with yourself. In other words, I won't even bother to respond to rebuttals of arguments I never made. But my favorite part of your response is your insinuation that anyone who would dare own a gun that offends you must be some backwoods hick in a 4x4. I'm sure you envision him sleeping with his sister too. Stereotype much? Do me a solid and turn your high horse around and ride back in the direction from which you came.