It is time to ban assault weapons, again

Posted on August 15, 2019

We all know that some guns should be banned or severely restricted. Machine guns, sawed-off shotguns, silencers, grenades, and many other types of extremely dangerous weapons were essentially banned by the commonsense National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934, a law that was, obviously, upheld by the United States Supreme Court.

Semiautomatic assault weapons were also banned by federal law for ten years, from 1994 to 2004, and no court ever struck down that law. Instead, it was allowed to expire by a cowardly Congress in debt to the NRA.

The question today is whether assault weapons should again be banned or severely restricted. Let us compare the quintessential assault weapon, the AR-15, to the guns that have been banned for the past 85 years by the National Firearms Act.

The 1939 Supreme Court ruling that upheld the National Firearms Act, United States v. Miller, focused on whether the Second Amendment allowed a particular gun to be banned. In that case, it was a sawed-off shotgun, meaning where the barrel is less than 18 inches long. The gun at issue was a double-barreled 12-gauge Stevens shotgun that fired two shells and then the user had to hinge it open, remove the shell casings, manually insert new shells, and reclose the gun. So it was among the slowest guns to fire multiple rounds. And yet, the Court considered it entirely reasonable and constitutional for Congress to decide that it was too dangerous for sale to the public.

The NFA also targeted machine guns, but it wasn’t modern machine guns that persuaded Congress to impose strict control, it was the Tommy Gun in the hands of gangsters. The Thompson fires a .45 caliber pistol cartridge which is not very powerful compared to modern military ammunition. An AR-15 firing the military’s standard 5.56 NATO round has a muzzle velocity more than three times faster than the Thompson and shoots accurately (has an effective firing range) about ten times farther than the Thompson. In short, an AR-15 or similar semiautomatic versions of modern military rifles are far more dangerous than the fully automatic Tommy Gun, which virtually everyone (including the Supreme Court) agrees is properly banned.

What makes today’s assault weapons far more dangerous is that each incorporates the features of a modern military rifle or submachine gun, enabling the shooter to fire numerous bullets very rapidly, and yet keep control of the gun. For example, because it’s a version of the M-16, the AR-15 is designed with a pistol grip so it can be fired rapidly from the shoulder or hip; it is designed with a barrel shroud so the non-trigger hand can keep the gun stable during rapid fire; it is designed to accept very large capacity magazines so there is little pause to reload.

The parts or features of an assault weapon are not there to look scary (as the NRA suggests); they are there to make it possible for the shooter to do scary things. With these features, any deranged person can empty a 30 round magazine as fast as he or she can pull the trigger (5 to 15 seconds), while maintaining control of the gun.

Put another way, assault rifles are just as dangerous as a modern military rifle because they are the same gun but fixed in semiautomatic mode. For example, there are two models of the standard military M-16. One has a switch that allows the rifle to be fired in full-auto (bullets stream out as you hold down the trigger) or in semiautomatic mode (one shot for each pull of the trigger). The other has a switch that allows the M-16 to be fired in a three-shot burst or in semiautomatic mode. The AR-15 is virtually identical to an M-16 fixed in semiautomatic mode.

The U.S. Army trains its soldiers that “The most important firing technique during fast-moving, modern combat is rapid semiautomatic fire.” Or as a veteran battlefield reporter explained:

[D]oes the infantry need full auto when most battle-seasoned veterans – including special operators – agree that semi-auto fire is highly effective for suppressing the enemy?… Back in the mid-1980s – before the shift to the M16A2 and the three-round burst – active-duty infantry units kept to a strict rule that rifleman only fired their M16A1s on semi auto. Today’s combat-experienced infantrymen are even more disciplined.

When soldiers fire M-16s in semi-auto, it is exactly the same as if they were firing AR-15s. Would there be a rifle more dangerous than the one our infantry uses in combat? No.

Nobody is arguing that the United States would solve its crisis of gun violence simply by banning assault weapons. But why would any civilized nation allow them to be sold, as we do, to anyone? (Surely you know that no other Western nation does.) The fact is, very little crime is committed by the weapons banned by the National Firearms Act. The NFA ban has been extremely effective. It’s long past time to ban assault weapons as well.

SHARE

Brand-new edition of our advocacy manual, Preparing to Win

Posted on July 31, 2019

Here is the Introduction to our brand-new Second Edition of Preparing to Win: Why an advocacy manual now? We want change; that’s why we are progressive advocates. We seek to redirect and reform public...

SHARE

Brand-new Fourth Edition of Voicing Our Values

Posted on July 17, 2019

This is the Introduction to our brand-new edition of Voicing Our Values: Politics is the art of persuasion. But persuasion is hard and getting harder. Today, facts are rationalized away and lies are ubiquitous....

SHARE

Why we celebrate the Fourth of July

Posted on July 3, 2019

This year, Donald Trump is twisting the traditional nonpartisan “Capitol Fourth” celebration in Washington, D.C. into a grotesque partisan rally featuring himself and military weaponry. This is wrong on so many levels. The Fourth...

SHARE

Avoid the passive voice

Posted on June 19, 2019

Richard Nixon and his press secretary were famously ridiculed for saying “mistakes were made.” And yet, the same phrase has been used by Democrats and Republicans ever since. To many people, the passive voice...

SHARE

Don’t repeat the opponents’ frame

Posted on June 3, 2019

In his book Don’t Think of an Elephant, Professor George Lakoff provides the most basic principle of framing: “Do not use their language. Their language picks out a frame—and it won’t be the frame...

SHARE

Please don’t reject messaging as “spin” or “manipulation”

Posted on May 22, 2019

As we go around the country giving messaging workshops, we’re nearly always asked whether our message framing is a gimmick. After all, conservatives make it seem like a cynical game. They refer to the...

SHARE

Don’t accept the normalization of hate speech

Posted on May 8, 2019

America is not really a nation of laws. Our statutes govern only the grossest of behavior. The way Americans behave toward each other day-to-day—attitude and etiquette, willingness and wariness, prejudice and tolerance—is governed mostly...

SHARE

How do you explain progressive economics?

Posted on April 24, 2019

As you know, conservatives have well-established concepts and language to explain their ideas about economics. And those talking points dominate any conversation with the public. The position themselves as defenders of a “free market” system...

SHARE

Five Words the Media Should Stop Using

Posted on April 11, 2019

Language matters. When the media (or sometimes progressives) use language that indirectly supports the right-wing narrative, it obscures truth and impedes political persuasion. Here are five egregious but common uses of language by the...

SHARE