The U.S. is famous for its liberal gun laws, gun population, and Second Amendment rights. Even a long series of mass murders has produced very little other than heated rhetoric on both sides of the issue of gun control. As a gun owner, I support mandatory background checks, waiting periods, safety training, and sales only through licensed dealers. Unfortunately, it appears the NRA has enough influence to prevent Congress from acting on these items. Most fully automatic rifles (think “machine gun”) have been illegal in the U.S. since 1935, with additional restrictions under the federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994, which included prohibition of magazines larger than 10 rounds. However, without Congressional action the 1994 law expired in 2004, despite pleas from law enforcement officials.
Representative Eric Swalwella of California, seeking to prompt enactment of legislation or to enhance his own popularity (or maybe both), recently proposed banning and confiscating all "military-style semiautomatic assault weapons." Irrespective of the Congressman’s real intent, his language suggests he is either disingenuous or ignorant. Use of the phrase “military-style semiautomatic assault weapons” is inaccurate and misleading, and therefore contributes nothing toward a rational discussion of how to best keep guns out of the hands of those likely to create havoc.
1. First, a brief recap of the purposes/uses of guns –- I understand the position of those who dislike or even hate guns in general, and I do not object to that at all. Many people find all guns offensive because of the great harm caused by those who have used them. Five uses of guns come to mind (I may have missed some), all of which are intended to cause damage to something:
1) Target shooting -- this is how I use mine, and I have caused great damage to a number of paper targets in doing so.
2) Self-defense -- usually, keeping a gun in one's home in case one's home is broken into and/or the person is attacked (I'm prepared for this one, but hope to never need to do so).
3) Hunting -- this is a broad category ranging from persons who hunt game animals for purposes of eating the meat (I don't do this, but it is not totally different from buying meat in a grocery store, provided the animal was killed quickly in both cases) to shooting an animal without use for its meat so one can have it ... or just its head ... stuffed and displayed somewhere (I don't happen to know anyone who does this, but I think it’s terrible).
4) Personal attack -- this includes assault, robbery, murder, etc., all of which are despicable and evil, but very common and the reason for #2 above.
5) War -- the sad event that has been a consistent theme throughout human history, whether the weapons used were clubs, maces, swords, arrows, guns, or bombs. Books have been written about the necessity for war as well as how to end all wars, but none of them have made much difference; mankind has simply known very few times of peace. One could argue that those engaged in war can be divided into good guys and bad guys (the bad guys being those from the nation that was the aggressor or attacked first),, but doing so is overly simplistic. It is highly unlikely the common soldiers on either side of a war wanted or started it; they are the tools used by those in power to get what they want. People have made war on each other at least since the dawn of recorded history and will in all likelihood continue to do so with whatever weapons are available.
2. The existence of #5 above (war) involves military force and therefore military weapons. And it is the existence of military weapons that enable the congressman from California to propose banning and confiscating all "military-style semiautomatic assault weapons." It is this description that led to the conclusion that he is either seriously misinformed or blatantly dishonest. The congressman has the right to propose any type of gun restriction he wishes. And if Congress enacts whatever he introduces, the Supreme Court can decide whether or not it is constitutional. But his use of the phrase "military-style semiautomatic assault weapons" plays on the emotions of the public in a misleading and inaccurate manner (details below).
3. A brief explanation of “assault weapons” -– There is no uniform definition of an assault weapon. Research the term and you may find descriptions that may include things like adjustable stocks, removable magazines, short barrels, etc. (some even include the color black), none of which delineate a military weapon from a civilian one. A recent web search found this definition: “a civilian version of a military machine gun, one that is less capable of rapid fire. Although the firearm automatically reloads, a shooter must pull the trigger separately in order to fire another round." This is partially correct in that semiautomatics do reload for another firing. However, semiautomatics are far from “civilian versions of military machine guns.” Machine guns are capable of rapid and continuous fire and designed for such use; civilian semiautomatics are not. Using a civilian semiautomatic in a military action would be foolish and probably suicidal.
4. A brief explanation of “semiautomatic” -- Semiautomatics were invented for military purposes but quickly adapted for hunting for two reasons: (a) if the hunter misses and wants to shoot again, the noise of manually reloading may well spook the animal and it will be gone before a second shot can be fired, and (b) if the hunter hits the animal but not in a fatal spot, very quickly firing a second shot in a fatal area will instantly kill the animal and prevent it from suffering. Semiautomatic handguns were developed for a similar reason: a person defending himself may not be accurate enough to stop the person attacking him with one shot and has very limited time to shoot again. You may object to gun use in both hunting and personal self-defense, but this is the factual background regarding semiautomatic guns.
5. Conclusion -- (1) Describing guns as “military-style” is pointless. It seems to mean something that looks like something used by the military. Does this mean any gun painted black? Or in camouflage colors? Or shaped like a gun used by the military? Does it include BB guns? Cap guns? Water pistols? What does military-style mean? (2) It is nonsensical for the congressman to attack the ownership of “semiautomatic” guns. If he means automatic guns he should say so, presuming he knows the difference. (3) The term “assault weapons” is as meaningless as the term “military-style.” Any weapon used to assault someone can be called an “assault weapon.” What the congressman means by the term is not clear, but what is clear is his intention to gain publicity and popularity by using emotion-charged and vague language that appeals to the fears of the public.
That being said, citizens and voters are free to hold as strong anti-gun positions as they wish, and to argue vehemently for any and all types of gun control. I hope they will do so with more honesty and intelligence than that of the congressman from California.
