In the immediate aftermath of 12/14 there had been a great deal of talk about a multifaceted response. It included changes to mental health, guns and school security but now it seems guns have taken center stage. Dianne Feinstein has reintroduced an Assault Weapon bill and New York State pushed a bill through in the middle of the night circumventing the normal 3 day public review period. Connecticut’s own Governor Malloy has also altered his original measured tone and is asking for immediate action on gun legislation which would fix Connecticut's existing Assault Weapon ban. So, is it a good idea? What exactly is Gov Malloy looking to ban and what sort of impact might this have?
I've been watching the gun issue closely like others. I also own guns. I have shot pistol competitively at the national level for over 10 years, am certified to hunt in CT, and I am a certified pistol instructor. I also work for an analytic consulting firm where I led of team of analysts for several years so when I’m looking for the facts, I don’t go to Sen Feinstein or the NRA, I check with the FBI, the CDC or use hands on experience.
I want to chime in here on the issue because I care deeply about getting something productive out of our legislators. It also frustrates me to see so much stuff presented on TV that is often incorrect about guns, the existing laws and gun owners. Most of the time it is because of unfamiliarity of firearms but it’s also because there are some deceptive tactics at play. I’m going largely try to avoid the battle of statistics and talk more about what these guns do, what makes them different and how the bills and laws I’ve seen so far are constructed.
First, I'd like to start with the AR15 rifle and to make this more digestible I'll separate the magazine limit question and assume the largest magazine size in the future would be 10 rounds. To keep things focused I’m also going to generally avoid the topic of the legality of these bans and the right to bear arms and just focus on the mechanics of these firearms and how the bills relate to the guns available today.
If there is one thing everyone can agree on it is that if Adam Lanza didn't have those guns, the massacre at Sandy Hook could have been avoided. So, how can we keep firearms out of the hands of dangerous individuals? It’s rational to explore the thought: can we get rid of that gun and those like it? The theory goes, if the gun wasn't available, this wouldn't have happened or some lives could have been saved by the use of a less brutally effective gun. This is based on two fundamental assumptions: First that the AR15’s capabilities uniquely enables this type of tragedy and two, there is a clearly defined group of guns this AR15 Bushmaster fits into that we can ban. Based on my experience with guns and a review of the laws as written, I don’t believe either of these things to be true. Please give me a chance to tell you why.
The guns available today to everyday citizens cannot be split into very dangerous, sort-of-dangerous and not-so dangerous groups. The gun in question, the Bushmaster AR15, isn't substantially different than other guns and banning it will not diminish the firepower available. The reality is ALL guns are dangerous and this one isn’t substantially more dangerous nor does it uniquely enable mass shootings over other available options. I suspect some of you may have a very hard time believing that but please stick with me.
You may be thinking, “I’ve seen the pictures and this is a high power, spray shooting, long range, military machine gun and it is only designed for killing". I know I've read all of those things in the news and I assume you have too. The legislators who support these bans tell you they are only good for killing and they serve no legitimate purpose. I know you've also seen the damage done but are these guns different in the damage they can inflict and could these bans be effective? We've been told repeatedly that these guns function differently than other guns.
When we examine the AR15 we can find some obvious similarities with its military cousins the M16 & M4 but there are also many similarities with many of the other guns that civilians use legally everyday for hunting, sport, competition and personal protection. When we make these comparisons, what matters most is the mechanical operation and when we look at the power and function of this rifle it does not distinguish itself from other available guns. This is what makes a lot of gun owners confused and a little nervous. It isn't necessarily that people love the AR15, although it is one of the most popular rifles today, but the fact when we look at the operation and power of these rifles they are not substantially different from guns used in ways that the majority of Americans support. So let’s look at the function and break it up into the speed at which they fire and the strength and speed of the bullets they shoot.
Speed
First I'd like to address the speed at which these guns fire. Although it looks similar to a military M16 or M4, the Bushmaster type gun is not a fully automatic machine gun. It is instead like the majority of other guns sold to civilians today that send one bullet for every trigger pull: a semi-automatic. These are not machine guns.A military M16, like other real machine guns, have been effectively banned for decades; are very rare collectors’ items; and in most cases cost in excess of $10,000. The application process is over 6 months long and includes the approval from your local chief of police.
The recent focus on creating an assault weapon ban may leave the impression that the guns classified as assault weapons are a recent innovation in firearms but the mechanics of a semi-automatic, magazine fed gun have been in common use for over 125 years. The first successful design of an auto-loading semi-automatic rifle was released in 1885 and the first magazine fed semi-auto pistol dates to at least 1893. These design elements have long been a standard feature in hunting, competition, recreational and defensive arms and almost all pistols are semi-automatic.
 |
| One of the most common semi-automatic magazine fed guns from the last 100 years is the Colt .45 model 1911 named for the year if its invention. |
Here are just some of common semi-automatic, magazine fed rifles and pistols from the last 50 to 100 years that can fire as fast and reload as quickly as the guns that might be classified as assault weapons. These have the same mechanical operation as an AR15 and are not considered assault weapons:
- Colt 1911 .45 from WWI
- Ruger 10/22 .22lr rifles
- Ruger Mini 14 Ranch Rifle
- Ruger Mark III pistols
- Remington 750 hunting rifle
- Walther PP(K)
Power
What about the firepower of the AR15? How do the bullets speed and strength compare with those used in other rifles? Take a look at the rifle ballistic chart (and find a more comprehensive version linked here):
We can see the AR15’s .223/5.56, are among the lowest of this list. Despite the reports which describe the .223 as “high powered”, it is a relatively weak rifle cartridge and most hunters find it suitable only for small game like coyotes or prairie dogs. Many deer hunters find it substantially under-powered and unethical for their sport. This rejection by deer hunters shouldn't be surprising as an AR15 rifle cartridge is about half the power of one of the very popular deer rifle cartridge the 30-06 (thirty-ought-six).
So why would the military choose a relatively weak cartridge that isn't strong enough by many standards for deer?
The answer is logistics. The US military must buy and transport and store billions of rounds of ammunition so for them choosing the smallest but still effective cartridge for combat is essential. Smaller cartridges cost less, and save space and weight. At beginning of the 20th century the 30-06 was the primary cartridge of the US military but was replaced in a series of downgrades which led them to the .223 cartridge.
Appearance & Design
So what does make these rifles different? The truth is no one really knows what an “assault weapon” is or have ever created an effective definition. I’m guessing you've heard this before and I’m starting to lose a few of you again. Based on conversations I've had in the past I bet you’re thinking, “I've seen the pictures of the guns and know an “assault weapon” is a copy of a military rifle”. Okay, I’ll accept that as a general definition but a semi-automatic copy of a military rifle isn't different in function or power than other guns available. Also a general definition isn't good enough for legislation. But, let's assume for a moment we want to create a ban. What constitutes a copy of a military rifle specifically and is there something that makes these rifles different to help corral them up for a ban?In 1993, when the federal assault weapon ban was developed, the legislators tried their best to define an assault weapon. In the end they banned several guns by model name and they also defined any gun an assault weapon if it used a semi-automatic action with a removable magazine and had two or more elements shared by their military counterparts. Here’s the list:
- Pistol Grip
- Bayonet Mount
- Flash Hider
- Adjustable Stock
- Grenade Launcher
 |
| (USA TODAY) A reasonably accurate diagram listing the features defining an "assault weapon". The "threaded barrel" label should be placed at the end of the barrel and "grenade launcher" was omitted. |
First let me say the inclusion of the grenade launcher is silly and the image from USA today pasted above doesn't even mention it. Grenade launchers have never been a problem and explosives have been highly regulated for a long time. It’s distracting to the core issue of what an “assault weapon” is but it’s on the list so I included it. If we look at the rest of the list though we see these are cosmetic and ergonomic features of convenience. So as we read the law, we see a gun’s inclusion or exclusion is based purely on the presence or absence of these features. You do not need to be a “gun nut” to know the presence or absence of a protruding grip will not affect the performance or lethality of a gun.
Occasionally there are assertions that these features directly affect lethality. Senator Feinstein and others have suggested a pistol grip better enable spray firing from the hip. This seems ridiculous to me. I'll admit that I'm no military tactician but quickly aimed shots seem like a much better strategy than randomly spraying inaccurate shots. If it were a viable tactic, I'm not even sure how a pistol grip uniquely enables it. It seems like that could be done without a pistol grip.
After the law went into effect the manufacturers removed the offensive features and went on selling pretty much the same guns as before but they were no longer assault weapons. If a manufacturer had a specifically named banned model, well, they had to remove the features and change the name. Sen Chris Murphy recently went to the Connecticut State Police Range to view the operation and function of the pre and post ban guns affected by the assault weapon bans and declared that the guns available today are the same guns before the 94 ban. I’m not sure why he should be surprised. Chris Murphy appears to have fallen for the myth of the assault weapon. I'll say it again: these features don’t affect lethality of guns and the reason assault weapon bans don't use mechanical features is they are shared in common with so many other guns that the general public accepts and supports. We are told these guns operate differently but that isn't true. If they operated differently, then that is what the legislators would use in their bills.
Nevertheless, gun crime did actually drop during the ban but it also continued to drop after it sunsetted in 2004 (Connecticut, by the way, had adopted its own ban that is still in effect). The justice department under the direction of Janet Reno researched the effectiveness of the AWB and could not attribute the ban with saving any lives. This doesn't mean we aren't safer today though. The drop in violent crime has continued and we are now at a 40 year low for violent crime (NY Times link).
Assault Weapon Ban Redux
Our legislators are now working on a new ban to fix their failures of the past. The new bills unfortunately rely on an almost identical structure but now ban guns with only one cosmetic feature and have added many more models by name. The overall construction of the bill is otherwise identical.So as we look to the legislature to reduce mass shootings, how could we possibly expect an assault weapon ban to be effective when the guns are a subset of identically functioning guns based on cosmetic features? The assault weapon ban proponents give us the impression these guns are mechanically different and are used to spray bullets but then define them by things like pistol grips and flash suppressors. The mechanical function of the guns are not used as a differentiator and using cosmetics to reduce gun crime is a poor strategy.
"The Commission has found that the definition of “assault weapon” has allowed for cosmetic changes to military-style firearms that does not reduce their lethality but does allow them to be legally possessed. The Commission believes that, defining an “assault weapon” by form rather than function has been ineffective. It is the consensus of the Commission that gun violence is an issue that goes far beyond the tragedy at Sandy Hook, and the commonality of high-capacity firearms in violent crimes must be acknowledged. According to the 2011 Connecticut Uniform Crime Reporting Program, only two (2) of 94 firearm-related homicides in the state were committed with a rifle or a shotgun"
Magazine Restrictions
BUT, I hear you shouting, you've left out the discussion limiting capacity and magazine size--if these mass shooters didn't have so many rounds they'd be less effective. I can appreciate the hypothesis here and unlike the assault weapon bills it is based on a mechanical function which is objectively measured and restricted. I infer that the benefit of limiting magazine size from 30 rounds to 10 would force additional reloads that would slow a future shooter down significantly or create a window of opportunity during reloads for escape and retaliation. Unfortunately for the magazine restrictions proponents, they've over-estimated the impact on criminals.A person of average competence can change magazines in about 1.5 to 3 seconds. Over the course of 90 rounds, that only adds an additional delay of 9-18 seconds distributed in 6, 1.5-3 second magazine changes. This would not significantly impact the tragic tolls of these 5-20 minute rampages especially given almost all of these mass shooters have carried a backup gun of some sort against trapped defenseless individuals. The benefit of 10 round limitation also takes place in a perfect world where a ban would spontaneously make magazines over 10 rounds unavailable.
Boone County, Indiana Sheriff, Ken Campbell, recently oversaw a very good, although not perfectly controlled, demonstration of how quickly individuals can reload and fire. The test includes 2 x 15 round magazines, 3 x 10 round magazines and 5 x 6 round magazines. It shows how a modestly prepared perpetrator with multiple magazines will not be slowed down by a ban. And once again, this is assuming they even follow a magazine restriction and use ones of a lower capacity. An unlawful aggressor can come prepared with multiple magazines of any size while a lawful gun owner surprised by an attack may be limited to the one magazine inside his gun.
We also know magazine size restrictions don't work because they have been tried before unsuccessfully. The United States conducted a 10 year national experiment using a 10 round magazine restriction during the 94 Assault Weapon Ban. At the conclusion of the ban the Janet Reno justice department once again could find no evidence in the ban’s effectiveness to reduce the number of gunshots per victim or the number of victims per incident. Sadly, the Columbine massacre took place during the ban in 1999. Eric Harris carried only 10 round magazines and discharged his gun 94 times. Dylan Klebold primarily used a two-shot double barrel shotgun reloading throughout the massacre. In more recent history, the massacre at Virginia Tech was also carried out using handguns and while he carried some magazines with higher capacities, he averaged about 10 rounds per magazine. There were 32 deaths and 17 gun related injuries there. This was perpetrated against college age adults who have the highest capacity to evade, escape or overpower a perpetrator during a reload. Magazine size is not a limiting factor and assault weapon and/or magazine restrictions will not prevent this from happening again.
The response I get most often to this information is this is: it’s better than nothing and even a single life saved is worth it. I will never argue the value of a single life and every death is tragic but I want you to know why this won't significantly or more likely even measurably help. We also risk job elimination; turning millions of Americans into criminals; distract our attention from potentially more beneficial measures and as magazine sizes shrink we are hampering the ability of citizens to defend themselves. The broad spectrum of estimates measure between 100,000 to 2,500,000 defensive gun uses per year. This is in contrast to the approximately 10,000 gun murders annually.
It frustrates me to see the assault weapon ban and magazine limits as the marque legislation after 12/14. All guns are dangerous and we should do our best to keep them out of the hands of those who intend to do harm. I’m looking for something to help lower the incidence of these horrible tragedies too and these proposals are poorly constructed and have a track record for failure. My assertion isn't that they will have little effect; it is that the effect will be zero or so close to zero it won’t be measurable. It’s not my love of shooting; it’s the love of my girls that compels me here. It disheartens me that our leaders are standing so proudly behind these bans. It also confuses me. Aren't they smarter than this?
Demand more from our legislators. Demand that we work toward a long term fix and not just force these killers to change from one instrument to another. We also need to ensure that any future gun bills have full public hearings to keep our representatives honest. These toothless bills do more harm than good. They are a distraction and will unfairly turn otherwise law-abiding people into criminals.
You can contact your legislators through the Connecticut General Assembly's website.
I suspect I may have left many of you unconvinced as some of the things above run contrary to what you've been hearing. There has been a huge disservice to the public in the way things have been presented. The gun control issue is largely reported by people who don’t understand guns and by politicians who either willfully or ignorantly relay wrong information. I’m happy to engage in dialog with anyone on the issue but most importantly, I want you to contact your representatives to ensure the Sandy Hook bill goes through the proper hearings and committees so we can get the bill we deserve.
I’d like to compile more of these together but here is at least one video of a politician who should know better completely misrepresenting the facts:
Howard Dean says assault weapons are machine guns: http://youtu.be/1ubwJs3LZSU?t=4m23s
Not a video but a speech by our president:
President Obama refers to Adam Lanza's gun as fully-automatic: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/04/04/remarks-president-dccc-event-san-francisco-ca
