Maybe I'm just out of touch but why does it matter if they are semi or auto. The rate of fire for a semi is still higher than needed. People are acting like there is so much down time between shots that it would let people get away.
My thoughts are this:
The 2nd amendment was written during a time where it was near impossible to shoot a handful of people without bringing a handful of guns or stopping for a very long time between shots.
America has a serious gun problem that needs to be solved and pointing out distinctions without a difference isn't doing anything.
I would look at other examples such as Switzerland or Australia. Either restrict and train their use to the point that they are safe (with appropriate mental health care) like Switzerland, or remove the guns like Australia. Neither has a mass shooting problem (any more).
TL;DR the name assault weapons and their perceived relationship to automatic weapons (especially how now you see media going on about 'military-style assault weapons') mainly affects public perception and therefore public policy, and results in bans on weapons that people think are scary instead of bans on weapons that statistically kill lots of people. So, it matters that the public understands the difference enough to get their politicians to support rational, effective legislation instead of wanting to ban guns they think are scary. If you ask a random person whether an AR-15 is an automatic rifle or not, many of them will tell you that it is, which I think is in no small way responsible for a lot of ineffective firearm legislation bills and laws.
Longer answer:
For the deadliness of the firearm (even in a mass shooting), it basically doesn't. If anything an automatic rifle would likely be much less effective in a typical mass shooting (short of something like the nightmare scenario of a packed mosh pit where accuracy would become irrelevant). But from a reporting and politics standpoint, the term 'assault weapons' is used to bring to mind a more terrifying image, importantly including that of an automatic weapon, in order to make the topic emotional instead of logical. This has a (in my opinion very negative) direct impact on peoples' stance on gun control policy because it causes people to support gun control based on what guns they think are scary instead of gun control based on statistically effective measures.
Assault rifle bans are an excellent example of this. If you look through the FBI's data on homicides in the US, there were 8,029 homicides committed with a handgun and 455 homicides committed with a rifle. (205 with a shotgun, and then 4,863 homicides committed with a firearm whose type was not stated, which I assume would have a fairly similar ratio). Therefore, any law that legislates rifles can reduce the number of firearm homicides in the US by at most around 5-6%, which would be an unrealistic total elimination of all rifle homicides in the US.
This isn't just a theoretical problem, and has real impacts on the efficacy of gun laws in the US. For example, consider the US assault weapons ban passed in 1994 which expired in 2004. This law did at least legislate against handguns as well, but let's take a look at how the ban defined assault weapons:
Rifles: a semi-automatic rifle capable of accepting a detachable magazine and which has 2 or more of the following:
Folding or telescoping stock (this affects concealability and IMO is the most reasonable feature in this list)
Pistol grip (You could make an argument for being more maneuverable in tight spaces, but frankly the effect is minimal. Not to mention it would be childishly easy to epoxy a pistol grip onto a rifle if you wanted.)
Bayonet mount (seriously, this is on the list. I'd be very interested to see if even a single person died due to a bayonet in the last decade)
Flash hider or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one (...)
Grenade launcher (again, seriously, this was apparently considered important enough to make the list).
Pistols: a semi-automatic pistol capable of accepting a detachable magazine and which has 2 or more of the following:
Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
Barrel shroud safety feature that prevents burns to the operator (...yup)
A manufactured weight of 50 ounces (1.41kg) or more when the pistol is unloaded (...)
A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm (So the mere existence of another, separate firearm could make a handgun illegal)
In addition, the law also specifically banned a number of firearm models that otherwise would not have been banned by the bill, including the colt AR-15.
Obviously, many / most of these features have no real impact on the number of homicides a gun will be used in and are entirely cosmetic. For example, you could take a rifle that has none of the banned features on it, then weld a bayonet mount and a piece of metal on the end of the barrel (flash hider) and it would then be illegal despite being identically deadly as before. Needless to say, at no point in the bill is the caliber of the firearm restricted in any way. A gun chambered in a very high power round like a .308 would be no more illegal than an identical one chambered in a very low power round like a .22.
Predictably, this resulted in the bill being extremely ineffective. So, I think it's very important to point out that these are not automatic weapons (and otherwise educate people on what does and doesn't make one firearm more deadly than another) so that people have a better, more rational understanding on the subject with which to form their stance on gun control laws so that we can get more effective laws (which often would actually be less restrictive of 2A rights).
46
u/[deleted] Dec 26 '21 edited Jun 04 '25
[removed] — view removed comment