Bumper Sticker Logic 2

Why assault weapons are called "assault weapons"

By: Andrew L. Goddard

It’s time to take on another simplistic soundbite from the gun lobby that may sound convincing, unless you examine it closely. 

This one comes in various forms: “There is no such thing as a civilian assault rifle;” or “GVP groups call the AR-15 and other variants assault rifles to scare the public;” or “More people are killed using hammers than by assault rifles.” 

There are other variations on this same theme, all of which are designed to convince the public that high velocity, high capacity, semi-automatic rifles and pistols are just common firearms that pose no more threat to public safety than hunting rifles or revolvers. Thus, any regulation specific to this type of firearm would infringe on the Second Amendment.

So why do GVP groups call these weapons “assault rifles?” The answer is quite simple. This category of firearms, especially the AR-15 and its various competitors, were manufactured, sold, and aggressively marked to the general public as “assault weapons.”

You need only to look through gun magazines and advertising from the period when these new variants first came onto the market to see that every manufacturer used both the term “assault rifle” or “assault weapon.” So when I am faced with this question of why I call these weapons “assault rifles,” I reply that it’s for the same reason I call Kellogg’s Cornflakes “cornflakes” — they are manufactured, sold, and advertised as “cornflakes,” so why should I decide to call them something else?

Further, the marketing strategy for these weapons relied almost exclusively on images of civilians masquerading as soldiers and using these firearms to satisfy what one manufacturer described as, “all your tactical needs.” To this day, I don’t really understand what “tactical needs” the average civilian might have.

What I do understand is that the introduction of firearms that looked and functioned like the weapons we provide to our troops for use in war saved an ailing firearms industry suffering financially from reduced demand for hunting rifles and even handguns. 

Sadly, the potential for increased lethality which this new class of weapons offered was not immediately recognized by our legislators. By the time a federal assault weapons ban was put in place, these weapons had already flooded the civilian market. 

The only people who did not ignore the potential increased lethality of these weapons were those individuals who were planning and carrying out mass shootings. Today, despite a huge increase in the frequency of mass shootings — and a marked increase in the number of victims created in such shootings where assault weapons are used — there seems to be little interest in renewing the Federal ban, and few states have instituted their own bans or limitations on such firearms.

Another argument is that non-gun owners fear assault weapons because of what they “look like,” and that the accessories which are used to modify guns are merely cosmetic in nature. 

The truth is that people fear assault weapons based upon what carnage they are capable of producing, not just that they are black or that they are visually indistinguishable from military weapons. Even if the shape or color of the weapons were changed, the damage that they can inflict on human bodies is the major factor creating intense fear of these weapons.

Regarding the accessories, it can be shown quite conclusively that almost all the accessories available for assault rifles are in fact designed to increase the ability of the person firing them to control the weapon more easily or more effectively, or to increase the accuracy and rate of fire. 

Let’s look at some facts regarding the design of these firearms and how those design characteristics were intended to increase lethality. 

Prior to the introduction of the military M16 rifle, our military troops used rifles that were heavier and fired ammunition what was larger in caliber and thus heavier. The M16 was designed to be a lighter weapon to carry and fire lighter ammunition, without any reduction in lethality. These advantages would allow our troops to carry more ammunition and thus to be able to fire more rounds before needing to be resupplied.

The weight reduction in the ammunition, by reducing the caliber of the bullets, could have resulted in less lethality. However, the designers compensated for this reduction by greatly increasing the velocity of the bullets. 

The physics behind this is quite simple: the impact force of a bullet is a function of its mass multiplied by its velocity squared. Thus a 50% reduction in the size of the bullet (its mass) would reduce the impact force by 50%, but a doubling in the velocity would result in a fourfold increase in impact force, and a tripling of the velocity would give a ninefold increase in impact force. 

Another factor affecting the lethality of the newer .223 caliber high velocity rounds — which leave the muzzle of the weapon at roughly three times the speed of sound — is the fact these bullets entering a body at supersonic speeds cause an ultrasonic pressure wave that radiates through tissue. This pressure wave causes massive damage in areas not contacted by the actual bullet. 

Also, the small size of the bullet makes it less stable as it passes into and through tissue, which causes the bullet to tumble end over end creating a much larger wound cavity than even a larger handgun bullet traveling at much slower speed. 

In summary, an AR-15 round can be significantly more lethal than a handgun round since organs and arteries not contacted by the actual bullet can be destroyed by the power of the pressure wave alone.

While we are talking about the lethality issue, it is important to look at the argument that the AR-15 is less lethal than the M16 because it does not have the facility to be fired in fully automatic mode. This argument, over the lack of a full auto selector switch, is designed to infer that the AR-15 is not an assault rifle, unlike it’s M16 cousin. Once again, this argument falls flat when you look at reality. 

An M16 can empty a 30-round magazine in 2.25 seconds with a single trigger pull, while an unmodified AR-15 firing one bullet per trigger pull can empty the same 30 round magazine in about 30 seconds. I would argue that in a mass shooting scenario, the M16 could be used to put a large number of bullets into a small number of people, while an AR-15 — fired twice at each individual with a brief pause between each to re-aim at another victim — holds the potential to spread much more harm to more victims. Given that, I would argue that the AR-15 is certainly as lethal as an M16, if not more so!

Finally, data from countless mass shootings clearly shows that the use of assault rifles and high-capacity pistols results in significantly more victims than results from situations where other types of firearms are used.

This brings us to the question, what can be done about the proliferation of assault rifles, which now number in the tens of millions in this country, with millions more being sold each year? 

The most obvious answer is to reintroduce a ban on the sale or transfer of assault rifles at the Federal level. However, that solution still leaves us with the issue of how to deal with the millions of weapons already in circulation. 

The federal government or even state governments could sponsor buyback programs to purchase assault weapons and then destroy them. Unfortunately, this would probably make only a small reduction in the total number in circulation, as many gun owners would simply resist such a program based on their misguided interpretation of the Second Amendment. 

Perhaps the most practical means to deal with grandfathering the existing weapons in circulation would be to use the existing registration and taxation system that was created in the 1930’s, under the National Firearms Act, to deal with the proliferation of fully automatic machine guns.

By adding high velocity, high capacity rifles and pistols to the current system used to control machine gun ownership, those that currently own assault rifles would be required to undergo a background check. That would include a sign-off by the law enforcement body responsible for the location where the owner lives, the payment of a punitive tax, the registration of the serial number(s) of the firearms, and the exact address at which the weapons would be stored.

Until relatively recently it was clear that, despite there being a huge number of machine guns in private hands in this country, the use of such weapons in gun violence is extremely rare. The National Firearms Act controls on machine guns can be said to be one of the most effective gun violence prevention laws on the books. 

However, the recent increase in availability of cheap (but illegal) auto sears for semi-auto handguns, and the parts and devices which modify assault rifles to fire automatically or to simulate full automatic fire, may prove to be a significant problem that needs to be urgently addressed by legislation.

In summary, assault rifles offer a level of lethality that vastly exceeds the requirements of self-defense by civilians not engrossed in a wartime situation. As such, they should be highly regulated if not fully banned from civilian ownership. Failure to do so will inevitably result in more and more mass casualties.

Check out Goddard’s first installment of Bumper Sticker Logic here.

---

Andrew L. Goddard is Legislative Director for the Virginia Center for Public Safety, the oldest GVP group in Virginia, formed 30 years ago.

Protest image by dietcheese from Pixabay; gun image by Zachary Foltz from Pixabay