What constitutes an "Assault Rifle"?

Grammatically, an "assault weapon" would be any weapon used in an assault.

So, we could be talking about an assault hammer, and assault knife, or even assault fists. As pointed out in a previous blog, in Connecticut in the seven (7) years  prior to the Sandy Hook tragedy there had been exactly 2 homicides that involved rifles. In contrast, every year there are about 40 homicides from knives, 340 from clubs or similar items, and even 20 from the use of just the hand or foot. My guess is that this statistic would ring true pretty much everywhere.

But let's just constrain our talk to rifles here. According to the original Assault Weapon Ban, and as fundamentally renewed in the latest suggestions from Ms Feinstein, an assault rifle has a detachable magazine and two (2) or more of the following purely cosmetic characteristics:

• Folding or telescoping stock,
• pistol grip,
• bayonet lug,
• rocket or grenade launcher, or
• flash suppressor or threaded barrel to allow the attachment on such.

In some strange world, these characteristics change a rifle suitable for use in sport to a death-dealing instrument of homicide just by their inclusion in the makeup of an otherwise benign firearm. How exactly, I do not know. Not a single one of these characteristics cause the rifle to be more powerful. None cause it to be more lethal when shot by it. None of these cause it to shoot faster, or to carry more ammunition in and of itself.

Does the fact that the rifle is a little shorter with the replacement folding stock make a difference? The requirement is already for the barrel to be no less than 16" long, plus there is some length required for the main receiver part of the rifle making it highly unlikely any modern rifle is going to come in much shorter than 24" overall. In fact, shorter rifles are in general more difficult to shoot accurately, so wouldn't that be a good thing?

Pistol grips and thumb-hole stocks have been used in competition target shooting rifles in classifications that allow them for years. Yet for some reason there isn't much concern about these being used as implements of mass destruction. So it apparently isn't the pistol grip itself at fault here.

Bayonet lugs are used to attach, well, a bayonet to the end of a rifle. Excuse me, but are bayonet attacks actually that big of a problem that we have to outlaw the attachment points? And somehow a bayonet someone is waving around in their hand is so much better than one attached to a rifle?

Rocket and grenade launchers also aren't as big of a problem here in Texas as they obviously are in New York or California. Evidently they are so common there that again we need to make sure that people can't have them. And, by the way, it is pretty hard to get an actual grenade or rocket, without which the launcher seems to be a bit superfluous.

And then the dreaded flash suppressor. How exactly is a simple piece of perforated metal whose sole purpose is to mitigate the plume of partially unburned powder that causes a bright "flash" at the end of a short barreled rifle causing additional danger to anyone?

Truth of the matter is the cited characteristics that contribute to being an "assault rifle" do nothing more than make a rifle look different. It now looks more like a military weapon. But it doesn't shot like one. It does not fire in full-auto or select fire modes. For those that don't know, full-auto is when you pull the trigger back and the firearms continues to fire until you release the trigger. Select fire is a system whereby the firearm shoots a specific number of times with 1 pull of the trigger. The standard semi-auto MODERN SPORTING RIFLE does neither of these things. You pull the trigger 1 time, you get 1 bullet out.

And one more "by the way": it's can actually be completely legal to own fully automatic or select fire firearms in 39 states right now. It requires a lot of paperwork, special licenses and tax stamps from the federal government, but it can be done perfectly legally. Once you file your paperwork, pay your tax and wait for the approval, you can own and shoot your very own machine gun.

The sad part is, most folks who don't know much about guns think THESE are what is being banned. But that is not the case. With all the work that goes in to obtaining permission to own a fully automatic weapon, plus the $200 tax stamp to transfer it, there has never been an attempt to include fully automatic rifles in any ban. The only firearms included are ones that LOOK like that, but in fact work exactly like your Uncle Lou's 50 year old recreational rifle.

Why am I not surprised that our elected officials have once again chosen to highlight form over function in the gun debate. It apparently doesn't matter how a rifle works, or how it shoots, or if it has a perfectly legitimate use. The fact that it LOOKS scary is enough to send people screaming in terror in to the night and demand that they be removed from our society.