The Assault Weapons Ban We Can Pass Through Congress

A ban on assault weapons has been offered time and again as a reasonable, common sense restriction on people's gun rights.

Not everyone agrees. Gun rights advocates claim that while mass murder with these weapons is horrific, rifles are involved in less than three percent of gun crime. This percentage accounts not just for AR-15s but for all rifles.

They also claim that if reducing unnecessary loss of life is your goal, a sober look at statistics for leading causes of death will provide you with an unending list of causes that you can champion that will result in many more thousands of lives saved. By supporting organizations like the American Heart Association and the American Cancer Society, you could spend the rest of your life saving lives and never come close to restricting the fundamental rights of another living soul.

Nonetheless, the drive we share to swiftly put an end to the assaults like Columbine, Sandy Hook, and Parkland defies explanation.

I have a fantastic proposal to put an assault weapons ban to the test. We can demonstrate once and for all the life-saving efficacy of such an action. For this reason and others, I can guarantee that the ban will be politically viable. Neither the NRA, Republican-controlled legislatures, the conservative-packed Supreme Court, nor the President will be able to stop it.

Proposed Ban

First, we will produce an uncompromising definition of the term 'assault weapon.' This definition will be written by liberal democrats. It will address not only those pernicious features that seem to make such a weapon so deadly--everything from the pistol grip to the telescoping stock, to the grenade launcher--but it will be fortified with a list of dozens of specific models. Naturally, the AR-15 and the AK-47 will be specifically covered by this ban as will any copies or duplicates of them. Other dangerous sorts of handguns and shotguns will be covered. 

Not only will the ban cover assault weapons, but it will also cover magazines that can hold more than ten rounds.

We will ban the sale, transport, import, or possession of these objects. 

For reasons of political expediency, we won't be able to confiscate the assault weapons and magazines that are already out there. At least not in the first phase. 

Proposed Analysis

Ten years into the ban we will fund a set of studies to demonstrate the effects of such a ban. The studies will naturally account for the assault weapons already in circulation. If research proves out that the ban results in a measurable, we keep it in place and then make plans to see what additional efforts, such as confiscation of existing assault weapons, we can accomplish. 

In the unlikely event that living under the protection of such an expansive ban for a full decade fails to accomplish a measurable positive effect on our violent crime problem, we sunset the ban and look for other ways of solving our violent crime problem. The methods we use to accomplish our ends have always been incremental. We know that a lot of gun control will do a lot of good because we can demonstrate that a little gun control does a little.

Again, I can guarantee that this assault weapons ban will be politically viable. That's the truly fantastic part of my plan because it involves time travel. 

I propose that we travel back in time to late 1993 and introduce this legislation in the House of Representatives.

Why 1993? First, because of the very favorable political landscape. Democrats controlled the Senate 57-43. Democrats controlled the House 258-176. The one Independent in the house--Bernie Sanders--will definitely vote in favor of the ban. By the time the bill makes its way through congress, President Clinton will happily sign it in to law. 

Another chronological feature is that the U.S. violent crime rate drops dramatically starting in 1994. By choosing this as our start date for our ten year trial period, we're stacking the deck in our favor. 

Lastly, a 1994 start for our assault weapons ban will ensure that it is fully in place to prevent the Columbine High School massacre of 1999 which motivated and influenced so many other school shootings and mass murders.

Best of all, I've already employed my powers of time travel and covert political influence and have made this fantasy a reality. 

The Ban!

The Federal Assault Weapons Ban was introduced as Title XI of House Bill 3355 in October of 1993, (and yes, Bernie voted for it). It passed and was signed by President Clinton in September of 1994. 

The Results

Now for the bad news: this assault weapons ban did not prevent the Columbine massacre. What's worse is that studies from National Research Council and the National Institute of Justice could not point to a measurable positive impact of the ban. The CDC has found that this and other bans on specified firearms produce inconsistent results. 

Even the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence had extremely tepid things to say. While violent crime caused by Assault Weapons decreased dramatically during the time, Brady could not attribute a decrease in violent crime to the ban. Instead, they maintain that the use of "copycat" firearms not covered by the ban undercut any positive effect that the ban might have had. In other words, if you ban assault weapons, criminals will commit the same crimes with other weapons.

The NRC researchers as well as others speculate that perhaps a decade is too short and that either a permanent ban or some sort of confiscatory action such as a mandatory buy back of large capacity magazines might produce the desired effect. This might be true, but it violates the principle of incrementalism: how can we say that a lot of gun control will do a lot of good when we can't demonstrate that a little gun control does even a little bit?

Conclusion

An answer exists to the problem of violence that we undoubtably face in this country. It is unlikely that an assault weapons ban is the answer we need.