Gun Debate: Facts (Not Opinions)

184094_2069009999787_6428662_n

After many discussions over this topic, I have found that much of the debate is fueled not only by personal bias but by complete ignorance regarding the matter. We certainly are all entitled to our opinions on civilian firearm ownership, but what we are not entitled to are our own facts. I have talked to too many people who take a stance based on misunderstanding, misinformation, or outright lies, including personal friends who truly thought they understood the issue. That is why I am putting this together, to hopefully clarify some of the most common misconceptions and to hopefully encourage some critical thought among friends.

As an aside, If you are reading this I ask that you try and put aside your personal opinion and take an objective view of the matter. I also ask that you read this as if from an independent source; I have been directly told by a personal associate that cannot be objective because I am a gun owner. There is no place for such ignorant, ad hominem attacks in intelligent discourse. Whether a person participates in a given activity is irrelevant and we should judge the words… not the messenger.

1) Semi-Automatics are not “Military Weapons”

Some of the most common statements I hear is “no one needs a semi-automatic”, “semi-automatics belong in the hands of the military”, and “the only reason to have a semi-automatic is to kill as fast as possible.” These statements show a complete ignorance of what a “semi-automatic” is, including the basics of firearm technology and the history of guns. Whenever I hear people say these terms, all I can think of is that lovely geek quote: “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

A semi-automatic firearm simply means the gun contains mechanical parts that allow the weapon to ready another round for firing without additional work from the user. It does not mean the weapon fires a spray of bullets, which is known as “fully automatic”, as the user must still pull the trigger again for each bullet. The rate of fire from such a weapon depends on the user and will fire no faster than their skill. Amusingly, semi-automatic and single-action firearms shoot at the same rate (one bullet per trigger pull), the only difference being the latter usually are 6- to 9-round capacity revolvers.

Semi-automatic firearms have existed since the 19th century. They are the latest in a long line of firearm mechanisms that helped make them more efficient. Originally, firearms (such as black powder weapons) required anywhere from 30 seconds to several minutes to reload. The advent of integrated cartridges (what most recognize as “bullets”) and revolvers (which hold more than one round) in the 19th century, reduced time between shots greatly. The first semi-automatic firearms appeared in 1885 Germany, and by the turn of the century manufacturers like Remington and Winchester sold hunting and sporting rifles using this mechanism. The semi-automatic was a complex, costly system and was not regularly used by the military until World War I.

The majority of modern firearms are semi-automatic weapons. Almost every civilian pistol is semi-automatic, for ease of use. The majority of sporting rifles are semi-automatic, including the popular .22-caliber rifles used by many youth organizations, sports tournaments, and the Olympics. Even many hunting rifles are semi-automatic, so that a missed shot does not mean you lose your prey and have to begin waiting again.

2) “Assault Weapons” are commonly confused with “Military Weapons”

The term “assault weapon” is a controversial term that has had many definitions. The original definition of an “assault weapon” was no different than a “military weapon” and referred to a variety of devices with fully automatic firing capability. This term was not applied to semi-automatic weapons until the 1980’s, with the advent of increased gun control legislation. At this time, several gun control advocates began using the term “assault weapon” to refer to any weapon that either belongs in the military or looks like it does. By 1994, the term was applied to a variety of (previously legal) firearms that were no different from other rifles but contained cosmetic features that gave them a “military” appearance.

In 1994, the Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) was passed, based on these cosmetic features. Contrary to popular belief, the AWB did not ban machine guns or fully automatic weapons. These firearms had been restricted with two previous acts in 1934 and 1968. The only thing the AWB did was restrict a variety of semi-automatic rifles based on their appearance. No firearm restricted by the AWB was a “military weapon” and none of them were any more or less dangerous than other firearms. Amusingly, studies by the CDC, NRC, DOJ, and NIJ found that the effect on crime was negligible, as the restricted firearms were rarely used in most crimes to begin with.

3) Civilians use “Assault Weapons” for legitimate reasons

As some latch onto the misunderstanding of the first two questions, they often conclude that a civilian has no use for something like an AR-15 rifle. Even those who recognize the difference between a semi-automatic “assault” rifle and a full-automatic military weapon still wonder why a person would ever use such a weapon. After all, they say, if it looks like a military weapon it still must only be used for military applications. These people then conclude that no reasonable hunter, target shooter, or home defender would ever need such a weapon.

Unfortunately, this train of logic is full of ignorance and fallacy. The AR-15, and similar rifles, are quite popular in all three legitimate pursuits. These rifles are very light weight and easily modified, with adjustable stocks and pistol grips making them ideally suited to people who have problems with standard rifles. People with small or light builds (including many women), individuals with handicaps, competitors with unique shooting profiles, etc. all use rifles like these because they can be adapted to their specific requirements. Similarly, the adaptability of an AR-15 makes them ideal for sporting and hunting across a variety of environments. Finally, for home defense, an AR-15’s appearance makes it ideal because it looks like a “military weapon”. Firearm classes teach you that shooting a firearm is the last thing you want to do, and that intimidating the opponent is far better.

4) More gun control does not necessarily mean lower crime, particularly in the United States

The main reason for most gun control legislation is to reduce crime (including mass shootings), which is a noble cause. The long time thought was that increased gun control would reduce crime, which is a reasonable hypothesis. However, any theory needs to be tested using empirical evidence, and unfortunately… the evidence doesn’t hold up.

I created a database comparing each state’s firearm-related crime (per 100,000 people) to how strict its gun control laws were. The former was determined using 2011 crime data collected by the FBI; the latter was a more subjective number determined using the Brady Campaign’s rating of each state. When compared to each other, there was little correlation between gun control laws and firearm-related crime rates. The ten states with the lowest crime included three of the strictest states (Illinois, Hawaiʻi and New York) and three of the loosest states (North Dakota, Iowa, and Utah). Similarly, the ten states with the highest crime included one of the strictest areas (Maryland/DC) and two of the loosest (Alaska and Louisiana). When the two sets of data were plotted on a chart, the correlation coefficient was -0.05883… which is practically no correlation at all.

If there is no correlation between gun control and crime rates in our own country, people sometimes look to other countries as examples. Unfortunately, this is often hard to do as many countries do not provide the required information to do an accurate comparison, particularly among many developing or war-torn countries. Despite this, using similar techniques (but not as reliable statistics), I compared firearm ownership (per 100 people) to firearm deaths (per 100,000 people). Once more, the data reveals no support for the theory that stricter gun laws lead to less gun deaths, with a correlation coefficient of -0.05196.

Now, to be fair this does not mean that less gun control reduces crime either. There is simply no evidence either way that gun control has any influence on crime rates. Instead, the only conclusion is that there must be other factors that are influencing crime rates, including justice systems, cultural factors, urbanization, and even types of crime. The main thing to take away from this, though, is that we cannot say that increased gun control will reduce crime or prevent mass shootings. Speaking of the latter…

5) Mass shootings are more likely to occur because of mentally ill individuals than because of “assault weapons”

Renewed interest in gun control legislation occurred because of the Sandy Hook shootings, as well as those prior to that tragedy. Many of these proposed bills were encouraged as a way to prevent further shootings. However, like the aforementioned section on crime, the legislation is misguided on what actually would prevent such incidents.

“Assault weapons” are one of the primary firearms targeted, because they were used at Sandy Hook and the Aurora Theater. However, “assault weapons” constitute only five of the 27 shootings in the past decade (19%), with three acquired illegally and one an assigned weapon of a police officer. Only a single mass shooting involving an “assault weapon” was performed by a legal, civilian owner of the firearm. The vast majority of mass shootings involve handguns, which constitute 59% of these tragedies.

“High capacity magazines” are also targeted, because they are believed to allow faster shooting and cause more deaths. However, these magazines were only used in three of the 27 shootings in the past decade (11%), and one of those was a pistol with a 33-round magazine. The deadliest shooting in recent history, the Virginia Tech Massacre, involved pistols with standard magazines (10- and 15-rounds)… the shooter carrying 19 of them.

In contrast, 21 of the 27 shootings in the past decade (78%) were performed by people with histories of mental illness. Despite their histories, 15 of them acquired their weapons legally, either because their information was not updated in the Federal database, they purchased them through person-to-person transfers, or they were never formally diagnosed or committed despite their behavior.

Further Discussion

I’m sure there will be comments. I’m sure there will be debates. As I compile more information on the subject, or run into regular misinformation, I will post it here. I do ask that comments be intelligent, reasonable, and objective. As with all things in life, we should use critical thinking and logic to determine the best possible route behind any issue.

3 thoughts on “Gun Debate: Facts (Not Opinions)

  1. I think there is a perfectly reasonable and objective definition of assault rifle.

    1. Select fire, either semi-automatic of fully-automatic.
    2. Reduced power cartridge to facilitate fully automatic fire.
    3. High capacity magazines to facilitate fully automatic fire.

    The concept is really quite simple. A “reduced power cartridge” is more powerful than a handgun cartridge used in sub-machine guns and less powerful that previous battle rifle cartridges.

    The Germans invented the idea in WWII. They had bolt action battle rifles firing a high power cartridge, the Mauser model of 1898. They had fully automatic sub-machine guns like the Schmeisser firing a relatively low power cartridge, the 9mm Parabellum.

    They came up with the idea of a compromise firearms having features of both. They needed to reduce the power of the cartridge as it is has to design a fully automatic rifle that a soldier can shoot in the standard German 8mm cartridge (very similar to the American 30.06). So they came up with an 8mm Kurz (short) cartridge that is still more powerful than a handgun cartridge, but significantly less power than the standard 8mm.

    The Russians copied the idea and came up with the AK-47 firing the 7.62×39 mm (the Russian battle rifle fired a 7.62x 54R rimmed cartridge). In the U.S. we initially tried to make the M14 an assault rifle using a real full power cartridge, the 7.62x51mm cartridge, but it was a total failure (recoil was largely uncontrollable for most shooters in full auto). Then we adopted the M16 with using a much less powerful cartridge (the 5.56x45mm currently used by the U.S military).

    An American soldier can carry an M16 with a load of a lot more cartridges than a WWII or Korean War soldier with a 30.06 M1 Garand. He has the option of fully auto fire and can still be effective probably out to 300-400 yards (Marines a little farther, but the cartridge runs out of power beyond 600 yards). The Taliban in Afghanistan often try to stay out beyond 600 yards cause the Marines can actually hit them at that range. They are good. 🙂

    An assault rifle is a compromise. It is not nearly as powerful to long range work (out to 600 yards) but is acceptable out to medium range (300-400 yards). It has reduced recoil so you can fire it effectively at close range in full automatic mode. A solider can carry considerably more ammo (it is not as heavy). The “assault” part of the name comes from the idea that a massed unit all firing full auto at close range can assault a position and hopefully the massed full auto fire will keep the defenders heads down. That is what the Russian did with sub machine guns.

    So instead of having two different types of guns (sub machine guns firing weak handgun cartridges and riflemen firing full power cartridges, you have compromise which is the real assault rifle).

    So yes, there is a perfectly reasonable and objective definition of what a true military assault rifle really is. It helps to know something about history. 🙂

    regards,

    lwk

    • That is a reasonable and objective definition. Unfortunately, that is not the definition gun control legislators use and why the debate often falters from the anti-gun side of things.

  2. “… that is not the definition gun control legislators use…”

    That is also true. Gun control legislators have little interest in an objective definition. They simply want to ban guns and will come up with whatever definition they think they can get away with and which will ban the most guns.

    regards,

    lwk

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s