Assault Weapons Are Scary Politically -- But Not In Fact

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder was thinking about bringing back the "assault weapons" ban? The one that cost Al Gore his home state of Tennessee in 2000? When Democrats have figured out that gun control is so unpopular that Nancy Pelosi’s first reaction is the NRA-like “enforce the laws we have,” and that Harry Reid dismisses Holder’s suggestion out of hand? What is he thinking? That’s above the pay grade of this little column, to paraphrase a presidential candidate of recent standing.

However, it is well within the column’s purview to impress upon the public, once again, that these “assault weapons” are anything but super-scary military weapons. They might be described as “military-style” weapons, but only in the way that you could describe your neighbor’s H3 as a “military-style” vehicle. The aesthetics are there, but the substance is not.

First, let’s deal with Holder’s only stated rationale: the desire to rid tortured Mexico of the scourge of illicit U.S. weapons. It should be noted, however, that illicit American weapons are not Mexico’s problem.

[I]n Mexico it's not uncommon for people to own full-auto military rifles. Everything from an M16, UZI machine pistols and the most popular, select-fire AK47 military rifles. These are not the so-called "assault weapons" you can buy at the local gun shop in the U.S., but full select-fire military-issue rifles. Now, I know you want to know and are dying to ask; Did I see any U.S. military-issue weapons stolen from the U.S. military? Not a single one was marked with U.S. military markings. Everything was marked with additional foreign markings on the receiver, including M16 rifles, or they had nothing at all. I saw firearms manufactured in Europe, China, Russia and South America along with U.S. manufactured weapons. I saw rifles that looked familiar with no place of manufacture, no serial number or manufacturer's logo. The information was not removed, it was never there to begin with. I can only assume they came from illegal arms manufacturers in India or Pakistan that produce copies of weapons. It was obvious that none of these firearms came from a U.S. gun shop in Tucson or San Diego. You couldn't buy them from a gun shop in the states if you tried.

In fact, as that article goes on to describe, in terms of military weapons and explosives, the northerly flow of ordinance is more of a problem.

Now, on to the substance of banning “assault weapons.” The only weapon category that actually includes the word "assault" is the assault rifle. So named, it’s said, by Hitler whose old-infantryman objection to any new-rifle development had led to the first one of its kind being secretly developed under the working designation of a submachine gun, of which guns Hitler was known to be fond. The story goes that in July 1944, Hitler asked his Eastern Front commanders what he as Führer could do for them. They said "Send as many of those new rifles as you can." To which Hitler replied, "What new rifles?" When shown the "Submachine Gun 44" (MP 44), Hitler pleased and seeing an opportunity for propaganda, renamed it the Sturmgewehr 44, the “assault rifle of 1944.” As it was the first of its kind, the name stuck with the category of weapons in English (though not as strongly in German, curiously).

An “assault rifle,” strictly speaking, is a fully automatic or selective-fire rifle thatÑmost importantlyÑfires intermediate-caliber ammo. That is, its bullets are bigger than pistol ammunition, but smaller than traditional, full-sized rifle bullets. The “assault” weapons outlawed are mostly semi-automatic-only derivatives of military assault rifles that can only fire a single bullet for every trigger pullÑjust like every hunting rifle or shotgun in the country.

These intermediate-caliber weapons are actually usually less lethal than hunting rifles or traditional military rifles in that their smaller bullets do less damage on striking someone. As I remarked to someone during the Beltway “sniper” attacks, it was both obvious and fortunate that the only way you could call the murderers “snipers” was that they were taking aimed shots from concealment (Beltway Bushwackers would have been much more alliterative, no?) While they shot damnably well, they always shot from relatively close rangeÑunlike a professional sniper or genuine marksman wouldÑand moreover, they were using an AR-15 clone, which fires 5.56x45mm (.223 Remington) ammunition.

The latter choice on their part almost surely saved the lives of Iran Brown (then a thirteen-year-old boy), Caroline Seawell, and Jeffrey Hopper, all of whom were hit in the torso. Had the “snipers” been using an off-the-shelf bolt-action deer rifle, a WWII-vintage M1 Garand, or a WWI-vintage Springfield (in .30-06/7.62x63mm), their chances of their surviving such a massive wound would have been slim.

So what explains Holder’s enthusiasm for chasing after these weapons which, cosmetics aside, are no moreÑand often lessÑdangerous than the “good” guns left unbanned? Likely the mere thought of advancing gun control in a palatable form. But, as said, the psychoanalysis is for this author’s betters.

But interesting psychoanalysis it might be, given Holder’s emergence as a loose cannon early on in the Obama Administration. Perhaps emboldened by his pro forma confirmation when serious questions could have been posed to him about, e.g., the Marc Rich pardons which he handled and which made the Clinton Administration and the Democratic Party look so tainted and corrupt in 2000, Holder has bid fair to take Joe Biden’s place as the Administration’s designated gaffe machine. Before floating the politically unwise gun ban, he was quoted as calling America “a nation of cowards” when it comes to discussing race.

Again, while it’s outside the purview of this little space dedicated to things that go boom, it’s passing strange that over the past year Americans have been lectured on “the Race Question” by a half-Kenyan guy and a second-generation Barbadian-American. My own family can tell stories about the black servant boy my white great-grandfather's age who grew up alongside him and was employed by the family for his whole life, including babysitting my mother and her siblings, even after he got out of jail for blowing the new maid away with a shotgun in a drunken rage…and these Johnny-come-latelies are going to tell us about the painful complexities of race in America? Come on. Black and white Americans alike deserve to be treated not as pathetic victims and crypto-bigots, but as adults mutually invested in the sake of the American enterprise by overcoming the wounds of the past and the bumps of the present.

But I digress.

The facts remain that banning “assault weapons” didn't lower gun crime the last time around; machine guns have been tightly regulated since 1934; and gun control has proved a political loser for Democrats. If the Attorney General wishes to proceed down this road, it will show that here as elsewhere left-wing ideology, not pragmatic problem-solving, is driving the Administration.