Assessing the Need for Banning Military-Style Assault Weapons: A Critical Analysis

The debate over the need to ban military-style assault weapons is as heated as ever. Advocates on both sides of the argument often draw upon complex and sometimes conflicting reasons for their stances. Let's delve into the nuances of this issue and explore why such weapons should or should not be outlawed.

Understanding the Terms: “Military-Style” and “Assault Weapon”

One of the most critical and often ignored aspects of this debate is the precise definition of what constitutes a “military-style” or “assault weapon.” Simply calling a weapon that resembles a military firearm as one does not automatically make it an “assault weapon.”

Firstly, the term “military style” is not legally or firearms industry-defined. It is a subjective term that can mean different things to different people. The reality is that AR15s and AK47s, which are often described as being military “style,” are not military weapons. They are civilian firearms designed for sports and law enforcement.

Secondly, calling a weapon an “assault weapon” is a political term, not a real firearm designation. These terms are often used more for their symbolic value than their factual accuracy. For instance, a shotgun or a bolt-action rifle, despite being used in military contexts, are not considered assault weapons in this political discourse.

The Reality of Banning Military-Style Assaultr Weapons

An attempt to ban these firearms might be based on the belief that such a step could prevent mass shootings. However, as discussed, handguns are also military weapons and are commonly used in such incidents. An AR15 or any other rifle, even if banned, isn’t going to stop a determined shooter from using another type of weapon. For example, in the Virginia Tech shooting, the gunman used two handguns, not an AR15. And since it's relatively easy to get a handgun, a ban on AR15s is unlikely to have a significant impact on homicide rates.

Moreover, the cost of obtaining such military-grade weapons is often exorbitant, meaning that it is difficult for an ordinary American citizen to purchase one. These weapons are typically used by special forces or have very specific licensing requirements. As such, it is highly unlikely that they would be used in a public mass shooting scenario by an individual who does not have access to these weapons.

A Look at How State-Level Bans Have Fared

Several states have tried to implement their own bans on military-style assault weapons, but these bans have often been overturned due to the unconstitutionality related to the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment, along with other constitutional provisions, protects the right to bear arms. For a state-level ban on such firearms to be upheld, it would need to clear constitutional muster, which is a challenging barrier to overcome.

The experience of states like California, which has strict gun control laws, provides little evidence to support the contention that such bans are effective. Rather, violations of these bans are largely theoretical or non-existent due to the already stringent regulations and the high cost of obtaining these weapons.

The Futility of Banning Mass Shooting Weapons

The logic behind banning military-style rifles as a means to prevent mass shootings is flawed. Mass shooters often use whatever weapons they can obtain, and these weapons can range from a truck filled with explosives to household items. What exactly is the list of items that we should ban to stop a determined individual from committing a mass shooting? Banning rental trucks, fertilizer, or diesel fuel would be equally ineffective.

People who are committed to doing evil will find a way to do so, regardless of the measures in place. If a person is determined to kill, they will find alternative methods, and this includes using weapons that aren't even banned or difficult to obtain.

Conclusion

The debate over banning military-style assault weapons is complex and often emotional. However, it is crucial to approach this issue with clarity and objectivity. Banning these weapons is unlikely to be an effective solution to the problem of mass shootings. Instead, it would be more productive to focus on measures that can realistically prevent such incidents, such as improving mental health care, enhancing school security, and addressing the root causes of violence in society.