The media's error-filled assault on 'assault weapons'

By Bob McNitt

Each time I read or hear the general media referring to "assault firearms," I cringe. Why? Because many of them have little or no idea of what they're talking about. The term "assault weapon" is an arbitrary (and politicized) phrase used all too often by the media to describe a collection of semi-automatic firearms that outwardly only "appear similar" to those used by the military but are not alike in actuality.
On April 18, 2007 in an interview, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (NY), sponsor of the bill "Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007" spoke on the Virginia Tech massacre and her proposed reauthorization of the Assault Weapons Ban. Asked to explain the need to regulate barrel shrouds, one of the many provisions of the Act, she responded that more importantly the legislation would ban large capacity "clips" used in the Virginia Tech massacre and that the class of guns chosen were those used by gangs and police killers. However, she apparently either never learned the facts or else was highly uninformed about the very firearms she was trying to ban.
The Virginia Tech shooter did not have high capacity magazines. They were of the legal, 10-round variety. After admitting that she did not know what a barrel shroud was, an item which she was so adamant to see banned, McCarthy ventured a guess, "I believe it is a shoulder thing that goes up". Actually a barrel shroud is a ventilated covering attached to the barrel of a firearm that partially or completely encircles the barrel, preventing burns when the barrel gets hot from rapid or fully automatic firing.
The misleading phrase "assault weapons" has been used primarily in relation to a specific expired gun law that was commonly known as the "Assault Weapons Ban", "Clinton gun ban", or "1994 crime bill." On March 2, 2004, following the bill's sunset date, it was voted down 8-90. It's worthwhile to note that The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention studied the "assault weapon" ban as well as other gun control schemes, and found "insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence.
It is a common misconception that the assault weapons ban restricted weapons capable of fully automatic fire, such as true assault rifles and machine guns. Fully automatic weapons were unaffected by the ban, although they have been primarily banned and heavily restricted by permit since the National Firearms Act of 1934. Most of these firearms being described as "assault weapons" have physical appearances similar to their military look-alikes, but there the similarity ends.
Some may have certain features, such as a folding or pistol-grip stock, barrel shroud, or the ability to accept a detachable magazine of a capacity larger than ten rounds. The term "assault weapon" has often been erroneously compared to machinegun-like rifles, which are illegal to own or buy without a special Federal permit. Many states and localities still carelessly use the term assault weapon with a variety of variations because the firearm "looks" like a military model. But in truth, they are functionally and basically the same as the popular but "more traditional looking" firearms used by hunters and target shooters.
The glaring difference that separates a true assault firearm from those being called assault firearms is an assault firearm is truly fully automatic, meaning it fires much like a machinegun, spewing out bullets in rapid succession as long as the trigger is held down. Semi automatics require the trigger be pulled to fire each individual shot, one at a time. Those being mistakenly lumped with true fully automatic firearms is like saying VW Beatles race in the Daytona 500.
The history of popular hunting rifles and their origins -- from the WWI 1903 Springfield bolt-action rifle to today's AR-platform rifles -- illustrates how for more than 100 years rifles used by the military that possess battlefield requirements of accuracy, ruggedness and reliability became, understandably, popular civilian sporting rifles. Thus, today's AR-15-style modern sporting rifles are just another step in the evolution of the tools hunters and target shooters use to enjoy their activities. None are fully automatic, meaning that a single round is fired each time the trigger is pulled, just like all repeating guns currently in use by civilians.
In the 1860s the Henry Rifle used the lever-action and the new cartridge technology to allow highly accurate, powerful, rapid-firing guns. The Henry gave birth to the 1873 Winchester, "the gun that won the West." Lever actions then became very popular with civilian shooters and hunters and have remained popular ever since. Then in WWII and the Korean War the M-1 Garand military semi-auto spawned several models of semi-automatic civilian sporting rifles. The Vietnam War saw the emergence of the M14, AK-47, M16 and subsequent M-16 series, which are the forerunners of the civilian "AR-15 type" semi-auto designed rifles now being mistakenly called "assault rifles," but which are increasingly becoming popular as hunting and target shooting tools.
When I see the media and many politicians feeding the public such incorrect and erroneous information, it makes me wonder just how reliable the rest of what they tell us is? I'm also reminded of a classic Mark Twain (aka Samuel Clemens) quote: "If you don't read the newspaper, you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed."
How easily can misinformation or incorrect information to a news-dependent public result in asinine new laws passed by politicians? In Great Britain, the news media did such a disservice that a ban on ownership of handguns was introduced in 1997 as a result of the Dunblane massacre. The use of handguns in crime rose by 40 per cent in the two years after the weapons were banned. Now there's a movement to ban knives because Murders and other homicides involving knives are up 10 per cent, and attempted murders up 8 per cent on top of a huge increase in knife robberies. Boy Scouts in the UK may be banned from carrying knives as the law on carrying knives in public is so ambiguous.
It's a good thing the media doesn't turn its attention to the number of erroneous stories and misinformation that are often reported by some. That might just put many of them right next to the tabloids in super markets.