Seaver Wang | A Failure to fire

The first rule of the national gun debate is this: much of what you know is wrong. You might blame the media — studies discredited years ago continue to play center stage in policy articles, editorials and opinion pieces overflowing with misuse of statistics and an astonishing technical ignorance. Any witness to the convoluted debate now stretching across primetime TV and internet comment boards might justifiably conclude that the issue is complex. Yet, for those with a good knowledge of the proposed law and a working understanding of firearms, the current discussion is exceedingly simple. Whether you consider yourself a supporter or an opponent of gun control is immaterial, for Senator Dianne Feinstein’s (D-Calif.) poorly-written Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 will, from a technical and a regulatory perspective, spectacularly fail to make Americans any safer from gun violence.

Those unfamiliar with the bill’s provisions might understandably treat this prediction with skepticism. Given current political rhetoric, it would seem that the assault weapons ban will outlaw the possession of “military-style” weapons once and for all, permanently keeping them out of private hands. In actuality, the Feinstein bill will in no way diminish the firepower at the disposal of private citizens. Firstly, the legislation spares the estimated three million “assault weapons” currently in circulation, a necessary concession from a practical and legal perspective that nonetheless leaves post-ban gun owners just as well-armed as they were pre-ban.

More importantly, the Feinstein bill exempts 2,200 specific rifles, shotguns and pistols from the ban by classifying them as “sporting” firearms with a legitimate recreational purpose. To anyone remotely familiar with the use and function of firearms, this clause removes any power the ban might have had. Many of the exempted firearms are semiautomatic, some are chambered for cartridges identical to those fired by “assault weapons”, and consequently, while infamous weapons like the AK-47 series of rifles might be banned under the Feinstein bill, functionally identical firearms would remain legal to purchase and own under the ban. These legal firearms might appear innocuous, with sporterized wood furniture and stocks in place of cold, black polymers and metal — but they remain equally lethal, equally capable of killing.

Ultimately, this particular inadequacy of the Feinstein Assault Weapons Ban illustrates the fundamental paradox of regulating certain “dangerous” weapons while leaving others unaffected. Many believe the misguided and demonstrably false assumption that “assault weapons” are somehow more lethal and faster-firing than other classes of firearms. A semiautomatic pistol can be fired as quickly as a rifle, without the drawbacks of weight, recoil and length. The location of a pistol’s magazine and slide makes handguns significantly faster and easier to reload than rifles.

Why, then, does our military field weapons so closely related to “assault weapons?” Our soldiers carry semiautomatic rifles because they are more accurate at ranges between 100 and 400 yards and pierce body armor (traits shared by almost all hunting rifles) and can mount target designators, grenade launchers and other equipment illegal for civilian ownership — all applications clearly irrelevant in the context of mass shootings conducted at close range against unarmored victims. Therefore, even a blanket ban on all semiautomatic rifles would be unlikely to deter a determined killer, who could simply purchase semiautomatic handguns to achieve equivalent firepower.

Furthermore, when one considers that the top 10 weapons most often seized in relation to crime by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives are all revolvers, shotguns and cheap semiautomatic pistols incapable of holding more than 10 rounds, and that an average of just 3.2 to 3.7 shots are fired in incidents where semiautomatic weapons are used, it is evident that “assault weapons” are largely irrelevant to the greater problem of gun violence across America.

The only solution, then, to national gun violence is a near-total ban. Neither shotguns, single-action revolvers nor handguns can be exempted in order for the law to have full effect. But in a nation of 300,000,000 firearms, with the right to bear arms enshrined in the amendment immediately following that which guarantees free speech, even the most outspoken of gun control activists have long conceded that in America, guns are here to stay.

Seaver Wang is a College junior. His email address is seaverwa@sas.upenn.edu.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.