Letter to the Editor: Assault rifles

Dear Editor:

In an attempt to help us understand the term “assault rifle,” a recent (3/15/2018) letter to the editor points us to the dictionary’s definition for “assault.” This carries an unfortunate consequence. Any rifle used in an assault becomes an assault rifle.

Using this logic, the Winchester 1873 lever action rifle – the one that “won the West” – is an assault rifle. By some accounts, the Sioux used it rather effectively in their assault on General Custard, whose forces, unfortunately, did not have it at their disposal. Does this or other instances of this venerable rifle’s use in “Wild West” assaults land it on assault weapons lists? Nope.

Curiously, the M1 Garand, which won many a battle for American soldiers – presumably involving an assault or two – during World War II does not qualify it for the “ban it now!” list either. Never mind the M1 Garand’s round packs a bigger punch than the much-maligned AR-15’s. (Note: “AR” stands for “ArmaLite,” not “Assault Rifle.”)

We could go on. We could itemize the numerous instances of modern semi-automatic rifles, of the “ranch, farm, and hunting” varieties, that do not make the “ban it now!” list. Many of these shoot the same exact bullet an AR-15 (or name your offending rifle) shoots, at more or less the same fire rate.

To further see the nonsense in the “assault rifle” definition, look no further than the incoherent, uninformed convolutions California law has dreamed up to rid us of the purported menace. Instead of getting rid of the AR-15 altogether, lawmakers have lavished us with a host of hoop-jumping “features” we must avoid. These include a pistol grip, a flash hider, a telescoping (or collapsing) stock, and a forward vertical grip. You modify your AR-15 to avoid or disable these, and you are legal – even if the resulting concoction packs the same firepower. Get a tiny detail wrong, and you become a felon, which then strips you of your Second Amendment rights. It almost sounds like a trap for the law-abiding, rather than the criminal who by definition will little care to comply.

The ten round magazine limit, applying to both pistols and rifles, further demonstrates the incoherence. Law-abiding citizens can no longer purchase these “high capacity” magazines, putting their safety at risk should they come face to face with an armed criminal who bypasses the limitation. But if that doesn’t convince you enough, did you know that the Parkland, Florida shooter used ten round magazines with his AR-15? Why? Because they fit better in his duffel bag. Perhaps we should ban those too (and the bag, while we’re at it).

Which brings us to the final logical consequence. If you truly want to ban “assault rifles” you will need to ban all rifles. If so, please do not waste your time and ours by nibbling at the edges. Pass Go, don’t collect $200, and proceed directly to a constitutional amendment.

On the other hand, if we truly want to solve the tragic mass shooting phenomenon, we would be well advised to use an engineering maxim. Look for root cause. Look hard, and never, ever confuse or conflate symptoms with the disease.

Eduardo Suastegui
Downey