Gun Policy Assault-Weapons Bans

Assault-Weapons Bans

Reads at about grade 5Both sides shown9 sources cited

An assault-weapons ban is a law. It bans certain military-style rifles and the large magazines that let a shooter keep firing without reloading.

What it is

"Assault weapon" refers to a semiautomatic gun -- one that fires a single bullet each pull of the trigger, then reloads itself. It's not a machine gun. These guns often have military-style parts and can take a large magazine, the box that holds the bullets. California bans many of these guns by name and by feature, and also limits large magazines. The whole country had a similar ban from 1994 to 2004, before it was allowed to expire. What does the research show? These guns are used in a small share of gun crimes -- a U.S. Justice Department study looking at the years before the 1994 ban found they were used in about 2% of gun crimes, and no more than 8%. The RAND Corporation, which reviews gun studies, says there aren't yet good studies to show if these bans work. Some researchers focus on the large magazines instead of the guns: a big magazine lets a shooter fire many bullets without stopping to reload. Whether limiting magazines prevents mass shootings is still debated, and honest researchers disagree about how much a ban helps.

How it works

Assault-weapons laws target guns with military-style features, such as a pistol grip, a folding stock, or a flash hider, along with large magazines -- generally defined as holding more than 10 rounds. California is one of the strictest states: it bans many models by name, including copies of the AK-47 and AR-15, bans semiautomatic rifles that take a detachable magazine and have certain features, and limits large magazines. People argue about two things. First, does it work? The banned guns are rare in everyday crime, so critics say a ban barely changes the numbers -- but these guns show up more often in mass shootings, so supporters say a ban can still save lives in the worst attacks. Second, is it fair? Owners say these rifles are among the most common in America and feel a ban punishes peaceful people; many also believe it clashes with the Second Amendment. The rules can be tricky, too -- two nearly identical guns can be legal or illegal based on one small part.

The debate — equal weight, both sides

The case for banning assault weapons

Most often made by gun-safety groups, public-health researchers, Democrats, and the political left.

When a mass shooter uses these weapons, far more people are hurt. Everytown, a gun-safety group, studied mass shootings and found that attacks with an assault weapon or a large magazine cause "400 percent more victims." The reason: those reload pauses are the moments when victims run and others fight back, and a big magazine removes them. History points the same way. Giffords, another safety group, looked at the 1994 federal ban and found that during the 10 years it was law, "mass shooting fatalities were 70% less likely." A peer-reviewed study went further, estimating that keeping the ban would have "prevented up to 38 public mass shootings." No single law stops all gun violence, and supporters don't claim otherwise. But these weapons are built for fast fire and can turn a shooting into a massacre. California limits them to make the worst attacks rarer and less deadly. Asking gun owners to pick a less dangerous weapon is a small price, they say -- it could help keep a classroom of children alive.

The case against banning assault weapons

Most often made by gun-rights groups, Second Amendment advocates, Republicans, and the political right.

A ban sounds tough, but it barely touches crime. Rifles of every kind account for only a few hundred murders a year: FBI data for 2020 counted 455 rifle killings, fewer than the 662 done with hands, fists, and feet. So a ban chases a tiny slice of the problem. Owners say these rifles are among the most popular guns in America, kept for self-defense, sport, and hunting. A Cato Institute commentary highlighted a news report that the years after the 1994 ban expired brought no "noticeable increase in gun crime." Cato also calls the rules arbitrary, noting that past bans have swept in things like "22-caliber 'squirrel guns,' handguns, shotguns, and so on" -- one small feature can decide if a gun is legal. For owners, this is about rights, not just numbers. They point to the Second Amendment and say it should protect guns that millions commonly own. This law disarms peaceful people, they argue, with little proof it cuts crime. To them, that trades real freedom for a false sense of safety.

Sources

Behind the summary

Cited by "The case for banning assault weapons"

Cited by "The case against banning assault weapons"

The two sides appear only when both are sourced, and every explainer is reviewed by a person before it goes live. We summarize what each side argues; we never tell you how to vote.