The Difference between Assault Rifles and Submachine Guns

The assault weapons ban irks me. Its way too broad. I can understand banning submachine guns. I was once at a museum/reinactment center where they had booths. Someone was selling a Mac 10 in some condition or other for $150. I was in high school and had not the funds. Alas. Nevertheless I can see why this weapon would offend the sensibilities of my neighbors. It has no purpose other than to spray over a thousand rounds per minute of pistol ammunition (actually you would unload a clip in about a second). Its for crime or a well armed insurection. While a well armed populace is a free populace, a well armed criminal element is a dangerous criminal element.

The Mac 10 is a submachine gun. On the other hand, an M-16 is an assault rifle. It is a 22 calibre rifle just like the kind you might take hunting. In its civilian incarnartion as the AR-15, the weapon functioned as a 22 rifle. Rifles are good for putting bullets on a target at hundreds of yards away. They are not good in bank robberies, subway hold-ups, or schoolyard shootings. In close, you want a pistol. Or, the decendent of the pistol, the submachinegun.

The submachinegun is a pistol that is configured to fire like a machinegun - rapidly. Early submachineguns were actually pistols with large clips and the ability to fire like a machinegun. It didn't take forever for people to start designing submachineguns to be used exclusivly like a submachine gun without the notion that they would ever be used like a pistol. Their small size and high calibre pistol ammunition make them ideal weapons for laying down a lot of lead up close and personal. They are handly in even the tightest spaces. They are indoor weapons, useful around buildings, or built up areas. They are designed to be used in cities. We don't need such a weapon. Rifles have long barrels, fire long rifle ammunition, and are clumsy in tight areas. They are long range weapons. I am content to think that law abiding people can do just fine with pistols and rifles.

And yet we have an assualt weapons ban. In the rose garden in 1998 President Clinton spoke about "Byrl's 17-year-old son ... killed with an AK 47." My responce, could have been any rifle. Gun accidents will always happen if we have guns. Much like the fact that car accidents will always happen if we have cars. If there is no special reason that the AK 47 is an unsocial weapon, then its just another rifle. Clinton went on to say, "As everyone knows, you don't need an Uzi to go deer hunting. Youdon't need an AK 47 to go skeet shooting. These are militaryweapons, weapons of war." Here is our problem. The Uzi and the AK 47 are distinctly different weapons. The SIG - 210 is a military weapon. Is it any less lethal than the AK 47? Under the conditions children will encounter weapons under, its far more dangerous as a matter of fact. If the press reported that a child was killed with a 7.62 rifle you wound't know whether it was an AK 47 or a Springfield M 1903 bolt action repeater, and there is very little difference between them. Machine guns and weapons which can fire as automatic weapons have been outlawed since the gangster era of tommy guns. If the AK 47 is not capable of automatic fire, its just another rifle. One designed for simple maintenence and durability, and yes, a military weapon. Nearly all weapons are designed to kill stuff. Aside from its original purpose, how is a deer rifle functionally different from the civilian models of military weapons? The deer rifle is probabaly more accurate. Sounds like its the more dangerous weapon to me. What good is served by banning assualt rifles? None that I can think of.

Submachineguns have no civilian purpose. This is not to say that they should be banned. Gas masks have no civilian purpose either. That in itself is no reason to outlaw an object. I can see that submachineguns are well suited to criminal enterprises and do not protect civilians better than pistols or rifles. Assualt rifles, under the laws established in the National Firearms Act of 1934, are the functional equivelents of hunting weapons. The differences are either cosmetic, have a design for military purpose that does not create a danger (military weapons are often lighter because you have to carry it all the time, they include bayonet mounts - and don't tell me that the terrible bayonet deaths require their ban), or are already covered by previous legislation.

Submachineguns are the design offspring of pistols, fire pistol ammunition, and are are little more than big pistols designed to fire a lot of rounds often innaccuratly. Rifles have long barrels, fire rifle ammunition, and are designed to kill at range. I can understand a move to ban submachineguns. Banning assualt rifles is daffy. Here are some good sites on the subject:

Lies and Self-Loading Rifles
The 1994 "Assault Weapons" Myth
The Assualt Weapons Scam