I am a professor of philosophy. I am also a gun owner. And I think that advocates of gun control need to stop all this nonsense about banning “assault rifles.”
True “assault rifles” in the technical sense are not used in mass shootings in the US. A “necessary condition” (as we philosophers like to say) for something being an assault rifle is that it is capable of firing both semiautomatic and fully automatic. Semiautomatic means it fires one round every time you pull the trigger, without you needing to do anything else. Fully automatic means it keeps firing rounds as long as you hold the trigger down, or until the magazine is empty. You need federal approval to own a true assault rifle or other fully automatic weapon, and they are prohibitively expensive for most people.
When the government tries to ban so-called “assault rifles,” they are really banning semiautomatic rifles with certain features, but many of the features that legislators pick out are not especially important. An AR-15 and a Ruger Mini 14 have the same caliber and same rate of fire, but the former is regulated in states like New York, New Jersey, and California because it has a pistol grip and a muzzle brake (misspelled “break” in the New York legislation), while the latter is not. Guess what? You’re just as dead if someone shoots you with a rifle that does not have a pistol grip or muzzle brake, and the improvement in accuracy from these features at the ranges most mass shooters are using these weapons is negligible. A further problem is that gun manufacturers are clever, and they frequently figure out ways to mitigate the effects of the restrictions. (This Wall Street Journal video is a good explainer.)
So is there nothing we can do about the epidemic of mass shootings in the US? There is something. One of our distinguished statesmen, Republican Senator Marco Rubio, showed us the way in a town hall meeting on CNN on 22 February 2018: “Once you start looking at how easy it is to get around [legislation to ban ‘assault rifles’], you would literally have to ban every semiautomatic rifle that is sold in America.” The audience erupted in thunderous applause at Rubio’s suggestion (to his evident chagrin).
Rubio was (unintentionally) right. In order to address the problem of mass shootings in the US, we need to eliminate all semiautomatic firearms, including semiautomatic rifles, semiautomatic shotguns, and semiautomatic pistols. Semiautomatic pistols are actually more commonly used in mass shootings than semiautomatic rifles. In addition, there is not a categorical distinction between “pistols” and “rifles,” so if we only ban semiautomatic rifles, gun manufacturers will produce what are legally pistols that function as, or can be easily converted to, rifles. Banning semiautomatic firearms would not infringe on legitimate uses: for someone who wants to hunt, control pests on their farm, target shoot, or protect their homes, revolvers, bolt or lever-action rifles, and pump-action shotguns are more than adequate. In fact, for self-defense, pump-action shotguns and revolvers are superior in many ways. At close range, a shotgun has immense “stopping power” (that is a technical term, and not a euphemism), and buckshot is less likely than a rifle bullet to penetrate a wall and kill an unintended target. In addition, revolvers are easier to use than semiautomatic pistols, and so are a better choice for civilians with less extensive handgun training. (Incidentally, none of the creators of any of the videos or articles I link to have endorsed my views as expressed in this article.)
And, no, you do not have a Constitutional right to own a semiautomatic firearm. Such weapons did not exist when the 2nd Amendment was ratified in 1791, and they were not even practical until the development of “smokeless powder” in the 19th century. As late as WWII, the US had the only army with a successful, standard-issue semi-automatic rifle (the M1 Garand), which gave our soldiers a substantial tactical advantage. Legendary US General George S. Patton glowingly described the Garand as “the greatest battle implement ever devised.” So there is no reason to think that the framers of the 2nd Amendment had any opinions about private ownership of semiautomatic rifles, any more than they had opinions about the private ownership of thermonuclear weapons, nerve gas, or lightsabers (which would have all seemed equally fantastic to them). In the opening lecture of my course on firearms, I show a side-by-side video comparison of the rate of fire of a Revolutionary War era flintlock musket compared to a contemporary semiautomatic rifle, so you can see the difference between what kind of firearms the Founding Fathers had in mind and what we have now.
Furthermore, if you read the entire text of the 2nd Amendment, you’ll see that it is about the right of a “free State” (as in New York, Pennsylvania, etc.) to have a “well regulated Militia” (as in a State National Guard). Many of the Founding Fathers favored state militias as an alternative to having a large standing federal army, which was considered a threat to democracy. (The US currently has the third largest military in the world by personnel: so much for following the intent of the 2nd Amendment!) “Bear arms” is also a technical term, referring to carrying arms while in military service, not while at your local supermarket.
Consequently, the near-unanimous legal opinion for over two centuries was that states can regulate firearms however they want, since the 2nd Amendment is about the right of states to have militias, and that the federal government has wide latitude to regulate firearms as long as it does not interfere with the state militias. Unfortunately, in recent years, our activist Supreme Court has decided to throw out the window the legal consensus, stare decisis, and the opinions of elected legislators on the 2nd Amendment. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) Justice Scalia invented an individual right to own a firearm unconnected to militia service, and in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen (2022), Justice Thomas invented a right to carry a concealed firearm. But Supreme Court Justices come and go, and someday integrity and common sense will return to the highest court in the land.
Assuming the Supreme Court allows it, should we attempt to confiscate semiautomatic firearms that people currently own? No. The opposition to confiscating semiautomatic weapons will be immense, and we would have a thousand Ruby Ridges and a hundred Wacos, given the heavy-handed tactics the federal government has a history of using. However, the following steps would eventually allow us to vastly reduce the civilian ownership of semiautomatic weapons over time. First, make illegal the sale, inheritance, or gifting of semiautomatic firearms and parts for semiautomatic firearms to civilians. This would not make current ownership illegal, but would make it impossible for people to legally acquire them in the future, and difficult to maintain the ones they own. This would not immediately change our gun culture, but it would at least make it more difficult to give a troubled 14-year-old a semiautomatic rifle as a Christmas present, as the father of the recent Georgia shooter allegedly did. Manually operated firearms (including revolvers as well as bolt, lever, pump, and break-open long guns) would still be legal to purchase for marksmanship, hunting, pest control on farms, and self-defense.
Second, require a federal license for all new firearm purchases (both long guns and pistols), for which one must show a legitimate purpose for firearms ownership, and for which one must complete a training course (written and practical). Currently, it is almost impossible to get firearms training in the US without directly or indirectly putting money in the pockets of the National Rifle Association (NRA), which has become a partisan political organization, rather than the marksmanship and gun safety organization it started out to be. (Former President George H. W. Bush resigned as a Life Member of the NRA in protest over the radical turn the organization had taken.) Consequently, the third step should be to set up a federally funded firearm training and legal education program completely distinct from the NRA. Fourth, offer a buyback program for semiautomatic firearms at twice their current market value.
I know that after reading this, many of my friends (and probably even more strangers) will say: “How can you propose restrictions on gun ownership, Bryan? You own guns! You like shooting! You’re even a pretty good shot!” My answer is that my hobbies are not worth other people’s lives, and I will gladly surrender my semiautomatic firearms when my neighbors surrender theirs.
Bryan W. Van Norden
Bryan W. Van Norden (@bryanvannorden) is a professor of philosophy at a liberal arts college, and the author of several books, includingTaking Back Philosophy: A Multicultural Manifesto. He has concealed carry licenses in both New York and Florida.
