America; the country of free markets, free people and free speech, a gun crazed country in which over 40% of the populous say they either own a gun or live in a house with one. It is undoubtedly true, that on the whole America has a Gun loving culture in which more guns exist than people. However, in recent times, the country is divided. Following every mass shooting a common theme persists. It seems as if each time there is a new tragedy, some in the media, some political figures and some in the public wait just long enough to find out a detail that supports their political agenda. Then, they let loose with political blame. For many leading house Democrats this agenda is for tighter regulation and increased gun control. 

A common solution offered by many house Democrats such as President Biden and Vice President Harris, to Mikie Sherrill of New Jersey, is to ban “semi-automatic assault rifles”. However, many believe that banning semi-automatic weaponry would have very little effect on gun crime on the whole. Recent mass shootings and national tragedies have damaged the social fabric of the USA such that, despite bans of any kind generally being unpopular, they have been brought into question. So many Americans are upset, many of them by school shootings, and rightly so, that they might be open to a ban if it promised, and proven, to save lives.

Luckily, we do not have to guess concerning the results or lack there of from banning “semi-automatic assault rifles” such as AR-15s, due to the fact that there has already been a ban of such a kind, for 10 years starting in 1994. This ban is colloquially known as the “ten-year ban”.

Although the weapons banned by this legislation were used only rarely in gun crimes before the ban, supporters felt that these weapons posed a threat to public safety because they are capable of firing many shots rapidly. They argued that these characteristics enhance offenders’ ability to kill and wound more persons and to inflict multiple wounds on each victim, so that a decrease in their use would reduce the fatality rate of gun attacks.

However, this thesis was shown to be incorrect with the effects on overall gun crime found to be “non-existent”. (US-D.O.J, 1999). Many other studies have been conducted since such as a 2014 study that found no impacts on homicide rates with an assault weapon ban (Gius, 2014)or the book published by the Oxford University press in 2014 that also concluded that “There is no compelling evidence that [the ban] saved lives".

The same DOJ study referenced earlier does recognise pre-fixing its conclusion, that studies before the ban estimated that semi-automatic “assault rifles” account for only 1-8% of total gun crime in the first place and therefore the ban was unlikely to have the dramatic effects on gun crime that supporters of the legislation claimed and hoped.

The political and practical issues with banning “semi-auto assault rifles”

If, as a political landscape, Banning Semi-Automatic Assault Rifles was viewed as ideal, there are issues with any kind of contributing policy.

Firstly, politically there are many major issues with trying to pass a ban on semi-automatic assault rifles. One of these reasons is simply that the relationship between Americans and their guns appears to have grown tighter. According to a 2011 Gallup poll, 47 percent of American adults report that they have a gun in their home or somewhere on their property. 

Furthermore, many Americans perceive owning a gun as a civil right granted through the second amendment. This right to bear arms, many believe, extends to guns of all category from a small handgun that can fit into a purse to a so called “military style” assault rifle such as an AR-15. This theory stems from deep cultural roots and a cultural belief in the ability to defend one’s family, property and liberty against a tyrannical government. 

Secondly, the NRA (National Rifle Association) has a huge presence in D.C through making large donations to members of both houses and through its broad membership base offering massive political pressure for guarantees to second amendment rights. 

Moreover, issues are not limited to politics. There are also vast practical issues with trying to permanently ban “semi-automatic assault rifles”. 

One way to ban these weapons is through ending production and legal importation. There are two main issues with this. Firstly, many weapons are still in circulation and secondly, while legal importation would be banned, illegal importation, especially so through the 3,145 km of boarder shared with Mexico, would then become a more prominent step in the chain of supply. 

Another way of permanently banning these weapons as well as removing them from circulation, is through the use of a gun buy back scheme, similar to that seen in Australia. However, firstly, this plan heavily relies on the honesty of the public, many of which would simply not offer their guns for sale back to the government. And secondly, a gun buy back scheme would be a huge administrative task which would consume an extraordinary quantity of labour-hours as well as a huge economic burden for the Government, thus being a great burden on the tax payer.

The outcomes relating to the level of gun crime in the USA.

Due to the 1994 “Ten Year Ban” and the conclusive DOJ study evaluating its affects, we do have a solid understanding of the likely effects of such a ban on overall gun crime in the USA. These effects being extremely minimal. 

Furthermore, this would also mean that while guns are being taken away from law abiding citizens, those that are, statistically most likely to commit crimes; those that do not possess their weapons legally in the first place, will have an even greater advantage over their potential victims. These outcomes, in the opinion of many, are far from favourable.

While it is not in doubt that America has her problems, especially so relating to gun crime, due to the political and practical obstacles in the way of tangible legislation and the overwhelming data suggesting that banning “semi-automatic assault rifles” does not have an effect on gun crime, this is not the route that Joe Biden should pursue.

I believe that the focus of the debate needs to shift onto more realistic and successful methods of approach to combating this issue in the USA. Many believe that positive results could be seen through multiple courses of action such as more regulation in the second-hand market, particularity at gun shows, or more comprehensive background checks at the point of purchase. 

However, one thing is clear from evaluating the 1994 “Ten Year Ban”: banning “semi-automatic weaponry” is an unpopular, ineffective and impractical policy that would realistically have an extremely minimal effect on gun crime and the overall quantity of gun deaths in the USA.

Tommy Williams