Policy Memo

Memorandum

To: Congressman John Smith

Re: Recommendation on Federal Assault Weapons Ban

Background/Policy Problem Description:

Gun violence involving military-style assault weapons is a major policy issue facing our country today. In recent years, mass shootings carried out with semiautomatic rifles like the AR-15 have become heartbreakingly commonplace (Post et al., 2021). These horrific events at schools, churches, concerts, and other public places demonstrate the extreme lethality of readily available assault weapons when used for malicious intent.

In response to the rising death toll from these shootings, a bipartisan bill called the Assault Weapons Ban of 2023 (S.25) has been introduced in the Senate (Post et al., 2021). This bill would ban the future sale, transfer, manufacture, and importation of a defined list of semiautomatic assault rifles, pistols, and shotguns, as well as large capacity magazines. The legislation outlines specific firearm features that would qualify a gun as a prohibited assault weapon(Post et al., 2021). Supporters argue that passing this bill would be an important step in reducing gun deaths by keeping the most lethal modern weapons off the market. However, opponents claim the bill would do little to improve public safety while infringing on the 2nd Amendment rights of law-abiding gun owners.

Policy Position Discussion

Proponents of the assault weapons ban, including advocacy groups like the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, argue that these types of semiautomatic rifles and high capacity magazines were originally designed for military use and have no legitimate civilian purpose. They contend restrictions are justified because assault weapons are disproportionately used in mass shootings compared to other firearms. The Brady Center cites government reports showing that between 2009 and 2015, assault rifles accounted for 27% of public mass shootings despite making up less than 2% of the national gun stock (Jorgensen & Comer, 2024). They argue that preventing new sales would reduce access for potential mass shooters and likely prevent some planned attacks. Appeals are made to emotion through stories of those impacted by gun violence.

Groups opposed to the ban, such as the National Rifle Association (NRA), counter that the term "assault weapon" is a politically-motivated misnomer meant to drum up public fear. They argue that many common semiautomatic rifles deemed assault weapons under the bill differ only cosmetically from other legal models. The NRA claims that so-called assault weapons are used in only about 2-3% of overall gun crimes, citing Justice Department statistics (Jorgensen & Comer, 2024). Therefore, they argue that banning these rifles would infringe on Constitutional rights while failing to address the root causes of violent crime. Much of their case relies on using selective percentages to minimize the role of assault weapons in gun deaths.

As Deborah Stone would point out, both sides strategically "count" statistics in the way most favorable to their position. The Brady Center focuses on raw numbers and emotional stories to highlight the extreme harm assault weapons can inflict, while the NRA uses percentages to downplay its role in overall violence (Schwartz, 2022). Each side frames data selectively to gain support for its preferred policy outcome.

Recommendation

Given the increasing lethality and shocking toll of mass public shootings involving semiautomatic rifles and high-capacity magazines, I recommend supporting S.25 to ban the future sale and transfer of defined assault weapons and magazines. While these weapons are used in a minority of overall gun crimes, the disproportionate injuries and loss of life they enable in mass attacks justify this limitation (Schwartz, 2022). Passing an assault weapons ban would not completely eliminate gun violence, as non-banned weapons would still be widely available. However, preventing easy civilian access to the most lethal modern weaponry has the potential to reduce casualties from premeditated mass shootings. Restricting future sales also sends an important message that military-inspired weapons meant for the battlefield have no place in civil society. Reasonable, tailored restrictions on access to specific types of very lethal firearms do not contradict the protections of the 2nd Amendment. I suggest working collaboratively with the bill's sponsors and law enforcement experts on any modifications to S.25 needed to balance public safety and the rights of law-abiding gun owners.