This is probably a fool's errand but here goes:
First and foremost it is important to understand that 'assault rifles' and 'assault weapons' are two very different terms that do not refer to the same things at all. 'Assault rifles' is a technical term that denotes fully automatic firearms that the military uses such as the C-8. These firearms have already been essentially banned in Canada since 1977.
'Assault weapons' is a pejorative political terms that came into being in 1988 by Josh Sugarman at the Violence Policy center. The intent of the term is to confuse the non gun owning population into falsely dividing essentially identical firearms into two categories: 'good guns' and 'bad guns'. The goal here is a divide and conquer technique to artificially label certain guns as 'bad' so that political cover can be given to the government to ban them. Once that is complete the label's application is expanded to cover more firearms, with the claim that the previous law "didn't go far enough." The end goal is complete prohibition on all firearms as is essentially the case in the UK and is almost the case in Australia.
Josh Sugarman himself extolled the benefits of using the term assault weapon as "The semi-automatic weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons — anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun — can only increase that chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons."
The confusion of the general public over 'assault weapons' is directly tied to the propaganda that there are distinct characteristics that set assault apart from other firearms and makes them more powerful and or more dangerous. The fact is that so called 'assault weapons' function in exactly the same way as firearms that are not considered assault weapons:
1) They fire semi-automatically, one pull of the trigger fires a single bullet
2) They do not fire a caliber that is any more powerful than traditional 'hunting' firearms - in fact they often shoot far less powerful rounds that would be incapable of hunting larger game such as elk or moose
Because of the fact that there is not real distinction between 'assault weapons' and non 'assault weapons', proponents of the assault weapons bans have had to resort to some legal contortions in order to find a dividing line between 'assault weapons' and non 'assault weapons'. Because there is no functional difference, proponents of bans legislate based purely on cosmetic features of firearms that do not materially alter the performance characteristics of the firearm. The specific cosmetic features selected are not chosen based on any objective criteria, but are instead chosen based on trying to ban as many firearms as possible without including the 'traditional' rifle design.
Traditional rifles typically have a wood stock and simple, clean lines. The design dates from the late 19th century and is what most people think of when they think of 'hunting' rifles. Ergonomics on these firearms was adequate but not optimal, but given the technology of the times was state of the art. Some of the disadvantages of this design:
1) Non adjustable stock which meant one size fits all, smaller or larger people had to make do
2) These firearms fired expensive and very powerful cartridges and often cause pain, causing reduced accuracy due to flinching and increased muzzle rize
3) Wood stocked firearms were subject to water damage and swelling
4) These firearms weighed quite a bit and were tiresome to lug around
5) Barrels on firearms get hot very quickly, often after only a few shots - it was easy to burn oneself on the exposed barrel
In response to this during the 20th century many advancements were made in ergonomics to improve the shooters comfort, safety and accuracy. These include:
1) Light weight, skeletonized firearms with a large amount of plastic. These are often simply black in colour due to the finishing process.
2) Adjustable stocks that allowed the shooter to fit the rifle to their size
3) Smaller caliber cartridges that are cheaper and cause little recoil, reducing pain and increasing enjoyment and accuracy
4) Redesigned stock shape that placed the stock in direct line with the bore of the rifle, reducing muzzle rise and increasing accuracy. This change necessitated the change to a pistol grip due to the placement of the shooter's hands
5) Barrel shrouds and other safety material placed around the barrel to prevent the shooter from burning themselves
6) Improved forward grips that are adjustable in location and improve comfort and accuracy
The actual fire mechanics of the firearms are identical - very little has changed in that regard for over 100 years. These rifles are sometime's termed 'modern' rifles but in reality essentially all of the features were invented by the 1950's and most so called 'assault weapons' use a 60 year old design. The most popular design of modern rifles is the AR-15 rifle.
Why would someone want an AR-15?
1) The ammunition it fires, .223 Remington, is low recoil, cheap, and accurate compared to many more powerful cartridges
2) they have very little recoil and are pleasant to shoot for both men and women alike
3) they are durable and lightweight - their design is over 60 years old and time tested
4) they are very versatile in shooting discipline: long range sharpshooting, three gun matches, informal plinking, etc.
5) a large number of accessories are available that can be mounted such as improved optics, bipods for steady shots from the bench
7) They represent the pinnacle of ergonomic and comfort for the shooter
What about crime involving assault weapons?
Criminal use of assault weapons is very low. Rifles and shotguns do not generally lend themselves to urban criminal use. In general use of all rifles and shotguns in homicide is very low - for example approximately 3% of homicides in the United States are perpetrated using a long gun of any type. And assault weapons make up an much smaller fraction of that. More people are killed by hands and feet or strangulation then are killed by rifles of all types. In terms of crime reduction, assault weapons ban are ineffective.
In fact previous assault weapons bans in the United States have been studied in great details. As John Lott says:
Despite plenty of studies by criminologists and economists, none of the academic criminologists or economists who have studied this have found any benefits from the law. One of the studies was even funded by the Clinton administration. Yet, this study too concluded: "the evidence is not strong enough for us to conclude that there was any meaningful effect (i.e., that the effect was different from zero)." Seven years later, in 2004, the authors of that report (Chris Koper and Jeff Roth) published a follow-up study for the National Institute of Justice together with a fellow criminologist (Dan Woods). Yet again, they could not discern any benefit: "we cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation's recent drop in gun violence. And, indeed, there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence."
..snip...
more may follow....
