The “Assault Weapon” Fallacy

At GunDigest, we independently review products. However, we may earn a commission when you purchase through links on our site. Learn More

Unpacking the truth, data and real self-defense uses of so-called assault weapons.

Few topics in American politics generate as much heat, and as little light, as the debate over so-called “assault weapons.” For decades, politicians and media outlets have leaned heavily on the term to conjure images of battlefield carnage and mass destruction, often painting civilian ownership of rifles like the AR-15 as both unnecessary and dangerous.

But what if the narrative surrounding these firearms is more rhetoric than reality? What if the “assault weapon” label is little more than a political invention designed to confuse the public and restrict lawful gun ownership?

That’s the question at the heart of the “assault weapon” debate, and it’s one worth answering with facts, history and a sober look at self-defense in the real world.

What’s in a Name?

The phrase “assault weapon” is, at its core, a political creation. It first gained traction in the late 1980s and 1990s as lawmakers sought to capitalize on public unease about semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15. Unlike the military term “assault rifle,” which refers specifically to select-fire, intermediate-caliber rifles such as the German Sturmgewehr 44, the civilian rifles at the center of controversy are not automatic weapons at all.

Modern, commercially available AR-15s, for example, are semi-automatic firearms. They fire a single round with each pull of the trigger, just like most handguns and hunting rifles owned by millions of Americans. Semi-auto AR-15s have never been a standard-issue rifle for the U.S. Military. Yet they have been demonized through cosmetic features like pistol grips, collapsible stocks and flash hiders that have no effect on how the action of the rifle operates.

Federal Judge Roger Benitez summed up this absurdity in his ruling striking down California’s assault weapons ban: Rifles banned under the law are functionally identical to many others that remain perfectly legal. The distinction is purely cosmetic. In other words, these bans punish firearms for how they look, not for what they do.

The Data Doesn’t Lie

Gun control advocates frequently claim that “assault weapons” are the firearm of choice for mass shooters. But when we look at the actual numbers, the picture changes dramatically.

Research from Dr. John Lott Jr.’s Crime Prevention Research Center, covering mass shootings from 1998 through 2023, found that the most common firearm used in such crimes is not a rifle at all, but a handgun, responsible for over half of all incidents. Rifles of any type, including AR-15s, were used as the sole firearm in fewer than 17 percent of cases.

And here’s a striking fact: Even if every single homicide committed with a rifle were attributed to an AR-15, those crimes would account for less than 0.000018 percent of the total number of AR-15s in civilian hands. Put differently, more than 99.999985 percent of AR-15s are never used in crime.

The data also undercuts claims that the 1994 federal assault weapons ban saved lives. A Department of Justice study commissioned after the ban expired in 2004 concluded it had no measurable effect on reducing gun violence. Subsequent research by economists Mark Guis and Carlisle Moody reached the same conclusion: Neither the federal ban nor various state-level bans reduced firearm homicide rates.

Despite political talking points to the contrary, the hard evidence shows that targeting “assault weapons” does nothing to prevent violence.

The Second Amendment and the Role of Rifles in Defense

Beyond data and definitions, there is the matter of principle. The Second Amendment, as the Supreme Court has affirmed, protects the right of law-abiding citizens to own and use firearms for self-defense. That right is not confined to muskets, nor is it contingent on whether a firearm has a pistol grip or a flash suppressor.

Modern rifles like the AR-15 play a vital role in personal and home defense, especially in situations where defenders might face multiple attackers. Judge Benitez cited several cases in his ruling:

• A pregnant woman in Florida used an AR-15 to defend her family against two armed intruders.
• A 61-year-old disabled man in rural America relied on his AR-15 when three men tried to break into his home.
• Another homeowner successfully repelled seven armed and masked attackers with his AR-15.

In each case, ordinary citizens faced extraordinary threats. Without the firepower and capacity of a modern rifle, these individuals might well have become mere statistics. Instead, they protected themselves and their loved ones, a constitutionally protected right exercised in its truest sense.

Why Killers Choose “Gun-Free Zones”

If rifles are not the main driver of mass shootings, what is? The uncomfortable truth is that mass killers don’t primarily choose their weapons. They choose their victims, and they overwhelmingly prefer places where their targets are least able to fight back.

Empirical evidence suggests that over 90 percent of mass public shootings occur in so-called “gun-free zones.” The Aurora theater shooter bypassed several closer theaters to attack the one that banned firearms. The Nashville Covenant School shooter specifically avoided another potential target because of its heavy security presence. The Orlando nightclub shooter initially planned to attack Disney World but abandoned the plan after seeing extensive armed security.

The pattern is clear: Killers prefer soft targets. The label on the gun doesn’t matter nearly as much as whether the intended victims can defend themselves.

Active Shooter Response: Why Seconds Count

So how can tragedies be prevented or at least mitigated? The answer lies not in waiting for police, nor in relying solely on passive measures like lockdown drills or cameras. As firearms instructor Ed Monk emphasizes, “time and math” dictate outcomes. Every second an attacker remains unopposed increases the body count. To keep casualties in the single digits, a shooter must be confronted within 30 seconds.

Law enforcement, even when fast, usually takes three to eight minutes to arrive—far too long. The only people positioned to act quickly enough are those already on the scene: the intended victims.

That is why armed citizens play such a critical role. From Jack Wilson’s decisive action in a Texas church to Eli Dicken’s intervention in an Indiana mall, everyday Americans have stopped mass shooters with precision and courage … and often with higher accuracy rates than trained police.

For armed citizens, however, responsibility is paramount. Rule Four of firearm safety, “Be sure of your target and what is beyond it,” must always guide defensive action. Training is essential to ensure 100 percent accuracy within one’s abilities, minimizing risks of stray rounds.

Conclusion: Shifting the Focus

The debate over “assault weapons” has never really been about function or effectiveness. It has been about appearances and politics. Cosmetic bans don’t save lives, and statistics show rifles like the AR-15 are rarely used in crimes. Meanwhile, they remain among the most valuable tools available for lawful self-defense.

As Lysander Spooner wisely observed: “To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless.” That principle is as true today as it was in Spooner’s time.

The focus should not be on restricting rifles that millions of responsible Americans own and use safely. Instead, it should be on empowering individuals with training, preparation, and the mindset necessary to stop violent attackers before they can inflict widespread harm.

Freedom and security are not opposites. They go hand-in-hand, and in a free society, the ultimate responsibility for defense will always rest with the people, not with the government. 

Editor's Note: This article originally appeared in the November 2025 issue of Gun Digest the Magazine.

---

More On Gun Rights:

• End Of An Era: The Russian Ammo Ban
• Backdoor Gun Control: The '94 Norinco Ban
• Rare Breed Triggers And ATF Clash Over The FRT-15
• ATF Classifies Pot Scrubbers As NFA Firearms
• Hunting For The True Meaning Of The Second Amendment