Seems pretty self-evident, no?

So why would a middle-aged white guy give a damn? Let's belabor the obvious: racism is bad, generally. Less obvious is that it's in my own self-interest to have other folks able to defend themselves, particularly high-vulnerability people like impoverished black folks. Any criminal shot or arrested while trying to mug somebody else becomes much less likely to be in a position to mug me.

"Assault Weapons"

In a military context, an assault rifle is "a specific military term for various types of fully-automatic and select-fire (multi-shot burst) intermediate-power long guns."

An "assault weapon", on the other hand, is accurately defined by the folks at Wiki as this:

Assault weapon Assault weapon or "assault-style weapon" is a nebulous term used by public officials, media, and gun-control proponents as a dysphemism to refer to any firearms they consider inappropriate for civilian ownership or look particulary menacing. Although there is no concrete meaning for this term, legally (especially as it pertains to the assault weapons ban), "assault weapon" means whatever Congress says it means.

Many (but not all) assault weapons share these characteristics:

Semiautomatic rifle, pistol, or shotgun

Ability to accept a detachable magazine

Rapidity of fire due to large magazine capacity

Medium power ammunition

Suitability for law enforcement or military use

Military-style appearance, including features that are of dubious utility to private citizens, such as a grenade launcher even though the actual grenade is not available to civilians.

Note: just about any weapon (including a rock) could be used for assault!

The frequent and erroneous use of the term "assault rifle" by media and gun control supporters when reporting on or discussing assault weapons has produced a popular and intentional misconception that assault weapons are fully-automatic machine guns. The terms are used interchangably in an effort to confuse the less-informed public and to get them to oppose "assault-style" firearms.

Assault weapons and their owners are frequently criticized by certain disarmament groups such as the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, Million Mom March, and other organizations. Those who would own assault weapons often cite novelty, collectibility, riot control, and civil defense as justification. Those who would outlaw assault weapons cite cultural utilitarianism and other societal justifications such as public safety from a perceived threat to stability presented by private ownership of assault weapons.

Most countries prohibit or heavily restrict the ownership of true assault rifles by private citizens.

See also: assault weapons ban, assault rifle

Yup. That's accurate, but it leaves some things out. What the antis usually choose to call "assault weapons" are actually less deadly than many politically correct rifles. The AR-15 (the semiauto version of the select-fire M-16), like the M-16, fires the .223 round—it's illegal for deer hunting in most jurisdictions (including Minnesota), for fear that it would injure, rather than kill, a deer, and much less deady than a shotgun.

And, of course, most of the characteristics that kindasorta define this nebulous term are, well, kind of irrelevant. Has there been some epidemic of bayonetings (part of the BATF's definition of an "assault weapon" includes a bayonet lug) and grenadings that, somehow, the antis have been failing to point to?

The skeptic in me suspects that the term "assault weapon" was created specifically to fit in the sentence, "Why would anybody need an assault weapon?" It was intended as a wedge issue, to push hunters away from the rest of the firearms community, and with the "Assault Weapons Ban" ready to sunset next year, it's time to put the wedge issue away.

As to the specifics, well, there's several answers. Many of the rifles called "assault weapons" are quite frequently used for hunting of small and medium game. While my SKS wouldn't be my first choice for groundhogs, it wouldn't be a horrible one. So-called "assault weapons" are just fine for recreational and competitive shooting—and, in fact, AR-15 variants dominate some categories of high-power rifle competition.

But let's get away from the silliness of "Why would anybody need [x]?" That's not an honest inquiry; it's just a rhetorical trick that can be used to try to argue away pretty much anything. Why does somebody need a semiauto at all, when revolvers are available? Why does somebody need a Chevy, when there are Hondas and Toyotas? Why does somebody need the Star Tribune when the Pioneer Press is being published?

Restricting rights based on others' perceptions of "need" is just plain wrong.

The "Gun Show Loophole"

The law about sales of guns at gun shows are exactly what they are about sales of guns not at gun shows. Gun dealers—people with Federal Firearms Licenses (FFLs)—are required to have purchasers fill out the same paperwork, and go through the same instant check, that they have to put buyers through anywhere else.

In those states, like Minnesota, where private sales (a "private sale" is, roughly, a sale by somebody who doesn't have a FFL) are legal, no additional paperwork is required.

So why all the fuss?

Actually, there is a little logic behind it. While private sales are legal in Minnesota, outside of gun shows, they largely take place between friends and acquaintances; at gun shows, they can take place between strangers.

So what's to stop somebody without a FFL from buying dozens upon dozens of guns and peddling them to criminals at gun shows? Well, there is that ten-year-per-sale Federal prison sentence, for one. Selling a gun to somebody you have reason to think isn't eligible to buy it is a serious crime; for another, the BATF takes a very dim view of regular and large-quantity sales by people without an FFL—even when those sales are to eligible buyers.

All in all, the "gun show loophole" is just another one of those myths.

Update 9/30/2003

David Kopel has an excellent article on the "gun show loophole" and the "assault weapon" myth right here.