Before we begin, let me state there are hundreds of possible arguments that could go under this title, and over the course of writing this blog, I have made many of them ("Gun Control, The FDA and Regulating the Law Abiding", "The Weakest Gun Control Argument", "Nuclear Disarmament and Gun Control "). However, today, I do not plan to make them all. Instead, I want to focus on a single aspect of gun control, the tendency to try to ban specific weapons, or classes of weapons (even classes which only exist in the minds of regulators, such as "assault rifles"), and the pointlessness of such venture. Of course, before beginning I will offer up the most obvious arguments against gun control in general, if only to make clear my own beliefs, but that is not my point. No, today, my point is to use gun control as an illustration, to show how government can be pressured into pointless actions, and how legislation, once begun, takes on a life of its own, divorced completely from any realistic concerns.

As I said earlier, I am clearly opposed to any gun control, probably more than even most NRA life members. Not only do I believe citizens should be able to own any firearm, as I believe being a soldier does not convey any special rights upon anyone, I also believe a citizen has the right to possess any device owned by the military, including LAWs, tanks, planes, even nuclear devices if they can afford them¹. The arguments I use are very simple, and take two forms, the theoretical, rights-based arguments², and the more "pragmatic" arguments from outcomes³.

The arguments from theory are simple, and have been repeated here countless times. To put it as simply as possible, the government is our creation, and exists entirely as our deputy. We deputize it to exercise our rights to self defense and defense of property, we also delegate to it the task of acting as binding arbiter in matters of mutual dispute over contracts, or in injuries offered to strangers (torts). However, in so doing, we do not surrender those rights. Just as we can choose to settle contractual disputes between ourselves without the state ("In Praise of Contracts"), we can also use our right to self defense, or defense of property, without taking recourse to the government.

But that is getting a bit off point. The most important points here are that we grant the government the power to exercise our rights, and, even when we do so, we only deputize the state, as we do not, and logically cannot⁴, surrender those rights, or even waive the ability to exercise them⁵.And so, whatever powers the state has, it was granted by the individuals who make up the state, who still possess those same powers. And, more importantly, the agents of the state, be they soldiers, police, political appointees, bureaucrats, or elected officials, are all no more than citizens. And so, whatever powers and rights they have, they have solely as citizens, and thus are possessed by all other citizens as well. Otherwise, we would have to argue being employed by the military or police confers special rights⁶, but rights which end when that employment ends. And from whence do these rights come? If they come from the state, where did the state get them?

Turning from the topic of rights, which many find "too abstract"⁷, let us turn to the "practical" arguments. Or rather, the arguments which concern immediate self interest requiring no abstract understanding. For example, the fact that criminals, with a legally disarmed public, feel no worry when assaulting random citizens, while a government which allows citizens to carry concealed weapons can rely upon the worry that any given victim may be armed to keep criminals at bay, at least in some cases.  Or, if the reader is one of those unwilling to admit citizens can adequately defend themselves⁸, claiming guns do more harm than good in all cases, let us instead ask a very simple question: Who obeys gun laws, and who does not? That alone should make it clear why the laws are so ill advised. Criminals, being criminals, do not obey the law. If they are willing to risk jail to make money, then they will also risk jail to get a gun which will give them a massive advantage. Law abiding citizens, on the other hand, will listen to the law, and will end up disarmed. Which means the law, far from keeping guns away from the criminals and in the hands of the responsible, disarms the responsible and does nothing to deter criminals. And that alone seems to me more than enough reason to do away with gun control. When a law not only fails to achieve its goal, but will inevitably produce the opposite result, it seems a bad law, at least to me⁹.

But that is more than enough of these general arguments, I have presented them much better in other essays, and these sort of arguments are not my purpose here. This essay is intended solely to point out the absurdity of a specific approach to regulation, the reason this absurd approach exists, and what can be done to stop such pointless legislation.

Let us start with a relatively well know set of cases, which started, oddly enough in the civil courts, but soon moved into criminal courts and eventually regulatory and legislative action. These cases are especially interesting to me as the landmark case which started it all was a Maryland case, and, more amusing, my father, a former police officer and, at the time of the case, a lieutenant with the Amtrak police, owned one of the guns in questions, in fact the specific firearm which was the subject of the lawsuit. It is also a topic about which a few people have commented at great length, but which has largely fallen off the public radar, leaving it an area of firearm regulation which is rarely questioned even by strongly activist gun groups, and that despite the quite dubious foundations upon which it rests.

The guns in question are the so-called "Saturday Night Specials", a term which was made popular by the first case, the "Kelly Case", in which a man sued Ruger for harm suffered when assaulted with such a gun, basing his claim on the rationale that such guns, being small, easily concealed and cheap, were "suitable only for crime."⁹ This claim always elicited chuckles from me, as it was one of two handguns owned by my career police officer father, who bought it precisely because it was cheap, but cheap and well made. He also claimed that its size and weight made it easier to carry as a second firearm. And that is also the point made in a few other essays I have seen on the topic, that the gun, being both affordable and very easily carried, was popular among those without much money, but who wanted a gun for self-defense¹⁰. Given the small barrel and light weight, women were reported as being especially fond of it, the small barrel allowing it to fit in a handbag or purse, where it was allowed¹¹. It is probably true the same traits also made it popular among criminals, but that hardly makes it "suitable only for crime." For example, a very sharp knife is great for stabbing people, but also good for cutting steak, does that mean my Ginsu is suitable only for homicide?

However, whatever the weaknesses of the case, it started a small flurry of similar lawsuits, which drew the inevitable press coverage. And, as the press is generally in favor of gun regulation¹², they came down on the side of the plaintiffs, doing their best to create in the public's mind a picture of the evil "Saturday Night Special" as a criminal's best friend. And, once there was a hint of public support, politicians jumped in as well, proposing all manner of bans against these sinister weapons. It was a pattern we were to see repeated again in the "war against assault rifles", and a few other campaigns targeting largely imaginary classes of weapons¹³.

"So," I can hear some asking, "what was so bad about the ban? Why not ban guns favored by criminals? Or, even if you oppose gun control, what makes this law worse than any other?"

I suppose in one sense they are no worse than a gun ban based upon any other premise, but therein lies the problem. It is difficult for the government to ban guns outright. They managed to do it with machine guns. Though even there the definition they used extended the term far beyond its normal usage¹⁴. However, were the government to try to ban rifles, or pistols, or even some sub-category, such as semi-automatic pistols, they would face stiff opposition. It is only by creating such non-existent categories of guns and then engaging in campaigns to portray them as the source of all evil can the government force through outright bans. And so, I would argue that these artificial categories makes much easier the governmental banning of firearms.

However, that is clearly of importance only to those who oppose gun control. For those who believe the government should ban firearms, at least some firearms, to protect citizens, I would still argue these bans are damaging, as they distract us from true risks, and instead focus attention on topics which have public support, regardless of the real risk¹⁵.

Let us look at the Saturday Night Special. This term was originally applied to guns which were small and cheap, the implication being that criminals would choose such guns for crimes as they were affordable and easy to conceal¹⁶. However, we have to ask, do criminals really favor cheap, small guns?

The second is possible to answer in the affirmative, but not with any sort of certainty. Many criminals favor guns that are small and easy to conceal, but the "Saturday Night Special" was generally applied only to short barreled revolvers, which is certainly not the only gun ever used in crime. Many criminals are as status conscious in guns as they are in other aspects of life, and prefer larger, flashier guns. Many also use whatever is available, without preference, as they intend to dispose of the gun once it is used anyway.

And that brings me to my second point, price. Price is almost never a concern for criminals, as few buy guns legally. As they tend to steal guns, buy them from those who do, or buy them in bulk from straw man purchasers at a massive markup, retail price is probably the last thought in the mind of a criminal. And, to a lesser degree, this also applies tot he question of size as well. A criminal seeking a gun will likely be less picky than a normal buyer. No, he probably won't buy a "Dirty Harry" .357 with a foot long barrel if he plans to use it to stick up a 7-11, but he also won't quibble over whether a barrel is 4" or 5". In fact, as the criminal market largely survives on stolen firearms, which guns are "suitable for crime" is really a non-issue, as criminals will make do with whatever they can obtain.

So, who is stopped by this law? As above, legitimate buyers who want a small, lightweight gun, which means the elderly, disabled and some women. As well as those who want something easy to carry in places were concealed carry is legal. It will also be harmful to those with less money available, as by making inexpensive guns less readily available, it makes a gun more of a costly investment, discouraging some from buying one. All of which means the frenzy over Saturday Night Specials probably ended up, as most gun control does, keeping law abiding citizens form buying guns, while doing nothing to impair criminal purchases¹⁷.

Nor do other types of bans do much more to stop crime.

Let us look at bans on assault rifles¹⁸, or even machine guns. Or even less sensibly bans on the number of rounds in a clip, or the caliber of the gun.

The fact of the matter is that the government's own figures show almost all shootings occur within about 20 feet and that only a few shots are fired. There are also a surprising number of shootings involving small caliber guns. Of course, some will argue that is due to the bans already in place, and without them gangsters would be spraying the streets of our cities with machine guns, but I think we can argue otherwise.

First, the simple fact that prior to the machine gun ban, there was not such a situation. Yes, machine guns did get used from time to time, but crime was still largely committed with handguns, at close range. And the rationale for this is easy to see. Handguns are easy to conceal. Handguns are easy to throw away. Handguns are small enough to fit down a storm drain. Handguns are also much more common, so buying them or stealing them is easier. And, if caught, a handgun is less suspicious than a machine gun.

Then there are logistical issues. If you walk up to someone carrying a machine gun, it is pretty obvious you do not mean him well. If you have a pistol in your pocket, your intentions are not so obvious. And this applies to those not intent on murder as well. Muggers can hardly stand around with automatic rifles. Pistols have many advantages in terms of concealment. Nor do automatic weapons offer that much advantage. As we have seen with drive by shootings, fully automatic weapons rarely kill any better than semi-automatic. In fact, if you intend to kill a specific individual, an aimed single shot is better than a lot of wildly fired rounds¹⁹. So, while a machine gun may be great for scaring a lot of people, for purposes of killing, a semi-automatic rifle, with the rigger being pulled several times, is just as effective, or nearly so²⁰.

All of which is a rather long-winded way of saying that banning specific classes of weapons is useless, at least in terms of safety (provided one supports gun bans), as the most common shootings are equally likely, and equally deadly with the smallest caliber weapons, firing the fewest shots per second.  There simply is no benefit to creating these special classes and then applying bans or special restrictions. It makes no one any safer.

Though, if gun control advocates accept that argument, they probably should not be gun control advocates, as the same argument applies to guns themselves ("Simplicity and Freedom"). After all, our most deadly war was fought with relatively primitive guns, and if we leave the US, wars with tens or hundreds of thousands of casualties were fought before guns were ever invented. Nor have gun bans stopped murders or assaults in other nations. Man is quite capable of killing another man without the use of gunpowder. Gunpowder may make it easier in some circumstances, but by allowing the defender to protect himself, it can just as simply make it more difficult, so there is little argument that guns are a net benefit to those who would kill.

But I said I would not get into general gun control arguments here. So let me just complete this by saying that I can find no reasonable argument in favor of these bans of specific categories of guns. Be they assault rifles or Saturday Night Specials, adding laws aimed specifically at them seems a pointless exercise. And yet, oddly enough, it seems the favorite activity of politicians. Compared to the number of more general laws concerning firearms, it seems the laws targeting specific categories are several times more common. And so, though largely pointless, they are also the most common laws.

Somehow that fails to surprise me.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Many consider this crazy, and I admit I simply point it out to make my point. In reality I doubt anyone who could afford their own nuke would buy one. On the other hand, think of how easy it would be to track terrorists if over the counter nuke sales existed. But, crazy as this may sound, the point is valid. The government is our deputy, and soldiers are servants of the state. The state has only those powers we deputize it to use, rights we cannot alienate. Thus, anything the government can own, can also be owned by citizens. Any other position would argue the government has rights above and beyond those of citizens, which contradicts the entire basis of our government, and I am not willing to accept that position. (See "My Vision of Government", "My Vision of Government Part II", "Prelude",  "Symmetry and Asymmetry in Government", "A Right Is A Right" and "With Good Intentions".)

2. I normally hate the distinction between "theoretical" and "practical", as a theory is worthless if it does not model reality.  And so I only use the description here because it is commonly accepted, and because it makes for a convenient division. In that sense, I use "theoretical" to mean nothing more than dealing with more abstract principles, and practical to mean dealing with specific, concrete outcomes. Both are practical in the sense that they apply to reality, so "theoretical" is not being used in the conventional sense of "an abstract idea divorced from the real world." (In some ways, this senseless distinction is akin to the senseless "luxury" and "necessity" distinction I discussed in "The Most Misleading Word" and "Luxury and Necessity". In both cases, the non-distinction distinction serves a political end. In the case of luxury, denigrating the rich, in this case convincing people that abstract thought is worthless, and any theory should be embraced if it "works", making a case against any sort of organized, principled thought.)

3. As I described in "Res Ipsa Loquitur", "The Shortcomings of Pragmatism", "Pragmatism Revisited", "Pragmatism Revistied, Again", "Impractical Pragmatists", "The Lunacy of "Common Sense"", ""Seems About Right", Another Lesson in Common Sense and Its Futility" and "A Look at Common Sense", I do not favor arguments which call themselves "pragmatic". "Practical" arguments tend to be those that go against one's general principles but are assumed to "work." In reality, they often do not "work", but are popular and thus politically expedient. I say my arguments are "practical", but I do not use it in this sense. My practical arguments are not intended to gain popularity, nor do they conflict with my principles. When I say these are "pragmatic" arguments, I means imply that they ignore the more abstract concepts such as rights and instead focus on the outcomes.

4. This is a complicated topic, and one I don't have time or space to go into here, so let me promise that in the future I will write a lengthy essay on the logic behind recognizing all rights as inalienable. I will also discuss at some length the distinction made in the next footnote (#5), as well as topics such as whether competent adults could sell themselves into slavery. I wish I had the time here, as it is a fascinating topic, but it deserves more time and thought than I can give now, so I will postpone it for the moment.

5. There are certain conditions where we can choose to forgo exercising our rights to gain some benefit, but we still have the rights, we simply accept a consequence should we do so. For example, parolees may accept limitations to their rights to associate, to bear arms and so on. They do not lose those rights, they simply accept that should they exercise them in certain ways, their prison term will no longer be held in abeyance, and they will be imprisoned once again. It sounds like a small distinction, and in practice it may be, but it is an essential distinction when we want to understand how our rights work.

6. As many argue that gun ownership should be limited simply because unprepared, ill-educated users may panic and shoot random passers by, then it would follow the police and army may use firearms because of their training. but, if that training makes them legally competent to handle automatic weapons and machine guns, why do they lose that competence the instant they resign? Should they not retain the right for life? (This topic, the poor logic of much legislation, is going to be the subject of another post I am putting up very soon.)

7. I have argued in "The Lunacy of "Common Sense"" that those "abstract" arguments are much more relevant than many believe. For example, in "Slippery Slopes ","Inescapable Logic", "The Endless Cycle of Intervention" and "The Cycle of Compassion", I argue that once a principle is embraced, the law moves to its logical conclusions. Likewise, as I argued in "How Conservatives Defeat Themselves", "Defending Freedom?", "Why We Lose", "Giving Away the Game", "The Single Greatest Weakness",  "What We Deserve", "What is Wrong with Us", "Pyrrhic Victories", "Who Is To Blame?", "Don't Blame the Politicians", "The Difficulty of Principle", "Damn the Torpedoes!" and "You Lose When You Think You Win", political parties which embrace contradictory positions end up handing victory to their foes. And so, in those two cases at least, it is very clear abstraction does not mean distance from practical concerns. And there are dozens more such cases I could mention. So, while many think "theory" and "abstract arguments" are not worth considering, that the only consideration is "whether it works", they are fooling themselves and, in their anti-intellectual position, likely handing victory to those they claim to oppose.

8. I always found it absurd that many claim innocent citizens will either, be unable to use the gun or, will be so insane once armed they will shoot anyone they see. The second assumes that most people are borderline psychotic, which strikes me as quite an arrogant position. (And one I discussed in "The Weakest Gun Control Argument", as well as "Three Ideas That Never Work" and "Man's Nature and Government".) The first is more absurd yet, as criminals are hardly professionally trained. Most pick up a gun and then use it, without practice. They shoot close up, do not aim, and fire many rounds into the center mass. And, oddly enough, must untrained gun users do the same thing. Making citizens and criminals about equally competent. Which makes me ask why anyone thinks criminals can shoot anyone with ease, while citizens will miss unless they undergo SWAT training, sniper school or the equivalent.

9. Of course, some intend gun control laws not to deter crime but for other reason, though they tend to still put the face of crime deterrence on their arguments. Most, though they won't admit it, think the average citizens is not competent to be armed, and so wish to disarm the general public for their own good, to keep guns out the hands of fools who can't use them. Some others believe that guns somehow lead to violence, and so the banning of weapons is a big step toward universal peace. It is absurd, but there are a few who really think in that way. And maybe one or two want to disarm the public to prevent them from becoming an armed opposition. I know that is the position of many conservatives, and there may be a tiny minority who feel that way. Unfortunately, at least for my reputation among conservatives, I think the openly "mad dictator" type of liberal, sitting around cackling about becoming ruler of the world, exists mostly in conservative fantasy. Many want to disarm the public, but most want to do so for the public's own good, not for any dictatorial dreams. (Yes, that it happens to do both may make it more popular among some, but I really believe most do not even think about the armed populace and the threat to dictators. History shows that even outright dictators usually forgot to disarm the public until well into their reigns. And that makes it seem highly unlikely our ambivalent, semi-free/semi-tyrant liberals would be thinking things through that clearly.)

9. Some interesting information can be found on this page on the useful "Gun Cite" website. For the record, the original decision was overturned, as the appellate court decided the nature of the gun was not sufficient to apply strict liability, but the Maryland legislature rendered the whole question moot when it stepped in and applied heavy handed regulatory solutions to the supposed problem.

10. It was also a revolver, which most books on self-defense recommend over semi-automatics, as a bad round will not cause a jam that requires clearing. Of course there are self-defense experts who disagree, arguing that the chances of jamming is small, while those without sufficient accuracy either may need the extra rounds, or at least will feel more confident knowing they have them available, but, in my experience, it seems the vast majority fall on the revolver side of the argument. (I personally would favor the revolver side, especially as those using guns only for self defense tend to be rather remiss in gun maintenance, meaning the chance of mechanical failure increases, and short of a total failure of the firing mechanism, almost any mechanical issue with a revolver can be resolved either by pulling the trigger, or, in the worst case, manually pulling back the hammer, while mechanical failures in semi-automatic firearms can render them useless, or nearly so.)

11. This is not the place to go into detail on the subject of concealed carry laws, but they have always struck me as totally absurd. They exist for two reasons that I can see. First, to make using a gun so onerous that no one bothers, a sort of backdoor banning of firearms. Second, to give the police an excuse to arrest those they suspect of other crimes but lack insufficient evidence to obtain a warrant. (The same is true of many motor vehicle laws, and was true of vagrancy and loitering laws before they fell into disrepute.) As with gun control in general, criminals have no fear of CCW laws, but law abiding citizens do, which means criminals can be armed whenever they wish, while law abiding citizens are all but disarmed. It seems these laws generate the exact opposite situation one would desire. But, as I said, that is a subject to discuss in an essay of its own.

12. I have discussed the reason for the press being more left leaning than the general public in my essays "Some Thoughts on the Media" and "The Press Versus The Nation". I also discuss the impossibility of ever finding a truly impartial media in the posts "The Death of Impartial Media", "An Adversarial Press?", "Reporters' Opinions", "The Impossibility of Unbiased Reporting", "The Rebirth of Skepticism" and "Media Double Standards and a Proposed Solution". So, while I argue that the press is biased, I also admit that is likely unavoidable, and would be happy were they simply to admit their bias from the start, rather than making high sounding claims of absolute impartiality, an impartiality they rarely display.

13. Prior to the case which created the frenzy, the term "Saturday Night Special" was largely a colloquialism, and not even a widely used one. Similarly, "assault rifle" was not exactly a term of art in firearm circles. It was used to describe, informally, certain classes of military arms, based principally on the role in which they were used, not any specific features they possessed. It was not until the politicians began their crusades against both that the terms gained wide acceptance. And even then, until codified by law, there was little agreement on what they terms actually meant.

14. Generally, modern writers refer to restrictions on "automatic weapons" which is more accurate, as the ban includes what would be termed "submachine guns" as well as the traditional "machine gun". However, when the ban was originally proposed int he 30's, it was largely presented as a ban on machine guns. That it went far beyond that simply demonstrates that government terminology often fails to correspond with either normal usage nor public expectations.

15. The tendency for public panic on the most tenuous of foundations is the bane of our age. Having been reared on dubious science and constant scaremongering by the press and government ( "The Lie of Environmentalism", "Certainty and Pop Science", "Statistical Artifacts", "Revealing Too Much", "Allergies", "Shocking Numbers", "Disease Incidence", "Twice in a Row", "Interesting Numbers", "Problematic Arguments", "The Plural of Anecdote is Not Data", "Flu Panic", "The Sky's Not Falling Part 1", "Correlation versus Causation", "Correlation and Causation Revisted", "Violence and Culture", "An Interesting Article", "Law or Choice?", "Pro Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc","Poverty and Lifespan", "Shocking Numbers", "Mathematical Deception", "Best of the Web Imitates Me XXII", "Bad Economics Part 1",  "Lifespan", "Why the Numbers Don't Matter", "Misusing Numbers", "Another Example", "The Devil is in the Definitions (And Assumptions)", "Bad Logic", "Yet Another Needless Scare", "Insufficient Skepticism", "Inflation and Uncertainty", "The Rubber Yardstick", "What Is Money?", "What Is A Dollar? ", "Overly Simplified Economics and Confused Interpretations", "The Sky Isn't Falling, Again", "An Interesting Mistake, "The Nonsensical Nature of Some Statistical Analysis") we tend to panic the instant even the hint of a problem arises. And, sadly, both private industry and government respond before the evidence is in, aware that our snap judgment demands instant response. When there is even a suspect study saying X is dangerous, if ti gets press coverage, that substance will instantly disappear from store shelves and it will no longer be include din commercial products, regardless of the real risk or benefit of the substance. Of course, that only makes sense for businesses, as they live and die by public opinion, but it is harmful when it has the backing of government bans. And even when it does not, there is still the fact that we likely allocate our assets badly in such scares, spending far too much to avoid tiny risks, as well as turning to substitutes which may be less effective, more costly, or even have greater risks, as yet unknown as they were not in general use. A good example would be when ephedrine and pseudoephedrine were in disfavor due to a combination of a few scare stories and a lot of over-regulation due to their role in production of methamphetamines. They were replaced in some formulae with PPA, which itself turned out to carry a risk of heart attack. (Then again, that risk, though probably greater than ephedrine, was very small as well, but still lead to PPA disappearing as well, even before regulators got around to it.)

16. The laws which came in the wake of the Kelly case actually concentrated more on size than price, and tended to end up banning nothing more than short barreled revolvers. But the initial public outcry definitely included price in the implicit definition of Saturday Night Special.

17. We can see this most easily in areas with very strict gun control. Washington DC for example. While quite effective in disarming the populace (with the exception, as noted in the news, of many politicians and other insiders), it does nothing to keep criminals from obtaining guns. And while the government of DC blames this on surrounding states, that is not entirely true. Yes, surrounding states make ti easier to find guns, but even entire nations cannot effectively ban guns, as seen by the fact that, while not numerous, gun crime still exists in the UK, despite a long history of gun bans. (Some will argue that the UK is actually a success story, pointing to the crime rate, but I find that argument less than compelling, for reasons too numerous to cover here (differing amount of urbanization, duration of punishment, social pressures and so on). In any case, if gun bans worked, the UK should have no gun crimes, rather than the 21,521 reported in England and Wales in 2007..Yes, it is a small number, but if gun bans worked, then should it not be much smaller than that? And the UK lacks the "Virginia, West Virginia and Maryland" excuse DC often uses to defend its failed gun ban.)

18. "Assault rifle" is a term as meaningless as "Saturday Night Special". As many have demonstrated, the same gun could be made into an "assault rifle" under some definitions by simply changing the stock and magazine. Some definitions are better than others, but by and large, "assault rifle", as applied to rifles which are not fully automatic, is a meaningless term designed to allow the banning of certain rifles without upsetting the public as an outright ban of all rifles would.

19. There is a reason fully automatic fire is used largely for suppressive fire in combat. It can put out a lot of rounds, but accuracy is almost zero. Shots intended to connect with a specific target usually come from weapons firing single shots, or, at most, firing small bursts, though even those have a tendency to pull up and to the side.

20. Criminals rarely engage in the sort of long term conflicts where they would need automatic fire to keep the rivals' heads down. With gun play lasting typically under a minute, a rifle firing a round per pull can be just as dangerous as a fully automatic weapon. More, in fact, as there is much less recoil for which one must compensate.