Defining the deadly: definitional argument and the assault weapons ban controversy

Abstract

To address the apparent chaos and confusion of the assault weapons ban controversy, I analyze and evaluate the three-decade controversy over how or whether to prohibit so-called “assault weapons” through the lens of definitional argument scholarship. I consider the history and origin of the term in the discourses of advocates of an assault weapons ban, and the definitional critiques by opponents that contributed to a “definitional rupture.” I find that as a result of this three-decades long interaction, the rupture has been somewhat repaired as a convergence has emerged among ban proponents and opponents regarding the standards and purposes of “assault weapon” definitions. However, this convergence is accompanied by diverging “assault weapon” definitions and increasing polarization on the policy issue. I conclude that theoretical constructs from definitional argument scholarship can be used to analyze lengthy definitional controversies, and that diachronic context can serve as an evaluative tool and means to theorize the periodization of public definitional controversies.

Keywords:

• Assault weapons
• gun control
• definition
• definitional argument
• persuasive definitions
• sorites slippery slope
• definitional rupture

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Michael William Pfau

Michael William Pfau is an Associate Professor at the University of Minnesota Duluth where he has been on faculty since 2001. Pfau earned a B.A. in Biology and Government at Augustana College in 1993, an M.A. in Political Science (Political Theory specialization) at Tulane in 1996, and a Ph.D. in Communication Studies (Rhetorical Studies specialization) at Northwestern University in 2000. In 2002 Pfau was the recipient of the National Communication Associations Gerald Miller Outstanding Dissertation Award. Pfau authored the 2005 book, The Political Style of Conspiracy: Chase, Sumner and Lincoln (Michigan State University Press), co-edited the 2012 book Making the Case: Advocacy and Judgment in Public Argument (Michigan State University Press); and has published numerous book chapters as well as articles in journals like Philosophy and Rhetoric, Rhetoric and Public Affairs, and Argumentation & Advocacy.