The streets of America have been strangely silent the past week. With the expiration of the federal assault weapons ban, the proponents of such legislation painted all sorts of lurid pictures of what could happen if it expired. They insinuated that the lapse will allow citizens to get their hands on guns such as an AK-47 or an Uzi. The inference left is that fully automatic weapons will now be sold to the public. What is conveniently left out is the real meat of the story.
The ban, Title XI of the Crime Control Act of 1994, stopped sales of semiautomatic weapons, in which one pull of the trigger equals one bullet only, with specific modifications including flash suppressors, bayonet mounts and extended magazines. Rifles, pistols and shotguns were all included in the ban. No fully automatic weapons were included in the ban.
Automatic weapons have been banned for public resale since 1934. The only way one can get their hands on a fully automatic weapon is to get a special license whose background check makes a physical look like patty-cake. As for those worried about AK-47s and Uzis you still will be unable to purchase them. They have been under an import ban since 1989.
That was only one part of the proponents' argument. Several have advanced the argument that the ban has reduced gun crime over the past decade. They are right that gun crime has dropped but they erroneously make the ban the determining factor.
Comprehensive looks at the effects of the ban have come to one conclusion: the ban's effects on gun crime are inconclusive. Two major studies by the National Institute of Justice and the Center for Disease Control have both come to that conclusion. The CDC study looked at over fifty gun control laws nationwide alone. The reason is that individual factor alone does not create the critical mass to declare it the determining factor. Furthermore, the NIJ study notes that "the public safety benefits of the 1994 ban have not yet been demonstrated."
The most probable factor in the dropping gun crimes has been due to increased arrests of violent criminals and stiffer sentences for committing crimes with a firearm. Even liberal pundits like Clarence Page, who favors the ban, have had to admit this. This is cited across the board as the predominant reason for dropping gun crime.
The proponents refuse to accept this. They have also tried to insinuate that the ban's lapses will make it easier for criminals to get their hands on the so-called assault weapons. Even more egregious utterance was John Kerry's statement that terrorists could now walk in and "purchase an AK-47 or other military assault weapon they're going to hear one word: sure." These statements couldn't be more wrong.
Criminals and terrorists aren't going to walk into gun stores to buy weapons. Gun purchases have mandatory background checks that criminals and terrorists want to avoid. They prefer to get their guns in the back alley, not the front door. Moreover, The NIJ study noted criminals rarely use the types of weapons listed in the ban. Lest one forget, the September 11, 2001 hijackings were undertaken by men with box cutters, not Uzis.
The last round in the barrel for the proponents is that it's for the safety of the children. This is the most emotional charge they have as well as the most irrational. Children are tragically killed by guns but they account for the minority of those deaths overall. More children are killed every year by car accidents (four times as many deaths) and drowning (twice as many deaths). Under the logic employed by the proponents, this nation should not only be banning guns but also automobiles, matches, water and bare hands (twice as many deaths).
By banning guns what really happens is that guns then become concentrated in the hands of a few: the police, criminals and the military. The ban's proponents will still (erroneously) argue that it is now easier for criminals to get so-called assault weapons. Maybe, but it's now easier for responsible citizens to now get those guns from themselves to protect against those criminals. The people arguing for the gun ban are for taking guns out of the hands of citizens and putting them in the hands of groups, chiefly the police and military, they routinely malign.
The question that remains to be answered is how an assault weapons ban will actually prevent gun crime. The inference is that if you remove the gun, you stop the crime; therefore, the gun is the cause of the crime. That couldn't be more wrong; in all my years of life, this author has never seen a gun on trial for a murder. It's always the person, not the weapon used. People kill people; a gun is a tool that is sadly used.
If the ban's proponents were serious about stemming gun crime they would be focusing on the individual and not the weapon. No better example of this can be found than the Columbine massacre. The hand wringing afterwards focused on how two boys got their hands on enough guns to murder over a dozen classmates rather than how two sets of adults failed to be good parent to their boys. The real issue was how two boys go so far out of kilter that they shot up a school instead of what they used to do it with. The guns weren't the problem; the boys' mental health was.
The lapse of the assault weapons ban should be instructive as it reveals how certain issues can be clouded by hyperbolic exclamations. A common sense approach is needed when dealing with such highly charged issues, not a strafing run. The ban's proponents have shown little ability to do so and in the end, they were shooting from the hip with blanks.
Write to Jeff at mannedarena@yahoo.com
Read More
Three Air Jam teams take home the win
October 12, 2012Nineteen teams shimmied, shook and flipped for a sold out John R. Emens Auditorium on Thursday night during the 25th annual Air Jam.
Bill Clinton Speaks at North Central High School
October 12, 2012Former President's Speech Could Have Effect on State Senate Race
