Compromising with the NRA
The 10-year-old Assault Weapons Ban is expiring in September of this year. Here's a site supporting an extension the ban:
http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/faqs/?page=awb
and one opposed:
http://www.awbansunset.com/index.html
The law was intended to decrease crime by banning certain types of weapons that had features that made them especially effective at rapid firing, deemed "assault weapons". The effect of the law was to decrease the amount of "assault weapons" used in gun crimes (by about 3% to 1%), but there's no real evidence that it did anything to stop crime overall.
The impetus for the ban were a few horrific crimes in the late 80s and early 90s where an "assault weapon" was used to kill a large amount of people in a short amount of time. The NRA opposed any restrictions, and after the ban became law in 1994, the Democrats got pounded in the mid-term elections. President Bush promised to renew the ban during his 2000 campaign, but right now, he's really hoping to avoid making a decision on this issue before the election.
The first folly of the law's logic was to equate a few horrific crimes with the everyday realities of crime. Even before the ban, assault weapons were only the culprits in 3% of all gun crimes. That means that 97% of the guns used in all other gun crimes weren't even affected. And since the ban grandfathered in any guns made before the ban, there was no reason to think that a ten-year ban on manufacturing new ones would have any real effect on criminals getting their hands on the existing ones. As with any timestamped ban, the run up to the ban saw an increase in the manufacture of these guns. In addition to all this, gun manufacturers were still able to make guns that were very similar to the banned guns, just without some of the banned features. If someone is going to shoot people from the clocktower or in a schoolyard ambush, how much does it really matter if he only fires 60 bullets instead of 100?
The gun lobby, on the other hand, is arguing for a continuation of the status quo, pre-1994. While I understand the fact that the law hasn't been effective in either reducing crime, or reducing the amount of gunshot wounds per crime, we're living in a very different security environment than 1994. With the increased threat of terrorism thanks to Bush the Lesser, it's not unrealistic to see the removal of the ban as a boon for terrorists, who certainly have a distinct need for weapons that can fire as quickly as possible and hit as many targets in as short a time.
In other aspects of civilian life, the Patriot Act is giving the government significant ability to monitor what we do. Yet, the NRA is still adamant that guns should not be tracked in any way. I find it laughable that some of the same people who support the government's ability to monitor what books you check out of the library are also opposed to their ability to track gun purchases. Fully automatic assault weapons, which have been banned since 1934, can still be owned with a special ATF permit. Why the phobia over registration? It's time to lay it down on the table with the NRA. A nationwide system of gun registration is an absolute necessity at this point. The phobia that the NRA has, that one day this will lead to their guns being confiscated, comes from the fact that the left oftentimes passes useless gun control laws and then uses phony statistics to back up their efficacy. When Diane Feinstein can admit that her law hasn't really done anything to curb crime, Wayne LaPierre should admit that even gun owners can put a little more faith in the government to help fight terrorism.
http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/faqs/?page=awb
and one opposed:
http://www.awbansunset.com/index.html
The law was intended to decrease crime by banning certain types of weapons that had features that made them especially effective at rapid firing, deemed "assault weapons". The effect of the law was to decrease the amount of "assault weapons" used in gun crimes (by about 3% to 1%), but there's no real evidence that it did anything to stop crime overall.
The impetus for the ban were a few horrific crimes in the late 80s and early 90s where an "assault weapon" was used to kill a large amount of people in a short amount of time. The NRA opposed any restrictions, and after the ban became law in 1994, the Democrats got pounded in the mid-term elections. President Bush promised to renew the ban during his 2000 campaign, but right now, he's really hoping to avoid making a decision on this issue before the election.
The first folly of the law's logic was to equate a few horrific crimes with the everyday realities of crime. Even before the ban, assault weapons were only the culprits in 3% of all gun crimes. That means that 97% of the guns used in all other gun crimes weren't even affected. And since the ban grandfathered in any guns made before the ban, there was no reason to think that a ten-year ban on manufacturing new ones would have any real effect on criminals getting their hands on the existing ones. As with any timestamped ban, the run up to the ban saw an increase in the manufacture of these guns. In addition to all this, gun manufacturers were still able to make guns that were very similar to the banned guns, just without some of the banned features. If someone is going to shoot people from the clocktower or in a schoolyard ambush, how much does it really matter if he only fires 60 bullets instead of 100?
The gun lobby, on the other hand, is arguing for a continuation of the status quo, pre-1994. While I understand the fact that the law hasn't been effective in either reducing crime, or reducing the amount of gunshot wounds per crime, we're living in a very different security environment than 1994. With the increased threat of terrorism thanks to Bush the Lesser, it's not unrealistic to see the removal of the ban as a boon for terrorists, who certainly have a distinct need for weapons that can fire as quickly as possible and hit as many targets in as short a time.
In other aspects of civilian life, the Patriot Act is giving the government significant ability to monitor what we do. Yet, the NRA is still adamant that guns should not be tracked in any way. I find it laughable that some of the same people who support the government's ability to monitor what books you check out of the library are also opposed to their ability to track gun purchases. Fully automatic assault weapons, which have been banned since 1934, can still be owned with a special ATF permit. Why the phobia over registration? It's time to lay it down on the table with the NRA. A nationwide system of gun registration is an absolute necessity at this point. The phobia that the NRA has, that one day this will lead to their guns being confiscated, comes from the fact that the left oftentimes passes useless gun control laws and then uses phony statistics to back up their efficacy. When Diane Feinstein can admit that her law hasn't really done anything to curb crime, Wayne LaPierre should admit that even gun owners can put a little more faith in the government to help fight terrorism.
posted by thehim at 8:19 AM
<< Home