Posted on 11/18/2003 6:27:00 AM PST by Renfield
Democratic presidential candidates have recently taken up a new calling: offering advice to hunters. Governor Howard Dean supports extending the assault-weapons ban next year "because I never met a hunter who needed an AK-47 to shoot a deer." Senator John Kerry offered, "When I go out there and hunt, I'm going out there with a 12-gauge shotgun, not an assault weapon."
Clearly what worries these senators is that people and not deer will be "hunted" with these guns. As Senator Carl Levin noted early this year, allowing the ban to expire will "inevitably lead to a rise in gun crimes." Ratcheting up the fear factor to a new level, Senator Charles Schumer claims the ban is one of "the most effective measures against terrorism that we have." New York Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy claims: "You want an assault weapon? Go join the Army."
The most-charitable interpretation is that the ban's proponents know nothing about guns. "Assault-weapon ban" conjures up images of machine guns used by the military, which are surely not very useful in hunting deer. Yet, the 1994 federal ban had nothing to do with machine guns, only semiautomatics, which fire one bullet per pull of the trigger. The firing mechanisms in semiautomatic and machine guns are completely different. The entire firing mechanism of a semiautomatic gun has to be gutted and replaced to turn it into a machine gun.
Functionally the banned semiautomatic guns are the same as other non-banned semiautomatic guns, firing the exact same bullets with the same rapidity and producing the exact same damage. The ban arbitrarily outlaws 19 different guns based upon either their name or cosmetic features, such as whether the gun could have a bayonet attached.
With the sniper trial now going in Virginia, the media understandably focuses on the so-called "sniper rifle." Yet, the .223- caliber Bushmaster rifle used in the sniper killings was neither a "sniper" rifle nor an "assault weapon." In fact, it is such a low-powered rifle that most states ban it even for deer hunting precisely because of its low power, too frequently wounding and not killing deer. Ironically, the much-maligned AK-47, only new semiautomatic versions of the gun were banned, uses a .30-caliber bullet that is actually well suited to hunting deer.
The law never had any effect on crime. Banning a few percent of semiautomatic guns when otherwise identical guns are available only changes the brand criminals use. But despite the apocalyptic claims, the law didn't even do that much. Even President Clinton, who signed an "assault-weapon ban" into law, complained in 1998 how easy it had been for gun manufacturers to continue selling the banned guns simply by changing the guns' names or by making the necessary cosmetic changes.
The banned guns were seldom used in the commission of crimes to begin with. A 1995 Clinton administration study found that fewer than one percent of state and federal inmates carried a "military-type" semiautomatic guns (a much broader set of guns than those banned by the law) for crimes they committed during early 1990s before the ban. A similar 1997 survey showed no reduction in this type of crime gun after the ban.
Only two studies have been conducted on the federal law's impact on crime, one of which also examined the state assault-weapons laws. One study was funded by the Clinton administration and examined just the first year the law was in effect. It concluded that the ban's "impact on gun violence has been uncertain."
The second study was done by me and is found in my book The Bias Against Guns. It examines the first four years of the federal law as well as the different state assault-weapon bans. Even after accounting for law enforcement, demographics, poverty, and other factors that affect crime, the laws did not reduce any type of violent crime. In fact, overall violent crime actually rose slightly, by 1.5 percent, but the impact was not statistically significant. The somewhat larger increase in murder rates was significant.
The only clear result of the state bans was to consistently reduce the number of gun shows by about 25 percent. Features such as bayonet mounts on guns may not mean much to criminals, but gun collectors sure seem to like them.
The bans have now been in effect for almost a decade, without any evidence of any benefits. Increased crime is not the biggest danger arising from not extending the law. Politicians who have claimed such dire consequence from these mislabeled "assault weapons" have put their reputations on the line. If the extension fails, a year after that voters will wonder what all the hysteria was about.
Fueled by false images of machine guns and sniper rifles, the debate next year is likely to be very emotional. Let's hope that the politicians at least learn what guns are being banned.
— John R. Lott, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, is the author of The Bias Against Guns.
No evidence to support either claim, of course.
"Our main agenda is to have all guns banned. We must use whatever means possible. It doesn't matter if you have to distort the facts or even lie. Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed."Sara Brady, Chairman, Handgun Control Inc,In a letter to Senator Howard Metzenbaum
The National Educator, January 1994, Page 3."Our ultimate goal--total control of handguns in the United States--is going to take time ... The first problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered, and the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns, and all handgun ammunition totally illegal."Nelson T Shields Founding Chair of HCI, in a letter to Lucius Annaeus Seneca, Founding Chair of HCI - Handgun Control Inc.
"We're here to tell the NRA their nightmare is true! ... We're going to hammer guns on the anvil of relentless legislative strategy. We're going to beat guns into submission!"Charles Schumer, United States CongressmanHCI Handgun Control Inc.Board of GovernorsOn NBC Nightly News, November 30, 1993"
There is no reason for anyone in this country -- anyone except a police officer or a military person -- to buy, to own, to have, to use a handgun ... The only way to control handgun use in this country is to prohibit the guns. And the only way to do that is to change the Constitution.Michael Gartner, President of NBC NewsHCI Handgun Control Inc. Trusteein USA Today, January 16, 1992
"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America turn them all in, I would have done it."Dianne Feinstein, United States SenatorHCI - Handgun Control Inc.Board Member
"We believe that if any gun dealer, manufacturer, or gun owners wants to test the law in court, they should be given every opportunity. Arrest them. Put the burden on them to prove the law is too vague."Louis Tolley, HCI Handgun Control Inc.On HCI's position concerning the Roberti-Roos assault weapons ban, 1991.
"We must be able to arrest people before they commit crimes. By registering guns and knowing who has them we can do that. ...If they have guns they are pretty likely to commit a crime." Mary Ann Carlson, Vermont State SenatorHCI Board of Governors
"For target shooting, that's okay. Get a license and go to the range. For defense of the home, that's why we have police departments."James Brady, Husband of HCI Director Sarah BradyPARADE Magazine, June 26, 1994
Setting aside the Constitutional issues, if the above statement is true, each side of this dispute has a question to answer:
Proponents of the ban should answer the following question: What is the purpose of arbitrarily banning some rifles when functionally identical rifles remain legal?
Opponents of the ban should answer the following question: What practical difference does it make that some rifles are banned if functionally identical rifles remain legal and can be used as an alternative?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.