An assault on common sense (about ban an assault weapons)

Townhall.com ^ | May 19, 2003 | Rich Lowry

[FairOpinion]

Only in Washington would it be considered imperative to extend legislation precisely because it's been so ineffectual. Such is the logic behind a Democratic push to prevent the assault-weapons ban from expiring next year, and even to broaden it.

It was obvious at the time of the ban's passage in 1994 that it couldn't possibly have any effect on crime as advertised, which it hasn't. The ban nonetheless is such a nice-sounding idea -- who wouldn't want to ban "assault weapons"? -- that even President Bush has endorsed its reauthorization.

If the ban is indeed preserved and broadened, it will be just as worthless as the original version. By the reasoning of its supporters, that failure will, in turn, make necessary an even more sweeping ban.

Thus gun-controllers demonstrate the fine political art of how to win by repeatedly doing things that don't work. In the rest of the world, that fits the loose definition of insanity -- "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results" -- but in Washington, it defines success.

The assault-weapons ban was a product of the manufactured label "assault weapons." It's a wonder that other advocates haven't duplicated the experience by forging similar labels for things they want to ban. SUVs? Assault cars. Soft money? Assault contributions.

The term became popular just as a crack-induced urban crime wave was reaching its crest, conjuring images of gang members doing battle with AK-47s. The image was a boogeyman.

Criminologist Gary Kleck recounts that the head of the biggest gang detail in Los Angeles in the mid-1980s had never confiscated any assault weapons. A study of drive-by shootings in L.A. found that an assault weapon had figured in only one of 583 incidents.

Kleck's estimate is that less than 2 percent of guns used in crimes were assault weapons, and that assault weapons were used in one of 400 violent crimes overall. This made sense, since few street criminals would want to try to carry on their persons a heavy, conspicuous rifle.

When it came time for Congress to ban assault weapons, the difficulty was that no one knew exactly what they were. They were commonly taken to be semiautomatics that accept a large magazine and -- the crucial part -- have a "military-style" appearance.

Congress cut through the amorphousness by arbitrarily picking 19 nasty-looking models to ban. As Kleck writes, "It is hard to imagine how the federal assault-weapons ban could even hypothetically prevent a death or injury by banning further sales and manufacture of just 19 models of semiautomatic guns that accounted for less than 1.4 percent of guns used by criminals and that possessed no violence-relevant attributes to distinguish them from over 380 semiautomatic models not banned."

Congress also enumerated characteristics, including bayonet mounts and pistol grips, that would be verboten on certain semiautomatics. None of these characteristics have anything to do with the lethality of the guns. And if you think there is danger of assault-weapons-armed criminals charging with their bayonets fixed, you have probably seen "Lethal Weapon 4" one too many times.

An official of the pro-gun-control Violence Policy Center recently complained that "the firearms industry has been very successful at evading the ban." It, however, would be almost impossible not to evade the ban, given its focus on meaningless cosmetics.

If gun-controllers were to be consistent, they would drop the fuzzy "assault weapons" label and seek to ban all semiautomatic longarms. This would constitute a clean category of guns for prohibition. It also would require honesty about the real target of the ban: not street criminals, but people who own such guns to hunt and protect their homes.

That would be politically fatal. So gun-control forces try to extend the assault-weapons ban instead, a salami-slice strategy toward an ultimate, much broader gun prohibition. A whiff of their dishonesty can be detected in the senselessness of their argumentation: If the ban hasn't worked, why end it now?

Rich Lowry is editor of National Review, a TownHall.com member group.

[FairOpinion]

"Thus gun-controllers demonstrate the fine political art of how to win by repeatedly doing things that don't work. In the rest of the world, that fits the loose definition of insanity -- "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results" -- but in Washington, it defines success."

[FreedomCalls]

So why do we keep voting them back in to continue to ban more guns then?

[Imal]

And why does Bush support this nonsensical and unconstitutional assault on Americans masquerading as law?

[Joe Brower]

[Mulder]

And why does Bush support this nonsensical and unconstitutional assault on Americans masquerading as law?

I think anyone that supports it falls into one of the following categories:

1) Severely misinformed on the issue; unable to think for themselves; and prone to believe hyperbole and baseless rhetoric from others

2) Does not believe in the Bill of Rights

3) Attempting to make political gain through dishonesty and deceit.

[Fee]

The media created the "assualt rifle" hysteria. Take out the liberals in the media and many of our 2nd Admendment issues will go away. You do this by supporting talk radio and Fox News, boycott the printed media and alphabet news channels. When the corporations who own them realize they are losing market share, they will come around. Money talks, BS walks.

[Mulder]

Take out the liberals in the media and many of our 2nd Admendment issues will go away. You do this by supporting talk radio and Fox News, boycott the printed media and alphabet news channels.

This is exactly the trend over the last 10 years. Unfortunately, many so called "Republicans" are still using the media as an excuse for them to act like demoncrats.

[Shooter 2.5]

It would be my guess that as a moderate, he didn't feel he could be elected as a conservative. He said out right that if the bill landed on his desk he would sign it. Millions of gunowners voted for him because the alternative was horrendous.
It also was a challenge to the gunowners. In order to make sure it never reached his desk a lot of the gunowners worked for A rated candidates in the last two elections. That gave us the House and the slim margin in the Senate. The real fight for the Assault Weapons ban was during the last election. Can't stop a bill unless you have the votes.
The problem remains is the White House can't appear as liars. So, it's still up to us to make sure the Bill doesn't reach his desk. The prize is after this, Bush promised no more gun control. Hopefully, the sunsetting will also get a lot of dems marked with the losing mark of gun banners. Schumer, boxer and someone said feinstein,[didn't see her name on the list] are up for re-election two months after the sunsetting.

[FairOpinion]

Because Bush wants to get reelected for the good of the country, and he knows the ban will never see the light of day in Congress. DeLay already said that.

Bush has enough fights on his hand --- he can't fight every battle, he has to fight the battles that matter, like the judicial nominations, not to mention the war on terror and maybe a few other Iraq style wars coming up.

[Travis McGee]

If gun-controllers were to be consistent, they would drop the fuzzy "assault weapons" label and seek to ban all semiautomatic longarms. This would constitute a clean category of guns for prohibition.

That's what they do in my book a week after the "assault rifle massacre" at the stadium.

[Travis McGee]

4) All of the above.

[Travis McGee]

and he knows the ban will never see the light of day in Congress. DeLay already said that.

And you are sure of this, how?

One new horrendous Columbine and your logic flies out the window with RINO spines in congress.

[FairOpinion]

Because in the House there are enough Republicans to keep the bill from coming up and letting it expire.

I think people should focus on getting more Republicans elected, to increase our margin in both the House and Senate.

[goldstategop]

Yup. The problem with the ban is it is focused on banning selected long semiautomatic guns because of their appearance. Style over substance. The gun banners would love to ban every rifle they could get their hands on but it wouldn't fly with states where hunting and sport shooting are an accepted part of life. So they have be dishonest about what they're trying to get rid of to maintain their political viability.

[Mulder]

Because in the House there are enough Republicans to keep the bill from coming up and letting it expire.

It doesn't matter.

The spineless SOBs like Hastert and company can always slip it into a bill during conference committee. They can put it on the "Congressional declaration of National bowling week" declaration, and pass it in the dead of night with no one reading the bill.

[Delmarksman]

bump

[Hot Soup]

Kleck's estimate is that less than 2 percent of guns used in crimes were assault weapons, and that assault weapons were used in one of 400 violent crimes overall. This made sense, since few street criminals would want to try to carry on their persons a heavy, conspicuous rifle.

I have read recent articles on FR claiming something like a 5% drop in 'assault weapons" used in crimes since the ban was passed. Can anyone tell me if that is true?

[Tailgunner Joe]

bang!

[Ancesthntr]

The spineless SOBs like Hastert and company can always slip it into a bill during conference committee. They can put it on the "Congressional declaration of National bowling week" declaration, and pass it in the dead of night with no one reading the bill.

That is undoubtedly true. What I have never understood is why the converse can't also be true - why can't a repeal of the '86 machine gun production ban, or the '68 GCA or the '34 NFA be slipped into some innocuous-sounding bill that no one notices? Why is it always at our expense?

[Mulder]

What I have never understood is why the converse can't also be true - why can't a repeal of the '86 machine gun production ban, or the '68 GCA or the '34 NFA be slipped into some innocuous-sounding bill that no one notices? Why is it always at our expense?

Many have made similar observations over the last few decades. If it's all a coincidence, why are we the ones always getting screwed?

The short answer to your question is that it is planned this way.