From my cold dead hands

Defending the expiration of the assault weapons ban

By Melanie Smith
From the November 2004 Print Edition

It has been two months since the assault-weapons ban expired, and still the outrage of its malcontent supporters hovers over us like Michael Moore at an NRA convention. Apparently loons of a feather flock together, because their expressions of bitterness at the failure to renew this revered piece of legislation have become almost as amusing and irritating as Moore’s stalking of Charlton Heston.

In true liberal alarmist fashion, gun-control advocates have advanced numerous claims about the future of America after the sunset of the ban. One cannot help but picture utter chaos in the streets, a surge in violent crime, and preschoolers bringing Uzis to school for show-and-tell. In reality, however, the assault-weapons ban amounted to a limit upon constitutionally protected civil liberties with no real impact upon the violent crime it purported to reduce.

One must question whether the ban was necessary, or even practical, in the first place. According to Bureau of Justice and FBI statistics, police reports have consistently shown that “assault weapons” as defined by the ban account for only 1-2 percent of violent crimes, and in 1993 murders with knives, clubs, and hands outnumbered murders with assault weapons by a ratio of more than 20-to-1.

Just what constitutes an assault weapon, anyway? In all honesty, nothing truly functional distinguishes these firearms from millions of others; the definition is based wholly on cosmetic and ergonomic design. For example, a semiautomatic rifle is considered an assault weapon if it can accept a detachable magazine and if it possesses at least two of the following features: a folding or telescopic stock, a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon, a bayonet mount, a flash suppressor or barrel having a threaded muzzle, or a grenade launcher.

If nothing else, we can be thankful that this legislation put an end to all of those horrific drive-by bayonettings.

The shape of the pistol grip? Beg your pardon?

The grenade launcher I would be willing to concede…if grenade components were not already restricted by other legislation.

None of these definitions in any way affects how lethal the weapon is; they just make semiautomatic weapons look like military assault rifles and machine guns. In terms of function, these assault weapons are the same as millions of legally owned semiautomatic guns, and in no way is a semiautomatic firearm the same as a machine gun or true assault rifle, since in the case of a semiautomatic the trigger must be pulled for each separate shot.

Not surprisingly, gun-control advocates capitalize on this confusion. In 1988, gun-control activist Josh Sugarmann stated, “The public`s confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons — anything that looks like a machine gun is presumed to be a machine gun — can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.”

Ban supporters may also neglect to mention that the ‘Ak-47’s and Uzis that should theoretically be flooding the streets right now are banned by a previous law that was passed in 1989. Will people still break the law and import them? They will certainly try. After all, the guns used in the Columbine shootings were illegally obtained, despite gun restrictions.

Give the gun control advocate a few moments to recover from this information, and you can be sure that his next retort will be, “Well, why do people need assault weapons anyway?” That’s right — what kind of sick, imbalanced, redneck sociopath would want to own such a machine? According to Todd Bradish, senior editor of AWbansunset.com, this is similar to asking a car enthusiast why he would want to own a 425-horsepower 1968 Corvette Stingray. Flashy cars and their hotshot drivers have been known to cause quite a few accidents on the road, so we should probably ban those as well.

Among other things, these guns are easy to operate due to their ergonomic design, they are reliable and accurate, and they often have less recoil or “kick” than other rifles; anyone who has ever gone through multiple rounds of buckshot realizes the plus side to the last reason. Additionally, what about collectors? You may laugh, but think about which is weirder: collecting a product of technological innovation and power, or collecting postage stamps?

Even the language of the ban itself can be misleading. Section 2 of the ban reads, “Restriction on the manufacture, transfer, and possession of certain semiautomatic assault weapons.” This is interesting. If a person is attacked with a screwdriver — it has indeed happened before — is that not technically an assault weapon? This may be an extreme example, but the concept behind it remains valid; banning a specific type of gun does nothing to significantly offset crime. The sad truth of the world is that people will always find ways to do harm to one another, and whether a murder is premeditated or occurs in the heat of passion, the supposed difference between a generic handgun and a “semiautomatic assault weapon” will have no bearing on the criminal’s decision to hurt another human being.

The term “assault weapon” confers upon the firearm in question a negative connotation and is sure to garner more support for the legislation. An “assault weapon” is sure to sound more frightening and destructive than an ordinary handgun, even though both are equally dangerous in the hands of a person with ill intentions.

Such emotive devices must be used, however, when the proponents of the ban know that it serves no practical purpose but to work toward greater gun control in general. When the data is not in their favor, gun-control advocates must rely on scare tactics, suggesting that the expiration of the ban will lead to more Columbines and asserting that anyone who wishes to own an assault weapon must be a lunatic.

But the true danger in the gun debate lies in the fallacious belief held by gun-control activists that the burden of proof should fall on the people who are simply demanding their civil liberties: that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

If you enjoyed this article, please consider supporting the Patriot