Another broken Bush promise

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-07-2004
Another broken Bush promise
54
Wed, 08-18-2004 - 8:26am
Who Needs Assault Weapons?

By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF, NYT



ERIDIAN, Idaho — If you've been longing for your very own assault rifle and 30-round magazine for the next holiday season, you're in luck.

President Bush, sidestepping a promise, is allowing the ban on assault rifles and oversized clips to expire on Sept. 14. So at a gun store here in Meridian, a bit west of Boise, the counter has a display promising "2 FREE HIGH-CAPACITY MAGAZINES."

All you have to do is purchase a new Beretta 9-millimeter handgun and you'll receive two high-capacity magazines - on the condition, the fine print states, that the federal ban expires on schedule.

President Bush promised in the last presidential campaign to support an extension of the ban, which was put in place in 1994 for 10 years. "It makes no sense for assault weapons to be around our society," Mr. Bush observed at the time.

These days Mr. Bush still says that he'll sign an extension of the ban if it happens to reach his desk. But he knows that the only way the ban can be extended on time is if he actually urges its passage, and he refuses to do that. So his promise to support an extension rings hollow - it's not exactly a lie, but it's not the full truth, either.

Mr. Bush's flip-flop is surprising because he has generally had the courage of his convictions. Apparently he's hiding from this issue because it's so politically charged.

Critics of the assault weapon ban have one valid point: the ban has more holes than Swiss cheese.

"The big frustration of my customers is that removed things that were kind of fun and made it look cool, but didn't affect how the gun operated," said Sean Wontor, a salesman who heaved two rifles onto the counter of Sportsman's Warehouse here in Meridian to make his point.

One was an assault weapon that was produced before the ban (and thus still legal), and the other was a sanitized version produced afterward to comply with the ban by removing the bayonet mount and the flash suppressor.

After these cosmetic changes, the rifle is now no longer considered an assault weapon, yet, of course, it is just as lethal.

Still, assault weapons, while amounting to only 1 percent of America's 190 million privately owned guns, account for a hugely disproportionate share of gun violence precisely because of their macho appeal.

Assault weapons aren't necessary for any kind of hunting or target shooting, but they're popular because they can transform a suburban Walter Mitty into Rambo, for a lot less money than a Hummer.

"I've got a ton of customers shooting squirrels with AK-47's," said Kevin Tester, a gun salesman near Boise. "They're using 30-round magazines and 7.62-millimeter ammunition, they're shooting up the hills, and they're having a blast."

I grew up on an Oregon farm that bristled with guns to deal with the coyotes that dined on our sheep. Having fired everything from a pistol to a machine gun, I can testify that shooting can be a lot of fun. But consider the cost: 29,000 gun deaths in America each year.

While gun statistics are as malleable as Play-Doh, they do underscore that assault weapons are a special problem in America.

They accounted for 8.4 percent of the guns traced to crimes between 1988 and 1991, and they are still used in one in five fatal shootings of police officers. If anything, we should be plugging the holes in the ban by having it cover copycat weapons without bayonet mounts, instead of moving backward and allowing a new flood of weapons and high-capacity magazines.

The bottom line is that Mr. Bush's waffling on assault weapons will mean more dead Americans.

About 100 times as many Americans are already dying from gunfire in the U.S. as in Iraq. As many Americans die from firearms every six weeks as died in the 9/11 attacks - yet the White House is paralyzed on this issue.

Mr. Bush needs to live up to his campaign promise and push to keep the ban on assault weapons. Otherwise, we'll bring more of the Iraq-like carnage to our own shores, and his refusal to confront our gun problem will kill more Americans over time than Osama bin Laden ever could.


iVillage Member
Registered: 04-03-2003
Wed, 08-18-2004 - 6:43pm
Logical fallacy in comparing a weapon of mass destruction to a personal arm like a rifle. Significant differences on several levels.

~mark~

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-03-2003
Wed, 08-18-2004 - 6:45pm
Hate to break this to you, BUT THEY'RE AVAILABLE ALREADY, AND HAVE BEEN EVEN WITH THE BAN IN PLACE!

"Have any of you seen pictures of these weapons?"

And what do pictures of them have to do with anything? You want to ban any firearm you don't like the look of or something?

~mark~

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-07-2004
Wed, 08-18-2004 - 6:46pm
The ban is a joke, has been ever since it was enacted.

MAYBE IT'S A JOKE TO YOU, I'M NOT LAUGHING.

Not only are functionally identical firearms currently available, they have been from practically the moment the ban was first signed into law. That's because the ban deals largely with cosmetic characteristics of these firearms, not function. Things such as having more than two of the following were what these weapons were banned on account of... bayonet lugs,

GEE, I JUST AM NOT FOND OF BAYONET LUGS

removable flash hiders, a pistol grip, telescoping stock, etc. Nothing having to do with the functioning of the firearm.

NO, BUT IT HAS TO DO WITH THE FUNCTIONING OF BAYONETS..... --->

As to the article you provided, it's so full of misrepresentation and distortion as to be useless for any real judgement of the issues involved here.

I DISAGREE, IT BRINGS UP POINTS OF DISCUSSION, ALWAYS HELPFUL FOR THINKING PEOPLE.

An example? The "high-capacity" magazines mentioned in it? They've been available ever since the ban was enacted. They just couldn't be imported or manufactured. That's not a problem since existing stocks were sufficient to carry demand for some time yet.

AND SO NOW YOU WANT MORE TO BE IMPORTED & MANUFACTURED??? I DON'T.

Another? "Still, assault weapons, while amounting to only 1 percent of America's 190 million privately owned guns, account for a hugely disproportionate share of gun violence precisely because of their macho appeal."

This is an outright lie. Such weapons are involved in less than 1% of the crimes committed in this country. They weren't the crimes of choice by criminals when the ban was enacted, and it's not the case now.

I'LL TAKE MY CHANCES THAT BANNING THEM, HOWEVER WEAK THE BAN MIGHT BE, WILL MAKE ME A TEENSY BIT SAFER. ON THE OTHER HAND, IF THE BAN IS WEAK, LETS STRENGTHEN IT :)

Another? "They accounted for 8.4 percent of the guns traced to crimes between 1988 and 1991, and they are still used in one in five fatal shootings of police officers."

Misrepresentation. They are involved in 8.4 percent of all tracings, not tracings related to criminal use of them. Firearms recovered from theft and such innocuous crimes are traced as well to determine owership, but aren't used in crimes. '

LET'S ASK POLICE OFFICERS FOR THEIR OPINION ON THIS, OK?

This issue is about 50% hype, and 50% distortion. The reality of it reveals the pointlessness of the ban itself.

TRYING TO CREATE A SAFER WORLD IS NEVER POINTLESS. YOU GIVE UP TOO EASILY. I'LL KEEP TRYING.

~mark~

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-03-2003
Wed, 08-18-2004 - 6:50pm
Do you know the difference between a banned assault weapon and a completely legal version of those arms? Here's a link illustrating the difference as well as the utter hypocrisy of the ban itself...

http://www.ont.com/users/kolya/

Enjoy...

~mark~

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-07-2004
Wed, 08-18-2004 - 7:01pm
Making the case for strenghtening the ban then.

< Do you know the difference between a banned assault weapon and a completely legal version of those arms? Here's a link illustrating the difference as well as the utter hypocrisy of the ban itself... >

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-07-2004
Wed, 08-18-2004 - 7:01pm
YES.


< And what do pictures of them have to do with anything? You want to ban any firearm you don't like the look of or something? >

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-03-2003
Wed, 08-18-2004 - 7:02pm
"MAYBE IT'S A JOKE TO YOU, I'M NOT LAUGHING."

You should be, because this ban accomplished nothing to make you or anyone else safer. Even it's most ardent supporters back in '94 admitted that it was purely symbolic, not substantive.

BTW, you can refrain from yelling. It's unnecessary.

"EE, I JUST AM NOT FOND OF BAYONET LUGS"

Oh yes, they present such a threat after our decades old history of affixed bayonetings.

"NO, BUT IT HAS TO DO WITH THE FUNCTIONING OF BAYONETS....."

When's the last time you heard of anyone in this country being bayoneted with an affixed bayonet? Serious question, and I look forward to your answer.

"I DISAGREE, IT BRINGS UP POINTS OF DISCUSSION, ALWAYS HELPFUL FOR THINKING PEOPLE."

Sure, for people who recognize and point out the numerous problems with it. Or if you prefer, it can serve as a bad example of "journalism" upon which to based educated opinions.

"AND SO NOW YOU WANT MORE TO BE IMPORTED & MANUFACTURED??? I DON'T."

Why not? Their ban over the last ten years hasn't made any difference in the crime rate, and existing stocks will last for another ten at least.

"I'LL TAKE MY CHANCES THAT BANNING THEM, HOWEVER WEAK THE BAN MIGHT BE, WILL MAKE ME A TEENSY BIT SAFER. ON THE OTHER HAND, IF THE BAN IS WEAK, LETS STRENGTHEN IT :)"

Want to ban anything and everything which might make you a teensy bit safer? It's a long list. As for strengthening the ban, that isn't under discussion, but rather simply renewing it, a pointless exercise.

"LET'S ASK POLICE OFFICERS FOR THEIR OPINION ON THIS, OK?"

http://www.guncite.com/aswpolice.html

http://i2i.org/SuptDocs/Crime/Assault_Ban_Chicanery.htm

Just make sure you ask street officers, not those driving desks.

"TRYING TO CREATE A SAFER WORLD IS NEVER POINTLESS. YOU GIVE UP TOO EASILY. I'LL KEEP TRYING."

Great, a Nerf-Worlder. Just what we need.

~mark~

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-03-2003
Wed, 08-18-2004 - 7:05pm
Too bad. Lucky for the rest of us that our Constitution and the law isn't subject to your whims and wants. You can try of course, as can your elected representatives, but the fact remains that reality (as opposed to errant nonsense like that article you posted) isn't on your side.

~mark~

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-03-2003
Wed, 08-18-2004 - 7:07pm
If such weapons weren't much of a problem before the ban, and aren't much of a problem now, why bother putting the time and energy into legislation which won't make any real difference on anything? Even strengthening the ban won't make the slightest bit of difference.

~mark~

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-07-2004
Wed, 08-18-2004 - 7:10pm
I suppose this is how you go thru life, insulting people, telling people their efforts for a better world are pointless....

What exactly did you do in the last year to make this a better world?

Does your mother know how you talk to people?



< Great, a Nerf-Worlder. Just what we need. >