H -°, L 23° | Tomorrow: 
H 23°, L 9°As the federal assault-weapons ban is set to expire this week, the debate on gun control has surged to the forefront of current issues. Leaders in Congress have been locking horns with the gun industry, the NRA has been battling gun control advocacy groups, and President Bush has taken a lot of heat for supporting the ban but doing little to renew it.
Recent discussion and deliberation has proved the assault weapon ban to be virtually nothing more than a Second Amendment issue of extreme proportions; it is difficult to decipher the legitimacy of assault-weapon use in our Bill of Rights. Nevertheless, whether you’re a flannel-wearing, camouflage-painted, red-necked, gun-toting, conservative card-carrying member of the NRA or a tie-dye wearing, hash-smoking, peace-waving, pacifist liberal, you should be able to agree that the assault weapons ban deserves to expire.
The problem with the revitalization of the ban does not lie in its intentions. There should be little doubt that restricting public access to elaborate assault weapons is in the best interest of our country. There is no reason why hunters or competitive shooters need to use AK-47s (which are designed to kill mass amounts of people in combat) as opposed to regular rifles and shotguns (which are designed for hunting and recreational activities).
The problem with the assault-weapons ban lies in its effectiveness; it is nothing more than a legislative piece of propaganda filled with exceptions and loopholes. The ban does little to stop the circulation of all kinds of dangerous assault weapons.
It is difficult to determine statistically how successful the ban has been since its implementation in 1994. People’s definitions of an assault weapon differ, and it is hard to keep track of crimes committed by specific types of guns. A study done by the Justice Department, as reported by the New York Times, found that crimes committed by assault weapons have declined only slightly since the ban took effect. Because of the ban’s vagueness and ambiguity, most gun manufacturers have simply changed the names of their weapons or altered their features and accessories to comply with the law.
This obvious weakness was mocked in one case when a gun maker produced a modified version of an assault weapon and called it AB 10, with the “AB” standing for “after ban.” An estimate from the Violence Policy Center claims that, since 1994, more than one million assault weapons have been made in the United States despite the ban. How can a law meant to constrict the buying and selling of specific guns fail to prohibit so many of these weapons from going on the market and into people’s homes? And if we know there are ways around the ban, shouldn’t its expiration be necessary in order to find a more effective alternative?
Rather than pushing so hard for the extension of an inadequate law, we should be exploring alternative pieces of legislation that could implement a more effective ban on assault weapons. A prime example is the Consumer Safety Protection Act, which is currently being debated in Congress. The CSPA allows the Justice Department to regulate the manufacture and distribution of weapons, as well as restrict the availability of guns determined to be a risk to public safety (such as assault weapons).
Such proposed legislation attempts to do what the assault weapons ban was supposed to — prohibit such unnecessary and dangerous weapons from being produced and distributed to the general public. Through revisions and the closing of loopholes, a new bill could be passed that would be strong where the present ban is weak.
The assault weapons ban has not done an adequate job of preventing gun enthusiasts from acquiring morphed forms of multiple kinds of assault weapons. It did nothing to help prevent such high-profile shootings as the 1999 killings at Columbine High School or the 2002 sniper attacks in Washington, D.C., both cases in which assault weapons were used. Such guns are made for combat, not hunting; they are unnecessary in the lives of the average citizen. How do we implement laws that recognize the needlessness of assault weapons and the dangers they pose?
We don’t spend valuable time and energy attempting to extend a severely flawed piece of legislation. Through its 10-year life span, the assault-weapons ban proved it was not the answer to gun control — merely an inconvenience for the gun industry and its consumers.
Adam Lichtenheld ([email protected]) is a freshman majoring in political science and international studies.
IP hash: 45b70c37
Your argument is short on fact and contrary to the truth. According to several national police organizations, crime involving assault weapons listed in the ban has decreased by 2/3 in the 10 years since the ban was enacted. Yes, criminals were still able to get their hands on illegal weapons, but that’s what criminals do: they break the law. The ban just made it much more difficult for them to get assault weapons, whose only real purpose is to murder people, by limiting supply. A worthy goal, even for a “flawed” bill, isn’t it?
IP hash: 9c290c42
Though the cowards at the BH never respond to the holes, factual or otherwise, ripped into their misguided editorials, I nevertheless challenge the author of this column to respond. You point out that the AWB has loopholes and is not as effective as people would like. How do you then connect the dots to say that it must expire before anything is done to fix the loopholes that exist? Bills can add on to earlier bills to fix loopholes, the process will never be perfect ab initio. You have not made any progress here, you instead hinder it. Republicans like you use this as an excuse to do nothing, while garnering the support of the NRA in an election year, the REAL issue here.
So please tell me, how is a bill of limited effectiveness - one that 2/3 of the people of the United States support, by the way - worse than no bill at all?
IP hash: c43b45f1
This is Adam Lichtenheld, the author of the article, and I was asked to respond to a comment by an anonymous tip. First of all, please do not refer to us as cowards. It’s hard to respond to readers who post condescending feedback anonymously—we’re the ones revealing our opinions and leaving it open for criticism, in front of the whole school, so I don’t see how that is cowardly in any way when such feedback authors won’t even reveal their names. Second, I am not a Republican, I am a liberal (read my last week’s article on a liberal defense and you’ll see). I support the ban of assault weapons as much as the next person, but I believe the recently expired ban was not the answer. The reason I called for its expiration (if you read the article) to focus more time, energy, and money on better legislation—such as the Consumer Safety Protection Act—which does a better job of regulating the sale of assault weapons (again, read the article). What you don’t understand is how much effort and time goes into amending and changing legislation—we could save ourselves a lot of trouble by letting it expire, add onto the CSPA (which is already being debated in Congress) and getting it passed. In the end, it will mean a better law that will actually prevent such kids as Dylan Klebold (forgive me spelling) and Eric Harris from acquiring assault weapons to massacre children at Columbine High School. Please understand that gun control (particularly assault weapons) is something I feel strongly about, but we need new legisltion that is not as week as the assault weapon ban that just expired (once again, refer to the statistics I give in the article to show how gun manufactors have got around it). Adding on to bills is not just as easy at it sounds, especially with NRA-loving George W. as president. If you would like to debate this further, feel free to contact me at my e-mail address. All in all, thanks for your comment, and realize that I am a fellow liberal who has never and never will own a gun. I’m sorry if I didn’t make my support for gun control clear in the article (I thought I did) but please understand that it is us at the Badger Herald who are putting ourselves out there to be condemned by the student body; it’s must harder than writing in an insulting anonymous tip everytime you have an opinion.
IP hash: 863a14b3
Adam,
That was a decent article, I am glad you were open minded enough to admit that the gun ban did little good.
I do disagree with you on one fundamental point. You wrote
“There should be little doubt that restricting public access to elaborate assault weapons is in the best interest of our country. There is no reason why hunters or competitive shooters need to use AK-47s (which are designed to kill mass amounts of people in combat) as opposed to regular rifles and shotguns (which are designed for hunting and recreational activities).”
I do not agree that it is in the best interst of our country for several reasons.
1) Hunters AND competitive shooters DO use many of these banned weapons in competition. High power rifle matches are very popular across the country, and around the world. They use AR-15s. They are used for varmint/coyote hunting as well. HOWEVER, I do not like to use sporting purposes to justify the right to keep and bear arms. It is also a matter of the Second Amendment (which you will realize, if you’ve read your history, and federalist/anti-federalist papers, has NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH HUNTING).
2) They are fun to shoot. We don’t ban sports cars that can drive 150 mph - people are expected to use them legally. If they don’t, they pay the legal price. More people are killed by reckless use of vehicles than reckless use of guns. Responsible, law abiding gun owners understand these are dangerous weapons, and treat them as such. People don’t see cars as weapons so they aren’t as careful (and kill many more each year). I’m not the one you need to worry about owning an “assault weapon” - it’s the LA gang member you need to focus on.
3) “Regular rifles and shotguns” Today’s hunting rifles are yesterday’s military weapons. Shotguns are used by police everyday. The most popular hunting rifle, the bolt action Remington 700 is the rifle of choice of police and Secret Service snipers. A gun is a gun. They are all designed to kill, it just matters whose hands they are in.
We do not need to restrict honest, law abiding citizens from owning these, or other guns. It’s like saying law abiding American’s can’t read books on flying because terrorists crash planes into buildings. Instead, we need to go after the criminals, who are the ONLY people responsible for their crimes. It seems, however, that if we do that, too many bleeding hearts would have to admit human fallacy, and they don’t want to admit that it may be an INDIVIDUAL’S fault, not guns, society, the weather, etc.
-Adrian Andrijasevic [email protected] S.A.F.E.R. Student Alliance for Firearm Education and Responsibility http://safer.rso.wisc.edu/
IP hash: 1308b269
Just so you know, the reason many people on here (like myself) post anonymously is because the login feature doesn’t work with some browsers.
IP hash: aa3e2f57
Actually, Mr. Andrijasevic, we do ban sports cars. Ever heard the term street legal? We do not allow you to drive NASCAR or open wheel vehicles on the city streets precisely because they’re too dangerous. While I would support a complete ban on home ownership of guns (and think anyone who doesn’t support that is totally crazy) I cannot understand how gun owners continue to want to end the assualt weapons ban.
Frankly, there should be no guns in this country except in the control of the police, or in National Guard bases. Assault weapons (and guns in general) are freaking crazy. Ban them all for private ownership.
IP hash: d9d0d262
Adam, I respect your willingness to respond to my question, I jumped to comclusions in lumping you together with others who write for your paper, for that, I apologize. I have asked for responses from the editorial board numerous times regarding factual errors in articles with no response, hence my frustration. The Badger Herald wrote many things that were demonstrably false last year with regards to the TAA situation, even after these matters were brought to their attention. Yours is the first reply I have ever received to messages anonymous or otherwise.
I still disagree that the AWB is a waste of time and energy. The bill that you speak of has doubtlessly cost plenty of time and energy itself, why re-invent the wheel? Why not act to close loopholes in the existing framework? Furthermore, it is nice that a bill is being debated in congress, but congress has had 10 years to think about these problems. Small or not, this issue has taken a step back with the expiration of the AWB, do you really think a republican controlled congress will do anything meaningful with regards to this issue? The NRA remains a powerful lobby in Washington, and Bush hasn’t exactly been burning up the lines to Republican leadership in congress to pass gun control legislation. The time for action on this issue was a year ago, not after the ban expired. The republicans will play this off just like Kyoto.
Once again, I apologize for the tone of my first message, you seem to be a reasonable person, even after being attacked. I’ll keep that in mind.
IP hash: 863a14b3
The person above wrote:
“Actually, Mr. Andrijasevic, we do ban sports cars. Ever heard the term street legal? We do not allow you to drive NASCAR or open wheel vehicles on the city streets precisely because they’re too dangerous.”
Actually, race cars are not banned. There is nothing saying you can’t drive one on the track, and there is nothing saying you can’t park one in your garage. You just can’t drive one on the street. just like assault weapons (or other weapons). You cannot shoot them on the street (unless justified by law). You MAY carry them on the street (just like you can tow your race car to the track).
Your wrote: There should be no guns in this country except for police, or in National Guard Bases.
Wow, our forefathers would be turning in their graves. Have you ever picked up a history book? Governments turn tyrannical, the military fails, foreign countries invade, and it is up to the militia (the civilian populace) to defend their country. You must feel that America is not worth defending. Fine, then please move somewhere else. And COPS the only people with guns? have you ever read about cops and guns? Most cops do not even know how the safeties on their guns work (seriously). They shoot ONCE a year, and never practice. Their training is based on tactics devised in the 1950s, tactics that are well outdated. The police are the LAST people I trust with guns. This weekend I took a training course, LFI-I. 4 days of instruction, I have been better trained than most cops in the State of Wisconsin. That is very sad.
If you don’t support my second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in defense of my own life, my families and the freedom and liberty of my country, then I guess I won’t support your rights… oh, wait, that would mean your really wouldnt be able to post here now would it? Sounds like we both lose.
-Adrian