 |
| Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid |
Sales of semiautomatic rifles of the AR-15 type, such as the Bushmaster .223-caliber recently used by Adam Lanza in Newtown, CT, to kill 20 schoolchildren and 6 adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School, ought to be banned by law, but lobbying pushback by the National Rifle Association in the aftermath of Newtown has nixed the deal. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) introduced legislation reinstating the 1994 ban which lapsed in 2004, and it even managed to get out of committee. The Senate Judiciary Committee, headed by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), on March 14 approved Feinstein's bill. But Reid, needing 60 votes to break a Republican filibuster on the Senate floor, said he could get fewer than 40 votes for it.
"Lacking the numbers to overcome a likely Republican filibuster," says an editorial by The Washington Post, "[Reid] was reluctant to force a floor vote that could imperil the reelection prospects of several of his fellow Democrats. Lacking the numbers to overcome a likely Republican filibuster, he was reluctant to force a floor vote that could imperil the reelection prospects of several of his fellow Democrats."
Not exactly a profile in courage, I'd say, Sen. Reid.
So it's dead, for now, at the federal level. Unless someone manages to amend the bill that actually has reached the Senate floor to put the assault weapons ban back in. Fat chance of that happening, though.
How sad.
 |
| Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley |
That's a bad idea, and a recent editorial from The Baltimore Sun tells why. I think everyone should read it and consider it. It says that
... such weapons show up again and again in mass shootings. According to Mother Jones magazine, which has cataloged every mass shooting in the United States since 1982, about a quarter of all mass shooters had assault weapons, and more than half had assault weapons, high capacity magazines, or both ...
What makes these weapons so deadly? They are civilian copies of military weapons designed with features that make them more lethal.
The AR-15, for example, has a pistol grip, which helps a shooter pull the trigger more quickly and to better control the recoil, allowing him to fire more rapidly with more accuracy. It also enables shooting from the hip and spraying fire from side to side — something that would be deadly when firing into a crowd but useless in a self-defense situation.
When fired rapidly, a gun's barrel can quickly become too hot to handle. A barrel shroud, common on many of the models listed in the governor's bill, enables a shooter to hold the gun with a second hand without burning himself. A forward grip, which is somewhat less common, achieves the same purpose.
A folding, detachable or telescoping stock helps make an assault weapon easier to carry and conceal. That is frequently a factor in mass shooting situations.
A threaded barrel allows the easy attachment of a silencer or a flash suppressor. The latter prevents the shooter from being temporarily blinded by the muzzle flash, particularly in low-light conditions, enabling him to fire more quickly and accurately. It also helps conceal the position of the shooter ...
Yes, the same rifle models are often used legitimately for target shooting and hunting. Yes, some semiautomatic handguns that would not be banned can be just a lethal as the semiautomatic rifles that would. And yes, there are huge numbers of these rifles already out there that will still pose a threat: guns that many potential miscreants will have easy access to if they, as Adam Lanza's slain mother would have done, can but pass a background check.
But banning the sale of new military-style assault weapons, even if that has to be done at the state level only, will save innocent lives. And that's what counts most here.
4 comments:
What happened at Sandy Hook was a terrible tragedy and I am deeply saddened by it. I did however see in the news -Watch this video from NBC on the following web site.(http://www.ijreview.com/2013/01/30208-nbc-admits-no-assault-rifle-used-in-newtown-shooting/) that the shooter used only hand guns in the shooting and not the .223 assault riffle which was later found in his car. No matter what he used it is still a horrible and heinous crime. I served four years in the USMC and I have seen first hand what a helpless society looks like when only criminals have guns (Somalia). I am a gun owner and I use guns for sport shooting, hunting and home protection. I am fearful that more government control over legally owned guns is a way to control people and not to control violence. Violent crimes in which the use other weapons such as knives, clubs and the like are far more common in our country than that of violent crimes involving guns. I think that background checks are crucial in keeping firearms out of the hands of violent criminals and the mentally unstable. However I do believe if these people want to get a gun they will by any means possible, and that will always be a problem that we can't solve. I am a firm supporter of the 2nd amendment to our Constitution, and will always support that right. We need to address violence as a whole and work towards educating people rather than taking away rights that protect law abiding individuals and their families from violent criminals. I don't want to go against criminal with an illegal assault weapon with a bolt action or cracker barrel shotgun. I want the right to protect whats mine with equal or greater force than that of the criminal. Thanks for listening.
Hi, anonymous former Marine. Thanks for your comment. You have stated quite well the case concerning the notion that an assault weapons ban, along with other proposed gun control measures, might be a first step "to control people and not to control violence."
One of the things that separates us, you and me, is that you believe having a semiautomatic weapon evens the odds for you to be able to protect yourself, your loved ones, and your property from criminals who possess that kind of firepower themselves. I would like to see some hard evidence that that is actually so, in real life.
That is, I'd like to see some verified reports of incidents where ordinary folks have successfully defended "what's mine" in that manner. In my own life and circumstances, I know of no such situations actually having occurred. None (or very few) of my friends and acquaintances own any guns. I do have an acquaintance whose wife was killed by a (now executed) "bad guy" while she was sitting in a car in a shopping center parking lot, but had she had a gun with her at the time, it's not clear that she would have had an opportunity, after being attacked quite suddenly, to use it to save her own life.
In other words, I tend to think that the situations you feel you can protect yourself against by means of wielding a gun are rare. But if I'm wrong, what's wrong with using a handgun, semiautomatic or otherwise, in such scenarios? Those weapons are not included in the proposed assault weapons ban. The woman I just mentioned might have been able to level a handgun at the miscreant who killed her as she sat in her driver's seat, while a longer weapon such as a rifle might have been too cumbersome.
Anyway ... the underlying basis of your position seems to me to be a "slippery slope" argument that the government that bans the sale of new semiautomatic rifles today will one day confiscate all the guns in private hands. I don't see that happening. I don't see gun control advocates in general even wanting that. And I haven't heard anyone say right out loud that it ought to be part of the conversation, except certain NRA types who suggest that their adversaries have that secretly in mind, and who fear and oppose it.
But we have a democracy in which the political will to even institute an assault weapons ban isn't there, so I just don't think any yet more comprehensive ban would have a snowball's chance in hell.
Thank you, anonymous Marine, for your comments.
I am sorry for your friend in the car who was killed and for her friends and family. I know these crimes happen and wish they didn't. Did you know that you need a federal licence to own fully automatic weapons? This requires an extensive background check and assessment of the licence requester or holder along with proof of proper training or affiliation with law enforcement. Even with this federal requirement, illegal, fully automatic weapons make it into the hands of gang members and criminals through the black market. What would change if semi-auto riffles were made illegal? I hope that I don't have to show you verified reports of ordinary people defending themselves against criminals. History shows us (in real life) that people who are defenseless will always be targeted by criminals and wrong doers (Nazi Germany). One of Hitlers first acts as leader was to disarm the general population. We all know what happens next. Maybe you don't know anyone who has had to defend themselves or was able to do so. The numbers may work in the favor of your thinking, but I would hate to see what happens if law abiding Americans were stripped of their defenses. Perhaps the numbers you speak of are so low because we have the right to bare arms. The town I live in is huge in land mass and we have one police officer on duty until 1:00am. After that we are on our own. Most home invasions (we have had several in the last few years)occur between 2:00am and 4:00am. One of these home invasions ended tragically. I am not saying that a handgun or a rifle is better for home protection, I am saying that the government does not need to decide which weapon I can defend myself with. The police and government are not able to protect us on an individual basis. This is why I feel the second amendment is so important. By the way "Once a Marine always a Marine". Thanks for listening.
Dear Still a Marine:
Happy Easter 2013!
I find myself in a strange position. I support the assault weapons ban that has been introduced in Congress and, yes, that has no chance of passing. Yet I don't think it would be strong enough to do much good. Too many weapon models are excluded that ought to be in the bill, and all the weapons already out there in private hands would be grandfathered in. So it would be a largely symbolic measure, with its supporters (such as me) hoping for more stringent laws later.
As for currently owned AR-15's, AK-17's, etc., I would treat semi-automatic rifles much like fully automatic weapons are treated now: proper licensing and registration, with full background checks, and with proof of proper training/affiliation with law enforcement. I would require private owners to keep these guns under lock and key in hunt clubs and gun clubs, but not in homes or cars. I would establish a federal buyback program for existing weapons that owners don't want to put under lock and key. For crimes committed with such guns I would establish far heavier prison sentences. If all that worked to ward off tragedies like Newtown, I might remove the ban on new semi-automatic rifle sales.
"I hope that I don't have to show you verified reports of ordinary people defending themselves against criminals.": I am sorry, but you or someone else has to do exactly that if you want me to agree that an assault weapons ban is a bad move.
"History shows us (in real life) that people who are defenseless will always be targeted by criminals and wrong doers (Nazi Germany). One of Hitlers first acts as leader was to disarm the general population. We all know what happens next.": As I understand it, the general population in Great Britain is disarmed and always has been. I don't think a British Hitler is in the offing. This is a matter of the strength of Britain's (and our) democratic institutions. When Hitler rose, Germany's democracy was in total disarray.
"The town I live in is huge in land mass and we have one police officer on duty until 1:00am. After that we are on our own. Most home invasions (we have had several in the last few years) occur between 2:00am and 4:00am. One of these home invasions ended tragically.": Isn't the solution to have more police officers on your local force, including a night shift, prowl cars, etc.? Isn't that precisely consistent with the NRA's call for more armed guards in schools?
"I am not saying that a handgun or a rifle is better for home protection, I am saying that the government does not need to decide which weapon I can defend myself with.": Well, the government (at various levels) can decide what kinds of cars are legal, what kind of plumbing and electrical wiring is in your home, what can and can't go into the food you eat. Why shouldn't it decide what kinds of firearms you can keep in your homes, your cars and trucks and RVs, your shoulder holsters, etc.
"The police and government are not able to protect us on an individual basis. This is why I feel the second amendment is so important.": I should come clean here and say that I would support repeal of the Second Amendment, if such a movement materialized, so obviously I have no problem with what I said above. Equally obviously, I suppose, I really don't get what is so sacred in the first place about the idea of keeping and bearing arms.
Yet I do know that a lot of people disagree. They think firearm protection on an individual basis is a necessity and a basic right. I say again: I want to see some hard evidence — documented case files, etc. — that it's really a necessity.
Post a Comment