"Assault Weapons:" Riding into the Sunset

Articles

Matthew Bastian

"Assault Weapons:" Riding into the Sunset
Aug 9, 2003

For those of you who may not be aware, the Assault Weapons Ban - one of the proudest achievements of the Clinton administration - has a sunset provision that kicks in next October. Understandably, the two sides of the debate are gearing up for the showdown: the anti-gunners hoping to renew the legislation, if not expand it, and the pro-gunners encouraging legislators and President Bush to let it die. We’ll see how it shakes out, but odds are that Bush, given the political pressure surrounding the ban, will at least renew it. I can only hope that he doesn’t.

Now, before you go and start thinking that I am somehow “pro-assault weapon,” consider the facts. First and foremost, the ban had more to do with fear mongering than it did with actually preventing violent crime. In a study of 538 drive-by shootings in Los Angeles, a New England Journal of Medicine study found that exactly one - yes, 1 - of them involved a banned weapon. Even the Los Angeles Times, hardly closet fans of the NRA, admitted that “less exotic” weapons were used much more frequently. So, right out of the gate, the ban was pushed under misleading, if not outright false, pretenses.

The second problem is the lack of a set definition for an “assault weapon.” You can slap that label on just about anything (Michael Bolton’s music, for example). California recently imposed a more extensive ban that was so poorly worded that local law enforcement had no idea what weapons were covered. Hasty attempts at clarification resulted in a mostly cosmetic set of criteria: pistol grip, folding stock, bayonet mount, etc. In short, weapons that looked scary made the list. Greengrocers across the Golden State must have breathed a sigh of relief knowing that folding stocks would never terrorize them again.

The lack of definition makes “assault weapon” an elastic and ever-expanding category. Indeed, one proposed successor to the federal ban would make the M-1 Garand verboten. The M-1 is a WWII-era piece that holds a respectable, but hardly shooting-spree friendly, eight rounds. This makes it popular among collectors, less so among gang-bangers. Of course, this is of no concern to the ban’s proponents: if they could find a way to classify the blunderbuss as an “assault weapon,” they would. (Pilgrims beware!)

One of the most oft-repeated questions posed by the ban’s proponents is “why do you NEED an Uzi to kill Bambi?” They fancy this is a cutesy, pithy little comeback that paints the other guy into a corner. In fact, it is inane and entirely asks the wrong question. For when it comes to trimming rights found in the Constitution, the question must always be “why?” You have to explain to me the why, chucklehead, not the other way around.

For example: quite frankly, I don’t think people NEED to march around Times Square, snarl cross-town traffic, and generally disrupt thousands of lives and businesses in order to make a political statement. However, they’ve got the right (at least until they start flipping over police cars). Got a day off and want to create a nuisance for people trying to get to work? Knock yourself out. It’s not my place to demand any sort of rationale when it comes to peaceful assembly.

But the anti-gunners are not deterred by such logic. They have an evil-sounding term that scares the heck out of every soccer mom from Barrington to Newtown Square: who cares what an “assault weapon” really is? Just get it “off the streets!” Seizing on this mentality, the anti-gunners have a beachhead in the struggle. They are not likely to let go so easily.

So keep all this in mind the next time the NRA gets characterized as a bunch of inbred, NASCAR-loving yokels (no offense to NASCAR fans) whose knee-jerk reaction is to fight any attempt at “common-sense gun legislation.” They fight because they know it’s about neither common sense nor safety. It’s about prohibition. In a war for a mile, both sides know that they must battle for every yard.

For one side in the struggle, the ultimate goal is to make America like Great Britain, where violent crime has soared despite a series of draconian gun laws. But we, thankfully in this regard, are not Britain. A country in which the people blindly trust the government with their personal well-being and safety is most decidedly NOT what the Founding Fathers had in mind.

We’ll see if George Bush agrees.

------------

About Matthew Bastian: Recovering socialst, part-time drummer, long-suffering Brewers fan, and all-around beach hound, Mr. Bastian lives in central New Jersey. Email Matthew Bastian: mbastian19@hotmail.com

Comment on this column in the forum.
------------