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.
