Min
Member
http://www.journalnet.com/articles/2004/09/16/opinion/opinion01.txt
Expiration of assault weapons ban makes us less safe
Day by day the world is fast becoming an ever more violent place and when we have the power to lessen, even by one iota, the hardware used to inflict violence we should take whatever measures we can to make it safer.
The expiration this week of the assault weapons ban is one step backward in contemporary society's attempt to bring a degree of sanity to the proliferation and sale of military-style armaments in everyday life.
The 10-year ban against the manufacture, sale and importation of 19 military-style semiautomatic weapons, such as the AK-47 and the Uzi, was of questionable success. Manufacturers were able to sidestep the law by making minor adjustments to comply with the letter of the law. And semiautomatic weapons manufactured prior to 1994 were not affected by the legislation.
Despite the law's limited effectiveness, there is a seam of irony as rich as the gilded purse strings of the pro-gun lobby that cowed craven lawmakers from seeking a renewal of the ban.
It is ironic that at a time when the current administration constantly raises issues of homeland security that they would discard a law that sought to restrict, in a limited sense, the availability of weapons whose sole design and intent is for military use in armed conflict. In other words, to kill people.
To the surprise of no one, the National Rifle Association heralds the law's demise as one step in the restoration of individual liberties. The NRA proclaims that citizenry will be free to once again purchase these weapons for target shooting, shooting competitions, hunting (?), collecting and self-defense.
And yet why did every major law enforcement organization in the United States support this measure in 1994? Is it because of the five children shot dead in a Stockton, Calif., schoolyard in 1989, or the four Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms agents killed at the Branch-Davidian compound in Waco, Texas, in 1993? Or is it because of the extraordinary firepower that can penetrate body armor?
What has been gained by the law's expiration? The evidence is that the law had a limited and mitigating effect in preventing the manufacture and sale of semiautomatic weapons. True sportsmen were not impacted and gun dealers
were inconvenienced. Today, the general public, but primarily law enforcement officers will face a criminal element more easily armed with deadly weapons.
We cannot live our lives in a state of constant fear, but we can take comfort in the belief that we are moving in the right direction when it comes to the protection of society and peacekeepers. Unfortunately we have turned the wrong corner this week and made our world a little less safe then it was last week.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What idiocy.
Expiration of assault weapons ban makes us less safe
Day by day the world is fast becoming an ever more violent place and when we have the power to lessen, even by one iota, the hardware used to inflict violence we should take whatever measures we can to make it safer.
The expiration this week of the assault weapons ban is one step backward in contemporary society's attempt to bring a degree of sanity to the proliferation and sale of military-style armaments in everyday life.
The 10-year ban against the manufacture, sale and importation of 19 military-style semiautomatic weapons, such as the AK-47 and the Uzi, was of questionable success. Manufacturers were able to sidestep the law by making minor adjustments to comply with the letter of the law. And semiautomatic weapons manufactured prior to 1994 were not affected by the legislation.
Despite the law's limited effectiveness, there is a seam of irony as rich as the gilded purse strings of the pro-gun lobby that cowed craven lawmakers from seeking a renewal of the ban.
It is ironic that at a time when the current administration constantly raises issues of homeland security that they would discard a law that sought to restrict, in a limited sense, the availability of weapons whose sole design and intent is for military use in armed conflict. In other words, to kill people.
To the surprise of no one, the National Rifle Association heralds the law's demise as one step in the restoration of individual liberties. The NRA proclaims that citizenry will be free to once again purchase these weapons for target shooting, shooting competitions, hunting (?), collecting and self-defense.
And yet why did every major law enforcement organization in the United States support this measure in 1994? Is it because of the five children shot dead in a Stockton, Calif., schoolyard in 1989, or the four Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms agents killed at the Branch-Davidian compound in Waco, Texas, in 1993? Or is it because of the extraordinary firepower that can penetrate body armor?
What has been gained by the law's expiration? The evidence is that the law had a limited and mitigating effect in preventing the manufacture and sale of semiautomatic weapons. True sportsmen were not impacted and gun dealers
were inconvenienced. Today, the general public, but primarily law enforcement officers will face a criminal element more easily armed with deadly weapons.
We cannot live our lives in a state of constant fear, but we can take comfort in the belief that we are moving in the right direction when it comes to the protection of society and peacekeepers. Unfortunately we have turned the wrong corner this week and made our world a little less safe then it was last week.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What idiocy.
