Harry Tuttle
Member
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2003
- Messages
- 3,093
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20040301-085723-9378r.htm
Not bulletproof
By John R. Lott Jr.
Gun-control advocates should fear the votes today in the Senate, but
not for the reason that most people think. Despite claims that
letting the ban on some semi-automatic weapons expire will cause a
surge of police killings and a rise in gun crimes, letting the law
expire will show the uselessness of gun-control regulations. A year
from now, it will be obvious to everyone that all the horror stories
about banning what has been labeled"assault weapons" were wrong.
Today's votes center on reining in reckless lawsuits against
gunmakers, and no one seems to doubt that the Senate will grant
gunmakers some immunity. The vast majority of Americans understand
that Ford Motor or General Motors should not be liable if a speeding
driver gets into an accident and kills a pedestrian. And Americans
understand that's the type of suits being brought against gun makers.
No protection is being granted for selling defective products or when
the company committed a crime. When even liberal Democratic
congressmen,such as Charles Rangel from New York City, vote for the
bill in the House, it is hard to claim that the bill is a product of
the "gun lobby."
While the main issue is not contested, there is however today a
debate over whether the lawsuit bill will be loaded with amendments
requiring more gun-control regulations. These "poison pills" may make
it difficult to get through a conference committee with the House.
Last week, the Senate passed a provision on gunlocks and today more
votes are scheduled, including whether to regulate gun shows and ban
some types of ammunition.
One of the more contentious issues will be extending the ban on some
semi-automatic guns. Seven states now ban certain types of semi--
automatic guns, and the federal ban, in effect since 1994, is set to
sunset this September. Yet, despite the heated rhetoric, there is not
a single academic study showing that either the state or federal bans
have reduced violent crime. Even research funded by the Justice
Department under the Clinton administration concluded merely that the
ban's "impact on gun violence has been uncertain."
The federal assault- weapons ban applied to semi-automatics that fire
one bullet per pull of the trigger. Rebuilding semi-automatic weapons
into machine guns is very difficult, as completely different firing
mechanisms are used. The term "assault weapon" simply describes
cosmetic features of the gun, not the way the gun fires bullets.
Ironically, notorious "assault weapons," such as the 223-caliber
Bushmaster rifle used in the D.C.-area sniper killings, are not even
allowed in most states for hunting deer or larger animals. The
reason: It is such a low-powered rifle that it will too frequently
wound rather than kill the deer.
The ban arbitrarily outlaws some guns based upon brand name or
cosmetic features - such as whether a rifle could have a bayonet
mount, a pistol grip, a folding stock or a threaded muzzle. Not only
could someone buy some other semi-automatic gun that wasn't banned
that fired the same bullets, at the same rapidity and with the same
damage, but even the banned guns can be sold under a different name
or after, say, the bayonet mount was removed.
Too often the debate misleads people about the guns being banned.
Sen. John Kerry, the obvious Democratic presidential nominee,
supports extending the ban because he claims, "When I go out there
and hunt, I'm going out there with a 12-gauge shotgun, not an assault
weapon." Yet, the ban has nothing to do with shooting birds with
machine guns. The guns' names or cosmetic features make them no less
well suited for hunting.
Proponents for keeping the semi--automatic "assault" gun ban argue
that 10 of the 50 police officers shot to death annually over the
four years from 1998 to 2001 were killed by these guns. But the
Violence Policy Center, which put these numbers together, never
examined whether the guns used to kill police possessed two or more
of the features defining them as"assault weapons." Rather, the guns
were counted as assault weapons if it was possible that they had at
least two of the banned features.
It is hard to convince some people that gun control doesn't reduce
crime, but the continuing extreme claims by gun control advocates
won't be forgotten a year from now. Somehow, the obvious failure of
the semi-automatic gun ban will be a fitting epitaph for one of the
gun control movement's shall mark pieces of legislation.
John R. Lott Jr., a resident scholar at the American Enterprise
Institute, is the author of "The Bias Against Guns."
Not bulletproof
By John R. Lott Jr.
Gun-control advocates should fear the votes today in the Senate, but
not for the reason that most people think. Despite claims that
letting the ban on some semi-automatic weapons expire will cause a
surge of police killings and a rise in gun crimes, letting the law
expire will show the uselessness of gun-control regulations. A year
from now, it will be obvious to everyone that all the horror stories
about banning what has been labeled"assault weapons" were wrong.
Today's votes center on reining in reckless lawsuits against
gunmakers, and no one seems to doubt that the Senate will grant
gunmakers some immunity. The vast majority of Americans understand
that Ford Motor or General Motors should not be liable if a speeding
driver gets into an accident and kills a pedestrian. And Americans
understand that's the type of suits being brought against gun makers.
No protection is being granted for selling defective products or when
the company committed a crime. When even liberal Democratic
congressmen,such as Charles Rangel from New York City, vote for the
bill in the House, it is hard to claim that the bill is a product of
the "gun lobby."
While the main issue is not contested, there is however today a
debate over whether the lawsuit bill will be loaded with amendments
requiring more gun-control regulations. These "poison pills" may make
it difficult to get through a conference committee with the House.
Last week, the Senate passed a provision on gunlocks and today more
votes are scheduled, including whether to regulate gun shows and ban
some types of ammunition.
One of the more contentious issues will be extending the ban on some
semi-automatic guns. Seven states now ban certain types of semi--
automatic guns, and the federal ban, in effect since 1994, is set to
sunset this September. Yet, despite the heated rhetoric, there is not
a single academic study showing that either the state or federal bans
have reduced violent crime. Even research funded by the Justice
Department under the Clinton administration concluded merely that the
ban's "impact on gun violence has been uncertain."
The federal assault- weapons ban applied to semi-automatics that fire
one bullet per pull of the trigger. Rebuilding semi-automatic weapons
into machine guns is very difficult, as completely different firing
mechanisms are used. The term "assault weapon" simply describes
cosmetic features of the gun, not the way the gun fires bullets.
Ironically, notorious "assault weapons," such as the 223-caliber
Bushmaster rifle used in the D.C.-area sniper killings, are not even
allowed in most states for hunting deer or larger animals. The
reason: It is such a low-powered rifle that it will too frequently
wound rather than kill the deer.
The ban arbitrarily outlaws some guns based upon brand name or
cosmetic features - such as whether a rifle could have a bayonet
mount, a pistol grip, a folding stock or a threaded muzzle. Not only
could someone buy some other semi-automatic gun that wasn't banned
that fired the same bullets, at the same rapidity and with the same
damage, but even the banned guns can be sold under a different name
or after, say, the bayonet mount was removed.
Too often the debate misleads people about the guns being banned.
Sen. John Kerry, the obvious Democratic presidential nominee,
supports extending the ban because he claims, "When I go out there
and hunt, I'm going out there with a 12-gauge shotgun, not an assault
weapon." Yet, the ban has nothing to do with shooting birds with
machine guns. The guns' names or cosmetic features make them no less
well suited for hunting.
Proponents for keeping the semi--automatic "assault" gun ban argue
that 10 of the 50 police officers shot to death annually over the
four years from 1998 to 2001 were killed by these guns. But the
Violence Policy Center, which put these numbers together, never
examined whether the guns used to kill police possessed two or more
of the features defining them as"assault weapons." Rather, the guns
were counted as assault weapons if it was possible that they had at
least two of the banned features.
It is hard to convince some people that gun control doesn't reduce
crime, but the continuing extreme claims by gun control advocates
won't be forgotten a year from now. Somehow, the obvious failure of
the semi-automatic gun ban will be a fitting epitaph for one of the
gun control movement's shall mark pieces of legislation.
John R. Lott Jr., a resident scholar at the American Enterprise
Institute, is the author of "The Bias Against Guns."