Telling Daniel's story

Q&A on thje Assault Weapons Ban
Answering the points of the gun lobby

The definition of assault weapons is too broad and too many guns are banned, creating “impediments for law-abiding sportsmen, marksmen, and collectors wishing to obtain certain firearms misleadingly labeled as ‘assault weapons.’” (The quote comes from my Congressman, Mr. Tancredo.)

The current ban specifies the 19 models that are banned. That’s too broad?!?

So which of the 19 banned models that sportsmen are denied are legitimate hunting weapons? Who would call the Uzi, the AK-47 and the TEC DC9 legitimate hunting weapons? Does any reasonable person think they have a useful purpose?

But collectors and marksmen want these guns and have a right to them!

I do not doubt there are collectors and shooters who’d “like” to have them for “fun” or profit. But why should we have more concern for them than for potential victims of people who consider them the weapons of choice for wreaking havoc--drug lords, violent gangs, disgruntled workers, abusive spouses and Timothy McVeigh wanna-bees?

These guns are out there anyway, and criminals will get them if they want them.

Sure, and one reason there are still many out there is the fact that the gun lobby made sure that the Assault Weapons Ban didn’t stop the sale of already existing assault weapons and ammo magazines. And because the ban was specific (and not broad), by naming the 19 banned gun models, unscrupulous gun makers have been skirting the intent of the law by making copycat assault weapons. Where’s the honor and concern with being “law abiding” in THAT?

More important, I refuse to buy into the pessimism that “criminals will get these weapons anyway.” That’s a surrender. Despite all that’s happened to me, I refuse to be so fatalistic and say that criminals will just get these killing machines anyway. The pro gun message is, “It’s every man for himself, so arm yourself.” It’s pretty hard, even for the police, to not be out-armed by these killing machines. It’s better to ban them. Sure, it will take a long time to get them out of circulation, but I’ll choose that over hopelessness.

Just prosecute those who misuse these weapons, don’t punish the law-abiding citizens.

I don’t mean to “punish” the law abiding. (Gee, you’d think we were asking them to give up the life of their only son!) I just want them to understand that sometimes we all have to make a little sacrifice for the better of society. I hardly call this ban a terrible deprivation, in the scheme of life. It’s certainly nothing compared to the sacrifice that thousands have made at the altar of unrestricted gun ownership.

As for prosecuting those who misuse assault weapons—by the time you do that, most likely somebody has already been hurt or killed. That’s little consolation to victims’ loved ones. It’s too late. Prevention is just as important as punishment, if not more…

Few people are killed with assault weapons. More are killed with standard handguns.

How many is “few?” How many deaths would qualify as a problem? The fact is we don’t know the exact number killed, because government statistics on the 11,000 annual gunshot victims don’t break the #s down by type of gun. The fact is that many crazed killers have used these weapons in mass murders. Police officials will confirm finding large caches of assault weapons in the hands of gangs and drug lords—they’re a ticking time bomb.

Contrary to popular belief, these so-called “assault weapons” are not machine guns, or automatic weapons. They are unfairly confused with fully automatic weapons. They fire one bullet at a time just like other guns not labeled as assault weapons.

Yes, they are a bit different, but the question here is design and intent. Semi-automatics fire pretty damned quickly, and when combined with ammo magazines that hold 30 bullets, as well as other features, they are very deadly weapons.

Assault weapons are quite different from other guns in their design, for they are designed to fire in a “spray” and are intended to handle magazines that hold many rounds of ammo. They are designed with features like a special grip that makes “spray shooting” easier and to prevent burns from hot barrels; they commonly have flash sup pressors to conceal one’s position, or a folding stock for concealment. They are military-type weapons designed for maximum killing, not for hunting or target shooting. They are not defensive weapons—they are intended to intimidate.

The ban is a violation of the Second Amendment! It denies us our Constitutional “right to bear arms.”

Oh, really? Since the 1920s the ownership of machine guns has been severely restricted—almost outlawed. Is that also a violation? If so, the gun lobby has had over 60 years to have it ruled a violation of the Second Amendment. The fact is they’ve tried but failed. In a landmark case in 1939 the Supreme Court ruled the Second Amendment offers a collective right to states, NOT to individuals, and that ruling has been upheld in Federal courts ever since.

The fact is that the Second Amendment does not convey an absolute right any more than the First Amendment conveys the right to scream “Fire!” in a theater. The opening words of the Second Amendment, which are rarely quoted by the gun lobby, are “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State …” What we’re doing here is regulating against a deadly weapon, just like we do for machine guns, bazookas, grenade launchers, etc.

Top of page

We are all Columbine!