Looming Assault Weapons Availability

Jaw-dropping but true, the U.S. senate placed an expiry date on the “Brady Bill” ban on assault weapons (e.g AK-47s, Uzi’s etc). Presumably the honourable senators assumed that somehow there would be a pressing need to arm the U.S. population with people-killers in 10 years time. That expiry date is September 13th and the Republican senate and presidency have distinguished themselves by differing from Ford and Reagan administrations in refusing to renew the ban on semi-automatic weapons, allowing them to be sold with little restriction compared to standards in the first world.

Jaw-dropping but true, the U.S. senate placed an expiry date on the “Brady Bill” ban on assault weapons (e.g AK-47s, Uzi’s etc). Presumably the honourable senators assumed that somehow there would be a pressing need to arm the U.S. population with people-killers in 10 years time. That expiry date is September 13th and the Republican senate and presidency have distinguished themselves by differing from Ford and Reagan administrations in refusing to renew the ban on semi-automatic weapons, allowing them to be sold with little restriction compared to standards in the first world.

There have been spirited lobbying by grass-roots organisations to continue the ban, backed by nearly all police forces across the U.S. It is as if the Columbine massacre didn’t happen. Not only are the Republicans refusing to renew the ban, they are actively trumpeting their refusal, highlighted by the following email sent to those who have contacted the Senate to call for a renewal of the assault ban:

From: Senator_Frist@frist.senate.gov

Subject: A Message From U.S. Senate Majority Leader William H. Frist, M.D.

Date: September 8, 2004 11:10:24 PM EDT

Dear Friend:

Thank you for contacting me to express your thoughts on the semi-automatic

assault weapon ban. It is an honor to serve you in the Senate and a

privilege to respond to your concerns.

Gun control is a controversial issue. People acting in good faith will

very often disagree on the most effective way to address violent crime

while recognizing the rights of law abiding gun owners, and I respect the

diversity of views on this important matter.

I have long believed that further federal regulation of gun ownership is

not the best answer to preventing violent crime, and I am a strong

supporter of the Second Amendment. Our enemy is the criminal, not the

weapon. A person intent on committing a violent crime will not be stopped

by more gun control laws. Instead, Congress and the States should work to

ensure that violent crimes are vigorously prosecuted, to keep guns out of

the hands of criminals and to better enforce our existing laws. Through

this common sense approach, we can continue to reduce violent crime across

the nation and protect the rights of law abiding gun owners.

Again, thank you for contacting me. As the Senate continues to face many

complex and challenging issues, I hope you will continue to give me the

benefit of your thoughts and advice.

Sincerely,

William H. Frist, M.D.

Majority Leader

United States Senate

P.S. Please visit http://frist.senate.gov to register for my e-mail

newsletter.

It is telling to examine the degree to which this purported medical doctor, one who has taken an oath to preserve life, brushes off the concerns:

• “Our enemy is the criminal, not the weapon.” – ignoring accidental deaths entirely. The first aim should be to prevent loss of life or injury.



• “A person intent on committing a violent crime will not be stopped by more gun control laws.” – reductively ignoring criminological research on the effect of rage and the correlation of poverty with crimes against the person, ignoring the comparison of laws in all other first world countries to those lax laws in America.



• “Instead, Congress and the States should work to ensure that violent crimes are vigorously prosecuted, to keep guns out of the hands of criminals” – befalling the unproven rhetoric of the right that increased penalty decreases crime. Yet this is logically false, prosecution is a post-facto outcome after the crime has been committed, John Mohammed and Lee Malvo were not wanted for crimes prior to their shooting spree. Mohammed’s history as a gulf war veteran could well be the reason for his shooting spree. Yet they were able to obtain weapons from a notoriously lax gun dealer. That gun dealers laxity was fuelled by a profit motive.



• “better enforce our existing laws” – except for the one law that would keep the most lethal weapons inaccessible.

Frist’s defence is lock step with the NRA’s incredulous argument that banning assault weapons is a “slippery slope” to banning all weapons. Putting aside the merits of such an outcome, the argument is spurious – why limit oneself to assault weapons? Surely the NRA’s argument could be extended to RPGs? Howitzers? Grenades? Landmines? The crux of the matter is the killing capacity of the weapon, not it’s particular mode of operation.

Unable to be debated are proposals to establish gun banks on rifle ranges. This could open up the ownership of semi-automatic or fully automatic weapons, but enforce that the weapon can not be removed from the rifle range – after use it must be stored securely in the gun bank and left there – enabling the police to review security arrangements and provision of storage and placing the burden of such security and oversight thereof directly in the hands of gun owners organisations and profit driven rifle ranges.

But far more insidious is to examine the reasoning of the Right in abrogating responsibility to make a ban on assault weapons permanent. Is it simply a sop to the NRA and their political power? How would such an activity be reported in the U.S. media if the country proposing such a relaxing of controls on weaponry were Indonesia, Nigeria or Iran, countries with similar large sized populations comparable to the U.S? Would the headlines be “Right wing political party opens floodgates to rearming of radical militias with assault weapons”?