 Articles about the Assault Weapons Ban Back to "Supporting the Assault Weapons Ban" Page Assault rifles serve no civilian purpose San Diego Union Tribune (Copley News Service) Tuesday, May 20, 2003 |
|
Last
month a gunman armed with an AK-47 assault rifle sprayed bullets
at students in a New Orleans high school gymnasium, killing one
and wounding three others. Thankfully, the carnage was nowhere
near that of 14 years ago, when Patrick Purdy, wielding a semiautomatic
variant of the AK-47, opened fire on youngsters on the playground
of an elementary school in Stockton, Calif., killing five and
wounding 30.
Purdy's rampage, during which he squeezed off more than 100 rounds, prompted California and several other states to pass assault weapons bans. In 1994, Congress passed a law banning the manufacture, transfer and possession of 19 semiautomatic firearms designated as assault weapons. The statute also bans the "large capacity" magazines that feed these killing machines. While gun advocates may bristle at this pejorative phrase, the fact is that assault weapons are designed to kill as many people as possible in rapid-fire succession. One hardly needs an AK-47 and a magazine containing as many as 40 rounds to go duck hunting. Even so, the National Rifle Association would have us believe there is no appreciable difference between an AK-47 and a .22-caliber rifle. The NRA is pressuring Congress to allow the assault weapons ban to expire, as scheduled, in September 2004. The politically potent NRA has a major problem, however, in President Bush, who supports the ban on these military-style weapons. He said so during the presidential campaign three years ago. And he said so earlier this month when it appeared Congress might buckle under to the NRA and not renew the ban. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, buckled last week, when he boasted that the renewal wouldn't even come to the floor for a vote. House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., who voted against the ban in 1994, has since suggested the measure's fate in the House will depend on discussions with the president and the Republican leadership. A bill by Sens. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., would remove the sunset date from the existing law and ban foreign-made, high-capacity magazines. Another bill by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., would close loopholes concerning manufacturer-modified weapons and kits used to convert legal firearms into illegal ones. President Bush should spend some of his ample political capital by urging Congress to extend and expand the ban. By leading the charge on this issue, the president would provide plenty of cover to timorous lawmakers who fear the NRA's retribution when they seek re-election. The powerful gun lobby would be hard-pressed to hammer those who voted with this very popular president. Most Americans and numerous law enforcement organizations support the ban. Ditto for trauma-care physicians who treat the victims of such weapons. They and many others can make the commonsense distinction between owning regular firearms and the folly of legalizing weapons whose primary function is to kill and maim indiscriminately. The Republican-controlled Congress should follow the president's lead by extending and expanding the assault weapons ban. Reprinted
from The San Diego Union-Tribune. |