(no subject)
Banning Assault Weapons Will Reduce
Gun Violence
Kenneth T. Lyons
Source Database:
Opposing Viewpoints: Gun Control
Table of
Contents: Further Readings | Source Citation
Kenneth T. Lyons is the president of the
International Brotherhood of Police Officers, the
largest police union in the United States. The
following viewpoint is excerpted from testimony Lyons
gave at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in 1993.
Lyons argues that semiautomatic assault weapons are
the guns of choice of drug dealers and other
criminals. These firearms have no legitimate purpose
other than to kill people, he contends, and their very
existence puts police officers and innocent bystanders
at risk. A national ban on assault weapons is
necessary, Lyons maintains, in order to protect law
enforcement officials and law-abiding citizens from
criminals who find it easy to buy the guns in states
with lax gun-control
laws. Congress banned the manufacture, sale, and
possession of nineteen semiautomatic weapons in
1994.
As you read, consider the following
questions:
What three reasons does Lyons give to justify
banning semiautomatic assault weapons?
According to Lyons, what seven characteristics make
a firearm unsuitable for sporting purposes?
What percentage of guns traced by the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms in 1990 and 1991 were
assault weapons, according to the
author?
In the 1930s, our country saw a dramatic increase
in gangster activity, violence, and general
lawlessness. It was a time when the mafia held all of
the cards and the police were increasingly powerless
to protect the innocents. One of the actions then
taken by Congress was to severely restrict the
purchase and transfer of machine guns, or fully
automatic assault weapons. The result was a virtual
elimination of machine guns within a few years.
In the 1990s, our country is once again seeing a
dramatic increase in gangster activity, violence, and
general lawlessness. Times, of course, have changed.
Today's gangsters often wear sneakers rather than
wing-tips, bandannas rather than pin-stripes, and deal
drugs rather than alcohol. There is one thing,
however, that the two brands of criminals have in
common: their choice of high powered weapons of
destruction.
Assault Weapons Should Be Banned
Mr. Chairman [Joseph R. Biden Jr., chairman of the
Senate Judiciary Committee], there are a number of
reasons for taking strong, swift action to ban the
sale, manufacture, and possession of semi-automatic
assault weapons. First of all, police officers are in
a particularly dangerous and demanding profession.
Each year, approximately 150 officers are killed in
the line of duty. For every one officer killed,
another 150 are assaulted. The increased destructive
possibilities of semi-automatic assault weapons
increase the risk to those officers who put their
lives on the line every day. Each traffic stop, each
pursuit of a dangerous felon, each knock on a door to
serve a warrant can end in disaster for the officer.
A second reason for banning semi-automatic assault
weapons is that they can easily be converted from
semi-automatic weapons into fully automatic weapons.
Mr. Chairman, these weapons, such as the AK-47, were
designed to be military weapons, and thus have
increased firing capacity. Because fully automatic
weapons are prohibited in this country, the
manufacturers that produce assault weapons must design
them to fire semi-automatic. However, the very design
of these weapons makes it simple for criminals to
convert them into fully automatic weapons, thus
increasing their dangerous propensities.
No Sporting Purpose
As the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms
determined prior to President George Bush's banning
the importation of 43 types of assault weapons in
1989, these weapons have absolutely no legitimate
sporting purpose. Mr. Chairman, our organization [the
International Brotherhood of Police Officers] and our
membership are in a good position to judge the debate
on gun control. We
are aware of the legitimate and illegitimate uses of
firearms. Many of our members are hunters and
sportsmen. Many of those same members tell us that
these weapons have no legitimate sporting purpose.
For example, many of these weapons have the
following characteristics:
Folding stocks--which sacrifice accuracy for
concealability and mobility--an advantage in combat
but not in hunting deer;
Shorter barrel length (less than 22
inches)--another facet which sacrifices accuracy for
mobility in close combat;
Pistol grips on rifles or shotguns--which allow the
weapon to fire easily from the hip--great for spraying
a crowd of people, but less effective for hunting
deer;
Threaded barrels--which allow an adaptable silencer
to be attached, but there is no need for a silencer in
the woods;
Barrel mounts--designed to accommodate
bayonets--great for hand-to-hand combat with humans,
but not with deer and other game;
Flash suppressor--an innovation designed to conceal
the shooter's location at night--certainly serves no
sporting purpose;
Large capacity detachable magazine--which allows
literally hundreds of rounds in a few minutes. In
contrast, standard hunting rifles are equipped with 3
or 4 shot magazines.
As you can see, Mr. Chairman, these weapons have no
sporting purpose--they are eminently more suitable for
combat with other humans than for hunting deer or
other legitimate sporting purposes. Add these
characteristics to the ease with which these weapons
are convertible to fully automatic, and law
enforcement is faced with a tremendously dangerous
weapon.
Law Enforcement and Hollywood
One of the reasons that these weapons are turning
up in increasing numbers on the street, and that these
weapons have become the choice of drug dealers and
criminals, is the frequency with which these weapons
appear on the sets of Hollywood movies. Mr. Chairman,
the glamour of violence on television and in the
movies is having a debilitating effect on our
children. Violence is glorified, and kids emulate what
they see. In addition, I would assert that the
proliferation of purportedly "realistic" television
shows about police officers sends a dual message about
law enforcement. One the one hand, a close look at
these programs can result in increased respect for the
difficult job that police officers do. On the other
hand, these shows only reinforce the "cops and
robbers" image of police, an image at odds with our
goal of community-oriented policing--of the cop
patrolling his or her community, rather than speeding
down the street at 60 miles an hour in pursuit of a
felon.
Statistics on Assault Weapons
Make no mistake about it, Mr. Chairman, assault
weapons are the "in" weapon to protect one's turf from
competing drug dealers. Don't be misled by the
seemingly low number of assault weapons found in
various surveys. The cop on the street is being
outgunned. Many departments are upgrading their
service weapons from .38 caliber revolvers to 9 mm
semi-automatics because they are unable to keep up
with the firepower which they are facing as criminals
move to these assault weapons. Assault weapons make up
about 1.5% to 3% of the guns in the country, but make
up 7% of the guns which law enforcement asks ATF to
trace. In 1991, 6.8% (3,683 of 53,924) of the firearms
traced by ATF were assault weapons. In 1990, 7% (3,352
of 47,770) of the firearms traced by ATF were assault
weapons.
We certainly can't afford to wait until the
statistics go up before we take action to ban these
weapons. According to the California Assembly Office
of Research, 83% of more than 200 law enforcement
agencies in California reported either a significant
(63%) or moderate (20%) increase in both the type and
frequency of use of assault weapons since the late
1980s. More than 65% of the respondents felt that
assault weapons were either displacing pistols and
revolvers as the weapon of choice (34%) or augmenting
the firearms arsenal of gang members and offenders
(32%). And while we hear the arguments that assault
weapons cannot be defined or are similar to other
firearms, we see cops, children, and innocent
bystanders being shot and killed.
The Most Sensible Solution
Mr. Chairman, a national ban on assault weapons
would prevent the circumstances that led to the tragic
incident in San Francisco in July 1993 where a madman
walked into a law firm, armed to the teeth, and killed
eight people and seriously wounded six others. In this
case, Gian Luigi Ferri purchased the TEC-DC9's across
the California state line in Nevada--becoming one of
many individuals who travel from one state into
another to circumvent state laws which restrict the
use and sale of such weapons. Such circumvention of
laws is common--as we know many of the guns used for
crime in New York and New England, states with strong
gun control laws,
come from states such as Virginia and Georgia, which
have lax gun control
laws. This is why a national ban is the most sensible
solution.
FURTHER READINGS
Books
Jack Anderson. Inside the NRA: Armed and
Dangerous: An Exposé. New York: Dove, 1996.
Robert J. Cottrol, ed. Gun Control and the
Constitution: Sources and Explorations on the Second
Amendment. New York: Garland, 1994.
Osha Gray Davidson. Under Fire: The NRA and the
Battle for Gun Control. New York: Henry Holt,
1993.
Wilbur Edel. Gun Control: Threat to Liberty or
Defense Against Anarchy? Westport, CT: Praeger,
1995.
Susan Glick. Female Persuasion: A Study of How
the Firearms Industry Markets to Women and the Reality
of Women and Guns. Washington, DC: Violence Policy
Center, 1994.
Ted Gottfried. Gun Control: Public Safety and
the Right to Bear Arms. Brookfield, CT: Millbrook,
1993.
Alan Gottlieb. The Gun Grabbers. Bellevue,
WA: Merril, 1994.
Dennis A. Henigan, E. Bruce Nicholson, and David
Hemenway. Guns and the Constitution: The Myth of
Second Amendment Protection for Firearms in
America. Northampton, MA: Aletheia Press, 1995.
Donald D. Hook. Gun Control: The Continuing
Debate. Bellevue, WA: Second Amendment Foundation,
1993.
Gary Kleck. Point Blank: Guns and Violence in
America. New York: Aldine de Gruyter, 1991.
David B. Kopel. The Samurai, the Mountie, and
the Cowboy: Should America Adopt the Gun Controls of
Other Democracies? Buffalo: Prometheus, 1992.
David B. Kopel, ed. Guns: Who Should Have
Them? Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 1995.
Earl R. Kruschke. Gun Control: A Reference
Handbook. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-Clio, 1995.
Wayne LaPierre. Guns, Crime, and Freedom.
Washington, DC: Regnery, 1994.
Erik Larson. Lethal Passage: How the Travels of
a Single Handgun Expose the Roots of America's Gun
Crisis. New York: Crown, 1994.
Joyce Lee Malcolm. To Keep and Bear Arms: The
Origins of an Anglo-American Right. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press, 1994.
Gary Mauser. Gun Control Is Not Crime
Control. Vancouver, BC: Fraser Institute, 1995.
J. Neil Schulman. Stopping Power: Why Seventy
Million Americans Own Guns. Santa Monica, CA:
Synapse-Centurion, 1994.
Joseph F. Sheley and James D. Wright. In the
Line of Fire: Youths, Guns, and Violence in Urban
America. New York: Aldine de Gruyter, 1995.
Robert J. Spitzer. The Politics of Gun
Control. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House, 1995.
Josh Sugarmann. National Rifle Association:
Money, Firepower, and Fear. Washington, DC:
National Press Books, 1992.
James D. Wright and Peter H. Rossi. Armed and
Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their
Firearms. New York: Aldine de Gruyter, 1994.
Franklin E. Zimring and Gordon Hawkins. The
Citizen's Guide to Gun Control. New York:
Macmillan, 1992.
Periodicals
Dianne Feinstein. "Is the Federal Ban on Assault
Weapons Working?" Insight, February 26, 1996.
Available from 3600 New York Ave. NE, Washington, DC
20002.
André Henderson. "Gun Control's Costly Ammunition,"
Governing, May 1994.
Christopher Hitchens. "Minority Report,"
Nation, January 24, 1994.
Vincent Lane. "Public Housing Sweep Stakes,"
Policy Review, Summer 1994.
John R. Lott Jr. and David B. Mustard. "Crime,
Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns,"
Journal of Legal Studies, January 1997.
David McDowall, Colin Loftin, and Brian Wiersema.
"Easing Concealed Firearms Laws: Effects on Homicides
in Three States," Journal of Criminal Law and
Criminology, Fall 1995.
Tom Morganthau. "Too Many Guns? Or Too Few?"
Newsweek, August 15, 1994.
Nation. "Sweeps Week," May 9, 1994.
Josh Sugarmann and Kristen Rand. "Cease Fire,"
Rolling Stone, March 10, 1994.
Jacob Sullum. "Tactical Tragedies," Reason,
March 1994.
Jacob Sullum. "Wait a Minute," National
Review, February 7, 1994.
William R. Tonso. "Shooting Blind," Reason,
November 1995.
Gordon Witkin. "New Support for Concealed Weapons,"
U.S. News & World Report, November 28,
1994.
Banning Assault-Type Rifles Would
Reduce Crime
Dianne Feinstein
Dianne Feinstein is a U.S. senator
from California.
Source Database: At
Issue: Guns and Crime
Table of Contents:
Further Readings | Source Citation
The ban on the manufacture and sale of assault
weapons has been effective at reducing gun violence.
As the availability of the assault weapons is
restricted, the number of people who have been killed
or injured by assault weapons has declined, as well as
the number of semiautomatic rifles used in crimes. The
American public is very supportive of the assault
weapons ban despite the efforts of the pro-gun lobby
to repeal it. The assault weapons ban should not be
repealed.
Common sense tells one that no hunter
or recreational sportsman should need a military-style
assault weapon to shoot a deer, duck or clay pigeon.
If they do, they might consider taking up bowling
instead.
But after a hard-won ban on the manufacture and
sale of these weapons was passed by Congress in 1994,
the National Rifle Association, or NRA, and their
stalwart supporters in the House and Senate want to
repeal this legislation [the ban has not been
repealed]. The ban prohibits 19 types of semiautomatic
weapons with high-capacity magazines. The NRA calls it
"cosmetic" and repeatedly has said that it is not
working.
Why, then, is the NRA working so feverishly to
repeal it? The reason is that even though the ban has
been in effect for only 14 months, there are signs it
is, in fact, having an impact.
Assault weapons statistics
Nationally, there has been a decrease in the use of
assault weapons in crimes. The best information about
the types of guns used in crimes can be found in
police requests to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and
Firearms, or ATF, to trace the sources of guns and
where and when such weapons have been purchased. In
1993, the year before the ban went into effect, the 19
assault weapons banned by name under current law
accounted for 8.2 percent of all ATF gun traces. The
ban became effective on Sept. 13, 1994; from that date
through November 1995, assault weapons composed only
4.3 percent of all gun traces--nearly a 50 percent
decrease.
The use of such weapons to kill police officers
also has declined. In 1994, when the ban was not in
effect for most of the year, a study by Handgun
Control Inc. found that assault weapons and guns with
high-capacity magazines accounted for 41 percent of
police gun deaths where the make and model of the
weapon were known. In 1995, the figure fell to 28.6--a
30 percent decrease.
Supply and demand
Perhaps most important is the impact of the ban on
the availability of such weapons. Because the supply
is decreasing, prices are going up. A survey conducted
by my office yielded the following information for
three of the most widely used assault weapons:
A December 1993 issue of Shotgun News listed
an SKS Paratrooper assault rifle for $99.95. The
advertisement added, "This may be your last chance to
buy at these prices!" The same weapon was offered in
the November 1995 issue of the magazine for $129--a 30
percent increase--with the word banned in bold
letters.
Shotgun News offered the Norinco AK-47 for $695
in December 1993. By December 1995, the price had gone
up to $850 and, according to the friendly clerk on the
phone, only one remained for sale.
In 1993, Shotgun News listed new Uzis for
$795. By December 1995, the price was $995--a 25
percent increase.
Supplies are down. Prices are up. And they will
continue to go up as these weapons become more and
more difficult to find. The ban is working.
The attempt to repeal
Yet despite these very real gains in making assault
weapons more difficult to obtain; despite the decline
in the use of assault weapons against police officers
and in all crimes; and despite sound reasoning and the
will of 72 percent of the American people according to
recent polls, opponents of the ban are determined to
reverse course and repeal it.
Their relentless zeal is dumbfounding. Who besides
drug dealers, gang members and revenge killers needs
these weapons of war? Who do the politicians who are
so willing to follow the NRA off a cliff like lemmings
think they represent? Certainly not the public, who
want these guns off the streets. Certainly not
law-enforcement officers, who risk their lives against
these weapons every day and strongly support the ban.
A report released in January 1996 by the Center for
Public Integrity provides a clue. Take Sen. Phil Gramm
of Texas--a vocal opponent of the assault-weapons ban
and a candidate for the 1996 Republican presidential
nomination. The center's report, which tracked
campaign contributions to various candidates, showed
that the NRA is Gramm's biggest "lifetime patron,"
giving more than $440,000 to his political campaigns.
The report also indicates that Gramm has not
disappointed his benefactors, supporting the
organization's interests on 18 major gun bills.
Last year [1995] I received a letter from a
constituent, Carole Ann Taylor of Los Angeles, whose
17-year-old son, Willie, was, killed by a shot in the
back from an assault weapon. "After 17 years of
loving, nurturing and guiding my only child, Willie,
through birthday parties, Boy Scouts, basketball
games, job interviews, Christmases and many other
joy-filled events," she wrote, "someone with an
accomplice--an AK-47--ended my son's life on a
residential street as my son stood talking with a
girlfriend on the sidewalk."
"I ask the 104th Congress," she continued, "was I
in error to raise my son to live in a civilized
society, or would military training for war have been
more appropriate in sustaining his life? If, in fact,
this is a civilized society, the assault weapon must
remain on the ban list."
I couldn't agree more.
Banning Semiautomatic Rifles Reduces
Crime
Dianne Feinstein
Source Database:
Opposing Viewpoints: Crime and
Criminals
Table of Contents: Further Readings | Source Citation
In 1994, Congress passed the first ban on the
manufacture and sale of certain types of semiautomatic
rifles, commonly known as assault weapons. Dianne
Feinstein argues in the following viewpoint that this
ban has reduced gun violence. She contends that as the
availability of the assault weapons decreased, so,
too, did the number of people who were killed or
injured by assault weapons and the number of
semiautomatic rifles that were used in crimes.
Feinstein maintains that the American public is very
supportive of the ban despite the efforts of the
pro-gun lobby to repeal the assault weapons ban.
Therefore, she argues, the gun ban should not be
repealed. Feinstein is a U.S. senator from
California.
As you read, consider the following
questions:
By what percentage did traces of assault weapons
used in crimes decrease after the 1994 ban went into
effect, according to Feinstein?
According to the author, what percentage of police
officer gun deaths could be attributed to assault
weapons in 1995 after the ban went into effect?
How did the ban on assault weapons affect the
supply and prices of the guns, as cited by
Feinstein?
Common sense tells one that no hunter or
recreational sportsman should need a military-style
assault weapon to shoot a deer, duck or clay pigeon.
If they do, they might consider taking up bowling
instead.
But after a hard-won ban on the manufacture and
sale of these weapons was passed by Congress in 1994,
the National Rifle Association, or NRA, and their
stalwart supporters in the House and Senate want to
repeal this legislation. The ban prohibits 19 types of
semiautomatic weapons with high-capacity magazines.
The NRA calls it "cosmetic" and repeatedly has said
that it is not working.
Why, then, is the NRA working so feverishly to
repeal it? The reason is that even though the ban has
been in effect for only 14 months, there are signs it
is, in fact, having an impact.
Assault Weapons Deaths Decline
Nationally, there has been a decrease in the use of
assault weapons in crimes. The best information about
the types of guns used in crimes can be found in
police requests to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and
Firearms, or ATF, to trace the sources of guns and
where and when such weapons have been purchased. In
1993, the year before the ban went into effect, the 19
assault weapons banned by name under current law
accounted for 8.2 percent of all ATF gun traces. The
ban became effective on Sept. 13, 1994; from that date
through November 1995, assault weapons composed only
4.3 percent of all gun traces--nearly a 50 percent
decrease.
The use of such weapons to kill police officers
also has declined. In 1994, when the ban was not in
effect for most of the year, a study by Handgun
Control Inc. found that assault weapons and guns with
high-capacity magazines accounted for 41 percent of
police gun deaths where the make and model of the
weapon were known. In 1995, the figure fell to 28.6--a
30 percent decrease.
Supply and Demand
Perhaps most important is the impact of the ban on
the availability of such weapons. Because the supply
is decreasing, prices are going up. A survey conducted
by my office yielded the following information for
three of the most widely used assault weapons:
A December 1993 issue of Shotgun News listed
an SKS Paratrooper assault rifle for $99.95. The
advertisement added, "This may be your last chance to
buy at these prices!" The same weapon was offered in
the November 1995 issue of the magazine for $129--a 30
percent increase--with the word banned in bold
letters.
Shotgun News offered the Norinco AK-47 for $695
in December 1993. By December 1995, the price had gone
up to $850 and, according to the friendly clerk on the
phone, only one remained for sale.
In 1993, Shotgun News listed new Uzis for
$795. By December 1995, the price was $995--a 25
percent increase.
Supplies are down. Prices are up. And they will
continue to go up as these weapons become more and
more difficult to find. The ban is working.
The Attempt to Repeal
Yet despite these very real gains in making assault
weapons more difficult to obtain; despite the decline
in the use of assault weapons against police officers
and in all crimes; and despite sound reasoning and the
will of 72 percent of the American people according to
polls, opponents of the ban are determined to reverse
course and repeal it.
Their relentless zeal is dumbfounding. Who besides
drug dealers, gang members and revenge killers needs
these weapons of war? Who do the politicians who are
so willing to follow the NRA off a cliff like lemmings
think they represent? Certainly not the public, who
want these guns off the streets. Certainly not
law-enforcement officers, who risk their lives against
these weapons every day and strongly support the ban.
A report released in January 1996 by the Center for
Public Integrity provides a clue. Take Sen. Phil Gramm
of Texas--a vocal opponent of the assault-weapons ban
and a candidate for the 1996 Republican presidential
nomination. The center's report, which tracked
campaign contributions to various candidates, showed
that the NRA is Gramm's biggest "lifetime patron,"
giving more than $440,000 to his political campaigns.
The report also indicates that Gramm has not
disappointed his benefactors, supporting the
organization's interests on 18 major gun bills.
In 1995 I received a letter from a constituent,
Carole Ann Taylor of Los Angeles, whose 17-year-old
son, Willie, was killed by a shot in the back from an
assault weapon. "After 17 years of loving, nurturing
and guiding my only child, Willie, through birthday
parties, Boy Scouts, basketball games, job interviews,
Christmases and many other joy-filled events," she
wrote, "someone with an accomplice--an AK-47--ended my
son's life on a residential street as my son stood
talking with a girlfriend on the sidewalk."
"I ask the 104th Congress," she continued, "was I
in error to raise my son to live in a civilized
society, or would military training for war have been
more appropriate in sustaining his life? If, in fact,
this is a civilized society, the assault weapon must
remain on the ban list."
I couldn't agree more.