DEAR EDITOR:
As Sept. 14 approaches, the public is hearing shrill screaming
from many in the media and some politicians that the failure to
pass an extension of the 1994 Assault Weapons Law will result in
mass shootings and other events just short of the collapse of the
United States.
DEAR EDITOR:
As Sept. 14 approaches, the public is hearing shrill screaming from many in the media and some politicians that the failure to pass an extension of the 1994 Assault Weapons Law will result in mass shootings and other events just short of the collapse of the United States. The truth is that the law never had any effect on crime (about 2 percent before and 2 percent after the law) and much of the information in the media was completely incorrect, distorted or just plain lies. I would invite readers to visit the U.S. Center for Disease Control Web site to read the research on this subject.
One of the biggest stories put out is that the law was a ban on 19 certain firearms, when in fact the law only stopped the manufacture of these 19 models (except for the government) unless the flash hider and bayonet lug was removed. After Sept. 13, 1994, any of the models made before this date and any of the modified firearms were legal for sale and possession. Numerous models of semi-automatic firearms (the 1994 law never applied to machine guns) with the same operating features but lacking the flash hider and bayonet lug were never affected by the 1994 law. Unless there is a separate state law it is legal to buy, possess, or sell any of the pre-1994 firearms affected by the law.
I cannot figure out if many in the media, politicians including California Senators Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein, and some police chiefs are ignorant of what the law actually is or are so eager to push an agenda that lies worthy of Joseph E. Goebbels are passed off as facts.
In 1994, just after passage of the law, much of the media issued editorials that it was great that the law was passed, but that it was really only of symbolic value and was needed as a first step in banning all firearms. The same media pushing for the 1994 law and publishing editorials that the passage would be the greatest thing since “sliced bread”, changed to lamenting the law as being ineffective and not far reaching enough. The CBS program 60 Minutes did a very factual story on what the law’s actual effect was, and Sen. Feinstein was interviewed on the program.
I believe the push for extending the 1994 law has less to do with any real effect on crime, but is being pushed at all costs simply to hold onto an ideological point in the sand. The failure to extend the law will result in the groups desiring a ban on all firearms to start over, as opposed to being able to expand the current list. Many in the gun ban groups were unhappy that Sen. Feinstein and others were not pushing for an expansion and were only trying to pass an extension of the present law.
It is ironic to me that we cannot control access to the large number of drugs that are not legal for anyone to buy, own or sell but are readily available on the street, but yet people believe a gun law will prevent illegal use or possession.
Jim Hallum, Gilroy
Submitted Monday, July 19 to ed****@****ic.com
