MOTION #83: THIS HOUSE WOULD AS
THE UNITED STATES BAN ASSAULT WEAPONS
Following the horrific
killing of 26 elementary school children and teachers in Newtown, Connecticut,
by Adam Lanza using a Bushmaster .223 semi-automatic rifle, that resulted in
all his victims being hit more than once, Dianne Feinstein has said that she will
introduce a bill in the Senate to ban assault weapons. The United States has
had an assault weapons ban before; from 1994 to 2004. The ban however lapsed in
2004 as it was set in motion for only ten years unless it was renewed, which
Congress decided not to do. Feinstein says that the new bill will “take my bill
from '94 to 2004 and perfect it.” Detailed below is a summary of the 1994
assault weapons ban in the United States, which states "Title XI, Subtitle
A of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 imposed a
10-year ban on the “manufacture, transfer, and possession” of certain
semiautomatic firearms designated as assault weapons (AWs). The ban is directed
at semiautomatic firearms that have features that appear useful in military and
criminal context and rifles but unnecessary in shooting sports or self-defence
(examples include flash hiders, folding rifle stocks, and threaded barrels for
attaching silencers). The law bans 18 models and variations by name, as well as
revolving cylinder shotguns. It also has a “features test” provision banning
other semiautomatics having two or more military-style features…
The ban also prohibits
most ammunition feeding devices holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition
(referred to as large capacity magazines, or LCMs). Aloln LCM is arguably the
most functionally important feature of most AWs, many of which have magazines
holding 30 or more rounds. The LCM ban’s reach is broader than that of the AW
ban because many non-banned semiautomatics accept LCMs. Approximately 18% of
civilian-owned firearms and 21% of civilian-owned handguns were equipped with
LCMs as of 1994.”
The previous ban
exempted assault weapons and large capacity magazines manufactured before the
law’s 1994 introduction. Leaving the loophole that older guns could still be
imported with the result that 4.7 million pre-ban LCMs were imported into the
USA from 1995 through 2000. This is a loophole Feinstein claims would be
eliminated in the new bill as "it will ban the sale, the transfer, the
importation and the possession. Not
retroactively but prospectively. And it will ban the same for big clips, drums
or strips of more than 10 bullets." However as the ban won’t be
retroactive it will not take assault weapons off the streets entirely if it was
to be passed; its most significant result could potentially be as a stepping
stone if it were to show some value in the regulation of firearms.
Any attempt to renew
the ban would be controversial, even after two large scale shootings, one in
Aurora and the other in Newtown. The National Rifle Association is a powerful
lobbying group that would fight any attempt to ban assault weapons. Indeed
progress has in recent decades been going in favour of reaffirming the right to
hold arms not to limit it. In District of Columbia v. Heller the Supreme court
ruled that the right to possess a firearm was unconnected with service in a
militia and so overturned a ban in the District of Columbia on handguns and in
2010 it was ruled in McDonald v Chicago that the second amendment is
incorporated under the fourteenth amendment so the right to bear arms is
protected from infringement by local and state government as well as federal
government.
n.b. while this debate is assuming that retroactively banning assault
weapons will not be on the table if it was this would make proposition’s case
much easier as it is rather a large loophole and many of the arguments would be
much more powerful with a more complete ban.
Pros
|
Cons
|
A ban would save lives. Put simply assault weapons are designed for assault, therefore their
proliferation should be prohibited in law. To put things into the general
context of gun crime within the United States every year 17,000 people are
killed, 70 percent of them with guns and nearly 20,000 people commit suicide
by shooting themselves. Murder by gunfire particularly affects children, in
total well over a million Americans have died in this manner and 80 people
continue to be shot in the states every day. So some form of gun control is
necessary and a ban on assault weapons is a good starting point.
Out of 62 mass murders since 1982 almost half the
weapons used, 67 out of 142, were semi-automatic handguns and more than 30
were assault weapons. The period of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban from
1994-2004 with the exception of 1999, the year of the Columbine massacre
(which notably involved a semi-automatic produced before the ban), was also a
peaceful period in terms of numbers of mass shootings. While assault weapons
are responsible for a relatively small amount of total gun deaths in the USA
that is not a good reason for not banning them; any life saved is worthwhile.
Taking the low estimate of 1% of deaths from assault weapons that still means
90-100 people a year while the high 7% means 630-700 lives that could be
saved.
Australia shows the advantages on implementing
restrictions on guns (in Australia’s case much stricter than anything being
contemplated in this debate so the effect would not be as pronounced). In the
wake of a mass shooting in Port Arthur in 1996 strict gun laws were
implemented. An evaluation by the Australian National University found laws
saved $500 million and halved the number of people killed by guns saving 200
lives every year.
|
It is exactly correct that deaths as a result of
assault weapons are a tiny portion of the total firearms deaths. There is
also no way to know if those who were killed by these weapons would have been
saved or whether their assailant would not simply have killed them with a handgun
instead. Therefore to ban only certain types of guns does not address the
issue satisfactorily because it does not take into consideration that any gun
can kill.
|
Assault weapons are not necessary for self defence or
hunting. As New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg
argues "We've got to really question whether military-style weapons with
big magazines belong on the streets of America in this day and age.” Police
chiefs such as Ralph Godbee of Detroit argue "We're talking about
weapons that are made for war… you can shoot 50 to 60 rounds within a
minute.” In a self defense scenario the person defending themselves need to
have enough ammunition to provide deterrence, however they would have to be
unwise to take on several assailants so there should be little need to have
more than 10 rounds in the magazine. Law enforcement expert Leonard J.
Supenski has testified “because of potential harm to others in the household,
passersby, and bystanders, too much firepower is a hazard” as in self
defense, the defenders will often fire until they have expended all the
bullets in their magazine. To use an assault weapon would to spray an
assailant with bullets from an assault weapon would be using disproportionate
force that will not only harm the assailant but will likely hit anyone else
nearby.
Even those who are against an assault weapons ban such
as David Kopel concede that for the most part these are not useful weapons
for hunting. These weapons are “intended to wound rather than to kill” so
would certainly not be useful in taking down a deer. Moreover he also
concedes “a hunter will carry only a few rounds” so the large capacity
magazine is also useless for sport.
|
The Second Amendment was not designed for only self
defense and hunting. The idea that the common man should be reasonably able
to protect themselves from tyranny, foreign invasion, and insurrection is a
reasonable and just cause. But even if we were to accept that self defense
and hunting are the only legitimate reasons for owning a gun then why should
the state get to decide what weapons someone should use when hunting or
defending themselves? That a gun may not be the best choice for these
activities does not mean that it should not be a possible choice.
|
Banning assault weapons increases liberty and security. Many who are pro guns argue that it would be
illegitimate for assault weapons to be banned while the police have them.
Police forces, however, are going to be much more likely, and able to give
them up when a ban is in place. The police don’t want to be involved in an
arms race with criminals to have the biggest guns; just look at the British
police force where there is little gun crime and few shootings of police
officers it is not felt that there is the need to have police armed with more
than a taser or even truncheon. Put simply a ban on assault weapons can help
reverse the arms race between police and criminals.
Civil liberties would also be enhanced as law
enforcement agencies would not need to devote so many resources into
monitoring assault weapons purchases and those who have done the purchasing.
Instead they would be able to simply target all assault weapons purchases as
needing immediate attention.
Finally we must remember that this ban enhances the
highest liberty at all; life. Today as Justice Breyer says “gun possession
presents a greater risk of taking innocent lives” than not having a gun.
|
Banning assault
weapons is an infringement on Americans freedom to protect themselves; what
minor civil liberties advances may be gained pale by comparison to this.
It is also unlikely that the police and the FBI would
recognise the linkage between fewer guns in the civilian population and
reducing the firepower of the police. Similarly the FBI is unlikely to
monitor civilians less simply because there is one less reason. The
justification of “preventing homegrown attacks before they are hatched” will
still remain just as strong as before they will simply be looking for
different things.
|
An assault weapons ban would stop the manufacture of
many of the deadliest guns. Yes a ban
would not immediately take assault weapons off the streets but there would be
significant long term benefits as highlighted by Connecticut Senator Joe
Liberman "We ought to restore the assault weapons ban -- not to take
anybody's guns away that they have now, but to stop the manufacturing of
these weapons." The ban would
stop manufacturers from making the weapons and with the legislation improved
from the 1994 version it would be possible to prevent the cosmetic changes
that were made to keep guns on the market. This would mean that prices both
in the USA and globally would increase as there would be less supply. One
positive result might also be help to change the United States’ position on
the arms trade treaty which would further restrict global supply. This would
answer Mexican calls to cut off the supply of guns into the country that
helps make the drugs violence in the country so deadly both by meaning less
of the weapons are made and by helping to cut off the route through which weapons
get into Mexico. A ban on assault weapons would not fix Mexico but it would
deprive arms smugglers of the closest, easiest and cheapest place to buy the
arms used by the drugs cartels.
|
Black plastic on a gun does not make it any more lethal
than other guns with wood stocks. Stopping the manufacture of such guns would
hand over a lucrative market to the Russians and Chinese rather than reducing
the number of assault weapons in the world. Drugs cartels would simply find
new routes to get the weapons they need, after all they are already dealing
in illegal activities making the guns they want illegal on both sides of the
border rather than just one is unlikely to stop them.
|
Supreme court rulings have been overturned before. This
is an area where the bill of rights is clearly outdated and out of touch;
today’s militia is clearly the standing army and so this should just be
interpreted as only granting members of the army the right to carry arms. The
maintenance of “the security of a free state” clearly is not something that
today is done through the citizenry having access to guns, whether assault
weapons or not. Moreover it is difficult to see why if there is a right to
bear arms that is unconnected with the security of the state these arms
should be these particular assault weapons rather than types of weapon that
we are not looking to ban. Would a rifle not be as useful in the event of
invasion as a semi-automatic? The Bill of Rights was written at the end of
the eighteenth century when the weapons were muzzle loading muskets it was
not conceived with powerful, accurate, modern weapons that are capable of
mass murder without reloading.
|
An assault weapons
ban would violate the second amendment. The Second amendment “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the
security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,
shall not be infringed” would be violated by a ban on assault weapons. This
right clearly does not limit what arms a citizen may bear. The ruling of
District of Columbia v. Heller clearly reaffirmed that the government can’t
ban certain classes of arms and also that this right is not connected with
service in a militia.
|
The point of an assault weapons ban is not to
completely ban guns but to ban guns that can fire large numbers of bullets
rapidly and have no purpose other than to shoot people. The ban targets those
weapons that are not useful for self defence or hunting. The opposition
argument is essentially that because some guns are legal all guns should be
legal; the line has to be drawn somewhere and there is little reason why the
line at assault weapons is less logical than a line that allows some grenade
launchers and shotguns while banning others?[1] Since this line is clearly
arbitrary then we should move to the only non-arbitrary line, a full ban, a
move towards which this ban is a step towards.
|
It is incoherent to
ban some guns. It is incoherent to
attempt to ban assault weapons while allowing other weapons to remain on the
streets. As professor Jacobs from New York University argues “Pistols are
dangerous because they are easily carried and concealed; shotguns because
they spray metal projectiles over a wide area; certain hunting rifles because
they fire large calibre bullets, and certain "sniper rifles"
because they are accurate over great distances. Assault rifles are not
remarkable by any of these criteria.” Indeed the previous ban simply used a
list of guns that were banned rather than a specific definition that could
then be applied universally showing the difficulty of classifying these
weapons. It should also be remembered that this will not affect assault
weapons that are already legal in the United States so this would not even be
banning all assault weapons so would leave millions in private hands, while
it might be argued there is some slight difference between an assault weapon
and another gun there is certainly no difference betweena a new and an old
assault weapon.
|
There is a rational basis for banning assault weapons
as they are a firearm of choice among criminals. In a study of young adult
purchases of handguns in California buyers with minor criminal histories were
twice as likely to purchase automatic pistols as those with no criminal
history. This was even higher at five times as likely for those who had been
charged with two or more serious violent offenses. This means those
purchasing assault weapons intend for them to be used for violent ends.
It is true that assault weapons are used in a small
percentage of crimes, although 1% is disputable in Miami for example 15 out
of 79 homicides in 2006 involved assault weapons, but the opposition ignore
that large capacity magazines are used in a much higher percentage of crimes;
between 14 and 26% before the 1994 ban.
|
Assault weapons are
not used in most crimes. There is little
point in banning a type of weapon that is not used in most violence; assault
rifles are used in fewer than 1 percent of all violent crimes in the united
states at a time when gun violence is falling. If assault weapons are not
used in most crime then there is no rational basis for banning them. When the
previous assault weapons ban expired in 2004 far from there being an increase
in crime as predicted the number of murders declined by 3.6%.
|
Of course a ban will not completely eliminate these
weapons but it would reduce the supply and make it much easier for the police
to seize the weapons so taking them off the streets. It would also be a step
in the right direction in attempting to change public perceptions and amend
the American attitude. It is understated just how relaxed American laws are
in comparison to the rest of the world, even states such as Switzerland and
Israel that are often highlighted by the NRA as being model states that allow
gun ownership with few resulting shootings are much more restrictive than the
USA.
There is no reason to think that a black market is
somehow going to result in more of these weapons being available so the fact
that it will exist after a ban is not a reason not to go ahead with the ban.
It is not ideal that a ban is not retroactive so leaving a large number of
such guns in private hands but this number will slowly diminish over time
rather than continuing to rise as it would under the status quo.
|
A ban on assault
weapons would not work, it will simply encourage a black market. It has already been demonstrated that most crime
already takes place using other guns or even without firearms at all so it is
illogical to think that this ban would make any difference to crime. For a
start as the ban would not be retroactive large numbers of assault weapons
would remain legally in the United States. It would create a black market in
the weapons which would enrich organised crime which would simply mean that
those who are intending to use those guns for ill have access to them while
those who want them for self defense don’t. As a response to Obama’s
reelection some gun owners are already purchasing more guns and bullets, in
some cases with the intention of selling them on the black market should a
ban come into force. It is clear therefore that the ban would do little to
reduce the number of assault weapons in the United States and would likely
even do little to impact on their availability.
|
0 Comments