President Obama Doesn't Renew the Assault Weapons Ban

How Will We Stem the Tide of Gun Violence?

Demetria Dixon
President Obama has shocked much of his staunch opposition by not renewing the Assault Weapons Ban. A recent episode of "Nightline" highlighted how fear of President Obama's probable actions had caused sales of assault weapons as well as other guns to proliferate. The slogan 'Get Your Guns While You Still Can' has become a mainstay in gun circles. The belief that Obama was considering reinstating the ban spurred many gun enthusiasts to action. Not only have guns been flying off the shelves but in some circles, a fear of a new tax on ammunition is causing records sales and resultant shortages.

As it turns out tales of President Obama's gun ban have been greatly exaggerated. According to ABC Correspondent, Jake Tapper's blog, 'Political Punch', the White House has indicated it is not willing to expend political capital on the fight that the Assault Weapons Ban promises to be. Even Sen. Dick Durbin, a staunch anti-gun advocate feels that getting into a debate over the gun ban at this point would be a big hassle. President Obama has instead, decided to concentrate on effective enforcement of gun laws currently on the books as well as look for ways to deal with the increasing drug violence on the Texas-Mexico border.

Agreement across the Aisle

No doubt part of Durbin and President Obama's reserve regarding the gun ban has to do with the fact that it promises to be a long and conflict-ridden fight. When Attorney General Eric Holder broached the subject of reinstating the Assault Weapons Ban, 65 House democrats responded with a letter expressing their opposition to any anti-gun legislation. Just when you thought there was no bipartisan cooperation.

Not falling for the Okey doke

Many gun purchasers say they are not taken in by President Obama's reticence to tackle the gun ban. They seem to believe that it's a question of timing. They fear the President is only waiting for a more ideal time to reintroduce the issue.

Obama's stance is disheartening to many who took seriously, his campaign promise to reinstate the Automatic Weapons Ban. This is all the more concerning when one considers the spate of gun violence that has taken place in recent months. Within the past month some 57 people have died in as a result of gun violence. Seven of those dead were police officers. In Pittsburgh, three officers were allegedly shot after responding to a domestic call. Four other officers were killed in Oakland in two separate incidents with the same suspect. Lovelle Mixon allegedly shot two traffic cops to death after they pulled him over on a routine traffic stop. Two more were SWAT officers who were shot when they went to take Mixon into custody.

Licensed to Kill

Another sad chapter in this horrific tale is that of the thirteen killed in Binghamton, New York. Most were immigrants who had left war torn countries and escaped tragic circumstances to get to America. Yet they were gunned down by another immigrant, Jiverly Wong who was disgruntled by his lay off from a vacuum factory. Jiverly Wong was properly licensed and had permits for his guns. Police noted that Wong fired over 98 rounds in a minute or two and was found with a full satchel of ammunition as well as full clips of ammunition he'd dropped while reloading. In the face of these types of incidents one questions what can be done to curtail this violence. Hardly any of these incidents fall under the scope of the Automatic Weapons Ban because most of the perpetrators used handguns.

The horrible events seem to drive home the point President Obama is making about enforcement of existing laws. Obviously guns on our streets are a clear and present danger but most of the people who committed these heinous acts were licensed to carry the guns they used. Enforcing the current laws and limiting accessibility to ammunition either through taxation or price increase seems like a consideration. Perhaps a suggestion along the lines of Chris Rock's, to let people have all the guns they want but make ammunition so high they can't possibly buy it. Maybe this won't stop the violence but in this economy it's sure to curtail it.

Stemming the Flow

Part of President Obama's contention concerning putting the Assault Weapons Ban on the back burner is to concentrate more effort on stemming the flow of weapons from the U.S. into Mexico. Many seem to believe the U.S. bears some culpability for the current drug violence occurring in Mexico. According to the aforementioned "Nightline"episode, 90% of the assault weapons being used in Mexico by drug cartels can chart their origins to the U.S. However, Foxnews.com refutes this assertion in the article "The Myth of 90 Percent: Only a Small Fraction of Guns in Mexico Come From U.S.". The article was written by William La Jeunesse and Maxim Lott. According to La Jeunesse and Lott that 90% is a mythical construct crafted by left wingers to aid them in their goal to enact more restrictive gun policies. They maintain that the actual percentage of weapons that can be traced back to the U.S. is closer to 17%. A representative of the ATF speaking with Foxnews.com clarified the 90% statistic. The 90% references the percentage of weapons that are actually traced. The article went on to say that many of the weapons are never sent back to the U.S. for any sort of tracing. Matt Allen, a special agent for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) said "Not every weapon seized in Mexico has a serial number on it that would make it traceable, and the U.S. effort to trace weapons really only extends to weapons that have been in the U.S. market."

A Case for Arming the Masses

As a Texan I understand the bond between a person and their gun but as an observer of the current gun violence, it is hard know what side of the issue to fall out on. While a number of people feel that limiting access to guns will help to stem the tide of gun violence, there is a whole faction who feels that if at least one person who encountered one of these gunmen had been armed that many lives could have been saved. Shortly after the mass shooting at Virgina Tech, Charl Van Dyk wrote, in a World Net Daily article, from 2007, that most mass shootings take place in areas where guns are prohibited. A study mentioned in Van Dyk's article seems to support this argument. In 1999, the U.S. study by John Lott and William Landes was published about mass shootings. Landes and Lott's research seemed to show that mass shootings happened far less frequently in areas where 'responsible' citizens were allowed to carry weapons. Incidences of gun violence in schools in many parts of the world have been on the rise. However Van Dyk's article share's that, in Israel where teachers and student aides are armed with semi-automatic weapons there have been no shootings since adoption of the policy in the 1970's.

There is another movement afoot to arm students on college campuses in the hopes that this will curb violence in the future. While the concept of arming responsible citizens with weapons to protect themselves seems reasonable, one hazards a guess at what arming campuses of college students amped up energy drinks and under massive pressure to succeed, will wrought.

Sources:

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/local/20090416_Rendell_calls_for_reviving_assault-rifle_ban.html?
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/04/president-ob-17.html?
http://www.google.com/search?q=Virginia%27s+role+in+gun+violence&hl=en&rls=HPIC,HPIC:2005-41,HPIC:en&start=10&sa=N

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=HPIC,HPIC:2005-41,HPIC:en&q=obama+%2C+assault+wapons+ban

http://deannaizme.wordpress.com/2009/03/27/four-oakland-police-officers-killed-in-line/?
http://worldantigunviolenceday.blogspot.com/2007/04/chris-rock-suggestion.html?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/08/jiverly-wong-fired-98-sho_n_184950.html?

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=102851807

http://www.redcounty.com/2nd-amendment-assault-under-fire?

http://doctorbulldog.wordpress.com/2007/04/18/virginia-tech-shooting-sparks-gun-control-debate/?

https://www.examiner.com/x-2698-Charlotte-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m4d3-Mexicali-lie-on-assault-weapons-Just-the-latest-gun-factoid

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2009/04/02/myth-percent-guns-mexico-fraction-number-claimed/?

Published by Demetria Dixon

I am a stand up comedian and a writer. I have committed myself to this path and opened myself to the future. I plan to eat, sleep, breath and be it.  View profile

6 Comments

Post a Comment
  • Dan4/26/2009

    "Assault weapons", as defined by all United States legislation employing the term, are universally semi-automatic. Semi-automatic means when you pull the trigger, only one bullet comes out.

    Automatic weapons such as the M-16 or AK-47 assault rifles which were not affected by the now-expired federal "assault weapons ban" would not be affected under any proposed legislation attempting to revive and expand that ban.

  • L.L. Woodard4/24/2009

    Good article. My first impulse when I read of the president's non-renewal of the ban on assault weapons was that he has to choose his battles and priorities wisely. Right now, the economy is his first priority.

  • John Hardin4/21/2009

    Demetria, I'm more than happy to have a civil conversation about this topic. Unfortunately it's sometimes difficult to distinguish between levity (in the form of feigned ignorance) and true ignorance. The "drunken fratboys" objection to concealed carry on campus is very common, and I apologize if I took your comment too seriously and read too much into it. Note that I did say "borders on". :)

  • Demetria Dixon4/21/2009

    John thank you for your comments. Please forgive my jab at levity. I know that they are not thinking of arming drunken fratboys and the like.

  • John Hardin4/21/2009

    "There is another movement afoot to arm students on college campuses"
    - your wording borders on mischaracterization. The proposals are to allow those who already possess a concealed carry permit or license to carry on campus. Nobody is proposing requiring or forcing anyone to be armed, and nobody is proposing allowing drunken fratboys and other immature persons with poor impulse control to carry. All of the requirements for a concealed carry permit - training, criminal and mental health background checks, minimum age, etc. - would apply.

  • John Hardin4/21/2009

    "...the White House has indicated it is not willing to expend political capital on the fight that the Assault Weapons Ban promises to be."

    This is _vastly_ different than, say, the White House indicating it has no desire to attack the peoples' firearms rights.

    That they are not doing it because they don't think they can get away with it does nothing to inspire trust.

Displaying Comments

To comment, please sign in to your Yahoo! account, or sign up for a new account.