Aaron Pabon/Contributing Writer
President Obama made a push to reduce gun violence this past week spurred on by the recent shootings that continue to occur across the country, such as the shooting on Tuesday, Jan. 25 at a university in Houston.
Many of his proposed congressional actions have prompted me to ask questions about his initiatives, but my main issue is the idea to reinstate and strengthen the ban on assault weapons that was in place from 1994 to 2004.
I will state that I have never looked at a gun as a weapon. To me, a gun is a tool that has the capability to be used as a weapon. The same can be said for a crowbar, hammer and a chef’s knife.
On that note, the term “assault weapon” really needs to be re-defined, as the definition and qualifications have become vague.
Technically speaking, aren’t all weapons “assault weapons?”
This also goes along with the redundancy “assault and battery with a deadly weapon,” when all weapons are deadly. While the term is supposed to describe any weapon that is “military grade” or has the ability to fire automatically, the definition has often been tossed around loose.
It is because of this that many people who are familiar with firearms, or these so called “assault weapons,” prefer the term “assault rifle.”
While many of the weapons that have been used in these past massacres were mock-ups or civilian models of infamous assault rifles (AR-15’s), they would hardly fall under the term of “assault rifle.”
The original Federal Assault Weapons Ban from 1994 stated a list of limitations that a weapon could have (i.e. pistol grips, limited range of telescopic sights, semi-automatic fire) but some weapons were still available depending on state laws.
The 1994 ban was also an offshoot of the original National Firearms Act of 1934. The act was made in response to, and to regulate, the firearms that gangs and crime factions were using at the time (i.e. The Chicago Mafia’s use of the Tommy Gun).
The response, however, was similar to what it is now – civilians and pro-gun lobbyists arguing what is constitutional and what’s not.
Do these assault weapon bans really decrease the amount of gun violence?
I suppose it depends on the person at the end of the day. The President’s proposal won’t make getting a gun impossible, it will however, put more emphasis on banning these assault weapons.
But I believe that there also needs to be a stronger emphasis on the qualifications and clarification of what is and isn’t an “assault weapon.”
I understand that most of the weapons used in these mass murders are civilian model assault-rifles, but banning a set of tools is not the answer.
About Post Author
