Assault weapons led to slayings in Orlando

By Jim Graham, Las Vegas

Wednesday, June 29, 2016 | 2 a.m.

The letter “Assault weapons ban is nonsensical” Las Vegas Sun, June 25) couldn’t be more wrong when it said the Orlando tragedy was not an assault weapon issue.

That is precisely what it was, and we have the Republican-controlled Congress to thank for it. Their response to mass shootings has been “a moment of silence.” When given the chance to pass meaningful gun-control legislation, they choose nothing as a course of action.

An assault weapons ban was enacted in 1994 as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. The ban, as written, lasted only 10 years. The Republican-controlled Congress in 2004 refused to renew the ban.

Some folks constantly call for a return to the good ol’ days of Ronald Reagan’s presidency because he was one of the staunchest defenders of the Second Amendment. What those folks forget is that he strongly supported the 1991 Brady Bill, which called for background checks and a seven-day waiting period for gun buyers, and that he threw his full support behind the assault weapons ban. He was against American citizens owning military-grade firearms such as the AK-47 or its American cousin, the AR-15.

He was realistic enough to know that the ban would not stop all assault weapon crime, but he realized that drying up the supply of the guns would make them less accessible to criminals. He urged Congress to support the ban on further manufacturing of those weapons. A 2004 study on the impact of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban from 1994-2003 proved him right because it found that gun crimes involving assault weapons did decline.

What allowed the shooters in Orlando, Sandy Hook, San Bernardino and myriad other locations to kill so many people was the assault-style rifle. Those weapons were designed for one purpose: killing as many humans as possible in the least amount of time. Banning, or classifying it as a military-grade or machine gun-class weapon, makes it extremely difficult for any civilian (criminal or not) to gain access to such a weapon. Obviously, banning it won’t prevent gun violence. It can, however, lessen the carnage if the shooter doesn’t have access to high-velocity, high-capacity weapons.

The letter writer makes the way-too-broad statement that the original ban had no effect on gun-related deaths and was not renewed as a result. The facts belie his assertion. Assault weapon-related crimes did decrease while the ban was in effect. Imagine what the results would show if the ban had not been allowed to lapse.