Monday • April 20, 1998
Opinion
ATE OF THE UNION
Assault on weapons
Violence demands gun restrictions
Beverly
Mireles
columnist
't’s our right — as Ameri
cans, we are free to arm
.ourselves in anyway, shape
or form. It’s in the Constitution.
The framers of the Constitution
practically mandated eveiyone to
be armed to defend themselves
against a government that delights
in socialism and evil and regula
tion and evil regulation and we
hate those communist bastards,
and give us freedom through
weaponry, uh... yea, guns!”
Sheesh.
People are pretty darned screwed up.
This country has thousands of violent deaths by
firearms each year, and yet we need more freedom and
access to guns? Oh, that makes perfect sense.
It apparently does to the National Rifle Association.
Now, not to generalize too much, but those people are
insanely fanatical. They will fight any law that en
croaches back on gun ownership in any way, even to
the point of totally disregarding the best interests of
the gun owners themselves, as well as the nation’s.
Recently, President Clinton blocked the import of 58
different types of assault rifles, which will affect about
1.6 million guns, saying, “You don’t need an Uzi to go
deer hunting. You don’t need an AK-47 to go skeet
shooting.”
The NRA’s main lobbyist, Tanya Metaksa, countered
by arguing the point that Clinton’s 1994 assault weapons
ban didn’t solve the gun problem, and therefore the ban
ning of more assault weapons wouldn’t help, either.
Admittedly, Metaksa is correct. This latest piece of
weapons legislation will not stop all violence, and it
will not solve all the gun problems in the nation. And
unfortunately, it only covers gun imports, not those .
manufactured in America.
However, it is a step, and however “cosmetic” it might
be, it can’t hurt. The more that gun manufactures have to
comply to regulations, the better it is, safety-wise.
It’s no secret that I am closely allied with the anti-gun
crowd. Personally, I find guns ridiculously dangerous, es
pecially considering the mentality of people in general.
But I do respect the fact that people enjoy owning them.
Guns for hunting are perfectly acceptable, and so is
owning them — within reason. Guns, especially the high
powered ones represented by the Uzi and AK-47, aren’t
really meant to be in the hands of the public. Say what
you will, but an AK-47 is not useful in everyday life, un
less your everyday life necessitates extreme violence.
That is their draw, of course. Guns that can fire whole
magazines at a time are much more interesting than those
that can only release one round at a time. They’re bigger,
louder, more violent, more... well, you get the drift.
Most of the NRA’s pro-gun sound bites focus on the
Second Amendment to the Constitution. That, they say,
is why they oppose gun regulation — the Second
Amendment. They must have read it wrong, because
I’m pretty sure the amendment doesn’t say that the na
tion should be armed to the teeth.
The amendment is fairly vague on who is allowed to
keep guns and to what extent. Both anti-gun and pro
gun activists use this to fight their battles.
Not surprisingly, none of them are conclusive, gen
erally because the true power of the Constitution is in
its interpretation, not in its actual existence.
I doubt any present legislation will end the debate
on gun ownership and gun regulation. There will al
ways be gun extremists and anti-gun groups. However,
both sides should realize that this country needs re
strictions and regulation, otherwise the immense free-
dom would throw us into chaos.
linton ban serves as an example of manipulation of laws
Donny
Ferguson
columnist
L( This year will go down
W in history. Our streets
will be safer, our police
ore efficient and the world
11 follow our lead into the
ture.” Adolf Hitler, an-
ouncing his gun control
rogram— 1935
“If we do this ... we chart
e right course for America,
oward a future more free of
?ar and a new century
rimming with confidence
and great promise.” Bill
Clinton, announcing his gun ban — 1998
Following a 120-day review of import applica
tions for foreign-made firearms to determine their
“sporting purpose” as required by the 1968 Gun
Control Act, Clinton announced a permanent ban
on 58 semi-automatic firearms, not by law, but by
executive order.
As Clinton told the Oct. 22, 1997 Los Angeles
I Times, referring to the then-proposed ban, “We are
“ taking the law and bending it as far as we can.”
And, as we have learned after five years of stolen
FBI fries, illegal foreign donations from Chinese
Communists and sour Arkansas land deals, Bill
Clinton can take the law and bend it like Stretch
Armstrong.
“Five years ago we made a commitment as an
administration to recover our nations’ streets from
crime and violence,” Clinton said in the April 6
Rose Garden ceremony.
He believes the guns are a criminal threat to
Americans. Of course, with Clinton’s track record
on telling the truth, the facts speak otherwise.
“Military-looking” semi-automatic firearms like
the 58 banned are used in less than one percent of
all crimes before the 1989 and 1994 bans, and the
same is true today.
In fact, there are more of these guns available
today, yet overall crime is declining. Clearly, these
politically-motivated bans do nothing to fight
crime and do everything to get candidates like
Clinton and Gore elected.
Consider the facts on “assault weapons” and the
real causes of crime:
• People are much more likely to be beaten or
stabbed to death than the remote, outside chance
of being killed by anything which could be referred
to as an “assault weapon,” 67 times so in just
Chicago (FBI, “Crime in the United States 1994.”)
• Military-style “assault weapons” are used in
fewer than one percent of all violent crime nation
wide (Department of Justice, Mar. 1993.) More au
tomobiles are used in the commission of crime
than so-called “assault weapons.”
• 65 percent of police officers say gun control is
the least effective form of crime fighting and 99
percent report guns do not cause violent crime
(Southern States Police Association 1993.)
• Criminals sent to prison serve only one-third
of their sentences, averaging 7.7 years for murder
and 3.3 years for robbery {The Washington Times,
Aug. 29,1989.)
• 70 percent of murders are committed by crimi
nals with prior felonies (Bureau of Justice Statistics
Oct. 1991.)
Besides the fact these guns do not play a role in
criminal activity and banning never has and never
will fight crime, the banned imports are useful in
ways an anti-Second Amendment “sporting pur
poses test” can not encompass. They are part of
gun collectors’ displays and popular target-shoot
ing pieces, both of which are the furthest thing
from criminal activity.
Not only do these guns not cause crime, they
fight it.
During the 1992 Los Angeles riots, scores were
killed and stores and shops were looted and
burned to the ground.
Those of Korean shopkeepers, however, avoid
ed significant harm. They kept their businesses
and their lives because they were armed with
semi-automatic rifles exactly like the 58 banned,
perfect for self-defense in mob and riot situations.
Had Bill Clinton been Governor of California
and enacted his latest gun ban, these men would
be lying in graves and their shops would be charred
rubble.
The latest Clinton gun ban on 58 imported
semi-automatic firearms can in no way whatsoever
fight crime.
These safe, legal firearms are responsible for few
er than one-tenth of one percent of all crime in the
United States (more Americans die of bee stings
than by the banned guns — maybe Clinton should
consider a ban on beekeepers.)
The myth of the drug dealer and gangster on a
crime spree with an “assault weapon” is just that —
a myth generated by Hollywood studios and TV
shows.
Despite their use in TV and movies, criminolo
gists Daniel Polsby and Dennis Brennen prove find
no police officer has ever been killed by an Uzi. To
put it frankly, gun control is a product of people
who watch too much TV
If Bill Clinton wanted to fight crime, he failed.
If he wanted to look good on TV while duping an
unsuspecting public, has was a resounding success.
Donny Ferguson is a junior political science major.
ERSPECTIVES
[bird anniversary of Oklahoma bombing still brings vivid memories
Stewart
Patton
columnist
* Tlien my senior Eng-
/l / lish teacher asked us
V to write about our
lings three days after the
nt, my blank notebook mir
ed the numbness and disil-
ionment inside. Now three
ns later, the same feelings
urn near the third anniver-
■y of the day 168 fellow Okla-
mans lost their lives in the
adliest terrorist attack ever
U.S. soil.
April 19, 1995, began as the
overbial “day like any other day” at Midwest City
gh School, five miles east of the Alfred P. Murrah
deral Building. At 9:03 a.m., a Ryder truck packed
th fertilizer and diesel fuel exploded on the street
Ijacent to the federal courthouse.
Although I didn’t hear it (I was asleep in AP Gov-
timent), several of my classmates heard what
unded like a sonic boom — not an unusual occur-
ce at a school a mile north of an air force base.
“They bombed the courthouse!” Nancy told me as
e left the office where she is an aide first period. I
n’t all that concerned at first because it was old
Ws—loonies are always blowing up buildings in
wYork or Los Angeles.
It became clear, however, that she meant our
courthouse when I saw students and faculty flocking
to one of the second-floor windows facing downtown.
We ignored the class bell as we stood transfixed by
an enormous cloud of black smoke billowing into the
rough mushroom shape seen in films of atomic bomb
tests from the ’50s. We finally returned to our class
rooms to watch live reports from the dozens of news
crews and helicopters in the area.
The scene looked more like Beirut or Sarajevo than
the “Heartland” of America: firemen climbed piles of
rubble, dazed survivors stumbled around with bloody
shirts wrapped around their heads, arms or legs, am
bulances converged from every part of the city.
The blast had destroyed the facade of the building,
allowing a Barbie’s playhouse view of the separate
floors. The air was thick with acrid smoke, hideous
shrieks, cries of onlookers, police barking orders and
every variety of siren sounding at once.
One man tottered down the sidewalk, blood on his
face, declaring that he was heading home — only he
didn’t know where that might be and couldn’t re
member his name. Several children wandered from
the day care center looking for their parents. Many
more children remained buried in the rubble of the
day care center — one of the hardest hit sections of
the building. An onlooker took a picture later seen on
the cover of Time of a firefighter carrying the lifeless
body of one of the many preschool-age victims.
My mom was a legal secretary in a law firm down
town, but I wasn’t sure if she ever went to the Mur
rah building. I was enraged and frightened by the
possibility that my mother could be under the
smoking rubble until I was relieved beyond words to
hear her voice on the phone telling me she was safe
and had not been near the blast. She left work im
mediately after the explosion, right before down
town was sealed to allow the unending stream of
ambulances a traffic-free journey to hospitals all
over the metropolitan area.
Rescue workers worked nonstop for the next
week removing bodies and still hoping for sur
vivors. Others helped in anyway they could, by do
nating food and clothing, counseling victims and
rescue workers, or praying. Donations flowed in
from the rest of the country and from concerned
people from around the globe.
My church was devastated by the loss of five peo
ple very close to our congregation. Two of the girls in
my youth group lost their fathers in the bombing and
one family lost a daughter and a granddaughter.
Oklahoma City was a different place for the next
few months as people resumed only a good imitation
of normal activity — everyone still had their minds
on the victims and the suspect in custody. The im
plosion of the remainder of the Murrah building
brought some closure to the tragedy for Okla
homans, but the effects of the tragedy will be felt for
many years to come.
A natural response to a tragedy of this magnitude
is to look for a reason for the meaningless suffering, a
moral to the story.
Gun control and other “tough-on-crime” lobby
ists invariably blame the lack of adequate measures
to prevent terrorists from acquiring the means for
such an attack. When fertilizer can be purchased for
only $10 for a 30-pound bag at any feed store and
diesel fuel is readily available, however, law en
forcement officials have few tools to stop madmen
bent on destruction.
Like the assassinations of Dr. Martin Luther King
Jr., JFK and Robert Kennedy, the Oklahoma City
bombing is another testament to the power that one
man with plenty of hate and very little technical
know-how can wield over the rest of society. It is also
a testament to the power of a tragedy to bring people
together. Oklahomans and indeed Americans have a
new sense of brotherhood because of our mutual suf
fering through a devastating event.
Mandy is a student whose father fell victim to the
bombing. He would have been helping her to prepare
for finals or attending her school’s Parents’Weekend, but
his life was cut short by the actions of one man. On the
third anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing, let us
remember the victims and survivors to stop another
tragedy of this magnitude from ever occurring again.
Stewart Patton is a junior sociology major.