Subj:    research on "assault weapons" (part 2 of 3)
Date:    96-03-22 13:19:32 EST
From:    EdgarSuter
To:      [r--ty--k] at [cbsnews.com]

Of what "legitimate" use are these assault weapons?

Though responsible usage and safe storage of any firearm, assault weapon or
otherwise, injures no one, the "legitimate" use of weapons is highly
subjective. Hunters' views differ from radical animal rights activists. There
is even dissent regarding the legitimacy of self-defense, for example,
certain religious groups in the forefront of the gun prohibition lobby oppose
the use of lethal force even in defending one's life.38

Certain features, such as ergonomic design, durability, and high-capacity
magazines, are noted amongst (though not unique to) assault weapons and other
functionally similar weapons. Those features provoke the ire of
prohibitionists, but are features that make such weapons particularly suited
to popular target competitions, hunting, home defense, defense against
multiple assailants, community defense, and self-protection in times of riot
or natural disaster.

An exact figure is unavailable, but the number of target competitors, gun
collectors, and legitimate owners of assault weapons is at least 2 million
and perhaps as high as 4 million.16

Collecting, sport, and target competition

Despite, or because of, their military origins, true "assault rifles" and
their cosmetic cousins, "assault weapons," do appeal to the collector and the
target shooter. Assault weapons are increasingly used in national and
international target competitions sponsored by the International Practical
Shooting Confederation, the US Practical Shooting Association, and other
groups. The varied and extended courses of fire and the movement of the
target or the shooter in these competitions demands the ergonomics and
capacity of assault weapons, even for the highly skilled competitor. More
traditional target matches using assault weapons are sponsored by the US
Government's National Board for the Promotion of Rifle Practice, the Director
of Civilian Marksmanship (DCM), countless local gun clubs, and the NRA. Those
active in these competitions number over 35,000 (the number of shooters rated
and ranked for purposes of DCM competitions alone). The DCM matches
originated because the armed services' national security mission was
compromised by the appalling marksmanship of recruits, a problem worsened in
the last three decades because recruits are a group increasingly of urban
background lacking in basic gun safety and marksmanship skills. Additionally,
the DCM matches were the most cost-effective recruiting tool of the military
until 1991 when Congressional anti-gun sentiment removed DCM funding.39 The
DCM competitors and the US government clearly consider these matches
"legitimate sporting use."

Hunting

The plastic materials and protective metal finishes used in military weapons
of the last three decades have proven to be particularly lightweight and
durable. Though initially proven on the battlefield (as sometimes occurs with
advances in trauma care), use of these materials is now common amongst
hunting rifles, semi-automatic and otherwise, apropos the rough terrain, long
hikes, and inclement weather associated with hunting. One finds no fault with
similar high-impact and durable materials when used in other tools, outdoor
equipment, and binoculars. Many hunters also need weapons with high magazine
capacity and rapid, follow-up shot capability, for example, ranchers
protecting their herds and flocks from packs of predatory coyotes and farmers
protecting their crops from colonies of destructive gophers.

Self protection and community defense

Citizens have the natural right38 and the common sense duty to protect
themselves, their families, their communities, and their property. The use of
assault weapons by citizens in community defense can be demonstrated. Most
recently the Los Angeles riots made memorable the video footage of
law-abiding shop and homeowners using guns, including assault weapons, to
protect themselves, their families, and their property. Determined display
and appropriate use of their protective weaponry was effective. No major
American city can claim freedom from similar riots and the associated deaths
and damage.

As several national studies show, including the definitive study by the
National Institute of Justice40 and studies commissioned by
gun-prohibitionist organizations, guns do protect good people; they are used
defensively by law-abiding citizens at least 606,000 to 2.4 million times per
year4,41 - 20 to 75 lives protected by a gun for every life lost to a gun -
lives saved, injuries prevented, medical costs saved, and property protected.
 This exceeds all estimates of criminal misuse. Using a gun to resist a crime
or assault is safer than not resisting at all or resisting with means other
than firearms.4 Guns not only repel crime, guns deter crime as is shown by
numerous surveys of criminals.42 Arguably, when faced with mob or gang
violence or multiple assailants, assault weapons represent the most
appropriate means of protection.

Where the powerful images of children and innocent bystanders injured by guns
are concerned, any analysis of the exaggerated extent of the problem is met
with, "if it saves only one life...." Since protective uses exceed criminal
misuses, a gun ban impacts more on compliant, good citizens than upon
criminals. One must admit, therefore, that a good citizen's life lost because
a gun was absent is at least as valuable as a life lost because a gun was
present.

The myths of police protection

It has been argued than guns are not needed by citizens because they are
protected by the police and the military, including the National Guard. In
view of the current crime rate, the effectiveness of that protection can be
rightfully questioned. A significant, if not majority, of police activity
involves "mopping up" after the crime has already occurred. Research suggests
that police apprehension offers less deterrent to criminals than the threat
of encountering an armed victim.42

Statutes43 and legal precedents44 are clear that the police only have a
responsibility to provide some general level of protection to the community
at large. Police are under no obligation to protect any individual, even if
in immediate danger.45 An oral promise to respond to an emergency call for
assistance does not make the police liable to provide protection.46

The withdrawal of police protection from riot-torn areas of Los Angeles and
the two day delay in putting National Guard soldiers on the streets of Los
Angeles exposed the illusion of public protection. Additionally, it is
disturbing to recall that armed citizens had to protect themselves from the
police and US National Guard soldiers who were looting in the aftermath of
Hurricane Hugo.47 Throughout American history we have innumerable examples of
crime, terrorism, civil disorder, and natural disasters, where the police and
military forces have been unable or unwilling to protect citizens, often for
racist or political reasons.48,49,50 One can rightfully question the wisdom
of reliance upon the police or military in times of trouble.

Constitutional issues

While certain state and federal gun controls may be constitutional, gun
prohibitions are clearly unconstitutional. The US Supreme Court has
explicitly protected an individual right to keep and bear
arms,51,52,53,54,55,56 especially and explicitly protecting military-style
weapons, "part of the ordinary military equipment...."56 Some have
erroneously believed that the Second Amendment reference to "militia"
designates only a right of the National Guard, however, the National Guard is
only one component of the militia57 because: "The militia of the United
States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age... and
under 45 years of age."- 10 United States Code Section 311(a). Though the
debate often focuses on the Second Amendment, current and historical legal
scholarship finds support of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in the Ninth58
and Fourteenth Amendments59,60 and natural rights theory.38

The constitutional authorities cited above and others are quite convincing of
the inherent, irrevocable right to self-protection against criminals,
rioters, and tyrants. The right to keep and bear arms is essential to that
self-protection and has nothing to do with duck hunting or subjective
assessments of "legitimate sporting uses" of guns.

Even if the Council could prove that assault weapons pose a serious threat to
public safety, it is doubtful that an assault weapon ban would be upheld at
the US Supreme Court level, a process that may take several years. It seems a
waste of time, effort, and money for the Council to promote an agenda of
dubious efficacy and constitutionality, particularly when the American
Medical Association's resources would be better expended in addressing
medical negligence. Extrapolating from the 1990 Harvard Medical Practice
Study suggests that doctors' negligence kills 100,000 to 150,000 Americans
every year - three to five times the number of people who die from guns.

The approach essential to effective gun control

The public policy debate should focus upon effectual and constitutional
measures that are supported by sound data. An unbiased analysis of the
Council's report must conclude that they have made neither a careful, a
complete, nor a convincing case for an assault weapon ban. Instead of
attacking the actual roots of violence, the Council's effort was misdirected
against certain guns that, without good reason, are symbols of violence.
Though the villains in a few sensationalized tragedies of the last decade,
these guns have legitimate, protected uses and are rarely used in crime.

Responsible ownership of any kind of firearm by mentally competent and
law-abiding adults causes no social ill and leaves no victims. For predatory
criminals, however, there should be inescapable punishment for violent crime
regardless of instrumentality. The demonstrated effectiveness of mandatory
prison sentencing for gun crimes evaporates when bartered away in plea
bargains.

Two leading criminologists who have extensively studied all aspects of gun
issues, Kates and Kleck, advocate certain gun controls, but not prohibition.
They propose extending certain effectual and constitutional controls and - as
compromise - repealing the ineffectual, the unattainable, or the merely
symbolic. As one example, they support the mandatory check of all gun buyers
at the point of sale to prevent the transfer of weapons to criminals,
incompetents, and juveniles. Such checks could be accomplished as rapidly and
reliably as a credit card check. They value realistic, attainable goals so
they eschew utopian schemes that depend upon producing gun scarcity in a
nation that already has more than 200 million guns. They emphasize that gun
control is not a panacea; only incremental improvements are attainable.4,61
Utopia is not an available solution to violence in our society. The reader is
referred to Kates and Kleck for extended analysis.

The enforceability of proposed controls should be given adequate
consideration. An overwhelming majority of law-abiding California assault
weapon owners have already demonstrated their unwillingness to cooperate with
an assault weapon registration and ban.62 Good citizens who recognize a right
to their weapons and who contemplate compliance with registration schemes
cannot be reassured by the confiscation of weapons that has followed
registrations in New York, New Jersey, and Chicago. Intolerable police state
tactics would be necessary to obtain even marginal compliance - too high a
price for too little benefit.

Certain strategies and attitudes are counter-productive. The incremental or
"First Step" approach is perceived by gun owners as "We'll take what we can
get today, the rest we'll take tomorrow." Such an approach makes gun owners
unwilling to make justifiable concessions for fear of approaching the
"slippery slope" that has led many nations towards the total prohibition of
guns.63 The gun confiscations and legislation such as Congressman Owens'
H.J.Res 438, a resolution to repeal the Second Amendment, lead gun owners to
believe they are already on that "slippery slope." An undeserved pose of
moral superiority is a distraction from objective analysis and is. therefore,
an impediment to rational solutions. In the field of guns, crime, and
violence, organized medicine has much to learn conceptually and
methodologically from the criminological, legal, and social science
literature. In these issues, organized medicine should adopt scientific
objectivity.

Effectual solutions to criminal violence

While an assault weapon ban may have appeared to the Council to be a simple
solution to America's epidemic of violence, a scholarly review of the
literature finds no reliable data to support such a ban. Unfortunately the
Council's faulty call for prohibition may distract legislators and the public
from addressing effective methods of controlling violence.

Good evidence exists that violence in entertainment contributes significantly
towards violence in our society.64,65,66 That unwelcome contribution should
be minimized. In view of First Amendment protections we should encourage
voluntary restraint by an entertainment industry cognizant of its ill effects
on children. Parents should exercise control over their children's viewing
habits. The misdirection of anger and frustration can be mitigated by
training.

We should reassess national drug policies that make the drug trade so
attractively profitable that people will kill to reap those profits. We
should encourage the stabilization of the American family. We must break the
vicious circle of violence, parent infecting child, that stems from the abuse
of children.

HL Mencken observed that for every complex problem there is a simple solution
- and it is wrong. Violence in our society is a complex problem and gun
prohibition is being advanced as the simple solution - and it is wrong. We
must not be side-tracked by the illusions of simplistic "solutions."

[References CONTINUED]