LETTER: Weapon ban did no good

Editor,

Before people go crazy about the lapse of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban it would behoove them to become informed about what the ban actually entailed.

The ban outlawed rifles that had detachable magazines and two or more of the following: A pistol grip, folding or telescoping stock, bayonet mount, flash suppressor, or threads to attach one, or a grenade launcher. (Grenade launchers were already illegal and regulated by the ATF as “Destructive Devices.”) The ban was a cosmetic law intended to appease the gun-control lobby. This ban had nothing to do with fully automatic weapons, which were outlawed in 1934, except by special permit.

People, like Mr. Reese (Letters, Sept. 20), who are afraid of guns, which fire “50 rounds of ammunition in less than two seconds,” have nothing to worry about. The ban only dealt with semi-automatic rifles. This means you pull the trigger each time you want to fire. Anyone who can do that 25 times in less than a second needs Ritalin. The banned guns have been available all along. Any gun or high-capacity magazine that was manufactured before the 1994 ban can, and could always, be purchased. Any semi-automatic rifle manufactured at any time could legally be purchased as long as it didn’t have more than two of the aforementioned “scary-looking” accessories.

The ban expired because it did no good. It did not reduce crime. It did not keep guns out of the hands of criminals or terrorists. The Founding Fathers gave the people the right to keep and bear arms because they had needed them in the fight for independence.

If the citizens had no guns, who would have protected them from the mighty British army (which I might remind you was “our military” at the time)? I don’t consider myself a “gun nut,” but I do like to think I have some common sense.

Barry J. Pate