The Daily Egyptian is published by the students of SIU at Carbondale. Except during vacations and exam weeks, The Daily Egyptian is published Monday through Friday during the fall and spring semesters and TWThF during the summer semester."

Columnist wrong about assault weapons

I'm responding to Josh Perschbacher's "From my cold, dead hands" in his The Mouth of the South column in your Oct. 5 issue [pg. 7].

Josh uses statistics to show that assault weapons are so rarely used that we shouldn't bother with them. No one disputes that assault weapons are in the extreme minority when it comes to gun crime. The ban was imposed not because of their frequent use but because of the extraordinary damage they can inflict on multiple victims when they are used. What's almost laughable about these statistics is that they're showing how infrequently assault weapons are used during years when the ban was in effect.

Had he bothered to look at page 6 of the Justice Department's March 1999 issue of "Research in Brief" he may have noticed that they suggest there was a 20 percent reduction in assault weapons used in crime in the first calendar year the ban was imposed. This shows the ban had an impact and sort of refutes the "if a criminal wants a gun, they will find a way to get a gun" argument Josh failed to make.

Josh goes on to suggest that the only line separating assault weapons from non-assault weapons were "cosmetic characteristics." He failed to mention that a number of guns were specifically mentioned in the legislation and made illegal such as the AK47, Uzi, Tec-9, and AR-15. The so-called "cosmetic characteristics" were things like flash suppressors, pistol grips, and extendable and detachable magazines, all "cosmetic characteristics" that would make the gun more useful and appealing for criminal use.

Josh later blatantly misleads his readers by saying that John Kerry accepted a Remington 11-87, a weapon banned under "the failed legislation." The Remington 11-87 was never banned under the 1994 "assault weapons ban" and has never been illegal. He is referring to a completely different bill, one that was never adopted as law and is never mentioned in the column.

The entire column was misleading, and failed to make a relevant argument. I can't wait to read part two.

Tyler Sutherland
freshman, English

[Macro error: Can't include because the file is larger than 32767 characters.]

Today's News | Sports | Voices - Editorial | Letters
Newsbriefs | pulse - Arts & Entertainment | Calendar | Photo Staff
Apts & Rentals | Photo Personals | Live DE NewsCam | Classified Ads