At no time has it ever been illegal for someone to possess or own an "assault weapon". Under the federal law that expired in 2004, firearms that were lawfully owned before 1994 and defined as AWs were legal to own, keep, use, and even transfer to others. All that law did was make it illegal to import or manufacture firearms with certain features - like threaded muzzles and bayonet lugs - which did nothing to make them more dangerous than similar weapons without those features. Rifles like the AR-15 and semiautomatic variants of the AK-47 were reconfigured by their manufacturers to make them comply with the law, and sold in large numbers during the "ban". The expiration of the AW ban did absolutely nothing to hurt public safety.

Very few handguns qualified as "assault weapons". I don't know where you got your information, but a lot of it is flat out wrong; and you clearly haven't checked the facts at all.

From her hyperbolic description, Deane Calhoun seems to be under the mistaken impression that "assault guns" (yet another strange twist in terminology) fire in fully automatic mode, like machineguns. That is not correct - The federal AW ban specifically addressed semiautomatic firearms, which fire one round with each pull of the trigger just like revolvers do. Fully automatic weapons have been strictly regulated by the federal government since 1934, and the use of legally owned ones in crime is almost unheard of.

Crime rates have nothing to do with gun laws - They are correllated with economic conditions. The more people who are poor and desperate, the more people turn to crime. It's really that simple. To fix crime, fix poverty. Make sure every kid has access to a good education.

Extending background checks to private-party transfers of used guns might actually be a good idea, but there is a big problem - The federal government does not have the constitutional authority to regulate occasional, non-commercial, private sales of used goods. Current federal law specifically prohibits people other than licensed gun dealers from using the National Instant Check System that is used in most states to verify that a gun buyer is not prohibited from owning a firearm. California regulates private-party transfers. Any state could theoretically do the same, but the idea is a political non-starter in most of the country.

I say lobby the federal government to make NICS available to the general public, with safeguards to keep it from being misused. Strictly enforce the existing prohibitions against certain people like convicted felons from buying guns. Keep violent criminals in jail until they are so old they are unlikely to offend again. Those are realistic suggestions.

For those that believe "gun control" will stop homicide, the latest "weapon of choice" in the UK for criminal youth is knives.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080527.wwstabbing27...

So much for Deane Calhoun's theory.

Watch the news 50 years from now when we have outlawed guns and knives. There will be a call for background checks on people trying to buy frying pans.

If, as the article insinuates, violent crime in Oakland has increased as a direct result of the lapsing of the 1994 "assault weapons" ban, then why does severe gun violence seem to be limited to places like Oakland, Compton and perhaps East Palo Alto? I visit my family-in-law in the South Bay a couple of times a year, and I have yet to hear gunfire at all in San Jose, Sunnyvale, Cupertino, (non-East) Palo Alto, etc. at all, let alone on a near-daily basis. Could it be that Oakland's problems are not caused by supposedly "lax" gun laws in states neighboring California, but that the problem is with Oakland itself? And that therefore the answer to Oakland's problems will not be found in tightening gun laws?

Anyone with a rudimentary grasp of economics understands that where there is a demand for a good or service, demand will seek out a supply. That's why the "War on Drugs" has been such an abysmal failure: because it has been overly focused on attempting to interdict supply, and insufficiently focused on reducing demand. And as long as the demand exists, enterprising people will find ways to supply it. Similarly, if there is a demand for among Oakland's criminals for guns, somebody will find a way to get guns to them. Even if the United States could all but eliminate private gun ownership and destroy the bulk of firearms in private hands, guns would still find their way into criminal hands. Perhaps smuggled in via Mexico or across the Caribbean, along with (or in place of a small part of) the tons of cocaine and crystal meth that are already smuggled into the US year after year.

In spite of the comparatively tight gun laws in western Europe, European criminals have no trouble acquiring firearms if they want them. They may not be able to acquire them by theft from private citizens or via straw purchases, so instead the guns are smuggled in from eastern Europe. Trying to eliminate violent crime by tightening gun laws is merely treating a symptom of the disease instead of its cause.