People on both sides of the debate are biased, hmm?

The Metro Pulse Online (no, I don't know what that means either) has an article up entitled Automatics for the Poeple in which... you guessed it.. they pontificate about the expiration of the "Assault Weapons Ban" without actually coming anywhere near the truth.

?I just like to come down here and punch holes in paper,? says Knoxvillian Terry Hardin. He and the rest of the men shooting at the John Sevier Hunter Education Center and Rifle Range have various reasons to do so, from hobby to hunting practice to self-defense to competition. The collective mood of the bunch is calm and competent, void of the fanatical machismo I?d prepared myself for.

At least they're frank about their bias.

When it?s my turn to shoot, the buzz that comes with firing a semi-automatic rifle for the first time is almost an afterthought. While the smokiness of spent powder and the smooth surface of the rifle?s body should arouse a tingling feeling of power or a savage prick of excitement, the concentration required to handle the hefty weapon overpowers any initial sensory stimulation.

Gee, the sexual undertones to this paragraph are pretty heavy. You might have to read it twice or three times before you realize that the author is actually saying that holding a gun does NOT feel sexual.

The various guns I shoot at the gun range are not, by the government?s standards, classified as ?assault weapons.? Still, Guy tells me that they have essentially the same amount of power, and they certainly feel capable of assault.

So why exactly are you writing about the expiration of the assault weapons ban again?

President Bill Clinton?s 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban, which expired in September, placed a ban on 19 guns classified as ?assault weapons.? Historically, restrictions on firearms are by no means limited to liberal politicians; both the Reagan and Bush (the elder) administrations oversaw the implementation of limits on importation of certain foreign weapons.

The lingering question about the 1994 ban is, ?What, if anything, did it accomplish?? Gun enthusiasts say its effects were petty, aside from simply being a morale-boosting coup for the anti-gun lobby.

The government says it accomplished nothing at all. And the Violence Policy Center, a well-known anti-gun group, agrees. Personally, I'd say that's case-closed.

People on both sides of the debate are so biased that it?s nearly impossible to pick through the jumble of truths, rationalizations, opinions and flat-out fabrications.

One side of the debate indulges in rationalizations and fabrications, while the other side of the debate uses truth. I'd say that's easy to sort out, even if both sides do have opinions.

One overwhelmingly unanimous opinion among gun enthusiasts is that Clinton?s ban really didn?t have a clear target. Most gun retailers despise the use of the term ?assault weapon,? often ridiculing it as a misnomer fabricated by politicians ignorant on the subject of firearms. Tamara Keel, a long-time salesperson at Randy?s Guns and Knives, says, ?The real inanity of the ban is that several legal shotguns were more powerful [than banned weapons] but had wooden stocks, so they didn?t look as scary.?

It's overwhelmingly unanimous because it's true.

For example, under the ban, guns could not be sold or manufactured with collapsible stocks, which allow the shooter to shorten the length of the gun. This could presumably make the firearm easier to conceal, which is unnecessary in hunting or hobby shooting.

The effect of a telescoping stock is to shorten a rifle perhaps a maximum of 6 inches or so (allowing it to be used by people of different sizes). You can't conceal a rifle on your person unless you have one of those trenchcoats that hides a 3-foot sword, regardless of what kind of stock you put on the rifle. Criminals don't conceal rifles on their person; they generally don't commit crimes with rifles at all. They much prefer handguns -- by more than 20 to 1.

Flash suppressers, attached to the tip of the barrel to diminish the visible flash, were also forbidden under the ban. ?They would be useful at night, for the military, for example. It would keep the enemy from knowing where the fire came from,? says Guy.

Actually, it hides the flash from the person shooting; everyone else can see it clearly. It's nothing more than a piece of plastic on the end of the barrel in the right shape.

Another restriction under the ban was placed on bayonet attachments, prompting most gun enthusiasts to scoff, ?When was the last time you heard of someone getting murdered by bayonet?? Fair enough, but I couldn?t get a straight answer as to what, exactly, would be the purpose of the bayonet attachment as far as hobby, sport, or even self-defense. (After all, if you are holding a semi-automatic weapon whose bullets could bust through several layers of drywall, why would you need a bayonet?)

It doesn't work that way. YOU have to justify why a simple piece of metal that allows you to attach another, sharp point of metal to a rifle is suddenly illegal to actually put on the rifle. Sticking people with sharp things in order to kill them was illegal before and after the ban.

The question of whether the banned weapons were rightfully termed ?assault weapons? or whether they are any more dangerous than legal guns is a never-ending debate. Regardless, the looming problem with all of these regulations is that, ultimately, many people still owned what the government classified as ?assault weapons? while the ban was in effect because of a grandfather clause.

If anything, they are less dangerous than non-banned firearms. They fire less powerful ammunition than most hunting rifles.

The question of whether the banned weapons were rightfully termed ?assault weapons? or whether they are any more dangerous than legal guns is a never-ending debate. Regardless, the looming problem with all of these regulations is that, ultimately, many people still owned what the government classified as ?assault weapons? while the ban was in effect because of a grandfather clause.

?We haven?t seen much of a change in the weapons people use here [since the ban expired] because so many people had licenses to shoot these guns during the ban,? says Guy of the significant loophole in the legislation.

The federal Assault Weapons Ban did not require "licensing" to "shoot" assault weapons.

So, while folks on either side of the gun control debate have staunch opinions on the ban, its practical applications seem to have been pretty meager. Of course, other avenues of gun control are either possible or already in effect. Many states have their own restrictive gun laws. Massachusetts has a mandatory one-year jail sentence for anyone illegally possessing a firearm; a measure that takes on the gun lobby?s argument that criminals don?t abide by gun laws.

Actually, every criminal they convict under those laws proves the NRA's argument correct.

Education could be another missing link on the road to gun safety. In Tennessee, one needs no permit or special education to possess a rifle, shotgun or handgun. Acquiring a permit to carry a handgun requires safety classes, but plenty of murders and accidental deaths occur in the home, where no permit is needed.

Plenty of murders occur in homes in DC, too, where a permit is required by (unConstitutional) law.

Even the gun enthusiasts at the rifle range would likely support stricter requirements as far as safety education, judging from their eminently disciplined approach to hobby shooting. During a ceasefire, Hardin, who?s been shooting since his 8th birthday when he received his first .22 rifle, quips, ?Everybody down here is for gun control...and gun control is hitting what you?re aiming at.?

I bet you didn't ask any of them that question; if you had, they would have answered you, and you wouldn't have been able to put words in their mouth.

While the hunters and competition shooters at the rifle range seem to be model gun owners?law-abiding and objective in their consideration toward the anti-gun lobby?a few folks at the RK Gun Show were less levelheaded. Gun shows give retailers, collectors and gun buyers a forum to talk shop, display their prized possessions, and make transactions. The show, held at the Knoxville Expo Center a few weeks ago, gave me a peek at another side of the gun world. While a few people I spoke with told me brusquely to go away after learning that I was a reporter, the ones who would chat with me kept their guard up.

Surprise! People don't like you when you lie about them and their hobbies or livelihood.

One can?t blame them for being on the defensive; gun shows have been under attack for years for being a loophole in gun legislation. While purchasing a firearm at a licensed gun retailer requires a background check through the TBI, gun shows are notorious havens for unauthorized gun transactions (i.e. a good place for those with criminal records to get guns).

Except that there is no such loophole. Purchases through a dealer get background checks. Purchases from private citizens don't. Although the private citizen isn't likely to sell to you if he thinks you're a criminal. That's probably why very few criminals get their guns from gun shows.

For the record, it is legal to purchase machine guns (or full automatics) since the ban expired, but it requires a six- to nine-month background check by the FBI and a permit issued by the BATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms). Danny Guy contemplates the subject of machine guns for a moment before saying, ?It?s just what floats your boat?what thrills you. Because there?s absolutely no purpose for them...no reason any citizen would need one.?

Actually, fully-automatic firearms have nothing whatsoever to do with the Assault Weapons Ban. Machine guns are heavily regulated since 1934, although legal to purchase if you don't mind giving your fireprints to the FBI and getting a permission slip from the local police. The ban only covered weapons that looked like machine guns.