LOCAL ANGLES: BREAKING THE LAW NO WAY TO CURB LAWBREAKERS

Anyone who imagines that a ban on 19 types of automatic weapons will in any way deter crime should have his head examined.

Plain and simple, Thursday's House vote to ban the weapons is not a sweeping anti-crime measure or a sweeping anything. According to FBI statistics, rifles -- all types, not just the "assault-style" weapons voted on Thursday -- are used in only 3 percent of homicides. That's less even than body parts. Fists and feet are used in 5 percent of homicides. If Thursday's vote was aimed at curbing crime, it follows then that Congress also ought to consider amputation as an effective deterrent to violence.

No, this ban won't affect crime. When automatic weapons spew their rapid-fire devastation in our cities' slums, leaving in their wake gangsters and innocents alike, the persons pulling triggers are criminals. In all likelihood, these criminals have prior felony convictions and are forbidden by law from possessing any firearm. But that's the thing about criminals, they don't obey the law, particularly when there is no real threat that, if caught, their jail time will fit their crime.

But, you ask, won't the automatic weapons ban prohibiting the manufacture of these guns keep criminals from acquiring them? Sure, just like laws against the manufacture of narcotics keep drugs off the streets. As with the drug trade, we can't stem the manufacture of guns internationally. Most of these assault-type weapons already are imported -- thus some of their catchy names -- and at a price below their manufactured cost here.

Crime is a disease that demands a multi-faceted and laborious remedy, and gun-control is the least effective approach. Cities where gun control is most stringent, Washington and New York, for example, share some of the highest crime rates in the country. Mandatory minimum sentences and other forceful penalties for law breakers is a more sensible approach, and one supported by many congressmen who opposed Thursday's ban.

But Eastlick, you might argue, you said these weapons aren't used in many crimes anyway, so even if the ban merely is symbolic, what's the big deal? It's not like some sportsman will be bummed out because he's unable to use an Uzi for deer or duck hunting.

Let's look at the bigger picture. I should point out that I own no guns or weapons other than a hard head and scarred knuckles. I don't hunt, and my idea of a sportsman is someone who laces up the boots and heads out for 80 minutes on the rugby pitch. But then again the Second Amendment is not a deer and duck hunter's amendment. Its intention is to keep government from denying citizens the right to arm themselves against tyranny.

Our founding fathers never were so narcissistic as to believe they could dictate what rights citizens would be allowed to have. Their contention was that rights were presupposed. They merely strove to protect those rights by suppressing government with the Constitution. In that light, the right to own assault weapons ought to be paramount. After all, when you're talking about defending yourself and your property from a tyrannous government, the break-open, single-shot 12-gauge in the closet isn't going to cut it. If you doubt our government's potential for tyranny, I suggest you talk with the surviving Branch Davidians.

Aside from the misguided notion that banning automatic weapons will deter crime, and ignoring for a moment whether the Second Amendment really means what it says, I'm appalled at the dishonesty in the debate over gun control.

From our president, who can't seem to resist having it both ways on every controversy (he's a duck-hunting Bubba from Arkansas, remember. He not a gun-control nut) to supportive congressmen, with one arm twisted in knots, the other greedily extended beneath the president's table, no one admits Thursday's vote is the first step on a long march down the gun-control route.

But any infringement on the Second Amendment undermines the protection it guarantees. You can't, after all, have your rights protected and whittled away at the same time. I wish President Clinton, and other gun-control stalwarts, would have the courage to repeal the Second Amendment rather than hoodwink citizens with their gradual dissection.

Gun control laws or no, criminals will continue to disregard the law and pack weapons of all types. After all, they have little regard for society or society's laws. But we, and our lawmakers who are so anxious to trample underfoot the Second Amendment, ought to know better. Let's not disregard the supreme law of the land in the name of curbing law breakers.