Hunting is still frowned upon in New York City parks, so guns in these parts tend mostly to be used for threatening and killing people. In the early 1990s, our city averaged six murders a day – life was cheap and guns were plentiful. Since 1994 – when Mayor Giuliani took office and the Assault Weapons Ban was passed – shooting incidents have declined 73% in our city and New Yorkers are 69% less likely to get shot while walking down the street. As a result, New Yorkers have a uniquely battle scarred perspective on the end of the assault weapons ban.

It was a New York Senator, Charles Schumer, who, as a Congressman, was a chief sponsor of the bill that banned assault weapons until last Monday. It was a New York City mayor, David Dinkins, who pushed forward a bill banning assault weapons in our city against court challenges from the National Rifle Association. It was another New York City mayor, Rudolph Giuliani, who was willing to work with a Democratic White House to stop the crime epidemic by supporting a 1994 crime bill that was then under fire from the far-right and far-left, eventually putting 100,000 new cops on the street and banning the sale of 19 different kinds of assault weapons. At the time, CBS Morning News co-host Harry Smith asked the mayor, “Why go against the larger party’s greater wishes?” to which the mayor sensibly replied, “Because I have to run a city. I’m not in some kind of ideological debating society.”

Presidents Reagan and Ford, both Republicans, joined Mr. Giuliani in supporting the assault weapons ban, and it’s a good thing that these realists triumphed over the theorists. According to the Bush administration’s Justice Department, between 1995 and 2001, there was a 65.8% decline in the number of times the banned assault weapons were used in crimes. There’s blood behind those statistics. In the debate over ending the ban, the NRA energetically pursued its agenda, characterizing what it’s Web site called “The Clinton Gun Ban” as misguided and ineffective. Of course, the assault weapons ban did not mean the end of gun violence – no responsible legislation can promise that – but it did not hurt the effort, and there is evidence it helped.

It is usually considered conservative to side with law enforcement in the fight against crime, but special interests on the Republican side of the aisle allowed the ban to end. Fourteen different law enforcement agencies endorsed its extension and police commissioners from across the nation came to Capital Hill to argue on its behalf. Senators from both parties had voted to support the ban for another 10 years. President Bush had pledged to sign the extension if it reached his desk in the Oval Office, but he did not protest when the Republican House Majority Leader, Tom Delay, breezily declined to let a vote go forward, essentially making the issue dead on arrival.

It is not the first time that the NRA and law enforcement have been on opposite sides of a public safety debate. In a 1995 fund-raising letter, the NRA described federal agents as wearing “Nazi bucket helmets and black storm trooper uniforms” while they “harass, intimidate, even murder law-abiding citizens.” This prompted George H.W. Bush, the former president, to angrily resign from the NRA with a public letter that stated, “Your broadside against federal agents deeply offends my own sense of decency and honor, and it offends my concept of service to country.” In the post-September 11 era, most Americans have come to appreciate the former president’s point of view.

The war on terrorism raises new concerns about the more widespread availability of assault weapons. Last month, authorities announced that a New Jersey man was being investigated for operating a Web site connected to Al Qaeda that had a passage titled “How Can I Train Myself for Jihad.” It included this chilling piece of advice: “In other countries, e.g., some states of USA, South Africa, it is perfectly legal for members of the public to own certain types of firearms. If you live in such a country, obtain an assault rifle legally, preferably an AK-47 or variations, learn how to use it properly and go and practice in the areas allowed for such training.”

New York’s own assault weapon ban still stands, but 43 other states have no such restrictions, and cruel experience has taught us that guns from states with lax laws are illegally trafficked across borders and sold on our city’s streets. This problem is now likely to grow worse rather than better – with the stakes higher than ever.

One of the ironies New Yorkers need to face is that liberals who are accused of wanting to incrementally outlaw all weapons are being used to demonize responsible efforts to restrict the sale of guns with no other purpose than to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible.

The fact is that the American people are not so divided on the issue of guns as activists on either side would have us believe. Sixty-nine percent of Americans agree with the statement, “I believe in the right to bear arms, but I am willing to put up with a registration or waiting period,” according to a poll taken by the Luntz Research company in August 2003, which mirrored the results of a Newsweek Poll from eight years before. And 78% percent of Americans supported extending the assault weapons ban, according to a November 2003 NBC-Wall Street Journal poll. There was not a popular outcry to let the assault weapons ban expire – the opposite was true. As Senator Schumer said in a statement shortly before the ban’s end, “not one hunter has lost his right to hunt, not one homeowner has lost his power to defend his home. We have proven that the Second Amendment can thrive while we take limited and reasonable measures to protect Americans from gun violence.”

Now with the ban expired, we need to begin again, building on the common sense of the vast majority of Americans about the rights and responsibilities of gun ownership. Residents of rural areas have a different relationship with guns than citizens of the inner city: there’s no reason we should ignore that in the name of ideological absolutism. There’s plenty of room for constructive debate and creative solutions, but it’s up to responsible leaders from both parties to stand up to the NRA and Mr. Delay; we can’t let special interests permanently cloud our judgment in matters of life and death.