- PM: If it's more effective at killing large amounts of people quickly than a hand grenade, which they are, they should both be banned. Sporting rifle is an oxymoron...whatever is on the other side has no chance. Why not make them only available to shoot at a gun range? Every policeman in US wants these banned
- ===
ME: PM, there are 22 caliber rifles that have the same rate of fire. It's a function of being a semi-automatic rifle. Those 22 rifles also have high capacity magazines available. Some of those 22 rifles are cosmetically the same as the AR-15s and other military lookalike rifles. Others look like BB guns.
http://www.survival-gear-guide.com/Ruger-10-22-CRR.html
Semi-automatic pistols also have the same rate of fire, and some of those have 30-round magazines available. So attempting to ban a particular model or class of firearms or functional capabilities is a very slippery slope and in contrast with our basic 2nd Amendment rights.
"Sporting rifle" is not an oxymoron. Any rifle that is used for hunting or target shooting is a sporting rifle. One of the stats flying around out there is that these "assault weapons" are used "about one-fifth of one percent (.20%) of all violent crimes". What do you think the vast majority of them are doing? They're shooting targets or small game - sporting activities.
I know many police officers. They do not all oppose these rifles. Some of them are outspoken in support of them and in individuals' rights to have them. They're as aware as anyone that their support in emergency situations is, at best, minutes away when seconds count. These opinions are voiced both at an individual and organizational level. "The Police Viewpoint" is discussed here:http://www.guncite.com/aswpolice.html An excerpt reads,
"...While the largest rank-and-file police organization, the FOP supports "assault weapon" control (at least for controls less severe than New Jersey's), the second-largest rank-and-file organization, the American Federation of Police, opposes such controls. Unfortunately, neither organization has polled its membership on the subject. (FOP head Stokes has been repeatedly asked to conduct a poll, and has refused.)
What limited polling of law enforcement has been done does not support the claims of Handgun Control, Inc., that all the police want "assault weapon" prohibition. The Florida chapter of the Fraternal Order of Police polled its membership, and found 75% opposed to an "assault weapon" ban."
Some of these statements and polls are certainly dated and, arguably, the opinions may have changed for some. But it's certainly clear that "all" is not correct on either side of the argument.
- ===
PM: [...] you know I have great respect for you and your response is well reasoned. However you miss the gist of my point. Rather than the video you are showing I suggest showing a video of the destructive force of a bullet shot from this sporting rifle on the human body versus a smaller sidearm which the Supreme Court has clearly held is a fundamental right for a person to protect themselves in their homes. These mass murderers are insane but not stupid, they are choosing the deadliest weapons available, which includes these 'sporting' rifles. If they are for sport, why isn't making them only available at shooting ranges an idea you could support? There is a limit on the amount of firepower the constition protects....no tanks, nukes or hand grenades as I said before. Why? Because the Court found them too deadly. These weapons fit into that category as well although the Supreme Court will ultimately decide if I am right. I am not preaching that this will stop tragedies like Newtown..but it will reduce the body count. Reasonable restrictions on 'sporting' weapons is certainly worth that, isn't it?
===
December 31, 2012
My response to a comment by PM to my post of a video called "Assault Rifle vs. Sporting Rifle" (labeled "Assault Weapon" by media & politicians). FB wouldn't accept my lengthy response after several attempts from 3 different browsers, so I'm posting here instead.
PM, I equally respect you and your opinions. But I don’t think we’ll come to agreement on these issues or arguments.
I could show the pictures you suggest of the human damage these rifles can do. They’re easily available on the Internet. Just as easily, I could show wounds from knives that are stomach churning, and from bombings and fires and other weapons, including other firearms. Have you seen the videos of the beheading of Americans by their kidnappers in the Middle East from several years ago? Sickening! Violence and death are gruesome. But reacting to those pictures is exactly the emotional response that is part of the problem. Reaction is not solution.
Evil and violence exist in the world. They’re not restricted to our country or to these firearms. Those who would do us harm, criminals, mentally ill or terrorists, will find the weapons they need to perform their intended purposes. If “assault weapons” (which don’t even have a clear, consistent definition) are banned, they’ll pick up the 22 caliber rifle I showed or the shotgun my friend Doug mentioned in this thread. If not those then a pair of handguns. If no firearms then they’ll turn to the Internet and learn to build a pipe bomb. If they can get materials in greater supply then a car bomb, ala Timothy McVeigh. If they’re more affluent then a small plane and a payload of gasoline becomes a missile. And affluence isn’t even required. In 2010 the Barefoot Bandit stole a plane from the Midwest and successfully piloted it to the Bahamas. The death in Newtown could have been caused in a wide variety of methods. I wrote soon after the massacre that it could have been accomplished with a machete, a propane tank and a sparker. The machete for intimidation and control. The propane tank is a bomb. All of these methods pass (or fail, depending upon perspective) your hand grenade test. We both acknowledge that these criminals are not stupid. Where there is a will there is a way. There are an estimated >300 million firearms in the hands of non-military, law enforcement or professional security in this country alone. I’ve never seen an estimate for worldwide availability. Add in all the other potential weapons. Evil-doers exist in the world. You cannot keep one from the other. The solution is not to keep a limited class of firearms away from ~200 million law abiding Americans (I think our population is around 300m now. I subtracted a convenient number for children, disabled and those already restricted.)
I posted this video about the technical differences between true military “assault rifles” and commercially available rifles, labeled (but not well defined) “assault weapons” by our politicians and media to better educate my FB friends (and theirs, should they choose to pass on the information). There is a huge amount of misinformation, disinformation, irresponsible reporting and inaccurate arguments being thrown around emotionally and aggressively – on both sides of the issue(s).
You think I’m missing the gist of your argument. Maybe I am. Or maybe I’m not addressing it in a clear enough manner. But I think you’re missing mine. These firearms are not the problem. They’re just the tool. In their absence, evil-doers will pick up the next available tool and there are plenty to choose from. We cannot legislate our way to disarm them from their tool belt. We can only legislate our way to infringing on (or removing) our constitutional right. Smaller caliber weapons, shotguns and handguns kill just as effectively when put to that use. The body count you mention is thousands of percent higher that are killed using those other weapons, which gets back to the slippery slope I mentioned. Where do you draw the line? Any semi-automatic firearm can create these body counts. Semi-automatic firearms are the vast majority of those purchased today. Major Nidal Malik Hasan killed 13 people and wounded 32 others using a single semi-automatic pistol at Fort Hood. Using the 3 most recent killings with these “assault weapons” I’m aware of, Newtown, Clackamas and Aurora, I believe the combined body count was 42 people dead and 59 injured. Chicago, home of some of the country’s most restrictive gun laws, had 500 homicides this year, >1,100% the number of deaths – in just 1 city.
For the record, I am not currently an NRA member nor have I ever been, though I have considered becoming so. I have never followed their work closely. I am disappointed in their post-Newtown press release. Since Newtown I’ve looked into them a little and I don’t like their over-the-top, extremely aggressive, “my way or the highway” tactics or arguments. I am equally disappointed that the media took 1 point of their multi-faceted plan and seemingly ignored the rest except to criticize their stance on the mental illness issue. At best this is incomplete reporting. At worst it’s irresponsible and extremely biased. The point I’m referring to, of course, is the NRA’s suggestion of an armed police officer in every school. Within the first day or two after Newtown I read this suggestion somewhere here on FB and immediately dismissed it, thinking no one in power would truly believe this to be supportable. Imagine my surprise when the NRA suggested it a week after the massacre. I don’t think it’s a tenable, or the right, solution. So, do I side with the NRA’s plan? Not entirely. But they’re correct, along with several others, that the solution(s) must be multi-faceted. It shouldn’t be a discussion limited to just “gun control” or a limited class of firearms. The NRA listed some other causes / issues / solutions and, I believe, said or implied they were prepared to contribute more. I think they need to have a seat at the table for the overall debate. Their overarching work of ‘protecting the 2nd Amendment’ is important. But I don’t think they should be in control. They’re too hardline for that. Likewise, politicians like Diane Feinstein are too hardline (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blXkl9YVoHo). She, President Obama and others are in too much of a hurry to put an ineffective and, arguably, constitutionally illegal band-aid on what is more than a paper cut.
Unlike the NRA, I am willing to listen to and consider real ideas and to listen to and participate in debate, like the one we’re having now. One suggestion I heard, wasn’t immediately fond of, but was willing to consider was the ban on high capacity magazines. I’m listening to your suggestion about limiting availability of some firearms to range access. While I don’t think having full-time, paid police officers in every school in America is the right solution, I’m not opposed to arming, training and licensing volunteers to be present in schools, whether they are faculty, administration, staff or parents. There is a wide range of contributing solutions to our overall problem(s) but too many are too polarized to be willing to discuss them openly and honestly.
Some of the problems with many of these suggestions are practicality (including cost) and effectiveness. They don’t stand up under those microscopes. Another is intended consequences. The video I posted here puts a big hole in the argument for banning large capacity magazines – it’s ineffective in terms of its outcome. We have 2 great and very recent examples of legislation gone awry. One is the changes to California’s “3 Strikes” law that their voters just approved. It was a well-intentioned law in 1994, aimed at the most violent and serious offenders and at the public’s safety. I’m sure it captured some of those criminals – along with thousands of others who committed less serious offenses but were condemned to prison terms of 25 years to life. Now, ~19 years later, people have finally measured and analyzed the effect and 69% of voters said “oh, wait…” The second example is the reporter in Washington DC who is being investigated for violating DC’s “assault weapons” law by “possessing” (in his hand) a high capacity magazine for an “assault weapon” that he used in his television reporting. Was the law really intended to send a reporter to prison for holding an inanimate object in his hand? Of course not! But reporters should not be a special or privileged class. The DC law was written explicitly to include his action (possession) as a felony offense. Should that reporter be tried, convicted and sent to prison (assuming the magazine in his hand was real and not an inert demo model)? Justice says no. The law says yes. Put him in prison as scapegoat and martyr until this whole ugly “gun control” issue is resolved and then give him the same rights of appeal afforded to criminal felons. It appears he broke the law, albeit a senseless one – like others being proposed by the anti-gun lobby. A 4th problem with some of the suggestions, of course, is infringement of our “…shall not be infringed…”, constitutionally guaranteed 2nd Amendment rights.
I’m listening and considering, PM. I hope others on both sides of the issue(s) are too. The FB news feed is constant, of course. And it’s all over the map as I have friends strongly entrenched on both sides of the issue(s). As I look outside FB, however, at several Piers Morgan / CNN interviews, other interviews, numerous articles and press releases, I’m finding that the most reasoned and logical (as I judge them), less emotionally driven arguments seem to be coming from people on the “pro-gun” side. As an example, I became aware of Lieutenant Colonel (US Army, retired) Dave Grossman a few years ago but had never looked into his work. He’s a former psychology professor at the West Point US Military Academy, an author of a handful of books about psychology, killing, etc., and a perceived expert and public speaker on these topics. Since Newtown I’ve looked into some of his work. He’s been addressing some of these issues, violence in schools, mental illness, effect of violent video games, etc., for many years in his work with law enforcement and other organizations. There are clear-headed, intelligent people out there, like him, who have good, supportable, affordable ideas. But before we can pursue any real solutions, people need to realize their cows (and statistics & correlations) aren’t sacred (at least not to everyone) and be willing to listen to and consider others’ perspectives in a more holistic, honest discussion / debate. These issues are too important to be given any less.
===
Related blogs:
Firearms Blog Collections
California Firearms Blogs
No comments:
Post a Comment