Response to AWB '13 announcements


PDA






hso
January 25, 2013, 04:09 PM
This is the intact multipoint comment I made at HuffPost to an article on Senator Feinstein's "reveal" of her AWB '13.

There were a number of incorrect statements in the unveiling of Senator Feinstein's proposed AWB '13 legislation. I'll attempt to address the major myths perpetuated.

These firearms/magazines increase violent crime rates - Violent crime rates reported by the FBI Uniform Crime Report and the BJS NCVS have been dropping since the expiration of the old AWB. The same UCR shows modern sporting rifles and their magazines that Sen. Feinstein has wanted to ban for the past 20+ years constitute a tiny fraction of all murders. Even the National Research Council report done for the Clinton administration stated there were too few of them used in crimes to be statistically relevant. Murder rates reported by the FBI and the homicide rates reported by the NCVS have fallen to nearly half of the high for this generation and have fallen since the expiration of the '94 AWB, where the NRC stated they weren't relevant, while these firearms have become more popular with the public they can't contribute to a rising violent crime rate that is actually falling.

No sporting purpose - This is repeated often, but simply isn't true. These rifles have been used in hunting and personal defense since the '60s. They have been used for competitions for 20+ years. Today there are more participants in official competition with them than competitive shotgun competitions. Articles on their suitability for hunting are found in every hunting publication. Ads for their hunting use date back to the late '60s. Reviews of their performance are found on hunting websites. Television programs focused on hunting have featured them specifically with respect to deer hunting and controlling destructive feral hog populations. The US Park Service and National Forrest Service contract for feral hog control services using these firearms. "Traditional" hunting rifle manufacturers like Remington have invested in tooling and added these types of rifles and offer them specifically for hunting. Any search for "AR deer hunting" or "AR hog hunting" will provide sufficient evidence these firearms are used for hunting.

No defensive purpose - This is also repeated often with the same inaccuracy. Recently in Rochester NY a resident used an AR to protect himself and roommate against armed intruders. This occurs every year. Departments of the U.S. government issue RFPs for "personal defensive weapons" requesting bids for these rifles. These modern rifles are used effectively for personal defense by citizens and the federal government departments and agencies define them as personal defense weapons.

Just for killing - Government and university studies show that firearms are used from half a million to 2.5 million times a year to stop violent crime. http://www.saf.org/lawreviews/kleckandgertz1.htm That's a remarkable contrast to the roughly 8,000 murders committed with every type of firearm reported in the FBI UCR. This is also in contract to the sporting uses in hunting and competition noted earlier and the personal defensive definition of government RFPs.

Senator Feinstein has been promoting the same agenda for 20+ years while violent crime rates drop, personal defense and sporting use of these firearms increases. Her attitudes, information and legislation are at odds with the facts, government data, and the increasing popularity of these firearms for sport, hunting, and personal defense.

If you enjoyed reading about "Response to AWB '13 announcements" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Artigas
January 25, 2013, 04:27 PM
Excellent article. Solid. I will have to check out the SAF's site.

Ryanxia
January 25, 2013, 05:46 PM
Nice, lots of facts/references and to the point.

Sam1911
January 25, 2013, 05:51 PM
Stellar! Fairly concise and comprehensive at the same time!

Is it acceptable to you to have folks spread this around, quote it, repost it, etc.? And if so, what attribution should they use?

hso
January 25, 2013, 05:57 PM
Anything I put up here is usable in any form.

Since it was for a comment I didn't have the links to the cited documents/websites and I think those are important so no one can claim the facts are lies. All those are in the Resources page and at guncite.

58limited
January 25, 2013, 08:02 PM
Excellent!

481
January 25, 2013, 09:51 PM
hso,

With your permission I'd like to use your point-by-point commentary in my correspondence to my representatives and senators. Very well done.

pty101
January 26, 2013, 12:38 AM
Great response! What kind of reactions are you getting to it?

Ash
January 26, 2013, 12:44 PM
I'm using it in my arguments.

topdawgi71
January 27, 2013, 08:10 AM
Well done!!

RetiredUSNChief
January 27, 2013, 08:26 AM
Outstanding!

To strengthen the support for these points in my own arguments with people, do you have links to some of these references? Nothing helps better than to actually show people hard copy of "the National Research Council report done for the Clinton administration", for example.

It's one thing to talk about it...it's another to show it to them in writing. This tends to make it more "real" for these people, especially when the sources are coming from their own camp (i.e. "Clinton administration" equaling "Democratic party").

Same for the RFPs by various government agencies and so forth.

OilyPablo
January 27, 2013, 08:45 AM
Excellent, sharp, concise points. Great response. If it appears on the website, please post a link.

THANKS!!

If you enjoyed reading about "Response to AWB '13 announcements" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!