Email from good friend RE AW ban

[GTKrockeTT]

Please take the time, for your future and the future of our children.

The national ban on military-style assault weapons will expire on Monday,
September 13th, unless President Bush and Congress act now. President Bush
promised to renew the ban, but instead he's letting it expire -- he has
refused to call on Congress to deliver it for his signature.

For 10 years the assault weapons ban has taken the deadliest weapons off our
streets, cutting their use in crimes 66 percent. But beginning Tuesday the
14th, an 18-year-old will once again be able to buy an AK-47 assault rifle
in most states.

We can stop this if we speak up now. President Bush and Congress must renew
the assault weapons ban, not let it expire. Please join me in demanding it,
at:

http://www.moveon.org/savetheban/

Thank you.

__________________________________________________

He obviously did not realize I am supporting the expiration of the ban (not that it matters much for us CA folk). I guess the gun safe full of....guns didn't paint that clear a picture as to where I stood.

He shot me back an email when I responded that I actually stood on the other side of the fence in this matter, stating "I guess this is one area where we agree to disagree?" I know we're going to get into this subject as some point or another down the road. I wouldn't mind hearing from some of you guys on how I can "convince" him otherwise.

 

[rl2669]

take him to the range...

Let him see that firearms are NOT inherently dangerous, deadly, etc.

In fact, they are quite a bit of fun actually.

Show him the difference between "assault" weapons and non, emphasizing the cosmetic nature of their differences.

Rob

 

[Bad Words]

Agreeing to disagree is more useful for things that you don't have a very strong opinion about. If he cares enough about the AWB to be sending letters to his friends urging their support, then he should be open to hearing arguments from the other side. If he wants to shut his ears, that's just close-minded and unreasonable.

 

[CZ 75 BD]

www.clintongunban.com is the best presentation of our side that I have seen.

 

[ReadyontheRight]

an 18-year-old will once again be able to buy an AK-47 assault rifle

You may want to point out to your friend that his e-mail diagrees with reality.

An "assault rifle" fires in 3-round burst or fully automatic. An "assault weapon" is a made-up term banning guns that "look" like military weapons.

No military in the world would use any of the weapons defined in the 1994 AWB as "assault weapons". They use "assault rifles", which have been heavily regulated since the 1930s in the U.S.A.

If you fill out the correct paperwork, pay for the federal tax stamp, get approval from your local law enforcement and pay the hefty fee for the gun, you could own and shoot an AK-47 in 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003 and you can own one today and for the forseeable future.

The 1994 AWB had nothing to do with a fully-automatic AK-47.

 

[pytron]

Funny, I got the same e-mail from a friend. If hope you don't mind that I've posted the conversation (e-mail) below. He knows that I hunt and (presumably) that I own guns. I thought it was some sort of joke when he first sent it. Anyway, here is of the conversation:

My first reply:

I hope you sent this to me as a joke. I advise you to learn what
you can about the assault weapon ban before you go asking people to
sign a petition. If you do know what the assault weapon ban does, I'd
be shocked if you still insisted on its renewal. Most people do not
even know what consitutes an assault weapon. Do you?

Assault weapons ban sunset - clearinghouse of information about the ban
http://www.awbansunset.com/

Washington Post article on the "effectiveness" of AW ban
http://www.nightly.net/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=print_topic;f=39;t=000599

The assault weapon ban is bad law. Leaders of the anti-gun movement
have been quoted as saying "that it did not make one whit of
difference". It is a clear infringement on freedom, I thing I value
dearly. Ironically, the assault weapons ban was in effect when the
Columbine killers struck. Did it make a difference? As far as I can
tell, the guns they used were legal assault weapons and they did not
violate the assault weapons ban. A list of the gun laws they did
violate is here:
http://keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=1350

I'd love to debate this topic in depth, try me.

His reply:

That wasn't a joke. I don't think this is a joking matter. Sounds
like we are both pretty serious, but just on different sides of this one.

I usually appreciate your advice, but in this case I don't need to learn
more about the assault weapon ban in order to support it. If you've already read the websites you sent me to, then we will have to agree to disagree because I strongly disagree with the case made on AWbansunset.com. The arguments against the assault weapons ban persuade me that it is not enough, that more strict control at the federal level is necessary - but it is better than nothing.

I'd argue against almost every point in the AWbansunset.com website that I read, but the most ironic page is called "Why Would Anyone Want to Own
One?". Every argument on the page is a case for why these guns (and others) should be banned. The page argues that the banned weapons are easy to operate - but why do we want guns to be easy to operate? These guns are fun to shoot - who thinks that real guns should be fun to shoot? And they don't "break the bank" - but that's too bad. Believe me when I say that I don't want guns to be easy to use, fun, or cheap. I've lived in two countries [ed: Japan and England] where citizens did not have the right to bear arms and both of those counties have much lower violent crime rates (and are much safer) than the US. If we allow guns then ideally they would be non-lethal, impossible to fire without considerable training, expensive to operate, and generally not desirable. In the meantime I think we should tax guns heavily and spend the proceeds on R&D into self-defense technology so no one thinks that they "need" a gun.

For another opinion, here is a worthwhile article by the Chief of Police
from Seattle:

http://adn.com/24hour/opinions/story/1595127p-9229718c.html

Anyway, I'm not sure we will come to an agreement on this but I can promise not to bug you with gun control e-mail in the future!

My reply to that:

Cool, I love a little debate. It always interests me to learn how "the other side" thinks. I also believed that the assault weapon ban did some good before I learned more about it. I have come to realize that restricting self-defense and the tools of self-defense empower the physically strong and the criminal.

Thanks for visiting that web site and at least giving a shot at
reading about the AW ban. It seems that you don't really care for the
assault weapon ban but rather a general gun ban. The assault weapon
ban is just merely a step in the right direction, although not nearly
far enough.

As to having fun with guns... Guns are tools. Tools of self-defense.
Tools of offense. Just as you might have fun practicing Tae-kwan-do,
I believe it makes sense to have fun practicing self-defense with
guns. Some people enjoy golf. I enjoy bicycling. To each his own.
As long as no one is infringing my rights, go right ahead. Target
practice with guns is as harmless as many other activities.

Guns are incredibly easy to operate. Any idiot can pull a trigger.
It does take skill to properly use them. Just as with power tools for
woodworking. It is very easy to use a circular saw. You wouldn't
want to make it difficult. Any idiot can turn it on and cut up some
wood. But it takes some skill to make a clean, straight cut. A
baseball bat is incredibly easy to use. But in the hands of someone
with malicous intent is can be a wicked weapon. In the hands of a
backyard player it is just an instrument of fun.

I believe it is difficult to compare countries, such as the UK and
Japan, because of differences in culture & politics. There are a lot
of differences between our countries besides our gun control laws.
But the same is true with comparisons to Switzerland & Israel, both of
which are filled with guns. I haven't travelled the world much so I
can't make any comparisons about whether I felt safer or not.

I read Chief Kerlikowske's piece when it came out in the Seattle
papers. I'm happy to pick apart his points:

>>>> The ban was passed for very practical reasons. Prior to 1994,
criminals were armed with enough firepower to outgun the police,
making them nearly impossible to subdue, and allowing them to wreak
terrible havoc in public places. The ban kept military-style assault
weapons out of the hands of criminals.

It also kept scary-looking guns out of the hands of law-abiding
citizens who had and have no criminal record. If we are going to ban
guns wholesale, let's not do it because they look scary, let's do it
because we want to cancel the right of self-defense.

>>>> Since the passage of the ban, federal crime statistics show a
dramatic 66 percent drop in the incidence of assault weapons traced to
crimes.

Tracing guns, as the BATFE is happy to point out, has absolutely no
relevance to the number of crimes committed with guns. But it's a
nice sounding statistic, isn't it. The actual number of crimes
commited with assault weapons was infintismally small. And the number
remains small to this day. Even the Justice Department had to say
that the gun control laws they studied (including the assault weapons
ban) did not reduce crime in any statisically signifigant way.

An interesting thing that I found during my anti-gun/pro-gun research
is that it is very common for the spokesperson for anti-gun
organizations (as well as politically-appointed polic chiefs) to use
emotion-laden arguments and pepper it with misleading statistics like
this one. This is not to say that the pro-gun side never uses
statistics to their advantage, they certainly do. But I believe if
you look hard enough at every number and statistic thrown out there,
you'd be surprised.

>>>>Law-enforcement officers, for the most part, take pride in the
ability to maintain the peace with a sidearm. If this ban is allowed
to expire, our nation's law-enforcement leaders will be faced with the
reality of having front-line officers out-gunned by every street gang,
drug trafficker, and common criminal with access to the neighborhood
sporting-goods store.

On the contrary, police officers as a whole have access to much higher
power weaponry than the average surf, I mean citizen. I love how he
says "outgunnned". The assault weapons ban just bans a few scary
looking features that have nothing to do with firepower. Things like
a bayonet lug. When was the last time you heard of someone
bayonetting an officer, much less anybody? Face it, common criminals
and drug traffickers alike enjoy handguns much more than the "assault
weapon". Why buy an assault weapon that you can't conceal and costs
4x as much as a pistol? Again, if you are going to ban guns, ban all
of them because you don't want people to be able to defend themselves.

>>>>The reality is, when the family firearm becomes an AK-47 or Tec-9
assault pistol, they also become the easy weapon of choice for
would-be school shooters and other violent teens.

The AK-47 is no different than any other hunting rifle. In fact, quite
a few use it for hunting, mostly to prove the point. Again, if you
are going to ban guns, ban them outright, not because they have scary
sounding names. Violent teens like our Columbine killers also
violated a bunch of gun laws. Gee, is it any wonder that criminals
break the law? Are they going to stop a killing because they couldn't
get a gun with a bayonet on it?

>>>>>>How many more lives will the gun lobby put at risk to sell more
assault weapons?

The "gun lobby" as the anti-gunners like to say, is really a
grass-roots effort. It is a bunch of freedom-loving individuals
spread throughout the entire US. The anti-gun lobby, on the other
hand, is mostly funded by a few rich folks who can afford their own
bodyguards and don't have to worry about protecting their family by
themselves.

>>>>>>As law-enforcement professionals, we must demand that our
lawmakers help by keeping in place proven legislation that reduces
crime and keeps our communities safe from violence.

This legislation is not "proven" by any sense of the word, far from
it. But if you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes believable.

His reply:

Uh-oh, looks like we'll be here for some time!

So the issue you've zoomed in on is self-defense, and it sounds like that is
your primary reasoning for wanting this ban to end. Are you planning to go
buy an "assault weapon" as soon as the ban ends? As a vote for your right to self-defense? Do you feel unsafe because the guns you own now aren't sufficient? Let's not make this personal, but this is what I'm hearing in your words.

Let's instead discuss self-defense. Some people want to have a gun for
self-defense, and apparently think other guns are not sufficient and an
assault weapon is necessary. (Otherwise, perhaps they would support gun
rights but also support the ban.) Is this because assault weapons are (I'm
taking this on faith from AWsunset website) easier to operate?

I believe that the percentage of guns misused is great than the percentage
used for the purpose which their owners have for keeping them. i.e., if you
counted all of the guns possessed by American citizens for self-defense, and then counted (A) the percentage which are actually used by their owners in self-defense and (B) the total percentage which are "misused" to: intentionally kill/injure others, attack in the heat of passion or by
someone who is drunk or high, stolen by criminals and used in crimes, used
accidentally by the owner or someone in their family, or used accidentally
by someone visiting their property. Getting absolute statistics on this
would be difficult since, as you pointed out, statistics from the two sides
are about as unbiased as the statistics used in the upcoming election.

But even if your gun (in particular) is three or five times as likely to be
used for self-defense as to be misused, is that an acceptable cost to you?
The equivalent of rolling the dice and maybe you avoid danger or maybe
someone else is killed as a result. And think about all of the gun owners
who are less cautious, less intelligent, more volatile, etc. than you are -
we can't arm you without arming them.

You compared a gun to learning tae kwon do, but an expert in martial arts
doesn't leave that sitting on the shelf while at work. I like the Tae kwon
do example because it requires years of training and discipline, which I
believe reduce the chance of misuse. Guns don't come with that advantage.

"You wouldn't want to make it difficult." but why not? If gun owners keep a
gun for self-defense why shouldn't they be designed to require years of
training to operate? An untrained user is definitely less likely to use a
gun successfully in self-defense than to have it misused.

From the perspective of a logical construction, look at the probability of
gun to be used in self-defense:

% = home invasion + owner home + sufficient notice and forethought + take out and prepare a gun + use it chase away or shoot criminals

Now it doesn't require a home invasion for your gun to be misused; in fact
unless you are attacked/robbed then your gun can only be misused. If you
are attacked/robbed, the right combination of circumstances in which you can actually get to your gun and use it are unlikely. If you make your gun more accessible to make its correct use easier, then its misuse becomes easier as well.

My point: each person who arms themselves for self-defense does so out of
the fear of becoming a victim. Consciously or not, they accept the chances
that they will one day contribute to the misuse of a gun in exchange for
reducing their chances of becoming a victim. The reason why the federal
government and our society have an interest in gun ownership because gun owners are not only affecting themselves with their decision. Their
decision has consequences for everyone else in our society. I don't think
that making all guns illegal overnight is a solution for the misuse of guns,
but I do think that insufficient restrictions on the sale of guns is taking
our society in the wrong direction.

So there you go! My 2 cents turned into a bag full of change.

My final reply (which has gone unanswered thus far):

This is getting fun!

I don't oppose the "assault weapons" ban because I care about "assault
weapons". I will probably never own one and I know only a handful of
people who do and/or will. I oppose the AW ban because I oppose any
gun ban. The AW ban is especially ridiculous since it only bans guns
on scary-looking features and has nothing to do with function or risk
to others. In other words, the guns covered by the AW ban are not
functionally different from those not covered. They are the same
except for some cosmetic differences. This is the same as banning all
black guns because black is a scary color. That is why I think the AW
ban is ludicrous.

I guess the basic question is: do we, as humans, have a right to
self-defense? Is this a right that is inalienable--does it come with
being a human, or is it subject to the whim of others?

I believe that humans have a right to self-defense that is
inalienable. Part of being is a human is a right to live and a right
to defend that life when attacked.

Humans differentiate themselves from animals by using tools. We use
tools to do just about everything in our lives, from eating (fork,
plate) to taking a crap (toilet paper). It makes sense then, that we
should use tools for self-defense.

The question is, what kind of tools are "appropriate" for
self-defense, and who decides? A baseball bat could be an appropriate
tool for a normal adult male, but it would be worthless to an ailing
grandma. I believe it lies in the hands of the user to decide what is
appropriate.

There is a line I'd like to define between self-defense tools and
offensive tools. Self-defense tools have the ability to accurately
repel an attacker within immediate range (where the victim is in
imminent danger of harm) without harming others. Lots of tools fall
in this category: pistol, shotgun, knife, baseball bat, pepper spray,
mace, taser, club, car, brass knuckles, etc. A few tools fall outside
this range and into the offensive category: grenade, missile, bomb,
etc.

Now, some feel it is appropriate to restrict the use of self-defense
tools because of the potential harm that could come of them. But who
gets to decide what is appropriate?

Time for some hypothetical situations. What if it were decided that
large clubs were the only appropriate weapon and all the other tools
instantly disappeared from the face of the earth. Who has the upper
hand in any situation now? The physically strong.

What if the only tool was available were guns? Who has the upper hand
- those who are skilled with the guns. Who can be skilled? Just
about anybody because guns are pretty easy to operate. This is why
guns are called the great equalizer - they eliminate physical
differences.

What about the potential to harm others? With the use any tool, there
is a risk of harm to others. Knives and bats are close-combat tools
and the risk of harm is pretty low. Cars, guns, and tasers are longer
range/higher speed tools and the risk of harm increases. However, all
the tools, when employed properly can accurately repel a close-range
attack without harming others.

So, this would be all fine and dandy if there weren't people out there
who misused these tools (aka criminals). If you believe in the right
to self-defense and that tools are useful for successful self-defense,
you might still object to their use because of their potential for
misuse.

Misuse is a whole different subject. Much like drugs, guns are
frequently targeted for misuse. Also, just like drugs, the cat is out
of the bag. There is no magically recalling guns. Guns are extremely
basic tools and crude single-shot guns can be created by amateur
machinists in hours. No one does it in the US because we have a
supply of professionally-made guns. Not to mention the threat of
prosecution. Besides just smuggling guns in from other countries,
folks in the UK have converted pellet pistols to fire .22 caliber
bullets. Rebels have created their own weapons for decades. Often
the results are crude, but a bullet from a crude gun can kill just as
easily as one from a professional machine. Even if you *poof*
eliminated all guns from the planet, people could still make them. My
point is, guns aren't going away. We have to deal with them.

One way to deal with guns is to ban them, or regulate them so heavily
they are basically banned. Let's look at another attempt at banning
substances—drugs. It would be relatively easy for someone even as
unconnected as myself, to find and buy some drugs. Sure, it might
take me a few days to find a willing seller, but I bet I could do it.
The fact is, drugs are illegal and dealers are prosecuted frequently.
That doesn't stop the distribution because there is always a demand.
Just as there will always be a demand for guns.

I don't take drugs (in the non-alcohol sense), never have, must likely
I never will. But I respect the rights of others to do what they
please with their bodies. I accept the consequences that some people
might do themselves and others harm because of impaired thinking. We
have laws against harming others and I believe those are sufficient.

I think drugs should be regulated and taxed by the government. Is
this contrary to my opinion on guns? No. If guns were not an
integral part of self-defense I would be happy to regulate them and
tax them. But the fact is, they are part of our inalienable right to
self-defense.

Hope that wasn't too much. You can see I'm trying to appeal to his logical side by working the self-defense angle. I have found that is the easiest to explain. The 2nd amendment route is a lot tougher to argue and easier to derail with emotion. I am also trying to stay polite and am thankful that he is even taking the time to reconsider his position. I'll keep you posted with any results.

-Pytron

 

[tulsamal]

I convinced my parents with a little visual aid. I got the AK, CETME, FAL, and AR out of the safe and laid them on the bed. I then pointed out to them that every one I own is actually "post-ban." I showed them the prices in the latest SOG. Then we had the visual aid. I picked up the FAL which is an STG58. I showed them the Tapco muzzle brake on the end that is supposed to look like the STOLL. I then showed them the old STOLL. "If I put this piece on the muzzle, it is an illegal assault rifle. If I take it off and put the identical one with different slots on it, it is perfectly legal. How does that affect the lethality of the rifle?"

When you can kind of wave a FS in your hand while talking, it helps them understand the real stupidity of the law.

I have friends that disagree with me about the AWB of course. But I have argued with them enough that they at least realize the real choice is either a much, much tougher law or nothing at all. The current AWB is neither fish nor fowl and does nothing but create criminals out of confused law abiding citizens.

Gregg

 

[AZ Jeff]

Your friend stated the following:

"I believe that the percentage of guns misused is great than the percentage
used for the purpose which their owners have for keeping them. i.e., if you
counted all of the guns possessed by American citizens for self-defense, and then counted (A) the percentage which are actually used by their owners in self-defense and (B) the total percentage which are "misused" to: intentionally kill/injure others, attack in the heat of passion or by
someone who is drunk or high, stolen by criminals and used in crimes, used
accidentally by the owner or someone in their family, or used accidentally
by someone visiting their property. Getting absolute statistics on this
would be difficult since, as you pointed out, statistics from the two sides
are about as unbiased as the statistics used in the upcoming election."
=================================================

Actually, there is a LOT of data to show that firearms are used FAR MORE OFTEN to THWART crime than to advance it. It would be easy to show him that not only is a MINISCULE percentage of the overall firearms population used by criminals, but even better, when the "good guys" use firearms to stop crime sucessfully, it's MUCH more often than when the "bad guys" use firearms to accelerate their goals.

 

[pytron]

Actually, there is a LOT of data to show that firearms are used FAR MORE OFTEN to THWART crime than to advance it. It would be easy to show him that not only is a MINISCULE percentage of the overall firearms population used by criminals, but even better, when the "good guys" use firearms to stop crime sucessfully, it's MUCH more often than when the "bad guys" use firearms to accelerate their goals.

I couldn't tell if you were talking about the orignal posters' friend or mine, but I'll respond as if you were talking to me.

Very, very true. I tend to avoid this line though because it distracts from my main argument: self-defense as a right. The beauty of that reasoning is that is has nothing to do with statistics. While I believe our side overflows with positive stats, it is too easy for anti-gun groups to just say that the "study has been discredited" (by their own paid and widely discredited study). It also avoids the argument of how much return should we expect for our "investment". I.e. If, for every one gun-use crime there are 10 defensive gun uses, is that enough for us to justify allowing use by law-abiding citizens?

-Pytron

 

[jefnvk]

18-year-old will once again be able to buy an AK-47 assault rifle

Well, I'm not really sorry to say thats not true. In fact, the only reason I didn't buy a WASR-10 a few months ago, was because I bought an SKS instead