spacemanspiff
Senior Member
okay, so i got a little verbose with my email. Enjoy!
Dear Anita
I have a few questions about your article. First off, how much research did you do in the background of the 1994 Assault Weapon Ban (AWB)? The way the article is written it leads me to believe that the data was taken from gun control proponents so-called ‘fact sheets’. I will address each point made in your article:
“"The key point is that this policy of extending the ban is key to ensuring the health and well-being of patients affected by gun violence," said Amy Shulz, a registered nurse who is president of the Madison chapter of Physicians for Social Responsibility. "These weapons cause huge internal damage by attacking many organs at once."
Any projectile from a firearm is going to cause massive tissue and organ damage. The attributes of an ‘assault weapon’ do not make their projectiles any deadlier than that of a non-assault weapon. Every attribute of an assault weapon that is banned from manufacture by the ’94 AWB are cosmetic features. The pistol grips, the collapsible stock, the flash hider, bayonet lugs, magazine well forward of the grips, forward handle, magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, do not make the weapon any more dangerous than one that does not have those features.
The entire point of the AWB was to restrict weapons that looked scary.
What makes an AK-47 different than a M-1 Carbine? Both are semi-automatic rifles. Both can have bayonets attached. Both can have flash hiders on their barrels. Both have magazine wells forward of the stock grips.
The ban prohibits the manufacture, sale or possession of semi-automatic rifles, shotguns or pistols designed to maim and kill with a spray of bullets.
That statement is not true. The AWB restricted the sale or possession of semi-automatic rifles that had enough features to qualify as a ‘assault weapon’, but only if they were made after September 14, 1994. Any rifles with those features manufactured prior to that date are lawful for private citizens to own. While some manufacturers closed up shop after the AWB was enacted, others obtained contracts with military and law enforcement agencies to manufacture rifles for use by government agencies. They were unable to offer those same weapons to the civilian marketplace though.
It is also untrue that these assault weapons were ‘designed to maim and kill with a spray of bullets’. That entire argument is devised by people who watched a movie like ‘Rambo’, or ‘Predator’ and watched as an actor used a prop with special effects to shoot from the hip. For some reason Hollywood thinks that inaccurate portrayals of firearms makes for better cinema. This is why people still to this day believe that Glock makes a ceramic pistol that can be smuggled through airport metal detectors, simply because a fictional product was mentioned in the movie ‘Die Hard’. And why people think that you can accurately shoot an AK-47 or any rifle from the hip, because Rambo always did it, and so did Arnold in movies like Predator, Commando, True Lies, etc.
What is with the obsession with phrases like ‘spray of bullets’? Anti gun organizations always use that sound bite, as well as ‘bullet hoses’, or ‘high capacity- rapid fire’.
Any semi-automatic firearm can fire as fast as the trigger is pulled. But no weapon is designed for that kind of use. Only a skilled shooter can control the weapon while it is being fired at a faster rate. Recoil and muzzle rise bring the weapon off the target, making it virtually inaccurate to fire as fast as possible.
But Physicians for Social Responsibility says the law has several loopholes and should be amended by:
• Changing the definition of assault weapon to include pistols, rifles and shotguns with a detachable magazine and thumbhole stocks or pistol grips.
• Regulating assault weapon frames and receivers to reduce the availability of gun parts that are easily assembled into deadlier weapons.
• Outlawing the importation, sale and use of high-capacity ammunition magazines, especially those that hold more than 10 rounds.
Gun control advocates have always said they don’t want to ban *all* guns. But that first bullet point shows that their intent is to disarm the entire populace of firearms that have sporting and defensive purposes. Not to mention that this country was founded, not in terms of *needs* but that of WANTS. This country’s forefathers WANTED the freedoms of speech, religion, freedom from taxation without representation, and the freedom to provide for every aspect of their families needs, including that of self defense.
Look at Great Britain: a nanny state that has the government dictating what is approved for their lowly serfs to own or possess. There is no freedom whatsoever in that kind of a society.
And to have gun-control supporters crying about who needs what, is truly unpatriotic.
Although there is absolutely no evidence that the weapons currently banned are more deadly, what evidence does the Physicians for Social Responsibility have that shows that weapons with detachable magazines and thumbhole stocks or pistol grips are a danger to society? The answer? NO EVIDENCE.
I’ve already addressed the fact that the features of a so-called assault weapon do not make the weapon any more dangerous, so I wont beat that horse into the ground with that 2nd bullet point.
What purpose does it serve to restrict how many rounds a firearm can hold? The answer: NONE.
Finally, what is a poll of *likely* voters? Is it a poll of the public, or just those who *might* vote? Sounds like a very unscientific method of obtaining data. I can find a group of “likely†voters and get their opinion on all kinds of topics. But they might not even be in a position to vote, they may be under the age of 18, or be convicted felons, or voices in my head.
Miss Weier, I suggest you do more research before writing articles in the future. Your credibility as a journalist could be jeopardized if you continue to use myths, lies, and misinformation to sell your rhetoric.
