AWB - Critique my letter to Editor

[crazyquik]

Today there was a letter in the paper talking about Columbine, Tec 9s, and how the AWB should be extended. Here is the draft of my responce letter, just wondering what ya'll think and maybe some changes. I usually post on ar15.com which is down for a while, but I did lay out of work to be on the phones just like you guys were fighting to hopefully sunset the AWB.

On April 19th the DTH ran a letter advocating extension of the Assualt Weapons Ban of 1994. The AWB is, in my mind, a shameful fraud and merely a piece of “feel good� legislation with no real value in preventing crime.

The weapons this ban covers are not the Uzis, AK47s, and other military weapons you see on CNN. True selective fire military weapons were already restricted in the Gun Control Act of 1934 and the Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986. The weapons banned in 1994 are semi automatic (firing once per trigger pull) pistols and sporting rifles and that have military style cosmetic features, but they function identically to many common guns. The differences between the banned firearms and legal ones are entirely cosmetic, having no effect on lethality or rate of fire.

The rhetoric that these weapons are only used by terrorists, drug dealers, and armed gangs is also false. The 19 weapons banned in the 1994 ban account for about one-fifth of one percent (.20%) of all violent crimes and about one percent in gun crimes. In 1995, President Clinton’s administration completed a study finding that less than one percent of state and federal inmates used broadly defined “military-type� weapons for crimes prior to the 1994 ban. In 1997, a similar survey of federal inmates showed no reduction in crime committed with the banned “assault rifles.� Clearly, this does not constitute an immanent threat to public safety.

The fact that Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold broke 19 laws prior to entering the school, including production of unlawful destructive and explosive devices, underscores why the Assualt Weapons Ban is critically flawed. It emphasizes restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens, instead of punishing those who break the law. How effective can a bill like the Assualt Weapons Ban be when criminals like Harris and Klebold steal or illegally purchase the firearms?

 

[crazyquik]

Also, thinking about adding something about how military reinactors, collectors, and some competitive shooters have been hampered by the ban, but there is roughly a 300 word limit, which means something will have to be shortened or omitted.

 

[TimRB]

"but there is roughly a 300 word limit, which means something will have to be shortened or omitted."

Then why not leave out the part descibing the difference between full and semiauto? To me, this argument always appears absurdly pedantic, on an issue that gun-grabbers (and maybe even the general population of sheeple) must surely see as academic and immaterial.

But if not for that reason, leave it out because it could backfire. "Assault weapons" are evil. You can see that just by looking at them. But if ordinary rifles are just as powerful, then those should be banned too.

Tim

 

[Tom Bri]

It looks good. Short and sweet. If it is too long they clip it where ever they like, maybe not where you would have. You might even want to shorten it a bit more, so more people will read it.

If the paper allows guest editorials, ask if you can contribute.

 

[crazyquik]

Friend just said they do, and guest editors get 750 words. Might submit one of those, as papers love controversy and this is a left leaning one.

I changed the last sentence to be "How effective can a bill like the Assault Weapons Ban be when criminals rarely use military style rifles? How effective can gun control be when criminals like Klebold and Harris steal, manufacture, or illegally obtain their weapons?"