11 June 2003
Hendrick Hertzberg
The New Yorker
4 Times Square
New York NY 10036-6592
Re: "Building Nations" (Talk of the Town, 9 June 2003)
Dear Mr. Hertzberg:
I am a subscriber to The New Yorker and noticed a statement that you made in your column of 9 June 2003 regarding the occupation of Iraq. You wrote:
That claim is incorrect. The AK-47s which have been given a pass in Iraq are fully automatic rifles, i.e., machine guns. They can shoot multiple rounds with a single pull of the trigger. Machine guns in the United States are regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934. Federal law allows private ownership of machine guns by qualified US citizens willing to jump through the regulatory hoops and pay the $200 transfer tax. (By the way, it may surprise you that only one legally-owned machine gun has ever been used to commit a murder since 1934, and the killer was an off-duty cop.)
In contrast, the AK-47 clones and other so-called "assault weapons" subject to Title XI of the Federal Violent Crime Control Act of 1994 (the "Assault Weapons Ban" which is set to expire September 2004) are all by definition semi-automatics, which means that they shoot only one round with each pull of the trigger. Don't take my word for it. The term "assault weapon" is defined in federal law at United States Code Title 18, Chapter 44, Section 921. The category "assault weapon" includes any "semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2" of the following five characteristics:
folding or telescopic stock;
pistol grip protruding conspicuously beneath the stock;
bayonet mount;
flash suppressor or threaded barrel;
grenade launcher.
I have an AK-47 clone that was manufactured in 2002. Since this post-ban rifle already has one evil feature (a pistol grip), it would be a federal offense ("against the peace and dignity of the state") to attach a bayonet lug. Congress in its infinite wisdom decided to protect us from all those drive-by bayonetings. Does anyone really think that this constitutes a "reasonable gun control" law? In the American gun culture, this ridiculous law is the object of endless derision, and serves only to undercut respect for the law in general.
Do not confuse the term "assault rifle" with "assault weapon." The term "assault rifle" is a technical term from firearms lexicon which refers to rifles which fire a cartridge of intermediate power and are select-fire, i.e., the user can shoot it in either semi-automatic or fully-automatic mode at the throw of a switch. The term "assault rifle" was created in 1944 by German gun designers who referred to their MP-43 as a "Sturmgewehr." So what's the difference? Ten years in a federal prison and a $10,000.00 fine.
In contrast, the term "assault weapon" was invented in the late 1980s by anti-gun people and applied to a category of weapons based not on their functionality, power, bore, cartridge lethality, or anything else substantive, but solely on their appearances. It is a legalistic term and has different meanings depending on whether one adopts the definition put forward in federal law or in California law (or even the more expansive definition proffered by the Violence Policy Center). Ultimately, the term "assault weapon" was invented for sheer propagandistic purposes, just like it its cousin term, "gateway drug." The term simply did not exist until someone wanted to scare the rest of us into banning it.
Don't misunderstand me, Hendrick, I love your magazine, so please accept this criticism as coming from a friend. If you are going to wade into the gun policy debate, it behooves you to get the terms straight. Cosmetic similarities notwithstanding, no "assault rifle" is an "assault weapon." There is a difference between a clip and a magazine, a round and a bullet, an armory and an arsenal. What would you think of someone's pronouncements about stem-cell research if he consistently confused RNA with DNA? The difference is non-trivial, just like the distinction between the Osmonds and the Osbournes. (Hey, they're both families who sing, right? So why split hairs?)
I appreciate The New Yorker's tradition of publishing well-researched, in-depth articles written by journalists who pay meticulous attention to detail. Seymour Hersh comes to mind. However, I have also seen in your pages an urban, liberal, anti-firearms mentality. This mentality is rife at The New York Times, and has actually impaired that paper's ability to accurately report about gun issues in its straight news articles. See Dave Kopel and Paul H. Blackman, "Gray Gun Stories," National Review (9 June 2003).
I saw that viewpoint last year in your otherwise fantastic article about John Ashcroft. I see it in the cartoons drawn by one of your cartoonists. You have one in particular who every once in awhile draws a police officer wearing a shoulder holster. (I cannot make out his name, but one of his cartoons appears on page 76 in the current issue.) He consistently draws the holstered pistol so that the grip faces the wrong way. If you wear a shoulder holster, then you will wear it so that the pistol is on the side of your body opposite your gun-using hand, with the grip facing out (in the same direction that you face) so that you can quickly retrieve it should you ever be unlucky enough to need it. No one who has ever worn a shoulder holster would ever get it wrong. It may be only a small detail, but it's glaring to those of us who know better. It's like conflating the terms "assault rifle" and "assault weapon."
When The New Yorker inevitably turns its attention to the topical debate regarding "assault weapons," I hope that you publish an article that is consistent with the respectable tradition of utmost accuracy.
I want to recommend two resources for you. My favorite pro-firearms website is www.a-human-right.com. Also, you may want to visit http://home.attbi.com/~guys/guns.html and download GunFacts 3.2.
Thank you for taking the time to read my letter.
Regards,
William E. Fason
1302 Waugh Dr #272
Houston TX 77019
Hendrick Hertzberg
The New Yorker
4 Times Square
New York NY 10036-6592
Re: "Building Nations" (Talk of the Town, 9 June 2003)
Dear Mr. Hertzberg:
I am a subscriber to The New Yorker and noticed a statement that you made in your column of 9 June 2003 regarding the occupation of Iraq. You wrote:
That claim is incorrect. The AK-47s which have been given a pass in Iraq are fully automatic rifles, i.e., machine guns. They can shoot multiple rounds with a single pull of the trigger. Machine guns in the United States are regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934. Federal law allows private ownership of machine guns by qualified US citizens willing to jump through the regulatory hoops and pay the $200 transfer tax. (By the way, it may surprise you that only one legally-owned machine gun has ever been used to commit a murder since 1934, and the killer was an off-duty cop.)
In contrast, the AK-47 clones and other so-called "assault weapons" subject to Title XI of the Federal Violent Crime Control Act of 1994 (the "Assault Weapons Ban" which is set to expire September 2004) are all by definition semi-automatics, which means that they shoot only one round with each pull of the trigger. Don't take my word for it. The term "assault weapon" is defined in federal law at United States Code Title 18, Chapter 44, Section 921. The category "assault weapon" includes any "semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2" of the following five characteristics:
folding or telescopic stock;
pistol grip protruding conspicuously beneath the stock;
bayonet mount;
flash suppressor or threaded barrel;
grenade launcher.
I have an AK-47 clone that was manufactured in 2002. Since this post-ban rifle already has one evil feature (a pistol grip), it would be a federal offense ("against the peace and dignity of the state") to attach a bayonet lug. Congress in its infinite wisdom decided to protect us from all those drive-by bayonetings. Does anyone really think that this constitutes a "reasonable gun control" law? In the American gun culture, this ridiculous law is the object of endless derision, and serves only to undercut respect for the law in general.
Do not confuse the term "assault rifle" with "assault weapon." The term "assault rifle" is a technical term from firearms lexicon which refers to rifles which fire a cartridge of intermediate power and are select-fire, i.e., the user can shoot it in either semi-automatic or fully-automatic mode at the throw of a switch. The term "assault rifle" was created in 1944 by German gun designers who referred to their MP-43 as a "Sturmgewehr." So what's the difference? Ten years in a federal prison and a $10,000.00 fine.
In contrast, the term "assault weapon" was invented in the late 1980s by anti-gun people and applied to a category of weapons based not on their functionality, power, bore, cartridge lethality, or anything else substantive, but solely on their appearances. It is a legalistic term and has different meanings depending on whether one adopts the definition put forward in federal law or in California law (or even the more expansive definition proffered by the Violence Policy Center). Ultimately, the term "assault weapon" was invented for sheer propagandistic purposes, just like it its cousin term, "gateway drug." The term simply did not exist until someone wanted to scare the rest of us into banning it.
Don't misunderstand me, Hendrick, I love your magazine, so please accept this criticism as coming from a friend. If you are going to wade into the gun policy debate, it behooves you to get the terms straight. Cosmetic similarities notwithstanding, no "assault rifle" is an "assault weapon." There is a difference between a clip and a magazine, a round and a bullet, an armory and an arsenal. What would you think of someone's pronouncements about stem-cell research if he consistently confused RNA with DNA? The difference is non-trivial, just like the distinction between the Osmonds and the Osbournes. (Hey, they're both families who sing, right? So why split hairs?)
I appreciate The New Yorker's tradition of publishing well-researched, in-depth articles written by journalists who pay meticulous attention to detail. Seymour Hersh comes to mind. However, I have also seen in your pages an urban, liberal, anti-firearms mentality. This mentality is rife at The New York Times, and has actually impaired that paper's ability to accurately report about gun issues in its straight news articles. See Dave Kopel and Paul H. Blackman, "Gray Gun Stories," National Review (9 June 2003).
I saw that viewpoint last year in your otherwise fantastic article about John Ashcroft. I see it in the cartoons drawn by one of your cartoonists. You have one in particular who every once in awhile draws a police officer wearing a shoulder holster. (I cannot make out his name, but one of his cartoons appears on page 76 in the current issue.) He consistently draws the holstered pistol so that the grip faces the wrong way. If you wear a shoulder holster, then you will wear it so that the pistol is on the side of your body opposite your gun-using hand, with the grip facing out (in the same direction that you face) so that you can quickly retrieve it should you ever be unlucky enough to need it. No one who has ever worn a shoulder holster would ever get it wrong. It may be only a small detail, but it's glaring to those of us who know better. It's like conflating the terms "assault rifle" and "assault weapon."
When The New Yorker inevitably turns its attention to the topical debate regarding "assault weapons," I hope that you publish an article that is consistent with the respectable tradition of utmost accuracy.
I want to recommend two resources for you. My favorite pro-firearms website is www.a-human-right.com. Also, you may want to visit http://home.attbi.com/~guys/guns.html and download GunFacts 3.2.
Thank you for taking the time to read my letter.
Regards,
William E. Fason
1302 Waugh Dr #272
Houston TX 77019
Last edited:
