NY Times Gun disinformation! (not like you didn't expect that!)

[carebear]

Wasn't it also the NSSF who lobbied to raise the FFL rates to drive out the bedroom gun dealers? Or was that the stocking dealers organization?

Anyway, it was for "safety and the flippin' children."

Everybody wants to protect their little pie and is willing to lose the larger war to do it. It's like the Irish vs. the English all over again.

 

[FPrice]

carebear...

"Wasn't it also the NSSF who lobbied to raise the FFL rates to drive out the bedroom gun dealers? Or was that the stocking dealers organization?"

I want to say that it was the stocking dealers because the home-based FFL's could undercut them severely.

I do remember several years ago on the old Compuserve Firearms Forum replying to an anti-gun forum leader who posted an article about a gun dealer in the midwest. He was speaking out against gun shows and other venues which he did not like to compete against. IIRC he was a full-price dealer and much of his criticisms were based on his desire to drive out the competition.

 

[Matt G]

The SKS is a precursor of the AK-47 assault rifle. Though it has a longer barrel, it otherwise looks much like the AK-47.

Sure. They're nearly identical. Oh yeah, except for the fact that the action system is differnet, the magazine is different, the manufacture method is different. . .

It has become popular in the United States among gun collectors, target shooters and some criminals, because it sells for less than $200, or more than $100 less than an AK-47, said Kristen Rand, legislative director of the Violence Policy Center, a gun control group.

Your first source for firearms information!

 

[riverdog]

Email from NSSF

FYI.

December 9, 2004

To Whom it Concerns:

Yours was among a number of e-mails that the National Shooting Sports Foundation received following a New York Times article about the firearm used to kill six hunters and wound two others in Wisconsin last month. As a fellow supporter of hunter rights and gun rights, I want to take this opportunity to clarify the position of NSSF on military-style firearms and quotes attributed to me that appeared in the article.

The Times’ article of Nov. 23, 2004, and other media articles have exploited the criminal attack on the Wisconsin hunters in order to promote an agenda against lawfully made and owned military-style semiautomatic rifles. Semiautomatics have long been legal for hunting under the laws of most states. The 7.62 X 39 mm rifle reportedly involved in the Wisconsin killings fires a .30 caliber bullet that many hunters routinely use to humanely take deer at moderate distances within 150 yards.

I understand your concern over the quotes attributed to me in The New York Times. They were not accurate in context, having come out of a lengthy and wide-ranging discussion with the reporter on a variety of issues, including arguments made by antigun organizations, now seeking to exploit this tragic incident, about so-called “assault rifles†being “high powered†and on various cartridges and firearms suitable (and lawful) and unsuitable (and unlawful) for hunting deer. The interview also went into a discussion of hunter ethics and the differences in state laws regulating hunting equipment. The quotes that appeared in the article were taken out of context or were incomplete. They do not reflect the position of the National Shooting Sports Foundation on the suitability of using military-style semiautomatic firearms for hunting and other perfectly lawful purposes, nor do they represent my personal views.

Our organization, which helps 40 million Americans safely enjoy hunting and recreational shooting, supported the expiration of the misnamed "assault weapons ban" for a number of good reasons. Chief among them was that the "ban" had no effect on crime. "Banned" guns and those functioning identically to them were legal to own and available for sale throughout the decade following the "ban†in 1994. During that time, crime rates, especially those for murder, dropped by about half. What the ban was intended to do was make the argument that some guns are “bad,†in order to serve the ultimate purpose of arguing that all guns are bad. (That is also the purpose behind some newspaper articles and editorials.) Inanimate objects, of course, are neither good nor bad. Guns without criminals are not a problem, but criminals—even those without guns—always are.

The focus should be on prosecuting the individual who committed the horrible crime in Wisconsin, not disparaging millions of responsible gun owners for the rifles they own.

Thanks for your understanding.

Lawrence G. Keane
Senior Vice President and General Counsel
National Shooting Sports Foundation