Purdue editorial: Automatic Assault rifles easy to buy

Status
Not open for further replies.
Although it is legal to hold such a weapon, that doesn't mean it's right.
Click to expand...
...WOW... So he must believe in a political system where what is "right" is not determined by a majority of the citizens and thus made legal. Tyranny maybe?

I also wrote two emails, one to the author and one to his editor.
 
You take one thing written by one individual and decide it applies to all students in such a large area of study.
Click to expand...

True, it was a very broad statement... but it is partially truthful. I had two liberal arts degrees finished before I realized that I had almost no employment opportunities. So... I entered law school. :)
 
I was going to email him too, but I'm too lazy to tear him a new one, and I see that other people are emailing him. For those who do email him, post his responses, if he gives you any.
 
yet another college paper prints yet another ridiculously flawed article. Do they bother to research first? I don't think so. It's just what tons of college students do for their papers.... make a whole bunch of baloney up that sounds good and hope for a B. Then they become professional reporters! This guy got started early.
Click to expand...

Actually these days you can just buy papers. You don't even have to write them anymore.
 
This article was an opinion piece, although the author used illogical thinking, and did not research the facts. However, he is just as entitled to his opinion as anyone else. But just keep in mind that "opinions are like a$$holes, everyone has one, and most of them stink."(copyrighted by me)
 
This article was an opinion piece, although the author used illogical thinking, and did not research the facts. However, he is just as entitled to his opinion as anyone else. But just keep in mind that "opinions are like a$$holes, everyone has one, and most of them stink."(copyrighted by me)
Click to expand...

Actually, those born with the condition known as imperforate anu$ (apparently anatomical terms are censored) don't have an... never mind. :p

But seriously though, misinformation, on *ALL* subjects run rampant in college newspapers' opinions sections, regardless whether or not the writer is espousing a liberal or conservative viewpoint. I can't count the number of times there would be opinions "journalists" discussing how WMDs were found in Iraq...
 
he is just as entitled to his opinion as anyone else
Click to expand...

That is true in my book too, so i limited my email to simple factual and legal flaws, plus my disgust that he would publish such a misleading and erroneous paper, especially when it regards such an important subject.
 
Actually it hasn't been professional since, oh, Samuel Johnson's day.
Click to expand...

Great guy(1709-1784).We could sure use him today.I'd love to see him debate Clinton or Obama.Or Guiliani and Romney.It would be a slaughter.
The all time master of the English language.
 
Here's my response to Mike

I decided to write a quick response to Mike; I hope there are no technical goofs contained ;)

timothy


Mike:

I noticed your article in the Exponent because it was linked from a forum (about guns and related things) called The High Road. I suspect your email box has a lot of angry responses to your article; this isn't one.

First, a disclaimer: I used to feel similarly about guns as I get the impression you do, but have changed my mind. The reasons are complex, but I'm sure they aren't all that different from the litany of reasons you might get from anyone else, so I won't bore you with them.

I want to comment on two small things:

1) Terminology gets us gun enthusiasts worked up sometimes. In particularly, the word "automatic" as it applies to guns can be tricky to use in a way that would please an alert NRA member. (Yes, I am one of those NRA guys, but that's both incidental and not something I'm very attached to.) "Automatic" is a term of art -- if it were easy to legally buy automatic weapons, lots more people would. As it is, it's a very expensive, very intrusive process, and as a result there are not all that many automatic weapons legally owned by private citizens. There are some, Yes, but as a class they're quite exotic, simply because of the rules around their sale and possession. Confusingly, many common handguns are known as "auto-pistols" (as in "automatic pistols"), but that's a convenient shorthand rather than a technical description. Put simply: an automatic weapon (as construed by the law, and by anyone with reason to use the term with precision) is one for which a single pull of the trigger results in more than one bullet being launched down the same barrel. This can result in a burst of a certain number of shots, or continuous firing until the magazine is empty. Unless that AK-47 was illegally modified or sold, it's almost certainly the case that it was in fact semi-automatic rather than automatic . That means, just like with Wyatt Earp's six-shooter, that the user needs to manipulate the trigger separately each time he wants to fire. It may seem a small point, but the law hinges on just such distinctions.

You may have been emailed as well about the term "assault weapon." if you choose to describe a particular gun as an "assault weapon," that's your right, but this term has no clear meaning, other than as a pejorative. A military-styled rifle may strike you as menacing, but it functions the same way as does the most innocuous-looking typical hunting rifle. It's also misleading in some contexts, because of its similarity to "assault rifle," which describes a certain subset of true automatic weapons.

2) It's a shame that this country has the insane, destructive drug laws that it does. However, firearms purchasers at retail stores are required to fill out a form asserting that they are not unlawful users of certain drugs (such as marijuana); if that gun was purchased from such a store, it seems likely that the purchase was actually unlawful. Given the perverse incentives involved, I'm troubled (as you were, though for different reasons) by the confluence of cash, gun, and illegal marijuana.

Especially if you haven't before, I hope you get a chance to go shooting sometime soon with someone who is experienced and a good teacher; I suspect you'll find that most gun owners are respectful and safety oriented, and that guns are as safe as the people around them. Further, I'd suggest giving a go at shooting an AK-47 -- it really is a blast. My commonplace advice would be start with a .22 or other small-caliber gun, though, if you haven't shot before. You may end up feeling no different about things like registration, but every time you shoot or learn more about guns, you'll be writing from a position of greater knowledge.

I hope this finds you well,

Tim Lord
Click to expand...
 
huff.jeremy said:
..WOW... So he must believe in a political system where what is "right" is not determined by a majority of the citizens and thus made legal. Tyranny maybe?
Click to expand...

What is 'right' is not defined nor determined by the number of people who believe theirs to be the better case.
 
yhtomit, I couldn't have said it better myself. I was going to send a similar e-mail and be informative rather than hostile. You hit that nail on the head. I wholeheartedly disagree with his position, but I figured out long ago that its more successful if you discuss the matter with un-decided's/anti's, rather than blast them. If you get a return, please post it. I hope you get an intelligent reply.
 
Problem is that when you start telling the nice folks that what they -know- is an assault weapon is not one, their eyes glaze over while the kook alarm in their forebrain goes off...

The message to give the guy is that "assault weapons" as he knows them are very seldom used in crimes, along with "if you're really concerned about preventing another VA Tech incident, lobby for concealed carry on campuses, so that responsible people can serve as a deterrent."
 
What is 'right' is not defined nor determined by the number of people who believe theirs to be the better case.
Click to expand...

Yes, that is true too... and i guess we could have a long philosophical talk about what makes something "right", but this thread probably wouldn't be the place.

My two cents... just to explain msyelf: Basically, unless you believe in a higher power that tells you what "right" is, there are an infinte number of theories as to what makes something "right". To me, it seems that what is "right" has always been determined by the majority of people in a society.

Slavery was right once, then became wrong with changing attitudes; witch hunting was right once, but become wrong when society changed; beating of ones wife was right once, but that changed. Etc...

I am not saying you are wrong... just saying I am not either :)
 
I was going to post on this myself. I saw this article between work and class in what was supposed to be my weekly relaxing lunch. I'm composing an opinions letter that I'm hoping the Exponent will publish in reply.

This is disturbing to me for more reasons than most of you are expressing. I'm going on my fifth year of involvement with the Purdue Rifle and Pistol Club, and in that we've managed to get the club a long way. As can be expected with a campus gun organization, we're in a very precarious position. A few years before my time the club was denied an on-campus range to practice on. This club, and some of the friends who were members when I first came to college, was responsible for changing my way thinking about guns, which once was similar to the article's author. It does the same for a couple dozen people every semester. In Mr. Lord's post he suggested the author try to go shooting, and I know that that is the most effective method for disabusing firearm fear and ignorance. I really want to ask this guy to come by some Monday night and shoot with us. But what of the consequences? Most of the campus isn't aware of us, and many that are I've found are largely unaware of what the club does. They think we sit in a room and talk about guns once a week. They're not aware that we store forty or fifty guns on campus that we bring out and shoot three times a week. What if after he realizes what we do, his next article espouses the danger he believes he represents? The poor quality of his writing will not fail to convince people, Liberal Arts students or not, reading comprehension and critical thinking are at a deficit here. I believe quite strongly that any outcry against us could easily lead to the club being shuffled off.

I really don't know if attempting to convert this person is worth the risk it may present. My gut says invite him, but my mind say don't. Anyone here have any thoughts?
 
I find it strange, disgusting, and disheartening that a group of people(the left, particularly the college left) who claim so loudly to have the upper ground on fact, logic, and education, completely turn off their brains and go out of their way to avoid education in something like guns. They actually view ignorance about guns as something to strive for, as some sort of badge for their "non violent" and "enlightened" ways. They talk and talk and talk about how they know all there is to know about science and learning, and that you're a buffoon if you don't subscribe to all of their theories like global warming, and yet, you point out glaring factual errors that aren't even debatable in their arguments about guns, and they see these errors as something positive, or they deny the errors outright.
 
My submission to the opinions section of the Exponent:

After reading Mike Westervelt's column entitled "Assault rifle discovery raises questions for Purdue students, city" it became very clear that the author has little to no knowledge of firearms or firearm law, something I believe one should have at least a passing acquaintance with before publishing an opinions article about the subject.

His most glaring error was his assumption that the rifle found was automatic. I find that highly suspect. Automatic weapons have been heavily regulated since the National Firearms Act of 1934. They are so rare at this point, a legally-purchased fully-automatic AK-47 costs more than 10,000 dollars. I find it hard to believe that a college kid could afford that. It was certainly not an illegal automatic, as no charges were filed, and the penalties for having two pounds of weed pale in comparison to what happens if you get caught with an illegal machine gun.

So the gun must have been semi-automatic, and was thus covered by the ten-year ban on "assault weapons" enacted in 1994, a ban which Mr. Westervelt implies was effective. In fact, it did little, in theory or in practice. Gun crime did not decrease during the ban's tenure. In fact, the ban did not really ban anything. The law contained a list of "assault weapon features" such as a bayonet lug, a magazine that could hold more than ten rounds, or a flash hider. A firearm with a certain number of features was declared an assault weapon, and its production banned. The semi-automatic AK-47 found would not have been covered by the ban, because it did not have enough of these features, and the same goes for most other "assault rifles." In fact, sales of "assault rifles" increased during the ban, and firearms manufactured before the ban were not subject to its regulation. The only thing it accomplished was inconveniencing law-abiding gun owners that wanted to have extra accessories.

And what makes these "assault rifles" so fearful and deadly in the first place, and why would banning them solve any problems? So few of them are actually used in crime that when the government releases annual murder statistics statistics, they do not even have a category for "assault rifles." Over the past few years, the percentage of murders committed with rifles - ALL rifles, from single shot to bolt action to "assault rifles" - account for less than two percent of the nation's wrongful deaths. More people are beaten to death with bare hands and feet than were killed with rifles, more than two times as many. The percentage of bare hand murders tends to hover at around 5% from year to year. Countries that have enacted such bans, or bans on other types of firearms have seen reductions in the number of firearm-related murders, but their overall murder rates stays the same. People just find other tools to kill each other with.

Mr. Westervelt, it is very clear that you expressed a very strong opinion about something you know next to nothing about. I encourage you to learn. You, or anyone else that may be unfamiliar with firearms is welcome to attend the Purdue Rifle and Pistol Club (Mondays at 7pm in the Armory) and see what these objects you condemn are really like. Despite the actions of small minority of stupid, irresponsible gun owners like the one you wrote about, gun owners are decent people just like everyone else. I know you'll be skeptical, I once thought as you do now. Basing your opinions, especially your published opinions, on an instinctual reaction instead of facts and research is intellectually dishonest. Again, I encourage you to try to learn the true nature of firearms and base your opinions on that instead of fear.
Click to expand...
 
"Oh well then, if the federal government decrees something, I guess that ends the debate right? They're never wrong right?"

As far as most of the antis are concerned, that does end the debate.

Lots of these people really believe that the government is responsible for everything in their lives, including their own personal protection. When you point out to them that this is not the case, according to the SCOTUS, they can get really nasty!

They don't like having their bubbles burst.
 
I really don't know if attempting to convert this person is worth the risk it may present. My gut says invite him, but my mind say don't. Anyone here have any thoughts?
Click to expand...

This is a hard question to answer. On the one hand, he has some pretty strong views, and inviting him might only give him a chance to look for any little thing to support his position (plus what you mentioned in your post). Plus, he's a moron, so the chances of you reasoning with him aren't good.

On the other hand, since he clearly is stupid and impressionable, inviting him might give him more perspective on gun owners. To be honest with you though, I don't think inviting him will make a difference. What I would do is wait until the next issue and see who writes in to support his position, and invite them to the meeting. Perhaps they might be more moderate.

Another way you could go is to write a letter saying how disturbed you were about this guy's misconceptions about firearms, and extend an open invitation to everyone for one of your meetings. Those are just my thoughts.
 
Oops sorry Irishman, I didn't read your letter before I replied. It's a great letter. Good luck with it.
 
We don't need to get into the cliche debate of general gun control, but I hope few would argue the need for automatic assault weapons within city limits.

Thanks, Mike. How about instead we talk about the 2 lbs of illegal narcotics and the stack of (presumed) dope money. You gave that part of the story rather short shrift, didn't you? Do you give your tacit approval to such activity? I can only conclude by your lack of outrage that you do.
 
My email to the author:

Hello,

My name is Chase Wickersham. I read your article you wrote at the following link:

http://www.purdueexponent.org/?module=article&story_id=9450

While I was impressed you mentioned the Constitution protects the right to bear arms, overall it is very poorly researched. For example, you wrote: "Because the federal assault weapons ban expired in 2004, if you can pass a background check, you can legally own such automatic guns."

You CANNOT own "automatic" weapons by simply passing a background check. You can own a "semi-automatic" weapon by passing said check.

Just using the above example, using scary words like AUTOMATIC, when the weapon mentioned in the article is not, demonstrates the use of propaganda and not journalism.

Another example, "As the federal government decreed in 1994, assault weapons just don't belong in our communities." Please show how the "Assault Weapons Ban" deterred crime at all? Please present an argument as to how it isn't just a step toward banning more and more and more and more weapons based on silly features like a bayonet lug. How many crimes were committed using a bayonet during the 10 year period of the AWB? Do you actually know the specifics of which cosmetic elements of a weapon such as the AK-47 were banned?

AK-47's are not in the class of "Bazookas" as you mentioned either. Please do more research, maybe present "both sides" of the argument and assume your potential readers are of a higher intelligence than that of propaganda.

Sincerely,

Michael C Wickersham
 
He's a Liberal Arts major, what can you expect. Unfortunately he'll be running for some federal office in the near future.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

T
  • Locked
Purdue University paper article on campus concealed carry
Replies
2
Views
1K
highorder
H
I
  • Locked
Purdue Editorial board re: Concealed Carry On Campus
2
Replies
30
Views
1K
Deanimator
Deanimator
E
  • Locked
ATFE misinformation campaign continues
Replies
4
Views
2K
Seancass
S
S
  • Locked
How to respond to a different "qualification" argument?
2
Replies
28
Views
1K
Robert Hairless
R
F
  • Locked
Student faces 10 felony charges
Replies
18
Views
2K
El Tejon
E
Back
Top