this is from the brady campaign site.
the nra stance and the anti-gun response to weapon ownership. i want to share some thoughts to these stances and offer a more objective perspective to firearms. here are the 1st three.
NRA MYTH #1: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPON
Response: Wrong. The guns covered by the Assault Weapons Act are semiautomatic versions of fully automatic guns designed for military use. Whereas an automatic weapon (machine gun) will continue to fire as long as the trigger is depressed (or until the ammunition magazine is emptied), a semiautomatic weapon will fire one round and instantly load the next round with each pull of the trigger. Even semiautomatic assault weapons can be fired with extraordinary speed. When San Jose, California, police test-fired an UZI, a 30-round magazine was emptied in slightly less than two seconds on full automatic, while the same magazine was emptied in just five seconds on semiautomatic.
Playing word games, the NRA often claims that the only true "assault weapons" are guns that can be fired in the fully automatic mode and that fully automatic guns have been strictly controlled since 1934. The NRA's efforts to mislead the public in this regard, however, have been exposed by the gun industry's own experts, who have used the term "assault weapons" to describe military-style semiautomatic firearms. For example, in 1989, Gun Digest, considered by many to be the Bible of the gun industry, published The Gun Digest Book of Assault Weapons. In the book's introduction, the author stated: "[T]here will always be a place for what are collectively termed assault weapons. ... Most of them are effective for the type of warfare for which they have been designed: close range assault work. That's where firepower is a necessity either to make the enemy keep his head down so you can maneuver or, more permanently, to remove him from the action. ... There is also an element of the civilian population that is showing an increasing interest in this type of weaponry. The vast majority of these shooters and gunowners purchase assault-type weapons limited to semiautomatic fire."1
The gun industry has also used the term "assault" weapon as a selling point to urge civilians to buy semiautomatic versions of machine guns. For example, Intratec, which made the infamous TEC assault pistols banned by name in the federal statute, advertised its line of semiautomatic pistols in magazines such as Soldier of Fortune, Combat Handguns, and S.W.A.T. this way in 1989: "At two-thirds the weight (and price) of an Uzi, the TEC-9 series clearly stands out among high capacity 9mm assault-type pistols."2
first off, i want to present something to you.
Main Entry: 1 as·sault
Pronunciation: \ə-ˈsȯlt\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English assaut, from Anglo-French, from Vulgar Latin *assaltus, from assalire
Date: 14th century
1 a: a violent physical or verbal attack
1 b: a military attack usually involving direct combat with enemy forces
1 c: a concerted effort (as to reach a goal or defeat an adversary)
2 a: a threat or attempt to inflict offensive physical contact or bodily harm on a person (as by lifting a fist in a threatening manner) that puts the person in immediate danger of or in apprehension of such harm or contact — compare battery 1b b: rape 2
weapons were intended to kill food at the beginning of time; whether aminal or human. weapons evolved into either defending ourselves from one another or to attack one another at the beginning of socialization. we don't know which was first. weapons are a symbol of freedom and protection. now human nature has shown that the same weapons are used to destroy and oppress people. that is our history. assault has been defined as negative humans action towards others. it's this association to the term assault that anti-gun lobbies are using to demonize weapons. while we can use weapons to assault others doesn't mean they are assault weapons. criminals and people that are reckless in society assault others with weapons. it's their actions that is the assault. all weapons are versions of military weapons; from arrows to swords to firearms. their history is in combat innovation. semi-autos are civilian compliant full-auto versions of military weapons. simply because the military used a weapon doesn't mean that civilians can't or are unable to respectfully use and own them. the problem is when criminals use them they use them for what? crimes. if people can respect and responsibly own full-auto military weapons, keeping the law, is there any problem with that? no. but criminals and the degenerates in our society run lawless. and they are the ones damaging our peace and security and simple right to own weapons. What does it matter if a weapon is a semi-auto version of a full weapon? full-auto weapons are not illegal to begin with. a semi-auto version of a full auto weapon doesn’t make it any more dangerous in the hands of law abiding people.
you know, humanitarians scream that americans shouldn’t blame and discriminate muslims for terrorist actions, why are law abiding citizens being blamed and discriminated against for respectfully owning weapons that criminals use for their crime lifestyle?
implying that these weapons are "assault weapons" and the people buying them are going to potentially endanger society is ignorance - no wonder people demonize on gun ownership. not to mention the idea we have in our heads about the term assault. people don't see this, and the nra made a big mistake in buying into this nonsense fear mongering, not to mention that morons using assault weapons like features in their advertising. rifles, handguns, shotguns, and any other type of weapons are simply weapons. but now it's how they are used by criminals that classify them?
people that don’t know anything about guns shouldn’t talk about guns, or pretend to know what is and isn’t suitable for civilians hobbies.
NRA Myth #2: Firearms covered by the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban have only "cosmetic" differences from thousands of other semiautomatic firearms.
Response: Wrong. Sporting rifles and assault weapons are two distinct classes of firearms. While semiautomatic hunting rifles are designed to be fired from the shoulder and depend upon the accuracy of a precisely aimed projectile, the military features of semiautomatic assault weapons are designed to enhance their capacity to shoot multiple targets very rapidly. For example, assault weapons are typically equipped with large-capacity ammunition magazines that allow the shooter to fire 20, 50, or even more than 100 rounds without having to reload. Pistol grips on assault rifles and shotguns help stabilize the weapon during rapid fire and allow the shooter to spray-fire from the hip position. Barrel shrouds on assault pistols protect the shooter's hands from the heat generated by firing many rounds in rapid succession. A folding stock on a rifle or shotgun sacrifice accuracy for concealability and for mobility in close combat. Far from being simply "cosmetic," these features all contribute to the unique function of any assault weapon to deliver extraordinary firepower. They are uniquely military features, with no sporting purpose whatsoever.
As the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives ("ATF") has explained:
"Assault weapons were designed for rapid fire, close quarter shooting at human beings. That is why they were put together the way they were. You will not find these guns in a duck blind or at the Olympics. They are mass produced mayhem."
ATF has also described semiautomatic assault weapons as "large capacity, semi-automatic firearms designed and configured for rapid fire, combat use. ... Most are patterned after machine guns used by military forces. They have distinct features which separate them from sporting firearms." Accordingly, ATF has concluded that assault weapons "are not generally recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes" and instead "are attractive to certain criminals."
no gun is meant to be shot at the hip, who does that? people in hollywood movies. i had to laugh at that because these brady campaign and anti-gun people are ridiculous. seriously.
all rifles are meant to be shot from the shoulder, aiming at your target, with accuracy. how are you to hit your target otherwise? pistol grips for shooting at the hip?? this paints a picture of our military running around battle like a john woo film. go to any range across america or any military training facility and tell me who’s shooting from the hip there? no one. no one. no matter what rifle, no matter what weapon features, everyone is sighting down the weapon sights at their target from the shoulder. most ranges have rules against rapid fire as it posses some dangers to the shooter and the weapon.
today weapons do have large magazines but rarely do people fire them rapidly or spray fire at a range. One shot, sight in the target and fire another shot. i myself, seldom load up to full capacity when target practicing. the only time i do is test a full magazine feed for weapon safety reasons. I won’t speak for everyone, but everyone I know does the same at the range.
barrel shrouds are for the shooter’s protection, not to burn yourself and accidentally fire the weapon if coincidently you have your finger on the trigger.
Folding stocks are for compacting the weapon for transporting in a case, bag or on duty. Yes this makes the weapon concealable. there are a handful of weapons with this feature: certain models of aks and ak clones, certain types of uzis, but what about the number of other rifles that don’t have this feature not a barrel shroud that are listed in this ban?
all of our weapons are designed and tested for the military. today’s weapons are more accurate, durable, reliable, safer, more innovative. those designs cross over to the civilian market. when did it seem that this crossover is somehow unethical? unmoral?, or unsafe? or mass mayhem? they become "sporting" semi-auto, single purpose, stripped down in feature set variants of military weapons. are civilian weaponry not supposed to come from military weapons when that's been the case since its inception? the sporting reference is target shooting for marksmanship or leisure and hunting. no where does it mean olympic shooting. who made that distinction? the anti-gun lobby did.
who has the final say on what is a sporting rifle or not? the gun makers? the anti-gun lobbies? pro gun civilians, anti-gun civilians? these people claiming that military "style" weapons are dangerous in nature simply have a personal opinion and feeling about weapons, regardless what the weapon purpose or function is, and it's fueled by what criminals do with what is legal by law to possess. that is not balanced, fair, or objective. civilians can own full-auto weapons legally, by law. why is that wrong? because of the notorious glorification we see in movies, tv, music, the news and biased web sites like the bradycampaign.
NRA Myth #3: Assault weapons are rarely used in crime.
Response: Not true. Crime gun traces performed by ATF showed that between 1986 and 1992, assault weapons were traced to 1,578 murders, 940 assaults, 224 robberies, and more than 4,500 narcotics arrests.6 Because only a fraction of the guns used in crime are traced by the ATF, these figures understate the criminal use of these guns. The real number of crimes committed with assault weapons may be up to ten times higher.7 Moreover, before the Federal ban, assault weapons were used in some of the worst mass murders ever committed in the United States. For example:
The McDonald's shooting - On July 18, 1984, James Huberty killed 21 people and wounded 19 others in a San Ysidro, California, McDonald's using an UZI assault pistol and a shotgun.
The Stockton schoolyard massacre - On January 17, 1989, Patrick Purdy killed 5 small children and wounded 29 others and a teacher at the Cleveland Elementary School in Stockton, California, using a semiautomatic AK-47 assault rifle imported from China. That weapon had been purchased from a gun dealer in Oregon and was equipped with a 75-round "drum" magazine. Purdy shot 106 rounds in less than 2 minutes.
The Louisville, Kentucky, workplace massacre - On September 14, 1989, Joseph Wesbecker killed 7 people and wounded 13 others at his former place of work in Louisville, Kentucky, before taking his own life. Mr. Wesbecker was armed with an AK-47 rifle, two MAC-11 assault pistols, and a duffle-bag full of ammunition.
The CIA headquarters shootings - On January 25, 1993, Pakistani national Mir Aimal Kasi killed 2 CIA employees and wounded 3 others outside the entrance to CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia. Kasi used a Chinese-made semiautomatic AK-47 assault rifle equipped with a 30-round magazine purchased from a Northern Virginia gun store.
The Branch-Davidian standoff in Waco, Texas - On February 28, 1993, while attempting to serve Federal search and arrest warrants at the Branch-Davidian compound in Waco, Texas, four ATF special agents were killed and 16 others were wounded with an arsenal of assault weapons. According to a Federal affidavit, the cult had accumulated at least the following assault weapons: 123 AR-15s, 44 AK-47s, 2 Barrett .50 calibers, 2 Street Sweepers, an unknown number of MAC-10 and MAC-11s, 20 100-round drum magazines, and 260 large-capacity banana clips. The weapons were bought legally from gun dealers and at gun shows.
The San Francisco Pettit & Martin shootings - On July 1, 1993, Gian Luigi Ferri killed 8 people and wounded 6 others at the San Francisco law offices of Pettit & Martin and other offices at 101 California Street. Ferri used two TEC-DC9 assault pistols with 50-round magazines. These weapons had been purchased from a pawnshop and a gun show in Nevada.
The firepower of assault weapons makes them especially desired by violent criminals and especially lethal in their hands. Prior to the Act, although assault weapons constituted less than 1% of the guns in circulation,14 they were a far higher percentage of the guns used in crime. ATF's analysis of guns traced to crime showed that assault weapons "are preferred by criminals over law abiding citizens eight to one. ... Access to them shifts the balance of power to the lawless."
The NRA and its supporters have cited Justice Department studies based on surveys of state and Federal prisoners to claim that assault weapons are used in only 2% of crimes nationally. These studies, however, actually confirm the disproportionate use of assault weapons in crime. More than 80% of these prisoners used no firearm in the commission of their crimes. Within the category of inmates who used guns to commit crimes, semiautomatic assault weapons were actually used in 6.8% of state prosecutions and 9.3% of Federal prosecutions.16 Both percentages are much higher than the estimated 1% of guns in circulation that are assault weapons.17 They are also far higher than the misleading 2% figure cited continually by the NRA.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/guic.htm
this is the latest report referred to by both the nra and bradycampaign. 2% of all crime involved an assault weapon is not clear, however compared to crimes involving guns - handguns were used 86%of the time as type of weapon preferred by criminals. this is from the report.
The predominant type of handgun produced has also changed duringthe last two decades from manual revolvers to semi-automatic pistols. Firearms used by offenders reflect a trend toward semi-automatic pistols. Last year, nine of the 10 most frequently traced guns were pistols. Abouta third of the 83,000 traced guns were 3 years old or less and one-fifthwere 1 year old or less.
Most firearms in circulation are rifles and shotguns, not handguns. While precise estimates of the numbers and types of firearms in operatingcondition are not known, about one-third of the 223 million firearmsmanufactured for domestic sale or imported into the United States from1899 through 1993 were handguns (77 million) and two-thirds were rifles(79 million) or shotguns (66 million).
Surveys of inmates show that they prefer concealable, large- caliberguns and that juvenile offenders appear to be more likely to possess semi-automatic weapons than adult offenders.
this is very clear. the ak-47, ar-15 and the tec pistol are the main weapons in crimes, because they are cheap, costing less than a handgun in most cases, and are compact. these are the "assault" weapons at the heart of this ban and problem. yet the anti-gun lobby has done everything to let you know that we are in a an assault weapons predicament, when handguns are the true problem in assaults and homicides. why is that? when you read what the waco people had, all those weapons immediately become a danger to society, because these people just happened to have them?
we own many things during our lives; bats, knives, clubs, cars, pens, etc. these things are a part of ordinary life, but when criminals use them must we re-examine their meanings? reading these statements, i understand the power of firearms, but i also understand we are not attacking the problem of crime. taking away guns doesn't stop crime, however these findings by the bradycampaign suggest they are part of the problem. they are not. this ban and the ideas behind the anti-gun lobby simply state that american civilians are not capable of owning guns. it doesn't even matter what type of gun is at the heart of the discussion. if a criminal picks up gun x, we must ban gun x. how does that really, truthfully solve our problems?
No comments:
Post a Comment