Who Really Needs an "Assault Rifle"?
TIEMANN BRUCE
argument for, say, a city council meeting in which banning "assault
rifles" is being considered. I would, hypothetically, have 3 minutes to
speak.
Thank you.
***********************************
Does anybody really need assault rifles, that hold 40 or 50 round
magazines and that have no other purpose than killing large numbers of
people, rapidly? What honest citizen would ever want to do that for?
Does anyone really need Jaguars and Ferraris, with 8 or 12 cylinders that
can drive far faster than any speed limit? Speed kills, and an Accord
will get you to work. Each year 50,000 people die on the roads and many
more are maimed for life.
Does anyone really need Nikon or Hasselblad cameras? Disposables take
fine pictures and their owners won't get robbed as do owers of needlessly
expensive cameras that take needlessly sharp pictures. Furthermore some
people have lost their reputations or their lives over a single,
unfortunate photograph that was published in the mass media.
Does anyone really need football? Players often get seriously injured,
and fans sometimes erupt in violence, injuring others and destroying
property, and it has been associated with the crimes of betting, underage
drinking, and spousal abuse amongst the fans, and rape, murder, and drug
use by the players. It also costs our community hundreds of millions of
dollars, in stadium taxes and student athletic fees. (N.B. Denver passed
a stadium tax, ~$250 million to be raised in three years, I think.)
Does anyone really need computers capable of over 400 million operations
per second, or disk drives capable of storing 10 or even 20 billion bytes
of information? Limiting CPUs to 100 MHz, and disk drives to 2 GB or even
200 MB would still be adequate for any conceivable need of law-abiding
citizens, but would reduce the capabilities of hackers and frauds.
Does anybody really need to buy eggs a dozen or 18 at a time? Eggs are
popular for vandals, and since children don't cook, why are they even sold
to them? And since millions of people die of heart disease every year,
common sense, point-of-sale medical background checks would ensure that
only healthy adults would be able to buy them.
Does anyone really need swimming pools? They produce nothing, yet each
year thousands of innocent children drown in them. For every single one,
it's only a matter of time before yet another innocent life is ended.
Does anyone really need more than $100,000 salary? People can live
comfortably on much less, and large sums of money are often associated
with crimes including murder. Reasonable salary and savings caps would
not affect most citizens, but would destroy the profit incentive that
causes some to exploit others or destroy the environment, and hit men
could be priced right out of the market.
Does anybody really need assault rifles, capable of killing large numbers
of people, rapidly? Well, this one I can answer. In the 1991 L.A. Rodney
King riots, Asian-American storekeepers with such rifles presented enough
of a credible threat to the rioters, without even needing to fire at all,
that their stores were left alone. Unarmed storeowners were not so lucky.
As for the other things, I will leave it to you to decide what level of
"reasonable need" is necessary to keep something from being banned
outright for its otherwise intolerable social cost.
********************************
MLee388407
numbers
>of people, rapidly? Well, this one I can answer. In the 1991 L.A. Rodney
>King riots, Asian-American storekeepers with such rifles presented enough
>of a credible threat to the rioters, without even needing to fire at all,
>that their stores were left alone. Unarmed storeowners were not so lucky.
Thats my standard answer....also realize that the police were leaving the hot
zone and told the citizens they were on their own.
Mike
rec.guns.
Carman
proper attribution. Thank you.
TIEMANN BRUCE wrote in message <87i6s6$kvl$1...@peabody.colorado.edu>...
>Does anybody really need assault rifles, capable of killing large numbers
>of people, rapidly? Well, this one I can answer. In the 1991 L.A. Rodney
>King riots, Asian-American storekeepers with such rifles presented enough
>of a credible threat to the rioters, without even needing to fire at all,
>that their stores were left alone. Unarmed storeowners were not so lucky.
>
Stuart Heal
those unnecessary 30-round mags - they're way too dangerous.
Anyway, they're illegal where I live. I've got a defence rifle
instead. It's a .22 semi-automatic and has a 177-round drum
magazine. I think that'll do for most home defence situations
:-)
Stuart Heal
Quiet loner with an arsenal of weapons.
http://olympia.fortunecity.com/naseem/170
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Panhead
>
> tiemann wrote>Does anybody really need assault rifles, capable of killing large
> numbers
> >of people, rapidly? Well, this one I can answer. In the 1991 L.A. Rodney
> >King riots, Asian-American storekeepers with such rifles presented enough
> >of a credible threat to the rioters, without even needing to fire at all,
> >that their stores were left alone. Unarmed storeowners were not so lucky.
>
> zone and told the citizens they were on their own.
And they said Cops were dumb! <g>
Jim Yanik
says...
>
>Political activists: Please comment on the suitability of the following
>argument for, say, a city council meeting in which banning "assault
>rifles" is being considered. I would, hypothetically, have 3 minutes to
>speak.
>
>Thank you.
>
>***********************************
>
Who wants a government that determines what YOUR needs are for you? We do not
want Big Brother.Let each of us determine what our own needs are.That's the
-American- way.It's called FREEDOM.
Jim Yanik,NRA member
>Does anybody really need assault rifles, capable of killing large numbers
>of people, rapidly? Well, this one I can answer. In the 1991 L.A. Rodney
>King riots, Asian-American storekeepers with such rifles presented enough
>of a credible threat to the rioters, without even needing to fire at all,
>that their stores were left alone. Unarmed storeowners were not so lucky.
>
TIEMANN BRUCE
Jim Yanik <jya...@deleteiag.netdelete> wrote:
>In article <87i6s6$kvl$1...@peabody.colorado.edu>, tie...@spot.Colorado.EDU
>says...
>>
>>Political activists: Please comment on the suitability of the following
>>argument for, say, a city council meeting in which banning "assault
>>rifles" is being considered. I would, hypothetically, have 3 minutes to
>>speak.
>>
>>Thank you.
>>
>>***********************************
>>
>
>Who wants a government that determines what YOUR needs are for you? We do not
>want Big Brother.Let each of us determine what our own needs are.That's the
>-American- way.It's called FREEDOM.
>
>Jim Yanik,NRA member
If you read the rest of it, I think you will find that I am on your side.
But I would like to convince a city council that seems to think us peons
don't "need" so-called assault rifles. Though I agree with your quickie
argument above, I'm not sure it will register in the heads of my intended
audience - hence my longer exposition.
T.Woosley
threat than any other rifle, pistol, or shotgun. Semi-auto assault rifles
can fire no more rapidly than a typical semi-auto rifle or shotgun. They
are only capable of killing large groups of people because they have a large
capacity magazine. Just because an individual owns a firearm of this type
doesn't mean that they intend to use it for that purpose. I own a 15+1
capacity semi-auto pistol but I have no intention of going out and shooting
16 people just because I can. I target shoot this gun to keep my shooting
skills sharp and it is a convenience to not have to load so often. In a
self-defense situation, reloading may give the assailant an opportunity to
inflict harm that otherwise wouldn't have occurred. Assault rifles are used
in hunting, target shooting, and protection in the home...just like other
firearms.
If an individual wishes to inflict harm or kill, they will. If a gun is not
available, they will use a knife, baseball bat, explosive device, a rock, or
their bare hands. If we remove every possible "instrument of death" new
ones will be created. Killing did not arrive with guns... remember Cain and
Able?
TIEMANN BRUCE <tie...@spot.Colorado.EDU> wrote in message
news:87i6s6$kvl$1...@peabody.colorado.edu...
> Political activists: Please comment on the suitability of the following
> argument for, say, a city council meeting in which banning "assault
> rifles" is being considered. I would, hypothetically, have 3 minutes to
> speak.
>
> Thank you.
>
> ***********************************
>
TIEMANN BRUCE
T.Woosley <twoo...@home.com> wrote:
>I still don't understand why anyone feels that assault rifles pose any more
>threat than any other rifle, pistol, or shotgun.
The fact is, there are people who do feel that. Nine of them, in fact, on
my city council. Out of nine seats. Rumor has it that they want to pass
more gun control, and banning "assault rifles" is one of several things
they want to do. I don't want them to. How do I convince them to change
their made-up minds?
I have three minutes (per every other week) to speak to them. What can I
possibly say to convince them to not propose, or not pass, any such law?
What would you say. I highly doubt "What part of 'shall not be infringed
don't you understand'" will work for them.
Storm L. Johnson
the use of these arms to protect my country and our freedom. If I have to
fight, I need to be armed well enough to resist effectively. So, what's the
point? It's simply my job and my obligation.
Dan Day
>
>Does anybody really need assault rifles, that hold 40 or 50 round
>magazines and that have no other purpose than killing large numbers of
>people, rapidly? What honest citizen would ever want to do that for?
Although you implicitly refute this characterization of "assault rifles"
in the rest of your speech, I think it's a big mistake to appear to
concede major false anti-gun demonization of certain firearms.
"40 or 50 round" magazines are very rare even for true military firearms.
30 round magazines are the most common size limit. Also, the firearms
that most areas consider banning are NOT "assault rifles" (assault
rifles are fully automatic firearms) -- the "assault weapons" that
some bodies try to ban are simply semi-automatic, and no different from
many other "politically correct" firearms. Finally, these firearms
most certainly do not "have no other purpose than killing large numbers
of people", nor can they do it all that "rapidly" (the "rapidly" seems
to imply machine-gun fire).
In the rest of your speech, you refute the "who needs" and "no other purpose"
part of your above paragraph, but you do NOT properly refute the
"assault rifle", or "40-50 round", or "no other purpose", or "rapidly"
portions of your above paragraph. And by leaving them unchallenged,
you appear to agree that they are true. To some people, those remaining
"characteristics" of "assault rifles" are alone more than enough reason to
ban them forever. Don't give them that excuse.
>Does anyone really need Jaguars and Ferraris, [snip]
>Does anyone really need Nikon or Hasselblad cameras? [snip]
>Does anyone really need football? [snip]
>Does anyone really need computers capable of over [snip]
>Does anybody really need to buy eggs a dozen or 18 at a time? [snip]
>Does anyone really need more than $100,000 salary? [snip]
You use too many examples, belaboring what is obvious after the
first two or three examples, plus you dilute your impact by
including some examples that are real stretches (cameras? Eggs?)
That time could better be spent undermining the several other
excuses that people lean on in order to try to justify firearm bans,
besides the single "who needs" crutch. You might want to also
shoot down the most popular myths about "assault weapons", including
the myths that they are machine guns, or more powerful than standard
hunting firearms, or in any way more suitable for murder or less
suitable for hunting or self defense.
>Does anyone really need swimming pools? They produce nothing, yet each
>year thousands of innocent children drown in them.
Hundreds, not thousands.
>Does anybody really need assault rifles, capable of killing large numbers
>of people, rapidly? Well, this one I can answer. In the 1991 L.A. Rodney
>King riots, Asian-American storekeepers with such rifles presented enough
>of a credible threat to the rioters, without even needing to fire at all,
>that their stores were left alone. Unarmed storeowners were not so lucky.
The store owners not only protected their stores, but their own lives
as well.
As did the people in the congressional testimony that I will post
as responses to this post. Read them over, and feel free to use
their personal cases as further examples of "assault weapons" protecting
innocent lives, and/or as source material which can point the way
towards additional methods of arguing against restrictions on so-called
"assault weapons".
--
"How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the
plain Meaning of Words!"
--Samuel Adams (1722-1803), letter to John Pitts, January 21, 1776
Steve
my attention and stayed with me. Roughly, he said something like,
'if you hear 2 people in an argument, ( the out of control emotional kind)
95% of the time, you can trace the source of the argument back to
the people involved having different understandings of the meanings of
one or more words. My experience suggests that his observation
if frequently true.
What better way to stir up volumes of argument, than to propose
legislation centering on a term which has no clear single definition ?
I'm going to assume a pre-ban AR-15 (not the full auto M-16)
represents the 'assault rifle' for this discussion. I'll assume it has
a flash suppressor, a pistol grip, a bayonet lug, and the magazine
that was standard for the M-16 when I was in the military, a
20 rounder.
"T.Woosley" wrote:
> I still don't understand why anyone feels that assault rifles pose any more
> threat than any other rifle, pistol, or shotgun.
Under certain tactical scenarios, some of the features that people use
to describe 'assault rifles' do, indeed have tactical advantage.
1) Pistol Grip - a famous gun battle between the FBI and a couple
of criminals (Florida) resulted in a situation where an agent had
access to a shotgun, but was unable to employ it, because one
of his hands had been severely injured. If the shotgun had been
equipped with a pistol grip, he could have successfully employed
it.
2) Flash suppressor - A rifle without a flash suppressor may, via its
muzzle flash, draw a straight line back to the location where the
holder of the weapon is. A good flash suppressor spreads the
flash somewhat asymmetrically, and makes targeting the holder
of the weapon more difficult.
3) Bayonet lug - When fighting is close in, and your weapon jams
or runs out of ammo, the bayonet may save your life.
4) Magazine - allows the arm to be quickly replenished with
a substantial fresh supply of ammo. Imagine a single shot
arm in a fight with 2 or more adversaries, and you can see the
advantage of a large magazine.
5) Barrel Length - Try to move through a doorway, and keep
a duck gun with a 30 inch barrel, parallel to the door
opening and the floor. Can't be done. If you lead with
the firearm, an adversary who sees the barrel coming through
the door can prepare for the person following it, or, direct
fire at where the person holding it is.
The 'well regulated militia' part of the second amendment suggests
to me that 'assault weapons' are exactly the weapons the founders
intended to secure our rights to, and should be the last weapons
we ever compromise on.
> Semi-auto assault rifles
> can fire no more rapidly than a typical semi-auto rifle or shotgun. They
> are only capable of killing large groups of people because they have a large
> capacity magazine. Just because an individual owns a firearm of this type
> doesn't mean that they intend to use it for that purpose. I own a 15+1
> capacity semi-auto pistol but I have no intention of going out and shooting
> 16 people just because I can. I target shoot this gun to keep my shooting
> skills sharp and it is a convenience to not have to load so often. In a
> self-defense situation, reloading may give the assailant an opportunity to
> inflict harm that otherwise wouldn't have occurred. Assault rifles are used
> in hunting, target shooting, and protection in the home...just like other
> firearms.
>
> If an individual wishes to inflict harm or kill, they will. If a gun is not
> available, they will use a knife, baseball bat, explosive device, a rock, or
> their bare hands. If we remove every possible "instrument of death" new
> ones will be created. Killing did not arrive with guns... remember Cain and
> Able?
>
> TIEMANN BRUCE <tie...@spot.Colorado.EDU> wrote in message
> news:87i6s6$kvl$1...@peabody.colorado.edu...
> > Political activists: Please comment on the suitability of the following
> > argument for, say, a city council meeting in which banning "assault
> > rifles" is being considered. I would, hypothetically, have 3 minutes to
> > speak.
> >
> > Thank you.
> >
> > ***********************************
> >
> > Does anybody really need assault rifles, that hold 40 or 50 round
> > magazines and that have no other purpose than killing large numbers of
> > people, rapidly? What honest citizen would ever want to do that for?
> >
> > Does anyone really need swimming pools? They produce nothing, yet each
> > year thousands of innocent children drown in them. For every single one,
> > it's only a matter of time before yet another innocent life is ended.
> >
> > Does anyone really need more than $100,000 salary? People can live
> > comfortably on much less, and large sums of money are often associated
> > with crimes including murder. Reasonable salary and savings caps would
> > not affect most citizens, but would destroy the profit incentive that
> > causes some to exploit others or destroy the environment, and hit men
> > could be priced right out of the market.
> >
> > Does anybody really need assault rifles, capable of killing large numbers
> > of people, rapidly? Well, this one I can answer. In the 1991 L.A. Rodney
> > King riots, Asian-American storekeepers with such rifles presented enough
> > of a credible threat to the rioters, without even needing to fire at all,
> > that their stores were left alone. Unarmed storeowners were not so lucky.
> >
> > As for the other things, I will leave it to you to decide what level of
> > "reasonable need" is necessary to keep something from being banned
> > outright for its otherwise intolerable social cost.
> >
> > ********************************
Cheers
Steve
TIEMANN BRUCE
John E. Castasus <jcas...@boinkers.foo.mindspring.com> wrote:
>In article <87ijv2$3bq$1...@peabody.colorado.edu>, tie...@spot.Colorado.EDU
>> >I still don't understand why anyone feels that assault rifles pose any more
>> >threat than any other rifle, pistol, or shotgun.
>>
>> my city council. Out of nine seats. Rumor has it that they want to pass
>> more gun control, and banning "assault rifles" is one of several things
>> they want to do. I don't want them to. How do I convince them to change
>> their made-up minds?
>>
>> I have three minutes (per every other week) to speak to them. What can I
>> possibly say to convince them to not propose, or not pass, any such law?
>> What would you say. I highly doubt "What part of 'shall not be infringed
>> don't you understand'" will work for them.
>
>year. Compare that to the number of crimes committed by handguns. Then ask
>them why they're focusing on assault rifles instead of handguns.
Sadly it's not question-and answer, at least not yet. (When it comes up
to be voted on, it might become so.) I don't think any crimes have been
committed by "assault rifles" here in Boulder in years, possibly never.
But they are swept up in the latest gun control frenzy and it looks like
they don't want to fall behind. I have already challenged them that crimes
such as a gang rape and the murder of Jon Benet Ramsey would NOT have been
prevented by banning "assault rifles" so, what exactly are they really
trying to accomplish.
Since many gun-grabbers (or at least gun-grab indifferents) I talk to ask,
who would ever need such a weapon? The post is my answer to them.
>Not that it'll help, but I'm curious to see just how much of a danger
>assault rifles are in your neck of the woods.
Zip, I'd say, except in their minds. They don't want guns in their
schools, in their homes - why, they don't want them in their town they're
so ugly, dirty, dangerous. This is what I'm up against.
Dan Day
> A logic instructor I once had, made a statement that really caught
>my attention and stayed with me. Roughly, he said something like,
>'if you hear 2 people in an argument, ( the out of control emotional kind)
>95% of the time, you can trace the source of the argument back to
>the people involved having different understandings of the meanings of
>one or more words. My experience suggests that his observation
>if frequently true.
Mine too.
Back in college, I took so many philosophy courses that I was one
credit short of qualifying for a Minor in Philosophy. (I probably
should have gone for it -- it'd look real funny on the resume.)
And after countless hours studying various famous philosophical
debates, I came to the firm conclusion that most of them were
simply disputes over definitions. One of the more familiar
examples is the age-old "free will versus determinism" debate.
Once you sufficiently pin down your definitions of "free will"
and "determinism", the question pretty much answers itself.
Of course, it's hell getting any two people to agree to use
the same definitions...
Dan Day
>I'm still a soldier (even though not on active duty any longer) well versed in
>the use of these arms to protect my country and our freedom. If I have to
>fight, I need to be armed well enough to resist effectively. So, what's the
>point? It's simply my job and my obligation.
Congratulations -- you've just perfectly elucidated the Framers' thinking
behind the Second Amendment...
Dan Day
>As did the people in the congressional testimony that I will post
>as responses to this post. Read them over, and feel free to use
>their personal cases as further examples of "assault weapons" protecting
>innocent lives, and/or as source material which can point the way
>towards additional methods of arguing against restrictions on so-called
>"assault weapons".
Here you go:
PREPARED TESTIMONY
SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF REPEALING
THE 1994 GUN BAN
Prepared Testimony of Sharon-Jo Ramboz
Before the U.S. House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime
March 31, 1995
My name is Sharon-Jo Ramboz of Walkersville, Maryland, and I
thank this subcommittee and especially Congressman Roscoe Bartlett
for asking me to testify, to tell my story.
There are literally millions of stories involving people and
firearms in this great country. Whether these stories are simply
about recreational shooting or hunting or self-defense from
criminal attack, Americans have had a profound relationship with
firearms dating back centuries, well before this nation was born.
My story, however, did not begin until the 1970s, when I was
in high school. After getting out of bed one weekday morning and
moving about my house, I heard someone upstairs. This didn't alarm
me because I assumed it was my dad. He worked unusual hours. I
called my mother at work to check in with her as I normally would
and in the course of the conversation I asked her when dad was
going to work. My mother explained that my dad was already at
work. I responded, no he's here.
We never finished the conversation. I began screaming because
I saw a man running down the stairs toward me. When he reached me,
he took the phone and hung it up. He then proceeded to beat me.
The last thing I remember is his hands around my neck and me laying
on the floor. His gun was laying near enough to me, for me to try
to reach it. It was almost as if he was daring me to pick it up.
He could see that the terror in my eyes was almost equally
divided between his face, hands, and his weapon. He seemed to know
that we were a non-gun-owning family and presumed, quite correctly,
that I was afraid of guns.
After beating me, he left, leaving me for dead.
I physically survived the attack, however, I lived in total
fear of the assailant's return and was constantly reminded by my
school peers that I had been victimized. In fact, I was unable to
finish the school year because this attack had destroyed my
emotional stability.
It was soon after I was married that my husband, a
recreational shooter and hunter, insisted that I learn to shoot.
I resisted. He insisted. I did not even want a gun in the
house.
The back-and-forth went on for some time. As a former crime
victim, self-protection was paramount, or so his argument went.
Safety was also paramount, I would counter. After all, we had
three young children.
Finally, I acquiesced. My husband taught me safe, responsible
gun handling. Both of us taught our children respect for firearms.
I grew more confident and became proficient with the firearm.
Then there was an intrusion. Another criminal attack.
Another assault in progress. In the aftermath of the attack,
police reported to me that the criminals were professionals and
that they were obviously well aware of the fact that the children
and I were alone. The break-in was timed minutes after my husband
left the house for his job.
I woke up as the assailants broke in and I calmly walked to
our closet where the firearm was stored. I grabbed my Colt AR-15
semiautomatic rifle chambered in .223 Remington. I inserted the
magazine while I was in the closet. I walked to the top of the
stairs. Then I pulled back the bolt, and, letting it go, chambered
a round.
That distinctive sound -- indeed, that sound and the
distinctive appearance of this firearm -- was all I needed to
protect four innocent lives and send multiple perpetrators
scurrying.
As in most self-defense uses of guns, no shot was fired.
I used a semiautomatic rifle -- a gun identical in function to
firearms lawfully owned by millions of Americans. I am convinced
that this gun, indeed its features and appearance, saved not just
my life, but the lives of the three most important people on earth.
My children.
I was well trained with this rifle and I would not have felt
as secure and confident with a handgun. I still think about today
what might have happened to my children and me and the trauma that
my children might have had to live with if I could not have
defended them. I wonder if I would even have my children today, or
if they would have their mother.
So convinced of the importance of this particular rifle and
the overall issue of self-defense and Second Amendment rights, I
actually became bold enough to visit members of my state
legislature when Maryland was considering banning the rifle I used
to save lives. I remember telling my story to state lawmakers.
My husband and I agreed then -- and we agree today -- that
telling my story was -- and is -- the right thing to do. I hope
you, Members of Congress, can be bold enough to do the right thing.
The right thing is, vote to safeguard our right of self-defense.
The right thing is, vote to uphold our Second Amendment rights.
The right thing is, vote to repeal the Clinton gun ban. The right
thing is, go after the animals who prey on women and children, not
the woman trying only to protect her family and her rights. Thank
you.
Prepared Testimony of Gary Baker
Before the U.S. House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime
March 31, 1995
Thank you, Chairman McCollum and members of the House
Subcommittee on Crime for the opportunity to give testimony today.
The morning of December 2, 1994 began like any other day at my
store, Beverly Hills Jewelers, as my employees and I waited on
customers and handled repairs. But it would end like no other day.
I was working at the back of the store around 10:15 a.m., when
I looked up and saw a masked man coming towards me. I could not
tell if the man was armed because the height of the counter hid his
hands from view. I picked up a .38 caliber revolver which lay on
my desk and stood up. The assailant then jumped up on the counter
and I realized he was armed with a handgun.
At that moment, there was an opening shotgun blast from the
robber's partner who had positioned himself at the front of the
store, cutting off our escape. In self-defense, I then fired at
the assailant immediately in front of me and so did an employee who
was standing to my right. All five of my employees and I were
armed with 5-shot .38s at that point and three of us returned fire.
As previously trained, the other employees had taken defensive
positions and were pushing panic/hold-up buttons which alerted the
police.
The assailant closest to me fell mortally wounded off the
service counter, while the other assailant with a sawed-off shotgun
dove behind a sales counter. He yelled that he was hit and when
told to throw his gun out, he stated that he would do so. This
turned out to be a stalling ploy as he reloaded and then fired
again, wounding me with heavy buckshot. I picked up my 12 gauge
pump shotgun and returned fire on the assailant. Both assailants
lay dead or dying when the police walked through the front door.
During this terrifying shootout, as we ran out of ammunition,
my employees and I were forced to retrieve other loaded guns.
Approximately 35 rounds of ammunition were exchanged by the time
the second assailant ceased firing.
I am thankful that I chose to train my employees to defend
themselves with a firearm because it took all of us together to
repel those vicious human predators. If I was the only person
responsible for defending my employees or even myself, I would
never have had enough ammunition with a five-shot revolver; I would
have needed a semiautomatic firearm and several high capacity
magazines.
Both of the two robbers who entered Beverly Hills Jewelers
were vicious career criminals. At the time of my attack, William
"Pappy" Head had just been released off parole for the execution-
style murder of his best friend, but his crime spree began long
before with his first recorded arrest back in 1942. He was
affiliated with a criminal organization called the "Dixie Mafia,"
that has spread throughout the South and Southwest. A Texas
sheriff familiar with "Pappy" Head said he was the kind of criminal
who would have no qualms killing anyone who stood in his way. The
second gunman, Thomas Jefferson Salter, had led a life of criminal
activity as he traveled the country as a carnival worker. Some of
his previous convictions included armed robbery and kidnapping.
When killed, he was a suspect in a string of bank and jewelry store
robberies and was wanted by the FBI. These two men are perfect
examples of how the criminal justice system has failed to protect
the law-abiding American public and why decent citizens ought to
have the right to defend themselves.
My employees and I have received an unbelievable outpouring of
support from our local community and from across the nation.
Although this kindness has been very comforting, I am deeply
troubled by the decision of the U.S. Congress to place a ban on
certain semi-automatic firearms and high capacity magazines. It's
important that crime victims like myself have the opportunity to
choose the firearm that is best suited for our self-defense needs.
The national gun and magazine ban is purely symbolic,
deceptively designed to make people feel good. This gun and
magazine ban will not stop thugs like the ones that invaded my
business, but it does stand as a roadblock for law-abiding citizens
to protect themselves. Unconstitutional gun control laws can mean
the difference between life and death for decent Americans.
Please, I urge you to repeal this gun and magazine ban which only
infringes on our right to self-protection; honest citizens should
not be denied the right to choose the firearm that best suits their
needs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.
Prepared Testimony of Todd Bridges
Before the U.S. House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime
March 31, 1995
My name is Todd Bridges and I manage six Midas muffler shops
in Wichita and Hutchinson, Kansas.
In 1992, I used a firearm to defend myself from criminal
attack. Now, that's not unusual -- criminologists say it happens
more than 2.5 million times each year.
But what might surprise some members of Congress is that the
gun I used to stop the crime was a gun I had bought that very same
day. So you see how well a waiting period would have protected me
from harm.
What's more, the gun I chose to protect myself -- a gun
banned last year as a so-called "assault rifle" -- wasn't chosen
because of its firepower. On the contrary, I chose it specifically
because it was less powerful than the rifles I already owned and
very well suited for defense. Here's how it all happened:
It started in March of 1992 when, four times in one week,
burglars broke into the muffler shops that I manage and stole tools
from my employees. The police hadn't caught anybody. And of
course they couldn't be everywhere at the same time. So I knew I
had to do something.
I couldn't have thieves stealing all my employees' tools night
after night. It was literally bringing my business to a stand-
still. So I was forced to protect one of the shops myself, and
wait for the thieves to strike again.
To protect myself, I bought a Colt AR-15 Sporter semi-
automatic rifle. As you know, this firearm was banned by name
under last year's crime bill.
Friends asked me why I bought the gun. After all, they said,
I already owned shotguns and hunting rifles that would have worked
just fine. But I didn't think so.
No, I chose the AR-15 and its intermediate power cartridge not
just because it was rugged, not just because it was reliable, but
because if I had to defend my life, I could wound my assailant, not
cut him in half as a shotgun would have. I also wanted the
security of a 30 round magazine so I could handle any threat.
That's right: The reality that was lost in last year's crime
bill rhetoric is that most so-called "assault rifles" -- semi-
automatics which are modeled after similar military models -- are
intended not to kill, but to wound. After all, military scientists
know that for every soldier wounded on the battlefield, two more
have to take care of him. So where killing removes one soldier,
wounding removes three.
So I used an AR-15 instead of my deer rifle or a shotgun
loaded with buckshot. After all, I didn't want to kill anybody for
the sake of some stolen tools.
Well, as it turned out, a burglar broke into the shop the
night I stood watch. He was toward the back of the shop in the
shadows, and I could see a crowbar and some other object in his
hand when I ordered him to halt. But he didn't.
I didn't want him to take cover behind the part's rack, where
he could shoot at me, so I fired. And the AR-15 performed just as
it was supposed to. The burglar was wounded and carted off to the
hospital. The crime was stopped. And my employees' tools -- and
thus their livelihoods -- were protected.
Now, there's a few points I want to emphasize in this story.
First of all, despite their efforts, the police couldn't protect
us. The police actually drove through the parking lot between the
time he first tried the doors and the time he broke the window.
Criminals time their efforts to avoid the police.
The criminal justice system couldn't protect us either. The
burglar I caught in my muffler shop was out on parole, and already
on his fourth conviction for burglary. Even after his arrest and
conviction, he was never re-incarcerated. In fact he was even
arrested attempting to break into a competitor's shop only a few
weeks later. So as far as he was concerned, arrest and conviction
were just an everyday part of employment. And chances are, he's
still in business right now.
I felt I had no choice but to protect my property myself and
the bottom line is, when you're up against an armed, dangerous
criminal who means to do you harm, there is simply no substitute
for a firearm.
Finally, one last word about the so-called "assault rifles"
banned by the 1994 crime act: they are not machine guns, they
can't "spray bullets," they're not "battlefield weapons," and
according to the FBI, rifles of all types are used in fewer
homicides than even "fists and feet." Aside from appearance,
they're really no different from any other semiautomatic firearm
that's been around since the 1890s.
Despite their menacing cosmetic features, they're generally
less powerful and less deadly than the typical sporting shotgun or
deer rifle.
With that in mind, I urge you to repeal the crime bill's
useless gun ban and replace them with legitimate criminal justice
reforms that work. The American people don't want more gun control
con-jobs; they want practical laws that focus on the criminal and
have a real effect in reducing crime. And I believe this Congress
can go a long way toward restoring the public's confidence and
trust by returning to the people the freedoms, justice and security
that are rightly theirs.
Thank you for giving me the chance to tell you my story today.
Prepared Testimony of David Joo
Before the U.S. House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime
March 31, 1995
My name is David Joo. As a Korean immigrant and victim of the
1992 Los Angeles riots, I have seen the effects of gun control from
many different perspectives.
I manage a gun store called Western Guns in the Koreatown
section of Los Angeles. From that perspective, I saw how
California's 15-day waiting period stopped me from selling firearms
to hard-working, law-abiding citizens like myself, while all around
us, gang members cleaned out gun stores, looters stole what they
wanted, and rioters robbed, raped and murdered whomever they chose.
As one of the many citizens left defenseless during the riots,
I came to understand why my neighbors so desperately needed guns to
protect themselves from those gangs.
And as a Korean immigrant, I now see that government gun
control isn't about freedom or justice or democracy. It's about
the government's distrust of the people. That's what is dangerous.
Before we expect anybody else to protect us, we must be able to
protect ourselves. Gun control takes away that freedom.
When rioting first broke out in our part of Los Angeles, I was
working in the Western Gun Shop with the owner, Richard Park, who
also owned a jewelry store across the street. We were busy helping
our customers when one of Mr. Park's other employees called him and
told him that the jewelry store was being robbed.
Mr. Park called the Los Angeles Police Department for help.
Then he took a shotgun and some handguns with him, and went across
the street to his jewelry store. As soon as I could lock up and
secure the gun store from the looters, I followed him there.
By the time I arrived, the jewelry store was completely
looted. The rioters had nearly cleaned it out, and Richard and his
employees were guarding what was left of the shop with their guns.
Four L.A.P.D. officers were there with their vehicles, so we felt
safe, even though the rioters were right across the street.
So then we went to the back of the jewelry store and opened
the safe where the valuable jewelry was kept. The looters had
stolen the jewelry in the front of the store but not what was in
the safe. But as we carried that jewelry out to our van, we saw
the rioters had started setting fires all around.
By then, those four L.A.P.D. officers had left. We were all
alone, and the rioting mobs were closing in. Soon they started
shooting at us with the guns they had stolen from other nearby gun
stores. Two of our employees got shot, and my arm was injured by
broken glass in the shooting.
That night, I stood guard on the roof of the Lucky Electronics
Shop across the street from our gun shop, along with several other
neighbors. I had a 12-gauge riot shotgun and a Beretta 92F
pistol. Another employee had a Colt AR-15 Sporter rifle.
We called the police for help, but they never came. Some
looters tried to break down the door of the gun store, but we fired
warning shots that drove them away. This happened many times, and
before it was over we had probably fired 200 rounds of ammunition.
The Beretta pistol and the Colt Sporter rifle we used are both
covered under the recent crime law that bans guns and ammunition
magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.
But that's exactly the kind of firepower we needed to stop
those rioting mobs from taking away our livelihoods and our lives.
The only thing that stopped them from robbing us and burning down
our stores was knowing that we were armed and prepared to stop them
with whatever it took. Those high-capacity firearms gave us the
ability to do so.
But when it was all over, the police came back and arrested
Korean business owners for illegal possession of firearms, and
disarmed them. I feel that that's an injustice.
The police couldn't protect us. For whatever reason, they
weren't there when we needed them the most. The gun control laws
couldn't protect us either. All the gun control laws did was keep
other law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves. I know from
experience what that means. I carry the scars on my arm.
And I know that without firearms, we would have lost our
businesses, and possibly our lives during those riots.
Many people say the riots are rare. They say it only happens
once in a lifetime. But that's all it takes. In southern
California, disasters are more and more common.
When law and order breaks down, citizens have a right to
protect themselves. It's our most basic right, and I think it's
the most important freedom we have as Americans.
As one who has seen gun control in action from both sides, I
urge you to stop attacking the rights of law-abiding citizens like
me and go after the real criminals. Only then can the American
dream -- life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness -- be secured.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today.
Prepared Testimony of Charmaine Klaus
Before the U.S. House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime
March 31, 1995
According to the anti-gun rhetoric we've heard for more than
two decades, one would believe that it is impossible to defend
yourself with a gun and how dangerous it is to even have one in
your home.
Well I'm here today to tell you that 20 years of political
correctness is simply incorrect. Not only are there facts that can
be verified in the annual FBI and Sate Police Uniform Crime Reports
to refute those claims, but there are stories. Volumes of stories
of honest people saying "no" to criminal attack -- and having a
tool to make it stick. My story is one of those millions of
stories.
Several years ago, I was the manager of a convenience store in
an isolated rural area in Michigan. Although the owners frowned on
keeping firearms on the premises, my husband urged me to take my
legal handgun with me, since I had to make late night bank
deposits. Also, there had been several instances of female clerks
kidnapped from nearby convenience stores, tortured and murdered in
the surrounding wooded area.
On that Saturday night in March, as I was getting the bank
deposit ready just before closing the store, my female clerk came
running into the backroom office, crying that a masked man with a
gun was out there. I told her to lock the door and I started to
call the police. But before I had a chance to dial, the armed
robber shot through the door and then shot the clerk twice. I got
my handgun from the drawer and shot him as he started to enter the
office. Although severely wounded in the mouth and throat, he
continued to fire at us. I also continued to fire, but he stayed
in the hall outside of the room, so my first shot was the only one
that wounded him. During the exchange, Darlene was shot again and
I was hit with his last bullet. He then ran from the store to a
waiting car driven by two of his friends that had been his
accomplices in another armed robbery a couple of hours earlier.
Due to his wound, he was apprehended after getting medical
attention and was then arrested. He had prior felony drug
convictions and was out on bail. There was so much publicity in
the media and so much public support for citizens who defend
themselves against violent predators that there was a change of
venue and the trial was held 90 miles from our home. Not only did
my ability to defend myself save my life, but the bullet from my
gun and his blood at the murder scene proved his guilt, even though
the police never found his gun nor was I able to identify him
because of the mask he was wearing. He was tried, found guilty of
first degree murder, and sentenced to mandatory life in prison.
Although the memory of this incident will never completely go
away, I feel that I did the best I could under the circumstances,
but it has made one thing very clear to me --- I NEVER WANT TO BE
AN UNARMED, HELPLESS VICTIM!
It is estimated that over 2 million times a year citizens
defend themselves from a criminal by using a firearm; and in the
vast majority of these incidents, the citizen does not fire a
single shot. The mere presence of a firearm often deters the
crime. In one-tenth of these incidents, the citizen justifiably
kills the attacker. This number, according to criminologists, is
three times as many as killed by police. The reason --- police are
called AFTER the incident has occurred. The citizens' use of guns
may be one of the most serious risks a criminal faces.
In short, our police provide community defense. Only
individual people can provide self defense.
We all remember what happened during the L.A. riots. The shop
owners resisted with their own semi-automatic firearms when the
police would not come to protect them. It was the armed citizens
that kept the peace for months in the tent cities that became home
to the victims of the devastating Hurricane Andrew in Florida. I
am sure that none of you can predict what national disaster could
take place in the future, but you can be sure the citizens of this
country want to be prepared for any contingency.
In the L.A. riots, during Hurricane Andrew, when all else
failed, one right -- one individual constitutional right --
prevailed. Whether it's an act of God or an act of a vicious
criminal, we citizens have the right to defend ourselves.
Age and physical stature have little to do with one's ability
to successfully use a gun in self-defense. The oldest person I
found was a 98 year old woman who shot an intruder intending to
rape her. In one weekend, just last month in Detroit, two elderly
citizens, a woman 83, and a man 88, each shot and killed an
intruder in their home. Even after repeated warnings from these
armed citizens, the intruders kept advancing. No other form of
resistance would have been as effective.
Since only one-sixth of violent criminals use guns, in most
such crimes, an armed victim will have an advantage over the
criminal. It's not a question of guns against guns. According to
several studies of the armed citizen and self-defense, including
Dr. Kleck, Professor at Florida state University school of
Criminology, "for both robbery and assault, victims who used guns
for protection were less likely either to be attacked or injured
than victims who responded in any other way, including those who
did not resist at all. When victims use guns to resist crimes, the
crimes are usually disrupted and victims are not injured."
Research contained in J. Neil Shulman's book, STOPPING POWER,
shows that:
*Every 13 seconds an American gun owner uses a firearm in
defense against a criminal.
*American women use handguns 416 times a day in defense
against rapists.
*A gun kept in the home for protection is 216 times as
likely to be used in defense against a criminal than it
is to cause the death of an innocent person in that
household.
You will never hear results of these studies in the mainstream
media!
Guns of all types are used significantly more often
defensively than criminally. Routine gun ownership and defensive
use by civilians has an ongoing impact on crime. Florida has
proven this; since they liberalized their concealed carry law, the
rate of homicides has decreased 22%. When criminals' awareness of
armed potential victims are intensified, crime decreases. This was
proven dramatically in Orlando, FL. After a series of brutal
rapes, women bought guns in greatly increased numbers. This
worried the police chief, so the police department set up and
advertised a class in the safe use of a gun. More women showed up
than they could possibly instruct in one class, so arrangements
were made for a series of classes. During all of this publicity,
rape and assaults significantly decreased.
This story is not an isolated one. In cities and towns all
across America, cooperation between armed civilians and police have
reduced crime in that area.
Restricting guns among law-abiding citizens simply encourages
criminals. We have found that in Michigan, the counties with the
greatest number of gun purchases have the lowest rate of crime. In
fact, Oakland County, with a population of over one million people
and one of the highest gun ownership rates in the state, has a
homicide rate as low as that of Canada. The neighboring county of
Macomb, bordering on Canada, has a population of nearly 3/4
million, and a homicide rate lower than Canada. There is
definitely an inverse relationship to gun ownership and crime. In
short, the problem is not that law-abiding citizens own firearms.
It's criminals, period.
Unlike last year, I urge the Congress to face the real facts
before enacting laws that only prevent the citizens from legally
defending themselves. If you are really serious about reducing
crime, then give the power back to the people, repeal the Clinton
Gun Ban. Citizens have proven they are worthy of trust over and
over again. And remember, in the court case U.S. vs. Panter, the
court declared "The right to defend oneself against deadly attack
is fundamental."
Prepared Testimony of Phillip W. Murphy
Before the U.S. House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime
March 31, 1995
I thank the chair and members of this committee for inviting
me to testify this morning. Some of you may remember that I
testified before this subcommittee one year ago before the gun ban
was signed into law. Once again, I feel it is important that this
committee understand exactly what event brought me here last year
and again this year. Simply put, I made a choice not to be a
victim.
I exercised this choice on a conscious level, but my choice to
purchase the firearm which would hold the potential of saving my
life and help me bring a convicted felon back to justice was purely
pedestrian. Unfortunately, my testimony, along with that of many
other law abiding citizens, was not enough to counteract the
pervasive misinformation that was spread by the media and the last
administration. Apparently, my choice of a defensive weapon in
this instance is so politically incorrect that my government no
longer trusts law-abiding citizens like me with this firearm.
I mentioned the pedestrian manner in which I made my decision
to buy the long-arm in question because, frankly, my decision was
driven by only two factors: pragmatism and pride. In February of
1986, I purchased a Colt AR-15A2 H-BAR Sporter, a semi-automatic
rifle chambered in .223 Remington. I chose this very practical
rifle for a variety of purposes: competitive target shooting,
varmint hunting, inexpensive plinking (it converts to a .22) and
yes, home defense. This rifle serves my needs while remaining an
utterly reliable, easy handling, and nearly recoil-free precision
instrument...qualities I have come to appreciate more and more as
my physical condition deteriorates due to Multiple Sclerosis. So
much for my pragmatic concerns.
The matter of pride comes into play in my desire to honor our
military by doing what countless millions of Americans have done
since the Revolution. I bought a civilian version of the firearm
currently in use by our nation's armed forces. And there's the
rub. I bought a rifle that merely looks like an M-16, not one that
works like an M-16.
It is what makes my rifle so unremarkable in function that
makes me so infuriated to have to defend my choice of this quality
firearm at this hearing today. My rifle shares its caliber,
magazine capacity and century-old technology with many other
firearms. However these firearms were not seen as worth banning by
the 103rd Congress. Inanimate objects identical in function and
capability were given different so-called "personalities" by the
same legislative body simply because my rifle isn't as
aesthetically pleasing as other firearms. Nonetheless, my choice
to avoid the "politically correct" path of passive self-defense
proved to be, in my experience, a life-saving choice.
In late August of 1989, Johnny Johnson (a convicted burglar
with a penchant for crack cocaine) was also making some personal
choices. On the afternoon of the 28th, Johnny decided to rob my
parent's home. He stole guns, jewelry, coins, and irreplaceable
valuables which my mother treasured. I'm certain that Johnny
considered my parent's home a good choice because three days later
he came back to finish the job. That proved to be what Johnny
would call, "a bad choice".
The investigating officer who took my parent's burglary report
mentioned that, because only the bedroom had been violated and the
point of entry was not yet adequately secured, the chances of my
folks being robbed again within the week were better than 50/50.
They worked days. The house wasn't secure. The police could not
offer them protection. I could.
I arrived at their home every morning armed with a firearm I
could control with one hand while I spoke to 911 with the other.
I brought my AR-15 so that I might preclude any aggressive action
taken against me by its appearance alone--a firearm with which I
could control a situation against possibly numerous antagonists who
by now were almost certainly armed.
The confrontation was brief and noisy. He said he didn't want
to die. I said I didn't want to be forced to kill him. By the
time I picked up the phone upon which I had already dialed 911 so
the police could hear and understand my situation, I realized I'd
won. Mr. Johnson's arresting officers were not the least bit
critical of my choice of defensive weapon. They couldn't care
less. Cops on the street know that the honest citizens are the
victims, not the perpetrators. They were just delighted I bagged
one of Tucson's most wanted, and so were the courts.
Johnny Johnson was already a three-time loser with 34 priors
who was violating his third adult parole for a knife assault when
we were "formally" introduced. We were told by the County Attorney
that since Johnson was a "targeted offender" he could not plea
bargain his way out of this one and would have to stand trial, but
he didn't. He pled guilty to one charge for every charge that was
dropped and, unfortunately, the very burglary where I was the
intended victim was pled away as well.
Of course, this rap sheet is fairly typical, but Mr. Johnson
was only 19 when I caught him which means all of his 34
transgressions and supposed punishment took place since Mr. Johnson
was 18. And yet I'm the one who is under scrutiny by this law.
I respectfully urge this committee and the Congress of these
United States to repeal the 1994 gun ban -- a ban which will do
nothing but force tens of millions of law-abiding Americans, like
the ones who are seated here with me this morning, to choose
between the law and their lives. Thank you for your attention.
Prepared Testimony by Travis Neel
Before the U.S. House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime
March 31, 1995
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I would like to
thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify today.
I want to tell you a story so that you can answer a question
that many people ask, about why a citizen might need what they call
a "large-capacity magazine." When you've heard my story, you may
think the "large-capacity" magazines I had were not large enough.
When I first saw Deputy Flores, I was in my car a few feet
outside the limits of Houston, on January 21, 1994, traveling to a
shooting range. I just happened to be following the deputy's
patrol car. In my vehicle, I had my Merkel shotgun cased and in
three pieces. I also had two 9mm semi-automatic pistols. I had
loaded three magazines for each of these pistols while at home;
each magazine held 15 rounds of ammunition. But, in compliance
with the law, the guns themselves were not loaded.
Suddenly, I noticed Deputy Flores's vehicle veer into the path
of another vehicle, blocking its way and mine. The deputy exited
his car with his hand on his firearm. I looked to the vehicle the
sheriff's had blocked. I saw men holding guns, but from my vantage
point, I could tell they were being kept from the officer's view.
I thought that if I shouted out to the officer to warn him about
the guns, I might distract him long enough to prompt those men to
attack him. There didn't seem to be anything to do but run to his
side -- to help defend him. It was a risk I was glad to take.
Aware that time -- precious time -- was ticking away, I
selected my CZ-75 pistol with three fifteen round magazines. As I
had done at Heartbreak Ridge over four decades ago, I wanted to
have as much ammunition as I could carry.
I ran towards the officer knowing that if he were killed I
would also be killed. As I ran, I unsuccessfully tried to load the
pistol. As I arrived on the opposite side of the patrol car, the
officer, I noticed, was almost in firing position when he was cut
down by a volley of shots fired from ambush. I saw one shot hit
him squarely in the chest region and heard five bullets hit him as
he fell from my view apparently mortally wounded.
In a fleeting second, I thought for a moment. I was
undeputized. The only man who might vouch for my good intentions
may be dying on the concrete. Because I had to load my empty
firearm, valuable time was being wasted. When I finished loading
I raised my own pistol to eye level with the intent to stop at
least one man before I was struck down like the officer. The
pistol snapped but failed to shoot and three gunmen turned their
undivided attention to killing me. I was in despair that I might
be killed without the opportunity to explain to the authorities why
I was there, doing what I was doing.
My second attempt to load was successful. I leveled again and
divided my shots between three men, firing as fast as my finger
would work, changing magazines every fifteen rounds. They
retreated to behind a vehicle, and I took another angle, exposing
myself, hoping that would bring their shots to me rather than those
trapped in vehicles behind me. We continued to exchange fire as I
backed towards my own vehicle. According to my accounting, I was
running out of ammunition and losing the battle for my life. I
knew I had more shotgun ammo than handgun ammo. I was hoping this
tactical retreat would put me back at my vehicle where I might have
enough time to assemble my shotgun.
The three criminals took this opportunity to try to capture a
new automobile and hostage. I gave up on shotgun assembly, got a
second 9mm, loaded it, and drove them away from the vehicle they
sought with rapid fire. This time the three ran for a nearby
subdivision and knowing the ammunition ballistics of my weapon as
I do, I withheld my fire, lest I kill or maim an innocent citizen.
I then released at least thirty cars in the intersection and went
to examine the Texas peace officer. I was shocked to see him
alive.
Later, County Sheriff Johnny Klevenhagen sealed the West Side
of Houston and a three-hour, house-by-house search produced an
organized criminal gang of eight who were captured, convicted and
sentenced.
For the past fourteen months, I have spent all of my waking
hours pondering my experience. I've come to these conclusions:
First, having those firearms -- and those magazines -- in the
car that day saved my life and that of Deputy Flores. Those who
want to ban guns and the magazines that go with them tell you that
only a criminal needs access to such "large-capacity" magazines.
But at the scene of that shootout, it was the good people -- the
deputy and I -- who had "large-capacity" magazines. I fired
thirty-nine shots that day. The criminal, the would-be assassin,
had a six-shot revolver. And a survey of criminals in the county
jail afterward found that 85% of the armed convicts in custody
preferred revolvers or shotguns for their crimes.
Second, the criminals who attacked us didn't follow the laws
governing the carrying of firearms. If they would obey any law,
they would not have tried to kill the deputy; they would not be in
jail today. They ignored the laws then, and all too many like them
will ignore the laws tomorrow.
Fourth, far from being a threat to law enforcement and the
general public -- I, with my pistols and my 15-round magazines --
was an asset that day. But if the gun and magazine ban had been in
effect a few years earlier, things might have turned out
differently. I and other law-abiding citizens will continue to be
an asset tomorrow, and I hope the Committee and the Congress will
recognize that by repealing the ban.
Prepared Testimony of Brian Rigsby
Before the U.S. House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime
March 31, 1995
First of all, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to
address the committee today. The events I am about to describe
have forever changed my life, and have deeply affected my family.
But as difficult as this period of time was for us, I feel the
issues raised are important, especially in today's political
climate.
It began on Saturday, November 24, 1990. I wanted to go
camping, so I called my friend, Tom Styer. Even though I didn't
give him much notice, he agreed to go with me. So early that
afternoon, I said goodbye to my wife Mary, and left to pick up Tom.
Because of the late start, and getting lost in unfamiliar
territory, it was after dark before we arrived in the Oconee
National Forest. We had chosen this area because there was a
public rifle range there, and we could go target shooting the next
day.
We set up camp not far from the range. By the light of my
lantern, we pitched the tent and went about building a campfire.
As we settled in, we heard the sound of a diesel engine. A pickup
truck pulled right up to our camp. It was a work truck, with the
name of a business on the side.
Two men got out and introduced themselves, explaining that
they were riding around just to meet people. They were overly
nice, even insisting to cut firewood for us. They stayed at least
an hour, telling us all about themselves. They grew up around
there, and knew the woods like the back of their hands.
I was uncomfortable. Something just didn't seem right. I was
relieved when they finally left. I even thought about moving the
camp. But after about thirty minutes, we heard the truck coming
back down the only road out.
Instead of coming back to the camp, the truck stopped up the
road about 100 yards. We could hear faint sounds of leaves
rustling as the two crept towards our camp. Tom and I both began
to worry.
I grabbed a rifle that I brought to shoot targets, a Ruger
Mini-14 loaded with a 30-round magazine. I took cover behind my
truck. Tom knelt in the shadow of our tent, armed with a .45
pistol.
I couldn't believe this was happening. I tried to listen for
the men, but couldn't hear much of anything over the sound of my
breathing and the pounding of my heart. I thought about my wife
and family.
It was Tom that saw him first.
One of the armed men came into the light of the camp, pointing
his double-barrelled shotgun towards my position. Afraid that I
would be shot if I raised my head. Tom bravely spoke up, asking
the man why he came back with a gun. The man responded by aiming
the gun in Tom's direction and saying "I'm going to kill you."
Hearing voices, I raised up to see the man pointing the
shotgun at Tom. Tom told him to drop the gun. Without another
word, the predator fired at Tom.
My next memory is of the front sight of my Mini-14 centered on
the assailant's chest. I fired twice. Knowing that I had 30
rounds, I immediately fired six or seven more rounds towards the
second attacker. I was partially blinded by the flash of my rifle.
I determined his location by the flash from his firing gun. All
I could think of was to fire enough to scare them off, to stop the
attack.
I dropped back down behind the truck, looking underneath it
across the camp. I yelled for help, but nobody answered. I called
out to Tom, but he didn't respond either.
He fired from too close--I knew Tom was dead.
I could tell that the first man was down and no longer a
threat. But the other gunman was still out there, somewhere. I
tried to see him, or hear him, but I couldn't. I couldn't see Tom
either, and he still didn't respond to my calls.
As I backed away from the camp, I could see a lantern through
the woods. Thinking that Tom would need help as soon as possible,
and still fearing the second man, I ran towards the light to get
help. It turned out to be a hunt camp about 300 yards away.
One of the hunters went for the police. The police arrived,
and not knowing what had happened, placed me under arrest. They
returned me to the scene, finally informing me that Tom had
suffered a leg wound, but would be okay. He had not answered me
because he was also afraid of the second attacker.
The would-be murderer that shot Tom was hit twice, and died at
the scene. His accomplice was also hit twice, but survived. Both
of the men carried 12 gauge shotguns loaded with potent three-inch
magnum buckshot, and both had fired at us. But in the time it took
me to fire the nine rounds, the gun battle was over.
After giving our statements to the police, we were free to go.
We were not charged with any crime.
In a statement to police, the surviving gunman admitted that
they were there to rob us and had planned the robbery while smoking
crack after their first visit to our campsite. The police were
convinced that we would have also been murdered. When the men had
introduced themselves, they used their real names. They drove a
truck owned by their employer. They wouldn't have left us as
witnesses.
And what else could be more clear than the statement made by
the gunman--"I'm going to kill you."
Along with the stress of the incident itself, we were also
threatened with civil action. The attorney threatened me with a
law suit if I didn't say the shooting was an accident. Obviously,
this would have affected the outcome of the insurance claim. I
refused and fortunately the threats never materialized.
The reason I am sharing this story with you is to illustrate
the most often ignored, and to me the most important, reason to own
a semi-automatic firearm--self-defense.
But this hearing concerns the ban of so-called "assault
weapons", and my rifle is not on the list.
This shows one of the more ridiculous aspects of the bill. My
rifle uses the same cartridge as several of the guns on the list.
It also has the same basic firing mechanism. And it can accept as
big a magazine as any of the listed guns. So why is it not on the
banned list? Because someone who had no idea what they were doing
decided that the listed guns looked like "bad" guns, while mine
looked like a "good" gun.
Of course, if I make a couple of cosmetic changes, it may be
functionally unchanged, but will then be a "bad" gun.
But the ban really doesn't have nay effect on anyone getting
the same type of gun as I used, right?
Wrong.
First of all, the ban has driven prices on most semi-autos,
even those not on the list, through the roof. I could not afford
to buy my rifle at today's prices. And even if I could, the 30-
round magazines are at least three times the cost if you can find
them.
I guess the thing that bothers me the most about this law,
besides the fact that it does not reduce crime, is what it
represents. To me it is the first of many planned steps at
limiting the rights of law-abiding citizens to own the firearms
that they find suitable. Who knows when my gun currently a good
gun, will become a dreaded bad gun.
The focus should instead be on the failure of our revolving-
door criminal justice system to control violent criminals. Passing
more laws that the criminals will choose to ignore just wastes the
resources of all those involved, from the Congress down to the
local police. The police do a good job finding and arresting the
criminal, but prison overcrowding and early releases have turned
"hard time" into a joke.
These additional laws will only serve to further erode the
rights and freedoms of law-abiding Americans, and make us all the
more vulnerable to crime.
Dan Day
>As did the people in the congressional testimony that I will post
>as responses to this post. Read them over, and feel free to use
>their personal cases as further examples of "assault weapons" protecting
>innocent lives, and/or as source material which can point the way
>towards additional methods of arguing against restrictions on so-called
>"assault weapons".
Volume 2:
TESTIMONY OF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS
SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF LEGISLATION
TO REPEAL THE 1994 GUN BAN
Prepared Testimony of Sergeant William J. Hinz
Before the U.S. House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime
April 5, 1995
Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee thank you for giving
me the chance to appear before you today.
My name is William J. Hinz. I am presently assigned to the
Homicide Division of the Minneapolis Police Department. Prior to
my moving to homicide, I spent eight years with my department's
crime lab where I processed all major and minor crime scenes.
Before that I was a member of the Street Crimes Decoy Unit. I
spent my first dozen years on the force on uniform patrol.
During my 24 years with the Minneapolis police, I've been in
direct contact with every type of crime, dealt directly with every
sort of criminal, and seen virtually every type of weapon used by
Minneapolis criminals.
I can report that we did have one military-style
semi-automatic rifle involved in a crime once. It was an SKS rifle
and it killed a house. I say that deliberately because not one of
the four individuals in the car with the weapon was convicted of
firing it and only the house sustained bullet damage. So
officially we declared the rifle responsible for killing the house.
In fact, to the best of my knowledge there has not been one
incident in the last 5 years where Minneapolis has used their five
year minimum mandatory penalty for use of a firearm in the
commission of a crime. The gun is the first charge plea bargained
away.
Please forgive any suggestion that I might be making light of this
or any other incident. My description simply reflects the
frustration common to virtually every member of the Minneapolis
police force. That frustration is over the city's refusal to
prosecute serious crimes.
Let me give you an example. This week a gentleman was
convicted of possession of a short-barreled shotgun. That is the
legal term for a sawed-off shotgun.
Now if any weapon can be characterized as a firearm designed
by criminals, for criminals, with a single purpose, namely the
commission of a crime, I would suggest that a shotgun with its
barrel lopped off below the legal limit fits that bill.
I would also remind you that simple possession of a sawed-off
shotgun is a federal felony. Ten years in jail and $250,000 fine.
What did Minneapolis' court system slap the fine gentleman
with? Two years probation. No federal charges were brought.
Are so-called "assault weapons" a threat to the citizens of
Minneapolis?
The answer is simple...no.
Before joining the homicide division last year, I spent eight
years in the crime lab/identification division; which processes all
the evidence recovered by police during the investigation of a
crime. One of the divisions major responsibilities is to process
all of the firearms which are used during a criminal offense.
During my eight years, the division processed less than a dozen
firearms which would fall under the broad definition of the Clinton
crime bill's "assault weapons" category.
To date in 1995, the homicide division is investigating 23
homicides. Nearly all of which are members of the criminal elite,
killed by their colleagues. They are not honest, upstanding
middle-class citizens.
In terms of their worth to society, their contribution to
society, and their desire to be responsible and productive members
of society, I would have to say that they are little more than
damaged, occupied bundles of clothes. If I sound cynical I'm
sorry. If I offend anyone I'm sorry.
But part of the frustration that comes with 24 years on the
force is the fact that we know who the criminals are. We deal with
the same names and faces on a daily basis. And the reason we deal
with the same people multiple times goes right back to the fact
that it is virtually impossible to get city prosecutors to bring
substantial charges, if and when they bring any charges at all
against this collection of human refuse.
What is the feeling among Minneapolis police about private,
honest citizens having, carrying, or owning guns?
Let me answer that with another short story.
A few years ago an officer from Hutchinson was killed by a
pretty hard-core crook. He came into Minneapolis and stole a car.
During the chase, my department was hoping against hope that the
cop-killer would break down in the country, kick in some farmers
door, and come face to face with a farmer who was armed and willing
to use his or her firearms to protect himself and his family from
this killer.
That is how much faith law enforcement has in our criminal
justice system.
Do we support bans on so-called semi-automatic assault weapons
or pistols with high capacity magazines. No we do not.
Do we support private citizens who own firearms and are
willing to use them? Absolutely.
Armed honest citizens pose no threat to their families,
neighbors, or community. Disarmed citizens are little more than
prey waiting for a criminal predator.
All the debate over whether or not a citizen who commits no
crime should be allowed to own a firearm for defense -- whether
that firearm is an assault-style weapon or a .22 caliber pop gun --
pales by comparison to the need for a radical change in our
criminal justice system. We must make the punishment for crime far
more feared than the benefits of that crime. Thank you.
Prepared Testimony of Patrolman Bryant Jennings
Before the U.S. House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime
April 5, 1995
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the subcommittee, my
name is Bryant Jennings, I am a patrolman with 15 and a half years
experience with the Memphis Tennessee Police Department and I am
president of the Memphis Police Association, the independent
collective bargaining agency representing 1400 members of the
Memphis police department.
I would like to thank you for the opportunity to speak about
this very important issue. First I would like to establish my
credentials for what I am about to say.
My primary duties involve uniform patrol of Memphis' streets.
I also have extensive training and experience as a member of my
department's Crisis Intervention Team and as a hostage negotiator.
Those special details bring me into contact with a variety of
violent incidents. I've equally extensive training and experience
with the range of illegal drug use, how they affect human behavior,
and the variety of techniques to restrain those under their
influence. In short, during my law enforcement career, I've seen
most everything.
I've confiscated weapons from felons. I've dodged bullets and
I've fired my service weapon under hostile circumstances. After
all is said and done, I can say this with all my professional and
personal sincerity:
Firearms owned and used by responsible citizens present no
danger to law enforcement officers or to the community. In fact,
I sincerely believe armed and trained responsible citizens are an
important asset to any community.
Congressman Bryant, you may remember the incident I am about
to discuss. It occured in Memphis.
It is a story of one very old, very gentle, very tough
silver-haired Memphis resident who happens to be armed and
dangerous to the criminals who inhabit her neighborhood. The
gentle lady in question is pushing seventy. She's lived in her
home most of her life and refuses to yield her home, her
possessions, or to alter her life-style for fear of criminals. No
matter how bad her neighborhood became. No matter how rampant the
drug trade grew or how brazen the stick-up artists became. She
refused to move. She was resolved to take her stand in defense of
what she believed at her little home on Reese Street. I might
mention that she also owns a pistol.
When armed thugs attempted to rob her on her front porch at
knife-point, she drew her pistol and fired. To date, this lady
helped two felons meet their maker.
I can tell you without a doubt. Without her pistol, that
70-ish grandmother would not be alive today.
Now Tennessee passed a state law about a year ago that allows
qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons.
Tennessee law enforcement do not fear the idea of honest armed
citizens on our streets. Yes, we abhor and detest armed violent
criminals. But, guns in the hands of honest citizens present us
with no problems. In fact, in my opinion, the fact that an
upstanding citizen is armed and trained to use that weapon is a
great source of solace to me and to my colleagues on the Memphis
police department.
If, during my patrol duties, I find myself confronted by an
armed felon my closest backup is usually five to ten minutes away.
Life and death armed conflicts usually resolve themselves in less
than a minute or two. Yes, it seems like an eternity if you are
going through it, but believe me those 60 to 120 seconds take a
slow-motion life time to pass.
God forbid I or anyone of my colleagues should find ourselves
facing down an armed criminal, but if we should, and chances are
pretty fair we will, the presence of an armed and trained private
citizen beside me presents a greater comfort than waiting for my
colleagues to travel, no matter how fast, to be at my side. Make
no mistake, I love and respect my fellow officers. But, sometimes
you just can't wait until they get there.
In all my years on Memphis' streets, I have never seen a
single criminal armed with a so-called assault weapon, whether a
true selective-fire assault weapon or a semi-auto look-alike that
seems to alarm so many in the press and in the last Congress who
don't seem to be here today to listen to my views.
I know first hand the type firearms banned under last year's
crime bill. I know them because I own them and enjoy shooting
them. In fact, I recently bought a .22 rifle for my 14-year-old
son. That rifle was banned last year as one of the dreaded assault
weapons listed in the crime bill.
So if you or any of your colleagues want to know my opinion on
assault weapons, let me assure you that I like them and I think
they are quite suitable for my children to use at the firing range.
To suggest as some in Congress and many in the press do
repeatedly that so-called semi-automatic rifles or pistols present
a clear and present danger to police and the public, I would only
say come with me to the range. Meet my family. Get to know the
real reason why folks like myself buy them and own them and shoot
them. They are fun. And, I repeat my earlier statement, they
present no danger to law enforcement or to the community.
Members of the Subcommittee. I am a law enforcement
professional. I have direct experience in the first line of crime
control, dealing with and arresting violent criminals. And, like
all law enforcement officers, I swore an oath a decade and a half
ago to uphold the laws of this land.
The Constitution and the Bill of Rights stand at the core of
what we call the laws of the land. I respect the oath I took. I
respect the Constitution. I respect the Bill of Rights including
the Second Amendment. I simply wish those in the press and a few
folks in the White House shared that same respect.
Congressman Bryant and other esteemed Congressmen on this
committee, in keeping with the Second Amendment rights of your
constituents, please repeal this restrictive bill.
Thank you.
Prepared Testimony by Lieutenant Dennis Tueller
Before the U.S. House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime
April 5, 1995
Good morning members of the committee and thank you for the
opportunity to testify today. My name is Dennis Tueller and I'm a
Lieutenant from the Salt Lake City, Utah, Police Department, and I
have over twenty years of law enforcement experience. I am also a
firearms instructor and have trained police officers, security
agents, SWAT teams, firearms instructors, and responsible civilians
from throughout the free world.
I like guns and I enjoy shooting. In my travels throughout
the United States, I have met thousands of good people who feel the
same. And I know that there are tens of millions of other
Americans who share the same sentiments and interests.
Today you are hearing testimony that dispels the myth that law
enforcement is strongly in support of gun control as a method of
controlling crime. This committee, and the public are learning the
truth from a representative sampling of officers from across
America. These law enforcement professionals assembled before you
today run the entire gamut from the officer on the street, to the
detective that investigates the homicide, to the front line
supervisors all the way up to the Chief of a department. The one
common theme known to all these officers is that guns are not the
problem when it comes to America's run away crime epidemic. We
have never seen a gun commit a crime.
We know... I know... that gun ownership by honest citizens is
totally unrelated to the violent crime problem we are experiencing.
Street officers and crime victims across the country share the
belief that the number one way to reduce crime in our nation is to
punish criminal behavior. Make criminals serve the time to which
they are sentenced. The clock needs to be turned back to the days
when prison was a deterrent to crime -- when prisoners served real
time for their crimes, not just short vacations away from the
street.
This is the type of real crime control that cops and the
public want to see at the national level. So far the President, in
conjunction with some members of Congress, has continued to
grandstand and what the people get are rhetoric and gimmicks - not
justice. The recently passed so-called "crime bill", which outlaws
certain types of guns and an entire class of magazines - magazines
used in millions of firearms across the country for protection and
sport - is just the most recent and egregious example of this mixed
up idea.
Anti-gun strategists learned an important lesson along time
ago. That lesson was that Law Enforcement, if properly handled, is
a potent legislative ally. Those who hate the idea of citizens
having the freedom to choose to own a gun have worked diligently to
create and encourage the fraud that cops agree with the agenda to
strip away the Second Amendment.
They began to infiltrate traditional law enforcement groups.
These groups recruited high profile, publicity seeking police
officials in high profile, politically anti-gun areas. Ultimately
these anti-gun police administrators went on to create a number of
national police groups with a distinct anti-Second Amendment
stance.
Gun hating groups and politicians, like HCI and President
Clinton, used police based groups like the National Grand Lodge of
the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP), the International Association
of Chiefs of Police (IACP), the National Sheriffs Association
(NSA), and the Police Foundation in their push for the Brady Act.
Then they used these same groups to support President Clinton's
Crime Bill.
Contrary to what was portrayed in the national media, working
Law Enforcement did not support the Crime Bill and especially did
not support its gun ban.
Anti-gun law enforcement is not driven by ideology or the
belief that more gun control will make this country safer. Rather,
it's driven by money and politics.
The Clinton/Reno Justice Department bought and paid for its
law enforcement allies with perfectly legitimate federal money.
They dipped deep into the federal pork barrel - and used OUR tax
dollars.
According to the June 1, 1994, edition of the Criminal Justice
Newsletter, $4.4 million dollars was given to these same anti-gun
police organizations. The taxpayer dollars came to these groups
through the Bureau of Justice Assistance and went to the Police
Executive Research Forum, IACP, National Sheriff's Association, and
the Police Foundation. The money was ostensibly to provide
community policing training and technical assistance.
This type of taxpayer funding of police groups that profess
their unwavering support of more gun-control has been ongoing for
years. Investor's Business Daily and Law and Order magazine both
claim that IACP received almost 650,000 dollars in 1993.
You may wonder, What does all this taxpayer money going to
these groups have to do with the fraud that cops support gun-
control? Just this... After the initial Congressional rejection of
the Gun and Magazine ban, the IACP put out a request to police
commanders (and I quote) "to encourage as many off duty members as
possible to attend this assembly in uniform and also compel as many
on duty uniformed members to attend... as manpower will allow".
This "assembly" was in fact a photo opportunity for then Treasury
Secretary Lloyd Bentsen, when he was on the hill in a desperate,
last ditch effort help pass the so-called "Assault Weapons" ban.
I wish to emphasize that I am here on my own time.
When President Clinton issued his call for assistance in
passing his ridiculous, wasteful Crime Bill guess who he called on
for help and guess who came to do his bidding? When he stood in
front of those uniformed officers to show that law enforcement
supported his bill it was a fraud. The fact is that in many cases
rank-and-file cops were pulled off street duty, on the taxpayers
nickel - and often against their will and under the threat of
disciplinary action if they refused to participate - to support
this legislation.
Then the leaders of these national police groups joined in
supporting his efforts to pass these gun bans and they claimed to
represent that law enforcement nationwide wanted and needed this
gun and magazine ban. These groups misled Congress, the media, and
the public into believing that law enforcement's 600,000 members
backed the gun control measures. They never surveyed the cops they
claimed to represent. Those who have surveyed our police have
found that they do not support more gun control.
*From the Police Marksman Association survey from
September/October and November/December 1994, comes:
95% of officers do not like the ban on large capacity magazines
92% do not support the so-called "Assault Weapon" Ban
93% disagree with the "Brady Bill"
*From the July/August 1991 edition of Law Enforcement
Technology magazine after surveying its 25,000 subscribers
determined that:
78.7% were against a ban on "Assault Weapons"
84.6% feel that gun control does not lessen crime
78.2% believe that criminals will always be able to
obtain guns irrespective of gun control legislation
*From the 1993 Southern States Police Benevolent Association
survey of over 10,000 members comes:
96.4% support firearms ownership for self-protection
86.5% felt that waiting periods would only affect law-
abiding citizens
1.1% choose guns as the most pressing cause of crime
(given 20 choices)
*The April 1993, informal survey of a sampling of the readers
of Police magazine showed:
85% did not support an "Assault Weapons" ban
90% feel gun ownership by civilians has not negatively
affected their jobs
85% believe citizen's gun ownership increases public
safety
77% did not support the "Brady Bill"
These surveys back up what I know from more than twenty years
of police experience. Street cops overwhelmingly do NOT support
gun control. We are not interested in more laws which criminals
will flaunt and ignore.
This is why so many officers have now decided to join the Law
Enforcement Alliance of America, whose mission is, in part, to
dispel the myth that gun control is a viable answer to crime and to
show that rank-and-file cops do not believe in gun-control.
LEAA organized a "National Law Enforcement Coalition" to
oppose the Crime Bill. Nearly 100 law enforcement organizations
representing a membership of more than 100,000 law enforcement
professionals spoke out against the Crime Bill and its ban on semi-
autos and large capacity magazines.
LEAA's coalition included several state and local chapters of
the FOP, the nations largest correctional officers association -
the California Correctional and Peace Officer's Association (CCPOA)
and several other state level organizations: to include the
Massachusetts Police Union and Legislative League and the Oklahoma
State Sheriff's Association just to name a few.
This anti-Crime Bill coalition was put together in the few
weeks before the final vote. Through this coalition, LEAA
assembled and hand delivered a 34 page report detailing law
enforcement's strong opposition of it to key members of the House
of Representatives and all Senators.
Dozens of pro-Second Amendment officers, on their own time
converged in Washington DC to meet Congress face-to-face and
deliver our message of opposition to this "feel good", ineffective
legislation.
We must learn, sooner or later, that Law Enforcement can be
utilized as an extremely effective political force and that they
can have a significant impact on both the public's and politician's
view of an issue.
The political and dishonest "behind the scenes" actions of the
anti-gun leaders of the national organizations that purport to
speak America's law enforcement professionals must be exposed and
stopped.
Remember our name...The Law Enforcement Alliance of America.
We are an alliance of over 40,000 police and citizens united in a
firm commitment to put an end to the excuse-making, the criminal
coddling, and the rampant disregard of basic civility, morality,
and justice.
Real police... Real law enforcement... Real men and women
sworn to uphold the law and the Constitution of the United States -
whether you call them officer, trooper, deputy, or corrections
officer - who are dedicated to preserving the peace of the
community are in perfect sync with the public on the issue of crime
and crime control.
We, like our neighbors living in our communities, know the
viciousness and irresponsibility of criminals. We, like every hard
working family in the nation regardless of their skin pigment or
religious or ethnic affiliation, know that every man, woman, and
child must be held accountable for his or her own actions. The
good must be rewarded and the bad must be punished.
We also know that under the liberal agenda the exact opposite
is true. The good are penalized and the bad reap the rewards and
usually go unpunished.
The single biggest threat to the liberals and their
"excuse-making" approach to crime is what we represent. The Law
Enforcement Alliance of America is real cops, real citizens, real
crime victims -- we will not be silenced.
We speak out against early release. We speak up against
dumping the depraved and violent back out into society. We speak
up against revolving door justice. We speak up for our right to
protect our lives, our families, and our possessions against
criminal violence with swift, tough, fair, and blind justice.
We speak up for freedom and the way of life that made this
country great.
Gun control laws are historically abject failures... guns are
banned, honest citizens' rights are destroyed and the criminals
continue to avoid punishment.
Those who pushed the "Assault Weapon" and magazine ban have
shown that they are against all guns. Senator Dianne Feinstien
summed it up best with her remarks during her interview on CBS's 60
Minutes. She said she wanted to come into everyone's home and make
them turn in all their guns. She wasn't talking about criminals.
She was talking about you and me, and the only thing that stopped
her was that she didn't have enough votes or enough "storm
troopers" to do it.
The recent gun ban is aimed at honest, law-abiding citizens
who want to own a firearm, firearms that happen to have a modern,
military look. This isn't about criminals, it isn't even about
cops. This is a blatant effort to take away citizens' rights to own
a particular type of gun... and if the gun haters in Congress had
their way they would like to outlaw all guns in private ownership
in this nation. It's time to put the blame for crime where it
belongs...on the criminal.
Please repeal the gun and magazine ban from last year's Crime
Bill: we don't need it or want it. Thank you.
Prepared Testimony of Chief Dwaine L. Wilson
Before the U.S. House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime
April 5, 1995
Chairman McCollum, members of the subcommittee, I would like
to thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to
provide testimony on my view of the relationship between law
enforcement and armed citizens.
As many of you may know, Kennesaw, Georgia gained
international attention 13 years ago this past march when the city
passed a law allowing the head of each household to keep and bear
firearms for the defense of themselves, their families, and their
homes.
I've been in law enforcement for the past 25 years. I've
supervised patrol units, been in charge of criminal investigations,
created Kennesaw's detective division, and been chief of the
department for the past 10 years.
As all chiefs know, and Congressman Heineman, being a former
chief of police, can attest to, we have a unique responsibility to
the community, safeguarding the rights of all, without putting one
above the other.
I've personally investigated a number of homicides, hundreds
of burglaries, and hundreds of rapes.
I've dealt with some pretty hardened criminals and I've been
personally responsible for the safety and training of my fellow
officers.
I believe my experience and what I've observed during my 18
years with the Kennesaw police department makes me uniquely
qualified to speak to the issue of armed citizens, law enforcement,
and public safety.
Kennesaw, itself, provides probably the best example of how
law enforcement and armed honest citizens co-exist. Since
virtually every home has at least one gun in it.
I am here to tell you, you would be hard pressed to find a
more peaceful community anywhere in this or any nation on earth.
Since our "armed citizen" law passed in 1982, crime, particularly
armed crime, in Kennesaw has dropped off dramatically. In fact,
Kennesaw has twice been nominated as the safest city in Cobb
County.
In spite of predictions by the press and anti-gun politicians,
we haven't had any incidents where citizens have accidentally shot
family members, or domestic disturbances being resolved with
gunfire.
Kennesaw is an armed community but a very peaceful community.
Criminals who dare come to Kennesaw also pick their victims
very carefully. They pick on the elderly and those who cannot
protect themselves.
In fact, I've received telephone calls from felons in
penitentiaries around the country who learned of our law from press
accounts. Those felons have stated that they would think twice
before coming to our community to commit a crime.
That, Mr. Chairman, is what I call good press. And I would
hope every city in the country could get calls like that.
In my view, the relationship between armed honest citizens and
law enforcement is great. Neither my officers, nor officers from
any other department in the country can be every where a crime
occurs. A firearm allows a citizen to hold an intruder until the
police can respond. More important, the presence of a firearm can
save his or her life. Firearms are a way for average citizens to
defend themselves until we arrive on the scene.
Do we as law enforcement feel secure knowing a significant
number of citizens in our community are armed? The answer is an
emphatic yes indeed.
In fact we are currently instituting community policing and
neighborhood watch programs in Kennesaw. The police department
will be working directly with armed citizens -- and we are very
comfortable knowing they are armed.
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I was introduced to
firearms by my father. He took me hunting for the first time when
I was eight years old. He taught me to be safe with firearms and
he taught me respect for firearms.
I also came to an appreciation of law enforcement and a desire
to become a policeman at an equally early age from members of my
family.
You might say I was raised respecting the Second Amendment and
law enforcement because both were deeply held family values.
I am a grown man. I've spent a lifetime in law enforcement
and around firearms. I have not changed my respect for either. If
anything I've grown even more appreciative of the lessons I learned
and the opportunity this country afforded me to enjoy both.
I hope what you do here today will enable future generations
of americans to experience the same values imparted to me. And I
cannot stress enough the fact that you should trust the public to
do the right thing with firearms. We did in Kennesaw and we are a
safe, peaceful, and ideal place to live.
Prepared Testimony by Officer Steve Rodriguez
Before the U.S. House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime
April 5, 1995
Chairman McCollum, members of the Subcommittee, I am Officer
Steve Rodriguez of the Albuquerque, New Mexico Police Department.
I am here today to discuss with you the Second Amendment and the
Bill of Rights, and how I, as a law enforcement officer, relate to
those rights. This is one of the universal things that I have in
common with all other police officers nationwide. Just like the
535 members of the United States Congress, we as law enforcement
officers took a solemn oath of office to defend the Constitution of
the United States and the Bill of Rights; this is one of the most
profound of our duties, yet it is often one of the most neglected
of our responsibilities. This oath that we swore unites us with
all of the law enforcement officers of the past, and with all of
those in the future who have yet to swear the oath; it is testimony
to the enduring nature of law enforcement's commitment to upholding
and protecting the letter and the spirit of the Constitution and
the Bill of Rights, which includes all 10 of the amendments. Most
police officers are staunch opponents of any and all efforts to
erode Second Amendment rights. To take a position to the contrary
would be to grossly neglect and ignore our sworn oath of office.
I myself swore this oath fourteen years ago. After three
years in the United States Marine Corps, I joined the Albuquerque
Police Department. And since then I have worked the streets. I've
learned to anticipate a career criminal's actions and intentions.
I've discharged the firearm my department issued to me. In one
year alone, I was involved in three shootings, including two
hostage situations. I mention this not because I seek your
admiration or sympathy but rather because I feel that it's
important to identify myself as one of the thousands of police
officers on the streets of America daily. I am neither a political
cop nor a desk jockey taking fingerprints and pushing paperwork.
Twelve of my fourteen years on the force have been spent with
the Specialized Units, including ten years with the tactical
section. I have been involved in bringing two pilot programs to
fruition. The first was the Repeat Offender Project, which
targeted career criminals; this has become my area of expertise,
and the bulk of my work with the force. The second pilot program
revamped the previously dormant Albuquerque Police Department's
Intelligence Unit; my work in intelligence also dealt with career
criminals. I am now, once again, with the SWAT team.
As a cop with plenty of "street time," I can attest to the
fact that the myth of gun control is just that -- it has absolutely
no bearing on reducing violent crime; in fact I would argue the
reverse. An attacker is much more likely to approach someone that
he perceives as unarmed and helpless. Equally useless is the
ridiculous approach of disarming honest people. As a police
officer I know that I cannot assume personal responsibility for all
of the men, women, and children of Albuquerque. Usually, the only
persons at the scene of the crime are the attacker and the victim.
Police officers respond as quickly as time, distance, and logistics
allow. But most crimes occur in less than a minute and without law
enforcement presence. The victim must protect his or herself
during the crime and until law enforcement assistance can arrive.
I've seen it a thousand times. That is life on the street, and law
enforcement is forced into a reactive role. The crimes still
occur; gun control isn't crime control, it doesn't control crime in
any way. Gun control only effects crime in one way -- it helps to
insure that the victim will be unarmed.
It all comes back to the fact that our criminal justice system
has failed. I see this perhaps more than most. Through the Repeat
Offender Program and it's outgrowths, I target career criminals.
And I see the same criminals again and again. It has almost become
a joke in my department, a pseudo-contest to see how many times we
can arrest the same person during our careers. I sighted a woman
I had previously arrested walking the streets one day and
immediately stopped her. She couldn't figure out why I wanted to
talk to her. I had very good reason -- I recognized her as someone
who had been arrested and charged 97 previous times. 97 times!
But out of 97 arrests, she had only 16 convictions -- convictions
for drug trafficking, heroin possession, armed robbery... Through
plea bargaining and standard court backlog, she had only served
time for 16 convictions, and never served out a full sentence for
those. And so she was back on the streets. I believe to commit
additional crimes and create new victims.
Maybe that sounds cynical to you -- after all, people can
change their ways, right? Maybe some people do. But 80-90% of 300
arrests that I am involved in each year involve prior convictions.
The criminals that I dealt with in the repeat Offender Project
averaged 15 prior arrests each. Through plea bargaining, that
gives them approximately two or three convictions, with reduced
sentences. And so I see the same people time and time again.
This is the basis of the crime problem in America. A person
is arrested multiple times, but receives very few convictions and
shorter sentences through plea bargaining and is then released
early because of prison "good time." And so crime pays. A person
can steal 30 cars before he receives a single conviction, for which
he'll receive probation, or perhaps a few months or so behind bars.
Once out of prison, he can steal another 30 or 60 cars before he's
ever locked up for any extended period of time. Meanwhile, he's
put together quite a lucrative system. He doesn't have any other
skills. And he sees that the cost of doing business is relatively
minor. These criminals will fall asleep in court, they'll fall
asleep during their sentencing hearings. They don't care. To
them, it's all routine.
And this is the problem -- there is a lack of fear of our
criminal justice system by the criminal. We don't need more money,
we don't need more cops, and we certainly don't need additional
firearms restrictions. What we need is enforcement of existing
laws -- we need to keep career criminals behind bars. We need
tough judges that enforce current sentencing guidelines. This will
intimidate potential criminals and discourage career criminals. If
criminals weren't released so quickly and so often, we wouldn't
have such a thing as a career criminal, or at least not nearly as
many as we face daily. They are simply released too early --
released because of overcrowding, released because of laws that
prevent putting two criminals in the same cell. And so they are
back on the streets.
Another part of the problem is that the system doesn't
prosecute the guys we catch. As I said, I can arrest someone 15
times, and he'll only get two or three convictions. Part of the
problem at all levels is plea bargaining. The problem with federal
laws is that Assistant United States Attorneys won't prosecute the
cases presented by my federal counterparts. It seems most people
only become an Assistant U.S. Attorney for one reason -- as a
stepping stone to a federal judgeship. And judgeships are awarded
because of win/loss records and politics. So Assistant U.S.
Attorneys will only take airtight, easy win cases. Because of
this, many cases are not brought before the court. And so we lose
another possible conviction, and another career criminal is back on
the streets. Until the next time.
Which brings us to the Second Amendment. Our crime problem is
with the system, not the weapon. The weapons that I see are small
caliber, easily concealable. Mostly Jennings and Ravens brands.
They only hold five or six rounds. And the average gun that we
take off the streets has had only two or three rounds fired. I've
spoken to our ballistics experts and they've told me that between
1993 and 1995, we only brought in two semiautomatic rifles -- 22s -
- used in a crime. The weapons aren't the problems.
And so I ask you today, please don't limit our Second
Amendment rights. Don't place a law enforcement officer in the
position of enforcing a law in violation of his sworn oath.
Instead, give us tougher sentencing. Make the criminal justice
system intimidating. Right now, Metropolitan judges are giving
longer sentences for misdemeanors that district judges are giving
for felonies. THAT is a crime. And that is why my partners and I
get the pleasure of arresting the same persons again and again,
time after time after they have created more victims. It's
disheartening and demoralizing. We are facing a new trend in law
enforcement -- lower morale on the force. Guys come in with the
blue night mentality and a commitment to hard work. But after
seeing their cases thrown out or bargained down, after seeing
repeat offenders committing crimes on the streets time after time,
they develop a production line mentality. Their heart is not in it
because they know the routine, they know what to expect, and they
know that they will probably arrest this same individual again, at
a later date.
We need your help to put an end to this cycle. I know that
the 104th Congress is committed to dealing with this problem. But
the focus needs to be on effective sentencing and not on firearms.
Thank you.
Prepared Testimony by Master Officer Craig Roberts
Before the U.S. House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime
April 5, 1995
Gentleman, I am Master Police Officer Craig Roberts of the
Tulsa, Oklahoma, Police Department. I am not an Oklahoma native;
I am originally from Southern California, from a community that
borders what recently has reached media infamy known as South
Central L.A.
However, for the past quarter of a century I have worn the
badge of the police department of the City of Tulsa, a city of 220
square miles and almost 400,000 people. Our department is almost
700 strong in sworn personnel, and we work in eight divisions and
three divisional patrol areas. In my time I have served under five
chiefs, five mayors and six presidents. When I came on the job the
Vietnam war was in full swing, the Chicago Seven had just gone to
trial, and names such as the Black Panthers and Huey Newton, H. Rap
Brown and Angela Davis, and the SDS and the Weathermen were in the
news. So-called Peace Marches were legion, civil disturbances and
riots rocked the nation, and being a police officer was not the
popular job to have.
I worked the streets through the years that saw the fall of
Saigon, the Mayaguez incident, the killing fields of Cambodia, the
arrest of Charles Manson and his "family," the assassination of
Robert Kennedy, Watergate, the Iran Hostage fiasco, Iran-Contra,
and Desert Storm. In my years I've seen the emergence and demise
of hippies, yippies and yuppies, and I've stood on the thin blue
line of riot formations on city streets, county jails, and our
largest state penitentiary. My duty asignments have included
serving as a patrol officer, bomb disposal technician, SWAT team
member, Fugitive Warrants officer, various plain clothes
assignments, police academy instructor, and most recently police
helicopter pilot.
During all of my time on the job I have not once faced or even
seen a so-called assault weapon used in a confrontation in the
hands of criminals. Indeed, I know of only two circumstances
wherein such a firearm was even mentioned--and one of those times
concerned one simply being turned in as recovered stolen property.
I have written or co-authored twenty-one books, three of which
concern firearms. Because of my writing, I have been featured as
a speaker in law enforcement seminars and conventions across the
country. This past year I have traveled from Fort Lauderdale to
Portland, Oregon; St. Louis to Dallas; Houston to Milwaukee. I
have spoken with literally hundreds of police officers, state
troopers and federal agents from accross the nation. I can tell
you today that the number of so-called assault weapons personally
encountered by these officers in hostile situations, according to
their responses to my questions, could be counted on two hands.
The point I wish to make here is that the mere existance of
these so-called assault weapons and their "high-capacity"
magazines, according to in-the-trenches field police officers, are
not a threat to society or to us. Nor are they the "weapons of
choice" for street gangs--or worse, the elusive "drug lords," of
which neither I, nor any of my fellow Tulsa officers, have ever
encountered. In actual fact, these so-called "assault weapons"
pose less of a threat than the more powerful high-powered rifles
and shotguns classified as "sporting firearms."
Police officers do not fear semi-automatic weapons, no matter
how many rounds the magazine holds. What we fear are the criminals
that use any weapon they can get, regardless of the laws on the
books, that we encounter over and over on the streets, after they
have been processed through the criminal justice system, served a
minimum sentence (if any sentence at all), and have been released
to prey on citizens again. It's not the gun laws that need to be
fixed, it's the judicial system.
Regarding the conflict over the wording of the Second
Amendment, I would like to take the constitutional issue into an
area that has not been mentioned. In January of 1969 I took an
oath of office. This oath, in part, stated that I "...do solemnly
swear, that I will defend, enforce, and obey, the Constitution and
laws of the United States, the State of Oklahoma and the Charter
and Ordinances of the City of Tulsa. That I will obey the lawful
orders of my superior officers and regulations of the Tulsa Police
Department. That I will protect the Rights, Lives and Property of
all citizens and uphold the honor of the Police Profession, with my
life, if need be."
Since that date I have had to make sure that every arrest I
made, every law I enforced, met the tests of Constitutionality. If
it didn't, I would be held personally liable--much as were the
officers in the Rodney King affair. Indeed, we are all subject to
42 USC S 1983, and I quote:
"Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance,
regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the
District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any
citizen of the United States or other person within the
jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges,
or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable
to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other
proper proceeding for redress."
The majority of police officers across the nation take a
similar oath of office as mine. Because of our oath to the
Constitution--the supreme legal document of our land--and the
penalties of violating that oath or enforcing laws that might
violate the test of Constitutionality, attempting to enforce the
so-called ban on "assault weapons" and "high capacity" magazines--
due to the word "infringed"--make the effort confusing, hazardous
and legally dangerous for law enforcement officers. We have all
been trained, either in the military or in law enforcement, that we
have a duty to refuse to obey an unlawful or illegal order, law or
regulation. In fact, a Supreme Court decision (Marbury vs.
Madison) states: "An Act of Congress repugnant to the Constitution
is not law. When the Constitution and an act of Congress are in
conflict, the Constitution must govern the case to which both
apply. Congress cannot confer on this court any original
jurisdiction. The powers of the legislature are defined and
limited; and those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten is the
reason the Constitution was written."
Add to this, Section 256 from the Sixteenth American
Jurisprudence, Second Edition: "The general rule is that an
unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law,
is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any
purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its
enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding
it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as
inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves
the question it purports to settle just as it would be had the
statute not been enacted. Since an unconstitutional law is void,
the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no
rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority to anyone,
affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it."
Further, "No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no
courts are bound to enforce it."
Because of our training and education, we know that if we
enforce a law upon a citizen that later fails a test of
constitutionality, we are personally liable. And when that
occasion occurs, neither the members of Congress that pass the
laws, nor the Department of Justice comes to our defense. To the
contrary, the DoJ becomes the prosecutor and we become the
defendants. With this threat constantly hanging over our heads, we
do not need more laws to confuse us and place us in harm's way in
civil actions, we need fewer.
It has been my experience that enacting laws that restrict the
ownership or right to bear firearms does not help the police, nor
does it help keep citizens safe.
With today's soaring number of calls for service our police
departments receive, we often find days and nights when response
time to an emergency call can be over an hour--and often longer--
due to lack of manpower in these days of austere city budgets. On
too many occasions we find ourselves, as law enforcement officers,
as reactive to circumstances instead of proactive. It is extremely
difficult these days to prevent a crime from occurring because we
are so busy handling crimes that have already occurred. If anyone
thinks that simply dialing 911 is the ultimate form of self
defense, I can only say that in these days and times that far too
often, by the time the police arrive, it will only be in time to
take crime scene photographs and collect forensic evidence. The
attacker will be long gone. The means to self defense, whether by
handgun or semi-automatic rifle, should not be inhibited by federal
legislation.
We must remember that we are employees of the people--not
their rulers or keepers. It is your mission as a representative to
listen to We the People--the highest level of government in the
American political chain-of-command, and reflect their wishes. And
it is our mission as law enforcement officers, using good and
reasonable laws that pass the test of Constitutionality, to protect
those same people.
Title XI--Firearms (Subtitle A--Assault Weapons) is not such
a law. In fact, in Tulsa, we cannot use this legislation, even if
there were no questions of constitutionality, because we do not
enforce federal law. We deal with state and local law, therefore
this legislation has virtually no impact on "helping the cops in
the trenches," as the media portrays.
It has been my experience that federal law has little impact
on local crime or law enforcement. In Tulsa, no mechanism exists
for our officers to utilize federal law to our benefit. We file
our charges under Municipal Code and State Law, not federal law.
If we find what we think is a federal violation, we must forward a
copy of our report to the federal agency who specializes in that
law such as FBI or BATF. However, in my experience as a Bomb Squad
technician, of the fifty-two bomb incidents I handled in a two year
period only two were acted upon by the ATF--and then only after a
special request by the chief of police at the time. It should be
noted that federal agencies and their agents have their own case
load and can provide little support for state or local cases.
Therefore, federal laws, no matter how well intentioned in
Congress, are more political than effective in real life.
Regarding the onslaught of media hype presented concerning the
number of police officers and law enforcement organizations who
supported a ban on assault weapons and large capacity magazines,
and what is purported when politicians mention that these gun
control efforts have the backing of "chief law enforcement
officers" (the majority of which have not served on the streets in
twenty or more years and have little concept of what street
officers are faced with today), rank-and-file officers do not
support this federal attack on the people's right to bear arms--
even so-called assault weapons.
I did not come here to give the opinion of only myself. I
represent a large number of officers from my department. Due to
the lack of lead time I received when I was called to testify
before this committee, I only had twenty-four working hours to
circulate a petition to other Tulsa Police officers that permit
them to voice their support for a repeal of the assault
weapons/magazine ban. During that time I was able to procure 155
signatures, all full-time sworn officers...male, female, White,
Black, American native and Asian. If I had more time, I'm sure the
list of names would be much longer.
I would like to add one further thing before I close. We do
not fear the weapons, no matter what they are, we fear the criminal
behind the weapon. If you want to help us, attack the
criminal...not the tool.
Gentleman, I spent a year of my life facing real assault
weapons: AK-47s, M-16s, RPKs, RPDs, and heavy machine guns. I was
in the first Marine regiment to see combat in South Vietnam, the
9th Marines. As a member of the 9th Marine Expeditionary Force in
1965-66, I waded steaming rice paddies, hacked through jungles,
and climbed forest covered mountains, participated in three major
operations, and faced both well-trained and determined Vietcong
guerrillas and North Vietnamese soldiers for eleven months. In the
end, I was awarded nine decorations including the Combat Action
Ribbon, the Vietnam Cross of Gallantry, and the Purple Heart.
I've faced the muzzle end of real assault weapons, and I
learned the hard way--to fear the man, not the device.
Let us work to repeal this expensive, ineffective,
unconstitutional law and use our assets in a much more efficient
manner elsewhere. I and the officers who I represent from our
department ask that you repeal the gun ban.
Thank you for permitting me to speak before this honorable
committee.
Dan Day
>As did the people in the congressional testimony that I will post
>as responses to this post. Read them over, and feel free to use
>their personal cases as further examples of "assault weapons" protecting
>innocent lives, and/or as source material which can point the way
>towards additional methods of arguing against restrictions on so-called
>"assault weapons".
Volume 3:
Transcript of written testimony by Tanya K. Metaksa, Executive Director
of ILA, before the House Judiciary Committee April 25, 1994,
submitted for Congressional record:
Mr. Chairman. My name is Tanya K. Metaksa. I am Executive
Director of the National Rifle Association's Institute for
Legislative Action. We directly represent the views of over 3.3-
million voters, and indirectly represent the views of perhaps 20
times that many Americans who peaceably own and use firearms.
The citizens who share our passion reside in every state in the
Union. We are doctors, lawyers, teachers, farmers, construction
workers, nurses, mechanics, housewives... we are men and women
from across every professional, social, and political spectrum.
Above all, we are peaceable people.
There is one thing we are not. We are not criminals.
Our wish to pursue our individual right to own and bear small arms
has nothing to do with criminal violence. Our wish to fight any
further encroachment on our rights has nothing to do with crime
and criminals.
With what this Congress is proposing -- a prohibition on firearms
ownership -- we are angry.
We are angry, because the Federal government has steadfastly
shirked its duty to use existing law to deal with criminal
violence involving firearms. Tough laws are already on the books
to deal with the kind of gun crime the public fears -- crime which
we all fear.
We are angry because the media choose either to be totally
ignorant of the law, or refuse their duty to inform the public as
to existing law.
We have every right to be angry, because we, peaceable people, are
being forced to pay the price for the violence of criminals.
That is the crux of everything that is wrong about any further so-
called gun control measures the Congress might attempt to enact.
The issue is not good guns and bad guns. It is simply good people
and bad people. Peaceable people versus criminals.
None of the proposals before the Congress to ban private ownership
of firearms; to create de-facto registration systems; or to
license firearms ownership has anything to do with curbing crime
or criminal behavior. These measures merely apply to the law
abiding -- to peaceable people.
Though proponents of such legislation would have the public
believe that their proposals apply to such evil people as mass
murderers, drug traffickers and the like, the truth is that
ordinary citizens -- peaceful individuals -- are the target.
Take the Feinstein amendment. Strip away the lists of what
legislators are mandating as "good guns" and "bad guns"; strip
away exceptions for individuals who Congress says can keep their
semi-autos for now. What we have is a ban on the ownership of
private property by law-abiding, peaceable private citizens.
The black letter of the language says, "It shall be unlawful for a
person to manufacture, transfer or possess a semi-automatic
assault weapon."
"It shall be unlawful for a person to own a weapon," that's what
it really says. That's what's important. Nothing else.
"A PERSON" ... That means every law-abiding citizen of the United
States. Every innocent, peaceable soul who might want to own a
certain kind of gun for any peaceable reason is banned from
private ownership of that personal property.
That is not what the public is being led to believe Congress is
doing here. The Senate debate over the issue of so-called assault
rifles was built around the notion that its proponents were only
after criminals -- drug traffickers and violent felons. They
promised they were leaving innocent people alone. The proposed
law says something quite different: the word "person" means
everybody -- every individual in America.
Sen. Feinstein's amendment does not say, "It shall be unlawful for
... drug traffickers, hate groups, drug king-pins, drug dealers,
soldiers of drug dealers, violent criminals, crime bosses, armed
cults, drive-by shooters, the triggerman, gangs, youth gangs,
armed gangs, carjackers, crazies, warlords, and mass murderers ...
to manufacture, transfer or possess a semi-automatic assault
weapon."
All of those words were used by Senators during the debate to
describe those who they claimed were the only people who would
logically own a certain kind of firearm. "... drug traffickers,
hate groups, drug king pins, drug dealers, soldiers of drug
dealers, violent criminals, crime bosses, armed cults, drive-by
shooters, the triggerman, gangs, youth gangs, armed gangs,
carjackers, crazies, warlords, and mass murderers ..." All that
makes it sound like the Congress is doing something to the bad
guys. That's not the case.
The public is being deceived. And members of Congress are being
deceived.
To say that such people could lawfully possess or use firearms in
commission of crimes is a terrible misstatement.
There are already harsh Federal laws to deal with convicted
criminals and those in the drug trade who possess, use, alter or
trade in assault weapons. All such activities by these people are
serious Federal felonies.
And that gets us to what can only be called "the big lie."
Sarah Brady of Handgun Control Inc. told the Women's National
Democratic Club Luncheon on September 21, 1993: "I think people
around the country are shocked when they realize we don't have
Federal laws when it comes to guns."
She went on: "It is very, very apparent that we don't have
Federal laws. We have the 1968 Gun Control Act and that's about
it. All that does is say you have to be 18 to buy a long gun and
21 to buy a handgun and that you can't be a fugitive or felon or
adjudicated mentally ill. That's it on the Federal level."
That is an obscene misstatement of the law.
Let me specifically address the question of so-called assault
weapons and how existing Federal law applies to criminals, drug
users, and drug dealers.
Under the Gun Control Act of 1968 as amended in 1986, it is
presently a Federal felony, punishable by a five year prison term
and a $250,000 fine, for a convicted felon to be in possession of
an assault weapon. That law covers all felons -- convicted by a
state, country, municipal or Federal court. It covers any firearm
that any Member of Congress could possibly define as an assault
weapon.
If a criminal in possession of an assault weapon is involved in
the drug trade, or has three prior felony convictions on his
record, the law calls for him to serve a mandatory 15 years in
Federal prison, and pay up to a $250,000 fine. That's for simple
possession of an assault weapon. It is a crime for a felon or
drug dealer to be in the same room with an assault weapon.
The use of an assault weapon by a convicted felon in commission of
a crime is also a five year Federal felony, and could also bring a
$250,000 fine. It covers guns with large magazine capacities.
The alteration of a semiautomatic assault weapon into a full-auto
machine-gun is a ten year Federal felony with a $250,000 fine.
Possession of an untaxed, unregistered fully automatic firearm is
a 10 year Federal felony, with a $250,000 fine.
Congress can't make it any more illegal for a convicted felon,
known drug user or a drug dealer to use an assault weapon in the
commission of a crime. It's already the law.
Congress can't make it any more illegal for a convicted felon to
buy assault weapons -- that's a five year Federal felony with a
$250,000 fine. Congress can't make it any more illegal for a
convicted felon to sell assault weapons -- that's a five year
Federal felony with a $250,000 fine. It's a crime with a five
year Federal felony and $250,000 fine for a person to knowingly
sell an assault weapon to a convicted felon, known drug user or
drug dealer.
Congress can't make it any more illegal for a convicted felon or
drug dealer to falsify information to a licensed dealer for the
purchase of an assault weapon. That is a five year Federal felony
with a possible $250,000 fine.
In fact, all of these things should mean long hard jail time for
the criminals, drug users and drug dealers with assault weapons,
and this holds true for criminals, drug users and drug dealers in
possession or use of any kind of firearm -- shotgun, rifle,
pistol, revolver -- single shot to machine-gun.
We don't have a handgun problem in America. We don't have an
assault weapon problem in America. We have a criminal problem.
And we already have laws to surgically remove criminals from the
midst of their victims.
Why aren't these laws being enforced? Every victim of every
violent crime in which a gun is used ought to demand the answer to
that question. As their elected representatives, you ought to
answer that question.
Assault weapons and criminals. Assault Weapons and drug users.
Assault Weapons and drug king pins. The combinations of object
and bad guy in any permutation you might want to devise are
already covered by harsh, strict Federal law.
And yet, these laws are not enforced. They are not used. And
there are some in this Congress who obviously do not know of their
existence. There are others who do know and do not care. They
want to remove firearms from the hands of peaceable people -- no
matter what kind of police state it will take to do that.
And on that, we will fight you every step of the way.
Congressman Steve Schiff recently asked the Justice Department how
many criminals were prosecuted under the various provisions I have
just cited. He was told that in the last three years the law was
used in only 530 cases. There are hundreds of thousands of armed
criminals out there who fall under the prohibited categories in
current Federal law. There are thousands of Federal agents who
could be enforcing that law. They are not. The United States
Attorney for Idaho during the Bush Administration said that only
20 percent of Federal prosecutors ever used the laws with respect
to convicted felons in possession of guns. That is a crime.
By ignoring the strict Federal penalties now covering criminal use
and possession of guns -- any guns, every gun -- prosecutors and
Federal law enforcement authorities have blood on their hands.
Victims of gun violent crime committed by previously convicted
felons are victims of Federal nonfeasance, malfeasance and
misfeasance. Police agencies of the Federal government are given
charge and trust to enforce the law. Yet they refuse to do their
jobs. And nice people are maimed and die because of that refusal,
every day.
If Federal law enforcement agencies did their jobs with respect to
guns and convicted violent felons -- using the only GCA `68, as
reformed -- gun control would be a dead issue and we would be a
long way toward solving the violent crime problem everybody fears
-- getting criminals off the street and into jail.
The FBI or the BATF now can go to any city in America and make
wholesale Federal prosecutions of convicted felons who local
police have already arrested for any crime in which they possessed
any gun.
Think about that. Every convicted criminal in America who picks
up a gun could now be in a Federal prison. Should now be in
prison. That's the law now!
It's true for known drug users. Every known drug user who picks
up a gun could be in a Federal penitentiary. That's the law now!
It's true for drug dealers. Every drug dealer in every corner of
America who even picks up a gun could be in a Federal
penitentiary. That's the law now!
This law is not discriminatory as to kinds of guns in criminals'
hands. For the convicted violent felon, for the known drug user,
for those engaged in the illegal drug trade it means, "Touch any
kind of gun -- expensive, cheap -- go to jail."
Congress can hardly make criminal possession and use of an
assault rifle, or handgun, or any gun more illegal for those who
commit criminal violence.
But it can make it illegal for peaceable people to own an assault
rifle, a handgun or any gun. And it can make criminals of those
innocent people. The first step is here.
All of these crimes I have mentioned are on the books now. They
cover every fear the public has about criminals with guns. Other
than these few existing statutes aimed at surgically removing
armed criminals from the midst of their innocent victims, all
other so-called gun control is a hoax, a fraud, a lie.
In all of these gun-control proposals now pending before this
Congress, the target for law enforcement is not criminals, but
ordinary people.
We are talking about this Congress enacting laws that will create
a whole class of unwitting criminals out of peaceable people who
have nothing to do with violent crime.
We are talking about the architects of the massacre at Waco being
given the tools to make innocent peaceable people victims of
government prosecution -- the same government that refuses to deal
with violent criminals. And we are talking about all of this
being proposed based on fictional assumptions.
Try this one. A tiny spring, a piece of coiled tempered steel in
the hands of a private citizen being a major threat to the public
safety.
This Congress is considering laws to redefine the term "firearm"
to mean individual parts of firearms. Thus a spring, a roll-pin,
or a piece of sheet metal becomes something it is not. A firearm,
broken down to its component parts, thus becomes many firearms.
The BATF would love it. A gun collection owned by a peaceable
citizen could thus become a huge "arsenal of illegal firearms". A
dealer's inventory, broken down, could become thousands of illegal
"crime-guns." Springs, pins, grips, barrels. What a statistical
boon.
The spring on a ball-point pen is virtually identical to the
return spring for a handgun firing pin.
Under this kind of newspeak legislation, that simple coil spring,
thus declared a firearm, could not be brought into the halls of
Congress. It is a Federal felony to attempt to bring a gun into
the Capitol.
That simple coil spring, thus declared a firearm, could not be
sent through the U.S. Postal Service. It is a federal felony to
send a firearm through the mail.
That simple coil spring, thus declared a firearm, could not be
carried into an airport or onto a commercial flight. That would
be a Federal felony.
However, under virtually every state law now on the books, a
criminal holding up a 7-Eleven convenience store with a ballpoint
pen return-spring, would not be convicted of armed robbery. Not
by any stretch of the imagination. It's funny, but it's not
funny.
The Feinstein amendment declares ammunition feeding devices to be
"firearms." Clips, magazines are to become guns. Sheet metal.
Springs. Pins. These parts will be firearms. This is truly
Orwellian. Unlawful possession by peaceable law-abiding citizens
of these objects -- objects that are not really guns, but legally
defined as guns -- will be Federal felonies. Everything that
applies to the ballpoint pen spring, applies to the parts of
magazines and feeding devices as well. And the U.S. Senate has
passed this insanity.
Someday, with this kind of thinking, images of firearms could
declared as firearms. Books, periodicals, photographs, videos,
films could be declared by Congress as being firearms. Let me
give you a quote on this: "Assault weapons ... We have seen them.
They are brought in the hearing rooms. We have looked at them.
They look quite ominous. We have pictures of them. The pictures
are not quite as ominous as the weapons themselves..." That's
Howard Metzenbaum during the Feinstein debate. He's afraid of
pictures. He's afraid of the published or broadcast image of a
firearm.
Let me give you another example of insanity before this Congress:
The notion of limiting the numbers of firearms peaceable people
can purchase. It is a phony.
Since it is already illegal for criminals to purchase and possess
even one gun -- why limit the number of guns honest people can
own? I'll give you the answer: Arresting violent criminals is
dangerous. Arresting nice, peaceable citizens is safe.
The Congress is considering legislation to force peaceable people
to be federally licensed because they might own a certain number
of guns. That has nothing to do with crime and criminals. Many
millions of law abiding, peaceable Americans already own
sufficient numbers of firearms to meet the "arsenal" license
threshold. And if they fail or refuse to get such a license,
their guns are going to be taken away from them. And if peaceable
people do comply with such a requirement, there will be millions
of new "arsenal" licensees for the BATF to regulate. This is the
same BATF that keeps coming to Congress whining that it has too
many Federally licensed dealers to regulate. They will surely say
they have too many "arsenal holders" to regulate, and then what
happens? Do these collectors lose their guns?
In gun control, Americans have been sold a big lie. The issue of
assault weapons is the biggest lie of all.
Dianne Feinstein, during the Senate Floor debate over her
amendment, flatly stated that such firearms as she would ban "are
not responsible for a large number of homicides..."
She later said they might become a problem, so they should be
banned now.
This is like the Congress passing a law to eradicate cancer by
forcing every healthy person to undergo chemotherapy, radiation
and organ removal. It might cure cancer, but it surely would kill
most of us in the process.
Again, gun control means making the innocent pay the price for the
guilty.
The issue of assault weapons is an invention of a social engineer
named Josh Sugarman. In March, 1989 Sugarman produced a paper
called, Assault Weapons: Analysis, New Research and Legislation.
It's a manifesto.
Sugarman -- a vehement partisan against all lawful private
ownership of small arms -- concluded that the so-called handgun
control movement was in trouble; that the public and media and
politicians were tired of the issue. He concluded that people
were not afraid of handguns, because so many people own them for
their own peaceable reasons. Let me quote: "... handgun
restriction consistently remains a non-issue with the vast
majority of legislators, the press, and public."
So, some new symbol was needed to frighten people. Something
sinister, terrifying and above all, unfamiliar. Enter the assault
weapon.
Again, to quote Sugarman: "Assault weapons... are a new topic.
The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion
over fully-automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault
weapons -- anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be
a machine gun -- can only increase the chance of public support
for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can
envision a practical use for these weapons."
It is all smoke and mirrors. Public relations. A hoax.
I will quote again: "If police continue to call for assault
weapons restrictions, and the NRA continues to fight such
measures, the result can only be a further tarnishing of NRA's
image in the eyes of the public, the police, and NRA members. The
organization will no longer be viewed as the defender of the
sportsman, but as the defender of the drug dealer."
He goes on to predict that "Efforts to restrict assault weapons
are more likely to succeed than those to restrict handguns."
And why is this? "... many Americans do believe that handguns are
effective weapons for home-defense and the majority of Americans
mistakenly believe the Second Amendment of the Constitution
guarantees the individual right to keep and bear arms. Yet, many
who support the individual's right to own a handgun have second
thoughts when the issue comes down to assault weapons. Assault
weapons are often viewed the same way as machine guns and
`plastic' firearms -- a weapon that poses such a grave risk that
it's worth compromising a perceived constitutional right."
In Sugarman's 1989 paper, he proposes legislation -- precisely
what was to become the Feinstein amendment. Practically word for
word.
It is all snake oil. If we applied a truth in packaging law to
this concept, it would exposed as a fraud.
But everything he predicted about manipulating the public,
politicians and the media has come true.
In the Senate debate over the Feinstein amendment, Senator Howard
Metzenbaum talked about the menacing look of so-called assault
weapons.
"... We have seen them. They are brought in the hearing rooms.
We have looked at them. They look quite ominous..."
Straight out of Sugarman's instructions.
And the Washington Post commenting on the recent ban of so-called
assault pistols in the state of Maryland after a media-feeding
frenzy:
"Gun-control supporters acknowledged they are far from restricting
the ordinary types of handguns that most criminals favor, because
they are the same weapons often purchases by law-abiding residents
who want to safeguard their homes and businesses." (April 1, 1994)
Straight out of Sugarman.
The Washington Post also quoted one of the major supporters of the
ban on private ownership of assault weapons as saying, "... gun
control advocates could take pride in limiting access to weapons,
even if the hard-fought measure applies only to 18 types of
assault pistols, which are used in a fraction of violent crime."
(April 11, 1994)
"... Used in a fraction of violent crime..."
Washington D. C. is billed as the murder capital of the nation.
Listen to its politicians and the media here and you get the
impression assault weapons figure highly in the carnage.
But the FBI Uniform Crime statistics tell another story. In 1992,
the last year for which there are FBI numbers, D. C. had 442
homicides. Of those, 368 were firearms homicides. And of these,
368 were with handguns. D. C. had zero homicides with long guns
of any kind, no less assault rifles.
It's the same all over the country.
In California, the state's department of justice found that so-
called assault weapons were involved in 4 percent of the state's
assaults and homicides.
In New Jersey, rifles of any type (including those deemed semi-
automatic assault weapons) were used in 1 percent of homicides in
the period 1987 through 1992.
Yet, in those places such firearms have been banned from private
ownership.
These laws have accomplished one thing -- massive civil
disobedience by peaceful, formerly law-abiding citizens.
There are millions of good, honest citizens in every state who own
guns that some of you in this Congress would ban. And those
millions of citizens are not going to give up their private
property. Even if they did, their loss of their firearms would
have nothing to do with violent crime.
I will leave you with a bit of wisdom from Sen. Dianne Feinstein
concerning her ban on assault weapons:
"This bill, unfortunately, will not stop most of the killings that
we are now witnessing in horror and disbelief... "
So what is this about? It is about disarming good people,
peaceable people, innocent people. It is about making them pay a
terrible price for those criminal predators who now go untouched
by Federal laws already on the books.
Finally I would say, Yes, Sen. Feinstein, there is a gun law. And
it will work, because it only deals with criminals. It is
surgical. The NRA pressed for it's enactment in 1986, and some of
you who are proposing gun-ownership prohibitions voted against its
harsh new penalties for criminals.
I will tell Sen. Feinstein... I will tell you... and I will tell
the American people that we have laws on the books now that will
remove killers from our midst. If they are isolated in prison,
their killing days will be over. For as long as such evil people
are in jail, they cannot prey upon the innocent. To that end, the
laws we have will do much to slow criminal violence. Demand the
current law be used. If that happens, not one of you ever has to
vote on the issue of gun control again. It becomes irrelevant.
Because it is a hoax.
In closing, I want to state, NRA has a violence reduction agenda.
It includes our "Eddie Eagle" program to teach our children that
guns are not toys. It includes our "Refuse to Be A Victim"
program to educate women in personal defense strategies. It
includes our "CrimeStrike" Program that in 1993 went to Washington
state and ensured the passage of "Three Strikes, You're Out,"
which President Clinton has now claimed as his idea. It also
includes our prison building initiative which started in 1993 in
Texas where we helped pass a billion dollar prison building
referendum and in 1994 where we worked with Congressmen to add
billions for prison construction to the House Crime Bill.
And Yes, there is a gun law. And it will work, because it only
deals with criminals. It is surgical. The NRA pressed for it's
enactment in 1986, and some of you who are proposing more gun-
ownership prohibitions voted against it's harsh new penalties for
criminals.
And I am here to tell you and the American people that NRA and its
members will keep on working to pass laws that truly ensure that
all our citizens live without the fear of violent criminals and
yes, we will defend the right of any law-abiding peaceable
American to own a firearm.
TIEMANN BRUCE
Dan Day <d...@firstnethou.com> wrote:
>On 5 Feb 2000 22:05:58 GMT, tie...@spot.Colorado.EDU (TIEMANN BRUCE) wrote:
>>
>>magazines and that have no other purpose than killing large numbers of
>>people, rapidly? What honest citizen would ever want to do that for?
>
>in the rest of your speech, I think it's a big mistake to appear to
>concede major false anti-gun demonization of certain firearms.
Good point. I quoted it in the title - but that isn't enough.
>"40 or 50 round" magazines are very rare even for true military firearms.
>30 round magazines are the most common size limit.
I think I've sen 50s for AKs at gun shows - in any case that's what the
locals think of.
>Also, the firearms
>that most areas consider banning are NOT "assault rifles" (assault
>rifles are fully automatic firearms) -- the "assault weapons" that
>some bodies try to ban are simply semi-automatic, and no different from
>many other "politically correct" firearms.
I know that - but this is what they think.
> Finally, these firearms
>most certainly do not "have no other purpose than killing large numbers
>of people", nor can they do it all that "rapidly" (the "rapidly" seems
>to imply machine-gun fire).
To them, 30 rounds = 30 deaths, and not having to change the magazine
means more rapidly.
>In the rest of your speech, you refute the "who needs" and "no other purpose"
>part of your above paragraph, but you do NOT properly refute the
>"assault rifle", or "40-50 round", or "no other purpose", or "rapidly"
>portions of your above paragraph. And by leaving them unchallenged,
>you appear to agree that they are true.
My intention with the sports cars paragraph - the very next one - was to
touch on most of those points. Why even allow 8 or 12 cylinders when 4
will get you to work? And why make a car "that is only designed for
speeding" "rapidly" - not an argument I make, but one I imply.
>To some people, those remaining
>"characteristics" of "assault rifles" are alone more than enough reason to
>ban them forever. Don't give them that excuse.
Good points - next draft in the works.
>>Does anyone really need Jaguars and Ferraris, [snip]
>>Does anyone really need Nikon or Hasselblad cameras? [snip]
>>Does anyone really need football? [snip]
>>Does anyone really need computers capable of over [snip]
>>Does anybody really need to buy eggs a dozen or 18 at a time? [snip]
>>Does anyone really need more than $100,000 salary? [snip]
>
>You use too many examples, belaboring what is obvious after the
>first two or three examples, plus you dilute your impact by
>including some examples that are real stretches (cameras? Eggs?)
I included the eggs for the reason of "sensible" background checks and
purchase limits - and *millions* of heart disease deaths each year.
But it can go.
>That time could better be spent undermining the several other
>excuses that people lean on in order to try to justify firearm bans,
>besides the single "who needs" crutch. You might want to also
>shoot down the most popular myths about "assault weapons", including
>the myths that they are machine guns, or more powerful than standard
>hunting firearms, or in any way more suitable for murder or less
>suitable for hunting or self defense.
That's a good point, and by the way thank you very much for the testimony
Re: 1994 gun ban. Many gems there to mine!
>>Does anyone really need swimming pools? They produce nothing, yet each
>>year thousands of innocent children drown in them.
>
>Hundreds, not thousands.
Thanks, thought it was thousands. It could well be thousands if you
include the whole world. Gotta find the correct number.
>>Does anybody really need assault rifles, capable of killing large numbers
>>of people, rapidly? Well, this one I can answer. In the 1991 L.A. Rodney
>>King riots, Asian-American storekeepers with such rifles presented enough
>>of a credible threat to the rioters, without even needing to fire at all,
>>that their stores were left alone. Unarmed storeowners were not so lucky.
>
>The store owners not only protected their stores, but their own lives
>as well.
And some did fire, too. Didn't know that.
>
>As did the people in the congressional testimony that I will post
>as responses to this post. Read them over, and feel free to use
>their personal cases as further examples of "assault weapons" protecting
>innocent lives, and/or as source material which can point the way
>towards additional methods of arguing against restrictions on so-called
>"assault weapons".
Thanks greatly for these accounts, and for your comments in general.
MLee388407
us peons
>don't "need" so-called assault rifles. Though I agree with your quickie
>argument above, I'm not sure it will register in the heads of my intended
>audience - hence my longer exposition.
>
Also remind them that AW are used very rarely in crime....I believe the most
common firearms used in crime is a .38 revolver.
Mike
rec.guns.
MLee388407
>>Does anyone really need Nikon or Hasselblad cameras? [snip]
>>Does anyone really need football? [snip]
>>Does anyone really need computers capable of over [snip]
>>Does anybody really need to buy eggs a dozen or 18 at a time? [snip]
They are going to say that those items are not meant for killing. Perhaps you
can bring some references where citizens have defended life with the use of AW?
Mike
rec.guns.
MLee388407
Another thing I thought of is bring up that certain Law Enforcment groups
are against the AW ban.....It seems LE opinions carry some weight with these
poly tick ians.
Mike
rec.guns.
TIEMANN BRUCE
John E. Castasus <jcas...@boinkers.foo.mindspring.com> wrote:
>Okay, then call the Boulder PD and compare the number of handgun crimes to
>the number of assault rifle crimes. Or better yet, use the numbers for the
>entire state of Colorado for the past 5 years. In effect, Boulder is
>trying to stop a non-existent problem.
LOL! That is called "being proactive" and "preventative measures"! They
want to nip the problem in the bud *before* it becomes a problem - I
guess, since it isn't a problem now and has never been here.
I don't need to tell you that those are "prior restraint" and "we know
what's good for us all" attitudes from my point of view. My urgent
question is, how can I open their eyes, so they see that gun control
doesn't work and "assault rifles" in the hands of the law abiding is at
least neutral, and quite possibly beneficial.
>What they're trying to do is prevent another Columbine High School. Dead
>kids, ignorance and hysteria tend to create bad laws.
No shit! "We've got to DO SOMETHING!! NOW!! BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE!!"
An irony that probably hasn't escaped you is how the gun-grabbers
criticized the NRA for "exploiting the situation" for political reasons -
and then hurried on to produce the most spiteful gun control pacakge yet.
Hypocrites!
>You're fighting a good fight, but you're facing a cultural problem. Unless
>someone has had positive exposure to guns, they honestly can't see the
>appeal or the utility of such weapons. I doubt many people in Boulder have
>had the pleasure of driving past crime tape.
Nope - but some crimes here have made the national news. Mr. Kelley was
kicked in the head so many times he got brain damage, then there's Jon
Benet, and lately a gang rape. The latter is culturally interesting - all
the perps were in an Asian(-American! ahem...) gang and one of them wanted
to "do" a white woman. Sounds like a hate crime to me - they chose her
because of her race (what if the perps were white and the victim black,
etc?) - but it's not being prosecuted under hate crime laws. Go figure.
One of them suicided, and the other five are in custody.
For such an enlightened region, all supportive of "diversity" and
"multiculturalism" this place sure likes to discriminate against gun
owners. I talked to a neighbor who thought that "militia types running
around with assault rifles and wearing cammies" should be thrown in jail.
I told him I didn't think such people posed the same threat as, say,
criminals, but I don't think he distinguishes between them. In fact, I
think he might even fear me now, arguing as I did that more gun control
was a bad thing. Why, I'm probably one of them!!
Another argument I'm crafting relates Jim Crow laws to current gun control
laws. "For the good of the community, *reasonable* *common-sense*
restrictions *need* to be passed to control these dangerous people. Was
blacks then, now it's gun owners.
TIEMANN BRUCE
Good idea. But let me play the devil's advocate:
Sports car are *designed* to go much faster than the speed limit, and
speed kills. It is up to the driver's foot ONLY that a given such car
doesn't really, really exceed the speed limit. Why should it then be up
to the *government* how many rounds a magazine can hold?
Football is made to have people run into each other, head first, etc.
Injuries are quite common, and it really is only a matter of time...
Though eggs aren't the sole factors in deaths how many households have
eggs, vs. die of heart disease, compared to how many have "assault rifles"
and die, or kill, by such firearms? I know, it's not logical, etc - but
it's the kind of argument used against gun rights advocates. I wanted to
use their same arguments, turned around so they could see how silly they
sound.
Dan Day
>>They are going to say that those items are not meant for killing. Perhaps you
>>can bring some references where citizens have defended life with the use of AW?
>
>Good idea. But let me play the devil's advocate:
>
>Sports car are *designed* to go much faster than the speed limit, and
>speed kills. It is up to the driver's foot ONLY that a given such car
>doesn't really, really exceed the speed limit.
You're assuming that your opponents are reasonable people. Bad mistake.
A lot of the rabid anti-gunners actually *do* think it's a good idea
to have laws to limit fast cars, people who make "too much" money,
etc. etc.
Dan Day
>>"40 or 50 round" magazines are very rare even for true military firearms.
>>30 round magazines are the most common size limit.
>
>I think I've sen 50s for AKs at gun shows - in any case that's what the
>locals think of.
So correct them, don't reinforce their wildest fears.
I've seen up to 100 round "magazines", but like the 50's, they're
more a novelty item than a practical thing to use. They're bulky,
have feed problems, and are heavy as hell. It's like trying to
shoot a rifle with a small anvil attached.
>>Also, the firearms
>>that most areas consider banning are NOT "assault rifles" (assault
>>rifles are fully automatic firearms) -- the "assault weapons" that
>>some bodies try to ban are simply semi-automatic, and no different from
>>many other "politically correct" firearms.
>
>I know that - but this is what they think.
Then don't agree with them.
>> Finally, these firearms
>>most certainly do not "have no other purpose than killing large numbers
>>of people", nor can they do it all that "rapidly" (the "rapidly" seems
>>to imply machine-gun fire).
>
>To them, 30 rounds = 30 deaths, and not having to change the magazine
>means more rapidly.
So tell them why they're wrong. Also point out that any hunting
rifle which accepts a magazine could also accept an arbitrarily large
magazine. There's nothing magic about "assault weapons" that make
them any more suitable for large magazines than any other rifle.
AND especially point out that contrary to hysterical claims, or
what they see on bad TV dramas or Hollywood action films, "assault
weapons" are both NOT as deadly as they're made out to be, AND are
used in far, far, far fewer actual real-life crimes than most
people would ever believe. If they're not the problem they're made
out to be, why bother doing anything special about them?
>>In the rest of your speech, you refute the "who needs" and "no other purpose"
>>part of your above paragraph, but you do NOT properly refute the
>>"assault rifle", or "40-50 round", or "no other purpose", or "rapidly"
>>portions of your above paragraph. And by leaving them unchallenged,
>>you appear to agree that they are true.
>
>My intention with the sports cars paragraph - the very next one - was to
>touch on most of those points. Why even allow 8 or 12 cylinders when 4
>will get you to work? And why make a car "that is only designed for
>speeding" "rapidly" - not an argument I make, but one I imply.
The problem is that to these people, firearms are "just different". To
them, ANY analogy to ANY other object on earth is ridiculous and false
(and the closer the analogy actually hits the home, the more they'll
loudly denounce it as a ridiculous and false analogy).
Really, it all too often boils down to, "I *like* cars and pools, I
*don't* like guns". And *that's* what makes it "different".
Rabid anti-gunners almost always revert back to one of two foundations
whenever they find the rest of their arguments being backed into a
corner by logic:
1. "But no one *needs* a gun, while we need cars and eggs and..."
2. "But guns are only intended to kill..."
>>>Does anyone really need swimming pools? They produce nothing, yet each
>>>year thousands of innocent children drown in them.
>>
>>Hundreds, not thousands.
>
>Thanks, thought it was thousands.
Grand total drowning deaths in the US per year (including sinking ships,
bathtub drownings of infants or the elderly, fishing accidents, etc.)
are around 4000-5000 per year, for all ages. For "children", the number
is (depending on how you define "children") around 1200 (for ages 12
and under) or 1800 (for ages under 18). Swimming pools are pretty
dangerous, but they're also not incredibly common, either, so while
the "per pool" death rate is surprisingly high, the total number of
pool deaths is not a huge percentage of the total numbers of drownings
in a given year.
> It could well be thousands if you
>include the whole world.
Probably. But don't compare apples and oranges -- if you're
going to use US figures for the rest of your numbers (and you
probably should), then use US figures for pools and eggs and such also.
> Gotta find the correct number.
Good luck -- it's surprisingly hard to find a number for just the
pool deaths in the US.
Dan Day
>Re: 1994 gun ban. Many gems there to mine!
Oh, and here's another good one:
#####
Principled Firearms Policy:
Ethics, Logic, & Conflict-Resolution
Preston K. Covey, Ph.D.
Director, Center for the Advancement of Applied Ethics, Carnegie Mellon
University
Deputy Sheriff, Training Staff, Uniform Division, Allegheny County
Sheriff's Reserve
Director, Pennsylvania Chapter, National Institute of Law Enforcement Ethics
Training Criteria Committee, The International Association of Law
Enforcement Firearms Instructors
Editor, The Standards & Practices Reference Guide for Law Enforcement
Firearms Instructors
The American Society of Law Enforcement Trainers
The American Society of Criminology
The Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences
The Society for Risk Analysis
The National Institute of Dispute Resolution
The Society for Professionals in Dispute Resolution
Testimony
before
The Pennsylvania General Assembly's
Select Committee to Investigate Automatic & Semiautomatic Firearms
in
Harrisburg, PA
September 20, 1994
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I thank you for the opportunity
to address this panel. I hope I can provide some useful perspective for
your important public service. For this purpose as well, I have given
the committee a useful book analyzing crime- & gun-control policy by
Samuel Walker -- and two detailed papers by myself on "assault weapons."
I speak to you today from several, united, perspectives. Let me make my
basic interests clear.
I am a husband & a father. My heart weeps, no less than anyone's, for
all parents, all children & all people who are victims of violent crime,
or who fear to become victims of violence. I want to see a reduction in
violence -- & in the fear & risk of violence -- as much as anyone.
My applied research & my community service is dedicated to law
enforcement training -- in police ethics, in firearms use, in the
judicious use of force, & in officer safety. I conduct training myself &
I serve, for example, as a sworn Deputy Sheriff detailed to the Training
Staff of the Uniform Division of the Allegheny County Sheriff's
Reserve, and I serve as Editor & co-author of the Standards & Practices
Reference Guide for the Training Criteria Committee of the
International Association of Law Enforcement Firearms Instructors.
I know something about the realities of violent encounters, the tactical
utility of a wide variety of firearms (including so-called "assault
weapons"), and both the judicious use & criminal misuse of firearms. I
have dedicated myself to the law enforcement training field because I am
dedicated to the welfare & safety of our police officers as well as to
the welfare & safety of my fellow citizens.
I am a moral philosopher who, after 30 years of study, claims to know
something about matters of right & wrong -- and about how to think about
moral matters & moral disagreement.
I am also a student & teacher of conflict resolution, & the methods this
field has developed over several decades for giving a fair hearing to
conflicted viewpoints, the search for common ground, & the principled
resolution of conflict.
Therefore, I am as dedicated as any citizen to reducing both conflict &
violence in our society.
But I am also dedicated to finding solutions that work as promised &
solutions that are principled in their justification.
For thirty years, I have been a teacher & educator of university
students, young people in whom we entrust our best hope for the future.
In matters of logic, ethics, & principled policy making, I am dedicated
to practicing what I teach.
Today, I propose to share with you some of the standards I teach our
kids in school, applied to the issue of selective gun bans. My case in
point is our Governer's proposed ban on so-called "assault weapons."
For convenience, I will speak in terms of the impersonal YOU. I do not
mean, thereby, to make any attribution or any reference to any
particular person.
= = =
For my limited remarks today, I take the central issue to be what sense
it makes to ban certain, but not all, firearms in the Commonwealth. The
guns selected for banning are called by their critics "assault weapons,"
but this rhetoric is ignorant, misleading, gratuitous, & probably
disingenuous.
I am not here to play some feckless game of words. But, let me set the
record straight about semantic weaselcraft. One thing I teach our kids
in school is this: No weaselcraft. No word games. Define -- &
justify -- your terms clearly.
Let me define & justify my terms, so that we're all reading from the
same page: I refer to the targeted firearms as "combat weapons" rather
than "assault weapons." Here's why:
I am happy to stipulate that the targeted firearms are indeed, as
"generally recognized," deadly weapons & that they are "particularly
suitable" for combat purposes -- or (to use the euphemism of our State
Police report on so-called "assault weapons") oriented to "an
anti-personnel role." ALL defensive weapons are surely, by definition,
"oriented" to "an anti-personnel role."
But I reject as rank pettifoggery or illiteracy the imputation that
combat weapons are limited only to "assault" or that any of the
targeted firearms are designed, suitable, or useful solely for
"assault" (which even in the military context is only one function of
combat and which in the civilian context is a crime). No firearm is
useful or designed only for violent crime.
Combat is inherently defensive as well as offensive and its moral or
legal justifiability in either case must be assessed on the merits.
By the same commonsense reckoning, the martial arts are not called
"assault arts."
The rhetoric equating combat (in particular, defensive combat) with
"assault" is for propagandists.
In plain language, the rhetorical term "assault weapons" means "bad
guns," the guns that someone wants to stigmatize & ban today.
It is claimed, ignorantly or disingenuously, that these guns are "bad"
because they are designed ONLY for killing, or, worse: ONLY for killing
& maiming lots of people quickly.
But our police use these types of guns, & it is proposed that our police
will be exempt from any ban.
Yet, our police are not in the business of indiscriminate killing &
maiming. Neither are 99.9% of our law-abiding citizens who own & value
these guns.
Therefore, it is sheer flummery to declaim that the targeted guns are
designed only for indiscriminate killing & maiming.
To be sure, these guns are designed for combat; they are combat weapons.
Law-abiding citizens, as well as our police, have use for these guns
for defensive combat, in the exercise of the most fundamental of human &
moral rights: the right to self-defense, albeit only in the gravest
extreme.
Calling them "assault weapons" obscures -- intentionally obscures --
this fundamental moral reality. Feckless name-calling will not suffice
to justify banning anything.
OK. The question I address is what sense it makes to ban a limited
selection of firearms, regardless of what you call them.
My gameplan here is to sort out logical choices & consequences.
I'm going to pursue just one line of inquiry, the choices it affords &
the consequences they pose. The game is called "choice &
consequences."
If you don't like the logic, tell me where it's wrong. If you don't
agree with my principles, tell me where they're wrong.
Definition: A selective gun ban is one by which you propose to ban
only some firearms, or some types of firearm, but not all firearms or
all types of firearms.
Case in Point: The "assault weapon" ban proposed by Governor Casey et
al. This proposal is on the table, so it's as good an example as any.
The Governor proposes to ban certain types of firearm, which he calls
"assault weapons." I have rejected this language as irrelevant
weaselcraft. More plainly, the targeted guns fall into three categories
of combat weapons: "military-style" shoulder weapons, "high-capacity
pistols," & "small-capacity pistols."
One obvious question is: What justifies banning these, or only these,
types of firearm? I intend this question to cut both ways:
If I'm a law-abiding gun owner, I want to know why you're banning this
or that gun of mine. On the other hand, if I'm against civilian gun
ownership, I want to know: Why are you pussy-footing around; why not ban
them all? Either way, on either side of the issue, a selective gun
ban requires justification.
Only if we know the true purpose of the ban, can we assess the criteria
for discriminating against the banned guns and the good citizens who
wish to own them.
Many purposes are attributed to this & other selective bans. I take the
most fair-minded attribution of motive to be this:
To reduce access to these guns by criminals, to reduce gun violence, &
thereby to reduce criminal violence overall.
Given this purpose, we have an obvious criterion for banning some guns:
that a given type of gun is especially popular with criminals or figures
prominently in gun violence.
Notice that this criterion says nothing about whether law-abiding
citizens have any legitimate use for the gun in question. This is a
separate question, which must be brooked when it comes time to JUSTIFY
the proposed ban. When it comes to liberty-limiting policy, this is
what I teach our kids in school: The civic & moral duty to justify
coercive constraints imposes, at least, the following requirements:
Burden of proof: The burden is always upon the invaders of liberty to
show their right of way: you cannot take away liberty, or impose cost or
harm on innocent citizens, without showing cause. For example, you
cannot just destroy a liberty because it doesn't happen to matter or
appeal to you, or to some majority of people. That is unprincipled;
that is tyranny by majority. The specific burdens of proof are at least
four-fold:
1. Efficacy: You must show that the ban will in fact achieve its stated
purpose.
2. Fairness in balancing costs & benefits, the interests & rights of ALL
stakeholders: You must show that, effective or not, the benefits of the
ban outweigh its costs & harms -- and that those costs & harms are fair.
In so doing, you must weigh the interests as well as the rights of
negatively affected law-abiding citizens at least as carefully as we
safeguard the rights & interests of criminals. Conflict resolution also
dictates that the interests of all stakeholders must be taken into
account before any resolution is attempted; like procedural justice in
policy making, this means minority interests cannot be summarily
dismissed.
3. Evidence: The standard of proof required to show either efficacy or
fairness is a preponderance of the best available evidence, as weighed
by the best available methods, on the most rigorous standards of
fairness.
4. Consistency: Both logic & fairness demand consistency, that any
discriminatory policy must treat like things alike, whether the subject
of discrimination is a person or a gun. For example, you don't punish a
child for what you're willing to let other kids get away with, without
showing a morally relevant difference. You don't ban one gun for being
"bad" & let other guns that are equally "bad" or "worse" in the same
respect go free.
I submit to you, that the proposed ban would fail each of these modest
requirements miserably. I believe the failure & unfairness of the
proposed ban can be shown by an overwhelming preponderance of the
evidence, by the best available methods, in any evidentiary court that
would commit to try the disputed facts & weigh the values at stake.
This panel has heard such evidence.
I don't have time to rehearse the factual, ethical, & political case
against the proposed ban here.
The internal inconsistency of this ban, and the national crime-bill ban
as well, is evident in a single example: The ban damns the Colt
Sporter, a semi-auto variant of the military M16, but lets the Remington
7400, a semi-auto hunting rifle go free. Why? The Colt fires a
relatively small .22 caliber cartridge, while the 7400 comes chambered
in the vaunted .30-06 round, our military rifle cartridge from WWI to
Korea, a favorite of big game hunters, & a far more devastating round
than the .223; there are 20- & 30-round aftermarket magazines for the
7400 & its no trick to equip it with a folding pistol-grip stock & evil
handguard. Why is the lightweight .223 an "assault weapon" & the
heavy-duty .30-06 a sanctified sporting arm? On the other hand, what
hunter can seriously believe that this rank inconsistency in the
proposed bans can long escape correction?
I will lay aside the factual disputes that have been well reviewed here
already. Instead, I focus on issues of logical & ethical consistency. I
approach the question of justification by posing a logical dilemma,
because a dilemma allows CHOICE while posing troublesome CONSEQUENCES
for all the alternatives.
Remember, the game is called "choice & consequences." Here's the
dilemma . . . .
The Selective Gun Ban Dilemma:
If you are principled & logically consistent, you must ban ALL guns, OR
ban NONE. ALL OR NONE.
Put more bluntly: a selective gun ban is a scam; if you're committed to
banning any gun to reduce gun violence, then you are inevitably
committed to banning all guns. If you are honest, you will stand up, say
so, & face the political consequences. This is not my paranoia, this is
simple logic.
Here's how the my gameplan goes:
First, we avoid niggling over definitions & criteria: we just call the
targeted guns "type X," because their specific features are sloppily
specified & don't matter to the logic of the dilemma anyway.
This is also a charitable concession, because the mix & types of guns
that ban proponents want to ban today is an inconsistent & unprincipled
fruit salad. Governor Casey's fruit salad includes three categories:
(1) "Military-style rifles & shotguns." Military-style rifles are
defined for us by the State Police as semi-automatic variants of
selective-fire (i.e. fully automatic) military-style rifles.
Military-style shotguns are defined as either semi-automatic or manually
operated shotguns having features like handguards, bayonet lugs, &
increased-capacity magazines "which will orient them to an
anti-personnel role" -- as if ALL defensive weapons were not "oriented"
to an anti-personnel role.
In a four-and-a-half year study of guns involved in violent crime (which
excluded Philadelphia & Allegheny County) conducted by the Bureau of
Laboratory & Communications Services of the Commonwealth's State Police
(hereafter, "the State Police study"), military-style rifles & shotguns
together accounted for less than 1.33 % of the guns used in violent
crime.
It is charitable not to question the criterion for including these guns
in the fruit salad, because that criterion clearly cannot be popularity
among violent criminals or a high rate of use in violent crime --
because banning these guns is therefore not clearly relevant to reducing
violent crime. There must be other criteria operating here, which is
why I say this ban is not consistent or principled; it is a politically
expedient fruit salad. Be that as it may, the second category is . . .
(2) "High-capacity pistols," which are defined as "semi-automatic
pistols with magazine capacities in excess of twenty (20) cartridges."
The State Police study found high-capacity pistols also accounted for
less than 1.33 % of guns used in violent crime.
Between the "mil-style" longarms & the "high-cap" pistols, so far we're
targeting only 2.66 % of the guns used in violent crime. This is not an
impressive number. So they threw another class of fruit into the salad:
(3) "Low-capacity pistols," which are defined as "semi-automatic
pistols of questionable quality, which are small, easily concealable and
low cost."
The State Police study found "low-cap pistols" accounted for a whopping
9.33 % of guns used in violent crime.
Now, here's why we don't want to examine the mish-mash of criteria
behind the proposed ban too closely:
They are rankly inconsistent with the ostensible purpose of reducing the
availability & use of guns that figure prominently in violent crime.
Without quibbling about definitions & criteria, we'll just call the guns
targeted for banning today "type X" guns; because, ultimately, the
criteria of any selective ban which purportedly seeks to reduce gun
violence are irrelevant to the logic of the dilemma: If you're
committed to reducing "gun" violence, you shouldn't care what type of
gun is used by the perpetrator: Should a death or injury count less
because it wasn't perpetrated by a gun on your ban list?
We will assume -- hypothetically, just for the sake of argument -- that
the ban will be effective: that is, that banning a targeted gun will in
fact reduce criminal access & criminal use of that gun.
Ban proponents have to assume that the ban will be effective, otherwise
it's dishonest & irresponsible on its face, not to say useless for
getting guns "off the streets" (as, in fact, I believe any gun ban is).
Let's even hypothetically assume that any selective ban on type-X guns
is perfectly effective, as effective as if God totally disappeared any
gun that we may choose to ban.
Then, here's how the logic of the dilemma goes:
Let's assume, contrary to fact and common sense, that a ban on guns of
brand X today will magically eliminate those guns from criminal hands
tomorrow. Then tomorrow, guns of type Y will become the criminals'
"weapons of choice." Guns of brand Y will then become the "bad" guns,
the evil "assault weapons" of tomorrow. So they too must banned. And
so it must go, that, inevitably, all guns must be banned as they each,
in turn, become the "weapons of choice" in violent crime. For as long
as criminals have whatever guns are available, gun violence will
continue unabated.
By its own goals & criteria, Governor Casey's ban is committed to
banning any type of gun that is popular with criminals -- or even any
weapon that is "oriented" to "an anti-personnel role," in other words:
all defensive weapons.
Revolvers and double-barrel shotguns already qualify as popular crime
guns. Pump-action shotguns -- like my grandfather's 1897 Winchester,
like countless other sporting shotguns -- are far more popular with
criminals than that silly Hollywood icon, the "Streetsweeper" (which
even most criminals aren't stupid enough to lug into the street!).
Ordinary pump-action shotguns, which are easily cut-down by a hacksaw,
are equally deadly, far more convenient, and far more popular with
criminals than the Streetsweeper. Lever-action rifles can't be far
behind.
As to magazine capacity, who in God's name can believe that criminals
already willing to commit capital offenses are going to respect such a
petty legality. Magazine capacity is even easier to manufacture with
simple tools than the AK-47 clones made by peasants all around the world.
If we take this "weapon of choice" business seriously, we must conclude
that any proposed ban must ultimately and inevitably evolve to ban any
and all firearms that can and will be used in the commission of murder
and mayhem. That will inevitably mean ALL manner of firearm -- or
else the ban doesn't take its own purpose & criteria seriously.
As to the matter of the special destructive potential of high-capacity
magazines or rapid-fire semi-automatics, the damage that can be
inflicted by an ordinary revolver on helpless victims is for all
practical purposes the equal of a semi-automatic pistol. The damage that
can be inflicted on helpless victims by a sporting shotgun with a couple
fewer rounds up the tube is equal to that of any "mil-style" shotgun
with a bayonet lug or whatever you please.
As a practical matter, anyone could have perpetrated the Killeen
massacre with revolvers and speed loaders, or with a sporting
slide-action shotgun or a lever-action rifle, in the same space of time.
Ditto the Long Island commuter train massacre, or any other massacre of
record.
I submit to you, that if criminals were reduced to using single-shot &
double-barrel rifles & shotguns only, suitably cut-down for convenient
carry & concealability, there would be no decrease whatsoever in the
rate of violent death & injury by gun.
You will not reduce the carnage or the gun violence until & unless you
eliminate guns from criminal hands. That, sad to say, is impossible.
But I posed the dilemma of selective bans hypothetically, to demonstrate
the inexorable logic rather than the utter uselessness of gun bans. In
my hypothetical scenario, I granted the effectiveness of any gun ban,
because honest gun-ban proposals require this unrealistic assumption.
Realistically, I firmly believe that this assumption is tragically
mistaken.
But, the point is: If you believe that gun bans will reduce gun
violence & you believe that reducing gun violence justifies gun bans,
you cannot consistently draw the line at a selective ban. To do so is
arbitrary & unprincipled, a naive or cynical political expedient.
How can proponents of a ban who place infinite value on saving "just one
life" stint at murder by so-called "assault weapons" but not go after
murderous revolvers? Why aren't these on the Governor's ban list?
Well, revolvers & all other handguns will get their turn. If we take the
self-proclaimed concerns of this ban seriously, all guns will inevitably
be swept into its scope. The logic of the dilemma for those who
champion the value of banning guns is plain & simple: Ban them all, or
ban none!
Certainly, you cannot, with a straight face, in all honesty, tell the
people of the Commonwealth -- including all those naive sport shooters &
hunters who are forswearing "assault weapons" like Judas in hopes of
saving their favorite sporting arms -- that you're going to stop at
banning "low-cap pistols" when ordinary revolvers are used in 30 to 40%
of gun crimes. And when the criminals choose powerful sporting rifles &
shotguns, deadlier than any pistol or revolver, as their "weapons of
choice," you are committed to banning those too. This is not cynicism;
it is not paranoia; it's simple logic, for an honest & logically
consistent gun banner.
So, one choice is to ban select types of guns, cop to the consequence
that this is indeed just the first step down the logical road to
civilian disarmament, & face the political consequences of being
committed to the total disarmament of your fellow citizens.
This choice requires unusual honesty, a basic, albeit inconvenient, duty
of public leaders: people deserve to know where you're leading them.
It's not politically expedient, because most folks believe that
disarmament is immoral, for the most sound & fundamental of reasons:
Never mind our State or Federal Constitutions, civilian disarmament
breeches the most fundamental moral right of humankind & the most basic
tenet of the social contract: the right to self-defense in the gravest
extreme, including the right to effective means of defense, without
which the universal right to self-preservation is effectively void of
meaning.
Another choice is to reject civil disarmament from the get-go -- even
in its half-baked, misleading & inconsistently selective form -- as an
unprincipled sure-to-fail promise of a fool's paradise.
This choice requires squarely facing the consequence that selective bans
are not the easy answer they appear to be. This requires educating,
rather than going along with, the impatient majority. This also
requires unusual honesty, the honesty that rejects easy, half-baked,
unprincipled measures.
This choice also requires forswearing the fallacy of "We have to do
something!" "We have to ban something!" as if it didn't matter what we
do, so long as we appear to do something & the majority is all for it.
That's a fallacy that has rationalized many a lynching, many a kangaroo
court. Good intentions don't wash: the road to perdition, as they say,
is paved with good intentions. So is the road of cowardice.
This choice also allows you to avoid penalizing the vast innocent
majority of the Commonwealth in a vain effort to constrain the criminal
element. Since when do we punish the innocent to send pious messages to
the guilty, laughing at us like B'r'er Rabbit from the briar patch?
This choice respects all firearms -- all combat weapons -- for what they
are in law-abiding hands: emergency-rescue equipment. Different tools
for different tasks. No tool in good hands is a bad tool.
Rejecting feckless & inconsistent gun bans allows any good citizen to
choose her own insurance policy. That is another thing that combat
weapons are: insurance policies that afford various kinds of coverage.
A good & sufficient reason for any good citizen to have a gun -- any
gun -- is the same as for our police officers: JUST IN CASE.
That's why we have insurance: JUST IN CASE. It's not the business of
government to second-guess our circumstances, to dictate our needs, to
put a limit on our insurance options.
That's what any gun or any high-capacity magazine is, in the hands of
the law-abiding citizen, an insurance option: JUST IN CASE.
You may ask: Who needs a high-tech, high-capacity firearm? I say:
That's none of our damn business, so long as that good citizen holds
society & innocent others harmless. Let the citizen choose her own
extra measure of insurance; as long as she does no harm, her choice is
truly none of our business.
Our concern should only be whether she has, or can afford, enough, as
with any insurance . . . unless, in a sadly desperate attempt to limit
the bad guy's options, you believe in limiting the options of good
citizens, options which do no harm in good hands. But then you're right
back on the horns of the selective gun ban dilemma.
= = =
I thank you again for this opportunity. I've addressed only the tip of
the iceberg & gone overtime at that.
For more detailed analysis & references, please see my papers, "Sporting
Purpose & Gun Control Policy" & "Exactly What Is an 'Assault Weapon'?"
For the meantime, I ask you to ponder the dilemma, the ethics & logic of
the dilemma: It's ALL, or NONE.
--
Dan Day
>use their same arguments, turned around so they could see how silly they
>sound.
Good luck -- you're going to need it.
Back when the feds were considering the 1994 "assault weapon ban",
the Houston City Council decided to take a vote on whether there
should be a Houston resolution expressing Houston's "support" for
Congress' efforts to ban "assault weapons".
Headed by Sheila Jackson Lee (then on the Houston City Council, not
yet having been elected to Congress), they had a day of public
hearings. 48 of 50 citizens spoke AGAINST the resolution.
So Sheila Jackson Lee called for another day of public hearings,
and tried hard to pack it with anti-gun people. That day,
*49* out of 50 citizens spoke against the resolution...
So what did the City Council do? That's right, they then voted
on and PASSED a resolution, telling Congress that Houston supported
congressional efforts to outlaw "assault weapons"...
Sigh.
Curt Howland
Dan Day wrote:
> So what did the City Council do? That's right, they then voted
> on and PASSED a resolution, telling Congress that Houston supported
> congressional efforts to outlaw "assault weapons"...
>
> Sigh.
That reminds me of the San Jose, and Santa Clara County
council meetings I attended on those matters. Same level
of turnout, but more like 10 for and 300 against. Several
times on both the city and county levels, and the same
kind of turnout in every other city and county in the
"liberal" SF Bay area.
Several of the "pro" prohibition people were paid lobbyists
and out-of-the-area professional victims as well.
The most we ever accomplished was to get some of the
county level prohibitions postponed.
What was really fun to watch was the vehemently
prohibitionist mayor and county reps being escorted to
their cars by armed police, the vast number of armed
police and deputies, both in uniform and plain cloths,
at the meetings, and yet hear the prohibitionists go
on endlessly about how firearms do not contribute to
crime prevention.
USEnet echoes life.
Curt-
--
"Wherever I go, everyone is a little bit safer because I am there.
Wherever I am, anyone in need has a friend.
Whenever I return home, everyone is happy I am there."
---The Warrior Creed, Robert L. Humphrey, USMC
betweentheeyes
What are the choices?
TIEMANN BRUCE
Dan Day <d...@firstnethou.com> wrote:
>You're assuming that your opponents are reasonable people. Bad mistake.
>A lot of the rabid anti-gunners actually *do* think it's a good idea
>to have laws to limit fast cars, people who make "too much" money,
>etc. etc.
If that turns out to be true, I'm out of here.
I will watch the gun-control utopia here slide into higher and higher
crime rates, as more and more disarmed rich people flock here to get in
touch with their authenticity and get away from all those nasty guns.
Till then, I will "fight when it is easy, when the chance of victory is
good" as Churchill(?) said. They only budget you 3 minutes to speak at
city council - it's not like it takes a great time committment, or
anything.
TIEMANN BRUCE
>(TIEMANN BRUCE) wrote:
>
>> LOL! That is called "being proactive" and "preventative measures"! They
>> want to nip the problem in the bud *before* it becomes a problem - I
>> guess, since it isn't a problem now and has never been here.
>
It never stops them!
>You may want to step back from the RKBA argument for a moment. Are the
>council members aware that case law has established that the police are
>under no obligation to protect them? It might open their eyes.
In fact, the JPFO's "Dial 911 and die" article will be another thing I
will send them.
>Second, examine the practical considerations of enacting such a ban. How
>would it be enforced? Do the police have enough manpower to do so? How
>much money would it cost to enforce? Does the result justify the effort?
That's a good point I haven't considered. With no deaths yet, it's money
and burden for no result. Well, except for getting rid of the damn
things! LOL!
>Third, you may want to couch the argument in terms of personal choice.
>Think about the abortion debate. While many people find it personally
>repugnant, they're not willing to impose their personal beliefs on others.
>In this case, assault weapon owners have not created a problem in Boulder,
>probably will not cause a problem in the future, and shouldn't be
>punished. They haven't committed any crimes.
That too is a good point. One of the world famous abortion doctors lives
right here too, and he isoften picketed by protestors. Still, the
majority of people here support him and his work, I think. Would be
interesting to use that line of argument.
>It would be interesting to try an experiment. Assuming that the bill uses
>the same definitions used in the fed'l assualt weapon bill, bring in
>different guns that could fall under the ban. Bring in a Remington 1100, a
>BAR and a Glock to the hearing. Ask them, "Is this an assault weapon?"
LOL! They'd probably call the cops and have me thrown in jail for bringing
guns to city council chambers! I'm already worried about bringing a .30-06
and a .223 cartridge and having them guess which one fits in the evil
assault rifles, and which one is a mere hunting round - and having them
cart me off for bringing in ammunition. What if I even arrange to have a
sympathetic cop accompany me there who knows exactly what I intend to do
(and can frisk me, etc) who then has a change of heart and decides to
arrest then and there? Gotta get any such agreement in writing, and send
copies to a lawyer FIRST!
>If the answer is "no," tell them that they are. They function in the same
>way as those dreaded baby-killing machines. One pull of the trigger - one
>bullet fired.
>Ask them how cosmetic features make assault weapon fundamentally more dangerous.
>It may open their eyes. On the other hand, they might include all
>centerfire autoloaders in the bill.
To do so might actually piss off the hunters, of which there are a few.
>Tolerance, in many places, doesn't seem to be a two-way street. It's okay
>to characterize gun owners as nutjobs, psychopaths, and ticking time
>bombs.
I know!
>> Another argument I'm crafting relates Jim Crow laws to current gun control
>> laws. "For the good of the community, *reasonable* *common-sense*
>> restrictions *need* to be passed to control these dangerous people. Was
>> blacks then, now it's gun owners.
>
>That may be a more fruitful path to take.
I'll be happy to take several such paths.
By the way, thanks for the "logical argument" testimony from PA. That was
a good one! How do I say it in 3 minutes, LOL!
COMPULYNXD
They are going to say that those items are not meant for killing. Perhaps you
can bring some references where citizens have defended life with the use of AW?
>
don't have the specifics, but i do know of 2 instances, both store owners
protected themsleves with SKS rifles. One in florida, one in california.
Dan Day
>LOL! They'd probably call the cops and have me thrown in jail for bringing
>guns to city council chambers! I'm already worried about bringing a .30-06
>and a .223 cartridge and having them guess which one fits in the evil
>assault rifles, and which one is a mere hunting round - and having them
>cart me off for bringing in ammunition. What if I even arrange to have a
>sympathetic cop accompany me there who knows exactly what I intend to do
>(and can frisk me, etc) who then has a change of heart and decides to
>arrest then and there? Gotta get any such agreement in writing, and send
>copies to a lawyer FIRST!
Better yet, have any reloader make you "dummy" rounds, consisting of
simply a case and a bullet, but no primer or powder. It's also easy
for even a layman to tell that the round are duds, because the gaping
hole in the bottom where the primer would normally be is a dead giveaway,
and they can peek inside through the hole to see that there's no
powder.
If they then try to make trouble for you for simply bringing in pieces
of inert metal, you can have a good laugh, and point out to them just
how irrational they're being.
And along with the .30-06, bring along some Magnum rifle rounds -- those
are even bigger.
A shotgun shell would be another good item to compare against.
Dan Day
E. Castasus) wrote:
>You're fighting a good fight, but you're facing a cultural problem. Unless
>someone has had positive exposure to guns, they honestly can't see the
>appeal or the utility of such weapons.
Another problem with arguing that "assault weapons" need to be
kept available so that people can defend themselves from crime
is shown in the ridiculously anti-gun TV movie, "The Long
Island Incident", which aired on NBC in May of 1998. It's
the puffed-up story of Carolyn McCarthy, whose husband was
killed by Colin Ferguson in the LIRR shooting, turning her
into a rabid anti-gun nut. She later ran for Congress and
was elected, and never met an anti-gun measure she didn't like.
One hour and 25 minutes into the movie, the following scene
occurred:
[McCarthy and friends are watching from the observation
balcony as a Congressman gives a speech on the floor of
the House]
Politician: "Maybe this is just a personal anecdote, but my
dear old Momma was widowed last year, and where my people
come from, well it's rural, it can be as desolate as all get out.
Now all I gotta do is think of her safety, and I know where my
vote is gonna be placed on the repeal of this heinous gun control
legislation -- she's 89 years old, and it's her right to protect
herself."
McCarthy [standing up and screaming]: "You just don't get
it -- this is about gun violence! Unless your 89 year old
mother is hanging an Uzi over her door, this bill isn't
going to limit her rights! You don't get it! This is about
banning assault weapons!"
This is the sort of people you're dealing with.
By the way, "The Long Island Incident", which was full of hysterical
nonsense like the bit above, was produced by Barbra Streisand, another
anti-gun nut.
Dan Day
>
>Also remind them that AW are used very rarely in crime....I believe the most
>common firearms used in crime is a .38 revolver.
"Since police started keeping statistics, we now know that assault
weapons are/were used in an underwhelming 0.026 of 1% of crimes in New
Jersey. This means that my officers are more likely to encounter an escaped
tiger from the zoo than to confront an assault weapon in the hands of a
drug-crazed killer on the streets...."
-- Joseph Constance, Dep. Police Chief, Trenton, NJ
Handyman
TIEMANN BRUCE wrote in message <87lci8$ofe$1...@peabody.colorado.edu>...
....major snip of good stuff....
>By the way, thanks for the "logical argument" testimony from PA. That was
>a good one! How do I say it in 3 minutes, LOL!
You might consider not limiting yourself to the three minute imposed by
the meeting. Sit down and very carefully compose a letter putting forth
your most significant arguments, then send a copy to each of the council
members a week or so prior to the meeting. Don't beat it to death, two or
three good sentences per point, keep it under two pages max. This will
give them time to actually read and think about your arguments without the
distractions of the meeting. Most council members have a mailbox in a
secretaries office at the town hall, courthouse, whatever, and the secretary
can be quite an ally if you work it right. Use the meeting merely to
highlight your points rather than argue them, and be prepared to answer
questions on them. You might be suprised with the results! :) BTW follow
up any questions they ask with another letter amplifying your answers. Good
luck!
Bruce
Paul Edward Zukowski (PEZ)
PEZ
--
PAUL EDWARD ZUKOWSKI "PEZ"
AS Eastern Conn State Univ. 1992 BA Trinity College 1996
PEZMANS WORLD http://www.freeyellow.com/members8/pez63/index.html
Cleo Literary Society - http://www.trincoll.edu/orgs/cleo/
Windsor Marksman - http://members.aol.com/wmaofct/
Both the Pen & the Sword are powerfull
My Email Addresses are
pzuk...@mail.trincoll.edu pez...@ntplx.net
See me at http://www.allexperts.com
William Hughes
Day) wrote:
> Better yet, have any reloader make you "dummy" rounds, consisting of
> simply a case and a bullet, but no primer or powder. It's also easy
> for even a layman to tell that the round are duds, because the gaping
> hole in the bottom where the primer would normally be is a dead giveaway,
> and they can peek inside through the hole to see that there's no
> powder.
>
> If they then try to make trouble for you for simply bringing in pieces
> of inert metal, you can have a good laugh, and point out to them just
> how irrational they're being.
>
> And along with the .30-06, bring along some Magnum rifle rounds -- those
> are even bigger.
>
> A shotgun shell would be another good item to compare against.
An expended 5.56 case (M16) fits neatly inside an expended .38 case, and the
pair make a dandy sewing needle case.
Steve
ever read. It successfully isolates and addresses several
points that typically remain hidden.
I think 'weaselcraft' should be added to the dictionary.
This is the first time I ever ran into the word 'pettifoggery'.
Cheers
Steve
Che'Gu Maru
though not having all of the cosmetic 'defects' of a defined assault rifle,
certainly was used as one between 1939 and 1962). Without it I was only a
shadow of my real self :)
Pete @ DPI
I'll try to paste my own from the CDC web site for between '79
and '97.
Year blunt
objects Military weapon deaths
1979 380 12
1980 343 4
1981 414 4
1982 354 9
1983 298 8
1984 317 11
1985 353 3
1986 330 5
1987 360 2
1988 409 5
1989 473 11
1990 463 9
1991 443 8
1992 278 5
1993 279 8
1994 299 8
1995 304 7
1996 255 11
1997 246 15
sums 6598 145
ave 347.26 7.65
Also (might) tell them that the 15 for '97 coincided with the
number of deaths of uniformed officers. (good/bad?) Therefore,
the general population has little reason to fear "assault
weapons".
Are you from California, BTW?
Pete
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Pete @ DPI
Tell them that there were 125 deaths as a result of UNARMED
brawls in 1997 and the numbers have been generally increasing
since 1979!
Tell them to ban hand to hand combat, as it is 9.5x more deadly
than any assault weapon!
Judo, karate, etc. also contribute to the "wrong message" we're
sending our kids, and that the city should outlaw hand to hand
combat on city property, even if it is in the form of legitimate
competition.
Tell them to look at the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention web site, if they doubt you...
Then tell them to kiss your ass...
Good Luck,
Peter
Spike43
Who says I have to "need" anything I want?
Do the leftists apply that thinking to everything they own?
Magnaboss7
who really needs a "handgun" and then
who really needs a gun.
Good thing its the Bill of rights not the needs.
And that their are so many americans who have the backbone to fight their own
battles and defend their lives and homes agianst the thugs that the courts keep
spitting back onto the streets.
Patriot.45
SilverBullet
Magnaboss7 <magna...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000223111414...@ng-cj1.aol.com...
TIEMANN BRUCE
Worse?
Please read my original post. I'm not trying to whip up support for an
"assault rifle" ban, rather I'm trying to point out to those who are, and
they include the members of my city council, how stupid their arguments
sound when applied to anyhing else. I don't want them to pass an "assault
rifle" ban, and I wrote a piece to read before them, during a public-input
period. You will notice that I tend to quote the expression "assault
rifle." This is because I, unlike many, hold that *real* assault rifles
are select-fire, and stuff like AR-15s and SKS sporters, etc, are just
plain semi-auto.
By the way, I'm not "from" Boulder any more than Hillary Clinton is from
New York.
TIEMANN BRUCE
John E. Castasus <jcas...@boinkers.foo.mindspring.com> wrote:
>> >Worse. He's from Boulder, CO.
>>
>> Worse?
>
>I meant the place, not you. In any event, anyone in Boulder who says "the
>police can protect you" deserves the following response:
My apologies for misunderstanding.
>"Oh? Explain Jon-Benet, then."
Bingo.
>I agree. I think I've even thrown a few pointers your way when you started
>this thread.
Again, my apologies. Didn't recognize your name.
>> By the way, I'm not "from" Boulder any more than Hillary Clinton is from
>> New York.
>
>I assume that you tip much better than America's Smartest Woman (tm).
Indeed, I do.