

From the Radio Free Michigan archives



ftp://141.209.3.26/pub/patriot



If you have any other files you'd like to contribute, e-mail them to

bj496@Cleveland.Freenet.Edu.

------------------------------------------------



    You are free to distribute this paper as long as you distribute it

    intact.  I cannot be held responsible for any modifications you

    make to it.  It is my hope that you will send copies of it to your

    Senators and Representatives along with an appropriate cover

    letter of your own.  Don't forget your state and local

    representatives.  I don't know what the chances of them actually

    reading it are, but if some of their staff members will read it we

    may be able to help to turn the tide in our favor. Facts and

    reasoned arguments should count for something, shouldn't they?



    I have had reasonably good success in converting some of my

    anti-gun friends to whom I have shown it.  By "converting" I don't

    mean that they are ready to go out and buy a gun.  It is just that

    they now understand the broader issues involved and are no longer

    "anti-gun".



    Good Luck.



    Lynn Clark

    CompuServe:  72017,2471







              A Summary of Pro-Gun Arguments





      The Side of the Debate the News Media Doesn't Report



                  A Personal View



                      by



                     Lynn Clark

                Lafayette, Colorado





                 Table of Contents







            Purpose ............................  1



            Disclaimer .........................  1



            Acknowledgements ...................  1



            Preface ............................  2



            Introduction .......................  3



            Saturday Night Specials ............  3



            Machine Guns .......................  7



            Semi-Automatic "Assault" Rifles ....  8



            Cop-Killer Bullets ................. 11



            Plastic Guns ....................... 12



            Waiting Periods .................... 13



            Conclusion ......................... 14



            Appendix A ......................... 17







Purpose



Recently I have felt that the NRA has not done as good a job as it

could have in getting the pro-gun side of the message across to those

who should hear it.  Most of the blame for this lies with the news

media through it's one-sided, unfair reporting about gun control

issues.  This situation has been greatly aggravated since the Federal

Communications Commission abolished the fairness doctrine as it

applies to news coverage.  The news media is no longer required to

even give the appearance of fairness concerning public issues.   In the

recent battle about "Saturday Night Specials" in Maryland, the two

major newspapers in the area refused to run NRA-sponsored ads.   The

broadcast media is just as bad.  This paper is an attempt to get the

unadulterated facts to those in legislative circles who should know

all the facts before they cast their votes on gun-related legislation.



Disclaimer



Although I am a Life Member of the NRA, I am not an official spokesman

for the NRA.  The views expressed in this paper are mine and should

not be construed as representing the "Official" views of the NRA.



Acknowledgments



While the views expressed in this paper are ones I have developed over

many years, I must give credit to the many knowledgeable authors who

have published books and articles about gun control issues.  Quite

naturally, many of these articles have appeared in pro-gun magazines

over the years.  I would like to express my appreciation to the many

authors who have taken the time to ferret out facts concerning gun

ownership issues in this country throughout our 200-year history, as

well as in other countries.  I am particularly indebted to those

authors who have had their articles published in the monthly magazines

of the National Rifle Association, "The American Rifleman" and "The

American Hunter".  I am also indebted to the NRA Institute for

Legislative Action which represents the interests of America's gun

owners in the halls of Congress.







Preface



The following "letter to the editor" appeared in an October, 1988

edition of the Boulder (Colorado) Daily Camera.



     Editor:



       F. A.'s letter echoes the propaganda the National

     Rifle Association has been putting out recently, in

     very costly magazine advertisements, to the effect that

     the NRA is just a bunch of nice people who have hunting

     rifles or indulge in a bit of target practice now and

     then.

       Perhaps that does represent what the NRA stood for

     when it was founded many years ago, and undoubtedly it

     still has members like that.  But perhaps Dr. A has

     been too busy with his medical practice to notice that

     the NRA has now become the NRSNSPOMGCKBA, that is, the

     National Rifle, Saturday Night Special, Privately Owned

     Machine Gun and Cop Killer Bullet Association -- for it

     fanatically defends unrestricted ownership of all the

     above, no matter how irrelevant they may be to the

     non-homicidal amusements that the NRA likes to talk

     about for public relations purposes.

       The real concern of the present-day NRA seems to

     be to defend the rights of gun manufacturers and

     sellers to make as much money as possible.

       In the end Dr. A. may find that the NRASNSPOMGCKBA

     has worked against him.  If the organization insists

     that all firearms, even machine guns which could never

     be legally used for hunting, must be treated alike, the

     public may take them at their word, and ban all of

     them.  People who are appalled at the flood of handguns

     engulfing the country, and feeling that their personal

     safety is threatened, are in no mood to split hairs.

       If Dr. A. belongs to an organization without

     looking at what it really is doing at the present time,

     he is naive.  The organization, exploiting its original

     "Rifle" name while it promotes and protects so many

     other things, can only be described as totally cynical.



This paper is a personal response to the ideas represented by this

letter and so many others like it which appear from time to time in

the ebb and flow of the gun control debate.  The unsettling thing

about the ideas expressed in the letter is that so much of them are

based on misinformation and distortions provided by the (by and large)

anti-gun news media.  Apparently, it is very easy for non-gun-owners

to be misled.  Those of us who are NRA members know better.  This

paper is an attempt to explain the pro-gun side of the arguments the

anti-gun media chooses not to report.







Introduction



I will discuss the following issues:  Saturday Night

Specials/Handguns, Machine Guns, Semi-Automatic "Assault" Rifles,

"Cop-Killer Bullets", "Plastic" Guns and Waiting Periods.  Finally, I

will discuss the NRA proposals for reducing gun-related crime.



First, let me state the obvious.  The NRA is opposed to restrictions

on the ownership and lawful use of firearms by law-abiding citizens.

Period.  Of course, we cite the Second Amendment of the Constitution

as guaranteeing the right to keep and bear arms.  We also believe that

restrictive gun laws have little, if any, affect on crime reduction

and further believe that this is demonstrated by the high crime rates

in such cities as New York, Washington, D.C., and others with

similarly strict gun control laws.  The only people adversely affected

by restrictive gun laws are law-abiding citizens.  The NRA supports

mandatory, severe penalties for the criminal misuse of firearms.

Anything I have to say in the following pages is in addition to these

ideas.    Having said that, let's begin.





Saturday Night Specials/Handguns



The first issue mentioned in the quoted letter is the so-called

"Saturday Night Special" (SNS).  The difficulty gun owners have with

this is one of definition.  What makes a SNS different from other

handguns?  The anti-gun crowd1 invariably defines it as a "small

caliber (.32 or less), short barrel (3" or less), cheap handgun which

has no legitimate sporting purpose" or words to that effect.  The fact

is that convicted felons prefer large-caliber, high-quality, expensive

handguns.2  The "sporting purpose" part of this definition implies

that the anti-gun crowd concedes a legitimate "sporting purpose"

exists.  If we take this to mean that these small handguns are not

well-suited for big game hunting, then we will have to agree.  On the

other hand, if we include target shooting or plinking, then small, cheap 

handguns have a legitimate sporting purpose.  Hunters do not use small,

cheap handguns for big-game hunting.  Indeed, most hunting regulations

exempt small handguns.  Nevertheless, I know many people who own small,

cheap handguns.  They just don't use them for hunting. 



This notion that a gun has no utility if it doesn't have a "legitimate

sporting purpose" misses the mark.  Small handguns, even the cheap

variety, have a very utilitarian purpose when it comes to personal

protection and that is undoubtedly why most of them are purchased,

whether the threat is perceived or real, immediate or potential.  If

we agree that we each have the right to self-defense (Colorado State

Law guarantees it3, as do the laws of most states) it seems pretty

ludicrous to deny the means to successfully carry out such a defense.



What might we suppose the odds are that a frail, elderly man or woman

will overpower a young, strong assailant?  What about a young, strong

man or woman against multiple attackers?  Unfortunately, the police

are rarely there when the crime is in progress.  Most criminals are

not quite that stupid.   In any case, where does it leave us if we

should find ourselves in one of these unpleasant situations with no

means at our disposal to stop the attack?  What if we decide, after

careful consideration, that we need to purchase a handgun for our

personal safety?  What if we can't afford an expensive, quality

handgun?  A small, cheap handgun would probably serve the purpose just

fine (we just described a SNS).



The Justice Department study mentioned earlier has also shown that the

thing convicted felons fear above all else is the possibility of

confronting an armed citizen.  They fear this more than the

possibility of confronting an armed police officer.  I haven't said

that anyone has to shoot anyone.  The same study and others have shown

that the mere presence of a firearm is often enough to stop an attack

or prevent one from starting (it does seem to be helpful if the

attacker believes the intended victim will, in fact, use the weapon if

necessary).  Several years ago I advised one of my non-gun-owning and

borderline anti-gun friends, who found herself in a very frightening

situation, that I didn't think she should buy a gun because I didn't

think she would use it if push came to shove.  I also didn't think she

would invest the necessary time to become proficient with it.  After

some discussion she agreed, but not everyone is like her.  I have

another friend who had his life threatened several years ago.  His

response was to buy a .357 Magnum.  Again, I cautioned him at great

length about his use of that gun.  When the threat passed, he sold the

gun.  Nobody says you have to own a gun.  Maybe your weapon of choice

is a baseball bat, but I am pretty certain that you will not deter

many attackers determined to commit mayhem, especially if they are

superior in size or numbers or are high on drugs or passion.  The

cynical bumper sticker, "Smith and Wesson beats 4 aces" has a ring of

truth in it.







In 1977 Canada passed a restrictive gun law.  "The crime that gun

ownership best deters is burglary of occupied residences.  While only

one in 10 American burglaries is committed against an occupied home,

half of all Canadian burglaries are...The situation is even worse in

Britain, where gun control is stricter, and 59% of burglaries are

attempted against occupied residences."4  Canadian and British

burglars can be reasonably sure that the occupants will not be armed.

American burglars cannot be so sure, so they try to avoid burglarizing

occupied residences.  Chalk up one benefit to private gun ownership in

America.



I have had my house burglarized before and have had occasion to ask

police officers about self defense.  None of them has ever told me

that I would be better off not owning a handgun or other firearm for

personal protection, contrary to what the news media reports.  If

police officers tell you that you would be better off not owning a

firearm for self defense, it may be a result of their assessment of

your lack of determination to use it if necessary, your obvious

unfamiliarity with firearms and a correct judgement about your

unwillingness to become proficient with it, more than the result of a

blanket policy of discouraging gun ownership for personal protection.

By the way, these were regular police officers, not police chiefs who

may be beholden to political forces more than the practical, every day

side of law enforcement.  The cop on the beat understands very well

that he can't be everywhere and protect everyone all the time.  It

might be well to consider, if you were a police officer in our

aggressively litigious society, what type of advice you might give to

people like yourself.  It wouldn't be too surprising to find that many

police officers advise against gun ownership for personal protection

more out of fear of potential liability suits than anything else.



We constantly hear that a gun at home is more likely to hurt one of

the occupants than it is to deter a crime.  Of course, it is up to a

responsible adult to insure that kids can't get their hands on a

loaded gun.  That is what lock boxes are for.  When you weigh the life

of a child against owning a gun for self defense, the $70 cost of a

lock box is a small price to pay.  A lock box will keep a handgun

secure from the curious hands of a child while still allowing an adult

with the combination to access the gun in a matter of seconds should

the need arise.  It seems to me that if the news media really wanted

to do something to prevent gun accidents at home, they would mention

lock boxes.  People aren't going to give up their guns in spite of

what the news media tells them anyway, so why shouldn't the media do a

public service and inform people about safe ways to keep guns at

home?  The NRA has the best educational program for "gun-proofing"

children.  It is a "gun-neutral" approach that uses a coloring book to 

emphasize three things about guns to children:



     1)  If you see a gun, stop -- don't touch it

     2)  Leave the area

     3)  Tell an adult



The NRA is introducing the coloring book into targeted school systems,

and while critics have predictably howled at the idea, the program has

received praise from educators and law enforcement groups.  Far from

lauding the NRA's efforts to teach firearms safety to young children

in the schools, anti-gunners have denounced NRA's efforts in south

Florida and the Chicago area which were experiencing a rash of

firearms accidents involving children.  The American Federation of

Police and the Congress of Racial Equality have praised the program,

and a few private schools have accepted it.  Most public schools,

however, responding to anti-gun educators and outsiders, have yet to

accept the courses of the nations's leading authority on gun safety --

the NRA.  So far, schools in Iowa, Missouri, Nebraska and Pennsylvania

have requested the program.



What do we do about suicides?  Suicides rank far and away as the

highest percentage of gun-related deaths.  The argument of the anti-

gun crowd is that the suicide rate will drop dramatically if we

eliminate private ownership of guns.  The article about Canadian gun

laws referenced above also points out that "suicides involving

firearms fell noticeably after 1978, reversing the previous trend.

The overall suicide rate, however, did not drop, which leads to the

inference that the availability of particular weapons has no impact on

a nation's suicide rate.  America's suicide rate, already slightly

lower than Canada's, declined some more."



As you can see, the discussion has changed from one about "Saturday

Night Specials" to handguns in general.  If convicted felons spurn

small, cheap handguns in favor of their large-caliber, higher-quality

counterparts, why should anyone be so eager to ban them?  Let's take

it a step further.  The Justice Department study mentioned above also

pointed out that if all handguns were banned and confiscated,

criminals would simply cut off the barrels of rifles and shotguns to

concealable length.  Professor Wright said it this way,



     If a ban on handguns was enacted, 64% of the criminal

     respondents said they would shift from a handgun to

     sawed-off rifles and shotguns.  That finding was

     elicited from three-fourths of "handgun predators" and

     five-eighths of those who had used a handgun more than

     once in crime...We would do well, by the way, to take

     this response seriously:  most of the predators who

     said they would substitute the sawed-off shotgun also

     told us elsewhere in the questionnaire that they had in

     fact sawed off a shotgun at some time in their lives

     and that it would be "very easy" for them to do so

     again.  The possibility that even a few of the men who

     presently prowl the streets with handguns would, in the

     face of a 



     handgun ban, prowl with sawed-off shotguns instead is

     itself good reason to think twice about the

     advisability of such a ban.  That as many as

     three-quarters of them might do so causes one to

     tremble.



Wright argues, then, that there are "sensible and humane" reasons for

opposing a handgun ban.  In a turnabout from his previous gun-control

views, Wright concurs with NRA members in saying, "They oppose gun

regulation because they don't believe it will help control crime, and

so do I."5





Machine Guns



The second issue mentioned in the letter is that of unrestricted,

private ownership of machine guns.  Again, this is another issue that

has received short shrift from the news media.    On the surface, it is

very appealing to support such a ban.  But I think we need a little

history before we can understand what is really behind NRA support for

the private ownership of machine guns.



First, a definition is in order.  A machine gun is defined as a

firearm which will fire continuously as long as the trigger is

depressed and as long as ammunition is available to the weapon.  A

machine gun is also properly referred to as a fully-automatic weapon.



Up until 1934 there were no restrictions of any kind concerning

ownership of machine guns.  Unfortunately, John Dillinger, Bonnie and

Clyde and others began running around the midwest robbing banks.  That

was bad enough, of course, but they made it worse by using Thompson

submachine guns in the course of their robberies.  This caused such an

uproar that the congress passed the National Firearms Act of 1934 (26

USC 4181-4191, 5801-5872) as a way to regulate the ownership of such

weapons.  The NFA act placed the following restrictions on the

purchase and ownership of machine guns:



     1) The prospective purchaser had to pay a $200 transfer

     tax for each machine gun purchased



     2) The prospective purchaser had to undergo a very

     thorough background check conducted by federal law

     enforcement agencies



The federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) has

testified that there is no record of any legally owned and registered

machine gun having been used in any crime since the NFA was enacted in

1934.  Period. In fact, the BATF (which is the agency responsible for

regulating the ownership of machine guns) has consistently supported

the right of law-abiding citizens to purchase and own such weapons.

It is easy to understand that any citizen who is willing to undergo a

very thorough FBI background check in order to own such a weapon and is

willing to pay thousands of dollars for it, is going to be very

careful about safeguarding it.



If you're wondering why anyone should have a right to own machine

guns, I'll give you three reasons.  First, machine guns are incredibly

fun to shoot, albeit very expensive to do so.  Second, there are

legitimate collectors who want to have one as part of their

collection.  Third, contrary to the letter's assertion, machine guns

are legal for hunting in some states.  I don't have any figures, but I

believe that most people who own machine guns own them for the first

two reasons.  I doubt that any machine gun owners actually use them

for hunting.



Well, something probably sounds funny here.  After all, the news media

has been quite active in the last few years reporting crimes in which

machine guns have been a factor.  And BATF has said that no legally

owned and registered machine gun has ever been used in any crime.  The

simple fact is that every time you have heard of a crime involving a

machine gun, that machine gun was an unregistered, illegally

manufactured or imported machine gun, the mere possession of which

carried penalties of fines up to $10,000 and/or imprisonment up to ten

years as well as civil penalties and property forfeitures.  The NFA is

a law which has worked remarkably well over the last 50 years.   It is

a shame that the news media has made no distinction between legally

owned and registered and illegal unregistered or imported machine

guns.  That blurring of the difference leads people to completely

erroneous conclusions about what the NRA is up to.  Of course, it is

the legally owned and registered machine guns which the NRA supports.



Unfortunately, from my viewpoint, the NFA has been effectively

nullified by an amendment to the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1985

(FOPA).  Representative Bill Hughes (D-NJ) managed, over BATF

opposition, to get an amendment attached to the FOPA which put an end

to the legal private ownership of new machine guns.  In fact, this is

the first time any category of firearms has been brought under an

outright ban.  The irony is that the category of firearms that got

banned is the only category which has never been used in any crime.

The NRA has the overwhelming support of its membership to work to

repeal Representative Hughes' amendment.  As an aside, Representative

Hughes admitted that most of his understanding of crime involving

machine guns came from television shows like Miami Vice.  So much for

being an informed Congressman.     Apparently, many American's source of

information about guns is the same.





Semi-Automatic "Assault" Rifles



The latest gambit of the anti-gun crowd is the hysteria about

semi-automatic "assault" rifles .  Again, this is an example of the

anti-gun crowd hurrying to ban a category of firearms without first

acquiring the facts.



A semi-automatic firearm is defined as one which fires a single

cartridge with a single pull of the trigger and which automatically

loads another fresh cartridge in preparation for the next pull of the 

trigger.  The trigger must be released and pulled again before the

next cartridge will fire.  Please note the difference from a machine

gun discussed above.



Since the early part of this century, the United States Government has

supported, through the National Board for the Promotion of Rifle

Practice (NBPRP), an on-going, very active program of high-power rifle

competition.  It is administered by the Director of Civilian

Marksmanship (DCM) of the Department of the Army with the assistance

of the NRA.  Millions of shooters, men and women, have participated

over the years with each year's program culminating at the national

matches at Camp Perry, Ohio.  The matches are shot in "strings" of 10

or 20 shots and consist of shooting at targets up to 600 yards away in

three positions:  prone, sitting and standing.    Some strings are shot

in "slow fire" (about 1 minute per shot) and others are shot in "rapid

fire" (about 10 seconds per shot).    This is all done without the use

of telescopic sights.  As you may surmise, this requires much skill

and concentration, especially at the long distances involved.  The

purpose of the program is to promote rifle marksmanship among the

civilian population in order to insure that an adequate pool of

trained marksmen is available in the unlikely event that we should

become involved in another major war.  The primary intent is that

these marksmen will be available to help train large numbers of

military recruits should the need arise.



Here is what the anti-gun crowd does not know or will not admit to

knowing.  Probably 95% (perhaps more) of those who participate in this

program use semi-automatic rifles of military origin.  The use of a

semi-automatic rifle is a decided advantage in such competition,

particularly in the rapid fire events.  Very few shooters use

bolt-action rifles anymore.  Indeed, since the current standard-issue

military rifle is the M-16, more and more shooters are using the AR-15

which is the civilian, semi-automatic version of the M-16.



Having said this, I must ask, "How do you ban semi-automatic firearms

without penalizing the tens of thousands of law-abiding shooters who

participate in the high-power rifle program?"  Bear in mind that this

program provides considerable recreation to those who participate in

the sport.  Please understand also that these are not the people who

shoot up school yards.   They don't deal in drugs, either.  Nor do they

belong to street gangs.  There are many hundreds of thousands of other

law-abiding citizens who own and lawfully use semi-automatic "assault"

rifles as well.  Do you really believe that banning firearms will keep

them out of the hands of smugglers and other criminals?  They already

smuggle drugs. Do you think they won't smuggle firearms?  The only

people who would be adversely affected by a ban would be the

law-abiding citizens who enjoy the shooting sports.  I have heard

estimates of the number of semi-automatic "assault" rifles in civilian

hands ranging from one to nine million.  It is ludicrous to think that

any appreciable dent will be made in the crime problem by banning such

firearms when it is so obvious by the numbers that the overwhelming

majority of these firearms are used for legal "sporting purposes".

The use of these types of firearms in crime is almost universally

related to the drug problem.  We should be focusing on the cause of the

problem rather than trying to cure it by treating the symptoms.



The anti-gun crowd asserts that semi-automatic weapons' sole purpose

is to kill people.  Technically, that is incorrect.  It is much

preferable to wound enemy soldiers and that was one of the design

criteria that went into the development of our military M-16, (see the

extended discussion of "Cop-Killer Bullets" in Appendix A).



These weapons were designed to continue to work in the harshest

possible conditions.  They will operate at 60 degrees below zero, at

120 degrees above zero and everywhere in between, and will function

when they are clean, or covered with mud (only a slight

exaggeration). In short, they are the most reliable firearms

available and are desirable for that reason alone.  Because they are

used to kill people doesn't mean that every civilian who buys one does

so for that reason.  Millions of law-abiding, semi-automatic-owning

people in this country strenuously object to such a characterization

because it doesn't fit.



These semi-automatic "assault" rifles are also legal for use in

hunting in most states.  However, most states limit the magazine

capacity to five rounds when used for big-game hunting (deer and

larger).  Some states also limit the use of .22 caliber cartridges to

small game.  For example, in the state of Colorado, the Colt AR-15 is

illegal for hunting large game animals because it uses a .22 caliber

cartridge.  Colorado hunting regulations require a minimum .24 caliber

cartridge.  In the state of Utah it is legal for the same game.

However, the Chinese-made AK-47 is legal in both states because it

fires a .30 caliber cartridge.     Both of these "assault" rifles are

sufficiently accurate for use in hunting at distances up to about 300

yards, just like other hunting rifles.  One reason some people use

"assault" rifles for hunting is due to their light weight.  It is a

whole lot more enjoyable to lug a six-pound "assault" rifle up and

down the mountains than it is to lug a nine-pound "sporting" rifle.

Three pounds makes a big difference.



Let me explain two other reasons people find these weapons so

desirable.  First, the current generation of "assault" rifles are also

incredibly fun to shoot.  Why?     Because one of the problems the

military has had over the years is that it is difficult to teach good

marksmanship skills to recruits who have had no shooting experience,

especially when the rifle hurts them so badly when they shoot it.  All

current generation military firearms have buffering systems which

absorb most of the recoil energy developed by the rifle when it is

fired.    Therefore, it doesn't hurt.  This is even true of those

"assault" rifles available in .30 caliber such as the Chinese AK-47

and the German HK-91.  Besides any .22 caliber rim-fire rifle,

semi-automatic "assault" rifles are perhaps the best choice to use for

teaching new shooters how to shoot.  In fact, anyone who has gone

through basic military training in the last 20 years will tell you

that drill instructors routinely demonstrate the low recoil of the

M-16 by firing it while holding the butt of the rifle against their

crotch, forehead or chin.  No one in their right mind would even think

of doing that with anything other than a semi-automatic "assault"

rifle.    Doing so with a bolt-action rifle could be fatal or eliminate any

possibility of having children.



Second, many newer generation semi-automatic military rifles are

designed around, or are available in, a smaller caliber cartridge,

usually about .22 caliber (most older generation military rifles were

based on a .30 caliber cartridge).  This contributes to less recoil

energy which in turn means less pain.  The military reason for a

smaller caliber is that it allows the individual soldier to carry more

ammunition and increases the chances of wounding, rather than killing

an enemy soldier.  The smaller caliber also costs less to shoot, i.e.,

more bang for the buck (no pun intended).  The advantage of lower

costs is not lost on civilian or military shooters.



All of this information is totally lost on the anti-gun crowd because

they have little personal experience with firearms.  It is silly for

non-gun-owning "experts" to proclaim why certain classes of firearms

are of no use to private citizens.  With no personal experience with

firearms, what qualifies them to make such assertions? We all agree,

however, that something must be done to prevent these, or any other

firearms, from easily finding their way into the hands of criminals.

More about that later.





Cop-Killer Bullets



The last issue mentioned in the letter was "Cop-Killer Bullets".

First, let me point out that no police officer has ever been shot with

so-called "Cop-Killer Bullets".  The term "Cop-Killer Bullet" was

adopted by the anti-gun crowd for it's obvious emotional appeal.  The

proper terminology is armor-piercing bullets.



The "Cop-Killer Bullet" legislation which the anti-gun crowd tried to

pass would have outlawed all firearm ammunition which would penetrate

the bullet-proof vests commonly worn by police officers.  Not only

would this have outlawed the teflon-coated, hardened, armor-piercing

bullets designed for police use, but it would also have outlawed

almost all rifle bullets commonly used for hunting, since almost all

rifle bullets will easily penetrate such body armor.  In other words,

if this legislation had passed as written by the anti-gun crowd, it

would have had the practical effect of ending all "legitimate

sporting" uses of rifles by outlawing the ammunition.  The NRA had no

choice but to oppose such ridiculous legislation.  The legislation

which was finally passed had the desired effect of outlawing civilian

use of bullets specifically designed for police use in piercing armor

while leaving rifle bullets exempt, as well they should have been.

This compromise legislation was passed with the NRA's full assistance,

cooperation and support.



Please refer to Appendix A for further discussion of "Cop-Killer

Bullets".



This leads us to an issue not mentioned in the letter but which is

similarly misleading if you rely on the news media for your

understanding of it.  That issue is the so-called "Plastic Gun".







Plastic Guns



During the latter part of 1988, Senator Howard Metzenbaum (D-OH) and

Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA) introduced legislation under the guise

of "airport security".  It really had nothing to do with airport

security, but rather set an arbitrary limit on the minimum amount of

steel a handgun could contain.     It also would have given discretionary

power to unelected bureaucrats to change the definition of "not

readily detectable" as applied to handguns and airport security

equipment.



The news media did not bother to report that the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA) and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms

(BATF), among others, opposed this legislation.  Representatives of

both agencies testified before Congress that the proposed legislation

was unnecessary and would do nothing to enhance airport security.

They also pointed out that there is no firearm which is not readily

detectable by present airport security devices, nor is anyone on the

threshold of developing such a firearm.  Hence, this proposed

legislation was aimed at a non-existent target.



The compromise bill that was finally passed requires that all handguns

manufactured and sold in this country have enough metal in them to

insure that they generate a sharp x-ray image.    Contrary to what the

news media chose to report, this legislation was passed with the full

support and cooperation of the NRA.



Let's discuss "plastic guns".  The gun which started all of this

nonsense is the Austrian made Glock 17.  It is a semi-automatic 9 mm

pistol which is 83% steel by weight (19 ounces).  The lower half of

the pistol, the receiver, is mostly a polymer material.  This results

in a durable, lightweight pistol.  Even though the pistol has a large

amount of polymer in its construction, it still looks like a pistol

under airport x-ray equipment.     Astrophysics Research Corp., the

world's largest manufacturer of x-ray security screening equipment and

the manufacturer of the units currently used at over 90% of U.S.

airports, in a response to Representative Mario Biaggi (D-NY) stated,

"Fully assembled, the Glock 17 looks exactly like any other automatic

pistol when viewed on the television monitor of our Linescan airport

x-ray security machine.  Further, it causes our Mark 100 Metal

Detector to alarm at the normal setting just as any other pistol

does.  When the Glock 17 is broken down into its three basic

components...all three components are still visible and identifiable

on the television monitor of the x-ray system by a trained security

operator.  In all tests, the Glock 17 was x-rayed while inside a

standard briefcase with a normal amount of paper (approximately 1"

thick) and other items usually found in a briefcase.  Even the plastic

frame shows clearly...".6  You didn't read this in your local

newspaper because they chose not to report it.







Waiting Periods



Let's take one more issue.  Again, in 1988, Senator Howard Metzenbaum

(D-OH) and Representative Edward Feighan (D-OH) attempted to attach a

previously rejected anti-gun bill, the so-called "Brady" bill, onto

the Omnibus Drug Bill.   Their amendment would have done the following:



     1) Impose de facto nationwide handgun registration



     2) Give the government control over the sale, transfer,

     trade, loan or gift of a handgun



     3) Create a multi-million dollar bureaucracy that could

     arbitrarily deny handgun ownership



     4) Make federal law of legislation already rejected by

     a majority of states -- including Metzenbaum's and

     Feighan's home state of Ohio



It is really beyond me how anyone could have the audacity to introduce

legislation on the national level which has previously been soundly

rejected by their own constituents.  There ought to be a law against

that!  This legislation was advertised as anti-drug legislation.

Representative Feighan made that claim on the MacNeil/Lehrer News

Hour.  The presumption was that a one-week waiting period would

prevent felons from obtaining guns.  The Justice Department study

mentioned earlier "showed just the opposite:  Criminals don't buy guns

through regulated channels;  they don't get permits or register their

guns; and the more serious they are as criminals, the less likely they

are to get guns from licensed dealers, directly or indirectly".7  The

only people who would be affected by such proposals are law-abiding

citizens.



This legislation was obviously just another veiled attempt at gun

registration.  Fortunately, the House adopted a substitute proposal

that directs the Justice Department to try to create a computer system

for gun dealers to identify felons who attempt to purchase firearms.

The NRA supported this bill.  I believe that such a system is very

workable.  Indeed, we already have prototypes of what such a system

might be like in the current nationwide computer information networks

like CompuServe, The Source, Genie and others.



By the way, a waiting period would not have prevented John Hinckley

from purchasing the handgun with which he shot President Reagan and

the others.  At the time he purchased the gun, he "had no felony

record, had not been adjudicated a mental incompetent by any court,

and would have been approved to purchase a handgun under any waiting

period system yet devised".8  The Stockton schoolyard murderer,

Patrick Purdy, 



had also purchased five handguns in California after going through

their two-week waiting period and police background check.  All of his

previous felony arrests had been plea-bargained to misdemeanors.





Conclusion



Restrictions on the lawful ownership and use of any firearm are

ill-advised.  I believe the facts support the notion that restrictive

gun laws adversely affect only law-abiding citizens.  The letter to

the editor quoted at the beginning of this paper implied that a total

ban of all firearms would be the ideal solution to the crime problem.

I suggest that this would result in an increase in criminal activity

the likes of which we have not seen in modern history. A total ban on

private ownership of firearms would have the practical result of

disarming law-abiding citizens without disarming criminals.  To

suggest that banning the private ownership of firearms will decrease

crime is to display a supreme ignorance of how easy it is to

manufacture or smuggle firearms, not to mention a severely

pollyana-ish view about what motivates violent criminals.  We can't

even keep criminals from manufacturing guns in prisons!  The only way

a total ban would work would be to also erase all record of firearm

technology and eliminate all access to charcoal, sulfur and potassium

nitrate, the three main components of gunpowder (potassium nitrate is

readily available in lawn fertilizer).  The mechanics of firearms is

no big secret. Fortunately, or unfortunately depending on your point

of view, we have come too far to seriously consider banning firearms

as a means of decreasing gun-related crime.



What then do we do about crimes involving firearms?  I believe that we

are seeing worse crimes because the deterrent value of prison time is

much diminished from what it used to be.  As long as we continue to

tolerate a system which provides revolving-door justice and allows

capital crimes to go unpunished we will continue to see crime rates

increase and/or crimes to become more heinous.    We must face up to the

fact that it will cost money to make felony convictions a useful

deterrent.  Banning guns won't decrease violent crime.  Criminals will

always get the guns they need.



The NRA has proposed three specific things we can do to reduce gun-

related crime without punishing law-abiding gun owners:



     1) Not allow a person to plea bargain a felony charge

     down to a misdemeanor except once in a five-year

     period.



     2) Find funds to build more prisons, even if it means a

     special tax to get these violent offenders off the

     streets.  (The NRA won a statewide referendum on

     this in Oregon in the November, 1988 election.)



     3) Call on the U.S. Justice Department to stop the

     practice of coddling criminals by refusing to

     enforce the four-year old NRA-sponsored

     McClure/Volkmer Act (FOPA).  This act gave the

     federal government the 



     tool to take drug traffickers carrying firearms off

     the streets with a mandatory five to twenty year

     prison sentence with no parole possible.



If the first proposal were in effect, Patrick Purdy would have been in

prison and not in that Stockton schoolyard killing children.  Before

that tragic incident, Purdy was arrested for soliciting sex -- and

released.  He was arrested for the possession of narcotics -- and

released.  He was arrested on dangerous weapons charges -- and

released.  He was arrested for attempted robbery -- and released.  And

he was arrested for receiving stolen property -- and released.   Even a

police psychiatrist, in a written report, warned that Purdy was a

danger to himself and to society -- a warning repeatedly ignored by

the criminal justice system.  Because of the failure of the criminal

justice system to indict Purdy on even one of those felony charges, he

legally purchased five handguns in California after going through the

14-day waiting period and police background investigation.



Let's review.  The news media has misrepresented each of the issues

mentioned in the letter to the editor as well as every other gun issue

they have covered.  Lately, the news media has accused the NRA of

going "off the deep end" (words straight out of Handgun Control, Inc.

literature) and being out of step with the American public.  On the

contrary, it is the NRA which is in step with the 70 million adult

Americans who own guns.  It is the anti-gun crowd, who have little

personal experience with guns, who keep going off the deep end.  It is

the news media which continues to go off the deep end through biased,

one-sided reporting.  Through misinformation and misrepresentation

they keep trying to chip away at the right which may ultimately

preserve the republic.   Noted environmentalist Edward Abbey said,

"When the government bans guns, only the government will have guns".

I believe the founding fathers understood what Abbey meant.  It is

worthy of serious reflection.  It is significant that the "right to

keep and bear arms" is the second of the ten rights in the Bill of

Rights.



On February 13, 1989 the same newspaper mentioned at the beginning of

this paper, in a gun control editorial stated:



     The Second Amendment is not about duck hunting.  It is

     a step back to a time when men thought of armed

     uprising, of fighting off our own government when and

     if it became too burdensome.



     Most of our rules of conduct and laws have evolved to

     reflect a more permanent view of government and

     society's relationship to it.



They certainly have more confidence in government than many people

do.  The lessons of history prove that we must be ever vigilant if we

truly desire to preserve our liberty.  Every great civilization

throughout history has crumbled under it's own weight.  Ours may

suffer the same fate if we don't stay alert and protect the

Constitution -- all of it.







When all is said and done, it is the news media in this country which

bears primary responsibility for the misinformation and

misrepresentation which leads people to erroneous conclusions.   The

claims of the anti-gun crowd are the only claims the news media

uncritically reports.  Both sides of most issues get some news

coverage.  That is decidedly not the case when it comes to gun issues

and the NRA.  The news media generally portrays the NRA in a negative

light.    Is it possible that is an accurate representation of an

organization which represents the interests of over 70 million

people?  The following tidbit appeared in the September 15, 1988,

"Alarums and Diversions" column of the LIBRARY JOURNAL.



     "A highly placed library source in Washington, D.C.

     told A

     and the National Rifle Association lobby are the only

     ones whose information was considered consistently

     truthful and reliable by legislators.  We will not even

     consider the 'strange bedfellows' variations possible

     to that remark."



I can't vouch for the source of the above quotation, but I think it

should be obvious that the people who are best qualified to address

the technical merits of the gun-control debate are those who own and

use guns on a regular basis.  Non-gun-owners speak totally from

emotion, not facts (their passionate assertion about the non-sporting

capabilities of semi-automatic "assault" rifles is a perfect

example).  It seems natural to fear that which we don't understand.  I

believe that is why non-gun-owners react the way they do when the

subject of gun control comes up.  The facts concerning gun-related

crime are on the side of the NRA and law-abiding gun-owners.



Implicit in criticisms of the NRA is the idea that the NRA is

duplicitous in it's purposes.  The "Cop-Killer Bullet" episode is a

classic example of the anti-gun crowd doing something with the best of

intentions, but failing because of their ignorance about firearms.  At

least, that is the charitable view.  It could also easily be construed

as another covert attempt to ban firearms in this country without

coming out and saying that is what they're trying to do.  It would be

a lot easier to deal with anti-gun groups if they would just be up

front with the American people about what their goals are.  Instead,

they deceive the public about their motives by focusing attention on

invented, emotional non-issues cloaked in such terms as "Cop-Killer

Bullets" and non-existent "Plastic Guns".  They say they just want to

restrict gun ownership "a little".  Nobody really believes they will

disband their organizations and go save the whales if we allow them to

restrict gun ownership just "a little".  Their ultimate goal is the

total disarmament of the American people.  They won't come out and say

it because they know a majority of citizens won't support them.  You

need to go no further than anti-gun organizations in America to learn

what duplicitous means.







Appendix A -- An Extended Discussion of "Cop-Killer Bullets"



What I'm about to say may sound morbid, but please understand that I

am trying to show how complex this "Cop-Killer Bullet" issue really

is.  The Geneva Convention laid down specific rules concerning what

type of bullets may be used by military forces.  The basic rule is

that all small arms (rifles and handguns) ammunition must be

non-expanding. That is, it must have a full-metal jacket around the

lead (pronounced 'led') core of the bullet, especially on the pointed

end that will initially impact an enemy soldier.  This full-metal

jacket (usually a copper alloy) is intended to prevent the bullet from

doing what all bullets tend to do on impact.  That is, they flatten

out, or expand, to perhaps two or three times their diameter.  When

this happens, a bullet transfers most of its kinetic energy to the

target.  The more kinetic energy a bullet transfers to a target, the

more damage will be done.  This is why hunting bullets are required to

be expanding bullets.  Expanding bullets maximize the likelihood that

a quick, painless kill will result.  If we allowed non-expanding

bullets to be used for hunting, most animals would be simply wounded

because the bullet would pass right through them and they would run

off and hide somewhere to die a slow painful death from blood loss.



If a bullet can be prevented from expanding, it will transfer minimum

kinetic energy to the target thus minimizing the potential damage.  At

the same time, the likelihood of survival is maximized.  So the Geneva

Convention requires that military forces use non-expanding, or

full-metal jacket bullets.  Armor-piercing bullets are the ultimate

non-expanding bullets.



You may be wondering what all this has to do with "Cop-Killer

Bullets".  Just this; not all police officers wear bullet proof vests

all the time.  If a police officer without a bullet-proof vest is

going to be shot, he or she may have a better chance of survival if

shot with an armor-piercing bullet rather than an expanding bullet,

which is what virtually all other bullets are.    An armor-piercing

bullet will go through a human body and do virtually no serious damage

unless it passes through a major organ (like the heart or brain) or

impacts a major bone.  This assumes that competent medical attention

is available reasonably quick.



On the other hand, anyone shot with a typical bullet is likely to

suffer major damage regardless of the location on the body which the

bullet hits.  This has to do with the hydrostatic shock effect of an

expanding bullet.  It is like you or me falling into water.  If we

fall into water from a height of three feet, it is no big deal,

because the water can flow around us.  On the other hand, if we fall

into water from a height of 500 feet, the impact will probably kill

us.  An expanding bullet traveling at 1000 feet per second or faster

will likely deliver most of its kinetic energy into the body.  Since

our body is about 70% water, this energy will send shock waves through

the body and disrupt tissue over a large area potentially causing a

lot of damage. An armor-piercing bullet has a great likelihood of

causing minor damage because it will take most of it's energy with it

as it passes through the body.





Appendix A -- An Extended Discussion of "Cop-Killer Bullets"

continued



Understand, these statements are not meant to minimize the tragedy of

police officers being injured in the line of duty.  Rather they are

intended to provide a better understanding about the physics of

firearms.  The anti-gun crowd doesn't understand this.  Many Americans

have a similarly shallow level of understanding.







Footnotes

---------



1    The major players on the anti-gun side of the debate are Handgun

Control, Inc. (HCI), the National Coalition to Ban Handguns (NCBH) and

the news media in general.



2    "The Armed Criminal in America" by Dr. James W. Wright and Peter

H. Rossi.  Study commissioned by the U.S. Department of Justice in

1985.  Dr. Wright is a professor of sociology and director of the

Social and Demographic Research Institute (SADRI) at the University of

Massachusetts, an expert on survey research, and a reformed advocate

of harsh gun laws.  In a 1975 article entitled: "The ownership of the

Means of Destruction:  Weapons in the United States", Wright attacked

the NRA and gun ownership.  In 1979, Prof. Wright joined with Mr.

Rossi -- also from SADRI at U. Mass., and a former president of the

American Sociological Association -- in studying the gun issue more

thoroughly.    This caused a dramatic shift in their views.

     Although Wright currently supports so-called "permissive" gun

laws, he no longer espouses "gun control" as an effective form of

"crime control".  And while Prof. Wright's previous anti-gun research

gained massive media attention, his more recent voluminous and 



scholarly research has been all but ignored by the news media.



3    Sections 18-1-704, 18-3-4/202/203



4    "Canadian Gun Laws and Crime", the AMERICAN RIFLEMAN, September,

1988, page 56, by David B. Kopel, a Colorado lawyer and a former

assistant district attorney for the Manhattan (N.Y.) District

Attorney's office.  Kopel is the author of "Trust the People:  The

Case Against Gun Control", a policy analysis published by the Cato

Institute in July, 1988.



5    "The Armed Criminal in America", an article by Dr. Paul H.

Blackman in the August, 1985 issue of the AMERICAN RIFLEMAN.



6    Letter from Astrophysics Research Corporation to Representative

Mario Biaggi (D-NY), excerpted in the September 1987 issue of the

AMERICAN RIFLEMAN.



7    Excerpted in the AMERICAN RIFLEMAN, August 1988, page 56.



8    Testimony of David B. Kopel, concerning the Metzenbaum waiting

period bill (S.466), before the Senate Judiciary Committee's

Subcommittee on the Constitution, August 2, 1988.



------------------------------------------------

(This file was found elsewhere on the Internet and uploaded to the

Radio Free Michigan archives by the archive maintainer.




All files are ZIP archives for fast download.


 E-mail bj496@Cleveland.Freenet.Edu)





