Pulling it Out From Where the Sun Don’t Shine

Man, this editorial is filled with so much ignorance, I can’t even begin to pick it apart.

Such extraordinary firepower is not meant for hunting animals or target shooting. We see only one other purpose. And so did Murray.

If I had a dime for every time someone said that a rifle firing a medium power cartridge, is too “extraordinarily powerful” for civilian use, I’d be a rich man.  The .223 is indeed unsuited to deer hunting, because it’s not powerful enough.  Of course, there are AR-15s that are built in calibers suitable for deer, and people use them.

[…] state lawmakers, in Colorado and elsewhere, ought to follow the example of Maryland, which just enacted the Assault Weapons Ban of 2007. (It would mean amending a law now on the books.)

Maryland passed an assault weapons ban in 2007?  That’s news to me.  I’m pretty sure the correct fact is that one was propsed, and second amendment activists in Maryland defeated it.  A little research never hurts, unless you’re an “authorized journalist”, in which case it must be obviously painful, since they never do it.

During the ban, the number of assault weapons linked to crimes dropped. The proportion of banned assault weapons traced to crime dropped by two-thirds from 1995 to 2004.

It did?  I could swear the actual facts from a CDC study done on the issue showed it to be ineffective.

Frankly, we can’t figure out the benefits of having assault weapons easily available. Law enforcement officers universally agree that people wanting self protection don’t carry assault weapons. But criminals do.

If they are so ineffective for self protection, then did they ever think maybe they should ask the police why they carry them?  Well, it’s not the only bit of logical analysis that’s missing fro this piece.

3 Responses to “Pulling it Out From Where the Sun Don’t Shine”

  1. Tom says:

    I sent the editor an e-mail:

    First you have to define an assault weapon. Seems simple, kind of like what Justice Stewart said of porn, “I know it when I see it.” But how can it be legally define it? Assault weapons function the same as other ordinary firearms. How do you make a distinction between a “dangerous assault weapon” and a target or hunting firearm?

    So, could you be more specific about what guns we need to get rid of now?

    I’m talking about an enforceable legal definition, not something that focuses on the physical appearance of the firearm, but one that addresses function. Maybe something like: “Capable of a sustained rate of fire greater than 10 rounds per minute with a muzzle energy greater than 400 ft/lb.”

    This would keep the firearms manufacturers from changing one or two cosmetic features and continue to make virtually the same weapon.

    Two other items. The cartridge that the M-16 fires is not legal for deer hunting in many areas as it is not powerful enough (it frequently only wounds the deer not creating an immediately fatal wound so it is thought too cruel.) The AK-47 fires a more powerful cartridge, but one that ballistically speaking is virtually the same as the .30-30 cartridge used in many of the most popular deer rifles.

  2. Rustmeister says:

    Comments not working?

    How convenient.

  3. Carl in Chicago says:

    Here is my LTE…..

    In response to your 12/18/07 editorial “Get rid of these guns – now”:

    Civilian ownership of military semi-auto firearms, and even real assault weapons, is precisely consistent with the spirit, purpose, and guarantee of the second amendment.

    I suspect that this current “assault weapons” hobby horse is going to backfire on gun control advocates. After all, the Supreme Court (in Miller, 1939) ruled that protected arms must bear “some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia”; the court went on to define this militia as “all males [now, including females] physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense…civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.” Furthermore, “these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.”

    Thus, “we” are the militia, and ownership of these so-called assault rifles is consistent with the spirit of the second amendment guarantee and with the necessity of a citizen militia. Instead of discussing the constitutionally absurd notion to prohibit such firearms, it’s more realistic to argue whether ownership of such weapons should be obligatory. Such weapons for which you advocate prohibition are the very type of firearm that is the most protected by the spirit, purpose, and guarantee of the second amendment.