Jim Stillman
Nevar
Responses to Paris Hamilton's death
April 22nd 2009 13:19
As I noted in my previous post, Really Long Link the substance of the post regarding the death of a young girl following a “drive-by” shooting when over 50 rounds from an assault rifle pierced her home, was published on Examiner. Really Long Link Following that posting, I became engaged in a joust of opinions. I offer them here as an example of argument and disagreement with respect.
Comments by a reader
The AR-15 was initially marketed to civilians as a hunting rifle, and thus your assertion that the AR-15 is not suitable for hunting is demonstrably false. Unfortunately, I am not permitted to reference an image of a scanned advertisement from a 1960s-era magazine advertising the Colt AR-15 as a "superb hunting partner".
All rifles combined, of which AR-15 style firearms are obviously a very small subset, are less commonly criminally misused than any other class of firearm, and are less frequently used to commit homicide than are knives, blunt objects and "personal weapons". There exists no rational justification for a prohibition of such popular hunting and target shooting rifles; there exists no evidence that such a prohibition would affect violent crime rates in any fashion. Appealing to "emotion", as you have done, does not constitute a logical justification for your position.
My response
I understand and expected your fervor. I have received a number of messages asserting that assault weapons are superb hunting weapons, that they are weapons of choice for self defense. I am, honestly, not an expert on guns and would prefer that we enact strong gun registration and control. However, the remarks to which you object, that the AR-15 has no legitimate civilian use is that of virtually every law enforcement agency that I know. For example, the International Association of Chiefs of Police:
Limit the manufacture and sale of automatic and semi-automatic assault-type firearms. The deadly flow of military assault-type automatic and semi-automatic weapons onto U.S. streets and into the hands of violent criminals means that all too frequently the superior firepower belongs to the criminals, not law enforcement. These weapons have no sporting and/or hunting purpose. Rather, they are used by those who desire "ultimate firepower" in order to quickly kill or seriously wound large groups of persons. Manufacture and sale of assault weapons to the general public should be prohibited. Federal legislation to this effect is needed immediately.
As I wrote, I am not advocating a total ban on guns (now), just a restriction on these particular kind of killing devices.
And a reply
If, as you acknowledge, your understanding of firearms is so limited, then your suggestions regarding firearms restrictions are of no credibility. You cannot claim to understand reasonable firearms regulations if you have no understanding of firearms.
The statement of the International Association of Chiefs of Police do not negate the demonstrable civilian uses of AR-15 rifles. They are the most popular centerfire target rifle in the country, and they have become popular amongst hunters because of their accuracy and their reliability. They are also, contrary to speculation from those who assert that the firearms are suitable used by those who desire "ultimate firepower" as a means for rapidly injuring or killing "large groups of persons", rarely criminally misused; that an organization releases a demonstrably dishonest claim regarding such firearms is not a logical basis for a prohibition on the sale and manufacture of such firearms.
I am curious as to how you would propose federal legislation address the millions of such firearms currently legally owned by civilians who have no criminal history, given your evident -- and irrational -- opposition to civilian ownership of such firearms. I am also interested in your parenthetical inclusion of the term "now" in your statement; are you saying that you would seek a total firearms prohibition enactment in the future? If not, what is the meaning of the included term? If so, why do you not simply advocate for that presently?
And my “last word”
Again, I thank you for taking the time and trouble to engage in a rational discussion of a subject that usually generates more heat than light. I will try and address each of your comments in turn. First, while I do not profess to be an expert on firearms generally and on assault weapons in particular, I do not have to be an expert to recognize that a weapon capable of spraying bullets into a home is probably not one that should be readily available to members of gangs and drug cartels. You may dismiss my opinion that the convenience of target shooters and those hunters who require a magazine of bullets to fell a deer or rabbit or whatever the victim de jour, (That was, I know, unnecessarily sarcastic, but I couldn’t resist! Sorry.) is outweighed by the life of a little girl or hostages in a school.
I do not argue with the position that the shooters and not the weapon are ultimately responsible. Consider this, however, if the criminals had hand guns or knives or anything but a gun capable of spraying the house with over 50 rounds in the seconds it took to “drive by”, the chances of this child dying would have been lessened.
If my opinion’s not worth any weight, I will not dismiss the near unanimous opinions of police officers who face these weapons or the destruction that results all too often. The police chief of St. Petersburg was quoted in my initial article, I have pointed to the statement of the IACP and there are the statements of the police in almost every state. I do listen to those people.
You ask my wish for a total ban on hand guns, which you call “irrational”. If this were a opportunity to address gun control ab initio. I would support a ban, except for a well-regulated militia. But the cork is out of the bottle in our society, there are too many guns available ad to remove them is impossible. (Please note, I speak of hand guns.) I understand the perceived need for hunting rifles and shotguns in a rural setting. I see no civilian need for semi-automatic guns just as I do not see the need for everyone to have explosives in big cities just because farmers may require them to remove stumps.
Comments by a reader
The AR-15 was initially marketed to civilians as a hunting rifle, and thus your assertion that the AR-15 is not suitable for hunting is demonstrably false. Unfortunately, I am not permitted to reference an image of a scanned advertisement from a 1960s-era magazine advertising the Colt AR-15 as a "superb hunting partner".
All rifles combined, of which AR-15 style firearms are obviously a very small subset, are less commonly criminally misused than any other class of firearm, and are less frequently used to commit homicide than are knives, blunt objects and "personal weapons". There exists no rational justification for a prohibition of such popular hunting and target shooting rifles; there exists no evidence that such a prohibition would affect violent crime rates in any fashion. Appealing to "emotion", as you have done, does not constitute a logical justification for your position.
My response
I understand and expected your fervor. I have received a number of messages asserting that assault weapons are superb hunting weapons, that they are weapons of choice for self defense. I am, honestly, not an expert on guns and would prefer that we enact strong gun registration and control. However, the remarks to which you object, that the AR-15 has no legitimate civilian use is that of virtually every law enforcement agency that I know. For example, the International Association of Chiefs of Police:
Limit the manufacture and sale of automatic and semi-automatic assault-type firearms. The deadly flow of military assault-type automatic and semi-automatic weapons onto U.S. streets and into the hands of violent criminals means that all too frequently the superior firepower belongs to the criminals, not law enforcement. These weapons have no sporting and/or hunting purpose. Rather, they are used by those who desire "ultimate firepower" in order to quickly kill or seriously wound large groups of persons. Manufacture and sale of assault weapons to the general public should be prohibited. Federal legislation to this effect is needed immediately.
As I wrote, I am not advocating a total ban on guns (now), just a restriction on these particular kind of killing devices.
And a reply
If, as you acknowledge, your understanding of firearms is so limited, then your suggestions regarding firearms restrictions are of no credibility. You cannot claim to understand reasonable firearms regulations if you have no understanding of firearms.
The statement of the International Association of Chiefs of Police do not negate the demonstrable civilian uses of AR-15 rifles. They are the most popular centerfire target rifle in the country, and they have become popular amongst hunters because of their accuracy and their reliability. They are also, contrary to speculation from those who assert that the firearms are suitable used by those who desire "ultimate firepower" as a means for rapidly injuring or killing "large groups of persons", rarely criminally misused; that an organization releases a demonstrably dishonest claim regarding such firearms is not a logical basis for a prohibition on the sale and manufacture of such firearms.
I am curious as to how you would propose federal legislation address the millions of such firearms currently legally owned by civilians who have no criminal history, given your evident -- and irrational -- opposition to civilian ownership of such firearms. I am also interested in your parenthetical inclusion of the term "now" in your statement; are you saying that you would seek a total firearms prohibition enactment in the future? If not, what is the meaning of the included term? If so, why do you not simply advocate for that presently?
And my “last word”
Again, I thank you for taking the time and trouble to engage in a rational discussion of a subject that usually generates more heat than light. I will try and address each of your comments in turn. First, while I do not profess to be an expert on firearms generally and on assault weapons in particular, I do not have to be an expert to recognize that a weapon capable of spraying bullets into a home is probably not one that should be readily available to members of gangs and drug cartels. You may dismiss my opinion that the convenience of target shooters and those hunters who require a magazine of bullets to fell a deer or rabbit or whatever the victim de jour, (That was, I know, unnecessarily sarcastic, but I couldn’t resist! Sorry.) is outweighed by the life of a little girl or hostages in a school.
I do not argue with the position that the shooters and not the weapon are ultimately responsible. Consider this, however, if the criminals had hand guns or knives or anything but a gun capable of spraying the house with over 50 rounds in the seconds it took to “drive by”, the chances of this child dying would have been lessened.
If my opinion’s not worth any weight, I will not dismiss the near unanimous opinions of police officers who face these weapons or the destruction that results all too often. The police chief of St. Petersburg was quoted in my initial article, I have pointed to the statement of the IACP and there are the statements of the police in almost every state. I do listen to those people.
You ask my wish for a total ban on hand guns, which you call “irrational”. If this were a opportunity to address gun control ab initio. I would support a ban, except for a well-regulated militia. But the cork is out of the bottle in our society, there are too many guns available ad to remove them is impossible. (Please note, I speak of hand guns.) I understand the perceived need for hunting rifles and shotguns in a rural setting. I see no civilian need for semi-automatic guns just as I do not see the need for everyone to have explosives in big cities just because farmers may require them to remove stumps.
| 21 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
