From ca-firearms-owner Tue May 3 18:38:48 1994 Received: from localhost (chan@localhost) by jobe.shell.portal.com (8.6.4/8.6.5) id SAA14410 for ca-firearms-outgoing; Tue, 3 May 1994 18:38:27 -0700 Received: from nova.unix.portal.com (nova.unix.portal.com [156.151.1.101]) by jobe.shell.portal.com (8.6.4/8.6.5) with ESMTP id SAA14399 for ; Tue, 3 May 1994 18:38:24 -0700 Received: from netcom.com (netcom2.netcom.com [192.100.81.108]) by nova.unix.portal.com (8.6.7/8.6.5) with ESMTP id SAA06223 for ; Tue, 3 May 1994 18:38:21 -0700 Received: by netcom.com (8.6.8.1/SMI-4.1/Netcom) id SAA24192; Tue, 3 May 1994 18:38:29 -0700 From: wd6cmu@netcom.com (Eric Williams) Message-Id: <199405040138.SAA24192@netcom.com> Subject: Letter to congressman To: ca-firearms@shell.portal.com Date: Tue, 3 May 1994 18:38:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 10588 Sender: ca-firearms-owner@shell.portal.com Precedence: bulk Status: RO The Honorable George Miller 7th Congressional District, California Rm. 2205 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 April 29, 1994 Dear Congressman Miller, I have some concerns regarding HR 4296 (Schumer). Please answer some questions for me if you can: How is a pistol with a heat shield more dangerous than one without? How does a flash supressor make a rifle more likely to be used in a crime? How does moving a pistol's magazine from inside the grip to in front of it turn its posessor into a criminal? What statistical evidence points to the causal relationship between pistol weight and criminal activity? How have we reached the point that we view threading on a gun barrel as such a threat to our collective security that it requires the intervention of the most powerful government on earth? You and your fellow representatives are currently considering including all of the above in a list of attributes of "assault weapons" and banning the posession of such guns. Put another way, you are apparently prepared to brand an otherwise law-abiding U.S. citizen as a federal criminal based solely on the fact that his firearm exhibits these characteristics. Does this make any sense to you? How about this question: Why is Congress wasting its collective breath attempting to regulate a class of weapons whose contribution to the national homicide rate is exceeded by that of hands and feet? We've seen these "assault weapons" in the movies. We've seen them in TV news and tabloid shows, and we now see them in congressional hearings. They're bad, they're ugly, they're dangerous, and they're the choice of discriminating terrorists and wackos the world over. They're in the arsenals of fanatical religous cults, or they're a Chinese communist plot to flood our streets with death. They spray bullets in an endless stream while being shot from the hip by camoflage-wearing maniacs. These guns have a major image problem. HR 4296 and the Feinstein amendment to the Omnibus Crime Bill exemplifies this: They ban firearms based on their image, not on any objective evaluation of their capabilities or threat. They are banned based on what they might do, what the public and legislators have been led to believe they will do, not on any facts about what they actually do. It's as if these guns were pornography, their very sight deemed offensive and threatening and without redeeming social importance. I am truly sorry, Congressman Miller, that some of your fellow legislators are afraid of these guns. I feel for the senator or representative who, seeing these pieces of metal and plastic on the examining table before him, breaks out in a cold sweat, feels his hands begin to shake and his heart to palpitate. Blame Hollywood for his reactions. Blame Rambo and Arnold Swartzenegger. Blame our "news" media that glorifies the image of a single lunatic and molds it into the mindless fear of a thousand like him so that more toothpaste may be sold. But don't make bad laws based on images and emotions. Don't turn citizens into criminals because you think them too weak-willed to resist being enticed into performing criminal acts by an evil gun. Please look at the facts instead: o The crime rate is not skyrocketing. The Justice Department statistics show that per capita crime, including violent crime, is level or decreasing. We are not in the midst of a crisis that requires the suspension of the Bill of Rights. o These are not the "weapon of choice" for criminals, or drug kingpins, or gangs. They are rarely as much as 3% of the guns confiscated during arrests, and often less than 1%. Deputy Chief Joseph Constance of Trenton NJ testified that his officers were more likely to encounter an escaped tiger on the street than a criminal with an "assault weapon." The statistics showing a disproportionate number of "assault weapons" traced by the BATF say more about the politics of firearm traces than they do about the criminal use of such weapons. o These are not guns used by military forces the world over. With the possible exception of semi-automatic pistols, used as sidearms, none of the "assault weapons" being banned are used by any military force in the world. A true assault rifle is a selective fire weapon, capable of fully-automatic (machine-gun) fire, something americans have been restricted from posessing since 1934. o They are not significantly different from weapons not being banned. The difference in the vast majority of cases are merely cosmetic, leading one to wonder why someone must go to federal prison because of the way his gun looked. It also leads one to wonder, if such trivial differences separate legal and illegal guns now, what's to stop someone from taking that small step towards banning the rest of the semiautomatic guns in the future? (Especially when it's eventually determined that the ban has failed in its promise to make citizens safer.) o They are not significantly more deadly than all other guns. The intermediate-caliber ammunition of "assault rifles" is designed to wound rather than to kill, and a hunting rifle (which, by definition, is "designed only to kill") is significantly more lethal. o They are not readily convertible to full-automatic (machine gun) fire. The BATF would have banned them already if they were, and their standard is that any gun that can be converted in less than 8 hours by a competent gunsmith in a fully-equiped machine shop is considered "readily convertible." There are machine gun designs that can be built from scratch in less time than that. o They do indeed have sporting uses. Many target shooting competitions, especially those designed to help prepare our nation for time of war, require the use of weapons similar to those in our military arsenal. The intermediate ammunition caliber and quick follow-up shot ability of "assault rifles" makes them ideal for small game and varmint hunting. o The police are not being outgunned by these weapons. Police have access to any military hardware their administration chooses to make available to them, including machine guns and grenade launchers. One can only assume that municipalities would have escalated the firepower of their own police force if they were, in truth, being outgunned. I am not aware of any police chief that has even requested such escalation. o Their banning will not reduce crime. Look at your own state and others that have already banned them -- have their crime rates shown a significant improvement? Even proponents of assault weapon bans admit that the crime rate would not be affected by this law. o Their banning will not affect criminals. Criminals, by definition, don't care if the guns they use are legal or not. It is already against federal law for convicted criminals to purchase, posess, or use an assault weapon -- or any other firearm, for that matter -- in the commission of a crime. Violations of these federal laws, however, are rarely investigated or prosecuted by our Justice Department. One law more or less will not make any difference to criminals. o Their banning may well increase crime. Given the low compliance rate to state registration and bans of "assault weapons," it is likely that this law would classify hundreds of thousands of U.S. citizens as federal criminals -- citizens that otherwise would have been considered law-abiding. "Crime" will go up. In addition, should the ban actually result in the decreased availability of firearms to career criminals (unlikely), there would be a great expansion in the illegal black market for the smuggling and selling of firearms, resulting is yet more crime. Note also that this bill does not include any increase in appropriations for the BATF, whose enforcement would have to be widely expanded if this law is to have any meaning at all. Congressman Miller, even more than the illogic of turning people into criminals based on the appearance of their posessions, I am confused and frustrated by my legislature's apparent preoccupation over this and similar inconsequential issues. Even if it could be shown that "assault weapons" were a significant criminal risk (and it can't), it would still be just a symptom of the crime problem. As Jeff Cooper, a columnist, wrote: "...if you take all the guns off the street you still will have a crime problem, whereas if you take the criminals off the street you cannot have a gun problem." Every time I see another bill being debated that addresses a symptom of crime instead of its causes, I lament the wasted resources and lost opportunities that could have been used to make a real difference. We already know many of the social ills that result in increased crime: poverty; lack of education; a depressed job market; unstable family structure; poor housing; social injustice. These and other factors are ones that will require significant commitment of time and resources to remedy. The problem of crime does not yield to a quick fix, like banning "assault weapons" or gang clothing or rap music. Outlawing a symptom does not solve the problem. Indeed, such laws are an impediment to real solutions because they let legislators off the hook. They are an empty promise to constituents that something is being done about the problem, when in fact all that is being accomplished is the generation of publicity for the next election. And the citizens pay the price for these empty promises in ever-increasing restrictions on their rights and freedoms with nothing to show in exchange. Mr. Miller, I shouldn't have to tell my elected representatives to get back to work and stop wasting time. I shouldn't have to explain to them why I shouldn't be restricted and punished because of what a few lunatics and criminals in our society do. I shouldn't have to ask them politely not to take away my constitutional rights in order to further their political careers. But modern democracies appear to be like that sometimes, so here I am, explaining to you the facts as I see them. Do the right thing. Sincerely, Eric Williams a registered voter, a Democrat, a liberal, a citizen prepared to defend himself, and NOT an NRA member. -- Eric Williams | wd6cmu@netcom.com | WD6CMU@WD6CMU.#NOCAL.CA.USA.NA