Drivel from NBC (long)

[Crash]

One needs to read the drivel Dan Small has written at
http://www.msnbc.com/news/261433.asp

My respone to this article is below. Please hammer this idiot with your opinions.

----------------------------------------
Dan Small,

I really wonder how someone who was a federal prosecutor can write such garbage.

"But for the business of murder, they turned
away from weapons of war or hunting. Those were too big, too slow, and too precise. Murder up-close requires convenience, speed and firepower. A fast spray is more likely to hit a moving target up close than a single, carefully considered bullet. For that combination of deadly efficiency, they turned to semi-automatics and sawed-off shotguns."

Fully automatic weapons have a faster rate of
fire than semi-automatics. Why did they not use those if all they wanted to do was a fast spray?

Furthermore, most police officers now carry
semi-automatics. Why this change? Ease and speed of reloading perhaps.

If memory serves me correctly, semi-automatic pitols were first used in World War 2. Therefore, the semi-automatic is a weapon of war.

"A normal pistol allows you to hold it steady, aim, and pull the trigger. It then requires you to release the trigger, and go through the process again. A semi-automatic or automatic — there are a range of styles and capabilities — removes that crucial, deliberative step. Pull the trigger once, or squeeze it repeatedly and the gun will fire a rapid succession of bullets."

Now we both should know that this is a misleading statement. You claimed the weapon of choice was a semi-automatic; yet, here you try and confuse the terms by citing the firing styles of automatic and semi-automatic.

As you should know, an automatic weapon fires
repeatedly until the trigger is released. A
semi-auotmatic, however, requires the same action to fire as a revolver, one trigger pull per shot. The differnece being that the revolver must rotate a new chamber with the next pull of the trigger. I can gurantee you that a loaded revolver when squeezed repeated will fire just as well as a semi-automatic.

"These are ugly killing machines, nothing more and nothing less. They are not tools for hunting, war, or even reasonable self-defense."

As I stated previously, the semi-automatic was used in at least one war, and most assuredly more. So therefore, they are tools not as you would have us beleive ugly killing machines.

"Without the guns, whatever trouble they got
into would not have been a massacre."

Just like the Oklahoma City bombing was not a
massacre, huh? They didn't just have guns, which must infuriate you given your anti-self defense (anti-gun) stance, they made and carried 30+ bombs into the school as well. Where is the outrage against the pipe manufacture and this deadly ugly killing material.

Perhaps you should stick to white collar crime and lecturing about information you have more knowledge in.

 

[Gwinnydapooh]

Here's what I sent. It's pretty long, but I couldn't resist. It really pisses me off that this idiot is playing with my rights based on "the guess here" and no research at all. If I tried to write something so wild and unsubstantiated, I'd be flunked before I left the room. Enjoy:

Mr. Small:

I am not certain why you abandoned white-collar crime, an area in which I presume you are knowledgeable on the basis of the profile at the end of your article "Killing, Up Close" on MSNBC, in order to write about firearms, about which you appear to have little real knowledge. I have below quoted and corrected the more obvious inaccuracies in your article. This is a long message, but please read the entire thing and respond as you see fit.

A few corrections:
1. " . . . for the business of murder, they turned away from weapons of war or hunting. Those were too big, too slow, and too precise. Murder up-close requires convenience, speed and firepower. A fast spray is more likely to hit a moving target up close than a single, carefully considered bullet. "
This is obviously not true. It cannot be anything but a lie or a foolish attempt to pass off an opinion based on conjecture. I have several friends who have actually fought in wars who were very surprised by your implication that war does not require more speed and firepower than murder. Furthermore, what are these weapons of war which are "too precise?" The M16, which has been known for a high rate of fire and low accuracy since its inception?
2. "For that combination of deadly efficiency, they turned to semi-automatics and sawed-off shotguns."
Sawed-off shotguns are already illegal and have been illegal for a long time. Do you suggest that we re-outlaw them? Or are you suggesting that they are currently legal? If so, I'll cut another 3 inches or so off the Remington 870 I keep for home defense.
3. "From a normal distance, the sawed-off shotgun was useless. But up close — very close — it let out an enormous blast and shredded the target with a wide spray of pellets. Seeing me shaken by the effect, one of the cops underscored the point. “All it’s good for is killing up close,” he told me."
What is the point of this? Are you saying that if we ban firearms which are effective up close, we can put even a small dent in crime? Surprise, they're all effective up close. To think that a hunting rifle or a revolver is ineffective up close as compared to a shotgun or semi-automatic handgun is ludicrous. Personally, I doubt that you really believe this. I would guess your agenda is showing through.
4. "A semi-automatic or automatic — there are a range of styles and capabilities — removes that crucial, deliberative step." (meaning the step of pulling the trigger each time you want the gun to fire.)
Sir, this is a plain lie. An automatic weapon does remove this step, but a semi-automatic does not. Either you are lying about the capabilities of semi-automatics, or you are lying about this shooting trip you claim to have made. Either one is a disgusting lapse of ethics.
5. "Pull the trigger once, or squeeze it repeatedly and the gun will fire a rapid succession of bullets. "
First, any handgun except the rare high-powered bolt actions used for big-game hunting will fire a rapid succession of bullets. This includes any semi-automatics and any revolvers. I presume the "standard" police weapons you mentioned were either revolvers or semi-automatics, yet you seem to feel that they are less dangerous. As for your assertion that you could pull the trigger once to fire a rapid succession of bullets, only an automatic, not a semi-automatic, is capable of repeated fire with one pull of the trigger. Once again you cast suspicion on your claim that you have fired these weapons. You also ignore the fact that automatic weapons are, for all intents and purposes, banned and have been for years. It is possible to legally buy and own an automatic, but only by paying thousands of dollars in annual fees and submitting to gross invasions of privacy in order to prove oneself worthy to own such a weapon.
6. "These are ugly killing machines, nothing more and nothing less. They are not tools for hunting, war, or even reasonable self-defense. "
Sir, that is your opinion, and in my opinion, a foolish one. It should not be presented as fact. You forget that hunting involves killing; sometimes, despite all attempts to avoid the necessity, so does self defense. As for war, your assertion that a weapon could be suitable for war and not be an "ugly killing machine" is laughable. Killing is what war means. You have discussed fully automatic weapons and semi-automatic handguns thus far; perhaps you are unaware that the standard issue for an American soldier is an M16 (fully automatic rifle) and M9 (semi-automatic, 9mm Beretta pistol.) How then can these not be considered tools of war?
10. "If we regulate one kind of gun, they say, we will inevitably slide down the slope towards outlawing all guns. This has always been nonsense."
Has it? Firstly, don't you think that your record for honesty so far in this article removes your right to call anyone's beliefs "nonsense?" With all due respect, all the nonsense so far has come from you, sir. With respect to your dismissal of the "slippery slope" argument, perhaps you don't realize that the banning of automatic weapons preceded the banning importation of "assault rifles" (most of the banned models are not true "assault rifles" but it made a pretty catchphrase) which preceded the banning of manufacture of many of same which preceded the banning of manufacture of certain types of handguns. In other words, we have been sliding down the slippery slope for some time. The fact that you don't care enough about your rights to notice does not make it nonsense.
11. "Motor vehicles are heavily regulated, . . . . . Yet no one would seriously suggest that we are on a slope towards outlawing the car."
True--but few people are writing lies about what kind of damage a car can and cannot do. Besides, so far you have talked about full-auto weapons, sawed-off shotguns, and semi-automatic pistols. You have apparently not even noticed that the first two categories are already banned. We are not on a slope toward banning them, we have done it. Did you research this article at all?
12. "Kids who see movie heroes —- or villains — blowing away their enemies with automatic weapons."
Need I say this again? Automatic weapons are already illegal. Besides, kids have watched movie heroes in gunfights for almost 100 years now. Have you never heard of westerns? Gangster movies? War movies? Fifty years ago this was not happening nearly as much, but fifty years ago guns were much easier to buy legally, full-autos were perfectly legal, there were few length limits to make sawed-off shotguns illegal. You ignore all this? Why?
13. "Kids who grow up thinking guns are OK because they see adults keeping, collecting, or using them with pride."
I thought there was no slippery slope and you only wanted to ban a few kinds of guns that I shouldn't care about, since I don't use them (as if I only have a right to the firearms of which you approve!)? Now you say that the mere fact that a child thinks guns are "OK" can turn him into a killer. Careful! Your real agenda is showing through. You cannot pretend that you favor the right to keep "certain guns" while your other face bemoans the fact that some children don't fear all guns of any kind.
14. "We have created a country awash in guns. With that has come an explosion of gun deaths: suicides, accidents and murders. Maybe some of the guns these kids used were already illegal, but the guess here is that most of them were not."
First: crimes involving guns are dropping and have been for some time. There is no "explosion" and the most rudimentary research would have shown you this fact. I can only assume this is a deliberate lie.
Second: Your guess is so wrong as to be laughable. Even if it weren't, what right do you have to advocate that I lose my rights on the basis of your guess? Do you guess when trying a case, sir? If so, I'm glad you deal with white-collar crime.
15. "Maybe if guns hadn’t been available to them these kids would have done something else wrong. But that misses the point. "
Again you put forth a lie. "These kids," as you call them, DID "something else wrong." They used over 30 bombs all over the school. Doesn't that raise the problem that they could have used the bombs even if they couldn't get the guns, even if a gun ban would stop criminals from getting them?
Are you aware that the rate of murders with baseball bats, knives, bare hands and other weapons is as much higher in the U.S. than elsewhere as is the rate of gun murders? How do you explain this if the guns are at fault?
16. "It was the easy access to these killing machines that started the deadly ball rolling. "
If you mean access to the weapons actually used, your point is easily disproven. I have access to these "killing machines." So do millions of others across America. If access to such weapons caused murder, we would be murdering people. We are not. It's that simple. You also ignore once again the use of cheap, easy-to-make pipe bombs. Frankly, I find such dishonesty disgusting in a man who would pass himself off as a writer of any consequence.

Please respond to this message if possible. I am very interested in hearing how you will defend your work.
Sincerely:
Don Gwinn
dgwinn@monm.edu
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/6297