Feel free to take and use whatever you want in your own paper, or letters to legislators, though you may have to change the city, population, and redo the math on how many people or parts of a people your city would produce...
People keep calling it a military style rifle. The Model LE6920 and LE6940 are both AR-15 style rifles. The LE stands for Law Enforcement. I see no reason why the general public should be barred from owning the same weapons to defend their home the police would use to rescue you from someone invading it.
The American public has long taken their cue for firearms ownership from their police and military forces. If they feel it is a viable and effective while still humane defensive weapon, the same would hold true for the general public. There are a number of reasons this is so, chief among the being if, God forbid, you have the worst day of your life and actually DO have to defend yourself these government agencies have tested the weapon to be reliable, and humane. It probably won't fail you in this critical moment, and it would be unlikely for the state to find your choice of weapon to be criminal and inhumane.
Out of all homicides nationwide, ALL rifles accounted for a minuscule fraction. The traditional bolt action hunting rifle or the evil scary black rifle. According to the FBI, of the 12,664 firearms homicides in the US last year, only 323 used a rifle. About 2 and a half percent. You realize what that means? According to the FBI there were 4.7 homicides per 100,000 people. So 2.5% of that is .012 per 100,000 people are killed with a rifle. With Seattle's population of 620,000 Seattle's measure of that statistic is 0.744 people.
Given the budget crisis facing governments at all levels, it would be incredibly irresponsible to expend money and resources criminalizing these rifles when that money could be so much better spent on "stones" that "kill" at least a whole "bird", or preferably even two or more.
Every dollar spent criminalizing something that just isn't used in crimes is a dollar we can't spend increasing the physical security at schools with fences. Not chain-link and razorwire, but certainly something aesthetically pleasing that encloses the campus.
Every dollar spent regulating these scary rifles is a dollar we can't spend on providing counseling to these kids having a hard time making the transition from kid supported by family to being on their own and making their own path in the world.
Every dollar we spend banning rifles for ridiculously immaterial features like a bayonet lug, pistol grip, or flash suppresor that provide no mechanical effect on an increased potential for criminal use and abuse is a dollar we can't spend further integrating our mental health reconds into the NICS check to keep disturbed individuals from falling through the cracks and buying guns when they shouldn't like Seung-Hui Cho at Virginia Tech
People keep calling it a military style rifle. The Model LE6920 and LE6940 are both AR-15 style rifles. The LE stands for Law Enforcement. I see no reason why the general public should be barred from owning the same weapons to defend their home the police would use to rescue you from someone invading it.
The American public has long taken their cue for firearms ownership from their police and military forces. If they feel it is a viable and effective while still humane defensive weapon, the same would hold true for the general public. There are a number of reasons this is so, chief among the being if, God forbid, you have the worst day of your life and actually DO have to defend yourself these government agencies have tested the weapon to be reliable, and humane. It probably won't fail you in this critical moment, and it would be unlikely for the state to find your choice of weapon to be criminal and inhumane.
Out of all homicides nationwide, ALL rifles accounted for a minuscule fraction. The traditional bolt action hunting rifle or the evil scary black rifle. According to the FBI, of the 12,664 firearms homicides in the US last year, only 323 used a rifle. About 2 and a half percent. You realize what that means? According to the FBI there were 4.7 homicides per 100,000 people. So 2.5% of that is .012 per 100,000 people are killed with a rifle. With Seattle's population of 620,000 Seattle's measure of that statistic is 0.744 people.
Given the budget crisis facing governments at all levels, it would be incredibly irresponsible to expend money and resources criminalizing these rifles when that money could be so much better spent on "stones" that "kill" at least a whole "bird", or preferably even two or more.
Every dollar spent criminalizing something that just isn't used in crimes is a dollar we can't spend increasing the physical security at schools with fences. Not chain-link and razorwire, but certainly something aesthetically pleasing that encloses the campus.
Every dollar spent regulating these scary rifles is a dollar we can't spend on providing counseling to these kids having a hard time making the transition from kid supported by family to being on their own and making their own path in the world.
Every dollar we spend banning rifles for ridiculously immaterial features like a bayonet lug, pistol grip, or flash suppresor that provide no mechanical effect on an increased potential for criminal use and abuse is a dollar we can't spend further integrating our mental health reconds into the NICS check to keep disturbed individuals from falling through the cracks and buying guns when they shouldn't like Seung-Hui Cho at Virginia Tech
You know I had to do that...