I have recently begun an e-mail correspondance with Dr. Robert Musil, director of Physicians for Social Responsibility. I thought that perhaps it might interest some of you guys and let you know how anti-gun activists think. For those of you unfamiliar with these fellows, here is where they stand:
http://www.psrus.org/violence.htm
Now, this got under my skin, so I fired this off to Bob Musil:
Hello, I just found your page and would like to comment. I understand that you are busy people, but a response would be truly appreciated. If you cannot manage a personal response, I hope that you will read this and consider the questions posed.
I saw your 4/6/98 press release regarding President Clinton's assault weapon ban. You praise the ban, stating that "Assault weapons with large capacity magazines are good for one thing only -- killing as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time." Your press release goes on to say "Removing guns from the home and requiring child safety locks on guns are also key elements of an effective public health strategy to address this crucial issue."
I believe that there are several things wrong with these statements. First, I suspect that you may not have a great deal of familiarity with firearms. Though the weapons banned by the President are often referred to as "assault weapons", this terminology is actually incorrect. A true assault weapon is fully automatic; that is, one can empty the magazine with a single press on the trigger. Such weapons have been heavily regulated by state and federal laws for 65 years. It is extremely difficult for anyone to purchase them, and it is basically impossible for felons to do so legally. The weapons in President Clinton's ban are semi-automatic; they require the trigger to be pressed each time a single shot is to be fired. Such weapons have many purposes. They are actually rather ineffective at "killing as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time." Such tasks are best left to fully automatic weapons, which are very difficult to get, as is explained above.
Furthermore, it seems unlikely that Clinton's ban will fight crime. Hundreds of thousands of these semiautomatic weapons are currently in the United States; the ban only restricts their import, not the sale of existing weapons. Indeed, even if such weapons were entirely banned tomorrow, criminals, the target of such legislation, would undoubtedly retain their guns -- and continue to use them.
Concerning your reference to guns in the home, there are statistics that counter the statistics given on your web page; for example, did you know that in the event of a home invasion, the safest possible way to respond is by brandishing a firearm? This response has been proven to be even safer than offering no resistance whatsoever. The FBI states that "In 1992, approximately 78% of murder victims were killed by someone they knew." While this is technically true, the bulk of these cases were not friends shooting friends, or families shooting each other; rather, most of these shooting incidents could be described as criminals killing criminal associates, often over rip-offs in drug deals or the like.
While gun safety is of utmost importance, the banning of firearms is inconsequential in fighting crime, and possibly even dangerous to law-abiding citizens. I would like to hear your response, and would also be interested in hearing more about why you support such laws.
Regards,
Frank L. Jones Jr.
To my surprise, Musil responded almost immediately:
I suspect we're not going to convince each other easily and I don't have
much time. I did appreciate the thoughtful quality of your e-mail since
I get lots of crude hate mail from gun nuts. I just finished a book you
may like by Tom Diaz called Making a Killing: The Business of Guns in
America (New Press, 1999). It outlines the problem pretty well.
Bob Musil
I thanked him for the prompt reply and indicated that I would read Diaz' book. Today, I got another message from him, presumably written when he had a little more time on his hands:
Frank,
Some basic questions for us both to look at. How can huge numbers of gun deaths and injuries be reduced? Does our approach as public health problem make any sense, that is, are some restrictions on guns (availability, licensing, safety, etc. at all reasonable? We obviously believe that markets cannot be totally unfettered and that a democratic society can pass reasonable regulations, restrictions, etc. as we do for many consumer products. Diaz, as you will see, outlines fairly convincingly I think, that manufacturers are just after more and more sales, regardless of the consequences. Let me know sometime what you think. I will not be able to reply quickly all the time since I get a zillion e-mails and need to run this underfunded, struggling do-gooder conspiracy.
Bob
I didn't know where to begin with this one, but I did:
Dr. Musil,
I realize that it sounds paranoid and reactionary, and I'm sure you have heard it a dozen times before, but many gun owners and activists (myself included) believe that gun restrictions like the ones you mention above are the first step in an agenda to eventually take the right to private firearm ownership away from the people. Gun accidents are tragic and preventable, but I believe that education regarding safety - on an individual level - is the best way to approach the problem, rather than more legislation aimed at gun manufacturers.
While I look for Diaz' book this weekend, may I suggest that you go to the nearest newsstand and spend $20 or so on every gun magazine you can find on the rack: Guns & Ammo, Guns, American Handgunner, Handguns, Guns & Weapons for Law Enforcement, and whatever else catches your eye. First, flip through them and look at the advertisments. You will see ads for Glock, Smith & Wesson, Ruger, Colt, Kahr, and a few other, less recognizable names. I bet that you will be able to identify a theme: reliability. Nobody wants a gun that doesn't work. All of these guns work superbly and as intended, and with a little knowledge about safe handling, will not kill anything that the user didn't want dead.
Then, if you have the time, move from the ads to the articles. You will see product reviews, comparisons of different types of guns, and information about how to use guns effectively. You will learn a lot about correct firearm nomenclature, as I have. These writers are not part of a vast conspiracy; they represent what real gun owners and users think. If they have an agenda, they tell you about it.
Finally, talk for a minute to your local chief of police. He'll talk to you; you're the leader of an important "do-gooder conspiracy". Note the type of pistol that his department issues. I am betting that it is a high-capacity autoloader, like a Beretta, Glock, Sig Sauer, or Smith & Wesson. Ask the chief why his department switched from revolvers to high-capacity pistols. I am again betting that he will tell you that they switched so that they wouldn't be underarmed against today's criminals. Today's professional criminals (drug dealers, armed robbers, home invaders) like to have good weapons. They do not carry "junk guns": they view them with the same disdain that most law-abiding gun owners do.
It seems that taking aim at "junk guns" is trying to treat the symptoms, not the disease. Who buys cheap guns like Lorcin, Raven, and Hi-Point? Two words: Poor Folk. Where do these poor folk live? They live in the inner city. To me, it appears that a real way to help the problem of crime is to focus on the places where crime occurs, not the tools used to carry it out. For proof of this, look to America's prisons. There are no guns in prison, only criminals. Yet crime in prisons is rampant. This shows the resourcefulness of man; when no better tools are available, he will make do. When no guns, be they assault rifles or "junk guns", are available, criminals will make do with a shiv made from a toothbrush. If guns are banned, this fact will be corroborated on the streets of our nation.
Indeed, it already is corroborated; anti-gun activists often tout the low rate of gun deaths in nations with strict gun control. Yet, take away our firearm deaths, and we still have more violent deaths by other means - knives, blunt weapons, bare hands - than these other nations have. I freely own that the United States is a violent nation, but I submit that this is not particularly related to the proliferation of firearms - or of any kind of weapon.
Frank Jones
I apologize for the length of this. Stay tuned for updates.
http://www.psrus.org/violence.htm
Now, this got under my skin, so I fired this off to Bob Musil:
Hello, I just found your page and would like to comment. I understand that you are busy people, but a response would be truly appreciated. If you cannot manage a personal response, I hope that you will read this and consider the questions posed.
I saw your 4/6/98 press release regarding President Clinton's assault weapon ban. You praise the ban, stating that "Assault weapons with large capacity magazines are good for one thing only -- killing as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time." Your press release goes on to say "Removing guns from the home and requiring child safety locks on guns are also key elements of an effective public health strategy to address this crucial issue."
I believe that there are several things wrong with these statements. First, I suspect that you may not have a great deal of familiarity with firearms. Though the weapons banned by the President are often referred to as "assault weapons", this terminology is actually incorrect. A true assault weapon is fully automatic; that is, one can empty the magazine with a single press on the trigger. Such weapons have been heavily regulated by state and federal laws for 65 years. It is extremely difficult for anyone to purchase them, and it is basically impossible for felons to do so legally. The weapons in President Clinton's ban are semi-automatic; they require the trigger to be pressed each time a single shot is to be fired. Such weapons have many purposes. They are actually rather ineffective at "killing as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time." Such tasks are best left to fully automatic weapons, which are very difficult to get, as is explained above.
Furthermore, it seems unlikely that Clinton's ban will fight crime. Hundreds of thousands of these semiautomatic weapons are currently in the United States; the ban only restricts their import, not the sale of existing weapons. Indeed, even if such weapons were entirely banned tomorrow, criminals, the target of such legislation, would undoubtedly retain their guns -- and continue to use them.
Concerning your reference to guns in the home, there are statistics that counter the statistics given on your web page; for example, did you know that in the event of a home invasion, the safest possible way to respond is by brandishing a firearm? This response has been proven to be even safer than offering no resistance whatsoever. The FBI states that "In 1992, approximately 78% of murder victims were killed by someone they knew." While this is technically true, the bulk of these cases were not friends shooting friends, or families shooting each other; rather, most of these shooting incidents could be described as criminals killing criminal associates, often over rip-offs in drug deals or the like.
While gun safety is of utmost importance, the banning of firearms is inconsequential in fighting crime, and possibly even dangerous to law-abiding citizens. I would like to hear your response, and would also be interested in hearing more about why you support such laws.
Regards,
Frank L. Jones Jr.
To my surprise, Musil responded almost immediately:
I suspect we're not going to convince each other easily and I don't have
much time. I did appreciate the thoughtful quality of your e-mail since
I get lots of crude hate mail from gun nuts. I just finished a book you
may like by Tom Diaz called Making a Killing: The Business of Guns in
America (New Press, 1999). It outlines the problem pretty well.
Bob Musil
I thanked him for the prompt reply and indicated that I would read Diaz' book. Today, I got another message from him, presumably written when he had a little more time on his hands:
Frank,
Some basic questions for us both to look at. How can huge numbers of gun deaths and injuries be reduced? Does our approach as public health problem make any sense, that is, are some restrictions on guns (availability, licensing, safety, etc. at all reasonable? We obviously believe that markets cannot be totally unfettered and that a democratic society can pass reasonable regulations, restrictions, etc. as we do for many consumer products. Diaz, as you will see, outlines fairly convincingly I think, that manufacturers are just after more and more sales, regardless of the consequences. Let me know sometime what you think. I will not be able to reply quickly all the time since I get a zillion e-mails and need to run this underfunded, struggling do-gooder conspiracy.
Bob
I didn't know where to begin with this one, but I did:
Dr. Musil,
I realize that it sounds paranoid and reactionary, and I'm sure you have heard it a dozen times before, but many gun owners and activists (myself included) believe that gun restrictions like the ones you mention above are the first step in an agenda to eventually take the right to private firearm ownership away from the people. Gun accidents are tragic and preventable, but I believe that education regarding safety - on an individual level - is the best way to approach the problem, rather than more legislation aimed at gun manufacturers.
While I look for Diaz' book this weekend, may I suggest that you go to the nearest newsstand and spend $20 or so on every gun magazine you can find on the rack: Guns & Ammo, Guns, American Handgunner, Handguns, Guns & Weapons for Law Enforcement, and whatever else catches your eye. First, flip through them and look at the advertisments. You will see ads for Glock, Smith & Wesson, Ruger, Colt, Kahr, and a few other, less recognizable names. I bet that you will be able to identify a theme: reliability. Nobody wants a gun that doesn't work. All of these guns work superbly and as intended, and with a little knowledge about safe handling, will not kill anything that the user didn't want dead.
Then, if you have the time, move from the ads to the articles. You will see product reviews, comparisons of different types of guns, and information about how to use guns effectively. You will learn a lot about correct firearm nomenclature, as I have. These writers are not part of a vast conspiracy; they represent what real gun owners and users think. If they have an agenda, they tell you about it.
Finally, talk for a minute to your local chief of police. He'll talk to you; you're the leader of an important "do-gooder conspiracy". Note the type of pistol that his department issues. I am betting that it is a high-capacity autoloader, like a Beretta, Glock, Sig Sauer, or Smith & Wesson. Ask the chief why his department switched from revolvers to high-capacity pistols. I am again betting that he will tell you that they switched so that they wouldn't be underarmed against today's criminals. Today's professional criminals (drug dealers, armed robbers, home invaders) like to have good weapons. They do not carry "junk guns": they view them with the same disdain that most law-abiding gun owners do.
It seems that taking aim at "junk guns" is trying to treat the symptoms, not the disease. Who buys cheap guns like Lorcin, Raven, and Hi-Point? Two words: Poor Folk. Where do these poor folk live? They live in the inner city. To me, it appears that a real way to help the problem of crime is to focus on the places where crime occurs, not the tools used to carry it out. For proof of this, look to America's prisons. There are no guns in prison, only criminals. Yet crime in prisons is rampant. This shows the resourcefulness of man; when no better tools are available, he will make do. When no guns, be they assault rifles or "junk guns", are available, criminals will make do with a shiv made from a toothbrush. If guns are banned, this fact will be corroborated on the streets of our nation.
Indeed, it already is corroborated; anti-gun activists often tout the low rate of gun deaths in nations with strict gun control. Yet, take away our firearm deaths, and we still have more violent deaths by other means - knives, blunt weapons, bare hands - than these other nations have. I freely own that the United States is a violent nation, but I submit that this is not particularly related to the proliferation of firearms - or of any kind of weapon.
Frank Jones
I apologize for the length of this. Stay tuned for updates.
