Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns From: [h--s] at [unity.ncsu.edu] (Henry E. Schaffer) Subject: National Rifle Association - A Book Review Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1993 19:21:02 GMT National Rifle Association Money, Firepower & Fear Josh Sugarmann National Press Books, Washington DC 1992 ISBN 0-915765-88-8 $19.95 268 pp. 6" x 9" hardbound This author is clearly more interested in dramatically showing horrible things about the NRA than in presenting a clear informative view. Insinuation, guilt by association, and comparing apples and oranges are the standard methods. The author complains about how the addition of "folding stocks and high-capacity ammunition magazines" can make older bolt action and semi-auto rifles be "similar to modern assault rifles." But the author doesn't seem to define "assault rifle" - I haven't seen it in the text, nor is it in the 11 page Index. The fact is that older bolt action rifles, even military issue ones, can't be made to be 'similar' to a "modern assault rifle" for any sensible definition of 'similar', and that even with a semi-auto rifle, the similarity will be cosmetic. The book is written in an easy to read journalistic style and is a quick way to get acquainted with many of the issues and the players around the NRA. However it is not a critical assessment, and it doesn't even seem to pretend to be fair. Nevertheless it does contain a lot of history and information on the issues, the arguments given and the players involved. While quite slanted, it contains within two covers most of the arguments, slogans and language of the anti-gun, pro-control movement, and often covers the slogans and arguments of the pro-RKBA side although the arguments are usually covered superficially and negatively. Contents [my comments in square brackets] Introduction "Guns R Us" [This describes the scope of the book, and then starts the smear job by describing torture/mutilation killings in DC and then quotes someone saying that the killers "sound just like members of the NRA" and the author concludes, "The American rifleman tradition isn't what it used to be." The smear job starts in the Introduction, and continues throughout the book.] Part I: Who is the NRA? 1. Soldiers to Lobbyists 2. Revolt at Cincinnati 3. From One Great Warrior to the Next Part II: Lovers and Friends 4. To Serve and Protect ["The firearms industry, like any other, can manufacture any product that isn't outlawed. Unlike virtually all other industries, however, there are practically no constraints placed upon it. And this is because of the NRA." No constraints!!? The author also states (pg. 93) that the Glock 17 is "83 percent plastic by mass." I find this to be weird- the Glock 17 has over 1 pound of steel in it - so if 1 lb. represents 17%, then 100% is 5.9 pounds. Actually it would be over 5.9 lb, because there is somewhat over 1 lb of steel. I'm really impressed by a 6 lb. handgun, and even more impressed with an author who would claim this. :-) Gun Digest seems to be under the "delusion" that a Glock 17 weighs 21.9 oz (=1.37 lb) and so it could be that the Glock 17 is somewhere around 83% steel by mass - but that wouldn't be a dramatic, alarming figure to bring into a discussion of these undetectable plastic guns. Maybe this is simply an inadvertent switching of the numbers, not an intentional lie, but I note that the switch was in the direction of bolstering the scare tactics the author was using.] 5. In Bed with Uncle Sam 6. Fellow Travelers [this label brings back clear memories of the terminology used by the late junior Senator from Wisconsin - and it seems to have the same smear motivation in this use] Part III: Fear and Intimidation 7. Selling Fear [the usual fallacies are presented - for example, the only way it is considered that a gun can be used for protection is if it is used to kill a criminal who is a stranger - so if the attacker isn't killed it isn't a cited defense. Also it is specifically claimed that only killing a stranger can be counted - "assuming that Americans aren't arming themselves for protection against those known to them, such as friends and family." Note how "known to them" is only illustrated with "friends and family" - an innocent sounding example, rather than the less innocent, "e.g. known neighborhood drug dealers and hostile ex-spouses/ex-lovers" who just as well fit the "known to them" description. Historically, gun-control measures have often been intended to disarm minorities, especially blacks (e.g., see Cottrol, R.J. and R. T. Diamond, The Second Amendment: Toward an Afro-Americanist Reconsideration, Georgetown Law Journal, 1991, 80:309-362) the author belittles the NRA's pointing this out. He says about an article written by a black NRA member about anti-gun measures being "anti-Negro", "Such a stance is ironic at best. None of the NRA's leadership is black, and its board is almost uniformly white." As a way of showing that gun-control isn't anti-black this is simply changing the subject, or perhaps interjecting an irrelevant implicit claim of discrimination.] 8. The Carrot and the Stick 9. Shot in the Back 10. Hunting for Humans [how is this for a cute chapter name which tries to imply that the criminal misuse of firearms is really "hunting"? The author again brings up standard anti-gun refrains, such as "for what purpose was the weapon designed? Handguns were designed to kill people. Assault weapons, with their military pedigree, were designed to kill a lot of people." The author does include some of the ways that the pro-control side has tried to confuse issues regarding "assault weapons". He explains, "The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the general confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons, increased the chance for public support for restrictions. Because of the guns' TV image, few could imagine a sporting use for them. While many Americans believed that standard handguns were effective weapons for home self-defense and that the Second Amendment offered protections to gun owners, assault weapons were believed to be a different story."] Part IV: Decline and ... Fall? 11. Extremism in the Name of ... [the book harps on how the NRA's base motivation is really to support the firearms industry, and seldom passes up a chance to give a dig - as for example, it says, "Cassidy viewed the passage of extremely limited gun control measures, such as waiting periods, as giving politicians a chance to satisfy voters' demands while having little real effect on the firearms industry." Note how the author's thesis is supported and it is subtly pointed out that the NRA had no interest in upholding any of the needs, desires or goals of its members. But an even better example of propagandizing is found in the following description: ... the NRA's Richard Gardiner stated that "since 1934 no legally owned fully automatic firearms have ever been used in the commission of a violent crime by civilians." Gardner was wrong. Prior to 1990 ATF had told reporters that agency "old-timers" remembered a few cases, but nothing recent. This story changed that year when ATF acknowledged that instances of misuse did exist and were not uncommon, but that under the National Firearms Act the cases were considered tax information and could therefore not be divulged. Regarding the previous explanation, an ATF staffer acknowledged that the agency had lied. Let's look carefully at what is stated and what is implied by carefully playing word games. Gardiner stated a no-violent-crime situation. (Personally I've heard rumors of perhaps 2 violent crimes, but have never been able to track them down.) An uncited ATF statement is supposed to have said that there actually were a "few cases" which were at some unspecified past time. Next the author mentions "instances of misuse" - did you think that these "not uncommon" instances were the violent crimes being discussed just a sentence earlier? That's the impression I got at first - but consider the reason given as to why the details couldn't be divulged. These were "tax" cases! I'm not an attorney, but I'm going to assert that murder, armed robbery, armed assault, armed rape, etc. are not *tax* crimes, and so are not confidential tax information. What would be tax information? Perhaps this would be such things as improperly informing the ATF of a change of address? But the end impression given to any reader who didn't carefully evaluate each word is that 'violent crimes by civilian owners of legal full auto firearms is not uncommon'.] 12. The NRA at the Alamo [about a meeting held in San Antonio] 13. Beyond Myth ["The violence of today is the predictable result of the ready availability of a broad range of firearms and an unfettered gun industry." While this shows the uncritical acceptance of an idea, the author is not for the opponents of the NRA either. "Unfortunately, even if the NRA is humbled, this in no way means that laws will be enacted that reduce firearms violence. If the NRA has nothing constructive to offer on this issue, its opponents are equally threadbare in their thinking." The next section of this chapter, "The Opposition" describes HCI (formerly NCCH) and the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (formerly NCBH) in a rather unflattering way - and includes the early HCI stand from Shield's statement in a 1976 New Yorker article: Our ultimate goal - total control of handguns in the United States - is going to take time. My estimate is from seven to ten years. The first problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of _all_ handguns and _all_ handgun ammunition - except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors - totally illegal. Appendix 1: No Right to Keep and Bear Arms by Kristen Rand "(Of Counsel to the Firearms Police Project of the Violence Policy Center)" [While most of the U.S. Supreme Court (SC) decisions discussed in the Appendix are cited at least by name and date, a number of very important concepts are totally skipped over. One such very important concept is that of "incorporation" - which refers to whether or not the individual amendments of the Bill of Rights are applied to the state governments by the 14th Amendment. By failing to mention that the 2nd Amendment hasn't been "incorporated" by the SC, it is made to sound as if the SC has eliminated the 2nd with respect to the states. One provocative paragraph in this chapter, quoted here in the entirety, manages to omit both the case name and date, making it very hard to check its striking statement. In 1972 Justice William O. Douglas warned that one aspect of the damage wrought by the popular misinterpretation of the Second Amendment is a diminution of Fourth Amendment protections against search and seizure. In a powerful dissent to a decision extending the ability of police to stop and frisk suspects, Douglas argued, "The police problem is an acute one not because of the Fourth Amendment, but because of the ease with which anyone can acquire a pistol. A powerful lobby dins into the ears of our citizenry that these gun purchases are constitutional rights protected by the Second Amendment.... There is no reason why all pistols should not be barred to everyone except the police. I was able to find this case (it is Adams v Williams 407 US 143) and find that there has been some serious distortion in this quote. First of all the diminution of the Fourth Amendment rights that Justice Douglas mentioned was due to the stop and frisk allowed by Terry v Ohio, rather than to the Second Amendment. Next, the elision in the above quote omits language which clearly gives a context of *state* law. The omitted language represented by "..." above is: which reads, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." There is under our decisions no reason why stiff state laws governing the purchase and possession of pistols may not be enacted. There is no reason why pistols may not be barred from anyone with a police record. There is no reason why a State may not require a purchaser of a pistol to pass a psychiatric test. And then finally, Justice Douglas ends his discussion of gun control measures with: Critics say that proposals like this water down the Second Amendment. Our decisions belie that argument, for the Second Amendment, as noted, was designed to keep alive the militia. But if watering-down is the mood of the day, I would prefer to water down the Second rather than the Fourth Amendment. in which he explicitly says he is more concerned with the protections of the Fourth than the Second, but hardly can be taken as saying that the Second is invalid. For analyzing Constitutional issues relating to guns, a rather complete reference, with good citations is That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of a Constitutional Right by Stephen P. Halbrook 1984. A much shorter and more readable treatment can be found in: The Embarrassing Second Amendment by Sanford Levinson; The Yale Law Journal December, 1989, Volume 99, pages 637-659. Appendix 2: Toward a Better NRA by Ted and Francoise Gianoutsos "(The authors are life and benefactor members of the National Rifle Association)" Index [There are also chapter end-notes which give a reasonable number of citations.] So my conclusion is that this is an attempt at a hatchet-job, but that it still includes a useful recounting of history and of the issues. It is not clear to me that it would be accurate to describe this book as propaganda, because while it slants and sensationalizes the case against the NRA, it also presents material against HCI, the major anti-gun organization. So I think it would be better to say that the author oversimplifies and sensationalizes whatever the topic, and the main focus of this book is the NRA and firearms, and therefore the NRA and firearms bear the brunt of the author's style. Also, it is clear that the author takes a lot of material on face value, rather than bothering to understand it more clearly, and so is also spreading a lot of misinformation on such muddy concepts as "assault weapons" in an anti-gun manner. --henry schaffer