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