From: [m--iw--r] at [f326.n3603.z1.FIDONET.ORG] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Nra testimony         3/4
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 93 21:47:00 PDT

   [ ...Continued From Previous Message ]

purchased revolvers, cut-down shot guns, or even numerous
semi-automatic firearms with limited capacity magazines.

     The Senator attempted to make the connection between firearm's
traces and crime control.  Such assertions are unfounded.  BATF has
addressed this issue on several occassions, most prominenetly in
connection with an analysis of a Cox news service article on tracing
"assault weapons".  BATF noted that that:

     "We do not necessarily agree with the conclusions of Cox
Newspapers and need to express that all firearms trace requests
submitted by law enforcement agencies are not crime guns and that the
42,000 traces examined are but a small percentage of all firearms
recovered by law enforcement during the period." (Emphasis added.)
[Press Statement of the BATF.]  BATF explained: "Many crimes may not
be reported to the police, and traces requested by police are not
always for guns that are used in crimes.  Traces are sometimes
submitted for firearms recovered by police investigating crimes where
the guns were found but were not necessarily used to commit a crime
reflected in the UCR. Accordingly, concluding that assault weapons are
used in 1 of 10 firearm related crimes is tenuous at best since our
traces and/or the UCR may not truly be representative of all crimes."
[Letter from Director, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms to U.S.
Representative Richard T. Schulze, March 31, 1992; emphasis added.]

     The entire debate on semi-automatic firearms as a "special
category" subject to a gun ban is nothing more that a bill of goods
sold to appease a public clamoring for substantive crime control
measures.  In fact, the designation "assault weapon" for certain
semi-automatic firearms with military styling is part of an ongoing
effort to capitalize on the confusion over the difference between a
semi-automatic firearm and those capable of a fully automatic rate of
fire.  Because proponents of a semi-automatic ban cannot provide any
compelling, legitimate justification, they resort to terminology that
is without a specific definition.

     There is nothing new about semi-automatic firearms, they have
been around for more than a century.  The term semi-automatic
designates a multiple round firearm that uses the explosive gases
produced by the discharge of a round of ammunition to chamber the next
round.  In the hands of an experienced shooter many manually operated
firearms have the capacity for a rate of fire equal to, or in some
cases greater than, many semi-automatic firearms.  The idea that an
assault weapon is capable of "spray fire" is an attempt to foster
among the uniformed the idea that a semi-automatic firearms is capable
of firing at the same rate of fire as a fully automatic firearm.

     "Assault rifle" is a military term originated during World War II
to describe selective fire military rifles of intermediate power
cartridge and capable of fully automatic fire.  Selective fire
firearms mean those firearms capable of producing variable firing
patterns including the discharge of a single shot, a burst of shots,
or the continuous discharge of ammunition with a single depression of
the trigger.

     Semi-automatic firearms do not meet these criteria, since they
discharge one round of ammunition with each depression of the trigger,
rather than multiple rounds.  Fully automatic firearms, which fire
multiple rounds with a single depression of the trigger, have been
stringently controlled since 1934.

      The notion that a military configured semi-automatic firearm
using military ammunition is inherently more lethal or capable of
greater firepower is simply untrue.  Semi-automatic firearms have been
owned and used for sporting purposes and self-protection by millions
of Americans for almost a century. They are a mainstay in the hunting
community with 49 states currently allowing hunting with semiautomatic
firearms. The NRA believes strongly that current laws are sufficient
to punish criminals -- what is lacking is the will to do so. We are
strongly supportive of strict enforcement and adherence to the law in
regard to the use of a firearm in a crime, particularly since we
helped draft and pass many of the relevant laws.

     The "sporting purposes" criteria used in various bills and
advocated as the criteria by which the Department of Justice is
directed to evaluate semi-automatic firearms presumably to decide if
they fit the category of "assault weapons" is indefensible. The Second
Amendment was not drafted to protect hunting, or target shooting, or
collecting, all of which are legitimate activities carried out by
millions of law-abiding Americans.  We believe strongly that banning
an entire class of firearms, such as semi- automatics, would be
violative of the Second Amendment to the Constitution.

     The consequences of federal legislation restricting semi-
automatics ownership will be exactly the same as evidenced in New
Jersey and California, namely turning otherwise law-abiding citizens
into criminals, with no resultant benefits accruing to society.   as a
"model" for some past Congressional bills has an estimated compliance
rate of about 10% -- and that includes all guns labeled as "assault
weapons" which do not fit the state legislature's definition.

     The inescapable fact is that banning firearms has no effect on
crime.  Until there is effective deterrence, crime will continue to
   [ Continued In Next Message... ]


 -- SPEED 1.30 >01<: Clinton to Gore. "How are things on the Hil?"


--  
Fidonet: 1:3603/326
Internet: [m--iw--r] at [mechanic.fidonet.org]
Note:  These are only my own opinions...but others may agree!