"A prescription for mayhem"

[Rickfifty]

"THERE is no other way to say it, our current gun culture is leading the country down a path to mayhem. " Byron Williams, columnist.

http://www.insidebayarea.com/search/ci_6786113?IADID=Search-www.insidebayarea.com-www.insidebayarea.com

Says he would love to hear from an assault weapon owner.

[radioactivelego]

Fabbing up a response a typical pot smoking poor college student like myself would write.

You know, the one that cites sources and uses libertarian logic.

[markymark]

That guy is an idiot.

What difference is there between an evil-looking AR and a different (let's say a mini) semi-auto rifle, other than features that make the AR more sinister in appearance? Why does an "assault" rifle owner need to have an excuse to own such a rifle?

[WolfMansDad]

Does it make me a tree-hugging, overbearing, politically correct, socialist, anti-American liberal because I find these statistics problematic?

Yes. Yes, it does.

This should be obvious to anybody with even half a brain, but let's go over it again, shall we?

Those who would disarm us are not concerned for our safety. They want us enslaved. Disarmament is a necessary precursor to policies or acts we really would not like, such as genocide, confiscation of personal property, etc. Gun control is not an end in and of itself. It is the preparation for worse deeds. When someone writes an op-ed column calling for gun control, or proposes such legislation on some assembly floor (state or federal), and they claim to do so in the public's best interest, THEY ARE LYING. They are lying to us. they may even be lying to themselves, but they are certainly lying.

But, then again, I should be sending this to him, not posting it on a gun forum, eh? Saying this here is kind of like preaching to the choir.

[Rickfifty]

"Self-defense is frequently cited as the reason to own a gun, but studies show that one is much more likely to kill a member of the household or friend than an intruder. In Oakland, self-defense has accounted for two deaths in 2007. "


Two deaths? I'm sorry for their loss. Truly. But how many lives were saved by self defense?

[Patriot]

Studies show one is statistically unlikely to need a fire extinguisher. People have been assaulted with fire extinguishers. They give a false sense of security. Get rid of your fire extinguisher now!

[oaklander]

Here's my letter to him:

Dear Pastor Williams,

I read with interest your column entitled "U.S. gun culture a prescription for mayhem" appearing on Sept 2, 2007.

While I am a regular reader of your column, and I generally agree with what you write, I must take exception to this particular column.

It appears that you have bought into the false hype surrounding so-called "assault weapons."

1) First off, so-called "assault weapons" are used in less than 1 to 3 percent of all crimes. The most common firearm used in crime is a pistol.

2) Second there is really no such thing as an "assault weapon." The term is an invention of the media and over-active state and federal law-makers.

The term "assault weapon" is used by law-makers (and the media) to describe rifles that have certain cosmetic features, such as a pistol grip or collapsible stock. Other than those entirely cosmetic differences, there is absolutely no mechanical or operational difference between a semi-automatic hunting rifle and an "assault weapon."

I invite you to do further research on the topic. Feel free to visit any local gun range, such the East Bay's own Chabot Gun Club, and speak to any of the gun owners who go there. I think after you speak to a few of us, you will get a different perspective on guns in general, and perhaps even "assault weapons" in particular.

Please email me back, if I may be of further assistance, or if I can clarify anything further.

Thank you for your time.

Respectfully,

[name redacted]

[trojanwar2]

Self-defense is frequently cited as the reason to own a gun, but studies show that one is much more likely to kill a member of the household or friend than an intruder. In Oakland, self-defense has accounted for two deaths in 2007.

I believe this so called study was found to be completely wrong or false.

[dfletcher]

Unitentionally, he did make one very good point.

Traders used to sell alot of guns and often those guns were cited as being used to commit crimes. Traders no longer sells guns. Has the East Bay crime rate declined, has it increased or has it remained roughly the same? If it has done anything other than decline what does that say about the "gun availability = crime" position?

[Grouch]

writing reply now.

[DedEye]

Unitentionally, he did make one very good point.

Traders used to sell alot of guns and often those guns were cited as being used to commit crimes. Traders no longer sells guns. Has the East Bay crime rate declined, has it increased or has it remained roughly the same? If it has done anything other than decline what does that say about the "gun availability = crime" position?

That's exactly what I was wondering.

[Grouch]

Just sent this

Hello Mr. Williams

I have just finished reading your article titled, U.S. Gun Culture a Prescription for Mayhem. I have to say I found it to be intellectually dishonest and boarding on propaganda. I’m taking the time to site specific statement you made in this article for the sake of discussion.

“Does it make me a tree-hugging, overbearing, politically correct, socialist, anti-American liberal because I find these statistics problematic? We are awash in guns and it is not merely law-abiding citizens who own them. “

Well yes it fact does. In order to purchase a firearm in California, the buyer has to go through a background check intended to find out whether they have committed and crimes that would prevent them from legally owning a firearm. If the purchaser passes this background check then their owning and purchasing of the firearm deemed legal by the state of California. What happens after this point is out of control of the state and any reputable sporting good/gun shop.

“Last year, the East Bay Express ran a story that traced guns sold at Traders Sporting Goods in San Leandro and found that one in eight eventually ended up involved in a crime. According to the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, Traders was the nation's second-biggest source of crime guns.”

While this may be true, this is an example of intellectual dishonestly perpetrated by overzealous politician, reporters and bloggers. Traders was bad gun shop, one clearly not following the letter of the law. They do not typify gun shops in this state and should be considered nothing more than fluke

“They were but one part of a culture that collectively accounts for more than half of the guns sold globally each year.”

What do you intend to accomplish with this statement? It doesn’t really say, add, or prove anything. It does nothing but heighten the unsuspecting readers internal alarm, by implying that many more gun shops behave in the same manner that Traders did. Was that your intention?

See the, Composition Fallacy

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/composition.html

“There remains a chasm between those that view the Second Amendment with moral absoluteness and those who do not. The inability to cross this philosophical divide leaves American gun policy in the amoral sphere of the marketplace.”

This is not particularly true. Most of America is much more “pro-gun” than California. This is a true case of California being the odd man out. Americans gun policy as a whole is much more open and allows for even easier access to guns than what is found in California.

Perhaps the best example of this is concealed carry laws in America. Currently 38 states have right-to-carry laws; this means that anyone who passes the required training is allowed by state law to posses a handgun concealed on their person.

“Since our country no longer possesses a well-regulated militia”

This means nothing unless the constitution is ratified to change the second amendment. Until then it’s a constitutionally guaranteed right.

“I am not certain of the right of the people to keep assault weapons. Why does suspended NFL defensive tackle Tank Johnson, who weighs more than 300 pounds, stock his home with AR-15 and .223 caliber assault rifles, .44 Magnum, .50 caliber, and .45 caliber handguns, and a .308 Winchester hunting rifle? Protection?

Self-defense is frequently cited as the reason to own a gun, but studies show that one is much more likely to kill a member of the household or friend than an intruder.”

Yes, self protection is often the case. But have you ever considered the sporting aspect of guns? Or joy of collecting them?

While Tank Johnson may not be an outstanding citizen you are again guilty of intellectual dishonesty and logical fallacy. Because Tank is a gun owner and has had his problems does not in any way, shape or form, imply that the literal hundreds of thousands or Americans who have similar or greater collections will have the same criminal problems.

Your comment on studies that show that you are, “much more likely to kill a member of the household or friend than an intruder.” I implore you to cite this study, and to understand that it doesn’t prove anything inherently evil or wrong with guns. If you drive a car you are also much more likely to kill someone that a person who doesn’t drive. Being in close proximity to a potentially dangerous machine tends to lead a greater change of injury than those who are not in close proximity to them.

“For all of the discussion about law-abiding citizens' rights, should one surmise that nothing can be done to keep guns away from those who are committing crimes? Is this merely a flaw in our Constitution?”

This is the major flaw in your argument, criminals don’t follow the law, law abiding citizens fallow the law. You can ban guns and criminals will get them and gun crime goes up. Look at Washington D.C with it enacted a virtual ban on handguns in 1976. Between 1976 and 1991, Washington D.C.'s homicide rate rose 200%, while the U.S. rate rose 12%.

When you ban guns you don’t take them out of the criminal’s hand. You take them out of the law abiding citizen’s hand. You leave them further defenseless from criminals.


“I would love to hear from an assault weapons owner. Explain why you need this weapon. What is the purpose? Short of preparing venison pate, why would a sportsman need such a gun?”

Can you tell me the difference between and AR-15 and a Ruger Mini-14? They both shoot the same bullet. There is very little, yet one is essentially banned in California and one is available at every Big 5 and Sports Authority in California.

The term “assault weapon” was invented by those trying to instill fear into others. There is functionally nothing different between the AR-15 and Ruger mini-14. They only look different.

The Ruger mini 14 is considered to be a very fine hunting and sporting rifle while people like you perpetuate the myth that the AR-15 is a tool of violent criminals and those looking to over throw the government.

“The problem lies in our permissive gun culture that, in part through effective lobbying by the National Rifle Association, has not only repealed certain laws, but also extended others, such as carrying concealed weapons in certain states, making it easier for guns to fall into the wrong hands. “

Please tell me what California gun laws the NRA has effectively repealed? I honestly don’t know. They didn’t repeal the Federal Assault weapons ban nor have they repealed the California Assault weapon ban. I would also like you to cite how caring concealed weapons has made it easier for guns to fall into the wrong hands. The evidence out there proves otherwise. Florida adopted a right-to-carry law in 1987. Between 1987 and 1996, these changes occurred:

homicide rate - %36
firearm homicide rate -%37
handgun homicide rate -%41

mean while in the same time frame nationally rates changed at -%.04, +%15, +%24

Very clearly the right to carry guns in Florida did not cause the rate of crime to go up as with the rest of the US, in fact it dropped dramatically.

I hope this miss information you’ve given was done in a forgeable act of ignorance and not an intentional act of malice.

A great cite to find the true facts about gun crime and gun control is http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp It is will cited and academically sound.

Thank you for your time.

Chris Schwacofer

[Alan Block]

My reply

I think the problem is more the permissive court system which releases criminals prematurely and dismisses gun charges to expedite convictions. While I realize that imprisoning such a high percentage of the black population is politically incorrect, that seems to be the source of the violent crime problem.

I own an assault rifle (Ruger Mini 14 which though not specified as an assault rifle was rendered so by the addition of evil features such as flash hider and folding stock) that was registered in 1999. Why should those features make the difference between a 'good' rifle and an 'evil' rifle. My rifle has never killed anyone, but it is always at the ready to perform it's assigned task.

[M. Sage]

What a jerk. Here's mine.

He brings up a good question, though... Do I own an assault weapon!? WTF is an assault weapon, anyway!? I'm sure my Mosin was used in at least one assault... Knowing the Soviets, it was a frontal.

Pastor Williams,

I'm writing in response to your article because you want to hear from an owner of an "assault weapon." I may own an assault weapon, but I don't know if I do. Maybe you can help me.

There have been so many ways of defining an "assault weapon" in the past decade and a half that, honestly, I don't think the people who use the term even know what it means. I certainly don't, and I'm very much a part of that gun culture you're laying blame on. So, let's take a look at a couple of things first. What's a or the "gun culture," and what the heck is an assault weapon?

I grew up around guns. We had several, from hunting rifles and shotguns to my mother's police duty revolver and a pocket-sized semi-automatic .22 caliber pistol. I started shooting before I was a teenager. I owned a shotgun before I had a driver's license, or had even been on a date with a girl, and the same was true of my brother. In our house, even though there were guns that weren't securely locked, and even though the .357 revolver was usually stored loaded, we had zero incidents. Why is that? Maybe because our parents taught us to properly respect firearms for what they were? Maybe because having them around de-mystified them for us as children, so we didn't want to meddle. We knew that if we wanted to handle some firearms, we just had to ask, and we'd take a nice trip, visit my grandparents and shoot in the woods, usually with my grandfather.

This brings up a great point: our gun culture gave my family many great opportunities to bond and stay close. Everything from target practice, to hunting, to "plinking," or just talking guns, we had fun. And still, nobody was hurt... The vast majority of gun owners I've known are caring people. They can come off harsh to those who don't understand why personal responsibility is so important, but they're very nice people... when you're not trying to tell them they owe you something they don't.

I can't think of a household back home that didn't have a gun in it. I also can't think of any gun crime in my home town. Having been immersed in a "gun culture" my whole life, I seriously can't believe that this is a reason gang members go out and kill each other. I'd be a lot quicker to blame their horrible parents (or lack of), and the culture of blaming someone else for one's mistakes and bad choices. A culture very prevalent in high-crime areas.

Incidentally, I know two pastors who are happy, safe gun owners. One of them is my father.

So we hopefully have a better understanding of what it's like to live in a gun-friendly culture. Now let's try to understand what the heck an "assault weapon" is.

In California's lamented "assault weapon" bans, there are a couple of ways they define an "assault weapon." One is by make and model. This ban listed a bunch of models from several manufacturers, with instructions for the DOJ to keep it updated. They didn't. Then the DOJ, realizing their mistake pushed for a law to be passed removing the list updating responsibility. The list is as good as dead, since most manufacturers aren't using those model names anymore.

Some of the weapons on this list are little better than a horrid joke. They are identical to firearms that aren't listed in any way, shape or form, except the model number.

The other method is the "features" ban. This is also a huge joke. What makes a collapsible stock on a semi-automatic, centerfire rifle capable of accepting detachable magazines so scary? And why is a collapsible stock on a rifle so-configured so horridly dangerous, when on an identical rifle with a fixed magazine, it's perfectly ok?

What about the magazines? In the "features ban" or SB-23 as it's known inside the gun culture, you can have a centerfire, semi-automatic rifle with a 10-round fixed (not detachable) magazine, but an 11-round fixed magazine makes the rifle an assault weapon. What? You can have a semi-auto centerfire rifle with features like a pistol grip (horrible misnomer), flash supressor, and folding or telescoping stock as long as the rifle doesn't have a detachable magazine. The same exact rifle is legal, without the features, with a detachable magazine of any capacity assuming a magazine that holds over ten rounds was legally purchased and in California before the 2000 ban was enacted.

The most asinine of these is a pistol called the Walther P22. This handgun is a .22 rimfire pistol. The regular model is a "by-features" banned item. That's right, a dinky .22. Just because it has exposed threads on the barrel. Tell me: what am I going to do with threads on a barrel? I can tell you: not a whole lot.

The 1994 Federal ban was as bad. It banned firearms because of certain features, the most idiotic of which was the bayonet lug. Yep, because people get stuck with bayonets that are on rifles all the time.

The ban that's currently stalled in Congress (*pumps fist* yes!), HR1022, bans even more arms, including any hunting shotgun that has been used in police or military trim at any time. It goes as far as to ban the M1 Carbine, which is about as traditional-style an arm as you can get: wood stock, no pistol grips, no muzzle devices... just a neat little rifle from WWII.

Doesn't go far into answering our question, does it? You can't really pick out a thread of sense among these bans. They seem, well.. pretty random.

The best answer I have is that "assault weapon" appears to be derived from the term "assault rifle." The person who coined that term? We all know him. The original term is German: "Sturmgewehr," and was used for political reasons. I leave it to you to find out who coined that particular term, as even typing his name makes me feel like vomiting.

So I put it on you: what the heck is an assault weapon? I own an M1 Carbine, is it an assault weapon? I own a Czech army pistol from the 50s, is it an assault weapon? I own a couple of WWII-era bolt-action military rifles - one Soviet rifle that looks to have seen action, and one Swiss rifle that did a lot of sitting. Are either of those assault weapons? I have a .22 rifle that's as old as I am that makes for cheap plinking fun. Assault weapon?

I also have two off-list (not banned) AKM receivers waiting to be turned into California-legal rifles. I have the parts to assemble the first one, which will happen this week. In its final, assembled form, is my AK going to be an assault weapon? California's law says no. I second that, and would even if I were able to put the banned features on it..

Remember: Assault is an act, not an accessory.

Name, etc.

[oaklander]

Here's his reply to my reply:

Dear Mr. XXXX:

Thank you for your lucid email. Per my request many gun
owners such as yourself have defended the rights of law
abiding citizens to own guns. This, however, is not my
concern.

As I wrote: "The top priority of every urban mayor in the
country is public safety. How can we say we want a
reduction in crime, but simultaneously demonstrate
neutrality at the alarming number of guns that are
available?"

What concerns me is that guns do fall into the wrong hands
and all I get in response is something tantamount to: "Oh
well!"

While gun owners have been quick to tell me that I do not
fully understand the issue (quite possible) what has yet to
be offered is what can be done about the myriad guns
available to those committing crimes, especially here in
Oakland.

I believe if law abiding gun owners joined with those of us
concerned about urban violence, we could make some
progress. I am not suggesting that its all up to gun
owners, I have also written recent pieces about the culture
of crime, but everyone has a roll if we are to make a
difference on a problem we all agree exist.

Peace and blessings,

Byron Williams