-Caveat Lector-
Comments in brackets are from Coalition of Conn. Sportsmen. We agree.
Subject:
Assault Weapon Clones- Hartford Courant 4/9
Date:
Mon, 9 Apr 2001 11:40:51 -0400
From:
"Robert T Crook" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
<Undisclosed-Recipient:@host11.cedant.com;>
Pls respond to Editor (e-mail addresses at end). Our comments/objections in bold
/bracketed.
The Department of Justice has a research brief "Impacts of the 1994 Assault Weapons
Ban: 1994-96."
http://ncjrs.org/txtfiles1/173405.txt It is mealy -mouthed with many "mays" which
tends to indicate no real effect [written
during the Clinton Administration- in support of the Clinton '94 AW bill??],
but may prove interesting and provide you more data.
****
Ban Assault Weapon Clones
Hartford Courant Editorial
April 09, 2001
Connecticut was in the vanguard of the gun-control movement when, in 1993, lawmakers
banned semiautomatic, military-style
assault weapons that have no justifiable sporting purpose. [Demonstrated ignorance
of firearms & use] The law has stood
the test of time and has served as a national model. [The national "model" is
the CA law. CT proponents only copy]
But today, manufacturers have done an end run around the ban, producing dozens
of copycat models whose deadly intent is
identical to the outlawed weapons but whose purchase is legal. [What is the problem?]
A bill that would have closed the loophole [Legislators voting for the '93 bill
knew there were clones and other firearms
that met their cosmetic criteria - including many that were not clones] by adding
the assault weapon clones to the list
and would have restricted the use of .50-caliber single-shot and semiautomatic
rifles as well as armor-piercing ammunition died
in the legislature's Public Safety Committee recently. Democratic leaders have
promised to resurrect the measure.
A chief critic of the proposal - Rep. Ronald San Angelo, R-Naugatuck - said its
supporters couldn't show "one shred of
evidence that the past bill did any good," and he suggested that the latest version
"solves a problem that doesn't exist." [
Proponents of bills MUST be able to back-up their proposals with fact: AG Blumentahl
and Sen. Jepsen in their
testimony had NO evidence this bill was needed! The Commissioner of Public Safety
said "Assault Weapons" were
NOT a problem. The Courant counters it own claims in the paragraph below which
indicates "clones" or the .50
Cal in the '93 ban are NOT a problem].
Mr. San Angelo is wrong on both counts. Since enactment of the ban eight years
ago, not a single person has been killed by a
person using an assault weapon and fewer of the guns have been turning up in
crimes, according to police.
Moreover, if the ban had been in effect two years prior, state Trooper Russell
Bagshaw would not have died in the line of duty.
Mr. Bagshaw was murdered by a man who broke into a gun shop, stole a semiautomatic
weapon and fired 17 rounds, only one
of which struck the 28-year-old trooper. But that one bullet, which entered the
left side of his chest, was enough. [Antiquated
emotion. The perp could just as easily used a hunting caliber bullet to penetrate
directly the "bullet proof" vest.
The gun used is on the original ban list. Where is the relevance?]
"Had that gun been banned, it wouldn't have been in the store. And if it were
not for the gun being able to fire 17 rounds,
Trooper Bagshaw would be alive today," said Rep. Michael P. Lawlor, D-East Haven.
[Evidently Rep. Lawlor hasn't read
about the repeated incidence of the technique of reloading prevalent in nearly
all the recent school shootings. If
high capacity magazines are "good" for protection of police, why should not the
same apply to citizen
self-protection?]
These weapons have no legitimate purpose other than to kill or maim. [Semi-automatics
are used in National Matches, for
hunting, general target shooting, self-defense use, and collecting. Some are
sold to gunowners by the federal
government. In general the bullets are smaller caliber than hunting firearms,
therefore LESS ability to kill or maim.
The statement is pure anti-gun propaganda intended to emotionally influence those
that know little of firearms]
They have protruding pistol grips so they don't have to be aimed from the shoulder
[More ignorance. The editor obviously
hasn't seen John Wayne and other westerns movie actors shooting from the hip
with lever actions/pump shotguns
or WWII/Korea infantry assaults (pre-"protruding pistol grips").], can accept
detachable magazines with unlimited
rounds [ available for well over half a century] and can fire as quickly as the
shooter can pull the trigger [the definition of
semi-automatic firearms, available for over a century].
The .50-caliber sniper rifles, which the bill also addresses, were used extensively
during the Persian Gulf War. Their purpose
was to destroy jeeps, tanks and personnel carriers [Sniper Rifles by definition
are anti-personnel. It is doubtful a .50 Cal.
sniper rifle in a military application would be used to destroy jeeps (for what
purpose?) or personnel carriers. and it
would definitely NOT destroy a tank] Used in conjunction with armor-piercing
ammunition, according to testimony provided
by Senate Majority Leader George Jepsen, the sniper rifles can pierce several
inches of steel [A Flyer picture put out by the
proponents demonstrates this is false], concrete [Doubtful] and bulletproof
glass [Like "bullet proof" vests, it
depends on the thickness based upon threat assessment. Some "bulletproof glass
might be penetrated by standard
hunting bullets]. Today, both the guns and the ammunition are readily available
on the civilian market. [Available for over
half a century with only one reported incidence in crime. They weigh 20-60 lbs,
are 4' long, cost $2 -10,000. A
rational choice for criminals?]
Under the proposal, the ammunition and the semiautomatic sniper rifles would
be outlawed but not the single-shot rifles, which
are used in target competition [If one is a threat, are not the others? Both
are used in competition]. Owners would,
however, have to register [Registration in ALL instances has proven worthless
to law enforcement based on cost/benefit. Ask
the state police how often they've used the '93 "Assault Weapon" registration
system to advantage.] them and their use would
be severely limited.
These are sensible measures. No responsible sportsman can persuasively argue
that he needs a weapon that can blast a bullet
through an armored tank from a distance of 200 yards. [Poor conclusion to an
equally poorly researched opinion. The
issue is for YOU and others to demonstrate the previous law has worked and a
rational, not emotional, basis for
extending the law.]
****
If you'd like to submit a letter to the editor for publication, please send it
to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
John Zakarian Editorial Page Editor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
<A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
