John Kerry has accused the president of aiding and abetting terrorism by kowtowing to the NRA.
John Kerry linked U.S. assault weapon sales to worries about terrorism Friday and said President Bush was bowing to the National Rifle Association by not pushing to keep alive an expiring ban….
“In the al-Qaida manual on terror, they were telling people to go out and buy assault weapons, to come to America and buy assault weapons,” Kerry said.
If legislation Senator Kerry co-sponsored had passed, it is true that terrorists wouldn’t be able to buy assault weapons (whatever they are) in the U.S., but then neither would they or millions of hunters have been able to buy any semi-automatic shotguns, the most popular and widely used hunting gun in this country.
In fact, presumably ignorant of the impact of his own legislation, Kerry proudly accepted just such a weapon as a gift from the United Mine Workers at a labor day rally earlier this week.
Remington (maker of the popular 11-87 semi-auto Kerry was given) was not pleased.
Kerry was given the shotgun by Cecil Roberts of the United Mine Workers of America. The union represents workers at a Remington factory in Ilion, New York. Last year the union urged Kerry to support a bill to end frivolous lawsuits against firearms makers (S. 659). The suits threaten manufacturing jobs. However, Kerry voted against the bill.
Remington President Tommy Milner said, “Rest assured, Remington was neither aware of this presentation in advance nor in any way supportive of its intent to support Senator Kerry’s candidacy. In fact, the company remains amused by ongoing photos of Senator Kerry shooting without either ear or eye protection while discharging a firearm.”
UPDATE [13 Sept. 11:30PM]
Donald Sensing has a typically sensible discussion of the “pistol grip” question, except this time he is uncharacteristically wrong is stating that shotguns like the Remington 11-87 (including the one he uses, a Beretta Urika AL391) don’t have pistol grips.
True, they are not “assault-weapon style” pistol grips, but it is common parlance not only for shooters but manufacturers as well to refer to the grips most shotguns have as pistol grips (in contrast to the straight or English or “upland” style).
Indeed, the following appears in a review of the Urika AL391 on Beretta’s own web site:
The close pistol grip is designed to give the shooter excellent control of the gun and the checking of the pistol grip and fore-end flow into the lines of the receiver, putting the wood and metal of the gun in harmony with each other.
Similarly Browning says of its Citori 525 o/u that its “long, rounded lines, with elegant European checkering and a tighter pistol grip, are inviting to handle and pleasant to shoot.”
Presumably Kerry et. al. did not really intend to ban virtually all shotguns (or did they?), but their legislation was so sloppily crafted that, as written, it probably would have.
I agree that the repeated wishful thinking was unnecessary, but I can live with that. My disgust is for the unashamed performance of the MSM in running interference for Kerry and his incredibly hypocritical “band of brothers” posture. He has no honor and the MSM has obviously reveled in the chance to twist the knife into Vietnam veterans one more time. If Kerry wins, his victory will an insult to every man and woman who ever served.
The semi-automatic shotgun, the Remington 1187 pictured with Kerry is LEGAL under the assault weapons ban. In fact,even AUTOMATIC SHOTGUNS, like the Street Sweeper, are legal under the assault weapons ban. The Street Sweeper looks like a “tommy gun” on steroids, and can discharge 12, 12 gauge shells in 3 seconds. They are defined by the government as “destructive devices.”
http://spas12.com/spas.htm
If you Google search “Street Sweepers”, you’ll come across websites that look like the E-bay of firepower–with every thing from grenade launchers to anti-tank rifles on the online store menus.
It doesn’t take much imagination to picture what a determined individual of any stripe could do with such weapons at his or her disposal.
–Cobra
Cobra wrote
The semi-automatic shotgun, the Remington 1187 pictured with Kerry is LEGAL under the assault weapons ban.
This is wrong. While most gun enthusiasts wouldn’t consider that model to be a true “assault weapon”, the proposed ban would include this model because of its grip.
Jonathan,
I would disagree with you. Kerry wants a continuation of the assault weapons ban that has been in place since 1994. That would mean that the thousands of sales of the Remington 1187 from 1994 untill now were ILLEGAL TRANSACTIONS. I personally sold that particular shotgun during my tenure as an assisstant retail manager. Now, to the item itself. That would make me, and thousands of other retail managers felons.
Here is a prime example of the terminology of “pistol grip”
tp://www.donaldsensing.com/2004/09/pistol-grip-monte-carlo-stock-debate.html
And here is Remington’s 1187:
http://www.remington.com/firearms/shotguns/1187.htm
You can see clearly that there is a difference between the hand-hold on a shotgun stock, and a “pistol grip”
–Cobra
John,
Is your premise that we need a better defined assault weapons ban regulation? I can’t believe that you would make legal flash suppressors, fixed bayonnets and grenade launchers (all part of the ban in question) because of a semantic debate on the design of the hand hold.
And exactly what is the practical purpose for a civilian to own a “street sweeper” automatic shotgun?
–Cobra
Cobra – Re your first point, the 11-87 was legal under the just expired law. It would not have been under S. 1431 (number may be wrong; I’m doing this on the fly without checking) that Kerry co-sponsored because of the “pistol grip.” Surely you wouldn’t argue that some gun control group would have gone to court under that provision, and had a good chance of finding a judge who would compare the law’s banning guns with a pistol grip to manufacturers descriptions of their guns with pistol grips and hence outlawed them.
As for my own preferences, no, I have no love for grenade launchers, bayonet mounts, etc. But neither do I think they have anything to do with crime, and thus I think all the hoopla over assault weapons is purely cosmetic, a feel-good notion for liberals. And what is it exactly that makes a street sweeper a street sweeper? Really menacing looks? (Sawed off or otherwise really short barrels are already illegal.) Give me a break. How about passing a law requiring all criminals to paint their guns black and all good folk to paint theirs white? That would have about the same effect on crime and violence as the late and unlamented assault weapon ban.
I just found your site and thought I’d post something…not a real fan of the weapons discussion.
I find it useful to take the extreme position and see what shakes out. For example, you load down a bridge until it breaks, that will give you a pretty good idea how much weight it takes to break a bridge…no need to guess or theorize.
So whats the extreme position on weapons? Or rather, some examples of extreme positions…well one is all weapons could be allowed, including nuclear weapons… the other extreme is nothing that could be used as a weapon, including a butter knife, can be allowed.
In this case, my desire to examine the extremes isn’t producing a lot of thoughtful commentary…but even that in itself is useful. The gun discussion is problematic precisely because there isn’t any clear demarcation point, and thats why you have this boring discussion about pistol grips…sorry, its endlessly boring to me, not being a fan of guns.
well, we know 2 things, weapons cannot be outlawed completely, its ridiculous, someone can always take the leg off the spinet piano and use it to bludgeon someone, by the same token, weapons of unreal power and force, have to be banned.
In the end this discussion doesn’t really matter at all…because its not about anything fundamental, as much as it may seem that way to both blustering sides…the gun owners love of guns is really just nostalgia and tradition. They can love a bow and arrow just as much, and kill just as many deer. To the safe freaks, this really doesn’t have the impact on crime you think it does, cause criminals do bad things…a gun isn’t even the weapon of choice these days anyway. All the really big criminals load up u-hauls with dynamite, or turn a passenger airplane into a missile.
John,
We can find common ground on many of these issues. The “street sweeper” is the given name for this style of automatic shotgun:
http://www.gunsamerica.com/guns/976268392.htm
And sometimes, these weapons end up in the wrong hands:
http://www.geocities.com/Colosseum/Stands/5008/ari.html
It was most prominently used by the former Apartheid South African government for…”riot control” and “anti-terrorism.”
As you can see, there is no designed “hunting” purpose for this “destructive device”, but even THIS FIREARM is LEGAL.
My problem is, John the efficiency of a device sometimes renders it dangerous the general public. Drag racing cars are not legal to drive on the public roads and highways. Buildings have occupancy limits. Extensive licensing is needed for skyshow fireworks displays. There are restrictions on the use of fire, flammable liquids, and alcohol. I don’t understand why restrictions can’t also be placed on obvious non-sporting weapons with no altruistic civilian purpose.
Robert,
Your argument opens up many questions. I for one, don’t believe that in America, the civilians should be more heavily armed than law enforcement, and certainly not more than the millitary. There are black helicopter types and millitia folks who vehemently disagree with me, but hey…where exactly do you place limits in a free society? And number two, a piano leg may do some damage indeed, but not from a mile away, at up to 2200 feet per second.
–Cobra
Robert, the real world involves slogging through the details between extremes. Both (a) nobody should be allowed to drive a car and (b) everybody should be free to drive in any direction, at any time, at any speed are unworkable positions, but that doesn’t make a discussion of driving laws “problematic.” The proper limits on driving have taken time to develop, are not uniform from area to area, and are forever in flux as technology and population density change, but in general they are good compromises that allow people to quickly reach their destinations without dying in large numbers.
Those who have never driven are liable to prefer a discussion of the extremes (no driving vs. unregulated driving), while experienced drivers congregate around the center and argue over their small differences (55 or 65 mph). Those on the extremes consider those in the center as unprincipled and indistinguishable from each other, while those in the center regard those on the edges as principled but not knowing what the hell they’re talking about.
It’s worth considering that when one (and I certainly include myself in this) prefers a debate over extreme positions to a discussion of where exactly to draw the line, it often stems from a lack of practical experience with the subject.
Robert – The point of my post was not to debate the whole gun control issue. I did/do think, howeve that the “pistol grip” issue, though arcane, is interesting because the bill Kerry co-sponsored (not the just concluded law) would have outlawed the very gun he just accepted as a gift, one of the most popular hunting weapons in the country.
Cobra – I have no trouble with reasonable regulations (no nukes or howitzers in your basement, etc.) One of my problems with “gun control” as it has been practiced is precisely that the regulations have NOT been reasonable. They have banned weapons for purely cosmetic reasons. The banned weapons, as well as the legal “street sweeper” shotgun, were no more efficient/deadly/etc. than the great swath of weapons that were not banned.
Finally, the “no hunting/sporting applicability” is, in my opinion, a total red herring. That’s because, for better or worse (I think for better), people have a right to have weapons for self-defense. A street sweeper shotgun might be quite appropriate for that perfectly legal purpose. The 2nd Amendment, and the reasoning behind it, does not say people have a right own and bear only arms that can be used in hunting and target shooting.
John,
One of the problems with the concept of “self-defense” is that it is loosely defined, and subject to interpretation. I would wager that your idea of what “weapons for self defense” would probably differ with that of Dave Koresh’s.
I don’t have a problem with your wanting to defend yourself. However, with all rights, your right to self-defense ends at the tip of my nose (or the noses of others in your vicinity.)
The problem I have with many of weapons banned under the assault law, is that there is too much room for other people to be hurt. Many of these banned weapons have high speed projectiles that can travel for up to a mile, and penetrate the walls of houses, and car windows. Of course, gun ethusiasts would say, “I’ll just hit what I aim for”, but the truth in shooting situations plays out this way.
We know that most police officers are required to get in practice range time, if not simulators for shoot out situations. That being said, let’s look at the accuracy rate of officers in real life gun usage.
Hit Potential In Gun Fights
The police officer’s potential for hitting his adversary during armed
confrontation has increased over the years and stands at slightly over 25% of
the rounds fired. An assailant’s skill was 11% in 1979.
In 1990 the overall police hit potential was 19%. Where distances could be
determined, the hit percentages at distances under 15 yards were:
Less than 3 yards ….. 38%
3 yards to 7 yards .. 11.5%
7 yards to 15 yards .. 9.4%
In 1992 the overall police hit potential was 17%. Where distances could be
determined, the hit percentages at distances under 15 yards were:
Less than 3 yards ….. 28%
3 yards to 7 yards …. 11%
7 yards to 15 yards . 4.2%
http://www.iupa-fl.org/Articles/combat.htm
That’s with TRAINED OFFICERS, John. When you place millitary style assault weapons in the hands of CIVILIANS, who don’t have the training, simulators or experience of law enforcement, it’s not hard to fathom the DIRE consequences that could occur in more densely populated areas.
That being said, I don’t have a PROBLEM with people buying guns to defend themselves. But common sense has to prevail in the interest of protecting the entire community.
–Cobra
Cobra – Your argument makes some sense against guns, but is irrelevant to gun control. The formerly banned guns were no more efficient, no more powerful, no more lethal, no more or less accurate, etc., than the 99+% of weapons that weren’t banned. Same with your statistics about police accuracy. Indeed, I suspect private citizens using weapons to defend themselves have a higher hit rate than police.
Nelson – your response is a reasoned one to Dupuys nonsequitur about extremes. Too bad he’s too bored with the discussion to provide any viable input. In matters of inalienable rights, I would prefer to discuss them with impassioned people.
Cobra – what’s your agenda here? To minimize the foolishness of the Kerry campaign’s mindless attempt to persuade gun owners that he’s interested in protecting individual American’s rights to be part of the “well-regulated militia?”
Nick,
My agenda is that I’m FOR the assault weapons ban.