Anyone want to critique my statement on the Assault Weapons Ban

[dorktv]

expiring? This is a rough draft:


Elizabeth Rogers' Response to the Assualt Weapons Ban Expiring:


Today marks a sad day because it is today that the Assualt Weapons Ban expires. This ban was created to protect America's families, America's police and to prevent criminals from using these weapons of war.

The ban is supported by a majority of Americans. We understand that our country is made safer by keeping these guns off the streets. To have let this ban expire and not fought for the renewal shows the comtempt that J.D. Hayworth has for our safety.

I understand that we need to protect the right to bear arms but we also need to balance out the public's interest in being safe. These weapons have done more harm in the public sphere than good.

[delete_bush]

1. Does your local police dept

have a position on the issue? If they support continuing the ban, you might include this along with the "majority of Americans".

Good luck, JD makes my skin crawl.

[FeebMaster]

2. Sure.

Today marks a sad day because it is today that the Assualt Weapons Ban expires.

It should be a happy day for everyone. The pro-gunners can be happy because some gun control will disappear, something that doesn't happen very often. The gun grabbers should be happy. They've spent fifteen years or so wasting their resources on the most pathetic gun control law ever. They should declare victory and work on something better.

Also you've got a typo: Assualt.


This ban was created to protect America's families, America's police and to prevent criminals from using these weapons of war.

You probably shouldn't call them weapons of war since no military in the world issues the weapons that were affected by the ban.


The ban is supported by a majority of Americans.

Questionable. Even if true, in my experience at least, the vast majority of people who support it (and even many who opposed it) have no idea what the ban did.


We understand that our country is made safer by keeping these guns off the streets.

You probably should say the ban took guns off the streets since it didn't require anyone to turn them in or stop selling them. If anything, the ban put more weapons on the streets since people concerned about the ban and gun control in general bought a bunch of post-ban weapons in the last ten years.


These weapons have done more harm in the public sphere than good.

What harm have they done in the public sphere? Assault weapons were rarely used in the commission of crimes even before the ban.

[dorktv]

3. Thanks!

[Fescue4u]

4. You mis-spelled happy.

for some reason you spelled it as "s-a-dd"

[maverick hombre]

6. The AWB was not effective and never could be

Hello. What I'm writing is meant to be respectful, so please don't get the wrong impression.

The "Assault Weapons Ban" (AWB) of 1994 did nothing to contain the spread of violence or reduce the amount of crime because it was flawed from the beginning. I am a gun collector and sportsman, and I can offer you some input from the "grassroots" level. I don't agree with the position of gun control, but that's my opinion and don't expect everyone to agree with it. But back to the AWB.

The "law" essentially limited the size of handgun magazines to 10-rounds. During the "ban", I purchased a Beretta 92FS 9mm handgun with two 15-round magazines. The magazines were legal because they were "grandfathered". That particular handgun is now in Iraq at the side of a US Marine (my son). To replace it, I recently purchased a Smith-Wesson model 99 .40 caliber handgun. This gun has a standard "politically correct" magazine capable of 10-rounds. The "banned" LE (law enforcement) magazine for this weapon is only 12-rounds. Again, "grandfathered" 12-round magazines are available to me, but if I can't hit a target with 3-4 rounds, I shouldn't be shooting anyhow. The extra cost of 12-round magazines is not worth the expense to me. To me, a 10-round magazine is every bit as effective as a 12-round magazine in defending myself or target shooting.

I have to keep on saying here that its not the gun, its the criminal. If you look at the crime statistics in Los Angeles, where handguns are heavily restricted, there are still 3-4 killings a day. Here in the People's Republic of Cleveland, I can walk out of my house and find someone on the street selling "unregistered" or stolen handguns. The AWB does nothing to stop criminals from getting their hands on weapons. As a crime "victim", does it matter if you are held-up with a 9mm semi-auto with a 15-round magazine or a .38 special six-shooter revolver? It only takes one or two bullets to kill you, remember?

Regarding the "Assault Rifles", what a joke! First of all, your favorite "spin artists", the "Media Whores" as I have read here (I agree) is feeding everyone a line of pure BS. You see and hear "journalists" reporting that AK-47's will once again get into the hands of criminals. I read one columnist who said that now that the "ban" is sunsetting, criminals will be able to get their hands on AK-47's that are capable of firing 500-rounds in a minute. PURE HOGWASH! Only a FULLY AUTOMATIC weapon can fire 500 rounds in a minute. Fully automatic AK-47's have been strictly regulated along with ALL other fully automatic MACHINE GUNS since 1934. The AWB has NOTHING to do with fully automatic weapons. A civilian can own a fully automatic weapon, but the restrictions posed by the ATF are heavy-duty enough to ward off anyone with even an ounce of "bad paper" away from legally getting their hands on a fully automatic weapon. If you want to research that matter, look up "Class III Firearms."

So what you have left is a "cosmetic" law that penalizes a rifle owner if his/her particular weapon has the "politically incorrect" look. In other words, I can own a semi-automatic AKM "sporter" rifle which is a variant of the AK-47. BUT if it has a "pistol grip" or a "bayonet", I am violating the so-called "ban". Big deal! I can't use a bayonet to pierce someone after I dump 30-75 rounds into them? I must also use the standard "rifle stock" or the modified "thumb-hole" stock. What kind of "law" is that? The AKM rifle can and will shoot 30-75 round magazines that were produced before 1994, AND there are GAZILLIONS of those things floating around because the United States and Russia are the BIGGEST arms producers. It doesn't matter if it doesn't have a pistol grip and bayonet, the AKM will fire the same number of rounds regardless, and its just as lethal.

But the big difference here is an AKM is SEMI-AUTOMATIC and a genuine AK-47 is FULLY AUTOMATIC. A semi-automatic rifle means you have to pull the trigger once for each bullet that you shoot. Its idiotic. You can go to Wal-mart and buy a "varmint gun" which fires the same caliber shell as the one the famous "sniper" used in Washington DC. Yet the "AR-15" is considered an "Assault Rifle" and the Wal-mart "varmint gun" is politically correct. The AWB has been nothing more than a bunch of lies "spun" at everyone giving them a false sense of "protection" from the "bad guys". As the headlines have demonstrated since 1994, the "bad guys" can and will procure deadly weapons of any type, including fully automatic rifles.

A lot of folks say "you don't need an AK-47 to go hunting". I agree. But don't equate my AKM semi-automatic that looks similar to an AK-47 to a fully automatic AK-47 rifle. I darn well can use my AKM to kill varmint and hunt with. And why should anyone object? I mean if you hunt with a high power rifle, does it matter if its a "Winchester 30.06" or a Bulgarian AKM? The Bulgarian AKM is highly accurate rifle, and with a scope and a handful of magazines, the rifle is perfect for hunting wherever you're allowed to hunt with high-powered rifles. The ammunition is also cheap and easy to find.

I'm only a novice hunter, but I do enjoy target practice for sport. I also enjoy collecting guns. I believe the constitution protects these things, and I don't want any more of my constitutional rights taken away.

I believe that in the movie "Romeo Must Die", the rapper DMX said what is plain enough: "Guns don't kill people; people kill people." (after he shot off a fully automatic machine gun!) I don't buy arms to hurt anyone. This is my hobby, and because I live in a high crime city near housing projects, using a handgun or shotgun for self-defense is not stretching one's imagination. In fact, it got so rowdy out here Saturday night that I did have to bring out my shotgun and put it in the "lock and load" position, and "stand guard" on my back porch for a while. Kids were buying and selling drugs in front of my house, peeling up and down the street, throwing beer bottles, yelling, screaming, and making hell look like a sunny vacation.

Unless you live in this kind of urban war zone, its easy to sit back and say "guns should be outlawed". However, if you were with me at my house Saturday night, you would have felt a lot more secure knowing that you have the buffer of protection provided for all of us thanks to the 2nd amendment.

So to the original poster...I respect your position on guns. But I recommend you research the topic and fully understand the 1994 AWB before you launch any campaigns or "sound bytes". I will be more than glad to provide you with any information that I have available.

[billbuckhead]

7. We will find out in a year or so how effective it was.

I think that couple major massacres or use by terrorists of our waek gun laws will bring public outcry for a stronger law.

[Generic Other]

5. Vet it in the gun forum

They are scary but will help you figure out the finer points of the AWB. It doesn't really seem to have done much more than given the rest of us a false sense of security that something dangerous was being kept off the streets when in fact it really changed nothing.

[slackmaster]

10. Right on, Generic Other

It doesn't really seem to have done much more than given the rest of us a false sense of security that something dangerous was being kept off the streets when in fact it really changed nothing.

Well said.

[MrBenchley]

8. Good post....

You might also look at these....

""George Bush made a choice today," the president's Democratic challenger said in remarks prepared for a Washington audience Monday. "He chose his powerful friends in the gun lobby over the police officers and the families he promised to protect."
Gun control advocate Sarah Brady, wife of former President Reagan's press secretary, Jim Brady, was expected to join Kerry as he received the endorsement of the National Association of Police Organizations, a coalition of more than 2,000 police unions and associations. Jim Brady was wounded in the 1981 assassination attempt on Reagan.
On CBS' "The Early Show," Sarah Brady said that allowing the ban to lapse was "purely political."
"The real onus fell on President George W. Bush," she said. "He has exerted absolutely no leadership. We have a president and leadership in the House and Senate that simply do not want to face this.""

http://www.mlive.com/newsflash/politics/index.ssf?/base/politics-6/1095079173283870.xml&storylist=electionmi

"WASHINGTON, Sept. 10 /PRNewswire/ -- Over 500,000 petitions are being delivered later today to President George W. Bush, Speaker of the House J. Dennis Hastert and Majority Leader Bill Frist asking them to stop blocking renewal of the Assault Weapons Ban.
President Bush has so far opted to block the ban's renewal via a strategy of silence, forcing the ban to simply expire next week rather than ask Congressional leaders to vote on its renewal. The hundreds of thousands of petitions were gathered by a variety of groups, including StopTheNRA.com, TomsPetition.org, MoveOn.org and True Majority.
On Friday morning, the White House officially refused to meet with law enforcement leaders about saving the assault weapons ban. The International Association of Chiefs of Police had requested a meeting, offering to send police chiefs to meet with the President on any date that the White House chose. The White House response said the President would not meet with the police due to a "scheduling conflict." (Again, the IACP had not requested any specific date or time for the meeting.)"

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/040910/dcf034_1.html

"District Attorney Kamala Harris, whose office is prosecuting Espinoza's alleged killer, David Hill, declined to discuss possible evidence linking the murder weapon to a previous unsolved crime. Police have described Hill as a member of the Westmob gang in Bayview-Hunters Point.
But the D.A. did offer some very vocal support for Sen. Dianne Feinstein's call to extend the federal ban on the manufacture, import and sale of assault weapons, which expires today.
"There is no reason for assault weapons to be on the streets in a civilized society,'' Harris said.
What's more, she says, the size of the weapons, the speed at which they can be fired and the large number of rounds they hold make them not only "dangerous and scary,'' but especially attractive to gang members looking to be "Rambo'' tough. "

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/09/13/MNR.TMP

[slackmaster]

9. My Critique

Today marks a sad day because it is today that the Assualt Weapons Ban expires.

You misspelled "Assault".

This ban was created to protect America's families, America's police and to prevent criminals from using these weapons of war.

Factual error here - The firearms formerly classified as "assault weapons" are not weapons of war. They are in general semiautomatic copies of weapons of war, made for civilian use. They lack automatic fire capability.

The ban is supported by a majority of Americans.

Appeal to popularity, a logical fallacy.

We understand that our country is made safer by keeping these guns off the streets.

That is your personal opinion, not supported by facts. You should say "I" not "We". As it stands you are claiming to speak for everyone. You are not. Reasonable people have deep disagreements about this issue.

To have let this ban expire and not fought for the renewal shows the comtempt that J.D. Hayworth has for our safety.

Argumentum ad hominem.

I understand that we need to protect the right to bear arms but we also need to balance out the public's interest in being safe.

Good shot at expressing a balanced attitude. :toast:

These weapons have done more harm in the public sphere than good.

You have made an empirically testable claim here, therefore you need to provide supporting evidence otherwise it will look like you pulled it out of the air.

[gpandas]

11. yeah, point out a typo...

as lead item in your response. really supports your position. wtf?

[slackmaster]

12. The writer asked for a critique

The writer did not specify a level of editing. I wrote my replies in the order of the problems I saw in the piece. That's what I always did during the 13 years I worked as a technical writer.

Besides criticizing my critique, what do you have to say about it?

[gpandas]

13. critque was great...

and the typo thing did nothing to serve your eloquent response. personally, i think the dems should steer clear of this meaningless, bullshit, non-issue.