An assault on our senses
By Ron Malachowsky
Passions run fast and furious whenever innocent people meet an untimely end, as was brought into sharp focus once again by the shooting spree of a deranged killer in Colorado. The question is, can we tamp the flames long enough to have a reasonable discussion about the presence of assault weapons within the hands of civilians? Stop. Notice I said assault weapons and not handguns.
It is a given that handguns under the Second Amendment are here to stay, no matter your persuasion.
Malachowsky is a rehab physician assistant at the Salem VA Medical Center and is also an instructor in the Japanese martial art of aikido.
August 19, 2012 - 8:01 AM
Couple of points for Mr. Malachowsky. First, assault rifle or assault weapon is a political term that really has no meaning as far as actual weapon type. Second, to say you’re talking strictly about restrictions on “assault weapons and not handguns” and then cite Jared Loughner as someone whose damage would be minimized with the restrictions you envision is disingenuous. Loughner used a handgun.
If you want to make the argument. make it, but be honest about it. Some of the weapons you want to see banned are handguns.
Even as the term is mis-used, “assault weapons” are used in less than 1% of crime, and less than 2% of violent crime, including homocides. These numbers have dropped since the lapsing of the federal “assault weapons” ban:
http://gunowners.org/fs0404.htm
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=238&issue=019
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/aug/16/20040816-114754-1427r/
http://www.learnaboutguns.com/2008/05/22/fact-criminals-use-assault-weapons-in-less-than-1-of-all-gun-crimes/
Mr. Malachowsky begins his piece speaking to such weapons, stating that handguns “are here to stay”. Yet it was only a very short time ago that handguns were the point of gun-control hyperbole. At different times also, Sat night specials, plastic guns, undetectable guns, cop-killer bullets, etc.
Especially with this type of mis-representation of terms & types, and a lack of expressed understanding of use in crime as exemplified here, any gun at any time can be similarily demonized.
He points to Glock as an example of his ire. Yet Glock manufactures only handguns (as to guns).
He speaks of the 64% profit margain of Glock. Aside from the continuing mantra of success & profit being evil, that is gross profit margain.
Net profit margain and especially after tax net profit margain are very different, and what counts.
Just one example, restaurants routinely operate at 70-80% gross profit margain, yet 80% fail.
Exactly what is an assault weapon? Let’s be honest, most folks don’t have a clue! If it LOOKS like an assault rifle, it MUST BE an assault rifle. Wrong! You can cover your car with oil company decals, sparkplug ads, paint on the number “3″, and wear a flame retardent jump-suit, but you need more than that to race at Martinsville with the big boys. Yep, there’s a difference. In the history of rifles used by the military, there is a utilitarian side…the handle that makes it easy to carry while running, an open sight that adjusts quickly for range and windage, muzzle flash reduction, bipods for prone shooting, etc., and is capable of fully automatic firing. You can buy a semi-automatic version of the gun I described. It will look similar to an assault rifle in the same way your car looks like a NASCAR racing machine…but the similarity ends there.
Both the military and police use shotguns. How many people would include a shotgun in the description of assault weapon? Why not? Most pump or semi-automatic shotguns can hold at least 5 shells. A 12 guage 00 buckshot shell contains 8 lead or steel pellets the size of a small marble. (larger than an assault rifle) Five times 8, in 5 seconds, means the capability of killing or wounding 40 people in that length of time. Kind of eye-opening isn’t it?
30,000 people a year die on our country’s highways…something to consider when you speak of mass death. That almost a hundred a day. Why not demand a simple roll cage as standard equipment…or would that be too NASCAR like?
I have no problem with the banning “public” ownership of “fully automatic” weapons in which there truly is no other purpose other than carnage. This, still, does not guarantee that the criminals and other nefarious n’er-do-wells won’t gain access to these weapons. They will.
My main concern is just how far this “assault rifle” ban may be taken, as it seems that the phrase itself seems to be irrevocably tied to the adjective “semi-automatic.” THAT is what scares me.
My double-action revolver is “semi-automatic” by definition: It will fire a bullet in repetition just as quick as I can pull the trigger. (Of course, just like a pistol or rifle, when you “run out” of live ammunition loaded into the unit, “you’re done!” until you can reload.)
Folks keep saying “assault” doesn’t apply to handguns… I am not convinced that the “we know what’s best for you” government won’t expand their definition of “assault weapon.” They’ve been known to do that in the past. Give ‘em an inch…
In the third paragraph, above, please replace “rifle” with “repeating rifle” or simply “repeater”
Thanks.
4 – I believe “fully automatic” weapons are already banned for private ownership, at least without a special license.