From: gts (gts_2000@yahoo.com)
Date: Mon May 19 2003 - 09:30:16 MDT
Mike Lorrey wrote:
> --- gts <gts_2000@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> I did some more checking on this subject of "fraud." I'm sure Mike
>> will correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that Wayne LaPierre of the
>> NRA has no basis for accusing CNN of misrepresenting the case against
>> so-called assault weapons unless he can show that the CNN reporter
>> John Zarrella used more powerful ammunition in the banned
>> semi-automatic assault weapons than he did in the non-automatic
>> weapons during his comparison of the two classes of weapons in the
>> original controversial broadcast.
>
> You are wrong. Zarella used different TARGETS in his
> demonstration, made of different materials, which respond
> differently to the same ballistic energy.
Yes, well, that's basically the same idea as using different ammo -- the
charge is that CNN did not make a fair comparison of the kinds of damage the
two classes of guns can do. However I thought they used a bulletproof vest
in both tests.
> THis is the crux of the fraud. There are plenty of rifles
> which can carry just as much ammo firing the exact same type
> of ammo which are not on the banned list, and which are
> semiautomatic just as those on the list.
Hmm. However that is not necessarily fraud on CNN's part. It could merely be
an artifact of poorly written legislation; it looks like the '94 ban did not
cover all the rifles that the authors would have intended (in fact I'd guess
the original legislation was diluted by politicians responding to pressure
from the NRA).
> This was
> also part of the fraud. Zarella implied that the banned
> rifles were automatic, i.e. machine guns. There was not a
> single machine gun on the list, and in fact, you can still
> buy machine guns legally in most states in the US.
"Implied" is a pretty tough thing to prove in court if it's the basis of a
fraud allegation. Neither you nor LaPierre actually believe that CNN stated
that the banned weapons are machine guns, so there isn't much point in
accusing CNN of saying something it didn't say.
> Being 'banned' is purely a matter of cosmetics.
Being banned is also a matter of having larger magazines and having
semi-automatic firing capacity relative to *some* other weapons (though if
what you're telling me is true, not relative to *all* other weapons). I
agree that the cosmetics issues are absurd but those are not the only
issues. If they extend the ban then I would expect them to also increase the
list of banned semi-automatic weapons to include those other weapons that
skirted past the '94 ban.
Note that I am not taking sides here. In fact in general I'm on your side.
I'm just trying to get the facts straight.
> I think you are backwards here. The ban ends in 04, not 94,
> and the NRA is not at all upset that the ban is ending
Yes, I wrote that confusing paragraph very late at night and then tried to
correct it in another post. Obviously the NRA does not want the ban
extended. The NRA is upset because the GOP might nevertheless extend the ban
because the White House has stated that Bush is in favor of extending it and
might cave into pressure to do so.
> Machine guns have NOT been banned since 1934. I own one
Somehow it doesn't surprise me to learn that you own a machine gun. :)
However fully automatic weapons do require a special permit, yes?
-gts
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon May 19 2003 - 09:41:30 MDT