Scoundrel
02-01-2013, 12:27 PM
A couple of weeks ago I used the function on the Ruger website (http://www.ruger.com/micros/advocacy/) to submit letters to my representatives.
This morning I received this response:
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
From: Dunsmore, Christina [mailto:Christina.Dunsmore@leg.wa.gov] On Behalf Of Dunshee, Rep. Hans
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2013 8:03 AM
To: Paul
Subject: RE: I Support Gun Rights
Hi, Paul:
Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts with me.
The recent massacres across America should make us all think about whatever possibly we could do to reduce mass killing attacks.
I have not settled on any specific package, but am inclined to support efforts in several fronts:
First is mental health funding, second is security at schools, and third is reducing the military capacity of weapons.
Since this third area is where we may disagree let me expand on this a bit. I do not think restricting your ability to own a gun has value, but our society does now restrict civilians from having military capacity. As an example, I can't go buy a Rocket Propelled Grenade (RPG) such as those that have been used against our brave troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I am willing to consider a debate of what is military in nature and what is civilian in nature in magazine capacity. I have not heard a logical argument for civilian needs for a high capacity magazine. I certainly am open to listen to justification.
Take care,
Hans
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
I wrote back with this message:
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Hello, Hans and Christina,
I know that you must be receiving thousands of letters on this subject, and I appreciate you taking the time to read and respond to mine.
The order in which you mention solutions that can reduce these tragedies seems to imply that you place more emphasis on societal changes than in restricting firearms. If that is true, I sincerely thank you. Firearms have been available for many, many years - since long before the relatively short history of mass school shootings. I believe that the primary causes of these massacres are more accurately attributed to mental illness combined with societal changes and the opportunity for instant public recognition (if only posthumously) provided by the news media today.
Since you asked about high capacity magazines, I will attempt to address the topic. But before any logical argument can be made regarding that, one must first define "high capacity magazine". Those definitions must also be split into rifle and handgun categories. Is 200 rounds for an AR-15 "high capacity"? How about 30 rounds? How about 10? Or 5? What is "high capacity" for a handgun?
Some lawmakers believe that 7 rounds should be the limit for a handgun. I own a .22 caliber revolver with a built-in 8-round cylinder. Should it be banned?
During the Virginia Tech massacre in 2007, Seung-Hui Cho carried a backpack full of extra magazines and ammunition. To him, smaller magazines simply meant that he would carry more of them.
The facts of the Sandy Hook massacre are often misreported and it is not possible for people like me to obtain reliable information about it, but I have not seen anyone indicating that high capacity magazines were used there. A 30-round magazine for an AR-15 rifle is considered standard capacity, if in fact the Bushmaster AR-15 was used.
In my opinion, and the opinion of many others, the size of the magazines is not a significant contributor to these tragedies.
But these are arguments against restricting the size, and that's not what you asked about. So I will now address that directly:
When I go target shooting, I load up my magazines at home and bring them with me to the range. I do this for convenience, so that when I get to the range, I can focus on things that I can only do at the range such as practice not flinching from the recoil, adjusting the sights, improving my accuracy, etc. If I spend half of my time reloading small magazines, this is counterproductive to my skill sharpening exercises. It also ties up the range so that other patrons cannot participate, in the case of indoor ranges. So one argument in favor of magazines holding more than 10 rounds is simply that they are more convenient for non-combat, non-criminal purposes, and that reducing magazine sizes will not significantly impact criminal occurrences.
Another argument in favor of large magazines is this: The average civilian hopes never to engage in any combat situation - but when this does happen, most are unprepared for the shock and adrenaline involved with shooting at an actual person who might be shooting back. As a result, aim may be impaired. If a magazine holds a small number of rounds, a civilian may understandably miss with a few shots, and find himself or herself defenseless due to a low capacity magazine - especially if there is more than one attacker, as is often the case.
Further, I wish to mention that many attackers have drugs in their system, which may affect how much pain they feel or how their body reacts to being shot.
Finally, I wish to call your attention to the 1986 FBI Miami shootout, which is used as a training example in many law enforcement circles. In this case, the suspects sustained multiple gunshot wounds and continued to fight, without the aid of drugs in their system at all. I am sure you are aware that people do not simply drop dead immediately when shot, as in the movies. So in a self defense situation, multiple hits may be required to stop a threat.
I am well aware that these arguments are debatable - what isn't? But I hope you will agree that they are logical arguments, even if they do not convince you.
On the topic of military grade weapons, and specifically the example you used: I agree that there should be limits on what military grade weapons citizens can buy, and those limits already exist. I hope you are aware that the RPG launchers recently turned in to the L.A. and Seattle gun buyback programs were inert tubes - non-functional shells of weapons already fired by the military and probably taken as souvenirs. It is currently possible for civilians to purchase a much smaller, less effective form of grenade launcher (M203) which can be mounted on an AR-15 rifle - but one cannot simply walk into a shop, buy one, and walk out that day. It requires an application to the BATFE for a $200 tax stamp, and a significant wait time while the BATFE runs a comprehensive background check to obtain one. The M203 is nowhere near as powerful as the RPG tubes featured in the news recently. Also, I have never heard of one being used to massacre children at a school. In conclusion, I submit that reasonable restrictions for these items already exist, and do not need further restrictions placed upon them.
I hope that you will consider my thoughts when addressing these topics, and also keep in mind that these views reflect the views of many thousands of citizens and voters who have not contacted you. Internet forums are positively brimming over with discussions about these very topics. If you wish to reflect the will of the people you represent, please keep this in mind.
Thank you for your time.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
This morning I received this response:
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
From: Dunsmore, Christina [mailto:Christina.Dunsmore@leg.wa.gov] On Behalf Of Dunshee, Rep. Hans
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2013 8:03 AM
To: Paul
Subject: RE: I Support Gun Rights
Hi, Paul:
Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts with me.
The recent massacres across America should make us all think about whatever possibly we could do to reduce mass killing attacks.
I have not settled on any specific package, but am inclined to support efforts in several fronts:
First is mental health funding, second is security at schools, and third is reducing the military capacity of weapons.
Since this third area is where we may disagree let me expand on this a bit. I do not think restricting your ability to own a gun has value, but our society does now restrict civilians from having military capacity. As an example, I can't go buy a Rocket Propelled Grenade (RPG) such as those that have been used against our brave troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I am willing to consider a debate of what is military in nature and what is civilian in nature in magazine capacity. I have not heard a logical argument for civilian needs for a high capacity magazine. I certainly am open to listen to justification.
Take care,
Hans
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
I wrote back with this message:
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Hello, Hans and Christina,
I know that you must be receiving thousands of letters on this subject, and I appreciate you taking the time to read and respond to mine.
The order in which you mention solutions that can reduce these tragedies seems to imply that you place more emphasis on societal changes than in restricting firearms. If that is true, I sincerely thank you. Firearms have been available for many, many years - since long before the relatively short history of mass school shootings. I believe that the primary causes of these massacres are more accurately attributed to mental illness combined with societal changes and the opportunity for instant public recognition (if only posthumously) provided by the news media today.
Since you asked about high capacity magazines, I will attempt to address the topic. But before any logical argument can be made regarding that, one must first define "high capacity magazine". Those definitions must also be split into rifle and handgun categories. Is 200 rounds for an AR-15 "high capacity"? How about 30 rounds? How about 10? Or 5? What is "high capacity" for a handgun?
Some lawmakers believe that 7 rounds should be the limit for a handgun. I own a .22 caliber revolver with a built-in 8-round cylinder. Should it be banned?
During the Virginia Tech massacre in 2007, Seung-Hui Cho carried a backpack full of extra magazines and ammunition. To him, smaller magazines simply meant that he would carry more of them.
The facts of the Sandy Hook massacre are often misreported and it is not possible for people like me to obtain reliable information about it, but I have not seen anyone indicating that high capacity magazines were used there. A 30-round magazine for an AR-15 rifle is considered standard capacity, if in fact the Bushmaster AR-15 was used.
In my opinion, and the opinion of many others, the size of the magazines is not a significant contributor to these tragedies.
But these are arguments against restricting the size, and that's not what you asked about. So I will now address that directly:
When I go target shooting, I load up my magazines at home and bring them with me to the range. I do this for convenience, so that when I get to the range, I can focus on things that I can only do at the range such as practice not flinching from the recoil, adjusting the sights, improving my accuracy, etc. If I spend half of my time reloading small magazines, this is counterproductive to my skill sharpening exercises. It also ties up the range so that other patrons cannot participate, in the case of indoor ranges. So one argument in favor of magazines holding more than 10 rounds is simply that they are more convenient for non-combat, non-criminal purposes, and that reducing magazine sizes will not significantly impact criminal occurrences.
Another argument in favor of large magazines is this: The average civilian hopes never to engage in any combat situation - but when this does happen, most are unprepared for the shock and adrenaline involved with shooting at an actual person who might be shooting back. As a result, aim may be impaired. If a magazine holds a small number of rounds, a civilian may understandably miss with a few shots, and find himself or herself defenseless due to a low capacity magazine - especially if there is more than one attacker, as is often the case.
Further, I wish to mention that many attackers have drugs in their system, which may affect how much pain they feel or how their body reacts to being shot.
Finally, I wish to call your attention to the 1986 FBI Miami shootout, which is used as a training example in many law enforcement circles. In this case, the suspects sustained multiple gunshot wounds and continued to fight, without the aid of drugs in their system at all. I am sure you are aware that people do not simply drop dead immediately when shot, as in the movies. So in a self defense situation, multiple hits may be required to stop a threat.
I am well aware that these arguments are debatable - what isn't? But I hope you will agree that they are logical arguments, even if they do not convince you.
On the topic of military grade weapons, and specifically the example you used: I agree that there should be limits on what military grade weapons citizens can buy, and those limits already exist. I hope you are aware that the RPG launchers recently turned in to the L.A. and Seattle gun buyback programs were inert tubes - non-functional shells of weapons already fired by the military and probably taken as souvenirs. It is currently possible for civilians to purchase a much smaller, less effective form of grenade launcher (M203) which can be mounted on an AR-15 rifle - but one cannot simply walk into a shop, buy one, and walk out that day. It requires an application to the BATFE for a $200 tax stamp, and a significant wait time while the BATFE runs a comprehensive background check to obtain one. The M203 is nowhere near as powerful as the RPG tubes featured in the news recently. Also, I have never heard of one being used to massacre children at a school. In conclusion, I submit that reasonable restrictions for these items already exist, and do not need further restrictions placed upon them.
I hope that you will consider my thoughts when addressing these topics, and also keep in mind that these views reflect the views of many thousands of citizens and voters who have not contacted you. Internet forums are positively brimming over with discussions about these very topics. If you wish to reflect the will of the people you represent, please keep this in mind.
Thank you for your time.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-