From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Bowhunting wound rates
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 06:19:20 GMT

black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:

>I've seen the NRA ads which bash AR people and make blatant pitches to
>anti-AR sentiments.  I lose a lot of respect for the NRA when I see these.

	I'm an NRA member, and I'd bet that I see more NRA publications
than you do.  Let's take a look at what you've posted.  First, anti-AR
sentiments are valid in the case where AR supporters have lobbied to
remove hunting as a purpose for firearms.  That .30-30 in my house is
a low-powered deer gun, but if hunting is not a legitimate purpose
for that gun it becomes quite easy to ban it outright as the .30-30
round will penetrate most body armor and the rifle is not generally
considered much use in a self-defense situation.  Hence, an entire
class of gun, the long-gun, is easily banned.  If you don't believe
this to be a legitimate concern, just check the Congressional Record
for the past year.  We've seen proposals that seek to ban so-called
"assault rifles" because they serve no legitimate sporting purpose.
An AK-47 makes a pretty fair deer gun in semi-auto, and hence it is
unwise to limit the purposes to which your firearm can be used.

>But hasn't the NRA long taken an anti-wildlife position? Didn't the NRA,
>for example, resist the transition from lead to steel shot for
>waterfowl, long after the damage caused by lead shot was obvious?

	I never saw anything on this.  However, it has been noted
that lead shot is denser and more likely to penetrate a bird than
steel shot.  Frankly, the steel shot tends to carry a higher
probability of wounding than of killing, and it is likely that the
NRA opposition was in respect to this, not out of any anti-wildlife
bias.  The NRA exists only to protect the rights of gun owners,
not as any sort of anti-wildlife lobby.  There's too many hunters
out there in the NRA ranks to take this tactic, and in the ~100
year history of the NRA I've never seen anything at all like this.

>Shouldn't they shoulder some of the blame for contributing to the
>endangerment of certain larger birds, including the California condor?
>What purpose does NRA involvement in hunting and wildlife issues serve,
>except to transparently appeal to hunting groups in order to boost
>membership rolls?

	Answered above.

>>  There have been
>>numerous attempts to ban .25 and .32 caliber (and 9mm) amunition.  The
>>sponsors of the bills claim that their are NO sporting uses for any ammo
>>of this caliber.

>You lost me here.  If someone is sponsoring a bill to ban a particular
>caliber of ammunition on the grounds that such ammo has no hunting
>purpose, then they're acknowledging that hunting is a valid purpose
>for establishing the legality of ammo.  Why would an AR or an
>anti-hunting person do this?

	Because .25, .32, and 9mm are rounds not suitable for any sort
of hunting beyond the varmint stage.  They lack the power for a one-shot
kill consistently.  Now then, look at legislation that bans these because
there is "no legitimate purpose."  What, then, is the purpose of the 7mm
Remington Magnum if not for hunting?  Remove hunting and it has no
purpose.  The US Supreme Court ruled that a shotgun with a barrel
less than 18" in length is not a militia weapon that they were aware of.
Thus, the standard shotgun is easily banned as it has no legitimate
hunting use, and the Court says it's not a militia weapon.  How about
my .30-30 lever-action?  I can't use it to hunt, and it's hardly a
weapon the military issues.  Thus, no legitimate purpose.  It's a
rather subtle but very slippery slope when one caves in on a right.

>Are you saying that the NRA is citing hunting as an argument against
>gun control legislation, even though there is no constitutional basis
>for it?

	See above.  The only difference between hunting animals and
hunting "all enemies, foreign and domestic" is in the target chosen.

	As I see it, the NRA is protecting the rights of shooters
to hunt because hunting often involves shooting, not that the
hunting is a Constitutional right.  However, backing down from this
fight opens all sorts of legal doors that are better left closed.

<Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 |"I see angels on Ariels in leather and>
<z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu | chrome, Swooping down from heaven to >
<viking@iastate.edu      | carry me home."   ---    R. Thompson >
<ISU thinks I need more education, which they provide for a fee.>


Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals