(1) RE: “The craze for semi-automatic weapons and military-style rifles has always escaped me and…
By: Jack Noel
Tags: Gun Control, Honesty, Guns, Americans

(1) RE: “The craze for semi-automatic weapons and military-style rifles has always escaped me and struck me as a little bit crazy. After all, you don’t need them to shoot a pheasant.” — A common statement. It seems so reasonable and logical, right? But first of all, we can look with suspicion at any statement which includes the word “craze” because in many cases like this, it mischaracterizes the actual nature of the desire to own a semi-auto shotgun or rifle (or pistol). People should check the actual history of semiautomatic firearms for the consumer market. Full and semiautomatic weapons were first made for the military in the 1890s and that makes sense because the big bucks contracts even back then went to companies (or patent holders) who offered such guns to government funded military services. But the only thing taken from that for the civilian market is the historical mythology associated with military weapons.

For the sake of this conversation lets set aside such details as the history of automatic weapons goes way back and includes iconic examples like the hand-cranked gatling gun. We can include the booster effect of exaggerated Hollywood movies, however. They idealized the “Old West” to perfection and they also idealized “war” perfectly. So there is that psychological association carrying over to the civilian market. Hollywood, like today’s Press and New Broadcasters depend heavily on exaggeration and over emphasis because it is so, so profitable.

But back to practicality: Someone who has no knowledge of hunting often underestimates the importance of being able to rapidly fire two or more shots in succession. I’ve hunted both upland game (mostly pheasants, some quail and partridge) and deer starting when I was 10 to 13 years old. I have first-hand memories of the times a bird flew off wounded because I couldn’t deliver that second shot. Hunters feel real grief when that happens, killing as quickly as possible is a real desire, semiautomatic shotguns (or pump action shot guns) provide that (under one second) second shot reliably.

I have hunted deer since I was legally eligible (at the time, 13 when accompanied by an adult was the minimum age in my state). Deer hunting is where most beginning hunters learn about rifles while made-for-hunting rifled shotguns are really an effort to bring shotguns into deer hunting just like “hunting bows” are meant to do. These efforts by manufacturers have are successful but it’s a side bar part of this discussion.

So my first deer hunt, my grandfather provided his deer rifle, a Winchester 94 which fired 30–30 ammunition. My stepfather was the one who was taking me along on his hunting trip “up North” with a few of his hunting buddies from work. My stepfather had his then-new Remington 740 Woodsmaster which fired the more powerful 30–06 cartridge. Weeks before deer season my stepfather had me at the gun range learning and practicing shooting with both the 30–30 and his 30–06. It was just luck that I got to use both a rapid repeating lever action rifle and a semi-auto at the same time. (Advantage clearly goes to the semi-auto.)

A little more background information is needed here. The Winchester 94 was first manufactured in 1894. The year of manufacture (1894) was used by Winchester to designate the model of the lever action rifle as “94.” That gun type was originally called “rapid repeating” and tells us that the desire for rapid follow up shots has been around for 120 years (and more).

But the first commercial models of semiautomatic rifles didn’t become available until around 1907. The 30–06 cartridge is named according to caliber and year that cartridge was first adopted by the U.S. Army. So you can see a kind of jumbled circumstances, history and nomenclature are involved here. (also, there are some technical details not included here). Early semi autos were made in a range of calibers but mostly centered around for use as “deer rifles.”

Basically, in the US, semiautomatic rifles came out in the early 20th century but didn’t become popular until after WWII when many infantry veterans came home with a desire for a semiautomatic rifle like they’d learned to use during the war. (Mannlicher in Germany was the actual first ever producer of semiautomatic and automatic rifles.). Lever action rifles have hung on partly because of Hollywood’s “romance of the Old West” when real cowboys learned the advantages of having a short rifle and with a rapid-repeating action. But semiautomatic is the topic we’re addressing here.

Without exhausting interest, I think it’s accurate enough to say that today’s American “market” for semiautomatic rifles is a natural development coming out of WWII. This has nothing to do with the word “craze” at all. Semiautomatics have always been popular for reasons understandable in more complete context.

(2) RE: “So the National Rifle Association was first convened in 1871 with the explicit purpose of improving and promoting rifle marksmanship. For most of its life, the NRA was just that — a gun club — where members would provide firearms training, promote gun safety, and get together for a little relaxing target practice. And that was about it.”

— The NRA has never been a gun club! It’s a fact that poor marksmanship was the reason some prominent members of the military proposed the idea of a civilian marksmanship organization, one that would exist a civilian organization -and does today as the National Rifle Association. It was and is still a national organization with an associated government funded organization: the Civilian Marksmanship Program (CMP). You can buy a WWII era M-1 Garand Rifle and even model 1911 Colt semi automatic pistols from that organization. I got my first “assault rifle” (an semi-auto M-1 Garand) from them — for rifle competition. I later got a Springfield Armory, Inc. M1A (a civilian version of the M-14) as well. Both semiautomatic rifles can be used for deer hunting in Michigan only with 5-round clips or magazines. So in that case, my non-crazy self found enjoyment in using “assault rifles” for 100% legitimate reasons. Rifle competition is a popular sport with rifle teams meeting to compete with their “crazy assault rifles” at least once a month with practice sessions in between. It’s easy to shoot 1000 rounds or even several thousand every year. About 650,000 people go for the firearms deer season in Michigan, the average injured by guns annually is under 30 — every year since 1950!! That’s 650,000+ people with “deadly firearms” walking around loose.

So again we see indiscriminate use of the word “crazy” obviously aimed at influencing unsuspecting people to believe the NRA and owners of such guns are the opposite of sane and responsible.

The number of accidents and crimes committed by gun owners of all kinds doesn’t come close to equaling the same rates of accidents and crime recorded for the non-gun-owning public. Not even close. The number of deaths due to criminal use of rifles of any kind is under 1000 per year. We have over 100 million gun owners with an estimated 300 million guns of all kinds but less than a thousand actual murder victims directly related to “crazy gun owners with “crazy” guns. “Gun owners” — obviously does not mean the actual sociopaths and psychopaths who are the real criminals left almost unfettered by laws or by exaggerated opinions and grudges. Yet the false association continues to be used by “reasonable gun control” advocates. Interesting.

(3) And RE: “In 1968, the NRA came out in support of the President Lyndon B. Johnson’s Gun Control Act. This incited some of the members to become more active in their support of gun rights. The creation of the lobbying wing in 1975 was soon followed by a political action committee, the Political Victory Fund, tasked with funding gun rights legislative efforts and pro-gun political candidates.

This all culminated in 1977, when the pro-gun rights branch of the NRA voted out the moderates, cementing the organization’s commitment to Second Amendment extremism.

For over 100 years, the NRA’s focus had been on gun safety and marksmanship. After the revolt of 1977, that mission would be all but discarded — overshadowed by increasingly formidable political maneuvering.”

A lot of relevant information is left out of this account. For instance, that the assassinations of beloved public figures caused an outcry nationally, everyone felt it including me. The politically prominent Kennedy Family was hard hit and sympathy for their tragedy was both widespread and very deep. This is the good nature of Americans showing through in full bloom.

But as with all emotional responses, that one led to some unintended consequences. It’s important to note that the NRA had a good reputation and its members (about 3 million at the time) were in full sympathy with the call for more gun control but only as one possible way to prevent assassinations. Left out of Mr. Weber’s account however is that the NRA was consulted and testified before Congress against some measures in what became known as the Gun Control Act of 1968. (I was already of voting age and very interested in how government was supposed to work by then.) It’s also notable that the major issue partly obscuring the existence. But the few measures opposed by the NRA in 1968 continued to annoy gun control advocates including members of the Kennedy Family. Their angst was carried on because of loyalty to them, emotion not facts became the dominate way of thinking about the issue ever since.

Particularly revisionist: “For over 100 years, the NRA’s focus had been on gun safety and marksmanship. After the revolt of 1977, that mission would be all but discarded…” The NRA never dropped it’s original mission, not by one inch. If anything, it was the members who were better informed on the actual history of the 2nd Amendment who pointed out the obvious errors in thinking on the part of some on the NRA board. It actually caught us by surprise to suddenly learn that so many people (including some on the NRA and in law enforcement) held a kind of gun control mindset. The whole of American society has evolved from the beginning and no less since 1968, 52 years ago. But I remember finding out that some officers on our local police force would charge anyone they saw openly armed with “disturbing the peace.” It’s not that I had trouble with our police, some were friends and had suggested I join the force! I just couldn’t believe their ignorance.

Why’s that important? It helps illustrate the actual situation at the time. Objections to gun ownership seemed reasonable, especially in light of the assassinations. But it also shows how little people knew (and know) about the 2nd Amendment and the amendments in their own state constitutions. Michigan’s Constitution is even more clear regarding intent: “Sec. 6. Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state.” Where in this does anyone see, “but restricted by widely held opinions?” [Michigan is far from the only state to have such stipulations about gun rights.].

This gives the lie to: “But the NRA had done more than rewrite our laws — they changed our minds. Guns weren’t just a hobby anymore. They were a necessity. It was our inalienable right to be armed and protect ourselves.” Because, self defense is a right and, as such, makes having a gun necessary. That’s regardless that, “crime rate have been falling.”

And because “have been falling” does not mean “have disappeared.” Anyone who isn’t bothered by just one incidence of someone being killed is not someone I want anywhere near me. That’s what psychopaths are so famous for. Likewise, anyone who isn’t heartened by learning of a successful defense from attack isn’t any better than the average sociopath.

So any claim that somehow the NRA and supporters of gun rights “just popped up because of radicals in the NRA” is smashed flat. It has no validity based on what better informed people know about the law and the facts. (and about human thought processes)

(4) RE: “Now we have a generation who has been directly impacted by that effort. They are stuck living with active shooter drills in their schools, armed guards in their churches, an extremist judiciary in the courts, and an impotent, disarmed congress in Washington.” — This is t he final brick in this monument to partial facts and misguidance. A whole different version from that which can be proven true. The last two generations (since 1968) have in fact been told that they are better off hiding in place with no real barriers between them and a punk (or punks) with a gun (or guns). This is institutionalized helplessness. They also have had drilled into them that, somehow, having a gun makes the bearer automatically unstable and likely to use their gun criminally. Really? The annual FBI Crime Report has been proving the opposite since its inception.

Withholding key facts is for writers of mystery novels and sometime romance novels. It never has been legitimate to withhold key facts from important political or historical discussions.

Honesty is the product of accuracy and completeness. Trust and respect are the product of honesty.