This message was self-deleted by its author

[happyslug]

15. You are the one playing right into the NRA's handbook

As late as the 1960s, only 10% of all gun sales were pistols, it is now 40%. The number of Rifles and Shotguns (and that include 50 caliber rifles and "Assault Weapons&quot have increased but no where near what pistols sales have gone up. Western Ammunition sold off its Winchester subsidiary for Winchester only made rifles and Shotguns (The subsidiary later went bankrupt for the profits was in Pistols NOT Rifles or Shotguns). Remington, the other big Arms maker, made only one pistol in the 1960s, a single shot pistol for target shooting. Dupont sold Remington off a few years ago for the same reason Western sold Winchester, they is a huge profit in ammunition but little profit in Rifles and Shotguns and the actual recent increase in firearm sales was in Pistols not Rifles and Shotguns,

Side note: Remington is now making a AR-15 clone for its present owners.

This change is what is being sold had lead to the NRA defending pistols rights AND co-mixing in Rifles and Shotgun owners (who still make 60% of the sales of firearms) so to maximize the opposition to any gun control laws, even ones that may work such as restrictions on buying and possessing pistols. i have run across a lot of people whose weapon is one their father gave them and thus have never purchased a firearm supporting the NRA for the NRA say a law made to control Pistols will ban their owning their father's Winchester.

Thus the NRA AVOIDS showing any fact that shows the dangers of Pistols when compared to any other weapon, including knives, fists, Rifles and Shotguns.

Furthermore the NRA uses the passage of any firearm law as an example of a desire to ban ALL firearms, including Rifles and Shotguns, even if the intention is aimed at pistols only.

This causes some weird situations, For example California, it is ILLEGAL to own a Semiautomatic only AK-47 Clone or AR-15 clone or a 50 caliber Browning Machine Gun Bolt action rifle, but no additional restrictions on who can own a pistol. That the former are RARELY if EVER used in an act of violence, while pistols are used in 70% of such crimes seems NOT a factor. It is like the story a car dealer who sold Volvos in the 1950s told me, they had to remove the Seat Belts for the State had said they were unsafe for someone once was caught in their car by their seatbelt and could not get out in time to escape the fire. That thousands of people could be safe if the car had seatbelts was unimportant to them (We are talking of th 1950s).

I bring up the Volvo story to show that OPINION as to Safety is often used to ban things that if you looked at the STATISTICS should NOT be (and should be required). I also bring it up to show what the NRA handbook on these Statistics is to use them to get owners of RIFLES AND SHOTGUNS to join in the battle against restrictions on HANDGUNS to protect their RIFLES AND SHOTGUNS. It is a classic case of confusing the issues by expanding who will oppose a law by CLAIMING people who will NOT be affected by the law will be affected by the law. Part of that program is to get supporters of the law being opposed to make statements the NRA can use to show the law is NOT against just Handguns but all Firearms, even Firearms rarely used in crimes.

In affect by saying there is no difference between those weapons used in 69% of all Homicides also includes whose weapons used less then knives or clubs in crimes, you just double any opposition to such laws. If you say Rifle and Shotguns will NOT be affected and convince firearm owners of that fact, the opposition to such laws will drop at least 60% (and given most people buy a rifle or shotgun once every ten years ot so, but pistols buyers buy pistols more often, the number can be as high a 75%).

You have to understand the Statistics, accept them and use them. 69 % of all homicides are done with pistols. The number of homicides done with Rifles and Shotguns are less then Knives and clubs. Thus restrictions of Rifles and Shotguns will have minimal affect on Murder, but a ban on Pistols should have a huge effect. This message is what the NRA does NOT want out, for if it came out 70% plus of firearms owners (owners of Rifles and Shotguns) will drop their opposition to those gun controls. You by NOT separating the two groups is falling right into the NRA trap, for you are providing the NRA clear evidence that the thrust of gun control is NOT crime control, or pistol control, but total control over Firearms. Rifles and Shotgun overs will oppose such control, but they will agree to controls that reduce crime PROVIDED it is aimed only at those firearms primarily used in Crimes (i.e. Pistols).