Rebuttal to "assault weapons" letter in Austin Statesman

[A-R]

My rebuttal to a letter (below) that appeared in today's Austin unAmerican Statesman. Suggested improvements/changes solicited and encouraged. Will likely send this letter on Monday, when the "letters to the editor" guy is more likely to be in the office.

RE: Assault weapons letter of 11/14/09 Austin Statesman

Your hypothetical fellow soldiers of 1775 would not have been unarmed as our stateside soldiers are today. Each would’ve had his musket with him and would have ended any such attack quickly regardless of the attacker’s ability to fire repeat shots.
And if the soldiers at Fort Hood had been armed, they would’ve ended this latest shooting spree just as quickly, if it happened at all. Mass shooters tend to avoid “hard targets” of armed potential victims.
And there are plenty of other inanimate objects, not available in 1775, which the Fort Hood mass murderer could have used and which other terrorists have used successfully, including fertilizer mixed with gasoline, motor vehicles mixed with high explosives, and airplanes flown into buildings. So maybe we should also ban those other “assault weapons” as we return to the agrarian economy of 1775.
Or, we could place the blame squarely where it belongs – with the killer – while we attempt to figure out what signs of impending trouble were missed by authorities.

Original letter below:
http://www.statesman.com/opinion/conten ... _edit.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Assault weapons

Imagine a militiaman in 1775 going to a gathering of his fellow unarmed soldiers with the same intent of the Fort Hood shooter. How many would he be able to shoot with his single-shot musket? Maybe one? As long as people can go to their local "Guns R Us" and shop for assault weapons, this will only get worse.
Walter Haynie
Georgetown

[mctowalot]

How about the rampant knife attacks in England(no offence to Her Royal Highness)
Or some of the mass killings that were the result of a crazed sword bearing maniac.
I think bringing up the Chain Saw Massacre might be a little over the top.

[jimlongley]

Looks good to me, but I might make the point about "mass shootings" a little differently, pointing out that gun free zones are only gun free for those who obey the law, which Hasan didn't, and are target rich environments for those, like Hasan, who want to do the most damage witrh the least risk, and after all, look what happened, once again, when an armed person showed up.

And of course there is the pejorative use of "assault weapons" which the writer seems to think Hasan used, or at least his use of the term indicates that he would like everyone to make that association.

[HankB]

RE: Assault weapons letter of 11/14/09 Austin Statesman

In 1775, it would have been unthinkable that the commanders of a militia would have required militia members to be unarmed - the most likely response to an attack by an 18th century shooter would have been a fusilade of return fire, ending the act of terror - and the terrorist - immediately. Note that these mass shootings always - ALWAYS - occur where people are disarmed by government edict, leading some to call them "Victim Disarmament Zones." It's appalling to me that on the Ft. Hood military base of all places, soldiers, disarmed by regulations, had to rely on the fortunate happenstance of civilian police officers being nearby for rescue against a lone armed terrorist. This sort of thing didn't make sense in the past, and in a post-911 world, mandating helplessness in the face of evil is insanity.

[marksiwel]

Walter Haynie runs this store
C & W Sales
http://local.yahoo.com/info-31282118-c-w-sales-lampasas" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Just lost my business

[frazzled]

The best rebuttal you can do to the Austin Stwatemean is ignore them completely. The paper is tanking. Going on their website helps their ad revenue so avoid that to.

[Purplehood]

RE: Assault weapons letter of 11/14/09 Austin Statesman

In 1775, it would have been unthinkable that the commanders of a militia would have required militia members to be unarmed - the most likely response to an attack by an 18th century shooter would have been a fusilade of return fire, ending the act of terror - and the terrorist - immediately. Note that these mass shootings always - ALWAYS - occur where people are disarmed by government edict, leading some to call them "Victim Disarmament Zones." It's appalling to me that on the Ft. Hood military base of all places, soldiers, disarmed by regulations, had to rely on the fortunate happenstance of civilian police officers being nearby for rescue against a lone armed terrorist. This sort of thing didn't make sense in the past, and in a post-911 world, mandating helplessness in the face of evil is insanity.

All of those 1775 Militia-members lived in private residences, may have carried their weapons about town on a regular basis and mustered at a public location when duty called (Injuns are climbing over the wall!). Of course it was unthinkable that they would be unarmed.

The difference between a Militia and a standing Army is like night and day. Apples and Oranges.

[A-R]

Updated version of letter emailed to Statesman today. Rewritten and edited down to exactly 150 words (their maximum).

RE: Nov. 14 “Assault weapons” letter
Your hypothetical soldiers of 1775 would not have been unarmed as our stateside soldiers are today. Regardless of how many rounds a single weapon is capable of firing, armed soldiers would repel a lone gunman before 43 victims were shot – if the attack happened at all. Terrorists and madmen prefer target-rich environments of unarmed victims. Every mass shooting in US history with more than three fatalities has occurred in a “gun-free zone”, including this one.
And there are plenty of other inanimate objects, not available in 1775, which this mass murderer could have used, including fertilizer mixed with gasoline, cars mixed with high explosives, and airplanes flown into buildings. So maybe we should also ban those other “assault weapons” as we return to a less violent time - like the American Revolution.
Or, we could place blame squarely where it belongs – with the killer.

[A-R]

The best rebuttal you can do to the Austin Stwatemean is ignore them completely. The paper is tanking. Going on their website helps their ad revenue so avoid that to.

I have a degree in Journalism and worked for newspaper for 10 years. Regardless of how much I disagree with a newspaper or it's slanted version of the news, I would never want newspapers to go away completely. So I continue to support them with subscriptions and reading their web sites.

A free press is just as important to liberty as RKBA.

[A-R]

RE: Assault weapons letter of 11/14/09 Austin Statesman

In 1775, it would have been unthinkable that the commanders of a militia would have required militia members to be unarmed - the most likely response to an attack by an 18th century shooter would have been a fusilade of return fire, ending the act of terror - and the terrorist - immediately. Note that these mass shootings always - ALWAYS - occur where people are disarmed by government edict, leading some to call them "Victim Disarmament Zones." It's appalling to me that on the Ft. Hood military base of all places, soldiers, disarmed by regulations, had to rely on the fortunate happenstance of civilian police officers being nearby for rescue against a lone armed terrorist. This sort of thing didn't make sense in the past, and in a post-911 world, mandating helplessness in the face of evil is insanity.

HankB, I really like your version too. I encourage you to send it in to letters@statesman.com

[frazzled]

You might be hard pressed to find more than three people who view the Statesman as a newspaper at this point.

[A-R]

You might be hard pressed to find more than three people who view the Statesman as a newspaper at this point.

You might be right, but it's still better than no newspaper at all, which is what this country is closer to having than many realize (for multiple reasons I won't bore everyone with at the moment )