If you want to attack them point-by-point, below are some comments. Of course I won't be too kind or gentle or sensitive or caring, so you will probably have to clean them up if you want to have your response appear reasonable. (Not that "reason" is ever a requirement in a liberal’s argument.)
...a loophole in the law...
|
Loophole, schmoophole. I the Democrats that wrote the law were so damn dumb that they couldn't figure out the repercussions of their unreasonable law, then they should not be writing the laws.
...led to the proliferation of similar types of weapons that are proving just as deadly.
|
Where is the proof? Anyone can make a broad charge based upon a single traumatic incident.
The SKS is patterned after the AK-47.
|
Umm, no, but I will leave it to a more knowledgeable person to point out some of the more obvious differences. The main difference that I see is the lack of a shooting handgrip on most SKS's.
Most police officers carry a .40-caliber Glock handgun, which is what Laird had.
|
...SKS fires a 7.62-caliber bullet...
|
They probably aren't aware that 7.62 is a 30 caliber, although that trivializes the issue & leaves you open to the "power" or "energy" argument. That is, the 30 caliber rifle bullet delivers more foot-pounds of energy than the 40 caliber handgun bullet.
Although Laird was fatally struck above his chest protector, the SKS fires a 7.62-caliber bullet that is powerful enough to pass through body armor.
|
More importantly, what does this have to do with their argument? There are many hunting rifles & shotguns in Indiana that will shoot a projectile that "is powerful enough to pass through body armor." Many of these bullets were initially developed for use in warfare like the .30-06, .308, etc.
The 1994 federal crime bill prohibited the importation and sale of assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition.
|
I believe that this statement is factually incorrect. I believe that Clinton did it with an executive order, but you will have to do more research to verify it.
"What do you do with these guns other than kill a cop?" asked gun shop owner Don Davis. "You certainly don't use them to go hunting."
|
Obviously this clown should not be in the firearms business, but aside from that whole argument, yes, an SKS or an AK could be used for hunting, coyotes, for example.
Police have little defense against bullets designed to penetrate their protective vests.
|
There is a small amount of factual truth to this statement, in that, it would be unreasonable for a LEO to be 100% protected all of the time. The logistics of that would keep an officer from doing his/her job. The argument is fallacious, however, because the editorial is demonizing a bullet rather than taking issue with the person who shot the bullet that killed the officer. Net, it is an unreasoned argument.
Besides Laird, four other IPD officers were wounded Wednesday by a gunman who had a history of mental problems.
|
There are specific laws that prohibit the mentally ill from buying any guns. I suppose that there are also specific laws that prohibit them from possessing guns also, but I can't cite you chapter & verse in either case.
Unless lawmakers take a harder line on assault-style weapons, there will be more casualties.
|
They have absolutely no proof for that statement. The simple fact is that the more guns that there are in civilian hands, the less crime that there is. Read John Lott's book "More Guns, Less Crime." Likewise, so-called "assault weapons" are only used in a small fraction of gun crimes.
This whole "assault weapons" terminology was invented by the liberals to demonize a type of gun that simply looked scary to their ignorant minds. We conservatives have let the liberals define both the argument and it's terminology.
Indianapolis should join other cities like Chicago, Cincinnati, Cleveland and New York City in banning such weapons.
|
Yet another spurious argument. I don't know about Cincinnati & Cleveland, but Chicago & NYC certainly are not a good example to follow. Their crime rates are sky high. You can research all of the details.
And Congress must close loopholes in the 1994 law.
|
Yet more evidence of the Indy Star's ignorance. It sounds like they don't even know that the AWB is only a few weeks from sunset.
The simple fact is that big city newspapers are overwhelmingly liberal and therefore do not print gun related stories that do not meet their antigun agenda. Read John R. Lott's book, "The Bias Against Guns." You can probably get it from your library. If not here is one source:
AmazonAlways remember that, no matter how good your argument is, they own the newspaper, & therefore they have no obligation to print your letter, no matter how well reasoned. Likewise, they always have the last word.