[url]http://www.courier-journal.com/cjextra/editorials/ed050903s404133.htm[/url]

and my response:


Anybody up for offering some constructive criticism?

I can't find a link to their "letters to the editor" section online, so if a local happens to find it tomorrow in print, can you pass it on?

my response was less polite.

TXL

Gunny,

Excellent, well-reasoned response.  Alas, you're probably pissing in the wind with those turds, but nice letter nonetheless.

Edit-- And here's my reply just sent to the bozos:

Editor,

People are certainly entitled to their opinion, but an opinion based on misconceptions, falsehoods, bad data, and poorly drawn deductions is not very helpful and has no place gracing the pages of a news organ.  Whoever wrote the editorial titled "Assault-gun posturing" seems to have done most of their research by watching bad movies such as "Exit Wounds" with Steven Segal.

The only difference between "legal" and "illegal" semi-auto "assault" style rifles are certain cosmetic features.  Among these are the ability to mount a bayonet, the presence of a flash hider, and the presence of a collapsible stock.  Surely you can grasp that bayonets do not and have not ever contributed greatly to crime statistics.  How about a flash hider?  It serves to prevent the shooter of a rifle from being blinded by his/her own muzzle flash in low light conditions.  I know banning these has had a dramatic impact on gun-related crime-- yeah, right.

As for the argument that these rifles have no legitimate sporting uses, once again the correct retort is "humbug."  They are used for hunting.  They are used in target shooting competitions.  They are used by thousands of law abiding Americans who like to go to a rifle range on a Saturday morning and punch holes in a paper target 100 yards away.  Not very evil, and not very illegitimate, wouldn't you say?

As for drug dealers and other criminals, why be concerned with what type of weapons they prefer?  You can ban guns until you are blue in the face and have no impact on these individuals.  They are criminals, remember, they don't feel terribly compelled to obey laws.  Only honest citizens who would not break the law to begin with are going to honor a weapon ban.  So, can you draw the simple and obvious conclusion staring you in the face here?  BANNING GUNS HAS NO IMPACT ON GUN CRIME.

And if you don't believe me, look at the government's own conclusions.  A 1999 Justice Department study commissioned to determine the effect of the Clinton 1994 Assault Weapons Ban concluded that it had NO impact on gun-related violence.  NONE.  ZERO.  NADA.

I suppose guns are somewhat like snakes.  Some people see them and immediately degenerate into screaming, hysterical, non-thinking blobs of protoplasm.  Which describes most liberal Democrats, don't you think?

Sincerely,

Marv Luse
Niwot, Colorado

I'll keep an eye out for your letters to the editor of the C-J and if printed will let you know.

Heck I'll even send you a copy of the paper (gee, ain't I genereous[:D] )

LOL Marvl, are you suggesting that Jayson Blair and the The New York Times staff wrote it?