Letter: Gun industry, NRA have bloody hands

In 1969, my country sent me to war. I was a young U.S. Army infantry officer. Initially, I was stationed in the Mekong Delta of Vietnam as an adviser to a Vietnamese infantry battalion. Our unit was equipped with M-16 assault rifles. The enemy, the Viet Cong, had a wide variety of weapons including the AK-47 assault rifle. High-capacity magazines were the norm.

Over the next several months, I observed these weapons in action in many firefights with VC units. It soon became clear to me that these weapons were quite effective for their intended purpose: to kill, maim, wound and mutilate large numbers of human beings at close range in a short period of time.

What makes these types of weapons so effective in war also makes them ideal killing tools for mass murderers. As a society, we are making the job of these criminals easier by selling military-style assault-type rifles to the general public. It is madness to do so, yet the NRA and the gun industry have such enormous influence on many local, state and national political leaders that we endure mass shooting after mass shooting and do nothing. We should be deeply ashamed.

The NRA can summon up spokesmen who passionately argue this is all about freedom and constitutional rights, but they don’t talk about the dirty secret. The dirty secret is that this is really about money, billions and billions of dollars for the gun industry to sell whatever they want to and generous contributions back to the NRA which shields them. That much of this money has blood on it doesn’t faze these folks in the least. As long as the money spends, the casualties are acceptable as collateral damage.

John Engelsman

retired lawyer

Baton Rouge

Comments

1) Comment by InPVille - 20/01/2013

@Buck: "has similar demographics" Canada/U.S. -[**]- How so? . . . U.S. German 15.20%, Irish 10.80%, African 8.8%, English 8.75%, Latin American(Including Mexican) 6.5% . . . Canada German 10.18%, Irish 13.94%, African 2.51%, English 21.03%, Latin American(Including Mexican) 1%

2) Comment by Buck - 14/01/2013

Once again sadly, the best indicator of effect re. this issue are those that give comparative analysis of the US and our neighbor, Canada, which not only shares a common border but has similar demographics. However if one insist in only using communities in the US, suggest one review the crime statics of New York City for this past decade. The most significant factors that effect comparative data among communities within the US are 1) the lack of monitoring between the States and as such 2) the ability to transfer any hazard material and/or product between such. As noted several States have identified this issue as a major cause of the illegal transport of weapons into their communities and their impact on public health. Surely as a States rights proponent one can identify with this concern. As per another recent post, it is noted that perhaps an issue is the appeal/amendment of the 2nd Amendment. If this logic is carried forward, it could assume that this is the only way that law can be effected. As such, suggest that one apprise self of firearms case law that goes all the way back to 1875. Till 2008 such had rule that there are limitation re. the 2 Amendment and it was only in a 5-4 ruling by the Supreme Court that verbiage was introduced that, under conditions, persons were allowed to have firearms for self use. Thus using the logic that this issue could only be effected via constitution changes, this will in effect say that court ruling are null and void and as such the ruling in 2008 has no bearing. Bottom-line be careful what one proposes without understanding the way our society operates.

3) Comment by wadep66 - 14/01/2013

DMJ: That's exactly what I'm saying. You see people bring up hitler, the legal profession, abortion, automobiles, knives, hockey sticks, etc because the arguments of the pro-"every gun I want" can't win based on relevant argument.

4) Comment by wadep66 - 14/01/2013

Dawson, if you are such a statistician please show us how many times a "law abiding citizen minding their own business" fended off a would-be attacker with a high-capacity automatic weapon. In the next column show how many innocents have been killed by the same weapons. And while you're at it, show us how having gun control laws in Chicago has definitely NOT prevented gun violence from being higher than it is. You can't record an unattempted crime. Believe what you want to believe, but you don't have statistics to support that ordinary citizens need these weapons and that burden should fall on those selling these high victim weapons. If the US took the Pinto and the Corvair off the market, we sure as hell should get rid of high-capacity rapid shooting weapons. And whatever name they have or don't have makes no difference. Citing errors in the title others refer to the weapons at is weightless argument.

5) Comment by Dawson - 14/01/2013

And DMJ all of the flaws of the founders you rant about (slavery, women's rights, etc) were all changed through constitutional amendment. I suggest that if you and your other buddies want to ban guns you call a constitutional convention. It's been done before and I am certain that you could get the votes now to remove the 2nd amendment. Well, maybe not...which is why your kind circumvents the rule of law to try and get what you want. That measly old constitution is the biggest enemy of the liberal/progressive/socialist/communist/emotional agenda.

6) Comment by Dawson - 14/01/2013

Let me ask this again: Can anyone name one study or statistic that shows more gun regulation reduces crime? If regulation and outlawing are the answers for guns, how does one explain Chicago and other highly regulated gun cities and the crime/murder rates there?

7) Comment by Ivy - 14/01/2013

I was foolish enough to think I actually had something to say about automatic weaponry, but soon realized I can't afford the type of weapon that folks are screaming about outlawing...for me, a moot point about whether I am allowed to exercise my 2nd amendment to get one... And let's not drag in a yacht analogy, puhleeze, just lemme finish here. The guns I can afford (if I wanted to) are the ones killing people daily (see today's local news)...the REAL problem with the situation in Newton is WHO was killed, not by WHAT or by WHOM. chew on that, folks.

8) Comment by jedleland - 14/01/2013

germany wasnt fully disarmed until 1945 by who? you guessed it americans. it was partially disarmed in 1928 before the nazis took power but hitler relaxed those laws and made it offical in 1938 including total deregulation of ammo and rifles. only about 200,000 jews remained in germany in 1939 so the great majority of germans were not disamred by their government, did not feel the need to resist the nazis which was a populist movement and did not fear black helicopters or wear tinfoil hats like todays gun worshippers. time to put that lie to rest.

9) Comment by DMJ - 14/01/2013

You lose the Hitler argument so you bring up abortion? Lazy...

10) Comment by jaxon - 14/01/2013

If you want to talk about Blood Money why not talk about the 1000 plus babies that a killed each day under the guise of "rights" and the money that we all pay to the murders that perform the abortions.

11) Comment by jedleland - 14/01/2013

by the way history-challenged paranoiacs with manhood issues and/or malfunctioning reproductive organs hitler did not in fact ban guns in germany and in 1938 passed a gun bill that weakened gun laws in the country expect for jews, who werent considered germans any more than illegal immigrants are considered americans. I give you the 1938 german weapons act: The 1938 German Weapons Act, the precursor of the current weapons law, superseded the 1928 law. As under the 1928 law, citizens were required to have a permit to carry a firearm and a separate permit to acquire a firearm. Furthermore, the law restricted ownership of firearms to "...persons whose trustworthiness is not in question and who can show a need for a (gun) permit." Under the new law: • Gun restriction laws applied only to handguns, not to long guns or ammunition. Writes Prof. Bernard Harcourt of the University of Chicago, "The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as well as ammunition."[4] • The groups of people who were exempt from the acquisition permit requirement expanded. Holders of annual hunting permits, government workers, and NSDAP members were no longer subject to gun ownership restrictions. Prior to the 1938 law, only officials of the central government, the states, and employees of the German Reichsbahn Railways were exempted.[5] • The age at which persons could own guns was lowered from 20 to 18.[5] • The firearms carry permit was valid for three years instead of one year.[5] • Jews were forbidden from the manufacturing or dealing of firearms and ammunition.[6] I coped that from the internet. Did you read that right? Long guns and rifles were exempt? Germans didn’t fear hitler or their government they revered him (except for jews or gays or gypsies etc) now can anyone else think of a country that veers more heavily to the right seemingly every year that is heavily armed and worships firearms, that has a history of antagonizing people outside the racial and cultural and political mainstream, denying them equal legal rights even imprisoning them or enslaving them or creating separate but equal societies for them? Hitler didn’t like ‘liberals’ either as they threatened german cohesion and racial purity with their race mixing and gayness and secular communist atheism. Familiar? Think long and hard before you use the hitler card my right wing friends.

12) Comment by DMJ - 14/01/2013

You do that.

13) Comment by Bowman@ms - 14/01/2013

Na DMJ I'll continue to let you trip over your own logic/arguments.

14) Comment by DMJ - 14/01/2013

Bowman, put a dollar in the Hitler reference jar please.

15) Comment by Sandy - 14/01/2013

Foldgers did a good job summarizing the truth about these firearms. As a former infantry officer, Mr. Engelsman should be aware that the assault rifles used by the military do not operate the same as what the left claims are assault rifles sold to the public. Not to mention that his letter fails to mention that the NRA has over 4 million members. The vast majority of them are regular people, not gun manufacturers (since there are only a few firearms manufacturers in the country, this should be obvious). Politicians beware: The news media is not reporting it, but the NRA is adding new members at a rate of almost 10,000 per day since this new gun control crusade began. They should reach 5 million members very soon.

16) Comment by foldgers - 14/01/2013

So, if it was wrong for "one side" to use the 9-11 attacks on US soil to push forward its agenda for wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, how is using the recent school shooting to push the agenda to limit the 2nd amendment acceptable to the "other side?" --- Also, please, if you are going to make a comment on this issue, know what you are talking about. When I read the comment that someone said "ak15" I cringed. People with no knowledge on any subject, except what they hear from their chosen party, should not comment. Know BOTH sides before you comment, not just one. Not to mention, the typical citizen does NOT have access to military weapons. The military "assault rifles" are FULLY automatic, the ones I can buy are not. The only thing about the ones I can buy is that they LOOK like a military weapon. That is all. Then you may go to magazine capacity. I am sorry, but if I have two or three people break into my home, I doubt I could DEFEND my home, property and family with only 5 bullets loaded at a time. I do not want to worry about having to reload. That is why I have an AR-15. It never leaves my home unless I am taking it for target practice. Gun deaths per year are NOTHING compared to alcohol related, smoking related, prescription drug related, car wrecks.... and so on.

17) Comment by Bowman@ms - 14/01/2013

Somewhat ironic that someone of the "law" profession would pick out a particular industry and declare its all about the money. It could be argued easily that the legal industry leads the pack in this arena.

18) Comment by Bowman@ms - 14/01/2013

DMJ Tell the folks again about how the German population in the '30's was not armed like the present US and were powerless to resist Hitler and the Nazi movement. Most of the anti's don't see the whole picture. I noticed you didn't have a come back in your last tirade.

19) Comment by DMJ - 14/01/2013

Yeah, constitution be damned, indeed. Let's put it back to how the founders wanted it- slavery, repeal women's suffrage, let U.S. Reps select Senators, the whole nine yards. After all, the people of the late 1700s were right about everything, including how malaria is caused from breathing air in the presence of too many trees.

20) Comment by BRash - 14/01/2013

Hear hear! Constitution be damned!

21) Comment by DMJ - 14/01/2013

Well put, Mr. Engelsman. Nice to hear from a real soldier and not just from those who like to play soldier by having assault rifles.

22) Comment by The_Host - 14/01/2013

The guns referenced here are not available to the general public. Go into a gun store and tell them you want a M16 or a full auto AK47 and see what kind of looks you get. Oh and of course full auto capable guns use high cap magazines as you would be reloading a lot if you only had 5 per mag. This guy is your typical lawyer laying out all the details except the ones that actually mean something. How many died in the Civil War? How many M16's and AR15's and AK47's did they have then exactly? Lawyers like this D Bag are the reason we have peanut butter that warns stupid people on the label that the product contains nuts.

23) Comment by MBW - 13/01/2013

You have to jump through more hoops to drive a car than you do to own a gun. That's flat out wrong and there's no excuse for that.

24) Comment by MBW - 13/01/2013

Guns make killing too easy. There's a reason you never hear about mass stabbings.

25) Comment by MBW - 13/01/2013

Guns don't kill people. They just make it possible for people to kill LOTS of people.

26) Comment by Buck - 13/01/2013

Sadly some of the best studies/statistics re. this issue are those from outside the U.S.. Just so happened I was talking w my son this evening who lives in Canada. Pointed out the difference between Detroit. U.S. and just across the border Windsor, Canada, One interesting thing they do in some countries is require that when one purchases a gun, they ask for a character witness to vouch and sign on the application. Until we are allowed to gather the proper data, we can only use comparatives as such. Though it was interesting that when concealed weapons legislation was passed in La. it was asked what would be done with the funds that were allocated in the accompanying fiscal note. Turns out it would allow the State police to buy a computer that would allow the police to instantaneously identify those who had permits. Ever note the computers in police cars and when the police make stops they ask folks who have permits where their gun is.

27) Comment by wadep66 - 13/01/2013

Why is it that no discussion about high-capacity rapid fire weapons never stick to that topic? Because there is NO LOGICAL ARGUMENT for civilians to own one. The NRA must teach argument diversion tactics along with whatever else they supposedly do. Probably the only discussion they can stick to are when they are bribing politicians. If this makes you angry, its because you know its true. And childish arguments about how hammers and clubs kill aren't even close to being relevant. You can't kill a room full of people 50 yards away with a hammer. You have to catch your victim first. See how simple this concept it?

28) Comment by Dawson - 13/01/2013

Can anyone name one study or statistic that shows more gun regulation reduces crime? If regulation and outlawing are the answers for guns, how does one explain Chicago and other highly regulated gun cities and the crime/murder rates there?

29) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 13/01/2013

These Acts were passed a mere 5 months after the Bill of Rights was ratified. In case anyone is confused on what a well regulated militia is... http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm /// Every white male from 18-45 was required to be armed but here is my favorite part... "That it shall be the duty of the brigade inspector, to attend the regimental and battalion meeting of the militia composing their several brigades, during the time of their being under arms, to inspect their arms, ammunition and accoutrements..." So who will be first in line to bring their weapons in to the local National Guard armory for inspection?

30) Comment by Buck - 13/01/2013

"The dirty secret is that this is really about money," Wondered why the gun industry fought so hard to prevent those liberal, Nazi, etc folks at the Center for Disease Control from continuing to release figures that showed the costs associated with civilian incidents with firearms? The last figures the CDC were allowed to publish in 2005 were in the range of $40 billion. As with other potential harmful devices we have in our society, this is a public health issue.

31) Comment by Whatnow - 13/01/2013

What Is An "Assault Rifle"? - You've Probably Been Lied To - https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=yATeti5GmI8

32) Comment by Scrooge - 13/01/2013

“Assault rifle” is an ambiguous legal term" so its a semantics problem, right? The vast majority of military grade weaponry is illegal and surprise, surprise,civilian casualties casualties from them are non-existent. 'Connecticut does not mandate treatment or confinement of the mentally-disturbed as a preventative' but they still have the lowest incidence of deaths by firearm, a non-sequitur. "You might want to blame the murderers" but then you go on to blame "addiction to violent video games; culture of violence in movies, music, and on the internet; lack of security at schools" but somehow the fact that guns are designed for killin, especially when considering the 2nd amendment ( Does anyone really think the framers wished to constitutionally protect sport shooting, but not baseball?) , do you even think about what you are writing? The lack of rational consideration is frightening and that doesn't mean the murderers alone, as Mr .Engelsman is stating. The 2nd amendment was written in the 18th century to protect the rights of a citizen militia who might be called to action at any moment , well regulated, not an cracked mob of gun worshipers who have nothing better to do than pontificate on the size of their guns. I believe the founding fathers would be appalled at what has been wrought in their name, especially the evil of profit at all and any cost. If the founders wished to regulate hunting rifles, etc. they might have mentioned it. Well regulated is obviously couched in terms of military use and armament.

33) Comment by mikes - 13/01/2013

"What makes these types of weapons so effective in war also makes them ideal killing tools for mass murderers. I completely agree with this statement. The fallacy in the author's logic comes in his failure to state that the sale, transport and possession of these weapons is already highly regulated and requires licensing and registration with the federal government. One must possess a tax stamp to purchase them. And, to Phill (below), your opinion "I believe these weapons are intended to not only stop an attacker but to knock off some body parts in the process" does not hold water. The ammunition for the AR15 (and M16) is a .223 round. This round is also used for hunting (as are over a dozen more powerful rounds). I am a veteran and I enjoy shooting. I am not a hunter, rather I shoot for sport. I have never heard of a .223 round knocking off any body parts. The diameter of the round is 1/1000th of and inch larger in diameter than the common .22 round. It travels at a much higher rate of speed, but the bullet itself is very small (approximately the same diameter as a pencil). I am not one of the folks who is convinced that the world is bad and everyone is out to get me. With that said, I am also enough of a realist to understand that there are crimes committed every day by criminals with firearms. I hold the rank of black belt in two different martial arts. I am able to defend myself fairly well. But if the day should ever come that I am the victim of a home invasion robbery (it has happened twice near my home - in Walker, no less), I would want to be able to utilize the same level of firepower that the criminal uses against not only me, but my wife and children.

34) Comment by ABayouBoy - 13/01/2013

A person can be the most dangerous weapon of all. And a weapon in the hands of a potential victim is a means of deterrence or defense. In the hands of a perpetrator, its just another tool to be used. My point is that its not the gun, but the person behind it, and the reason for using it. The NRA and law abiding citizens are not to blame for the actions of a few unbalanced perps.

35) Comment by agagent - 13/01/2013

Keep firearms out of the hands of criminals and the mentally-disturbed.

36) Comment by agagent - 13/01/2013

You might want to blame the murderers and not the instrument they used. Other factors come into play: Connecticut does not mandate treatment or confinement of the mentally-disturbed as a preventative; addiction to violent video games; culture of violence in movies, music, and on the internet; lack of security at schools; and being a responsible gun owner and lock up your firearms.

37) Comment by soileaub - 13/01/2013

Why cannot we all agree with the letter? I am a NRA supporter, but these weapons have no business continuing to be made and sold legally in the U.S. Can we rid ourselves of all of these guns? No way! Do we confiscate the ones already out there now? Again no way! But they do need to be outlawed and the rounds as well!

38) Comment by agagent - 13/01/2013

"In 1990, NRA made a dramatic move to ensure that the financial support for firearms-related activities would be available now and for future generations. Establishing the NRA Foundation, a 501 (c) (3) tax-exempt organization, provided a means to raise millions of dollars to fund gun safety and educational projects of benefit to the general public. Contributions to the Foundation are tax-deductible and benefit a variety of American constituencies, including youths, women, hunters, competitive shooters, gun collectors, law enforcement agents and persons with physical disabilities."--NRA

39) Comment by agagent - 13/01/2013

"In civilian training, the NRA continues to be the leader in firearms education. Over 55,000 Certified Instructors now train about 750,000 gun owners a year. Courses are available in basic rifle, pistol, shotgun, muzzleloading firearms, personal protection, and even ammunition reloading. Additionally, nearly 2,800 Certified Coaches are specially trained to work with young competitive shooters. Since the establishment of the lifesaving Eddie Eagle® Gun Safety Program in 1988, more than 21 million pre-kindergarten to sixth grade children have learned that if they see a firearm in an unsupervised situation, they should "STOP. DON'T TOUCH. LEAVE THE AREA. TELL AN ADULT." Over the past seven years, Refuse To Be A Victim® seminars have helped more than 15,000 men and women develop their own personal safety plan using common sense strategies."--NRA

40) Comment by agagent - 13/01/2013

“Assault rifle” is an ambiguous legal term. The typical short rifle for home security has less power than a typical deer rifle. Some use pistol ammunition. They are useful in home security because they are generally easier to shoot than a typical pistol, and they can be used for target shooting or varmint hunting. You would want a larger magazine for home security than what you would use for hunting, but not too large as to make the firearm difficult to handle.

41) Comment by agagent - 13/01/2013

The NRA has trained millions in firearms safety, including the training of certified military firearms instructors and certified law enforcement instructors. What liberals hate most about the NRA is that its legal status allows it to lobby for your second amendment rights.

42) Comment by agagent - 13/01/2013

Since hammers and rifles were mentioned: "WASHINGTON (CBS DC) – Annual FBI crime statistics show that more people are killed with clubs and hammers each year than by rifles or shotguns. In 2011, there were 323 murders committed with a rifle but 496 murders committed with hammers and clubs."

43) Comment by Scrooge - 12/01/2013

[e-mail] One doesn't even need a weapon to kill somebody if one knows how, but that argument and all its various versions (planes trains automobiles, knives, etc etc etc ad nauseum) is an attempt at obfuscating the primary reason for the manufacture of guns in the first place, to kill and maim life. It is as specious as saying that one buys a car but never will use it for its intended purpose. If one never intends to use a weapon for its intended purpose, why buy one? An acknowledgment of the primary, true purpose of manufacturing and owning weapons (other than creating profits for the manufacturers) might be helpful in alleviating the sheer stupidity of the argument that all things in life kill people.

44) Comment by phil - 12/01/2013

Bighug- You make a good point and I suppose we need to also allow hand grenades, rockets etc for use by the general public for protection since assault weapons will apparently not do the job? Those weapons are also allowed by the Geneva Convention rules aren't they? Also please read the last sentence of my previous comment again. Maybe another view would be to pass a law that every capable adult citizen is required to carry a hand gun in public and take training on how to use it. Where do you really want to draw the line for the benefit and protection of all, is the real question here I think.

45) Comment by nimby? - 12/01/2013

the police cannot act until a crime takes place . this is an emotional issue without a blanket solution .

46) Comment by Bighug - 12/01/2013

Where do you get the info about assault weapons, phil? Ammunition for military use in assault weapons is generally less powerful and damaging than that designed for deer hunting, and some hunting ammo is illegal for use by the military according to Geneva Convention rules.

47) Comment by phil - 12/01/2013

The writer makes a good point. I believe these weapons are intended to not only stop an attacker but to knock off some body parts in the process. They are manufactured mainly for war and serve that purpose well. Personally I would prefer to have a high-powered rifle with a scope if I ever need to actually fight for my freedom. I doubt that I could keep enough ammo around the house to fight with a semi-auto assault weapon very long. Concerning home protection, when someone breaks into my home and hears me chamber a shotgun shell, they might just decide to go back in the other direction. On this subject, I do have respect for the opinions of people who have been to war and have seen what it really is like. One other possible point. Will you (or the police) be able to fight off a large group of folks who decide to buy assault weapons for the wrong purposes? I also will add - this is a complicated issue, and I do not know what the best answer is for all.

48) Comment by RALLEN - 12/01/2013

The correct designations are AR-15 and AK-47. The man in New York who lured public servants to kill them had previously murdered his 92-year-old grandmotther with a hammer. The hammer had been his first choice. The main problem is that he had been let out of prison.

49) Comment by dday198 - 12/01/2013

so a ball peen hammer is the same as a ak15?

50) Comment by [e-mail] - 12/01/2013

I forgot to say that I am a veteran, and many of us while tactical carried personal "hideout" weapons as well as our issued ones.

51) Comment by [e-mail] - 12/01/2013

All of this nonsense about "assault weapons" is getting a little old; anything that one uses to assault a person is an "assault weapon" including hammers, clubs, etc. The great thing about this country is that Mr. Engelsman doesn't have to own a weapon at all of any sort if he doesn't want one. Blaming the NRA or weapons manufacturers is sohpistry. I don't see anyone blaming hammer makers for making assault hammers, which certainly kill many people each year, sometimes even multiple hammerings occur.

52) Comment by prbeav - 12/01/2013

Also, I wonder how many veterans agree; I hope the majority of them would agree and appreciate reading Mr. Engelsman's opinions.

53) Comment by Scrooge - 12/01/2013

Wonder how many of the assault weapon worshipers have actually seen combat?