Dear Senator,                                                    2-12-89

    I read with sadness the urgings of some who want to ban all manner of
guns as an "effort" to reduce senseless violence.  It would be different if
such laws were merely the ineffective yet harmless wastes of taxpayer's money
that they seem on the surface.  On the contrary, we have seen repeatedly how
such laws backfire, resulting in still more tragic loss of life.  The only
winners in this argument are those who treat the whole gun control subject as
some kind of a game where the object is to get one up on the NRA.

    It is NOT a game, and there are very real lives at stake.  I wonder how
many more children will die before we see the anti-gun zealots for what they
really are.  They are phobic fanatics who will use any tragedy as an excuse
to further their own campaign of hatred against guns and gun owners - no
matter how many lives it costs.  Lest we "overcrowd" the poor drug dealers
and violent criminals, we turn them loose on the street, and try to make up
for it by passing more useless gun control legislation.  Smugly we admit it
"won't reduce crime", but "makes a statement" against violence (and gun
ownership).

    Every time we are soothed with some sort of "reasonable compromise" law,
more freedoms, and more lives, are jeopardized.  Laws against fully automatic
weapons predictably failed to reduce crime, laws against semiautomatics will
do likewise.  So will laws against any gun, as long as criminals feel free to
ignore other laws against murder!

    Specifically, regarding semiautomatics:

    1) "Useless for hunting" - they are more rugged and dependable than most
        so-called "sporting" rifles.

    2) "Inaccurate" - I compete in shooting matches throughout the year, and
       generally do fairly well.  The top-notch shooters for accuracy in the
       100-yard matches nearly always use "assault" rifles; they are simply
       more accurate than other suitable repeaters.

    3) "Only for military use" - The U.S. Constitution, Federalist Papers,
       and numerous other-than-gun-lobby sources quite clearly document that
       U.S. people are to be armed not for target shooting or hunting, but
       for protection against tyranny from without, as well as within.  It is
       hardly to be expected that the "people" be armed with muskets, while
       our standing and foreign armies are equipped with modern arms. Indeed
       the "people" have a mandate to keep and bear arms capable of military
       use; that is what the militia is for, not as a hunting club!

    4) "Too Dangerous for the Public" - I think the average citizen could
       kill just as many people with a bolt-action or lever-action weapon,
       let alone a bottle of gasoline (heave some flaming high-octane through
       the door of your favorite church or night-club, and see if we have
       laws against high-octane fuel).  The average moron could change five
       or six ten-round magazines quickly enough to make up for absence of a
       forth-round one, as well.

    5) "Favorite Weapons of Drug Dealers" - They also like fast getaway cars;
       maybe we should outlaw cars above a certain horsepower.  I suppose if
       we outlawed their favorite shoes, we could recognize them because of
       their bare feet...what's that...you think they'd just switch to other
       shoes, or smuggle them in along with their drugs, rather than quit
       drug dealing and join the clergy?  I kind of think they will have the
       latest technology in weapons whether or not the public, or even the
       police, are allowed to be so equipped.

    6) Definitions will be bantered about, and it will be suggested that
       although their are some problems with the "wording", they can be
       ironed out later.  Perhaps the public will be stupid enough to accept
       some definition of "assault" weapons if it includes only "ugly" ones,
       or if a "phase-out" rather than an outright "ban" is proposed.  Such
       compromise is not "reasonable", nor is it acceptable.

    Whatever reason, and however well intended, when serious attempts to
reduce crime and violence become a tainted with prejudice and anti-gun
bigotry, the only losers are the thousands who will die needlessly next year.
I happen to think that those lives are more important than catering to the
phobic and unaesthetic image some individuals have of guns.


                                                Sincerely,

                                                __________________________
                                                Andrew Johnstone RPh/MD
                                                1350 E. County Line Rd. # L
                                                Indianapolis, IN  46227