NSSF: Aiming for Accuracy

Ruffling Our Feathers

            The Commissioner of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation was addressing the membership in attendance at the New York State Outdoor Writers Association annual fall conference.  The commissioner is the head of the state agency that includes the Division of Fish, Game and Marine Resources, and he spoke about the accomplishments of his agency and the challenges that lay ahead.  He made a point about his agency’s management efforts regarding “ruffled grouse,” and he repeated the misnomer later in his talk.

            Let’s not hang the man for his ignorance.  It wasn’t the first time we came across this mistake, even seeing it in print, but a person in charge of the agency that manages New York State’s ruffed grouse should know better.  An error like that damages credibility.           

            Hunters themselves perpetrate and perpetuate incorrect references.  “You should have seen the horns on that whitetail,” is something we’ve often heard, even though “antlers” is the correct term.  Antlers are shed; horns, typically, are permanent.

            Ever read about a hunter’s recollection of a year-old buck coming under his tree stand? We have.  Problem is deer are typically born in the spring and hunted in the fall and early winter.  According to our math, that makes the deer a half-year old.  Call it a fawn.

            How many times have you read or heard references to Canadian geese?  The correct name is “Canada geese.”

            You can only laugh to yourself when a friend or acquaintance, uninitiated to the world of hunting, asks if you “caught anything” after you return from a day afield. It’s not so funny, however, when a hunter misuses the sport’s jargon or misstates a biological fact.  Worst of all is when the media or a wildlife management official offers an inaccuracy.

            Have you come across errors like these that particularly bug you?

Excellent Video About "Assault Weapons"

Read Ted Novin's October 13 post that discusses misinformation about so-called "assault weapons" and then watch this very good video by a San Jose (Calif.) police officer who effectively explains the differences between fully automatic military rifles and semi-automatic military look-alike rifles and why there is confusion about them. View it on You Tube or below.

A Guide To Accuracy On Firearms And More

No day goes by without an inaccuracy about firearms, ammunition, hunting or target shooting being printed by the media or uttered by an individual in casual conversation. You've read them; you've heard 'em. At NSSF, we wish we could give each of the misinformed our Writer's Guide to Firearms and Ammunition to help them better understand firearms issues, terminology and how our industry is regulated. Actually, we've given away a lot of these spiral-bound reference books--to the media, bloggers, legislators, hunters and target shooters. But the more people who know about this educational tool, the better for gun owners and our industry. The online version is in the Media Resources section of NSSF's Web site. Anyone who writes or talks about firearms and firearms issues should bookmark the guide, just as you would a handy online dictionary like Merriam-Webster. Next time you read or hear someone confuse the terms "automatic" and "semi-automatic" or say "bullet" when they mean "cartridge," don't just correct them. Let them know about NSSF's Writer's Guide to Firearms and Ammunition. With your help and our booklet, we can hope that next time they'll get it right.

Time to tell the Truth about "Assault Weapons"

It seems as though everywhere we turn there are new reports and stories about so-called "assault- weapons."  Last week the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence released a report on "assault weapons," while just yesterday the Orlando Sentinel published a special report declaring, "AK-47s, other military-style assault weapons and expensive handguns have become so common that cops across the state routinely encounter suspects equipped for urban warfare, complete with 75-shot magazines and bulletproof vests."

We all know this is just one example where the mainstream media is spreading misleading information about "assault weapons" that feeds the public's fear and confusion over what these everyday firearms are -- or more aptly, are not.  So, let's clear this up right now:

So-called "assault weapons" are not "machine guns" and do not "spray" bullets as is so often alleged.  Machine guns have been heavily regulated and virtually banned since the 1934 National Firearms Act.  "Assault weapons" are simply semi-automatic firearms that function no differently than any other semi-automatic firearm (only one shot is fired when the trigger is pulled).  These guns have been legally owned and lawfully used by civilians for over a century for target shooting, hunting, self protection and collecting.  Politicians, however, have sought to ban semi-automatic firearms as "assault weapons" based on cosmetic features that have nothing to do with the way the firearm functions.  That is like banning a car based on its hood ornament.

It's also important to note that federal studies, including a 2003 study by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), prove the "assault weapons" ban did nothing to reduce crime. This study, by a government agency that could hardly be considered pro-gun, hasn't stopped groups like the Brady Campaign and misinformed members of the media from misleading Americans into thinking the law was effective.

Both the Brady study and the Sentinel article point to a decline in the percentage of "assault weapons" traced by ATF in the years after the ban went into effect.  Here's what they didn't tell you:

The number of "assault weapons" traced stayed relatively the same and it was only the number of total traces which increased dramatically (as ATF began encouraging "comprehensive tracing" or tracing of all guns that come in possession of law enforcement). So the decrease in percentage of "assault weapon" traces may be correct, but that does NOT mean that the actual number of "assault weapon" traces decreased -- a fact that should be of no surprise to anyone given the understanding that "assault weapons" are rarely used in crimes.

The gun-ban lobby understands that the confusion over what is and what is not an "assault weapon" only benefits them.  This desire, when coupled with the mainstream media need for sensationalized stories, not only hurts industry and gun-owners, but also anyone looking for a straight answer on the subject.

We leave you with this quote from Josh Sugarmann of the Violence Policy Center: "The public's confusion over fully-automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons--anything that looks like a machine gun is presumed to be a machine gun--can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons."

The truth about lead ammunition

The "issue" of whether or not it's safe and responsible to hunt with traditional ammunition (lead ammunition) has surfaced again in recent years.  Claims have been made that hunting with lead is killing scavengers (feasting on gut piles) and endangering those who eat the game.  Despite the fact that these allegations have been spread by anti-hunting groups, there is nothing wrong with taking a deeper look into the issue of lead ammunition.

Earlier this week, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) released the preliminary results of a study concerning fragmentation of lead bullets after impact.  The report showed varying results but did note that in some cases fragments traveled "further from the wound channel than many hunters might assume." 

The information in the report is good to know. Of course hunters (and for that matter butchers and processors) benefit from understanding how far ammunition fragments can travel after impact.  However, just as important is the need for hunters (and others) to understand what "exposure" to these fragments really means in terms of health and wellness.

For more than a century, millions of Americans have safely consumed big game, including whitetail deer, harvested using traditional hunting ammunition and there has never been a case of anyone suffering adverse health effects from consuming the meat.

The U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is currently conducting a study of hunters and others that have consumed game to determine whether they have an elevated level of lead in their blood that can be attributed to the ammunition used to harvest the game. Preliminary indications of the CDC study released last month by the North Dakota Department of Health (DOH), which is participating in the study, show that none of those tested had unsafe blood lead levels. In fact, according to the North Dakota DOH's press release, the readings were far below the level considered elevated for a child (10 micrograms per deciliter); let alone the level for an adult (25 micrograms per deciliter).

Now consider that the Iowa Department of Public Health has conducted an extensive panel of blood-lead testing for more than 15 years. The IDPH has stated that "if lead in venison were a serious health risk, it would likely have surfaced within extensive blood lead testing since 1992 with 500,000 youth under 6 and 25,000 adults having been screened."

Here's what it comes down to: getting more information, based on sound science, is a good thing. Taking the word of individuals and organizations tied to anti-hunting groups; well, that's not so good.

The Myth of "One-Gun-A-MONTH"

The Mayor of Jersey City, New Jersey, has been pushing hard for a "one-gun-a-month" restriction in his city. While the courts have rejected his attempts to preempt New Jersey law, the mayor is now forging ahead by lobbying the state legislature to curtail the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Garden State residents.

One-Gun-A-Month is a bad policy anyway you look at it. Not only does it rob citizens of a fundamental, consitutionally guaranteed right, but it doesn't curb crime either. Consider this, taken from an NSSF letter to the editor submitted this morning:

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the significant drop in crime during the mid-1990's coincided with more guns being in private possession and more restrictive guns laws being taken off the books. In South Carolina, one-gun-a-month was repealed (allowing for more guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens) and, like the rest of the U.S., South Carolinians experienced a decrease in violent crime. Furthermore, a recent study by the Center for Disease Control looked at the full panoply of gun control measures and concluded that none could be proven to reduce crime.

Limiting the sale of firearms to law-abiding New Jerseyians in the name of curbing violent crime is ill-conceived and, following the recent Supreme Court decision in Washington, D.C. v. Heller, it is tantamount to rationing a civil right on par with Freedom of Religion and Freedom of the Press. Read the complete letter.

In more positive news -- the Newark Star Ledger ran an editorial knocking "one-gun-a-month." It's hard not to see this success as a direct result of an earlier editorial board meeting we had with the Top 20 Newspaper.

Outspoken in Chicago

In his letter to the Chicago Sun Times, Rev. Michael L. Pfleger claims that “there is a great amount of confusion” regarding his views on gun control (“Use common sense to regulate the flow of guns,” October 1, 2008).  

Interesting, given the reverend’s outspoken bias against lawful firearm ownership and disdain for and ignorance of the Second Amendment -- all well documented.

Remember back in May, 2007, when during a protest with Rev. Jesse Jackson (outside the store of a law-abiding firearms retailer) Rev. Pfleger threatened the life of the shop owner, John Riggio. “He’s the owner of Chuck's,” Pfleger stated. “John Riggio. R-i-g-g-i-o. We're going to find you and snuff you out… you know you're going to hide like a rat. You're going to hide but like a rat we're going to catch you and pull you out." The reverend was subsequently suspended by the Church for these remarks.

Now Rev. Pfleger wants us to believe he’s “only trying to regulate firearms." Perhaps someone should tell him that there’s already an entire federal bureau who oversees the regulation of firearms from manufacturing to distribution to sale to possession.

It seems the only regulation Rev.Pfleger is interested in is the systematic destruction of all firearms. 

Before You Hunt -- Vote

To encourage sportsmen and women to vote absentee if they plan to travel out of state or be afield on Election Day, NSSF is sending a poster to shooting ranges and retailers that directs customers to www.nssf.org/VoterEd for one-click access to information about absentee voting in every state. Businesses can also download the poster and are encouraged to hang it prominently as a reminder to their staff and customers to vote. Download the Poster