Dear Community,

It may have become apparent to you that The Record is not publishing my usual article, "Munition of the Week". When I asked why, Jeanne informed me that as a European, she felt uncomfortable "promoting American gun culture" which I see as a perfectly justifiable, reasoned and valid argument- with one exception. For those of you not in-the-know, Munition of the Week is an article about guns. Guns the vast majority of people do not have access to-likely haven't seen or even heard of outside my article. Even if you don't like guns, it's always informative and usually (I hope) entertaining. While it would, at first blush, seem appropriate, this is neither the time nor place to debate the validity and/or intent of the second constitutional amendment (However, I am open to separate discussion of that topic). Instead, I'd like to focus on the first- specifically the right to free speech and free press. During the American Revolution, the Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776) stated that "the freedom of the press is one of the greatest bulwarks of liberty and can never be restrained but by despotic governments".

Working on the understanding that one should not believe everything one is told, I believe that there are many misconceptions about gun owners, partly due to actual irresponsible people, but exacerbated by the media attention garnered from their actions. While I do not chastise the media in general for reporting such occurrences -at the very least, they serve as a cautionary example to the rest of us- there is a certain type of insidious media bias which exaggerates, misrepresents and distorts the lives, habits and motives of those individuals, then generalizes and applies their state of being to the entire category of people. Anyone keeping tabs on the media for bias must be ever vigilant that their own biases don't influence their data. If television (especially news networks) is the great abyss, then be careful while gazing into it, for it gazes into you (thanks, Nietzsche!).

To understand "American Gun Culture", we must first understand European Gun Culture. It's difficult to encapsulate several centuries' worth of firearms manufacture, so I'll stick to highlighting the very important events. Handguns appeared as early as 1375 in England, spreading throughout Europe rapidly. Over the next two hundred years, European gunsmiths invented rifling (the grooves in a gun's barrel that increases accuracy by spinning the bullet), and flintlocks. Just twenty years after the settlers landed in Massachusetts bay, the French invented the bayonet, increasing the lethality of slow-to-load rifles in combat. It was their cache of European-made muskets and their colonial copies that allowed early Americans to fight for their independence from the British years later. Over the centuries since then, great improvements have been made in firearms technology by European gunsmiths, including the first practical pistols, hunting and combat rifles. Today, Europe continues this proud tradition, being home to six of the world's ten most prolific arms manufacturing companies. Sadly, recent gun laws in many countries in Europe have affected the collector and casual shooter alike, restricting them from owning even the weaponry manufactured in their own countries. I once had a German exchange student ask to go to an event at the local sportsman's club in my town so he could fire the MG42, a German machinegun from WWII. Afterward, he remarked on the irony of the situation: he had had to fly to the other side of the world to experience something manufactured in his own town.

The majority of "American Gun Culture" is centered on hunters, casual collectors and people who like going to the range (such as myself). On the whole, these are very well mannered, extremely responsible individuals. Of course, there are exceptions to everything, and gun ownership is no different. I'm sure my detractors will drag out the usual laundry list; school shootings/gun shows/video games/rock music/drugs as counterpoints. To that I say: isn't it a parent's responsibility to know if their kid is making pipe bombs in the basement? Or investigate where those long black cases in the garage came from? And doesn't that lead to questioning why those individuals feel that shooting everyone that has wronged them is the only solution? I myself have certainly felt that way-who hasn't?- but I was raised by people who taught me to temper anger with reason, and to always attempt to find a non-violent solution whenever possible. I have met parents who begin teaching their children as young as five to respect firearms not out of some sick survivalist stereotype, but because firearms-especially in Ohio-are an integral part of their heritage, and to do otherwise is simply inviting disaster.

The weapons I covered last Fall, in order are:

o Smith &Wesson 500

o M203 FLASH (Rocket Launcher)

o Napalm

o Saiga (Shotgun)

o Barrett M82 (Sniper Rifle)

o M79 (Grenade Launcher)

o General Electric XM214 (minigun)

o KRISS (Submachine Gun)

With the exception of the S&W 500 (which is still prohibitively expensive), these weapons are NOT available to the general public-by which I mean, you won't walk into a gun store and see them on the shelf, nor can you order them online- (There's a whole lot of red tape to wade through if you want to buy a grenade launcher.) Hell, in the Napalm article, I published a fully functional recipe. I expected a few raised eyebrows, at the very least. All I ever heard about it were compliments (and a few people who said that Orange Juice concentrate had worked for them).

Furthermore, keep in mind how many homicides have been caused by the weapons I featured: ZERO. No gang member or random street thug is going to be caught with something as bulky as the 500, the Saiga, the M79, or the Barrett, not to mention the paperwork to own one. The KRISS is still a prototype and will likely be military-only, as the FLASH is. As for the Minigun, you don't have to be a genius to know why that's a bad idea (but I suggest checking out my article on it for further information). And yes, you can buy the M79, but:

A. When and where are you going to use it? It's a grenade launcher! You can't exactly take that to the range, unless it's outdoors, and even then, you'll be restricted to dummy rounds.

B. Where are you going to get ammunition? The last time I checked, Wal-Mart doesn't carry 40mm high explosive grenades.

Even assuming you can get ammunition and employ your brand new grenade launcher, you just went through all that nice, shiny red tape to get it. If the ATF hears about cars with alarms that go off at 5AM suddenly and inexplicably exploding in your area, guess whose door they'll be knocking on first? Even assuming worst-case scenario, an illegally acquired weapon, the M79 (and all the other weapons I've covered) are simply too large, flashy and/or expensive for the average criminal: individual OR organization- their weaponry is usually too crummy to waste even digital ink on. The M79 is two-and-a-half feet of steel and wood, the Barrett double that and the FLASH is the size of a water cooler. Not exactly concealable or discreet. The kind of people that own these weapons (besides the military) are collectors and target shooters who go to the range once a week to relax.

Firearms aren't just a tool to gather food or defend oneself, they can be cherished family heirlooms. One of my best friends (and Antioch alumnus) has his grandfather's service pistol from World War II, which he takes to the range on occasion. I myself will one day inherit the Russian-made rifle that awarded my father the first of his three Purple Hearts in Vietnam ('66-'67) and I fully intend to have it restored and display it as a testament to the sacrifices made by the generations before me.

That brings me to warfare. Yes, some of the weapons I wrote about were used in combat. Yes, they probably killed people. Are they killing people now? No. Perhaps, to avoid any controversy, I should have skipped what I thought was interesting and written about older weapons. After all, the beachhead assaults on D-Day could not have succeeded without the M-1 Garand rifle. France could not have been liberated without the Thompson submachine gun or the M2A1-7 Flamethrower, and let us not forget that it was the production of these and other weapons which pulled America from the depths of the Great Depression. Most of the military weaponry currently in use today is simply too ubiquitous to go on about. Nearly everyone knows that the current standard-issue rifle of the US military is the M16(A2). In short, we see more than enough of the weaponry currently at war that I don't feel the need to gas on about it (excepting the occasional derision of the .223 or 9mm round), which has the added benefit of people not being mad at me for aggrandizing the wars we're currently in.

Finally, my article is primarily meant for humorous purposes. It's exactly the kind of thing one wouldn't expect to find in The Record, and that's part of its appeal. I won't deny, however, that my article could be considered useful knowledge, just in case a superior force should ever confront Antioch as a whole or even on an individual basis.

The real danger in not publishing articles like mine is in seeking appeasement so far to the political left, that soon, one has gone all the way around to the far right. In restricting the press, even a little, it creates precedent for others to exploit later. I'm sure everyone remembers the "asshole" incident from a few terms ago, and the Record's refusal to censor the article or censure the author. I can only hope that the Record will continue to uphold it's stated goal of "serv[ing] as a reliable instrument for education in civic and journalistic responsibility", as otherwise, we, the people, have lost yet another of the precious few unbiased media outlets.

My previous articles are available online here: http://mysite.verizon.net/nchojnowski/munition/oftheweek.html

Thank you for your time,

-Nick Chojnowski