By Peggy Tartaro,
Executive Editor

This issue of W&G contains a couple of reports on the just-concluded Shooting, Hunting and Outdoor Trade (SHOT) Show. SHOT marks the beginning of the business year for many people involved with firearms and related products and it is here that most of us get our first look at new products and old friends.

Over the course of four days, quite a lot of business and quite of lot of the acquisition of knowledge comes not just as you stop to visit an old-line manufacturer or look over the offerings of a new start-up, but in the halls themselves, in the lunch rooms, waiting for shuttle busses and the like.

I even learned something on the way home.

At Orlando airport (in my opinion, one of the worst designed of the big airports), our party of four got split up at the security gate.

John Krull, production manager of Gun Week and I went in one line, which, as your line always seems to do, was moving the slowest.

A man in his early 30s behind us in line asked if we had been at SHOT. When we replied we had, he aid it was his first time, and that he had come with "his buddy, a [gun] dealer." While SHOT is supposed to be an industry-only show, there are always "guests" of the show in evidence.

As we chatted, our line mate asked us what we made of "all the ARs," referring to the seemingly endless supply of AR-platform rifles in evidence at SHOT.

Before either John or I could reply, he continued, "I don't get why we need all these assault weapons."

Well, I've known John, lo these many years, so I considered the wisdom of giving myself up to the Transportation Security Administration, just to get out of the way.

Maybe he was mellowed by six days of gun nirvana, or Orlando's slightly better than Buffalo's weather. But John simply said, "what's your problem with them?"

To which our interlocutor replied, "We don't need them!"

"You don't need them," John said, "but maybe I do, or someone else."

Our new friend seemed to get the message and said, "I guess," and as the line moved on we lost sight of him.

It was, however, one of those little instructive moments that pop up when you least expect it.

Could we really still be debating "assault weapons" among ourselves? As old as W&G is, it's also about how long the "assault weapons" debate has been-it had been kicking around a bit, but really got off the ground in 1989, following a schoolyard shooting in Stockton, CA.

And in those two decades we've seen several states pass and keep legislation concerning the cosmetics and capacity of a whole class of rifles, as well as federal legislation come and go (thanks to a sunset provision in the original bill), with little or no effect on crime rates.

Even states which were in the forefront of "assault weapons" legislation have had to admit that the laws passed did nothing to crime rates and, as was the case before passage, "assault weapons" continue to be among the least used guns in commission of crimes.

But, sadly, the toxic phrase "assault weapon" is linked to a whole bunch of guns, based mainly on looks, even among the group of people who should know better.

Because the term is so loaded, it is likely that they will be the first on the chopping block, once (and if) the new Administration and the new Congress, both anti-gun, finish working over the financial and international scene, and get around to firearms legislation.

Contributing Editor Dave Workman has taken to referring to the AR and AR-style guns as "sport utility" rifles, a felicitous turn of phrase that others would do well to adopt.

Of course, these days, you would probably easily find an argument over a "sport utility" vehicle, but at least they are not yet called "assault vehicles," and most people, even those without engineering degrees, quickly get the sense of what you are talking about with the term.

The debate can rage from there, but at least everyone would be starting from the same page.

Peggy Tartaro

Photo © Copyright 1998 Nancy Floyd, used with permission.