Counter-study in progress by anyone?

[BattleRifleG3 16]

When I read the ATF shotgun study, my first and strongest thought was that we needed a well thought out, documented, broadly reviewed and endorsed, polite, and professional study that redirects some of the discussion, counteracts some of the points, and makes new points for consideration. Not something all inclusive, but something sporting organizations, lobbying groups, and government officials can easily review and say "I agree with this study", and not excluding any other actions or positions.

 

So I thought about how I would directly respond, and I'm sure I'm not alone. So my question is, are their any organizations or prominent individuals who are doing such a study that we can support through research, supporting documentation, technical analysis, review, or distribution for review and endorsement?

 

A single, refined, direct, and compelling response will probably help in ways that other methods don't, even though other methods should continue to be pursued (ie letters, sporting events, etc).

[mike12345 18]

A quotes for you to consider, not that your study will matter.

 

In particular, the working group examined participation in and popularity of practical shooting

events as governed by formal rules, such as those of the United States Practical Shooting

Association (USPSA) and International Practical Shooting Confederation (IPSC), to determine

whether it was appropriate to consider these events a “sporting purpose” under § 925(d)(3).

While the number of members reported for USPSA is similar to the membership for other

shotgun shooting organizations,6 the working group ultimately determined that it was not

appropriate to use this shotgun study to determine whether practical shooting is “sporting” under

§ 925(d)(3). A change in ATF’s position on practical shooting has potential implications for rifle

and handgun classifications as well. Therefore, the working group believes that a more thorough

and complete assessment is necessary before ATF can consider practical shooting as a generally

recognized sporting purpose.

 

both studies concluded that the scope of “sporting

purposes” did not include all lawful activity, but was limited to traditional sports such as hunting,

skeet shooting, and trap shooting.

 

Following this review, the working

group determined that certain shotgun features are not particularly suitable or readily adaptable

for sporting purposes. These features include:

(1) Folding, telescoping, or collapsible stocks;

(2) bayonet lugs;

(3) flash suppressors;

(4) magazines over 5 rounds, or a drum magazine;

(5) grenade-launcher mounts;

(6) integrated rail systems (other than on top of the receiver or barrel);

(7) light enhancing devices;

(8) excessive weight (greater than 10 pounds for 12 gauge or smaller);

(9) excessive bulk (greater than 3 inches in width and/or greater than 4 inches in depth);

(10) forward pistol grips or other protruding parts designed or used for gripping the

shotgun with the shooter’s extended hand.

Edited February 8, 2011 by mike123456

[BattleRifleG3 16]

If everyone and his brother publishes his own "study", none of them will matter. But the fact that the NRA has responded directly indicates that prominent gun organizations have something to say.

 

The challenge is making the response compelling, ie such that people who read it can't refute it. That means keeping it specific and well documented.

 

If I found anything significant in the study it was that there are a lot of directions it could go from here.