The AR-15 actually stands for "Armalite Rifle" because this is the company that originally produced the design. The rifle has been the most popular rifle sold in the United States since 1963. This is often called an "assault weapon" by anti-gun groups since about 1989. It started in California to expand the definition of "assault rifle" for political purposes. [1] The term "assault weapon" is a made up term that means nothing except in political discussions. A "assault rifle" or "machine gun" refers to a military rifle capable of multiple shots with a single depression of the trigger. According to Army Intelligence document FSTC-CW-07-03-70 on page 67 in section III, part A, paragraph 68a, and reads as follows:
"Assault rifles are short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachinegun and rifle cartridges."The paragraph concludes by adding:
"Assault rifles have mild recoil characteristics and, because of this, are capable of delivering effective full-automatic fire at ranges up to 300 meters."These type of weapons have been banned since 1934 by the "National Firearms Act" that was later amended by The "Gun Control Act" in 1968 to modernize the language. The last change occurred in 1986, the "Firearms Owners Protection Act" banned new "assault rifles" to the civilian market and restricted ownership to existing weapons registered prior to 1986. This effectively banned the import of new weapons as well.
Civilians can own an "assault rifle" by registering with the ATF for a federal firearms license (FFL) and a Class 3 tax stamp. The federal government has regulated guns by the tax code. This requires a significant financial investment (Around $800) and months of probing by the government. You will even get a free visit from the ATF where I'm certain they will be interested in all of your personal philosophies. In addition, this also gives the ATF a say in how you store the weapons which is why most gun stores have burglar bars. This process and required paperwork drives most people away from getting a FFL. Another problem is due to the limited supply of weapons the cost of an "assault rifle" is very high in the tens of thousands. This makes any "assault rifle" more valuable than gold by weight.
A fully automatic weapon is difficult to fire with any accuracy because of the recoil and barrel climb. There's also the problem of the barrel overheating. The military doesn't issue full auto weapons for much else than suppressive fire. The average soldier gets a M4A1 or M16A4 which don't even have an option for fully automatic.
What has become known as an "assault weapons" is really a semi-automatic weapon with certain cosmetic features. A semi-automatic is when the trigger is pressed one round is fired, the empty cartridge is ejected, and a new round is chambered. This simple definition would include many pistols, shotguns, and rifles. [2] The images below are all semi-automatic
Their work came to focus in 1994 with the Federal Assault Weapons ban (AWB). They defined "Assault Weapon" as a semi-automatic weapon sharing two or more characteristics such as a collapsible stock, flash suppressor, bayonet mount, and pistol grip since an "Assault Rifle" was already illegal. None of these cosmetic features affect the lethality of the gun.
On top of that, "Assault Rifles" only make up 2% of the gun crimes in the United States. [4] History is littered with mad men like Charles Whitman to McVeigh willing to use a variety of methods to kill as many people as possible. In the UCR statistics for 2011 the total number of murders using a rifle of any kind accounted for only 323 murders (2.5%). Blunt objects (hammers/bats) were used 3.9% (496) of the time and personal weapons (feet/hands) 5.7% (728). These statistics show that you are more likely to be murdered by a hammer and twice as likely to be beaten to death by someone's fist. [12] The murder rate has been dropping for the last several decades and rifles aren't the primary weapon used.
Some will point out that most of the murders are done with a gun of some kind. It is true that 67% of all murders are committed with a gun. Remember, we were talking about evil "assault weapons" and not about banning all guns which has become a mantra of the gun control proponents. I can't think of a single person who would claim all murders would stop even if all guns disappeared from the Earth tomorrow. The problem isn't the weapon used to commit the crime and I would challenge anyone to show that people only kill because a gun is available to the attacker. The lack of gun ownership have not lowered the suicide rates in Japan but no one is talking about banning trains. [19]
The goal of the anti-gun crowd is to ban every gun in America and has even been repeatedly said by senators such as Feinstein (D-CA) [9] [22] Moderates have said people like Feinstein are extremist and don't matter but the problem is that Feinstein has single handedly lead the charge against guns in California and has sponsored all the anti-gun legilsation that has been proposed in the USA congress. She has even suggested making a mandatory government buy back. [21] The AWB was passed largely due to her efforts. Bill Clinton, in his memoirs, said this was the most costly political action he took since the democrats lost control of congress and perhaps the 2000 election. What she says matters because it exposes the goals of the anti-gun lobby. It also shows they are willing to sacrifice their careers over a belief.
Aside from giving a legal definition to "assault weapon", the AWB also limited all new magazines to 10 rounds and grandfathered in the existing higher capacity ones. Many of the mass shooters during the AWB just bought more magazines to get around the limitation. In Columbine, 13 (10 round) magazines on Harris and he fired over 96 shots which amounts to 73% of the ammunition he had on hand. (13X10=130 total bullets) In Virginia Tech, 19 (10 round) magazines we found and he fired over 140 shots. These planned attacks didn't seem to have any issues since a majority of the rounds were fired in each instance. It only takes a little practice to learn how to change out a magazine with some speed if you don't care where the empty one falls. This can be done with a revolver and speed loader in a few seconds.
In 1999, the National Institute of Justice released a study showing the "assault weapons" were rarely used in crime and the AWB had no impact on criminal activity. [16] In 2004, a Department of Justice (DOJ) article found that the AWB had too small of an effect to measure reliably since "Assault Weapons" were rarely used in crimes even prior to the AWB. It also stated it was not clear what affect magazine restrictions had on gun attacks if any. [4] In light of this failure it was allowed to expire.
They have been talking about the "gunshow loophole". The theory goes that criminals will go to gun shows to buy their weapons because there is no background check done. This would only be true for private individuals selling their guns. This is an absurd claim to anyone who has gone to a gun show, since most of the sellers are businesses with an FFL (and required to do a background check). The few individuals selling guns take on a liability because if their gun is used in a crime they could be held accountable. What they are proposing is requiring a background check on any private transfer of a firearm. This means that anyone who wants to buy a gun for their child would have to have two background checks performed; one for their child and one for them. It's hard to imagine why there is focus on this area when even the Department of Justice reports that a mere 1.9% of guns used in crime come from gun show or flea market. This is only the location it was bought and not whether a background check was performed. An over whelming majority of 74.6% come from illegal sources or family. (Both are about 40%) [17] The effect of implementing this "universal background check" would be so slight that it would be impossible to measure.
The only other claim by anti-gun proponents is that 40% of guns were purchased by private sales. The source of this rounded figure is a 1997 study done by the National Institute of Justice based on survey data in 1994 involving 2,568 homes and only 251 answered the question about the guns origin. The first problem is we shouldn't worry so much about where law abiding citizens get their guns but where criminals do. This survey included people who were unsure or couldn't remember if they bought from a licensed dealer. The small survey was done before background checks were required and only measured gun owners perception.
Since Newtown, there have been calls for a new AWB because initial new reports said an AR-15 had been used. Apparently, these initial reports were wrong and an "Assault Weapon" was not used in the shooting but instead was four pistols. [7] Furthermore, Connecticut already has a AWB which didn't prevent the crime from occurring in the first place. The problem is not the gun but the person committing the crime.
Often the response is usually something like, "then why have laws?" Criminals by their very nature do not follow laws and it is possible for a law abiding citizen to go to criminal in a manner of minutes. Laws are general for punishing people for doing bad things and rarely act as a deterrent. You would think since murder is illegal that it would be enough to deter someone from a mass shooting especially since it can carry the death penalty. I have yet to hear anyone argue they didn't know murder was illegal. I personally do not kill people because it is immoral. If you are one of those that don't kill because you don't have a gun then please seek help immediately from a qualified psychiatrist.
The NRA has also been taking a lot of heat for suggesting we arm teachers because of the "wild west" or accidents that will then kill our children. These are appeals to emotions and have no basis in any facts. Some Texas counties have been doing this since 2007 with no incidents. [11] If a shooter is in the building then we already have a blood bath. All the people inside can do is be killed while waiting on police to arrive. If these shooters didn't care about their victims being armed then they would go to police stations, shooting ranges, or gun shows.
Unless Steven Seagal is available, the only way to stop these attacks is by a gun. Most of these shooters crumble with the slightest resistance by committing suicide or surrendering. [8] At Newtown, the shooter had an unopposed 20 minutes to shoot. Had there been an armed guard, it is possible no life would have been lost at the school. [10] No one is claiming that these are perfect solutions but providing any resistance is better than leaving them unopposed.
The AR-15 is accurate, light weight, easy to maintain, and a low recoil make it good for sports, defense, and hunting [8]. Even the Department of Homeland security has stated that it is suitable for personal defense. [20] It was even used in this manner during the LA riots. The bullet it uses is popular and used in many other rifles. Feinsteins recent ban would affect the AR-15 and provide an exception for the mini-14 which uses the exact bullet. Anyone claiming otherwise simply refuses to learn about guns because I have yet to hear an argument that can give a good reason and didn't resort to "so everyone should have nuclear bombs?" Bombs can't be used for hunting or personal defense and no one is advocating making them legal. Even if they were legal, they cost millions of dollars and extensive knowledge to build and operate. If you could afford one, then you would probably kill yourself and all your neighbors first. Are you seriously going to wipe out a city to stop a home invasion? We call those people terrorist and they are worse than mass killers because we invade countries to get them.
The actual test of a weapon was established in US vs. Miller where the supreme court decided that the 2nd amendment protected any weapon that could be used in common defense or ordinary military equipment. This would seem to indicate that more weapons should be available to the citizens not less. In fact, in the past weapons were available by mail order and hardware store while at the same time we had less school shootings.
So do I care about saving lives? Of course but there are many other ways to work this problem. Ending the failed drug policy in the USA could be a way to fight violence because most of those murders are gang related and probably fueled by the drug trade. [13]
Another way would be to change how to treat the shooters in the media. After each event the media reports on every aspect of the life of the person. They report on the shooter more than even the victims. If you don't believe this then simply name as many shooters as you can in 10 seconds. If you remember even one person then it is just sad. Who was the person that tackled Gifford's shooter in Arizona? Who confronted and deterred the Oregon mall shooter? [15] Who prevented the shooting at a movie theater in San Antonio? The facts are the media doesn't cover these hero's in any detail and no one remembers their name. Most of those heros had stories with a couples of sentences or were omitted completely. The stories on the Newtown shooter was paginated.
(Revision 2) Sources:
1. http://saf.org/LawReviews/KobayashiAndOlson.htm
2. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323723104578185271857424036.html
3. http://www.vpc.org/studies/awacont.htm
4. http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL32842_20121114.pdf
5. http://washingtonexaminer.com
6. http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/01/13/harris-perry-ending-drug-war-may-be-best
7. http://video.today.msnbc.msn.com/today/50208495#50208495
8. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6swSM_nqCnk&feature=youtu.be&t=5m1s
9. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDTB_aXTCUs
10. http://www.timesnews.net/article.php?id=9025899
11. http://www.ncnewsonline.com/topstories/x1303497676/Texas-town-letting-teachers-carry-guns
12. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011
13. http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/01/13/harris-perry-ending
14. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hR3t7j2tUec
15. http://www.kgw.com/news/Clackamas-man-armed-confronts-mall-shooter-183593571.html
16. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/173405.pdf
17. http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/ascii/fuo.txt
18. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf
19. http://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/06/world/kunitachi-city-journal
20. https://www.fbo.gov/?s=opportunity&mode=form
21. http://www.c-span.org/Events/Democratic-Senators-Respond-to-NRA/10737436852-1/
22. http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7380236n
No comments:
Post a Comment