I Killed My Parents

 I obviously haven't literally killed my parents, but I've done so in my mind; they're dead.  God, what sort of horrible son would think that way?

The story starts with my father, who I'd been keeping my distance from for a number of years.  Perhaps as I aged, I began to see his questionable ways and view him for the slimeball he was.  Plus, he refused to quit drinking, despite me informing him I wanted nothing to do with him in his condition; he didn't give a fuck.  For those who are thinking addiction, stop; the fucker quit drinking without consequence when he had to during the course of events.  The final straw was a drunken admission over the phone that he'd had a decade long affair with a family friend.  As a result, I visited in Florida as infrequently as possible, often going years between trips. Now is as good of a place as any to say I'm their only child.   

Then, one day in 2019, the bastard reached out to say he and my mother would need to move in with me, because he had no more money left.  It turned out he'd given his money to some incredibly unsophisticated scammers.  He only got emails from Yahoo and Gmail addresses, despite them allegedly originating from various bank officials.  He didn't perform even a minimal amount of due diligence.  As an example, he received an email (yahoo of course) from someone claiming to be the governor of the Central Bank of Turkey.  The name given did have that role...until two years before when Erdoğan canned his ass.  The scumbag even believed he was conducting no less than two online affairs with the women scammers.  He actually spoke with these two women, who claimed to be French and American.  Except one of the males found my number and called me (due to circumstances not worth going into).  This dude's accent was unmistakably sub-Saharan Africa...literally, the stereotypical Nigerian scammers.  It turned out the fuckhead had some money left, which I calculated was just enough to let them stay in their house, so long as they lived an austere existence.  I admonished him to break contact with the scammers, which he committed to do.  Of course, he lied and gave them the rest of his money.  That dumbfuck managed to let himself be scammed out of well over a million dollars!

And so, by the end of August of 2020, he'd truly exhausted his funds.  I was obviously livid.  He not only lied to me, but as their only child, fixing his fuck up fell on my shoulders.  He and my mother would need to be near me in Kansas City and remain tethered as an albatross until he died.  So I went to work, finding them an apartment, putting a deposit on same, addressing utilities, listing their house, getting them packed and addressing the things that wouldn't fit in their new apartment.  They'd both put powers of attorney in place a year before, which helped break down quite a few barriers.  They were both in poor health at this time, so I even wound up unpacking 80% of their belongings.  I took my father's car, because he was no longer safe to drive as well as informed him I would be assuming control of his finances.  The last thing I needed was him giving away the proceeds from their house.  I also adopted their dog, fulfilling a commitment I'd made that she wouldn't be surrendered back to the shelter, were they unable to care for her.  Only good thing to happen in this story...

Then, just when I thought things had settled down, my father had a brain injury that manifested itself and required emergency surgery.  The surgeon indicated his years of alcohol abuse was the main factor.  But I soldiered on and managed some sympathy for the piece of shit.  

To say my father put me through hell would be a massive understatement.  

Ultimately, things did settle down and I continued to manage their money.  The funds received from the house were eaten into pretty quickly by a massive IRS bill my father had racked up, along with other debts accumulated as the result of him sending everything he had liquid to the scammers.  I also paid their rent from this account, and most of their other monthly costs.  For the sake of my mother, we'd have dinner together on Sunday evenings.  

Unfortunately, I became unemployed and after I'd burned through everything else, I wound up borrowing from the account.  My father consented to this; after the hell he put me through, the least he could do was float me a short term loan.  

Once we'd moved from KS to NC, my father became somewhat vocal about wanting control of his funds back.  I obviously declined and informed him he would have zero safety net from me if that happened.

By the time I was working again, he'd become downright nasty and obsessive over regaining control of the funds.  Before I'd even received a full paycheck, he retained counsel to send me a letter demanding the remaining funds and revoking my powers of attorney for both parents.  It was at that moment they absolved me of any responsibility with respect to their well being.  Gave all your money to scammers again and you're gonna be homeless?  Not my problem and there's no way in hell you're living with me.  Find a good refrigerator box, asshole.

So, I complied with his attorney's dumb letter, which threatened shit that wasn't even legal (he must have been cheap), and sent a check for the remaining funds and began repayment, fulfilling the commitment I'd made.  Conspicuously absent from the attorney's letter was the amount I owed, so I did the calculation and mailed it to the slimeball (father, not attorney).  For the sake of simplicity, I'll use round numbers that don't remotely resemble the actual figures.  Let's say the house had $100k equity in it.  $50k had been spent on the costs I noted above, I borrowed $20k, leaving $30k in the account.  I mailed him a check for the $30k, leaving the $20k I owed.  My father was livid, insisting I owed not $20k, but $70k (the proceeds from the house less the check I'd sent).  I declined to engage, as he was either delusional or attempting to steal from me.

Next came the email, threatening me with a lawsuit in which he'd make sure any and all of my assets were seized, particularly my Porsche, and sold at auction.  He's been so jealous of my having one, that he obsesses over it, going to far as to type Porsche in red font (the car is red).  This email was downright nasty and again, threatened me with shit that doesn't happen.  I reminded him of the various expenditures I'd made on his behalf, to which he responded "prove it".  Once again, I disengaged, this time with a hearty "go fuck yourself".

He made good on his promise and a few weeks later, I received a registered letter containing a civil suit that had been filed on his behalf by a different attorney.  The suit is nothing short of ridiculous, having no basis in reality.  It alleges the POA's were granted to assist in selling their house and that I refused to turn the funds over, when they were received, despite repeated demands to do so. (yeah, no shit, scammer dumbfuck)  That I deprived them of the funds that were desperately needed.  Furthermore, because of the dollar amount involved, I'm automatically guilty of fraud, making me liable for punitive damages.  Can we stop a moment and reflect on the wisdom of filing a fraudulent lawsuit against literally your only lifeline, at a time when your health is in steep decline?  Quite a bold strategy.  And never mind that he'd be homeless or dead had I not stepped in.  But it was clear from the few final email exchanges he wanted to inflict as much pain as possible on me, making a statement to the effect of he may have to pay attorney's fees, but it'll be worth it to punish me more.  

After my initial "what the ever loving fuck?" reaction, I started laughing at the suit because I got the receipts that prove he's a lying fuck.  I deprived him and my mother of needed funds?  Here are the records that say otherwise.  I spent an hour with an attorney, who explained the answer process and how to submit one.  With that, I penned said answer to the suit and it left nothing out.  My goal was to make it clear to opposing counsel the suit was DOA, bordering on fraudulent, and if pursued, I would ensure my attorney pulled out all the stops to destroy the liar's and subject him to the maximum level of humiliation.  I can't imagine his attorney would advise him to pursue the matter further, but it's honestly a toss up whether he accepts that sort of advice.  Worth noting is my father had been showing signs of early onset dementia for some time.  I'm convinced he's had a complete break with reality.  I don't give a shit though.  Doesn't matter why your leopard has become a face eating leopard, you keep it the fuck away from you.     

This leads me back to killing my parents.  Saying they died the day they filed their bullshit suit just didn't resonate, because it's implied that you mourn when your parents die.  I'm not fucking doing that.  However, if you kill someone, it's pretty much a given you despise them and want them gone; mourning isn't in the equation.  

For the record, I have no interest in actually killing my parents, nor do I wish them dead.  I don't wish them anything because they've ceased to exist to me.  

GVA Lazy

 Disregard this post, unless you care about mass shootings by state over the past three years.  I did this because Gun Violence Archive was too lazy to do it themselves.

Mass Shootings Deux

Last night, there was yet another mass shooting, this time in Illinois, where at the the moment, reports are 1 dead and 20 wounded.  

On June 7th, one occurred in my home town of Richmond, Virginia.  Two people were killed and another five were wounded.  I'd actually begun writing this after that incident, but knew I wouldn't have to wait long for another one, making this a more timely entry.

May 23rd saw a mass shooting in Florida's Hollywood Beach that injured four.  

There was a mass shooting (actually mass murder) on April 15 in Dadeville, Alabama that took four lives and wounded an astonishing thirty two others.  

Each was quickly met with the standard outcries from the left of "we need more gun control" and "ban assault weapons now!"  

Then, these shootings disappeared from the media and the minds of most people, except the victims, obviously.  Hell, the one last night in Illinois didn't cause a ripple on social media today.  I saw its first mention from fucking Gateway Pundit, of all places, and not until almost 1 p.m.  In contrast, the shooting in Nashville, back in March, still has a fair amount of mindshare, for some reason.  

This entry is about why the disparity exists.  

First, it may be a good time to go back and review the definitions of what constitutes a mass shooting versus a mass murder.  You can find my entry on the topic HERE, along with some spoilers for this entry.  The short version is a mass murder is typically characterized by a lone gunman "lost boy", who wants the world to know he's important.  These are exceedingly rare.  While the Dadeville shooting was technically a mass murder, I'm calling it a mass shooting, for reasons that will become clear.  

The mass shootings that have become all too common all tend to fit in a mold.  The the shooter and intended victim know each other and have had some sort of disagreement or ongoing feud.  The shooting takes place in a public place, typically during a celebration, with or without alcohol present.  The shooter rarely owns the gun(s) used legally and they're always handguns.  The shooters obviously can't take their illegal guns to shooting ranges, so they can't hit shit, resorting to spraying an area with bullets, which is why there are multiple injuries / fatalities.  The shooters and victims are typically lower income.  When a shooting happens, I'll make these predictions, then look like The Amazing Kreskin, when I'm proven right.  

A lot more people are dying as a result of the these sorts of shootings, but why don't they receive the same amount of attention as mass murders?  I've narrowed it down to two reasons; racism and inconvenience.  Oh yeah, I'm going there.  

These events are inconvenient because they don't fit a specific narrative.  You see, there are people who believe semiautomatic rifles are the root of gun violence.  It doesn't matter that they're only used in ~2% of all firearm homicides, these people want them banned.  Because these events almost universally involve handguns, not rifles, they don't allow the assault weapon haters to further their agenda.  In fact, because the shooters largely can't legally own a gun in the first place (they're typically stolen), there's no fodder for supporting any further measures to restrict the public's access to purchase guns.  

One common factor I haven't mentioned is that these events are almost universally black shooters attacking black victims.  To be blunt, I don't think many white people, or black people in some cases, care about poor blacks killing other poor blacks.  Based upon my exposure to the far right, I think there's a non insignificant portion of our society that sees these crimes as either "that's what blacks do because they're animals" or "a couple more dead blacks is a good start".  Yes, there are plenty of people who, in 2023, still view blacks as inferior and savages.  Besides, it's not as though white people have much to be concerned about, in terms of being caught up in one these melees.  

But why do these things happen and can those factors inform how we stop these horrific events from taking place?  As I've considered these question, my mind has gone a few different places, opening up further questions.  First, because these targeted killings take place out in the open, there has to be an expectation on the perp's part that he'll be caught and be punished with jail time.  So, what causes them to still pull that trigger?  In my opinion, there are two potential reasons.  First, they see their lives as not having value in the first place; that their future seems hopeless, so going to jail is neither a bad nor a good outcome.  The second is that black culture is similar to those who settled the South in that a perceived sleight is a sufficient and valid reason to kill someone.  Your honor must be defended at all costs.  Fixing these issues requires a societal change, something I'm not an expert on.  Perhaps, someone who is can take the torch.

This entry is part of my "Gun Series" that focuses on providing insight into the gun debate and gun violence.  You can find the other entries in the series HERE.  

About the author: Sean R is a recovering conservative who owns a consulting firm specializing in strategic marketing.  He's been a competitive shooter since the early 90's and holds a High Master classification in PPC and a Master classification in USPSA.  Additionally, he's served as an instructor for gun safety and competition courses.  He lives in Raleigh, North Carolina with his overly vocal white dog, Sadie.

It's The Guns - The Finale

IT'S THE GUNS!!! 

In every discussion about some noteworthy shooting, someone throws out the above talking point.  I've done some analysis in the past, but decided to update my numbers as well as add my own $.02 on the subject.  

I'll begin by stating the obvious, which is the US has a higher level of gun related homicide than most other non-third world countries.  Who gives a shit?  No other country represents a proper comparison to the US.  Europe doesn't matter because they were all monarchies until WWI.  How many other countries have the right to own guns enshrined in their constitution?  You can read a lot more on the US gun culture HERE.  We have more homicides committed with guns; deal with it.

I'll throw out the chart below, which provides a graphic representation of gun ownership versus gun homicides per 100k capita.  You'll note gun ownership hasn't significantly changed in the past 30 years, although it's been slowly trending downward.  Homicides were pretty damned high in the late 80's, then trended downward, settling into a nice valley from 2009 through 2014, then beginning to climb again in 2015.  The jump has been dramatic, too; a 44% increase between 2014 and 2021.  

How does that compare with gun ownership?  Reviewing the six year period from 2009 through 2014, average gun ownership was 41% and gun related homicides per 100k averaged 3.6.  Compared to the six year period from 2016 through 2021, where average gun ownership remained at 41%, but the per 100k average jumped to 5.  

Perhaps a more granular view would be of value.  I think most of us have seen maps similar to the one below, which invariably show southern states as having the highest murder rate per capita.

The message has been the more lax the gun laws, the greater the homicide rate.  But is that true?

To find out, I decided to compare states using three metrics:  

Gun ownership - Supposedly, more guns, more homicides

Murder rate / 100k capita

Giffords Law Center rankings - This provides a benchmark of how tough or lax gun laws are in a specific state.  It's a simple 1-50 ranking; the higher the number, the further toward the bottom, the less stringent the gun laws are.

For the purposes of this particular exercise, I used the 6.6 / 100k average noted on the above map.  Below is what shook out for me.  The first column represents the top 20 states in terms of gun ownership.  The second has the bottom 10, plus a few states I was interested in.  Red highlighting means the state's murder rate is above the national average, yellow indicates it's above but close, red means it's above the national average.

As you review this information, I'll call your attention to a few noteworthy items.  First is how wide the range is in terms of gun ownership.  From Montana, where over half of the population owns them down to NJ, where less than one in five have a gun.  The top five states in terms of gun ownership are near the bottom of the Giffords ranking, yet are at or below the national murder rate average.  There are a few other gems, such as the Dakotas and Kansas.  To be clear, they're gems solely for this metric and literally no other way.  On the flip side, you've got low gun ownership / high Giffords ranking states, such as PA, MI, DE, and IL that still have high murder rates.  And look at NH, which Giffords ranks in the bottom half of states for Draconian gun laws, yet has the lowest murder rate of all.

What does all of this mean?  Well, it's certainly clear that high gun ownership and lax gun laws don't always mean higher murder rates.  In fact, the data suggests it's not the guns.

So, what is it?  I've been reading a few articles that point to factors you may not see coming.  I've already begun work on that entry and hope to have it published by end of week.  This is a complex subject without simple answers.

This entry is part of my "Gun Series" that focuses on providing insight into the gun debate and gun violence.  You can find the other entries in the series HERE.  

About the author: Sean R is a recovering conservative who owns a consulting firm specializing in strategic marketing.  He's been a competitive shooter since the early 90's and holds a High Master classification in PPC and a Master classification in USPSA.  Additionally, he's served as an instructor for gun safety and competition courses.  He lives in Raleigh, North Carolina with his overly vocal white dog, Sadie.

Another ATF Dickstravaganza

 While I'm ranting about the ATF being goat fucking asshats over pistol braces, I thought I'd chime in on another subject where they eagerly blew donkey dicks.    

In the pistol brace entry, I mentioned tax stamps and how they were required for any NFA item.  What you're probably not aware of is that you can build your own silencer, which uses the same approval process as a short barreled rifle; the creatively named Form 1.  I began building my own silencers while I was waiting for my "store bought" unit to clear ATF waiting hell.  A store bought suppressor takes close to a year for approval, whereas a Form 1 is closer to 30 days.  

Building your own didn't require you to have a machine shop, because various manufacturers made the components to build your own.  However, they were marketed as solvent trap parts and not drilled, so they were legal.  The ATF even said so.  Once you drilled through the cups and end cap, you had a silencer.  Various vendors even sold drill jigs to make sure your holes were properly centered.  Of course, my fellow enthusiasts (because of course there was an internet message board or two devoted to the hobby) and I dutifully waited for our Form 1's to be approved before we started drilling or even ordering parts.  We were online talking about silencers which made us ripe targets for the jack booted thugs.  None of us wanted the felony conviction, thanks.  Again, EVERY SILENCER I'VE BUILT HAS AN APPROVED FORM 1. Is the microphone on?

One of the other enthusiasts dropped the money for a real dB meter and some major innovation began taking place.  New cone designs were yielding amazing performance.  A few I built are ridiculously quiet, even using it on a high powered rifle.

And then, the ATF decided a particular vendor ventured too close to selling silencers, because he sold kits, with the cones center market and jigs.  This poor guy lost everything and was sentenced to serious jail time, because ATF fucking sucks and is fucking capricious.  And then, they got ugly.  Others had gone under, but it was different this time, because ATF went through his customer list.  I had been a customer, so I received an intimidating letter from the special douchebag agent in charge of the Detroit field office, informing me I may have committed a felony and I had 30 days to surrender the parts, which were now considered silencers themselves.  I worked it out, because the parts had already been consumed to build approved Form 1 silencers and my dog didn't get shot.  The agent I spoke with was actually quite pleasant; I told her she wasn't a big enough asshole to work for ATF.  (They know they're hated, so she accepted the compliment.)

The ATF had changed their interpretation of what a silencer was and it was so broad that if I bought a potato, with the intent of shoving it on the end of the barrel of a gun, it was a silencer and I committed a felony the moment I left the grocery store.  If you were a machine shop and bought bar stock to build your approved silencer, that bar stock was technically a silencer, according to the ATF.  And suddenly, Form 1 submissions required schematics of your planned build.  I heard a few people wrote that they hadn't even thought about it, to stay legal, and they would procure raw material from a titanium mine.  

With this capricious decision, the Form 1 salad days ended.  The best vendors closed up shop and technology has returned to the most rudimentary.  

All of that being said, I'm fully aware that those of us who earnestly tried to remain within the law (whatever it was at the moment) represented perhaps 10% of those who were building their own cans.  I'm also fully aware a previous ATF director testified that silencers shouldn't even be on the NFA.  The only way they're lethal is if you bean someone over the head with one. 

So, there's another example of why I oppose laws pertaining to limiting shooting equipment; they provide the ATF with further fodder to screw the shooting community.

This entry is part of my "Gun Series" that focuses on providing insight into the gun debate and gun violence.  You can find the other entries in the series HERE.  

About the author: Sean R is a recovering conservative who owns a consulting firm specializing in strategic marketing.  He's been a competitive shooter since the early 90's and holds a High Master classification in PPC and a Master classification in USPSA.  Additionally, he's served as an instructor for gun safety and competition courses.  He lives in Raleigh, North Carolina with his overly vocal white dog, Sadie.

Addressing Gun Violence

I've been pretty vocal about what won't work to curb gun violence, which has led a few folks to challenge me on what I think would be effective.  In my opinion, there are larger societal issues that require addressing that would yield greater benefits than screwing with gun laws.  But, no one wants to talk about them, so I guess we'll address the symptoms and skip the cure for now.

My suggested gun measures generally fall into two categories; preventing the wrong people from getting their hands on them and heading off unwanted behavior, once guns are in hand.  

These require a bit of give and take from both sides, but I think they'd yield dividends.

Keeping Guns Out Of The Wrong Hands

Minimum Age To Buy a Gun - 21...this seems like a no brainer to me.

Expanded Background Checks Required For ALL Gun Purchases - Apparently, there are still states (including my own, NC) where private gun sales aren't required to go through an FFL and thus, have a background check performed.  That's fucking batshit!  The "expanded" part would involve including things such as mental health issues, sealed or expunged criminal records, and protection orders.  So many crimes are pled down to lesser offenses that don't trip the threshold for failing a background check.  This measure is probably the most important, but will require a major expenditure on infrastructure to link everything.  

Stronger Measures to Prevent and Prosecute Straw Purchases* - A not insignificant number of the guns used to commit felonies, including murder, are obtained illegally and straw purchases are one method used by these criminals.  ATF has been doing spot checks, where individuals have bought a bunch of the same gun in a short period.  

Safe Storage Laws With Stiff Penalties For Violations - If you have guns and kids at home, they should be locked up, period (the guns, obviously; kids are optional).  Anyone whose kid commits a crime with that gun will automatically be charged with the same crime, but as an adult.  If the police are required to visit the home and see a gun not locked up, the owner may be charged.  Oh, it's a felony that's ineligible for a plea deal.

Optimize Conduct For Those Who Own Guns

Mandatory Training for New Gun Buyers - Standardized training and curricula, to include basic gun safety, base level laws (i.e. is transporting your gun in a box on your car's back seat legal?), and most importantly, a lengthy presentation showing gunshot wounds from both handguns and rifles.  This could also work to keep guns out of the wrong hands, because the instructor would have the latitude to fail a student if they acted in an erratic or suspicious manner (i.e. an instructor told me of a student who asked him about shooting police dogs and why couldn't he.  GONE).

National Concealed Carry Permit w/ Standardized Training Process - If you intend to carry a gun, you should be required to understand the applicable laws specific to lethal force, and demonstrate your ability to safely handle and shoot a gun.  Like the new buyer training, the curricula should be standardized.  I've been force to take carry classes in KS and NC; the KS one was a joke but I was impressed with the course in NC.  Passing gets you a concealed carry permit that's good across all 50 states.  

End Constitutional Carry - Fun fact on one of the many downsides:  Constitutional carry is state specific, so you still can't carry in federal no gun zones.  For example school, zones (1,000 feet radius around the facility) are defined in US code.  That means if you drive by a school with a gun in your possession, you're committing a felony.  

Red Flag Laws -  If someone has clearly become a danger to themselves or others, they shouldn't be in possession of guns, period.  Also, if you have a PFA against you, your guns are confiscated until the case is adjudicated.  If the PFA's duration lacks an end date, cope harder.  The danger with this one is it could be abused by vindictive sorts.  

Common Sense Extras
Allocate Resources for Mental Health Access in Schools - The GQP, who claims there's a mental health crisis, consistently shoots this measure down.  Let's stop fucking around with our kids, shall we?

Removal of Silencers** and SBR's From The National Firearms Act (NFA) - Silencers aren't deadly unless perhaps if you bludgeon someone with one.  Even one of the heads of the ATF indicated they should be removed from the NFA.  Worth mentioning is the approval time for a silencer is a YEAR or more, which is bullshit, no matter what your position on guns. Short barreled rifles are another stupid one; if you have a carry permit for your pistol, why can't you carry an SBR (that you can't conceal anyway)?  

Fuck the ATF - These rat bastards are becoming more draconian every year, by changing the rules or making them up on the fly, resulting in law abiding citizens becoming felons, literally overnight.  They just changed the criteria for who was considered a gun dealer and it's so broad as to include half of gun owners in the country.  I guess the measure would be to strip their power to constantly reinterpret gun laws in order to boost their arrest numbers and generally be douche canoes.  

Perhaps the last two aren't common sense to non gun owners, but they'd mean a lot to those of us who own guns and could serve as sufficiently solid concessions in order to gain traction on passing measures the 2A crowd wouldn't like.  

* Straw Purchase - When a person who'll pass a background check purchases guns in order to resell to those who would be denied.  Also used as a way to bypass local gun restrictions (i.e. Indiana residents buying guns and selling them to Chicago residents).

** Silencers don't make a gun silent, as Hollywood would lead you to believe.  I own a suppressed 300 Blackout AR-15 rifle, with a Form 1 silencer that's been specifically designed for the cartridge mounted to it.  The combination is documented to be in the 120 dB range and is the quietest option out there.  For reference, a commercial jet taking off is about the same loudness.  Car horns average 110 dB.  A suppressed rifle round measures 132 dB with a really good suppressor on it, which is the same sound level as a jackhammer.  Also, a rifle round creates a sonic boom (sounds like a crack) because it breaks the sound barrier.  

This entry is part of my "Gun Series" that focuses on providing insight into the gun debate and gun violence.  You can find the other entries in the series HERE.  

About the author: Sean R is a recovering conservative who owns a consulting firm specializing in strategic marketing.  He's been a competitive shooter since the early 90's and holds a High Master classification in PPC and a Master classification in USPSA.  Additionally, he's served as an instructor for gun safety and competition courses.  He lives in Raleigh, North Carolina with his overly vocal white dog, Sadie.

Pistol Braces For Dummies

Or The ATF Fucks Donkeys

TL;DR - A pistol brace does make the AR-15 a steadier platform when compared to one configured in a manner that literally no one does. 

 The combination of another mass shooting with House hearings on pistol braces has sparked a lot of discussion, mostly between those who don't understand what they are and how they're used.  This will be the abbreviated and simplified version of the story.  I hope you'll find it somewhat useful.

Our story goes all the way back to 1934, when the National Firearms Act was passed.  Firearms subject to the NFA included shotguns and rifles having barrels less than 18 inches (later changed to 16") in length, certain firearms described as “any other weapons,” machine guns, and firearm mufflers and silencers.  The condensed version is it was meant to tightly regulate the weapons favored by gangsters at the time, along with a few others thrown in because who the fuck knows.  In order to legally own one of these items, you were required to have a tax stamp from the ATF.  It's literally a stamp and it cost $200 in 1934, which was a ton of money.  A tax stamp still costs $200 today.  Possessing an item on the naughty list is a felony, with real federal jail time.

Based upon the above criteria, any rifle with a barrel length under 16" (and other criteria I don't care about) is considered a short barreled rifle (SBR).  However, if no stock is present (a bare buffer tube), the gun is considered a pistol.  The only people I've seen shoot a gun with a bare buffer tube are complete dimwits, because you can't hit shit. 

At some point in the past decade or so, a manufacturer designed a pistol brace for use by disabled persons that would allow them to shoot an AR-15 using one arm.  

On the left is a picture of the brace alone with the one below illustrating the proper use of the brace. 

The original manufacturer submitted the design and documentation to the ATF for consideration and received approval.  This arrangement allowed a barrel shorter than 16" to remain categorized as a pistol.  

In reality, while the brace could be used for its intended purpose, it was a workaround to avoid having to register a gun as an SBR and pay $200 each.  Everyone knew it and the ATF even issued an opinion that guns with braces could be "fired from the shoulder occasionally".  And millions of braces are shouldered on the occasion the guns they're on get fired.  

Then came the Boulder supermarket mass murder, where the shooter used an AR-15 with a pistol brace and President Biden lost his shit about it because, being frank, he doesn't know shit about guns.  But he communicated that he wanted them gone.  And so, ATF decided almost overnight, that the device they had approved would be a felony.  We're currently within a 120 day period where brace owners must take action by either surrendering or destroying the brace, or because ATF is so kind, you can register your gun as an SBR.  Obviously, the fourth option is fuck the ATF and continue to use the gun as is.  I've heard some are planning to SBR every fucking gun they own for free, because fuck the ATF.

Does a pistol brace make an AR-15 more lethal by making it a steadier firing platform?  When compared to the pistol arrangement pictured above, absolutely.  However, only complete morons shoot their AR equipped in that manner (with a bare buffer tube).  You know what makes an AR-15 even more steady?  A rifle stock like the one to the left.  You can buy a stock for under $20 and install it on a buffer tube in 15 seconds. That's the real alternative to a pistol brace.   

One might argue that doing so would make the person a felon, by creating an SBR, to which I'd point out, if they're planning on committing mass murder, they probably don't care.  

Oh, if I've been unclear, FUCK THE ATF

This entry is part of my "Gun Series" that focuses on providing insight into the gun debate and gun violence.  You can find the other entries in the series HERE.  

About the author: Sean R is a recovering conservative who owns a consulting firm specializing in strategic marketing.  He's been a competitive shooter since the early 90's and holds a High Master classification in PPC and a Master classification in USPSA.  As an instructor, he taught courses in gun safety and competition.  He lives in Raleigh, North Carolina with his overly vocal dog, Sadie.

Gun Homicides: The Numbers

Preface:  I'm a shooting enthusiast and competitor who recognizes we have some issues related to them in our country.  As a professional marketing exec, I'm very data driven and make decisions based on facts.  Finally, I'm a marginally talented blogger with some shit to say.  So, digging in to gun related data and writing about guns in general is a natural extension for my blog.  I write about things that interest me and do so for my own enjoyment.  So, I don't have the first clue how to monetize what I've written and have no interest in doing so.  My only goal is those who read my blog feel as though their time was well spent or at least not wasted. 

A word on suicides:  In my opinion, suicides are completely different animals than homicides, because they're self-inflicted.  The motivation for taking your own life is dramatically different from that of taking another's, so I don't include them in my numbers.  

Gun Homicides:  The Numbers
Like most other folks, I hear about the gun violence problem in the media and have become concerned.  We're bombarded by the message that thousands of people are being gunned down in mass shootings every day.  I wanted to understand if this was true or bullshit, so I spent a lot of time slicing, dicing, and validating gun related homicide numbers.  Some of my results can be found in several previous entries, but it's become so spread out, I have difficulty remembering where or if I shared a certain tidbit.  I've decided the stats deserve their own entry that can be referred to as needed and updated as I receive new data.  

I'll begin with some basic data, followed by info on mass events, and finish up with semiautomatic rifles.  I've tried to be light on commentary and heavy on charts and graphs; it's still long.
Sources and methodology are cited at the end to avoid cluttering the thing up.  I apologize that some of the visuals may run large; there's a lot of info.  Also, while I may have a certain position on guns, data doesn't lie.  The material below hasn't been massaged to affect a desired outcome; I've been willing to let it take me wherever the truth lie.  

Chart 1 shows gun related homicides by year, from 1988 through 2021, represented in both absolute numbers as well as per 100k.  You can see the murder rate was much higher in the early 90's, then dropped precipitously until it settled at its lowest between 2009-2014.  From that point onward, it's been on an upward climb.

Chart 1

Chart 2 represents gun ownership versus gun homicides per 100k during the same period.  Gun ownership has only varied by about 24% whereas homicides per 100k has swung more than 50%.  Since 2017, the murder rate has increased 27%, whereas gun ownership is unchanged, save the small dip in 2019.  

Chart 2

Gun Related Homicides by Firearm Type
Table 1 shows gun related homicides by year from 2012 through 2021.  The raw data that came from the FBI included a significant number of "Firearm Not Specified".  This spreadsheet shows how I allocated that chunk across the Handguns, Rifles, and Shotguns (complete methodology at the end).  The FBI has indicated the 2021 figures were understated; apparently, they changed reporting methods and not all LE organizations were signed up yet.  

Table 1

Chart 3 is a visual representation of the data.  NOTE:  Rifles means ALL rifles; assault rifles will be a subset of that number and addressed below. 

Chart 3

Table 1.5 is a clean version of the calculations in Table 1, with the addition of homicides committed by all other weapons, for context.  Apologies if it's a bit of an eye chart.

Table 1.5

Mass Murders / Mass Homicides and Mass Shootings

The figures below use the FBI's definition for mass homicides and the generally accepted definition of mass shooting.  I previously devoted an entry to the topic which you can find HERE.    As you'll see, the number of fatalities from mass events is a pretty small chunk of the total.  They fluctuate between 1.6 - 4.2% of total gun related homicides.  Mass murders run between 0% and 0.7% of gun related homicides.  

Table 2 shows the stack up of mass shootings, mass murders, and others by year.  Chart 4 shows the same data in, you guessed it, in a graphical format.    

I must admit to being surprised, when I put this data together for the first time.  We've been conditioned to believe a false reality.

Table 2

Chart 4

AR-15's

Everyone wants to see the data on AR-15's because it's the evil black rifle and kills a small town every week.  I have a feeling some are in for a bit of disappointment.  The data for mass murders is known, whereas the percentage of the whole has been calculated, using the best logic I could conjure while on the throne.  I outline the methodology below.

NOTE:  For mass homicides, I've lumped all semiautomatic rifles together in the AR-15 bucket.  This  consolidates a bit of a spread out category, so I'm not forced to break out AK47's, SKS's, AR-10's, etc.  Also, it would be intellectually dishonest not to do so.  For reference, the number of incidents since 2000 would have dropped from 35 to 25, with the number of fatalities going from 413 to 295. 

Since we're talking about mass events, I'll start there.  

Graph A shows the breakdown of fatalities in mass murders by use of AR's versus other guns.  The AR number is much smaller than many think it is.  Note that it didn't become popular until very recently; many believe its use began to spike immediately following the Assault Weapons Ban's sunset.  You can clearly see the impact of the Pulse Nightclub in 2016.  In 2017, the numbers were particularly high as well, due to the Vegas Strip and Texas First Baptist killings.    

Table A provides the detail, except I limited it to the last ten years.  

Graph A

Table A

School Mass Homicides using AR-15's, while horrifying, aren't as common as some would lead you to believe.  There have been five of them.

1989    Stockton Schoolyard Shooting                    6 fatalities

2012    Sandy Hook Elementary                              27 fatalities  
2018    Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School    17 fatalities
2022    Robb Elementary, Uvalde                            21 fatalities

2023    Nashville Covenant School                          6 fatalities

There have been 15 school mass homicides where an AR-15 (or similar) wasn't used, with a total of 126 fatalities.

(updated 3/27/23)  

AR-15:  Overall Impact

Finally, let's circle back to where we started and revisit the overall numbers.  Table B below has the same data as Table 1.5, except I've broken the rifle numbers into AR and non-AR homicides.  The breakout numbers are calculated; methodology at the bottom.  The numbers are inflated, in my opinion, but I wanted to avoid claims I was working an agenda.  Graph B is the visual representation of the chart.  Note how other homicide methods compare to the AR-15.  More people are killed with knives and blunt objects per year than semiautomatic rifles.  On a positive note, fewer people are being strangled to death every year. Again, apologies for the eyechart.

 

Table B

Graph B

One omission some may identify in these numbers is the category of school shootings.  While I think school shootings are particularly heinous, there's no solid data on them, beyond the mass murders I mention above.  The listings of school shootings I've reviewed are rather broad in their definition of what a school shooting is, perhaps to boost the numbers in support of a particular narrative.  To me, a school shooting is when an outsider or student enters the school with the intent of killing others.  Someone being shot in a school parking lot at midnight or a student accidentally firing the gun in their backpack are not school shootings.  Unless a solid data source comes my way, I prefer to avoid the topic altogether, from an analysis perspective.  

Sources:
Chart 1 & 2:  CDC data, Violence Policy Center: Gun Ownership in America, November 2022

Table 1 & 1.5 and Chart 3:  Homicide data - FBI

Table 2 and Chart 4:  CDC, Gun Violence Archive, Mother Jones mass murder database

If you pick through the various FBI pages, you can find the old spreadsheets, such as the one I used as my base.  However, a few years ago, they migrated to a crime explorer that sucks, because you can't mass download data.  https://cde.ucr.cjis.gov/LATEST/webapp/#/pages/home

My data is a combination of spreadsheets I'd downloaded as well as hand copying data from the explorer.

Mass murder data - Mother Jones Database

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data/

Note: MJ includes mass events with 3 fatalities to be a mass murder versus the FBI's definition of 4 fatalities.  My version of the database has been scrubbed accordingly.  

Mass shooting data - Gun Violence Archive

https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/

Methodology:

Table 1 - You can see where I tried to integrate what was in the "Firearms, type not stated" bucket, which represented a not insignificant number.  For example, it was 3,300 in 2019.  The logic I used was if handguns represent X percent of the grand total, then I'll consider handguns to be X percent of the Not Stated as well.  I did the same with rifles and shotguns.  There are still a lot of "other" guns unaccounted for, but I didn't want to run the risk of skewing the data in such a way to make it not meaningful, if my logic was wrong. 

Table 1.5 includes my numbers calculated in Table 1, along with a pure extract of straight FBI data.

Graph 2 - CDC data

Table 2 - Because GVA's mass shooting number includes the MJ mass homicide number:
Total homicides - mass shootings = non mass events (other)

Mass shootings (GVA) - mass homicides (MJ) = true mass shootings

Chart 4 - data came directly from Mother Jones Mass Shooting database.  

Table B - AR-15 related fatalities were calculated in the following manner:

        AR Fatalities = 

        Total Rifle fatalities - 100 to account for hunting accidents; AR's are rarely used in hunting

        Subtotal x .7 (which I think is being incredibly generous)

        + Fatalities from mass murders where AR-15 was present

    

4/23/23 Update

A note on datasets:  I've been relying exclusively on data from the FBI for overall numbers as well as breakdowns by weapon type.  However, they freely admit to screwing the pooch on implementation of a new reporting platform in 2021, noting the numbers for that year are understated.  Furthermore, they don't make their historical data available.  The dataset that everyone uses for their analysis comes from the CDC, but their numbers are 25% higher than the FBI's, until 2019.  Seriously, CDC's top line is exactly 25% higher than the FBI's from 2012 through 2018.  In 2018, the gap jumps to 29%, increasing to 33% in 2020.  A gap pegged at 25% says to me that one of the sources is bullshit and fudged upward or downward, but neither shares their methodology, so identifying the bullshit source is beyond my capabilities.  Therefore, going forward, I'll be using CDC data for top line numbers and FBI stats for their breakout of gun type and consider both to be bullshit, but they're what's available, kids.  

This entry is part of my "Gun Series" that focuses on providing insight into the gun debate and gun violence.  You can find the other entries in the series HERE.  

About the author: Sean R is a recovering conservative who owns a consulting firm specializing in strategic marketing.  He's been a competitive shooter since the early 90's and holds a High Master classification in PPC and a Master classification in USPSA.  As an instructor, he taught courses in gun safety and competition.  He lives in Raleigh, North Carolina with his overly vocal dog, Sadie.

The AR-15

I've written about the AR-15 multiple times, but always dribs and drabs within an entries of greater scope.  In the interest of consolidation, I've decided to pull everything together into one entry that'll be easier to find.    

Garden Variety AR-15 with 16" Barrel

Some History

Eugene Stoner designed the AR-15 back in the late fifties as a military rifle.  It went nowhere until the early 60's, when a derivative, the M-15, was finally adopted by the US armed forces.   The main difference between the two were the firing mechanisms.  The M-16 was a select fire weapon, meaning it could fire in semiautomatic mode (one shot per trigger pull) or fully automatic mode (the gun would continue to fire as long as the user kept the trigger pressed).  Yet another derivative of the platform remains as the standard rifle for our current armed forces, the M-4.  Again, the main difference lies in the fire control mechanism.  Full auto is hard to shoot accurately and sucks for trying to hit multiple baddies.  So, the M-4 removed that capability in favor of a three round burst; basically full auto but only three rounds at a time.  

The AR-15 was designed to fire the .223 cartridge, although that was updated to the 5.56 x 45 (bullet diameter and case length in mm), which operates at a slightly higher pressure.  Going forward, I'll refer to this cartridge simply as the 556.  The 556 was adopted by NATO as their standard rifle cartridge.  The AR-15 can also fire the 300 Blackout cartridge, which was developed for special forces specifically to be suppressed.  All it takes is a barrel change.  

Even though the AR originally stood for Armalite Rifle (named for the company Stoner developed it with), the patents ran out in the 1970's, allowing others to build the guns.  However, even as late as 2000, there were still only three manufacturers building the gun in any quantity.  There wasn't sufficient civilian demand (prior to the AWB) for any others to tool it up.  In other words, no one wanted them.  On a side note, a gun isn't an "AR Style" rifle; it's either an AR or not.  Same as a four door sedan automobile; it is or it isn't.  

Having been adopted by NATO, military use alone has made the AR-15 the most popular rifle in history, but it's also become incredibly popular with the civilian market, post AWB.  

There is also an AR-10 platform, which looks identical to the AR-15, but was designed for accommodate the much larger 7.62 x 51 (mm) cartridge.  It's a beefier rifle, but there are still a number of common parts between the two sisters.  

Stripped AR-15 Lower Receivers; these are considered firearms

Why is the AR-15 platform popular in the civilian market?  

Here's my own list of factors:

- The AR-15 platform is very user friendly with a high level of reliability.  

- It's fun to shoot - I've shared this before, but I dated three women (one became my now ex-wife) who were vehemently against the evil AR-15 being on the civilian market.  (I tend to date left leaning women; they're smarter and more attractive)  I told each one they weren't allowed to have an opinion on the rifle until they shot one.  I loaded each one up and took them to my club (after providing them with safety instructions, of course), where I allowed them to shoot my AR as much as they wanted.  After shooting the gun, each one asked, "when can we go again?'

- Low cost of entry and feeding - You can buy a complete AR-15 rifle for $550 as of March 2023.  You won't find another semiautomatic rifle for less, except perhaps a garbage surplus SKS.  You can buy a 9mm semiautomatic pistol for less ($300 and up), but a 45 ACP gun will cost at least as much as an AR.  On the ammunition side, according to Ammoseek.com, 556 ammo can be purchased for as low as $.30 per round, at the moment.  Before the pandemic, it was closer to $.20.  For comparison, 9mm is around $.20 / round, 45 ACP is $.31, and 7.62x51 (the next most popular rifle cartridge) is $.65 per round.  Worth noting is these are rock bottom prices and apply to lower quality ammo you wouldn't want to put through my guns.  Much of the ammo's low cost can be attributed to the 556's NATO standardization, meaning it's the caliber that's used by almost all NATO militaries and many others.  Therefore, there's a LOT of it being manufactured, which drives down costs.  I've become fond of the ammo that comes out of Israel, because of its quality and accuracy. 

-The 556 NATO round is inherently accurate; with a quality barrel and ammo, it'll put 5 rounds in a group the size of a quarter at 100 yards.  In fact, the round is good out to 600 yards and beyond.  I have an AR-15 built specifically for bench rest shooting and with the scope, weighs enough you'd never be able to use it as a battle rifle. 

Benchrest Competition AR-15

- Light recoil.  Properly tuned, the gun barely pushes back when you pull the trigger.  In other words, it's easily used by all shapes and sizes of shooters.

- High capacity - while the standard mags hold 30 rounds, there are also some that hold 100 rounds.

- Joe Biden's Assault Weapons Ban -  Nothing makes people want something quite as much as telling them they can't have it.   

- Interest in military weapons and equipment

- Infinite customization makes the platform incredibly versatile - With an AR, you have options galore.  Barrel lengths from 7-20", different handguards, multiple types of triggers to choose from, numerous sighting options, from basic iron sights to holographic to a regular rifle scope. As an example, a quick check of an AR specialist online retailer shows approximately 480 different available hand guard options (!).  Because the parts are all built to one basic specification, building a rifle is pretty easy for anyone with some basic gunsmithing tools and a technical aptitude.  It can also be a lower cost option.  I built all of my own AR's.  

The danger of this configurability is the AR-15 is essentially Lego for grownups, and you can find yourself in a never ending cycle of upgrades.  Because individual upgrades aren't insanely expensive ($550 for an Eotech sight on the high side), it's easy to invest a large sum of money without realizing it.  A personal example would be the AR I built for $600.  I began upgrading and now have close to $5k into the gun, not including tax stamps; there are only two parts from the original are still on the gun.  I built another gun with the spares.     

Top tip:  Never total up what you spend on these guns; you don't want to know.

AR-15 "Backpack Gun" with folding stock

Why does anyone need an AR-15?

First off, I hate that question, because it's dumb.  No one needs an AR-15 any more than they need a Porsche.  However, these guns are particularly suited to certain purposes, just like Porsches, so that's the question I'll answer.

Again, here's my own list of applications where the AR-15 excels:  

- Certain types of hunting, such as for feral hogs.  These are an invasive species and do a great deal of damage to crops, livestock, etc. so killing them is encouraged wherever they exist.  In some parts of the country (i.e. Texas), they've reached infestation levels, which means if you find one, there are frequently several more in the bush ready to charge you, which they frequently do.  Plenty of videos on Youtube on the subject.  A semiautomatic rifle with high capacity helps the hog hunter take the animal as well as protect themselves from its friends.  

- Home defense - Some may think an AR-15 is overkill for home defense, but it's a solid option for a few reasons.  First, the 556 round is less prone to overpenetration of walls than most pistol cartridges.  In other words, it's safer; you're less likely to have rounds leaving the room / house, should you miss your intended target.  Second, if you hear someone busting down your door at 4 a.m. it's better to stay put and defend your bedroom, versus try to clear your house.  There's no better solution for a "last stand" gun than one that offers 30 rounds (or more) of serious stopping power.*  Of course, that's because it's difficult to buy a Howitzer as a civilian. 

- Competition - If you shoot sports such as 3 Gun (where pistols, rifles, and shotguns are used throughout the matches), without an AR, you're just participating and not competing.    

- General range use - As noted, it's one of the lowest cost rifles to buy and feed, plus it's fun to shoot.  Buying a different rifle or even handgun would cost you more and not be as fun, so why would you do such a thing? 

Example Application

It's true that AR-15's aren't the only option for some of these tasks, but it's frequently the best one.  

I'll use home defense as an example.  Aside from the AR, there are three options for this purpose.   

Handgun - The only handguns with sufficient stopping power to make an aggressor cease RIGHT NOW are those that shoot magnum rounds (i.e. 44 magnum), which have a lot more recoil, lower capacity (most are 6 shot revolvers), and are harder to shoot accurately under stress.  These guns are not easily used by all shooters.  Also, reloading a revolver takes a lot of time, versus a gun with a box magazine.  You could choose a less brutal caliber, such as 9mm with a box magazine, but stopping power would be significantly compromised.  All of these options easily pass through walls.

Another rifle - Because there aren't many rifle caliber options with lower power than a 556, a larger caliber would be required.  The most common are 7.62x39 or 7.62x55, which would have amazing stopping power.  However, trust me that you don't want to fire one of these guns indoors; it would feel like a Norse god was seeking vengeance.  Also, the gun itself would be much heavier, with significantly more recoil, blinding muzzle blast, and lower capacity.  Like the handguns, these rounds easily pass through walls.  There is the option to go with 300 Blackout, which is less powerful, yet still offers solid stopping power; but you're still shooting an AR-15.  FWIW, my home defense gun is an AR chambered in 300 Blackout, with a suppressor.

Shotgun - The old saying goes that nothing stops a home invader in their tracks like the sound of a shotgun being racked.  Regardless, a shotgun holds fewer rounds, takes a long time to reload, has much greater recoil (12 gauge), and is loud as hell.  This is another option that's not so user friendly to novice shooters.  Also, your home defense gun should always have a round chambered, which means you won't make the cool noise in the first place.  

Any of these three will likely prevent an attacker from harming you, but the AR-15 is the best option. Some may think this to be overkill; that the likelihood of experiencing a home invasion is infinitesimally small.  The truth is it isn't overkill and the likelihood of you being a victim of a home invasion isn't zero.  The only home defense activity the AR falls short on is maneuverability and concealability, just like shotguns and other rifles.  Only experts can navigate through a house with a rifle.  Check that, only experts should try to clear their house, regardless.  The concealment comes into play when someone rings your doorbell at 3 a.m.  At that hour, there's a much higher potential the person isn't a welcome guest.  But you don't want to freak friendlies out with a rifle slung across chest.  So, I bring along a handgun.  One night, my neighbor was close to shitting himself when he saw the pistol I had hidden behind my back.  

I encourage you to read my blog about shot placement and cartridge stopping power here for additional context.  

How Evil Is The AR-15?

...and how many people has the platform killed?  The rifles haven't killed anyone, so I'll focus on how many homicides in which they were used as the murder weapon.  

Starting with mass murders, since 1990, AR's were used in 34 incidents through 2022, resulting in 402 fatalities.  There were 74 incidents where an AR wasn't used, resulting in 542 fatalities.  The tide has turned since 2018, with AR's used in 17 incidents resulting in 151 fatalities, versus 14 incidents where other guns were used, resulting in 95 fatalities.  Since 1989 (when the database began tracking mass murders), AR-15's were used in incidents resulting in a total of 417 fatalities.  Again, mass murder data.   

Rather than continue to vomit numbers, I suggest you check out my entry that's devoted to charts, graphs, with a bit of analysis.   Gun Homicides:  The Numbers.  You'll see that AR's are used for X% of all homicides.

So, for those who remain unconvinced the AR isn't the mass murderer it isn't, I'll finish up with some thoughts on how many lives would be saved, were the AR banned.  Should it magically disappear, a large portion of the shootings where it's used would take place, except with different guns.  For the sake of argument, I'll go with a 45% reduction in deaths.  That brings the number of lives saved to 1,094 again, for the past DECADE.  

It may seem cavalier to minimize a thousand lives saved, but it really is a drop in the bucket, when viewed within the context of overall gun related homicide, which accounted for one hundred THOUSAND deaths over the same decade.  

This brings us back to those whose absolute focus is to ban the platform.  They clearly don't care about decreasing gun violence, because doing so wouldn't make a dent, not to mention, banning would flat out not happen, as I wrote about HERE.  

Oh, the rifle isn't evil, just scary to some. 

This entry is part of my "Gun Series" that focuses on providing insight into the gun debate and gun violence.  You can find the other entries in the series HERE.  

About the author: Sean R is a recovering conservative who owns a consulting firm specializing in strategic marketing.  He's been a competitive shooter since the early 90's and holds a High Master classification in PPC and a Master classification in USPSA.  As an instructor, he taught courses in gun safety and competition.  He lives in Raleigh, North Carolina with his overly vocal dog, Sadie.

Stopping Power, Shot Placement, and Other Basics

 When discussing defensive gun use, there are a number of crucial factors that can't be covered in a tweet.  This entry will touch on the ones I find important, with the intent of providing practical knowledge to the non-shooter (and novice shooters).  This entry is a companion piece to the others in my gun series, particularly as it applies to the AR-15.  What it isn't is legal advice.  Always practice proper gun safety and know the laws in your area regarding protecting yourself with a firearm.  

It's 3:30 a.m. and you're fast asleep in your bed with your model wife, when you're awakened by what's definitely the sound of your front door being crashed in.  You're walking back to your car, after an amazing dinner out with your model wife, when you're confronted by three men, one holding a gun.  In both instances, you've made your attackers aware you have a gun, and they haven't run off.  Frequently, that's all it takes to stop an attacker, but not in these cases.  You're being forced to use your firearm for defensive use.  What are some of the things you need to consider?

Shot Placement
Where are you going to aim your gun, when you pull the trigger?  Maybe you want to avoid killing your attacker, so you'll aim for their leg.  Or you want to end the confrontation by putting a bullet in your attacker's head.  Before you answer, let me tell you what your body's doing in the moment before you pull the trigger.  Under such a life or death situation, your body is pumping a shitload of adrenalin into your system.  Adrenaline is an amazing substance and assists with energy, rapid decision making, and other critical activities during a life or death situation.  At this moment, your fine motor skills are completely destroyed and you have tunnel vision.  Unless you're in Delta, the right answer to the question you'll aim for center mass.  Attempting to hit a specific part of your attacker will result in missing it, so you aim for the largest portion of your attacker's body, the torso.  

Stopping Power - It's All About Trauma
You've fired a controlled pair of rounds into the attacker's chest, but it hasn't phased them.  They're continuing their attack and now, you're panicking.  Two more rounds haven't had any more impact on the bad guy than the first two.  This scenario isn't uncommon, believe it or not.  When a bad guy is shot by a handgun in the movies, they mostly drop dead on the spot.  However that rarely happens in real life.  Remember the adrenaline pumping through your body?  It's happening to the bad guy too and acting to suppress the pain from being shot; there may be additional substances coursing through their body further assisting in that action.  There have been studies of shooting victims, where a large portion reported not even being aware they were shot until someone pointed it out.  

In order to stop an attacker with your gun, one of three things must happen.  Sufficient trauma must be done to their body to make it stop working.  The "electrics" or "hydraulics" must be rendered inoperable.  This of course, assumes the attacker didn't run away when the bullets began to fly his way.  

"Electrics" refer to the brain sending signals to the rest of the body.  A successful head shot will stop those signals and end the fight immediately.  "Hydraulics" refer to blood being pumped by the heart and a direct hit will also end the fight rather quickly.  Again, very difficult shots to make under pressure.

That leaves us with trauma.  How much trauma is required and where?  How does a bullet create trauma?  As I mentioned, my example of the bad guy continuing their attack even after being hit by four rounds is real.  There have been numerous documented (and recorded) instances of people being killed by attackers full of 9mm hollow point ammo in their chest.  The attackers mostly died, after the fact, but in the fight, their body didn't tell them they were dead.  

I'll start with how a bullet creates trauma.  When a bullet hits a human, it creates a permanent wound channel similar in size to the bullet's diameter.  However, there's also a shock wave created by the bullet which results in a temporary wound channel.  The size of this trauma depends on bullet type and energy delivered.  Ammunition manufacturers develop their defense products to maximize both of these via a bullet design with a hollow point, which mushrooms as it travels within the target.  Under ideal circumstances, a hollow point bullet can expand to twice its diameter.  Their goal is to put as much of the round's muzzle energy to use creating trauma as possible and penetrate 12" in ballistic gelatin.  

Hollow point bullets after expansion

In the case of rifle ammunition, these wound channels are more dependent on muzzle energy bullet design.  Some rounds, such as 556 NATO will tumble through the body, creating a massive wound channel.  You may notice rifle ammo utilizing hollow point bullets, but that's solely for improved accuracy; they don't expand. 

Firing rounds into ballistic gelatin is a standard practice of measuring these cavities.

Simulated wound cavities with various handgun rounds

Simulated wound cavity with 556 NATO ammo

With exceptions of head shots or a lucky kneecap shot, most handgun rounds don't create sufficient trauma to guarantee an immediate cessation of an attack.  However, by virtue of the energy it delivers, a single rifle round will literally destroy the part of the body where it hits, often rendering the attacker's body inoperable.  The picture above illustrates this perfectly.  In some cases, the lack of power of something like a 9mm can be overcome with the sheer volume of fire from modern pistols, which can hold 19 rounds or more.  

Ballistic Performance Data for Various Cartridges

Cartridge and Gun Choice

Returning to your situation, did you choose wisely, when you bought your carry gun?  When deciding on what cartridge and gun combination to rest your life on, always choose the most powerful (creates the most trauma) option that fits within the form factor as dictated by your circumstances.  Your choice during the summer, when concealing a large gun is almost impossible, will be different than what you choose for winter, when almost any gun will disappear under a heavy coat.  Obviously, concealment isn't relevant for home defense use.  

There are also other consideration that come into play with specific cartridges.  For example, going down the list, we can immediately cross off 7.62x51 and 44 Magnum as viable defensive cartridges.  They're so brutal and you'd regret using either as a home defense gun due to how loud they are as well as the muzzle flash.  Certain cartridges were optimized for specific minimum barrel lengths.  556 NATO requires at least a 12" barrel in order to stabilize the bullet, but its performance suffers in anything under 14.5", so you're stuck with a long gun (for home defense, obviously).   It's also particularly loud, so a suppressor is almost mandatory, making the gun even longer.  I own a 556 gun with a 10" barrel and it's a certified fire breather, sounding like the god of thunder when I shoot it.  However, 300 Blackout was designed to be shot through an 8" barrel, which makes for a smaller package as a home defense gun.  

Let's not forget safety.  Even the weakest handgun rounds will over penetrate through walls like they weren't even there, which can endanger others in the home or even the neighbors.  The most extreme example happened with a friend who was shot with a 22 Long Rifle (100 ft. lbs.) through a two inch thick oak door!  Bullets from 556 and 300 Blackout aren't very good at penetrating sheetrock (walls) and tend to stay in the room they're fired in.

Ultimately, the 556 NATO definitely represents the most potent, safest home defense round, when packaged in an AR-15.  The same can be said if you carry a gun in your vehicle for emergencies.  It will end any bad guy or mob's aggression in a hurry.

My own choices are 38 Super for personal defense and 300 Blackout as a home defense round. My logic is what I lose in performance versus the 556, I gain in the smaller form factor and not blowing out my hearing (even with a silencer, 556 is still loud indoors).  

By no means are my choices the best for everyone.  There are any number of combinations and calibers that will do the job.  There are many that have a 9mm pistol for everything and that's fine. 

This entry is part of my "Gun Series" that focuses on providing insight into the gun debate and gun violence.  You can find the other entries in the series HERE.  

About the author: Sean R is a recovering conservative who owns a consulting firm specializing in strategic marketing.  He's been a competitive shooter since the early 90's and holds a High Master classification in PPC and a Master classification in USPSA.  As an instructor, he taught courses in gun safety and competition.  He lives in Raleigh, North Carolina with his overly vocal dog, Sadie.