Do You See Grooming?

This entry will begin with a short exercise. 

What's the first thing that comes to mind when you look at the three photos below? 

If you reacted with words such as "grooming" or "child abuse" for any or all of the three, congratulations, you're a moron.

Let's begin with the first two pictures.  I'll start by clearing up a potential misconception about children shooting guns.  In a safe home environment, all guns are locked up in a manner that prevents kids or any other unauthorized parties from accessing them.  This was the case in my home, growing up and later, when I had (step) kids of my own.  If you're picturing kids running amok with loaded guns, you're a bit off.

Logically, it's those on the left who take issue with the first two pictures, making accusations of you guessed it, grooming and/or child abuse.  When challenged on what exactly the children in these pictures are being groomed for, the majority don't really have an answer.  Some will say they're being groomed to be school shooters or "they're being groomed to think guns are normal".  I receive the same nebulous answer when I ask why such activities are child abuse. 

Here's a news flash for you:  In many homes across the country, particularly in rural areas, guns are normal.  

Teaching kids to shoot helps them learn helps them learn things like discipline and patience, along with gun safety and most importantly, the destructive power they hold in their hand.  I've previously written about my own childhood where my grandfather owned guns and taught me gun safety and how to shoot, once I got old enough (around 10, as I recall).  Most of my friends' dads owned guns and they taught their kids to shoot as well.  This sort of activity has been going on for as long as the US has existed.  Shooting guns is a family bonding activity.

I'm sure there are some readers who've lost their minds over my comment about shooting being a family activity.  Here's some news for you; you're allowed to be uncomfortable with anything you want, but you're not allowed to condemn something you don't understand.  That would put you on the same plane as the hard right.  

Here's another news flash - Based upon my research, kids who grow up with guns are much less likely to commit mass murder.  More accurately, most mass shooters and mass murderers don't have a long history with firearms, based upon the data I've compiled.  On the murder side, one simply needs to look at some of the recent events where it was reported the shooter purchased their weapon within weeks or months before.  That's one of the reasons they choose AR-15's; they're easy to use.  Obviously, this wasn't the case in Maine, but that guy is a severe outlier, both in experience and age.  

A final thought to close that topic.  True shooters don't pose with their guns for family Christmas cards.  There are only three occasions you'll find a shooter and his unholstered gun in the same picture.  First is if the shooter is actively firing the gun; the only picture of me holding a gun is when I was shooting a stage, when won the USPSA PA State Championship.  The second is if the shooter just achieved a truly noteworthy feat with their gun (this is mostly confined to rifle shooters who've broken a distance record).  The final exception is if the shooter won the gun off a prize table or from a raffle, and then it's only used for publicity by the sponsor.  Beyond that, the shooting community views these sorts of photos as seriously cringeworthy, so none of us takes them.  Ultimately, the douche canoes that take pics of their entire family holding sometimes garbage quality AR's are only guilty of grooming their kids to be the next generation of douche canoes.  

Moving on to the third picture, there are those who are convinced the LGTBQ community consists of pedophiles who want to groom children to be gay.  This belief is the result of two factors.  The first is their inherent bigotry and hatred of those they consider deviant, based on their perverse religious beliefs or plain ignorance.  This is exacerbated by the second factor, which is right wing media validating and amplifying these prejudices.  

With respect to harming children, these people seemingly don't care about facts or logic.  I encounter them on the shooting message boards and they consider pedophilia to be inherent with the LGBTQ community; essentially, every one of them is a pedophile.  Those who aren't terribly bright, may find it to be shocking that LGTBQ people have been around since the dawn of time (they've had to remain closeted for fear of persecution).  If they were inherently child harmers, there would be mounds of incontrovertible data confirming that to be the case.  But there isn't.  What does exist is a massive amount of data that clergy and religious right wingers have an extremely high predilection for touching children.  To be clear, preying on children is reprehensible and offenders should be subject to stoning, regardless of their sexual orientation or political affiliations.  

The flaw in what I'll pretend is logic by these hateful people is not understanding how the brain works.   You can't groom someone into being gay; it's just not how the brain works.  By in large, those on either end of the sexual orientation spectrum they've always known what their orientation was.  Sure, kids can be malleable by suggestion and a significant portion of the population has done some experimenting, but ultimately no one can convince you to be something you're not wired to be, gay, straight, or somewhere in the middle.  

Finally, I'll address the other point the hard right throws at me, which is why do drag queens desperately want access to children?  First, since they're not harming kids, why the fuck not?  Second, put the right wing propaganda down, because it's amplifying shit that sparks fear and outrage.  I'd be willing to bet that every drag queen story hour "exposed" by that stochastic terrorist bitch Chaya Raichik is literally every one that's ever taken place, which is to say very few for a country our size.  Seriously, you're being played.

The takeaway for both of these cases of accused grooming is don't condemn things you're too fucking stupid to understand.

Gun Homicides And Their Drivers - A Cultural Exploration

As we know, the rate of homicides committed with guns has experienced a significant rise over the past few years. (see Gun Homicides:  The Numbers for all the charts and data)  

There are a few trains of thoughts as to why this is happening.  Before I get into those theories, I'd like to address the racial component of gun homicides.  I've seen right wing idiot memes that claim 95% of gun homicides are black on black; those are patently false.  The truth is that homicides are evenly split between black on black and white on white, with a bit of cross racial activity thrown in.

(Source:  FBI Expanded Homicide Data Table 6, 2019)

Also worth mentioning is an article I read recently that provides a unique perspective on why gun violence is higher in some areas of the country than others.  It essentially lays out how present day violence in any given area depends on who and how that area was settled.  These various "nations" don't fit into state boundaries.  Below is a map from the article that shows how these various pieces are laid out.  

Continuing to pick on the South, here's an excerpt from the article that describes their culture:

"Much of the South, he wrote, was settled by “swashbuckling Cavaliers of noble or landed gentry status, who took their values . . . from the knightly, medieval standards of manly honor and virtue” (by which he meant Tidewater and the Deep South) or by Scots and Scots-Irish borderlanders (the Greater Appalachian colonists) who hailed from one of the most lawless parts of Europe and relied on “an economy based on herding,” where one’s wealth is tied up in livestock, which are far more vulnerable to theft than grain crops.

These southern cultures developed what anthropologists call a “culture of honor tradition” in which males treasure their honor and believed it can be diminished if an insult, slight or wrong were ignored. “In an honor culture you have to be vigilant about people impugning your reputation and part of that is to show that you can’t be pushed around,” says University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign psychologist Dov Cohen, who conducted a series of experiments with Nisbett demonstrating the persistence of these quick-to-insult characteristics in university students. White male students from the southern regions lashed out in anger at insults and slights that those from northern ones ignored or laughed off. “Arguments over pocket change or popsicles in these Southern cultures can result in people getting killed, but what’s at stake isn’t the popsicle, it’s personal honor.”

This article also explains the anomalies I mentioned in "It's the Guns - The Finale", where states in the Far West have lax gun laws, high gun ownership, but low murder rates.  

Don't forget the South has the lowest average education level in the country.  

Rather than continue to plagiarize celebrate the article, I'll recommend you read it for yourself.  I found it fascinating.  

The Surprising Geography of Gun Violence

As to why people are killing other people more frequently, I think there are a number of factors at play.

Certainly, the pandemic put people on edge and the follow up civil unrest didn't help either.  At one point, it seemed just as likely as not that civility could break down.  The number of folks in the shooting community who were building SHTF (shit hits the fan) rifles was astounding during that time.  But emotions were clearly set to 11 and let's be honest, the GQP / MAGA asshats didn't help by dehumanizing / demonizing anyone who wasn't sympathetic to their movement.  It's a lot easier to justify shooting someone you see as a traitor to your country.  The vast majority of homicides spawn from disagreements and again, I haven't seen anything to either validate or refute any of the above theories.  

Despite the stats saying otherwise, there were definitely more people buying guns during the pandemic; the number of background checks bears this out.  I know of at least three colleagues that bought their first guns during that period.

Carrying a gun requires a certain temperament the young or dumb (both) frequently lack.  Too many gun owners have fantasies of using their guns to be heroes or worse, exact revenge.  I've been carrying concealed for close to 30 years and am ashamed to admit I was young and dumb and thought I was a major badass when I got my first permit. Age has brought some wisdom and I've learned to work even harder to avoid conflict and deescalate, because when you conduct yourself in the opposite manner, you go to jail if you shoot someone, self-defense or not.  

I've read that the more intelligent a person is, the more cautious they'll be about pulling the trigger, because they understand the finality of the act.  The young and the dumb frequently don't grasp consequences for their actions; both that there will be and how severe they'll be.  Even if you have done everything right, using your gun in a perfect self-defense shooting, you WILL be charged and may face trial.  Pulling the trigger will cost you $100k on average in legal fees even when your actions were justified.  

But who the hell can say for certain?  The gun homicide rate dropped precipitously (>50%) starting in 1994 and stayed low, yet no definitive, widely accepted explanation exists as to why.   Freakonomics has a pretty compelling argument that ties the drop to legalization of abortion.  (article)  

One item I'm missing is solid recent data on gun homicide by state, which would shed some light on whether homicides are rising across the board (in line with the "nations") or are certain states driving more than their traditional share?  I'll save that for another day.

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.

Holding Gun Manufacturers Accountable

In response to the recent mass murder in Maine, there have been renewed calls from some who want to penalize gun manufacturers for the actions of those who use them illegally, for their advertising, and other various reasons.  Indeed, one of the goals of the new White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention is to increase accountability.   

Currently, gun manufacturers are shielded from lawsuits by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) of 2005, which prevents lawsuits from being brought against firearm manufacturers for damages incurred due to the illegal use of their product.  

This entry takes a closer look at the subject of gun manufacturer liability, advertising, and related considerations.  I'll begin with a look at how new guns are brought to market.  

Ease of Purchase
I regularly hear how some gun manufacturers make it too easy for those with ill intent to procure their products.  As someone who's purchased more than their fair share of firearms, I'm baffled how anyone can credibly make this statement, because there are a number of steps in the supply chain between a gun manufacturer and the ultimate consumer, but they all lead to an FFL.  

Again, for the cheap seats:  All new firearms are sold to the public by independent FFL dealers located in the buyer's state, not directly from the manufacturer.  The larger firearm manufacturers (S&W, Colt, Ruger, etc.) are one step further removed from that chain in that they sell their guns to distributors, who only ships the guns to Federal Firearms License (FFL) holders (aka licensed gun dealers).  Some of the higher end, low volume, and custom gun makers will ship directly to an FFL.  The end customer can purchase directly from a manufacturer, but must take delivery through an FFL.  I did this recently, with a custom built pistol; I ordered and paid for the gun directly with the builder.  However, when it was completed, the gun still needed to be shipped to an FFL, where I completed what felt like my hundredth Form 4473.  I apparently wasn't subject to a background check, because I hold a conceal carry permit.  I'm not a fan of that, to be honest, but it's the law here in North Carolina.

When collecting their new gun from the FFL, the purchaser is required to complete the aforementioned  ATF Form 4473, which collects information about the buyer, the gun, and asks the purchaser to affirm they're not a criminal, etc.  From there, the dealer will call in for authorization, per their respective state's law.  Most states are now on the NICS system, which ties to the FBI's database.  Note the gun manufacturer has long since exited the transaction, at this point.  There are many states that still allow private sales between parties without a background check, but those are exclusively used guns.  In short, any claim of manufacturers being careless and allowing their products to get into the wrong hands is utter nonsense spewed by the ignorant.   

Because I've been seeing more articles relating to "US gun manufacturers fueling gun violence by the cartels and in Eastern Europe", I'll quickly address those claims.  How are these foreign entities procuring these evil weapons?  None of the US gun makers is air dropping their product into other countries to be grabbed by whomever happens upon them, so it must be something else.  With the cartels, it should be obvious the guns are being purchased in the US (because it's close, duh) and being smuggled into Mexico, where the border is comically porous and guards can be bought.  

Eastern Europe is a completely different situation in that the guns are almost certainly being imported legally.  If US guns are being discovered more frequently in the region, they aren't additive.  More accurately, they're taking market share from incumbents.  Both Turkey and the Czech Republic have thriving firearm industries, particularly the former, where the government invested a significant amount of money in expanding capacity, so the Turkish military wouldn't have to buy their weapons from manufacturers outside the country.  This has led to a boom in the number of guns their manufacturers (Tisas and Girsan in particular) are exporting even into the US.  Their 1911's are better than what you'd get from Colt, at a third of the price.    

Manufacturer Liability
As I noted in the first paragraph, gun manufacturers are currently shielded from liability stemming from criminal acts committed with their product.  I agree with this, because as I outlined above, gun manufacturers have zero input into who ultimately buys their product.  After the murderer in Waukesha plowed through a throng of parade goers, no one was screaming that Ford should be held liable.  

There are those that claim guns are inherently defective, because they're designed to kill.  This is utter nonsense.  Guns are designed to reliably and safely fire a round of ammunition manufactured to SAAMI specifications.  Nothing more or less.  Some guns are specifically built for use in competition; are their manufacturers producing a defective product if they're used against a human?  For those guns that were meant for personal defense, there's no way to prevent them for being used to take a life versus saving one.  To be clear, the only way a firearm is defective if it doesn't reliably and safely fire the ammunition it was designed to accommodate.  I'm looking at you, Taurus.  Finally, the type of ammunition used plays a significant role in a gun's lethality.  You could be hit by half a dozen round nose bullets and survive quite easily, whereas the same number of hollow points would end your life.  

Advertising
Finally, let's talk about advertising, where there have been claims made about ads promoting violence and turning the viewers into mass murderers.  Again, I consider this to be nonsense.  First, where are people seeing these ads?  I haven't seen a gun ad in a decade.  Am I to believe mass murderers subscribe to Guns and Ammo?  That's a big stretch, kids.  And the kid thing?  Do people really think kids are running out and buying AR-15's?  Maybe a complete idiot would consider this realistic...

A landmark case on the firearm advertising front related to the Sandy Hook shooter.  Before going any further, it shouldn't need to be said, but I'm in favor of addressing contributors to such tragedies taking place; none of my comments should be taken as me diminishing the trauma to the families and community.  Anyway, the families sued Remington mostly over their ad campaign that centered around the message of getting your man card back.  The company settled the suit for $73 million.  (Adam Lanza used a Bushmaster rifle, who was owned by Remington at the time.)

Personally, I don't see how it can be argued such a message would lead to a mass shooting.  Even if it did, there's absolutely no evidence the ad influenced Adam Lanza's mother in her purchase or that she'd even seen the ad.  That's right, the shooter didn't even buy the gun and was not the legal owner.  

The most recent example of an evil advertisement causing a mass murder comes from the Uvalde massacre, where the manufacturer of the AR-15 that was used, Daniel Defense, published an advertisement (where??) someone didn't like because it promoted teaching your kids how to shoot and the dumb people call that grooming (stay tuned for an entry on that subject).  A fuck ton of us grew up, learning to shoot when we were in single digits and no one became a mass shooter.  Anyway, does anyone think this kid saw the ad in the first place?  What almost certainly happened is he Googled "Best AR-15".  The link below is the first hit you get in that search.    

https://www.pewpewtactical.com/best-ar-15/

If you click the link, here's what you'll find:  

The shooter likely saw that and said, "Daniel Defense is the highest rated; I'll buy one of those".  

In case you're wondering, if you Google "best gun to commit mass shooting", there are only stories about the AR-15; no tutorials or buying guides.   

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.

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.