Welcome back...this one promises to be quite the roller coaster ride, so please buckle in and secure all loose items.
We'll begin Part 2 with...
The Evil Black Rifle
Yes, it's been called that by those who want to ban the AR-15. The AR-15 is the civilian variant of the M-16 and is semiautomatic, with one round fired with each press of the trigger, versus the full auto. Because full auto is all but impossible to control, most M-16's are now built with semi auto and three round burst fire capability. I own a number of AR-15's and find them to be a blast to shoot, no pun intended.
The AR-15 is available in an almost unlimited number of configurations. From small form factor guns with 7" barrels, to bench rest style rifles with 20" heavy barrels. Obviously, you can buy your AR-15, but they're surprisingly easy to work on, so the average person with a bit of mechanical aptitude can build one in an afternoon. This allows for the builder to have a gun that's exactly the way they want it. I built all of mine.
Worth noting is that because it's a design, not a brand or trade name, there is no such thing as an 'AR-15 style rifle'; it's either an AR-15 or not in the same way an engine is either a V8 or not. Something to help you be a bit smarter than the talking heads on the news.
What makes the AR so much fun is also what makes it so effective for mass casualties. Inside a certain distance from your target, you can point a (any) rifle instead of having to aim it, there are magazines available with capacities up to 60 rounds, and each round delivers three times more muzzle energy than one from a 9mm pistol (assuming standard 556 NATO ammunition). These attributes are also what makes the AR the standard in 3 Gun competition.
AR-15's are also available in other calibers. My home defense gun is chambered in 300 Blackout, which was designed to
It might surprise you to learn the AR-15 has been available to civilians since the 1960's. However, it was largely overlooked by enthusiasts for its first thirty years on the market. It wasn't a good hunting gun and a rifle for personal defense was ludicrous. That remained the case until 1994, when its popularity skyrocketed. What took place to cause such a shift? Quite simple actually; the AR-15, along with the AK-47, were banned. Note: I'm skipping detail on the AK platform because it only enjoys a fraction of the AR's popularity.
The crime bill / assault weapons ban of 1994 was partially geared toward taking military style rifles off the market and prohibited rifles containing more than a few key traits from being manufactured or imported. It also prohibited the manufacture or import of magazines with a capacity greater than 10 rounds. Rifle manufacturers got around the ban by removing the traits of lesser importance (i.e. bayonet lug and flash hider) and continued production, shipping guns with 10 round magazines. The author of the crime bill screamed that manufacturers were gaming the system. The manufacturers responded that they were complying with the law and that they had staff to keep employed. The AR-15 suddenly received a great deal of attention and demand. Nothing makes people want something more than when the government says they can't have it. A friend of mine who owns a gun shop told me there were tons of people coming in, many first time gun owners, to buy the last pre-ban AR's and even the post-ban versions, for that exact reason. Apparently, they'd walk in and say, "I want whatever the government says I shouldn't have."
It should be no surprise the bill didn't accomplish anything except drive up prices for pre-ban equipment, and had zero effect on crimes committed with guns. Because anything made prior to the 1994 ratification could still be owned and sold, you could still get high capacity mags (although they became $70 instead of $15) and watered down AR's were just as capable as pre-ban versions. Not to mention manufacturers went bonkers building as much inventory as possible before the ban went into effect. Word was that Glock was using their entire allocation of import dollars to send container after container of high capacity magazines, in order to get as many as possible in under the deadline.
The crime bill had a provision to sunset after ten years, unless it was renewed, which it wasn't. By 2004, there was a great deal of pent up demand for the rifle that everyone suddenly wanted and production ramped up accordingly. When I bought my first AR during the time the bill, there were only three or four manufacturers who offered them; now that number is closer to forty, if not higher. There's a whole cottage industry around parts to build your own AR-15, which is I did on the ones I currently own. That also means tens of thousands of jobs now rely on the AR-15. At this point, it's worth returning to the Mother Jones mass shooting database, to either confirm or refute timing of AR-15's rise in popularity. Indeed, despite being available for decades, the first mass shooting where the weapon was an AR didn't occur until 2006.
It's about now you should be asking yourself what idiot wrote the bill that made the AR-15 so popular. He's the same idiot calling to ban them now, then Senator now President Joe Biden. That's right, Joe Biden is responsible for the AR-15's popularity. Show of hands; who didn't see that one coming? Regardless, he's arguably the last person on earth suited formulate a plan to address gun violence.
Clearly a ban on new production wouldn't work any better than it did the last time, particularly when a massive supply of existing guns exists, but what if it was taken a step further? What if it suddenly became illegal to possess such rifles? The term 'complete failure' comes to mind. First, it would be contested in court, winding up in front of the Supreme Court (with a conservative majority), who would strike it down for violating the Second Amendment. If you remember bump stocks from the Vegas Strip shooting, you may be alarmed to learn a court recently overturned the ban on those. But what if it was upheld? Such a law would be completely unenforceable for a few reasons. First, those you must rely on to enforce the law oppose such a ban too. In response to the potential assault weapons ban in Virginia, dozens of chief law enforcement officers declared they wouldn't enforce it. There's no reason to believe a nationwide ban wouldn't receive the same widespread support. Second, no one in their right mind will turn in their guns. Would you blindly hand over something you invested so much money and time into? As a benchmark, I'm probably about average for most law abiding AR owners and I've got just shy of $10k invested. I predict there will be an amazing rash of boating accidents, where everyone's guns fell overboard, in a thousand feet of water. Tragic. Or they'd flat out not comply (or worse). Third, there would still be the DIY crowd making 80% guns (long topic on itself, but feel free to read up on your own) and replenishing the supply.
It all reminds me of a conversation I had with a Dutch colleague, while driving through a sketchy area of Rotterdam. He indicated there were a lot of shootings in that area. I pointed out that guns were all but impossible to get not only in the Netherlands, throughout Europe. He responded, 'yeah, but criminals will always get their hands on guns.'
Before I wrap up on the evil black rifle, I'd like to address a few other challenges gun owners have gotten relative to owning AR-15's. First is the ever popular 'why do you need such a thing?' The answer is I don't need it, but as a law abiding citizen, I'm allowed to. I hate coffee, so why do you need to give Starbucks $8 every morning? My second favorite is 'civilians shouldn't have weapons of war'. Newsflash, 75% of guns on the market began as weapons of war. That Colt 45 that everyone loves was designed to be used as by soldiers as their sidearm, when going to war. Finally, there's the ever popular 'that gun was designed to kill'. Again, that applies to 95% of the guns out there, either through use in defending your family or to humanely hunt an animal. No, we won't venture down that rabbit hole.
So, should the AR-15 (and other military style rifles) really be banned? I get it - mass shootings are ugly, traumatic, and more frequently involve children and are carried out with military style rifles. However much of a shock to the system, the fact is they're statistically insignificant and banning them is nothing greater than a knee jerk reaction. For additional context, there were 60% more murders in Chicago (where you can't legally buy a gun) last year than mass shooting victims in the past DECADE. Not to mention FBI statistics say that 70% of homicides involving firearms are carried out with handguns, not military style rifles or rifles period. Banning AR-15's / AK-47 rifles based upon 0.6% of all shootings will make the left all feel good about themselves and tell everyone how they've made America a safer place. Except for the reasons above, mass shooters will keep on using the rifles.
Speaking of Chicago and shooting related deaths, Kina Collins of the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence was recently interviewed by NPR. She took issue with the President's laser focus on mass shootings and an assault weapons ban. "That's not what we're dealing with in communities that deal with everyday gun violence," she said. "We're dealing with hand guns. We're dealing with straw purchases, we're dealing with illegal guns floating across the borders into states. That's what we're dealing with."
So what can be done to decrease the number of firearm related deaths? First, I think rather than focusing on what trigger is being pulled, attention should be focused why the trigger's being pulled in the first place. Anyone with half a brain should be able to make that distinction. Having half a brain myself, that's what I'll focus on. First, I think that more and more people live solitary lives without support structures and succumb to mental illness leaving them feel hopeless or that the world is against them. On a side note, why is it the greater a boring loser someone is, the more they're convinced the government is spying on them? But people feel less included and more disenfranchised as time goes by. However, I also think too many people have been raised to be self absorbed little snowflakes that don't understand the word 'resilience'. So many murders are to 'get back at someone' for shit that is meaningless in the grand scheme of things. Being disrespected is part of life; get over it. Your significant other dumped you for your best friend? Get over it and bang his mother, not shoot both of them, you moron. How many of us were bullied as children, but the thought of killing anyone over such transgressions never crossed our minds? My dad grew up in a rural area. Almost every guy had a rifle or shotgun in their car, at school, because they all went hunting after. If you had a beef with someone, it was settled with fists after school; no one ever grabbed a gun over whatever it was.
Finally, there are those who want their fifteen minutes of fame and are willing to kill to get it. Finally finally, shitty parenting has a great deal of impact, beyond raising snow flakes. Two perfect examples of how decent parenting would have prevented mass shootings - Sandy Hook wouldn't have happened if the shooter's mother had half a brain and not tried to connect to her mentally ill son through shooting. (He shot her and took the guns) The Columbine shooters were a couple of complete sociopaths that had exhibited plenty of warning signs ahead of that shooting. Where the fuck were their parents?
Make no mistake, I'm completely behind universal background checks and other reasonable measures to prevent guns from getting into the wrong hands. Universal should be emphasized here, because not all states perform their checks in the same manner. NICS is the FBI's national background check system and, from what I've been able to uncover, queries their terror watchlist on each inquiry. However, only 36 states currently use NICS, the remainder either carrying out checks at the state level or using some sort of hybrid model. As someone pointed out, the Boulder shooter was on an FBI terror watchlist, yet still received approval to purchase his firearm. Colorado isn't one of the 36, instead using their own homegrown system. Had CO been a NICS state, the approval likely would have been denied, preventing another mass shooting. Again, universal background checks are a good thing, are effective, and that's a no brainer.
But other actions have to be taken to decrease gun violence or we never address the root cause. Banning weapons, aside from it not working, sends the message 'we've given up on our society'. We need to begin taking better care of each other or things will only get worse; gun violence will be the least of our concerns.
Random comment that didn't have a home, but worth including:
You can't legally make your AR a fully automatic weapon without a full background check, waiting close to a year, and spending $30k. You can make it full auto illegally in an afternoon without much effort. There are devices on the market that simulate full auto, such as binary triggers, that fire a round not only when you pull the trigger, but also when you release it. And let's not forget the bump stock that became famous after the Las Vegas Strip massacre. Personally, I have an issue with these workarounds; no one's fooling anyone with them. However, at what point do you draw the line? That's a question I continue to ask myself.
