I am going to spend probably the next few posts tackling the issues surrounding modern semi-automatic rifles, often given the misnomers of "assault rifles" or "assault weapons." Words have power, they are used to influence how people think about a topic. Some words develop negative connotations, and are then mis-used to confuse those who are not knowledgeable about the topic. So, I will be using proper terminology in this post, and would encourage everyone else to do the same. First "assault weapon" is not a classification for a type of firearm, it is just a term that was made up, probably because it can be used to scare and confuse people. Taking the definitions of the words from the Merriam-Webster dictionary:
Assault: a : a violent physical or verbal attack
b : a military attack usually involving direct combat with enemy forces
c : a concerted effort (as to reach a goal or defeat an adversary)
Weapon:
a : something (as a club, knife, or gun) used to injure, defeat, or destroy
b : a means of contending against another
So, an "assault weapon" is something used to injure, defeat or destroy in a violent physical or verbal attack. That could be pretty much anything, from a fist, to a rock, to a ballpoint pen to a thermonuclear weapon. If you can cause harm with it, it is an "assault weapon".
Assault rifles on the other hand, have an actual definition as a classification of firearms, coined by the Nazis in World War 2. An assault rifle is a select fire, shoulder fired rifle, that is fed by a detachable box magazine, and fires an intermediate cartridge. The major difference between civilian rifles and those used by the police and the military is that "select fire" bit. For those who may not understand the significance of that, a select fire firearm has some sort of fully automatic capability, either truly fully automatic, or a multiple shot burst capability. No matter which setting the firearm has (some have both burst and fully automatic) the gun has the capability of firing more than one round for every pull of the trigger.The vast majority of civilian rifles are semi-automatic only, which means one bullet fired for every pull of the trigger. These rifles can not be easily or safely converted to fully automatic without parts that are strictly regulated and require more stringent background checks than normal firearms purchases. They may look similar to actual assault rifles, but the way they operate and function is different. I did say vast majority of civilian rifles, because there are a very limited number of fully automatic firearms in civilian hands, but they have been heavily licensed, regulated and taxed since 1934, and no more have been made available since 1986. There are a lot of hoops to jump through for civilians to own one of these rifles, and it is a time consuming and expensive process.
So, jumping into some of the arguments that I have heard against semi-automatic rifles lately, and offering some counter points. "These rifles don't have any sporting or hunting use." That is actually quite false. Aside from the fact that the Second Amendment has nothing to do with sporting or hunting, I have gone hunting with an AR-15, as do hundreds of thousands of other Americans every year. The round is a bit anemic for deer, however, in the great land that is America, there is a lot more to hunt than deer. I have taken my AR-15 out coyote hunting, and for that it is a logical choice. It is accurate, easy to mount an optic and flashlight on for night and low light hunting, the .223 has great ballistics on coyotes, and the fact it is semi-automatic and has low recoil allows for fast follow up shots. The AR-15 is a very common varmint and predator rifle in America, and used by many for hunting. Also, it has taken over the world of high power service rifle competitions. A majority of competitors at Camp Perry for the National Matches now shoot AR-15 variants. It also is used by many competitors in a sport that is called 3-gun. So, the rifles have a use as both hunting and sporting arms.
"You don't need any more than X bullets to defend yourself." I really wish that I had the psychic ability of these people to predict what I may need in the future. If so, I would know when I would need a gun to defend myself, and not show up to the encounter. Nobody knows the future, and what encounters others may face. Last night around Cincinnati there was an armed home invasion that had six suspects (link to the news story: http://www.wcpo.com/dpp/news/local_news/6-suspects-remains-at-large-following-elmwood-place-home-invasion#ixzz2HwfsTfY8). That makes 7 or 10 rounds seem wanting. Anyone who has ever been in a gunfight can tell you that it is not like the movies. It is a very dynamic, chaotic, confusing, terrifying experience, and is very different than standing at a shooting range punching holes in paper. When you start adding multiple threats into the situation, being ham-stringed by magazine capacity limits could get law abiding people killed. Aside from that, what the media calls "high capacity magazines" are actually standard capacity, and have been for the past 50 or so years.
"The Founders couldn't have imagined rifles like this when they wrote the Constitution, they meant muskets!" Well, no, probably not, but, they had just defended themselves against a tyrannical government using munitions equal to or better than those being used against them. Colonists who were able to were encouraged to buy cannons, and a single 1770s cannon round can do far more damage than a single round from a 5.56 rifle. I am also pretty sure that the Founders could never have envisioned the advent of blogging or the internet, but like to think that this post, and all my other ones, are covered by the First Amendment. If not, I guess that I should buy a Gutenberg printing press and use that to share my thoughts with the world. The Founding Fathers were extremely wise men, and they intended for the Constitution to last for generations of Americans. Had they not done so, they would have specified restrictions on our rights based on technology at their times. As an extra historical note, the Pennsylvania long rifles that some Revolutionary War soldiers carried was superior to the issued Brown-Bess musket issued to the British troops. The advent of rifled bores meant that the rifles were more accurate at longer ranges than the muskets.
I think that is enough of a primer to get people thinking, if anyone has any feedback or questions, please let me know. You can either leave a comment on here, or find us on Facebook or Twitter (@lmtactical). The next post should look more in depth at modern semi-automatic rifles, and their uses, and purposes for civilians in modern society.
No comments:
Post a Comment