Thoughts on Semi-Automatic Rifles: Part 2

As promised, I am coming back and looking at some of the issues surrounding semi-automatic rifles in this post as well.  While not the most scientific method available for determining how often a type of rifle is used in a crime, the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports do keep track of murders every year, and what weapons are most commonly used.  I say not the most scientific, because I realize that firearms can be used in other crimes than homicides, but, I think it provides a good baseline.  In 2011 (the full 2012 report hasn't been released yet) rifles (of all types, not just semi-automatics) were used in about 340 homicides out of a total of 14,612 homicides, which means about 2% of them.  You can go back to about 1960 in the UCR, and you will see that rifles traditionally are not used to murder people in America.  Usually both knives, as well as the hands/feet/fists section is responsible for more murders annually than rifles.

This brings up a very interesting question of why these rifles are demonized so much by politicians and the media, since they account for such a small percentage of criminal firearms use.  As I already mentioned in the last post, calling these rifles "assault rifles" or "assault weapons" is inaccurate and dishonest, and the criteria for what designates a rifle as one is generally rather absurd.

The text of the new ban that is expected to be introduced in the legislature has not yet been completely released (remember to be contacting your legislators and telling them to not support any new restrictions on our Second Amendment rights), so I am just going to use the previous ban to show how little sense these bans usually make.  Under the 1994-2004 ban, a rifle was banned if it was fed by a detachable box magazine, and had two or more of the following:

• A folding or telescoping stock
• A pistol grip
• Bayonet mount (bayonet lug would be the proper terminology)
• Flash suppressor, or a threaded barrel to accept one
• Or a muzzle mounted grenade launcher

It also included pistols that had two or more of the following:

• Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
• Threaded barrel
• Barrel shroud that can be used as a forward grip
• Unloaded weight of more than 50oz
• A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm

And semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following

• Folding or Telescoping stock
• Ability to accept a detachable magazine
• Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
• Pistol Grip

There were also some firearms that were specifically prohibited by name in the ban.  For the purpose of this post however, I am just focusing on rifles.  So, under the previous ban, this rifle was prohibited:

However, this one would not be:

Both are actually the same rifle, a Ruger Mini-14 ranch rifle, which by the way in not a military rifle.  All I did was change out the stock with an aftermarket one.  Both versions have the exact same capabilities, it doesn't change how fast the rifle can be fired, or the round the rifle fires (.223 Remington, which is for practical reasons the same round that an AR-15 fires). With a folding stock the overall length is about 8 inches shorter with the stock closed.  But, there is still a minimum length that a rifle needs to be in order to not be a class 3 firearm, and even with the stock closed, the rifle is over that length.  At almost 30" long, it still isn't concealable.  So, I am going to take a look at the features specified for rifles, and offer some reasons why it is good for rifles to have them.

• Folding or telescoping stock: First I don't particularly like folding stocks, and the Mini-14 is the only rifle I have that has one.  I don't like them because most of them don't lock up very tight, or allow the shooter a good cheek weld, which means that they generally make the rifle more uncomfortable to shoot.  But, a lot of people like the way they look, and if you are in a situation where you want to save space, they can make sense.  Telescoping stocks also have value as well.  It is a basic fact of life that people come in different shapes and sizes, and because of that, telescoping stocks are a great thing.  It means that two different people can shoot the same rifle, and just adjust the stock for a different length of pull, and do so comfortably.  I didn't realize that it was a bad thing to be able to customize a firearm to the shooter so that they can have a proper stance and eye relief to shoot it accurately.  Full sized stocks are too long for some people to shoot comfortably.  It also means that you don't necessarily need to buy a youth firearm for a child to learn on, that he will eventually outgrow.  You can buy a rifle with a folding stock, and extend it as the child grows, allowing him (or her) to keep that rifle they are familiar with.  
• A pistol grip: I guess some people think that they make a rifle look scary, but for the past 60 or so years, rifles with pistol grips have been around, and commonly available.  They actually make a rifle harder to conceal due to the added bulk, so they don't really effect that.  If you are strong enough to shoot a rifle one handed with a pistol grip (not something I advocate by the way), then you could do it with a normal stock.  It really is just a design that allows you to grip the rifle in a slightly different manner, and does nothing to enhance the capabilities of the rifle.
• Bayonet mount:  I have yet to see a single crime report where a rifle with a bayonet is used in a violent crime.  If anyone knows of any crimes committed with a rifle that had a bayonet attached in the last century, I would actually be very interested to see it.  Bayonets add length to a rifle, and make them a bit more unwieldy in confined spaces, and pretty much impossible to conceal unless you want to cut yourself.  Which should be a good thing, right?  If telescoping and folding stocks aren't allowed because they make the rifle shorter and easier to hide, then isn't something that does the opposite desired?  If a criminal is already using a rifle (which they rarely do anyways), what difference does it make if there is a bayonet or not on the end of it?  I would be more concerned about the rifle attached to the bayonet if presented with the threat.
• Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel to accept one:  Many rifles, including many bolt actions, have threaded muzzles in order to allow different muzzle attachments to be added.  I personally think this prohibition was more about the ability to add a sound suppressor than the flash suppressor, since most sound suppressors use threading to attach.  Sound suppressors, by the way, are a Class 3 restricted NFA item, that requires special procedures to purchase, and are already heavily controlled.  But, back to flash suppressors.  If I have to defend myself at night and am using a rifle, I would like to be able to see after the first shot, which a flash suppressor would help me be able to do.  Most also are designed in such a way that gasses are controlled in a way to help reduce muzzle climb.  I personally think that being able to control my firearm while I am firing it for the safety of myself and anyone else around me is a good thing.
• Grenade launcher:  This is not actually talking about externally mounted launchers, like a M-203, but muzzle mounted devices.  Before the advent of the standalone or under barrel style grenade launchers,  many rifles had muzzle devices that you could mount on the muzzle of the rifle.  Then, using special rounds, you would fire the rifle, and launch the grenade.  It is not the most effective method to launch a grenade, because it means you can't use your rifle at the same time.  And aside from that, I have never once seen such a grenade available to purchase by the general public, because explosive are very heavily controlled.  So really, what difference does an extra inch or two of metal on the muzzle of my rifle make?  Some rifles were just imported with them, its not like they add any capability to the rifle without a grenade to launch. Similar to the bayonets, if anyone knows of a muzzle mounted grenade launcher being used to be launch a grenade from a rifle in the last century, I'd be interested to hear about it.  

None of these features really has anything to do with enhancing the capabilities of a rifle.  They are all cosmetic features that some people don't like the way they look, they think that they make the rifle look "scary."  To me it shows the absurdity of banning firearms based on just those features. Although I think firearms bans in general are absurd, because they only effect law abiding citizens and not criminals, so I am sure that I am biased.