What constitutes an "Assault Rifle"?

Grammatically, an "assault weapon" would be any weapon used in an assault.

So, we could be talking about an assault hammer, and assault knife, or even assault fists. As pointed out in a previous blog, in Connecticut in the seven (7) years  prior to the Sandy Hook tragedy there had been exactly 2 homicides that involved rifles. In contrast, every year there are about 40 homicides from knives, 340 from clubs or similar items, and even 20 from the use of just the hand or foot. My guess is that this statistic would ring true pretty much everywhere.

But let's just constrain our talk to rifles here. According to the original Assault Weapon Ban, and as fundamentally renewed in the latest suggestions from Ms Feinstein, an assault rifle has a detachable magazine and two (2) or more of the following purely cosmetic characteristics:

• Folding or telescoping stock,
• pistol grip,
• bayonet lug,
• rocket or grenade launcher, or
• flash suppressor or threaded barrel to allow the attachment on such.

In some strange world, these characteristics change a rifle suitable for use in sport to a death-dealing instrument of homicide just by their inclusion in the makeup of an otherwise benign firearm. How exactly, I do not know. Not a single one of these characteristics cause the rifle to be more powerful. None cause it to be more lethal when shot by it. None of these cause it to shoot faster, or to carry more ammunition in and of itself.

Does the fact that the rifle is a little shorter with the replacement folding stock make a difference? The requirement is already for the barrel to be no less than 16" long, plus there is some length required for the main receiver part of the rifle making it highly unlikely any modern rifle is going to come in much shorter than 24" overall. In fact, shorter rifles are in general more difficult to shoot accurately, so wouldn't that be a good thing?

Pistol grips and thumb-hole stocks have been used in competition target shooting rifles in classifications that allow them for years. Yet for some reason there isn't much concern about these being used as implements of mass destruction. So it apparently isn't the pistol grip itself at fault here.

Bayonet lugs are used to attach, well, a bayonet to the end of a rifle. Excuse me, but are bayonet attacks actually that big of a problem that we have to outlaw the attachment points? And somehow a bayonet someone is waving around in their hand is so much better than one attached to a rifle?

Rocket and grenade launchers also aren't as big of a problem here in Texas as they obviously are in New York or California. Evidently they are so common there that again we need to make sure that people can't have them. And, by the way, it is pretty hard to get an actual grenade or rocket, without which the launcher seems to be a bit superfluous.

And then the dreaded flash suppressor. How exactly is a simple piece of perforated metal whose sole purpose is to mitigate the plume of partially unburned powder that causes a bright "flash" at the end of a short barreled rifle causing additional danger to anyone?

Truth of the matter is the cited characteristics that contribute to being an "assault rifle" do nothing more than make a rifle look different. It now looks more like a military weapon. But it doesn't shot like one. It does not fire in full-auto or select fire modes. For those that don't know, full-auto is when you pull the trigger back and the firearms continues to fire until you release the trigger. Select fire is a system whereby the firearm shoots a specific number of times with 1 pull of the trigger. The standard semi-auto MODERN SPORTING RIFLE does neither of these things. You pull the trigger 1 time, you get 1 bullet out.

And one more "by the way": it's can actually be completely legal to own fully automatic or select fire firearms in 39 states right now. It requires a lot of paperwork, special licenses and tax stamps from the federal government, but it can be done perfectly legally. Once you file your paperwork, pay your tax and wait for the approval, you can own and shoot your very own machine gun.

The sad part is, most folks who don't know much about guns think THESE are what is being banned. But that is not the case. With all the work that goes in to obtaining permission to own a fully automatic weapon, plus the $200 tax stamp to transfer it, there has never been an attempt to include fully automatic rifles in any ban. The only firearms included are ones that LOOK like that, but in fact work exactly like your Uncle Lou's 50 year old recreational rifle.

Why am I not surprised that our elected officials have once again chosen to highlight form over function in the gun debate. It apparently doesn't matter how a rifle works, or how it shoots, or if it has a perfectly legitimate use. The fact that it LOOKS scary is enough to send people screaming in terror in to the night and demand that they be removed from our society.

Another voice added against the debate on Gun Control

Steve Sanetti, NSSF President: “The Industry Isn’t the Bad Guys”

For those of you who may not know, the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF)  is the industry voice for firearms and associated manufacturers. While they certainly represent gun manufacturers and want the industry to do well, they are also one of the leading organizations pushing gun safety as well as regularly working with the FBI and ATF to promote balance in gun regulation. And, coincidently, they are headquartered in Newtown, CT.

In a recent interview (Jan 24) with PBS for a Frontline episode, Sanetti discussed a wide range of topics from his own background to the current gun control fervor. One of the reasons I like listening to the NSSF over some of the other organizations is they don't speak down to people who have beliefs other than theirs. I personally think in-your-face speeches such as what sometimes comes from the NRA and Wayne La Pierre does more harm than good, by polarizing audiences and steeling people's resolve.

One of the interesting things Sanetti points out is that in Connecticut prior to the Sandy Hook tragedy, in the last seven (7) years there had been exactly 2 homicides that involved rifles. In contrast, every year there are about 40 homicides from knives, 340 from clubs or similar items, and even 20 from the use of just the hand or foot. My guess is that this statistic would ring true pretty much everywhere. But for some reason the assault rifle has been singled out and demonized as the most vile weapon to remove from our streets.

One other thing I really like about the way Sanetti communicates the message is by not taking on stupid arguments head on. When gun-haters say things to inflame the listener, the best argument is to show the foolishness of the comment and not attack back in kind. When Sanetti talks about gun-haters who say AR rifles are only meant for killing people, he points out that millions of people have passed the required checks and own them legally, that essentially none of them will ever be used to hurt or kill anyone, and that by implying those millions of people are nascent murderers only ensures that they will never cooperate in finding a suitable solution to the problem.

The last point he makes is truly interesting, and shows that as a group and as an industry there is a lot of care and concern. He notes that there has been a huge spike in firearms sales since the Sandy Hook incident. Being a representative of the firearms industry, you would think he views that as a good thing. But in fact he notes that much of this buying is for the wrong reasons. He says 

"we want people to own firearms for the right reasons because they understand, respect them, enjoy them, and will use them safely, properly, and responsibly. So the idea of a mad rush for everybody to buy a firearm I don’t think is necessarily the best trend in the world ...."

If you would like to read the transcript of this conversation, you can find it here:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/social-issues/newtown-divided/steve-sanetti-nssf-president-the-industry-isnt-the-bad-guys/

If citizens can't have banned items, should LEOs?

I am a firm supporter of the law enforcement community. These are people who run towards danger when everyone else runs away. They have a difficult job to do, and one that is dangerous in ways others of us can't even imagine.

With the recent increase in restrictions to firearms and accessories taking place in many jurisdiction, some manufactures and suppliers have decided that they will not sell restricted items even to law enforcement in those areas as long as the everyday law abiding citizen can not have them. Others have decided that law enforcement duties require exceptional resources, regardless of what may be commonly available to the general populous. It can make for a heated debate, and is in fact a very complex topic that brings a lot of attention in to sharp focus.

Here is my opinion on the subject. Is is just my opinion, and it is certainly not perfect because of the range of issues involved.

Police officers put themselves in harms way as a part of their every day employment, and I certainly wouldn't begrudge them the very best equipment to help preserve their lives and those they protect. But that is precisely it; it is a part of the JOB. If they have access to better tools to do this job, it should be restricted to use ON THE JOB. If the general population can not own a specific style of rifle, or a certain sized magazine, then the off duty police office should not be able to have them either.

In fact, why not even say that in Illinois, because no one can have a concealed carry permit, that they even have to leave all their firearms at the station. I'm originally from the Chicago area, and I know a good many off-duty cops moonlight doing security. Often the security has to do with safeguarding the political elite. What if these elite suddenly had to face the fact that their bodyguards can no longer carry firearms, just like the rest of the population. Suddenly, things might seem a little different to them.

As great as I think law enforcement is, their lives and the lives of those they love ARE NOT more important than mine. If a jurisdiction has decided that myself or another citizen can not have a tool to protect our lives, then just because another citizen has a different job (LEO) does not mean they should have special privileges. To allow otherwise is in essence saying that certain peoples lives are more valuable than others.

If a LEO works in NY and needs an AR for their patrol vehicle, they should have it. But when they go off shift, that rifle should be secured within their offices and not taken out by off duty officers. If they have 15 round magazines for their duty weapons, they should remove those and replace them with appropriately sized civilian legal magazines prior to leaving.

My point here is not that LEO do not deserve having these very useful tools, but that if there is a reason LEO need them then there is also a reason civilians need them as well. My life as a civilian concealed carry holder is just as precious as that off duty LEO.

Many will make the comments that the street officer does not impose the laws or restrictions on society, so why should they suffer because of political hubris. Or that in many cases officers don't agree with the laws. I appreciate those feelings, and I thank these brave men and women for their support of my 2nd Amendment rights. The problem is I don't get an exemption from the law just because I don't agree with it. If the law is unfair, it is unfair for everyone. If the law puts LEO in danger (just as it puts ordinary citizens in danger) then they need to be a part of the solution that fixes these laws. Having a badge should not be a free pass to do something ordinary citizens can not.

What is important here is that we don't start having 2 classes of citizens, for whom the law is enforced differently. It is illegal for the common citizen to steal. It is also illegal for LEO to steal. So laws do apply to everyone.

Let's take it one giant step further. In the course of their work, officers are sometimes called upon to shoot and kill bad guys. But killing someone is always homicide, and is against the law even if you are a cop. That is why there is always an investigation. What happens is a judgment is made on justifiable homicide, based on the concept that it was reasonable to believe that the offending party posed an imminent threat to the life or wellbeing of another. Just like what happens in a civilian self defense case. So again, the police agent is not given any different treatment than a civilian, even though the actual mechanics of it may look different. The law applies equally.

As I said, I don't want to withhold tools from cops. I want them to have the best of everything to do their jobs. But I want that to be available for everyone. By saying that one class of person has more of a right to their life and safety than another goes against everything we believe in here in this country.

Joe Biden is a f*****g idiot

On Tuesday, Feb 19 Vice President Joe Biden took part in a live video Town Hall meeting on Facebbok, presented by Parents Magazine. I'm sure he had some very valuable things to say on a lot of topics, but where he really went off the rails was in response to a question posted by a user. This user asked if the ban on military style weapons would hurt the ability of law-abiding citizens to protect themselves. Mr Biden's suggestion was "Buy a shotgun".

The funniest part was when he said he told his wife Jill that if there was ever someone breaking in to the house, she should take their shotgun outside and fire off 2 rounds. You would never need more than that. Presumably that was BEFORE they had heavily armed Secret Service agents guarding them 24/7.

The following are some of the things that this totally misinformed political attack dog said, and why he is so incredibly ignorant of reality.

• Shotguns are easier to aim. Mr Biden obviously watches a lot of movies where a shotgun takes down an entire room full of bad guys, fired from the hip. Realty shows us that at normal across the room distances (in my house, maybe 15 feet), a shotgun blast is no more than 4" in diameter. Even that in generous with some of the chokes used on modern shotguns. So I need to make a 4" circle of lead impact the vital center chest area (perhaps 8" in diameter) without aiming? And if you are going to aim a shotgun, you would have an even more devastating effect with the single projectile of a rifle
• Shotguns are easier to shoot. Sure, ask any unsuspecting small person or child who has ever been handed a shotgun by a jokester, only to watch them get knocked to the ground by the recoil. If you are not prepared, pulling the trigger once on a shotgun will make darn sure you never pull it a second time without flinching.
• If someone is breaking in to your house go outside -----  well, sure. Leave the protection of your home, which you know better than anyone, and go outside where the bad guys are. Maybe there are more outside you can try to scare. Instead of taking a firearm, retreating in to a safe defend-able area of your home and waiting for help to arrive. You did call for help, didn't you?
• and fire off 2 rounds ----- great, and exactly where do you shoot them? Into the ground, where you are likely to hit your own foot, a pet, someone else with you? Or which will throw up so much dirt and debris that the bad guys will know exactly where you are (but that won't matter, because you won't see them coming). Or in to the air? Now we have lead pellets flying around (or maybe even 1 oz slugs of lead, depends on how your shotgun is loaded), coming back to earth who knows where. I live out in the country here in Texas, and I know there are several houses nearby that could potentially be in danger.
• ------ discharging a firearm should only be done if you life is in imminent danger. You shouldn't be shooting because you hear noises. You shouldn't be shooting because you see a vague shadow on the other side of the house. You shouldn't be chasing people running away and shooting them. You shoot when there are identified targets that mean to do you immediate and permanent harm. So how much effect fo you think you will have on a bad guy who is staring you in the eyes when you shoot in the other direction?
• ------ oh yeah, by the way,   you just went from a double barreled firearm capable of defeating most attackers, and turned it in to a club.
• You won't need more than 2 shots. Well, first of all you didn't actually DO anything with the 2 shots you had. Statistics prove that people who are not scared off by just the presence of a firearm are probably not going to be scared off by a warning shot. These are bad people intent on bad things, and often actually even being shot doesn't stop them.
• By shooting ineffectually in a non-threatening direction, you have just shown the intruder that you are probably incapable of actually shooting at a person, so they actually have LESS fear now.
• No body needs a 30 round magazine. Granted, most people do not need 30 rounds to stop a normal perpetrator entering their home for a simple burglary. But say, for instance, a hopped up drug addict has decided that you might have some good prescription medications, and brings along a couple of his friends. They don't care about you, they are just as likely to kill you if they find you as anything else. And in their highly charged, totally anesthetized state, you are probably going to have to shoot them at least 3 or 4 times to get them to stop. Plus, you are going to be so pumped up that you will probably only actually hit them 50% of the time (and you would be a pretty remarkable shot if you got that good). So three bad guys, times 6-8 shots each.... boy, I'm glad I didn't just bring a double barreled shotgun to this fight for my life.

I'm not going to tell you what to use to protect your loved ones. It depends on the time, the situation and the people involved. Pistols are very easy to maneuver within the confines of the house. Rifles have good stopping power, and studies show that a smaller round like the 223 will actually penetrate FEWER internal walls and structure before coming to a stop than even a 9mm pistol round. Pump action shotguns, semi-auto shotguns, even double and single barrel shotguns all have their place in defense. However, the purpose of a firearm is to STOP a bad guy from doing bad things to you or the ones you love.

If all that stands between my loved ones and a bad guy are 2 shotgun blasts, I am pretty sure I know which way MY shots are going to be aimed.

There is nothing inherently wrong with a "Military-style" firearm

One complaint you hear a lot of people making about the Modern Sporting Rifle (or AR rifle, or the so-called assault rifle) is that it is a military style rifle that was never designed for the civilian marketplace. Well, I own AR rifles and I am here to tell you: they're absolutely right.

Eugene Stoner never thought about the ways that people are currently using his rifle design. It was made to be the modern follow-up to the previous battle rifle, the M-14. It was meant to be lighter to carry, more reliable and generally just be a better rifle for the modern soldier.

And those are in fact exactly why it is so good at all the other things people now use it for. For most people in Texas and other places in the South and Southwest, it has become the de-facto Hog Gun. It has quickly worked its way to being a very popular predator gun, that takes numerous coyotes and other species very well. In places where it is legal, it is being used for deer. It is without equal in the shooting competitions that it is allowed in. All in all, you will not find a better all around rifle that combines this mix of features than the MSR. In fact, if you get yours in the stouter 308 caliber and forget about the Jeff Cooper imposed bolt action requirement, it can be made to hit all the high points of his Scout Rifle concept: under 3kg, under 1m in length, hit a man sized target at 450m with iron sights.

And in this way it is exactly like every other popular evolution of firearm that has happened in the history of us as a race. Every single improvement, most of which are now common practice in firearms that aren't on Sen Feinstein's ban list, has been precipitated by conflict and the need for an efficient military weapon.

Like what, you ask? How about:

• Gunpowder in the first place,
• Black powder weapons that increased the range and power of the soldier past the bow and arrow,
• Rifling used to spin projectiles to make them more accurate than the smooth bores of earlier firearms,
• Paper cartridges that increased the speed and convenience of loading these weapons,
• metallic cartridges that made loading even faster, and eventually lead to,
• Bolt and lever action firearms, that lead to
• multi-shot and magazine fed firearms.

Every rifle in existence owes its roots to a military weapon. It was work done to make the soldier better equipped for battle that allows us to have accurate hunting rifles and shotguns. Nobody seems to worry that the modern hunting rifle is descendant from the military rifles that were considered state of the art in 1900. When they first came out, trapdoor levers and bolt action rifles must have seemed like science fiction to the enemy that had to stare down the barrel of these rapid shooting weapons. And exactly the same thing is happening now; after a generation of seeing what a truly fine tool these firearms are, people who have used them and become comfortable with them are finding non-military uses for them.

So, let's quit fearing things just because they have a military origin. Guns have been used to fight wars, but they also put food on the table and allow recreation and competition for those so inclined. Knives have been used in battle since the beginning of time. People used to bludgeon each other with essentially big hammers and axes.

And we do all remember that originally the Internet was a DARPA project, right? Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency? And just like the AR rifle, it is now a force for good as well as evil.

Reload - Back in the game again

Well, its been a long while since my last post. You know how it gets, life gets in the way. But I am still here, still carrying a gun, still passionate about taking care of those I love.

I'm going to try getting back in to putting my thoughts down on this blog again. You might agree with some of them, you might not. Feel free to express your feelings, as long as it is in a respectful and thought out tone. As promised before, I promise to not censor anyone who thinks differently than I. As long as you think, and don't attack or try to bully or demean anyone, I will let every reader make up their own mind who they agree with. As with most things, I find when there is conflict of opinion, the truth is usually found somewhere in the middle.

I'm going to hit up a couple posts on what I think of as "Responsible Gun Owner" issues. That concept coves a lot of ground in my mind, and I think you will see that play out in this series of posts.

Thanks for reading, and hopefully we will all learn something from this process of sharing.