Never a good idea to start with an easily refuted lie.

Status
Not open for further replies.

hso

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jan 3, 2003
Messages
66,031
Location
0 hrs east of TN
SHOT is the biggest firearms trade show in the US. THR itself is 20 years old. I attended SHOT 20 years ago as well as being here when the doors metaphorically opened. The AR15 was already popular.

About the author: Ryan Busse is the author of Gunfight: My Battle Against the Industry That Radicalized America, and serves as a senior policy adviser to the gun-control advocacy group Giffords.

Less than 20 years ago, when I was a rising executive at an up-and-coming gun company, most people in the firearms industry regarded the AR-15 rifle as distasteful and dangerous, and they chose not to promote it at events. Trade shows did not allow the display or advertisement of tactical gear like that worn by the Uvalde and Buffalo shooters, who both used AR-15-type rifles to carry out those atrocities.

Up until about 2006, only a handful of companies were making AR-15s. They were outliers, producing rifles mainly for law enforcement and the military, and in the domestic commercial market AR-15s accounted for just a fraction of total gun sales, which averaged from 6 million to 8 million guns a year. The social norms that governed gun ownership and the firearms industry were clear: Assault rifles and tactical gear were a creepy, fringe interest that had no place in a complex democratic society.


The unwritten rules of decency were enforced by firearm-industry leaders—the executives, publishers, and journalists who functioned like risk managers, warding off threats to the reputation of the whole enterprise. I witnessed how this worked many times, including one occasion when a young writer brought his own AR-15 to a hunting event I was hosting in 2004. The senior figures there responded immediately. “That’s not the kind of thing we want to be promoting,” they said. The newcomer was shamed into locking the gun up for the rest of the event.

The industry’s restraint came from a sense of responsibility and was voluntary. Contrary to common belief, AR-15s have never been completely outlawed. This was true even during the 10-year assault-weapons ban that a Republican-controlled Congress under President Bush allowed to sunset in 2004. Many AR-15s were not covered by that law unless they were fitted with particular features, such as high-capacity magazines, flash suppressors, or folding stocks that pushed them into the “assault weapon” category. Millions of AR-15s might have been sold perfectly legally during the ban, but industry conduct and social stigma inhibited that. The ban both reinforced and reflected this voluntary code.

The few AR-15s manufactured between 1994 and 2004 became known in the industry as “post-ban” rifles. The shooter who killed 10 people in Buffalo used one of those guns, a Bushmaster XM-15 made during that period; all the teenager who bought it had to do to turn it into an even deadlier weapon of war was outfit it with a modern high-capacity magazine.


Read: How bipartisan gun-control talks actually succeeded

For much of my career I fought to hold the industry to its own rules of responsibility. When other manufacturers condemned Dick’s Sporting Goods for refusing to sell AR-15s, I insisted that my company maintain a relationship with the national retailer despite pressures to join a boycott. I tried to counter the movement to embrace everything tactical, no matter how dangerous the equipment concerned. But I lost that battle. Today, I am a critic fighting from the outside. The industry now comprises as many as 500 companies making AR-15 variants, along with hundreds of tactical-gear makers. Gone are the old norms; the “tactical lifestyle” now dominates trade shows. We see campaigns for guns like the Urban Super Sniper, and potential buyers can consider their “man card reissued” if they pick a particular AR-15.

Recommended Reading
At least 20 million guns are sold every year in the U.S., about 4 million of which are AR-15 rifles. By all accounts, at least 20 million AR-15s are now out there, among the more than 400 million guns in circulation. The gun industry is arming civilians with weapons of war in that same complex democracy it once knew to protect. Some companies even market to children, such as Wee1 Tactical, a rifle maker that advertises its miniaturized AR-15s with pink and green cartoon characters. This “JR-15” is not a toy; it’s a real semiautomatic rifle, sized for a kid to use.

The astounding transition from an era of self-restraint to where we are now began in 1999, after the murders at Columbine High School. The National Rifle Association’s convention was scheduled to take place just a few days after that school mass shooting, and only a few miles away, in Denver. Although much of the convention was canceled, the NRA leadership held closed-door business meetings in which they discussed strategy options, as we know from secret recordings of those meetings recently uncovered by National Public Radio. The choice before the NRA, as leaders saw it, was either conciliation and engagement with lawmakers to help draft improved policies or aggressive resistance with the aim of frightening its members into believing lawmakers would come after their guns. The NRA chose to enter the culture-war business, and so did the gun industry.

The Bush administration helped that along by allowing the assault-weapons ban to end in 2004, and, more important, by signing in 2005 the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which shielded the gun industry from liability no matter what kind of irresponsible marketing it used to promote firearms. The new law removed any incentive for the gun industry to hold on to its former self-imposed restraint.


Perhaps Bush’s biggest gifts to AR-15 makers, though, were the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Nothing normalized the “black rifle” like the evening-news segments featuring U.S. soldiers on combat missions. Later, as returning veterans, they would go on to form a ready-made customer base for civilian versions of the rifle. For many of those ex-service members, owning and shooting the rifle became a way to stay connected to the people they had served with in “the sandbox.”

I watched all of these ingredients—the NRA’s fear, the Bush-era laws, the returning soldiers, and the glorification of war—coalesce into a frightening, self-perpetuating vortex. A handful of others in the industry also quit or lost their jobs for speaking out, but we were too few, too late.

Barack Obama’s win in the 2008 presidential election provided the firearms industry with a culture-war boost, as the NRA took to promoting conspiracy-theory-minded fears. Before Obama took office, U.S. gun consumers had never purchased more than 10 million guns in a single year; by the time he left, they would be buying more than 16 million a year, and at least 2 million of those were AR-15s. The industry came to call Obama “The Greatest Gun Salesman in America.”

Following its post-Columbine strategy, the NRA also learned how to harness the predictable calls for legislation after mass shootings to drive gun buyers into a fearful frenzy. The gun group made maximum use of events like Sandy Hook and the shooting of Gabby Giffords in Tucson. Sales boomed after every shooting, especially sales of AR-15s.


Read: Why the AR-15 is so lethal

After his 2016 election win, President Donald Trump’s dog-whistling dalliance with racism and conspiracy theory—components of the NRA playbook that I had witnessed for years—accelerated the feedback loop of profit and fear even more, eventually producing sales of nearly 23 million guns in 2020, a 44 percent increase over even the highest totals of the Obama years. The rifle of war, once relegated to the back halls of the shooting industry, was now its star performer.

The NRA helped convert the black rifle into a political symbol, too. Bumper stickers and ball caps bearing its distinctive outline became emblematic of a new brand of identity politics. By 2015, devotion to the gun and what it stood for had become central to extremist groups like the Oath Keepers. Sadly, it came as no surprise for me to see Black Rifle Coffee gear and Come and Take It AR-15 flags everywhere among the January 6 insurrectionists. As the rioters were breaking into the Capitol and threatening lawmakers that day in 2021, I took a call from an old friend, another former gun-industry executive, who remarked, “Well, at least now everyone knows what it’s like to be at an NRA convention.”

So here we are, at the apex of the NRA’s high-pressure culture war, with more than 20 million AR-15s in circulation and a deeply polarized political culture. What are we to do with this mess?


One place to start would be an effort to reestablish the same social norms the industry itself once insisted on. The measures outlined in the policy framework that a bipartisan group of senators is now negotiating would offer some of the marginal improvements that can help with that goal, including funding to support states’ red-flag laws.

But to denormalize AR-15s, we need to go further—by decoupling their regulation from that applied to other, less dangerous firearms. No one under the age of 21 should be able to buy these rifles. This will not be easy to achieve with politicians still at the behest of a gun industry that wants to pretend AR-15s are just like target shotguns or hunting rifles, firearms long ruled appropriate for a minimum purchase age of 18 years (unlike handguns, for which a buyer must be 21). Senate Republicans have refused to consider any move to introduce a higher age limit for purchasing and owning an AR-15. But the GOP and the industry are wrong: These guns are different from most others. If they were not so uniquely deadly, why would they almost invariably be mass shooters’ weapon of choice?

Read: What I saw treating the victims from Parkland should change the debate on guns

Lastly, we must consider national legislation to rein in the gun industry’s deeply irresponsible marketing of the AR-15-led “tactical lifestyle.” Not so long ago, the U.S. restricted the tobacco industry’s use of misleading advertising to glamorize smoking. We did not ban the freedom to smoke cigarettes, but we did make the situation better, saved some lives, and began to cut the costs of smoking-related disease. Smoking still kills too many Americans, but thanks to action, a century-long growth in the death toll is slowly being reversed. We can make the same improvements for guns without impinging on people’s personal choice and civil liberties.


The legislative proposals now emerging on gun reform may seem tentative, too weak to repair what is broken, but even modest changes in the law can be an important social signal. The first moves to restrict tobacco products started that way: Back in 1987, Congress banned smoking on domestic flights, though only those of less than two hours’ duration; it took decades more for most states to pass comprehensive smoke-free laws. But this is our path to reversing the erosion of norms and restoring the sense of responsibility and decency on which our democracy depends.

No law under consideration will solve everything, but we can work to restore a safer culture of responsible gun ownership. Even the gun industry once believed in that value. I know because I was there.

https://mil-force.com/zh/the-shot-show-2002/
https://gunblast.com/SHOT_Show_2002.htm
 
Last edited:
I may be too young, but i do remember distinctly before 2012, we sorta did (at least the people around me) view the AR as sorta a taboo, ominous rifle to own. Nobody in my family expect for a late uncle who was a FFL owned one until after 2012.
 
The anti's have succeeded in controlling the 2A debate by focusing on guns, with them ratcheting up the attacks after a mass shooting. I was in Hawaii last week and saw a group of 30 or so protesters marching with their support kids not guns signs. We have a political party that's leading these attacks which does not value life but uses the death of children in school shootings to promote a political agenda. Maybe one way to fight back against their constant guns are bad drumbeat is to start a drumbeat of our own. Given their anti-life track record we have more than enough ammunition. This is a party who does nothing to stop the slaughter of poor minorities in the cities they run, refuses to prosecute violent criminals, allowing them to commit further crimes, promote riots and pushes to defund the police further increasing violent crime in the cities they run. Them pretending to care about human life is disgusting and I wish the powers that be that speak for us would call them out on their hypocrisy.
 
Last edited:
Hate anything you want but I STILL see plenty of fudds who not only don't have black rifles, but turn up their nose at them.

Yes, 20 years ago, it was worse in the sense that there were gun stores that might note even take your black rifle in trade and be snooty about it. I thought back in that era they even segregated all the tactical stuff to one corner or a nearby building, but maybe that was NRA way back when or... something else, or my brain is going bad.
 
I may be too young, but i do remember distinctly before 2012, we sorta did (at least the people around me) view the AR as sorta a taboo, ominous rifle to own. Nobody in my family expect for a late uncle who was a FFL owned one until after 2012.

There were a lot of people who didn't drink until the government passed Prohibition and told them they couldn't. ;)
I remember a guy where I worked in the 90's who bought a few AR's as an "investment" because of the ban. Heck, I've got some Sig 228 and Browning HP mags that I bought back then thinking they'd be unobtanium in the near future... o_O
 
When the 1994 AWB passed AR's were somewhat rare. IMO the 1994-2004 ban did a lot to make them as popular as they are today. I have no data to prove it, but wouldn't be surprised if there were more AR's sold between 1994 and 2004 than before 1994. I only knew 2-3 people who owned one prior to 1994. By 2004 I didn't know anyone who didn't own at least one.

The 1994 AWB only outlawed certain features and a handful of imported guns by name. If manufacturers left off the flash hider and bayonet lug and sold them with 10 round mags they could continue making the same rifles as before the ban. I bought several during the ban and still have one. I did replace the upper just to get a flash hider and bayonet lug after they became legal.

New magazines made after the ban took effect that held more than 10 rounds were marked "LE and military only". But any mag made prior was perfectly legal according to federal law. Some states were different. There was no shortage of magazines for most firearms.

Some that had been introduced shortly before the ban were hard to find and expensive. Glocks in 40 caliber, 45 and 10mm especially. But if you owned a 9mm Glock, Beretta, Ruger, S&W, or several others mags were everywhere, albeit at inflated prices.

Gun manufacturers made butt loads of "LE and Military only" mags and gave them free to every LE agency in the country in exchange for their old unmarked mags. Then sold the used mags to non LE folks. There were boat loads of used unmarked AR magazines imported from all over the world and sold to people with new AR's that came with 10 round mags.
 
I started building AR's in the late 80's (before it was "cool"). Bushmaster was the preferred parts supplier. Guys in the unit would tell me what they wanted built, I would have them buy a receiver, order the parts, and build for cost plus a small extra for me. It was a lot easier since there were much less choices back then in everything. The downside is that there were so many companies selling garbage parts in the back of shotgun news or at gun shows- I didn't want to properly assemble a gun out of junk parts and then it didn't work, and people would think it was my fault.
 
20 years ago the AR15:
"Wasn't as reliable as an ak47"
"Wasn't that accurate"
"Was expensive"
There were only a handful of companies making them, colt, FN, bushmaster, Olympia arms and not all at the same time.

20 years ago tac gear was:
"Cheap and plentiful"
"Always made good Halloween fun"
Was widely used by paintballers

I never went to a trade show, but plenty of gun shows and I remember no shortage of unaffordable colt AR15s even in the 1990s.
The Mini14 way outsold the AR15 because it was half the price and was close enough to an AR15, as it had a detachable mag and fired 5.56mm. We were also flooded with super cheap m1 carbines, $89 sks, $100 AK, M1 garand. All but the M1 carbine were seen as superior to the AR15 back then. There were boat loads of other repeater milsurp that are literally weapons of war.
So saying that "our complex democracy had no place for weapons of war" is just nonsensical.
The only way anyone might think that is if construe ruger to be the whole gun industry in the way that they wouldn't sell the ac556 to the public pre86 and wouldn't sell the 30 round mags to the public. But that was all way before the late 1990s.
 
So, alot of words and about 10 minutes of reading to basically say AR15's have surged in popularity in the last two decades and the author has a wild hair about semi automatic dbm rifles.........



I'm intrigued by the "JR-15". That was probably the only worthwhile thing I read in this "piece".
 
Hate anything you want but I STILL see plenty of fudds who not only don't have black rifles, but turn up their nose at them.

Sorry, but IMHO, this kind of mindset/rhetoric is just as anti-gun as the quoted article in the OP. The 2nd is not just about the right to own firearms, but the right to choose what firearm you want. Hard to trash folks for not wanting a AR and then still expect them to respect your choice for wanting one. Lots of folks that own handguns don't own and may actually despise Glocks, or Kel-tecs or Taurus...are they Fudds too? While I own a ton of DA revolvers, I don't own any SAs. Is my first name Elmer? I think it's not the guns themselves some folks despise, but the owners and the corresponding attitudes of some of them that, fellow gun owners despise.

It's easy to make blanket statements, but they are seldom, if ever accurate. The majority of gun owners in America probably do not own an AR style platform. In truth, the majority of them that do not, still respect the choice of others to do so. It needs to go both ways or we are just shooting ourselves in the foot.
 
As JMR has stated above, the interest in ARs was kindled by Clinton issuing the executive order of the AWB. ARs were not uncommon but prices were higher in relation to other guns. There were also fewer parts and kit manufacturers and quality parts, like Bushmaster were not exactly cheap.
In addition, the surplus rifle market was very much alive and with cheap surplus ammo available. This offered a cost saving alternative to the AR. Look at 8x57IS prices compared to .223 Remington and the frugal shooter's choice is easily understood.

Bans and government threats of bans, will always lead to a spike in interest.
 
Americans have always enjoyed "army surplus" and the economics of obsolete military equipment of all kinds. We have always had a soft spot for the materiel that was used to defend our country and that Hollywood used to tell its stories. If he was trying to sell 1911s and other guns without understanding or appealing to that aspect of our national psyche, he was an idiot well before his reformation.

The gun banners played into the industries' hands by seeking to deny access to mere citizens. It is not surprising that absence makes the heart grow fonder, and that we desire that which is more difficult to obtain or in danger of being denied us. Busse is being paid by gun banners, and uses the opportunity to write and tout a book that apparently depicts him as a rising star in the industry who has an epiphany courtesy of his wife and sells out to the other side. I am sure there will be a movie deal in the future.
 
JMR is spot on. My first AR came during the ban just because. Bought an Armalite AR 10. They put a break on it instead of flash hider and no lug. Uses converted M14 mags. You could buy 20 round mags all day off of GB but they were expensive. I still have it with the break since it does tame it down somewhat. I have ARs mainly for shtf reasons. Bolt guns are my preferred range tool along with shooting bug holes. ymmv
 
I know hunters that support this bill . One that I called a friend came over my house last week to pick up his dog that I had been starting on rabbits . Out of the blue he brought up banning AR’s . We got into a big argument and I thought it was going to come to fist at one point . I tried to tell him that the 2nd amendment wasn’t for hunting . When you have gun owners and even hunters divided , the 2nd amendment is going to be infringed upon and gun rights are in trouble .
 
I may be too young, but i do remember distinctly before 2012, we sorta did (at least the people around me) view the AR as sorta a taboo, ominous rifle to own. Nobody in my family expect for a late uncle who was a FFL owned one until after 2012.
Colt AR-15's were available on the civilian market since 1964. I bought my first one in1968.

The interest in AR's mushroomed in the 1980's, when the Colt patent expired and other companies entered the fray. That's when people started building customized AR's.

The fact that they were increasingly common by the 1990's, is exactly what brought on the 1994 AWB in the first place. And then they really took off after 2004, when the AWB expired.

There is no question that today, the AR-15 is "America's rifle."

So I would say your family's experience was not at all typical.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top