Own an AR15 or AK? This guy thinks you shouldn't

[.38 Special]

Like it or not, the guy makes some valid points, even if some of us are apparently incapable of understanding them, or are simply too busy leaping to conclusions to be bothered with them.

One of those points is that we do see these guns used in high-profile crimes. He is correct in noting that a certain type of nutjob is attracted to these guns -- and high capacity magazines -- for use in mass murders. If you stop shouting and think about it for a moment you realize that this paints a very negative picture in the minds of the average non-gun owning citizen, and it's easy to understand why they might look askance at people who own "assault" rifles themselves.

Moreover, the stereotype of the tinfoil-hatted survivalist sitting alone in the dark, cleaning his rifle and preparing for the end of the world is still strong with the public and is perpetuated by many of the things said and done by "assault" rifle owners, including some who post to this website.

In the end, my only real argument with the column is that we have ample evidence that tossing the "assault" rifle crowd under the bus isn't likely to make the gun banners go away. If it were magically possible to guarantee that legal limits on magazine capacity or rifle design would be the end of it, I'd personally be fine with it -- but we all know it wouldn't. That point, rather than the angry, misspelled "I got my rights, fudd!" diatribes, is the one that ought to be made with the gentleman.

 

[BigO01]

That’s not going to happen, although Obama might throw a sop to the idealists by pushing for some changes that will have no effect on 99% of the people who own guns.

Most of the idealists don’t know what they are talking about. They don’t know anything about guns nor how hopelessly ineffective gun laws are at curbing crime and gun violence.

The truth is that I have no problem with sensible gun-control laws

Those three quotes show how uneducated the writer is on the subject .

He doesn't understand that HIS idea of a sensible gun law isn't even close to what people like Biden and Obama's ideas are nor how when put into effect how great they will impact those 99% of gun owners .

I recall reading of a law the Dems tried to pass restricting guns according to frame sizes and defining anything under a certain frame size a evil "Saturday Night Special" either their lack of knowledge of the sizes of the frames or their intentionally misleading lies defined weapons as large as Full size 1911's and the S&W model 29 regardless of barrel length classified those guns as such evil guns .

Then there are the lies regarding the effectiveness of a round to defeat LEO body armor .

Winchesters Black Talon loads were never designed to be "Cop Killer" ammo no did I ever read of a single LEO being harmed or killed by one yet they managed to stir up enough of a Kneejerk reaction with lies and Doctored news specials on the subject to get them pulled off of dealer shelves .

Then there is the simple fact that if the ability to defeat body armor is the yardstick for legal ammo then few rounds would be legal to sell as any rifle round can defeat the lowest levels of concealable body armor as can many pistol rounds when you get below a level 3 vest .

The only "Sensible" laws in this whole mess are laws that punish the criminals for the crimes they commit .

Do we arrest a person for DWI when they walk out of a liquor store with a case of beer or a 5th of Bourbon ? Of course not because he/she may go home and quietly drink it and never get near their car while still under the effects of it .

Funny how the courts now often punishes a repeat drunk driver who has never hurt anyone yet will let out a gang banger who commits drive by shootings and kills people intentionally yet because they didn't kill their intended target they get to skate on a manslaughter charge and are out in 5 or less years to do it all over again .

Instead of wasting time and money on trying to find out where he got the gun spend it on keeping him in jail for the rest of his life .

In the end just remember Obama's answer in the Dems Primary debates , when asked if he would Ban guns he said "I don't think we can get that done" not "I have no intention of trying to do that"
Huge difference between those two statements yet many people don't quite seem to understand it .

 

[jws527]

In my opinion, "assault weapons" - that is, the semi-auto military style rifles that are relatively available to the average civilian - are like the sports cars of the gun world. Totally unnecessary in most circumstances, and intimidating (or impressive) to those not comfortably familiar with them. But the bottom line is that they're so much fun. What's a hobby if it doesn't bring personal satisfaction?

To continue with the sports car analogy: you do have a select demographic that is primarily attracted to the image, and then some who probably do use them as sort of placebo for power or control. But most of us have a perfectly innocent and otherwise harmless interest in them, even if they could be considered excessive (for some reason or another - high capacity magazines, for instance). I know all sorts of people who either own or like this type of rifle, and not one is a paranoid survivalist, testosterone-induced Rambo wannabe, or potential terrorist. Just as the average performance car driver does not actually fancy himself a lesser-known incarnation of Kimi Raikkonen.

Given the implied excess attached to such guns, I think the "assault weapons" issue is ultimately a struggle between choice and control - freedom and externally imposed restraint - which is partly why it generates so much controversy among gun owners and non-gun owners alike. The same certainly applies to the .50 BMG (a type of rifle/round I don't own and probably never will - but nevertheless have no desire to ban or restrict). Fundamentally speaking, which side are you on?

 

[RPCVYemen]

Let's face it, any legislation that will ban "sniper rifles" will do a pretty ...

A number of folks are assuming that he is somehow in favor of banning certain kinds of weapons - even though he explains the difference between "assault" and "pseudo-assault" weapons, and expresses that an AWB would be an exercise in futility:

And there is no shortage of elected officials willing to fulminate against “assault rifles” if they think it will generate votes, even though banning these weapons is an exercise in futility because they account for only a tiny fraction of U.S. gun crimes.

This part looks to be true to me:

A major issue here is perception. The Rambo guns attract sickos who are responsible for tragedies like the Columbine massacre -- loonies for whom the militaristic-looking weapons represent the power and control absent from their sad lives.

When these nuts are caught or killed after a shooting rampage, the TV cameras are on hand to show police confiscating their wicked-looking pseudo-assault rifles and scare the heck out of people who know nothing about guns.

People seem to think that he's saying that who are attracted by AR15s are sicko's - but that's not what he is saying. The fact that sickos are attracted to AR15s (if true) does imply that only sickos are attracted to AR15s. Brush up on basic logic, guys.

It may be true that sickos are more attracted to AR15s than to "traditional" hunting rifles. The violent video games tend to feature military looking weapons, and "scary looking rifles".

Mike

 

[benEzra]

One of those points is that we do see these guns used in high-profile crimes. He is correct in noting that a certain type of nutjob is attracted to these guns -- and high capacity magazines -- for use in mass murders.

How do you square that with the fact that most mass shootings, especially the worst ones, do NOT involve "assault weapons"?

The VT shooter (worst in U.S. history) used an ordinary Glock 19, with normal-capacity magazines (not G18 hi-caps as was initially reportted), and a Walther .22 pistol

The Luby's shooter (2nd worst) used a Ruger 9mm pistol and a Glock 9mm pistol, and again no extended magazines.

The Columbine shooters' primary weapons were a pair of sawed-off hunting shotguns (one pump and one side-by-side); the only gun they had even close to being an "assault weapon" was an Intratec DC9 that one of them used to commit suicide.

The NIU shooter used a Remington 870 and a pistol, IIRC. The Trolley Square shooter used a shotgun and a revolver. There was one mall shooting within the past couple of years with a civilian AK, and the New Life Church shooter who was thwarted by the woman with her CCW was toting an AR-15, but overall "black rifles" are quite underrepresented in mass shootings, though you'd never know it from media coverage.

If you want to see that bias in action, compare media coverage of the Patrick Purdy shooting (civilian AK, 5 killed) to the Gang Lu shooting (.38 Special revolver, 5 killed). Most news outlets didn't even bother to mention what kind of gun Lu used.

In the end, my only real argument with the column is that we have ample evidence that tossing the "assault" rifle crowd under the bus isn't likely to make the gun banners go away. If it were magically possible to guarantee that legal limits on magazine capacity or rifle design would be the end of it, I'd personally be fine with it

I wouldn't. Small-caliber self-loaders with detachable magazines and ergonomic styling are the only modern rifles I care to own, and I couldn't care less about shotguns.

But it is particularly galling to hear people say "oh, it'd be OK to throw AK/AR owners to the wolves if it would end it" when rifles are consistently the LEAST misused of firearms (particularly ironic when one's screen name is consistently one of the top 5 homicide calibers in the USA).

but we all know it wouldn't.

Even if it would, that kind of backstabbing betrayal of Gen-X and Gen-Y gun owners would be repugnant.

More Americans lawfully own "assault weapons" than hunt, yet one doesn't see many AR-15 owners saying "I'd be OK with banning hunting guns if it would end this." That is where a lot of the resentment of people like this comes from, I think---not only the dripping contempt they hold us in, but the fact that they'd eagerly throw us to the wolves if they thought it would save their precious hunting guns and hunting lands.

That point, rather than the angry, misspelled "I got my rights, fudd!" diatribes, is the one that ought to be made with the gentleman.

I agree with you that insulting this guy isn't going to change his mind, and a more rational and reasoned approach is going to be far more effective. But his column is a perfect example of the kind of bigotry and condescension that invites responses-in-kind.

I don't care for the term "fudd," but how is comparing "black rifle" owners to Rambo ANY less demeaning than comparing the author of that article to Elmer Fudd? Answer: it isn't.

If this guy doesn't like being compared to Fudd, perhaps he should drop the Rambo insults. "Do unto others as you would have them do to you," and all that.

 

[RPCVYemen]

More Americans lawfully own "assault weapons" than hunt,

I'd like to know the stats on this. Not arguing, just interested. Do you have a citation?

Mike

 

[The Swede]

This is my email to the author. If he responds I will post it.

I read your article entitled "Extremists on both sides have clouded gun debate since Obama's election". I have to say I was very offended by parts of this article. I don't understand where you are coming from when you write, "A major issue here is perception. The Rambo guns attract sickos who are responsible for tragedies like the Columbine massacre -- loonies for whom the militaristic-looking weapons represent the power and control absent from their sad lives." I, sir, Do not have a sad life. In fact I spent four proud years serving this country. I now have a very lucrative career that I enjoy, and I have a loving wife. All I need now is the kids. I'm living the American dream. What more can I ask for?

Of course, It all looks good on paper right? Dig deep and you'll find out that I am one of those sad sickos. I own a black rifle.

Eric Sharp, you need to wake up. What is the point of this article? Please tell me the last time and one of these black rifles was used in a shooting, random or premeditated. I think that you will find that there are very few instances in which the evil black rifle has been used.

Why do I have one. It is simple. I love a nice car. A fast car. Do I go 215 mph on the highway? No, I do not. I love the way it looks, I love the way I fit into the seat. Do I need the horsepower? No. But you know it's nice to know you have it. A sports car will corner like it's on rails. Give me 600 yards and a target and my AR15 will shoot like its on rails. You say the AR is not accurate. I'm not sure I ever shot a more accurate rifle in my life.

To each his own is the way I go about life. We don't have to agree. I do see that you are a bolt action guy. Just wondering, if you don't mind, shoot me an email. No pun intended. We can go shooting some time. You could teach me some of your assassin skills with your sniper rifle.
God bless,
Nick

 

[.38 Special]

So now in addition to thinking "assault rifles" aren't terribly useful, Mr. Sharp no doubt believes that enthusiasts of such rifles couldn't read for comprehension if their lives depended upon it.

 

[The Swede]

jws527, you beat me to the sports car comparison.

 

[Old Guy]

"Assault weapons" only pose a threat to those who have an irrational fear of weapons. They do not, by your admittance, function any differently than any other type of semi-automatic rifle. The state does not possess the right to impose arbitrary rule based upon arbitrary concerns. There is no empirical evidence that gun control has ever prevented or lowered violent crime within its 500 year history of occurrence. What possible other reason is there to ban these weapons?

Please, once and for all, punch up "Assault Rifle" or look it up in a Dictionary!

The main point = A fully automatic weapon!

So every time some person, a not bright person, starts hyper ventilating on the words "Assault Rifle" explain this, let them read the definition!
FULLY Automatic! We do not have these!

 

[benEzra]

So now in addition to thinking "assault rifles" aren't terribly useful, Mr. Sharp no doubt believes that enthusiasts of such rifles couldn't read for comprehension if their lives depended upon it.

If I suggested that people own revolvers and wooden-stocked rifles because they "satisfy strange fantasies" and called bolt-action rifles "Elmer Fudd guns," and a responsible hunter or revolver owner objected to that characterization, would you criticize the hunter for lack of reading comprehension, or would you grant that perhaps he might have a point?

From the original article:

"These pseudo-assault rifles have a Rambo look that appeals to a certain segment of gun owners, and while they may fulfill some fantasies..."

"The quasi-military guns must satisfy some strange fantasies."

"The Rambo guns..."

More Americans lawfully own "assault weapons" than hunt,

I'd like to know the stats on this. Not arguing, just interested. Do you have a citation?

Mike

The number of people who hunt in a given year can be obtained from the 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation.

http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/fhw06-nat.pdf (2006)
http://www.census.gov/prod/www/abs/fishing.html (prior years)


According to the data, 12.5 million people over age 16 and 1.6 million under age 16 hunted in 2006, for a total of 14.1 million active hunters. There is also a population of former hunters and once-every-few-years hunters that didn't hunt in 2006 but could be considered "latent" hunters. If you count those, you get a total of 18.6 million people over 16 as having hunted at least once between 2002 and 2006, although not all of those are active hunters anymore.

Now, to the number of "assault weapons" in civilian hands. These numbers are a bit harder to come by, and the number varies depending on how you define them. I typically use the definition in H.R.1022, which defines an "assault weapon" as:

any listed firearm or derivative (including Ruger mini-14's, M1 carbines, AR's, SKS's, etc.);

any detachable-magazine autoloading rifle with a protruding handgrip, thumbhole stock, or extreme Monte Carlo stock, or having a threaded muzzle, a flash suppressor, etc.)

any detachable-magazine autoloading shotgun, or any fixed-magazine autoloading shotgun that exceeds 5 shells capacity (shell length not specified), or that has a protruding handgrip, folding stock, etc.;

any handgun with a forward mounted magazine;

any semiautomatic rifle or shotgun that was originally designed for military use, or any gun based on the design of such a firearm, or any semiautomatic rifle or shotgun that has ever been procured by U.S. law enforcement or the U.S. military;

and a bunch of miscellaneous stuff that I won't go into here.

If you look closely at what's banned, you'll see that the H.R.1022 definition would cover SKS's, Ruger mini-14's, the AR-15 platform, the M1 Garand, M1 carbine, Springfield M1A, FAL's, Kel-Tecs, Hi Points, a lot of Ruger 10/22's, a fair number of Browning autoloading deer rifles, a lot of autoloading shotguns, etc. You can make a fair guess by adding up the known numbers of those guns in circulation, and that's the hard part.

Several years ago, the Georgia Arms Collectors' Association estimated the number of SKS's in U.S. civilian hands at 7 million, or just shy of the mark set by the Remington 870. Sales of the AR-15 platform were running at least a quarter million a year a year or two ago, and are far ahead of that now, so the installed base there is probably a couple million at minimum (probably more). Add in all your M1 carbines, M1 Garands, Kel-Tecs, all mini-14's (couple million is a ballpark figure), Hi Points, FAL's, target-stocked 10/22's, shotguns, and every other firearm that the anti's call an "assault weapon," and it is not that hard to exceed the 12-14 million active hunters by a significant margin. And that number is probably increasing by close to a half-million every year in ordinary times, and who knows what it will be this year.

And I'm not even considering the tens of millions who own firearms with over-10-round magazines. If you add in all those who own "high capacity ammunition feeding devices" as defined by H.R.1022, then the numbers become truly astronomical. Thirty million, minimum, I'd say, possibly considerably more, but I haven't even made an attempt to calculate those.

 

[RockyMtnTactical]

One of those points is that we do see these guns used in high-profile crimes.

No more than ANY other firearm!!

Also, I find it interesting that he uses Columbine when referring to the kinds of people who own them, yet NOT ONE of the kids used or possessed an AR15!!

He rails against the "idealists" by saying that they are being unrealistic. However, I would argue that he is an idealist for believing that there can be a middle of the road stance on such a subject.

In regards to what he meant in his writing, it may have been misunderstood (by many of us, not just me), but part of that is his own fault. He was trying to do what journalists do, by creating sensationalism and grab people's attention. If he is guilty of nothing else (oustide of a lousy opinion), it is that of bad writing.

 

[.38 Special]

Never mind...

 

[RPCVYemen]

..., Ruger mini-14's, ... the M1 Garand, M1 carbine, Springfield M1A, ... a lot of Ruger 10/22's, a fair number of Browning autoloading deer rifles, a lot of autoloading shotguns, ...

Just out of curiosity, were these included in the previous AWB?

Mike

 

[tmajors]

I'd love to email him, but anything I said would brand me further as a "sicko".

 

[spartywrx]

So I was going to write this guy an email, but I was too and decided that sending an angry email would be a bad idea. I think I'll write an informative but polite one tomorrow.

 

[benEzra]

Just out of curiosity, were these included in the previous AWB?

The 1994 AWB as implemented banned no guns, just features, and restricted marketing under 19 names (i.e., the AR-15 platform, civilian AK's, etc. were perfectly legal to manufacture post-1994 as long as they had no more than 1 listed feature).

HR1022 would change that to an actual ban on considerably more listed firearms (the mini-14, for example, moves from the "specifically protected" list to the "banned by name" list), changes the number of allowed "evil features" for detachable-magazine guns from one to zero, bans parts and uppers, adds thumbhole stocks and extreme Monte Carlo stocks to the evil features list, and adds the "ever procured by law enforcement = "assault weapon" verbage.

 

[Ignition Override]

benEzra: I did not know that-superb example, among others'.

The writer appeared, in several places, to explain the public's total misunderstanding of the term "assault rifle", and in many comments, appears to make fun of others in the media who use distortion and deception to sell newpapers or improve a tv station during a "ratings sweep". But he was describing himself as later comments contradicted the others, which could have had some potential to educate. I repeat-could have educated within the proper contexts/applications. Feel free to correct me if the potential is not really there in some places and I'm wrong...no sweat. Am new at this.
Some people at gun ranges have been told by either owners or range officers etc that AKs are not welcome, and one guy said that a clerk at a Gander Mt. store or such made negative comments when he saw the same customer pulled his AR from a gunbag or box and the visitor did not feel welcome. Believe that the phrase "black rifle" or "evil black rifle" was used.
And these people make money from guns!

Many fairly conservative people, even some former military pilots I know (a family member: numerous ANG/AFRES recon-transports: F/51, RF-84F thru C-130 E and at least one or two others I've known), don't see why anybody needs an AK-47, although they like trying out the Mini 14 and SKS. But they state it in a matter-of-fact manner, unlike many others. People have been brainwashed by a joint effort of the media and Hollywood. It is very widespread and insidious, like hypoxia or fatigue. Let's just remember how many tv show and movies portray many/most Vietnam vets in a negative light or worse (due to so many limousine leftists/anarchists who have run Hollywood for decades). Of course the AK has been photograped thousands of times in the hands of so many global rebel/insurgent groups.

Our friends/family members never thought about the fact that my Mini 30 or SKS could be just as deadly (if large high-cap. magazines were always totally reliable), but Minis LOOK friendlier, and were not used against our guys in s.e. Asia, Grenada or the Middle East etc.
But that AK image can not be erased. A generic Mini or M-1 carbine with a large mag. will never look as deadly as an AR or AK etc.
Doesn't the AK's image from tv only equate to violence and dead people? Does the public forget that all guns were created to be able to kill small, large animals, people, targets, or all of them?
A guy in a bar who goes often to Germany and is quite fluent told me that some young German guys in a pub asked why Amerika sent soldiers to Irak and Afghanistan. The Milwaukee guy's response: "To shoot people if they needed to". The blunt, honest answer sank in and he heard no more about that topic.

When we mention that Switzerland has rifles in most homes but little violent crime, people here say "Well, they have a very different (hard-working, law-abiding) culture" etc.

Mini 14, 30, MN 44s (just two) and a lonely SKS who will seek in the future a young blond or red-head (fluent in Mandarin, Serbo-Croatian, Prussian Dialekt or Russian) for a long-term relationship. She must be a smoker.

 

[M&PVolk]

The author uses inflammatory language to describe military style rifle owners for a reason. It isn't a lack of reading comprehension that makes owners of such firearms upset, it is the language used. Why not take a moment and describe how violent, murderous rednecks are drawn to deadly bolt action rifles that are far more powerful just so they can kill defenseless animals for sport? Sure, not all of them get off on animal suffering, some like the meat. Still, there must be some strange sicko attraction for animal torturers that use these high power bolt action weapons out in the woods during hunting season.

It's inflammatory, and his attempt to appear objective makes it a back handed insult.

 

[aikidoka-mks]

What an ass. I own an ak-47 legal under the stupid AWB, a keltec sub2000 OHMIGAWD IT'S BLACK! and a few handguns. I guess I'm a psycho.

 

[maddog1775]

He'll wish he had those "Rambo guns" when the Zombiepocalypse happens...

All joking aside, though, the author's implication is downright insulting. I chose the rifles that I own because, having learned to shoot in the Marines, I am simply used to a certain style of firearm. I also have a skill gained from that profession that I wish to retain even now that I am a civilian. He has no right to make such ridiculous assumptions about my character because of that choice.

 

[RockyMtnTactical]

The author uses inflammatory language to describe military style rifle owners for a reason. It isn't a lack of reading comprehension that makes owners of such firearms upset, it is the language used. Why not take a moment and describe how violent, murderous rednecks are drawn to deadly bolt action rifles that are far more powerful just so they can kill defenseless animals for sport? Sure, not all of them get off on animal suffering, some like the meat. Still, there must be some strange sicko attraction for animal torturers that use these high power bolt action weapons out in the woods during hunting season.

It's inflammatory, and his attempt to appear objective makes it a back handed insult.

Precisely.

Statements like "Rambo guns" (what the hell does that mean?) are inflammatory. It is meant to catch the eye. He invented that term for this article. How is the improper term "Rambo guns" any different from "Assault Rifle", which he is quick to dismiss as inaccurate? They are both inaccurate terms that intentionally distort the view of the reader in an attempt to villainize the inanimate object.

He openly refers to CCW holders as "goofballs". Or doesn't he? What is he saying? One thing I know is, he sure throws the insults around when talking about the type of people who might own a "Rambo gun".

"Loonies", "nuts", "sickos", "goofballs" with "fantasies", "Rambo guns" and "Columbine massacre"... He seems to be trying hard to get some point across... How many bad names did he use to characterize extremists on the other side of the debate? "Idealist" is as mean as he got. As I stated previously though, he is an idealist by believing that there can be a middle ground on an issue such as this.

He spends the majority of the article attacking the idea and/or need of these "Rambo guns", and advocates their regulation (specifically citing crimes they weren't even used in). Despite the fact that the AWB was proven to have been completely useless in stopping crime... He doesn't think his "right to own a firearm should be curtailed by laws that do nothing to prevent the crimes at which the laws were aimed."

Watch out, your high powered "sniper rifle" is next on the chopping block, after they get rid of the Rambo guns...

 

[qajaq59]

That’s not going to happen, although Obama might throw a sop to the idealists by pushing for some changes that will have no effect on 99% of the people who own guns.

They didn't write the second amendment to cover only 99% of Americans.

Remember, whatever they can do to your neighbor, they can later on do to YOU.

 

[Dr. Peter Venkman]

The author's bolt action rifles were the assault weapons of their day up to the middle of the 20th century. What was he smoking?

 

[JohnL2]

I just want to comment on the Columbine massacre.
Nothing on this earth could have stopped those two from doing what they did regardless of firearms.
They brought homemade bombs rigged from propane tanks that you can get anywhere.
They were on a mission. There are only two ways to deal with someone on a mission. Either you join them. Or kill them.