Why an "assault rifle"

Why an “assault rifle?”

I see this question asked all the time and rarely answered in a way that makes any sense.  I’ve decided it is time to answer it, at least to my friends.  Before I do however, I’m going to explain why the question rarely gets a genuine reply.  This is going to be a long answer so grab a cup of coffee.  It takes a lot to explain the background and a few political, technical and legal issues surrounding this question.

Definition:

Let’s begin with a definition.   A true “assault rifle” is a machine gun but that’s not what politicians and the media have used for a definition so I’m going to try to describe this with the more commonly accepted features.  Features include things such as a pistol grip under the gun (which makes it more comfortable to shoot in unsupported shooting), folding or collapsing stock (making it easier to make the right size for different  shooting styles without replacing the whole stock), barrel shroud (enabling it to be handled after the barrel heats up), flash hider (shooting any gun at dusk can be blinding to the shooter and the hider helps dramatically) and they shoot low power ammunition.

Let that one sink in a bit. 

Yes, lower power ammunition.  The AR15 and AK47 shoot what is called “intermediate power” ammunition.  They are exponentially more powerful than a handgun, but far less than most hunting rifles used for deer.  This means the rifle recoils less and is easier to control.  They are suitable for small game but not for something the size of a deer.  The ammunition was designed not to kill, but to stop an opponent.  Hunters need to kill their prey as rapidly as possible, but that is not a consideration for the military.  This also means the ammunition is less expensive and because it is small, more can be carried.

What the media commonly calls and assault rifle is a semi-automatic rifle that bears a resemblance to a military rifle.  The two most common are the AR15 and AK47, although there are dozens of others.  The versions of this that can be commonly purchased in the US have two very big differences between the civilian and military versions.  The first difference is the length.  The current issue US military rifle is designated as the M4 (essentially an updated variant of the same M16 that has been in use since the late 1960’s).  The M4 has a barrel length of 14.5” which is 1.5” shorter than is legal under normal circumstances (more on this latter). 

The other difference between the military and civilian model is the fact that the military version can shoot either fully automatic or semi-automatic.  This is a dramatic difference.  A “machine gun” allows the shooter to pull the trigger and hold it down.  The gun will continue to fire until it is empty or the trigger is released.  A semi-automatic will fire one bullet each time the trigger is pulled but will not send out a stream of bullets like the fully automatic one will.

Machine Guns

Now a few words about machine guns.  They have been regulated to almost complete inaccessibility since 1934 and further restricted in 1986.  If a person wants to own a machine gun, they must first find one that was built and registered before May of 1986.  They then apply to the BAFT for a tax stamp.  The application includes photos and fingerprints and the BATF conducts an extensive FBI background check which can take months to complete.  The buyer also needs to notify the chief law enforcement officer in his/her jurisdiction and pay a $200 transfer tax. Because of the 1986 law, scarcity has driven prices to astronomical levels.  A Colt M16 can easily sell for over $25,000. 

This same process also applies to rifles with a barrel shorter than 16” and to “silencers” (which are not silent by the way and are properly called suppressors).  The only difference is that short barreled rifles and suppressors were not limited in 1986 so prices are not distorted. 

This category of firearm is called an “NFA” which refers to the National Firearms Act of 1934.  NFA firearms are not common but they do exist.  To my knowledge, one has never been used in the commission of a crime.  That’s right… none.  They are a non-issue.  I bring it up to illustrate the difference between semi and fully automatic firearms and how they are regulated in this country.

Convert to fully automatic?

Many people believe it is easy to convert a semi-automatic to fully automatic.  That is completely false.  While it is true that some have been converted, the BATF has explicit regulations about this.  If a gun is to be sold in the US, it can’t be “easily” convertible.  It requires a machine shop, special tools, parts and skill and a considerable amount of time.  Converting one is a federal felony and is well beyond the skill level of most gun owners… even ones who have the tools and knowledge of how to do it.  The bottom line is, if somebody is that skilled and has access to that kind of machinery, they could just build their own gun from scratch anyway.

Definition problems:

When politicians bring up banning assault rifles, they quickly run into problems.  How does one define this category of firearm without banning everything?  That is because functionally, there is zero difference between an assault rifle and a common hunting or sporting gun.  There are some ergonomic and cosmetic differences but as far as the actual function of the gun, they are exactly the same.  Some politicians have caught on to this and attempt to make these cosmetic features the focus of their campaigns but that is truly silly.  Take for example the state of California.  They banned assault rifles by saying that anything that has an easily detachable magazine cannot have a host of features such as a pistol grip, length adjustable stock, flash hider and other cosmetic and ergonomic issues.  Gun manufacturers simply changed the design a bit to comply which makes for some ugly and non-ergonomic looking guns that still share substantial parts compatibility with the original.

Slippery slope

Now we’re at the meat of why people are reluctant to answer the “why” question.  Most of us are well aware that some politicians are not forthcoming about their real agenda.  We know that all they are doing is describing cosmetic issues.  Once those measures fail to change anything, they will claim they didn’t go far enough and start looking at functional issues.  The vast majority of handguns sold today are semi-automatic and while they don’t look scary like an AR15, they have a number of functional similarities which would certainly be a “next step” for politicians. 

Think this is a stretch?  It isn’t.  Twice during the 2016 presidential campaign, Hilary Clinton lauded England and Australia’s “mandatory  buy-back” programs.  What is a mandatory buy-back?  It is confiscation with compensation.  That is the ultimate fear of gun owners.  We don’t want the government knocking on our door to take our guns and the nominee of the Democratic Party has explicitly endorsed the idea.  In 2019, Beto O'Roarke went a step further during the debates saying "hell yes, we're going to take your guns."  Of course that would be impossible unless all guns were registered and the government knew when any guns traded hands.  Not coincidentally, these same politicians are calling for “universal background checks” which is de facto registration so you see why gun owners are less than enthusiastic.

Nobody needs one

This is what many people say when arguing against the issue.  Is it the government’s business to determine “need?”  Can they say how many wine bottles are more than you need?  Can they say how fast your car needs to be able to go?  Can they tell you how much food exceeds your needs and stop you from consuming more?  Do you need to read certain books?  Do you need to watch certain TV shows?  Who in the government gets to determine needs?  Is any of this the business of the government?  You may believe it is, but there is a pretty strong libertarian streak in this nation that thinks otherwise. 

Why own an assault rifle?

Now that you know what an assault rifle is, let’s talk about why we own them.  As you would expect, there is not a single answer to this.  I’ll cover a number of them.  You may scoff at some of these but remember that others may scoff at some of your lifestyle choices as well.  Uniformity of opinion is the antithesis of diversity so withhold judgment for a bit.

In no particular order.

Rural defense:

As a farm tool, it is handy to have one for varmints with four or two legs.  I know a person in my county who recently discovered dozens of pot plants on his land that were being cultivated by unknown persons.  It was a large enough crop to be worth a large sum of money and that farmer now carries a rifle whenever he is in the more remote portions of his property.  Criminal activity in remote areas means that land owners are on their own.

Civil unrest:

People saw what happened in the wake of the Rodney King trial.  Shop owners were on their own while rioting mobs controlled the streets.  Fergusson MO and Baltimore MD just had similar nights of mob rule.  Post-Katrina New Orleans had a long period of lawlessness where citizens had no expectation of help from law enforcement.  In these situations, an individual or family could be days or weeks with constant and immediate threats.  A good rifle and plenty of ammo is not an unreasonable thing to want and it has happened several times in recent memory.

Terrorism:

In this day and age, is it unreasonable to imagine a coordinated attack upon an urban setting?  It can happen anywhere. Paris and San Bernardino illustrate that but this level of terrorism has been a daily part of life in Israel for decades.   Any soft target is a legitimate one for terrorists.  A rifle in the trunk of a car with a “roll-out” bag (tactical vest, spare mags and tools) is again, not completely unreasonable in certain situations.  If a person were able to get to that rifle while an attack were underway, they might disrupt the terrorists.  An assault rifle would be FAR superior to anything else in this context.

TEOTWAWKI:

The End Of The World As We Know It is difficult to discuss because it smacks of paranoia and delusion.  It seems far fetched and a bit crazy to some, but both those on the left and right of the political spectrum have various theories about how this could come to pass.  By TEOTWAKI, I’m talking about the total collapse of society.  This would be characterized by little to no government control, anarchy, fighting for resources, non-existent monetary system and generalized chaos.  Think it can’t happen?  It probably wont, but I’ll give you a few examples of the thinking behind it:

-          Natural disaster on a Biblical scale (think asteroid strike, super-volcano or other sun-blocking event).

-          Climate change that leads to massive migration into areas unable to sustain it.  Scarcity of resources leads to political chaos (if Florida is submerged, can they still have senators?)

-          Rogue nation like North Korea figures out how to deliver a massive EMP over the US which would destroy nearly every electronic device including the power grid.  This would cause years of darkness in the US.

-          Rogue hackers figure out how to destroy the power grid in the US.

-          The monetary system collapses from its own corruption or from attacks from anarchists or a combination of the two.

-          A drug resistant virus or bacteria wipes out a significant portion of the population.

-          Population growth of certain populations reaches critical mass, leading to the end of our democratic republic. 

-          Income inequality leads to civil war.

Are any of these likely?  Who knows?  Probably not but does it really hurt to have an AR15 and a stack of magazines and ammo?  It is the TEOTWAWKI reason that the 2^nd Amendment really addresses.  It was not for hunting or “sporting purposes.”  It was about giving individuals the ability to establish order out of disorder.

Zombies:

Every wonder why zombies became such a thing over the last few years?  It is because most people don’t want to get into a discussion about TEOTWAWKI and the 2^nd Amendment.  So when people ask “why do you own an assault rifle?”  it became a quick answer that could be delivered with a sly grin. 

Sporting use:

The fastest growing shooting sport is something called “action shooting” which involves a lot of ammo, movement and engaging multiple targets.  It is big business and a lot of fun.  Every weekend, one can find 3 gun matches that require the use of a rifle, pistol and shotgun.  It is loud, fast and exciting.  The AR15 dominates this style of competitive shooting.

Coyote hunters tend to favor the AR15 platform as well.  The gun can be made to be very accurate and the bullets are small.  Recoil is mild and allows for quick follow-up shots. 

Final thoughts:

I go to church with a woman who owns a Porsche.  Her car is capable of exceeding every speed limit in this nation.  It is also capable of killing her and lots of people along the way.  It is expensive and I would never own a car like that.  She enjoys it.  She takes it to the track and beats the snot out of it.  It puts a big grin on her face.  She doesn’t need it but who’s business is that?  Even though her car was purpose designed to do things that should never be done on a public street, she is a law abiding American and I support her right to own and use it.  In spite of the fact that cars kill vastly more Americans every year than do guns, she should continue to have the right to enjoy it, just as I and every other law-abiding American should have the choice to exercise our rights under the 2^nd Amendment. 

Syrian Refugees

Those of you who know me, know that I am not a political moderate.  I am a conservative and I am generally annoyed by those who think they look smart when they criticize both political parties.  It usually means they are failing to take a real position themselves. 

Right now however, I am really irritated by both parties on how they are handling the Syrian refugee crisis.  Both parties are using this issue in ways that are just evil.  I have yet to see a single article from either side that that admits the key to understanding the real crux of this problem.

So here’s the deal.  As far as the US is concerned, there is not one single refugee crisis.  There are two and both sides are avoiding talking about this because there is political hay to be made.  The first refugee problem is the hundreds of thousands of people who have fled to refugee camps or are living in areas adjacent to Syria.  The second problem is the human wave that is invading Europe.  They are related but very different problems.

I’m not even going to get into how these two problems are related except to say that I get it… the refugee camps are not nice places.  They are horrible and people are living in deplorable conditions.  This is causing large numbers of them to figure out ways to get to Europe which causes the problem of the current invasion. 

The thing is, that part of the problem isn’t even on the radar at the moment.  In the US, we are debating about how to resettle 10,000 refugees per year in our country and that is what is being treated as a political game by the Democrats and Republicans.

Republicans:

The Republicans are preying upon xenophobia to stir up the electorate.  They point to the human wave of Muslims flooding unchecked into Europe and connect it to the terrorist attacks in Paris.  On that score, they are actually correct, but then they take it a step farther by attempting to keep out all refugees.  That ignores the process by which a refugee can legally make his/her way to the US.  In order for a refugee to get here, they have to be registered in a UN run camp.  It is a very long process, taking up to 2 years and includes numerous interviews, checks and interrogations.  I’ve spoken to people who have undergone this process and it is meant to be difficult. 

People who pass this vetting process are not even guaranteed to be sent to the US.  They don’t have a choice on where to go but if they have relatives in the US, they have a higher chance of ending up here. 

The bottom line is, this would be a very dumb process for a jihadist to go through in order to gain entry into the US.  There are much easier ways to make entry.  A forged passport and a flight to just about any Central American country gets them into position to walk into the US unchecked.  There is just no reason for a terrorist to sit in a refugee camp for 2 years in hopes that they would not be found out during a background check if they want to kill Americans in America.

Democrats:

The Democrats are quite happy to let the GOP demagogue this issue because they think they can use it to further their false-meme of the “GOP War on Woman.”  Because so many of the refugees are women and children, it is easy to paint opponents of refugee resettlement as cold-hearted white guys.  But that’s not the real reason the Democrats are taking this position.  The “war on women” is just a happy coincidence for them.  No, the reason they don’t want to talk about the real issue is because they don’t want you to notice that what is happening in Europe is very similar to what they have supported happening on the Southern US border.

Here is where the refugee issue gets political.  The Democrats have been trying to legitimize the human wave that has been invading the US for decades.  If they were to point out that the refugees we are trying to resettle here are not part of the unchecked masses that arrive daily in Europe by boat, train and foot, somebody might notice that the two issues are related.  They know they are guilty of allowing unvetted, unchecked and potentially dangerous people into this country.  They are even now trying to make the invasion permanent in spite of all evidence of how that can destroy a culture. 

If the GOP were smart (and I wish they were), they would embrace bringing in refugees from the camps.  They would make a big deal about creating a distinction between those refugees and the ones who are making the trek into Europe.  They wouldn’t even have to forward ideas on how to relieve the pressure on Europe (that would take way too much work and explanation).  All they need to do is compare the Muslin invasion to the invasion we have experienced through our border with Mexico. 

They would have the high moral ground.  We are a moral nation and we have a history of taking in genuine refugees.  We have done it for Vietnamese, Cubans, Somalis and Haitians among others.  We do it when it is clear that those refugees are persecuted and in fear for their lives.  Considering that well over 1 million refugees are in camps in Jordan, Turkey, Iraq and Syria, it would seem a pretty small gesture to welcome 10,000 true refugees to our shores.  Do that at the same time we get serious about closing our own borders and enforcing immigration laws. 

In short, reward those who are going about this legally and shut out those who don’t.  Until we get serious about border security, we are very vulnerable to foreign terrorists on our own soil.  The refugee population is not the threat… our own immigration policy should be the focus.

Thanks for the opportunity to rant.