Non Film Post: Actual Difference or Nuance, and why it matters

Many in the media are decrying "assault rifles" since the Aurora shooter brought an AR-15 style rifle along with his shotgun and 2 handguns to commit his evil deeds.  Theres no doubt he fired it, and that many lives were spared due to its jamming, however, a semi-automatic "sporter" as theyre called (I call them replicas, more on that later) by their makers does not an assault rifle make.

An assault rifle, according the US Army (and if they dont know best, who does..right?) is a short, compact, selective-fire weapon that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachine gun and rifle cartridges.  The selective fire is the key difference here.  A semi automatic rifle is not a selective fire weapon, its a single fire mode weapon.  In fact, the much respected Remington M700 hunting rifle fires the same round as the US M16 rifle (.223 Remington) and a round more powerful than the AK-47 (.308 Winchester).


When you go to (or watch on tv) a sporting event, you will see thousands dressed in jerseys looking just like what the players wear on the field.  Essentially, thats what these "replicas" are...theyre replica jerseys for firearms enthusiasts.  You see the military carrying M16's and you know you cant have that, so you get something that looks like it.  What's the harm in that?

But they're for the military and all they do is kill people is the argument back....no, a true assault rifle is for the military, thats why I cant have an M16..and thats fine and dandy.  In some research, I can find 4 instances in the United States since 1950 where these assault style rifles have been used in spree killings. Im sure there are other cases where a guy goes berzerk and kills his family using one, but since the horror in Colorado is sparking this debate, I kept it to spree killings.  4 since 1950.  In other parts of the world there were 9 more when I decided I'd made my point.  I figure there may be a grand total around 200 if I decide to be liberal in my count and take non spree murders into account. 200 out of how many millions of these weapons out there?  I'd say the vast majority of them are in the hands of people who can more than be trusted with them.  Yes, its horrible when any life is lost for any type of violence, but again, we're focusing on these weapons because of the actions in 4 US cases, with one sparking the debate again.

Well, why not ban them now, so this cant happen again?  OK, interesting point...flawed but interesting.  The vast majority of crimes committed using a firearm are committed using handguns.  The Colorado shooter dropped his rifle and used his shotgun and handgun after his rifle jammed, the Virginia Tech killer had a total of 49 injured (32 killed, 17 wounded..odd in itself as most spree killings have more injured than dead) using nothing but handguns.  Large capacity magazines?  Again, not so much with the handguns that the vast majority of these crimes are committed with, and Eric Harris alone killed and wounded the majority of his victims at Columbine using liberal approved 10 round magazines in his 9mm carbine.  It's worth noting that the majority of those killed there (5 alone and I believe 6 more combined) and injured by gunfire were done at Harris' hand.  So while you may think 10 rounds is A-OK, its clear someone determined to commit such a horrific (and illegal) act will do so with whatever they can get their hands on.  I won't even bring up the fact that the Colorado scumbag bought his weapons legally under the laws set down to protect people from just this type of thing...whoops, just did.

To paraphrase the Constitution, it reads "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".  The Supreme Court has upheld that right dozens of times.  I don't see the words "the right of the people to keep and bear government approved arms" in there anywhere.

It's horrible when someone snaps and does something like this.  It gives all of us who support not only those precious words in the Constitution but the shooting sports in general a black eye.  People who couldnt tell you the difference between an M16 and an AR-15 suddenly become experts and tell the OVERWHELMING majority of us who use them for our hobby purposes how we dont need them and they only have one purpose.  I've seen people using scoped AR-15s for hunting, I personally have used an AK-47 to hunt wild boar (and when that boar comes charging at you, you're thanking God for the firepower, trust me on this...), but that doesnt fit their narrow, closed view of what these can be used for.  Just because a knife is used to spread butter doesnt mean it can't be a screwdriver also folks.

There are differences, I urge those of you who are reacting with hysteria to at least take the time to learn what you're complaining about before you run around behaving like de facto experts.

Cause all you do is look stupid in the end.

Then those of us who ARE responsible and find what this creature did just as reprehensible as you dig in our heels to protect our Constitutional rights.

And some looney toon does it again.

Then as a civilization we're all the worse for it.

I dont know a single gunowner that doesnt want this to stop, but there are ways to stop it without infringing on our rights as provided by the same Constitution that you fight so hard to defend when you think your free speech rights are being infringed on.  Let's see if we can find them....we're ready, are you?