Just in case you can't tell from the title I live in the good ole' US of A. I grew up in a rural community in North Carolina where hunting, fishing, and generally acting a fool were social norms. As such, I grew up with firearms, I respect them and I also support the 2nd Amendment. The right to bear arms is a touchy subject for a lot of people rightfully so, but just because we have the right to do something doesn't mean we should, or there should not be reasonable restrictions to protect the common good.
There are people who still depend on firearms for their way of life, contrary to popular belief not everyone lives out of a supermarket, or has the means to do so. Granted the number of people who meet this description are relatively few, people who use them to protect livestock from coyote and other predators thus insuring their livelihood are likely a larger number. I also understand that collectors and sports-men make up the largest percentage of firearm ownership. However I do not see a purpose for any civilian to have access to, or ownership of assault weapons.
I can already hear the rebuttal, of "It's not an assault rifle, AR stands for ArmaLite", this is 50% correct, AR does stand for ArmaLite, the company who initially designed the AR-15. However it can be argued that it is an assault rifle, ArmaLite designed the rifle for military application in hopes to win a contract to replace the aging M1 Garand. The US Army in the later half of the 1950's was looking for a light weight small caliber assault rifle to issue to troops, the AR-15 was designed to fill this role. ArmaLite didn't win the contract, that distinction went to the M14, but it was due to the finished design taking longer than the application window period to complete. Eventually the US Air Force took notice of the AR-15 in the early 1960's and would order 80,000 giving them the military designation of M16, a name I'm sure everyone is familiar with.
So how do we define an assault rifle? We could use the US Army's definition, in which case the AR-15 would not be an assault rifle, as it lacks selective fire capabilities. ArmaLite as I said before designed it as an assault rife, so in that sense it could be considered one. Some people will say it is due to ability to accept high capacity magazines, others will argue that it isn't because the caliber of round is also used by other weapons not considered assault rifles. I prefer to look at a the combined features, the purpose of the design functionality and capability of the entire package.
Any firearm in the right or wrong hands is a potentially lethal instrument, but I'm using the AR-15 here as an example, not only because it's the hot topic right now, but as the M16 is based on the AR-15, the only difference between the two rifles is the AR's lack of selective fire. Due to this I can use my time as a member of the United State Marine Corps as a basis and say I feel intimately familiar with this firearm. I know the most effective way to zero in the sights, I know how to break the rifle down to each it's major sub assemblies and components, how to properly clean an maintain this firearm. I know how to adjust the sites in the field for elevation, and windage on the fly, the maximum effective range, and I can even go into some details about the trajectory arc of the round once fired. I know this rifle.
As I said it isn't any one feature that leads me to the conclusion that this is in fact an assault rifle, it's a combination of features. To start the lightweight aluminium and composite materials used to build a large portion of the rifle are designed to help minimize combat fatigue during prolonged shooting. This is not a consideration when hunting, ethical hunting is not a prolonged shooting exercise. The 5.56 x 45mm or if you prefer .223 55gr. loads devastate flesh, images of wounds taken in Vietnam when the M16 was first used were so gruesome the US Government classified them until the 1980's. These rifles have more power than a pistol but less than a hunting rifle, with a pistol the lower energy of the round causes it to mushrooms and expand, high powered rifles typically you will have a round pass through the target with minimal fragmentation. That is not the case with the .223 rounds, the mid range power allows the projectile to fragment heavily causing massive damage that is difficult to treat. The recoil dampening system in the AR-15 is also designed to minimize combat fatigue during prolonged fire fights, and to improve accuracy when firing rapidly. Again this is not a concern when hunting, ethical hunting is a 1 shot 1 kill exercise.
As a whole the AR-15 is designed to make a enhance the capability of it's user, to make a novice shooter more effective in combative situations with minimal training, this is why it appealed to the US Military.
It's no coincidence that the AR-15 has been used so often in mass shootings, killing people is what it was designed to be particularly good at. If you were framing a new house, would you show up with a ball peen hammer? A sledge hammer? No, you'd probably use a framing hammer, the right tool for the job, one that is designed to allow you to most efficiently complete the job. The same idea holds true here, firearms are tools, they are useless without the shooter, and AR-15's happen to be the most effective tool to facilitate these tragedies.
So what do we do? Continue to let children be massacred in their classrooms? Treat public events as demilitarized zones? How about stopping people from having access to firearms that are designed for killing people. Does that sound reasonable? There is absolutely no hunting or target shooting activity that an AR-15 or other assault type weapon can do that another firearm, one that is much less effective at causing mass casualties, and equally effective for sporting can be obtained. There is simply no reasonable need for an assault type weapon in the hands of the general public. We need through background checks, and for loopholes to be closed. Mental evaluation wouldn't be amiss either.
Today is the March For Our Lives protest, it is happening across the Country as I write this. I can not say enough how proud of those brave students I am. Social change starts by standing up, speaking out, making your presence felt. It is one of the longest traditions in America, these students can count themselves in the fellowship of groups like the Son's of Liberty, the American Anti-Slave Society, the National Woman's Party, SNCC, the Freedom Riders, and many other organizations which took a stance and began the process of societal change.
We should be taking heart that we are witnessing a new generation willing to stand up for their convictions, unafraid to say "Enough". While I know many may not agree with their purpose, remember they are young, this event will inspire some of them to be lifelong activists and in the future they may be marching for a cause you do believe in. That alone should earn them some respect.
For everyone who reads this, when faced with someone who rejects this logic ask them or yourself, if you value these firearms above the lives of innocent children, what does that say about you?
#MarchForOurLives
There are people who still depend on firearms for their way of life, contrary to popular belief not everyone lives out of a supermarket, or has the means to do so. Granted the number of people who meet this description are relatively few, people who use them to protect livestock from coyote and other predators thus insuring their livelihood are likely a larger number. I also understand that collectors and sports-men make up the largest percentage of firearm ownership. However I do not see a purpose for any civilian to have access to, or ownership of assault weapons.
I can already hear the rebuttal, of "It's not an assault rifle, AR stands for ArmaLite", this is 50% correct, AR does stand for ArmaLite, the company who initially designed the AR-15. However it can be argued that it is an assault rifle, ArmaLite designed the rifle for military application in hopes to win a contract to replace the aging M1 Garand. The US Army in the later half of the 1950's was looking for a light weight small caliber assault rifle to issue to troops, the AR-15 was designed to fill this role. ArmaLite didn't win the contract, that distinction went to the M14, but it was due to the finished design taking longer than the application window period to complete. Eventually the US Air Force took notice of the AR-15 in the early 1960's and would order 80,000 giving them the military designation of M16, a name I'm sure everyone is familiar with.
So how do we define an assault rifle? We could use the US Army's definition, in which case the AR-15 would not be an assault rifle, as it lacks selective fire capabilities. ArmaLite as I said before designed it as an assault rife, so in that sense it could be considered one. Some people will say it is due to ability to accept high capacity magazines, others will argue that it isn't because the caliber of round is also used by other weapons not considered assault rifles. I prefer to look at a the combined features, the purpose of the design functionality and capability of the entire package.
Any firearm in the right or wrong hands is a potentially lethal instrument, but I'm using the AR-15 here as an example, not only because it's the hot topic right now, but as the M16 is based on the AR-15, the only difference between the two rifles is the AR's lack of selective fire. Due to this I can use my time as a member of the United State Marine Corps as a basis and say I feel intimately familiar with this firearm. I know the most effective way to zero in the sights, I know how to break the rifle down to each it's major sub assemblies and components, how to properly clean an maintain this firearm. I know how to adjust the sites in the field for elevation, and windage on the fly, the maximum effective range, and I can even go into some details about the trajectory arc of the round once fired. I know this rifle.
As I said it isn't any one feature that leads me to the conclusion that this is in fact an assault rifle, it's a combination of features. To start the lightweight aluminium and composite materials used to build a large portion of the rifle are designed to help minimize combat fatigue during prolonged shooting. This is not a consideration when hunting, ethical hunting is not a prolonged shooting exercise. The 5.56 x 45mm or if you prefer .223 55gr. loads devastate flesh, images of wounds taken in Vietnam when the M16 was first used were so gruesome the US Government classified them until the 1980's. These rifles have more power than a pistol but less than a hunting rifle, with a pistol the lower energy of the round causes it to mushrooms and expand, high powered rifles typically you will have a round pass through the target with minimal fragmentation. That is not the case with the .223 rounds, the mid range power allows the projectile to fragment heavily causing massive damage that is difficult to treat. The recoil dampening system in the AR-15 is also designed to minimize combat fatigue during prolonged fire fights, and to improve accuracy when firing rapidly. Again this is not a concern when hunting, ethical hunting is a 1 shot 1 kill exercise.
As a whole the AR-15 is designed to make a enhance the capability of it's user, to make a novice shooter more effective in combative situations with minimal training, this is why it appealed to the US Military.
It's no coincidence that the AR-15 has been used so often in mass shootings, killing people is what it was designed to be particularly good at. If you were framing a new house, would you show up with a ball peen hammer? A sledge hammer? No, you'd probably use a framing hammer, the right tool for the job, one that is designed to allow you to most efficiently complete the job. The same idea holds true here, firearms are tools, they are useless without the shooter, and AR-15's happen to be the most effective tool to facilitate these tragedies.
So what do we do? Continue to let children be massacred in their classrooms? Treat public events as demilitarized zones? How about stopping people from having access to firearms that are designed for killing people. Does that sound reasonable? There is absolutely no hunting or target shooting activity that an AR-15 or other assault type weapon can do that another firearm, one that is much less effective at causing mass casualties, and equally effective for sporting can be obtained. There is simply no reasonable need for an assault type weapon in the hands of the general public. We need through background checks, and for loopholes to be closed. Mental evaluation wouldn't be amiss either.
Today is the March For Our Lives protest, it is happening across the Country as I write this. I can not say enough how proud of those brave students I am. Social change starts by standing up, speaking out, making your presence felt. It is one of the longest traditions in America, these students can count themselves in the fellowship of groups like the Son's of Liberty, the American Anti-Slave Society, the National Woman's Party, SNCC, the Freedom Riders, and many other organizations which took a stance and began the process of societal change.
We should be taking heart that we are witnessing a new generation willing to stand up for their convictions, unafraid to say "Enough". While I know many may not agree with their purpose, remember they are young, this event will inspire some of them to be lifelong activists and in the future they may be marching for a cause you do believe in. That alone should earn them some respect.
For everyone who reads this, when faced with someone who rejects this logic ask them or yourself, if you value these firearms above the lives of innocent children, what does that say about you?
#MarchForOurLives
Comments
Post a Comment