Let’s Redirect That Anger

By Dave Dolbee published on in General

While the Nation teeters on the precipice of the fiscal cliff, certain lawmakers would rather spend their time and effort dealing with feel-good politics that will have no effect rather than dealing with the Nation’s business. If you want to be angry, let’s keep it focused where it belongs—solidly aimed at those who intend to pass legislation that will not fix any perceived problem while limiting the rights of law-abiding citizens.

What we are experiencing today is just the beginning. Gun owners are second-class citizens in the eyes of lawmakers and the media. We are stuck in a twisted time warp to the political correctness of the 1990s. And we are not going to wake from this nightmare anytime soon.

Diane Feinstein (no, I am not a General and therefore see no reason to honor the hypocrite with a title) is leading the charge with a new, more restrictive Assault Weapons ban. Fortunately, Feinstein knows a little something about guns. She has concealed weapons permits in at least California and Washington D.C. and who knows where else. Oh yes, Diane understands why ‘she’—a member of Congress, eligible for Secret Service protection, who works in a building guarded by armed capital police—has a need to also carry a weapon for personal protection. However, when it comes to the rank and file citizen she makes every attempt to limit our rights.

AR-15 AK47 leaning against a barnwood fence

From the outside and AR-15 or AK47 may look like an assault weapon, but it is the internal parts that determine the guns capabilities.

What is an Assault Rifle?

In a strict definition, a firearm must have at least these characteristics to be considered an assault rifle:

  • It must be an individual weapon with provision to fire from the shoulder (for example, a buttstock; not a machine pistol)
  • It must be capable of selective fire
  • It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle
  • Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable magazine rather than a feed-belt
  • It must be capable of having a firing range of 300 meters (over 1000 feet)

Rifles that meet most of these criteria, but not all, are not assault rifles despite frequently being incorrectly labeled as such by politicians and media. For example, semi-automatic-only rifles such as the AR-15 (based on the M16 rifle) that share designs with assault rifles are not assault rifles, as it is not capable of switching to automatic fire and thus are not selective fire capable. Belt-fed weapons or rifles with fixed magazines are likewise not assault rifles because they do not have detachable box magazines.

Are Feinstein’s Actions Anything more than Feel-good Politics?

Banning certain guns by name or particular characteristics is proven to fail and has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the gun is an assault rifle. I remember when California (Feinstein’s home state) banned the Intratec Tec-9. It was back on the street a short time later dubbed the TEC-DC9 (DC standing for Designed for California). About the only difference was a small change to the bolt design, but even without it, the TEC-9 would not have qualified as an assault weapon.

Feinstein and her anti-gun lackeys also take issue with certain military characteristics. In California, you could own an SKS, but not ones with any combination of three or more identified military style characteristics, bayonet lug, thumb-hole stocks and so on. Later, it was changed to be more restrictive and banned other characteristics such as detachable magazines and models outfitted with, or the potential to mount, a grenade launcher.

I guess you have to throw your—already illegal in all 50 states—grenades by hand in California. Now does anyone ‘need’ a grenade launcher? I doubt it. But if that was the litmus test, I can think of a lot of things we don’t ‘need’ but are not illegal. Senator and Congressmen may top that list…

High Capacity Magazine Ban

This is one of the two pieces of legislation that I believe has a shot of passing. Again, it is feel good politics. Limiting magazines with a capacity of over 10 rounds does nothing to limit a shooter’s ability to quickly put rounds down range. Smaller capacity magazines can be switched in a couple of seconds. Anyone with a few simple tools can build two 10-round magazines into a 20-rounder within 30 minutes—an hour if they want it to look pretty.

But would this make us, or our kids, any safer? Reduce the speed at which rounds can be fired? I offer Cheaper Than Dirt’s own sponsored shooter Jerry Miculek as exhibit A.

In this video, Jerry is shown shooting 12 rounds from a revolver in less than 3 seconds—and that required a reload.

By the same token, Jerry set another record by shooting 12 rounds from a revolver, blindfolded and drawing from a holster in just over 5 seconds—keeping all 12 rounds on a man-sized target from 30 feet. And on his belt? It was full of speed loaders. How many rounds could he accurately put down range in under a minute? Just doing the math with Jerry blindfolded, he could easily shoot 30 rounds in a minute from a revolver. Using his stats from the first scenario Jerry could shoot well over 100 rounds a minute from a revolver. Hmmm, I believe it is a revolver on Feinstein’s California CCW. Does that mean she really favors a weapon that could…

It really is worth a look at Jerry’s title and records such as shooting six shots each from 10 different revolvers in about 17 seconds. That is 60 rounds in 17 seconds or over 200 rounds a minute. Check out Jerry’s page at http://www.jerrymiculek.com/titles.html.

Another myth being bandied about by politicians is that Modern Sporting Rifles such as the AR-15 shoots the same round as the military. I’ll cover that topic in a post about the .223 vs. 5.56mm soon.

What can be Done?

This is a much more in depth question. The Secret Service looked into school shootings back in 2002—during the first assault weapon ban— and did not conclude military-style guns as the problem. The Secret Service warned against profiling and came to the conclusion that there was not a single trait or type of person that could be used to identify a potential shooter. Any such list would list or attempt would identify too many people to be useful.

Interestingly, researchers noted that these perpetrators do not simply snap and commit these heinous acts. They plan. They acquire or manufacture weapons. These children take a long, considered, public path toward violence.

Many of the shooters told Secret Service investigators that alienation or persecution drove them to violence. According to the United States Secret Service, instead of looking for traits, it urged adults to ask about behavior:

Laurie_dann profile picture

Laurie Dann Wasserman—an American spree killer who shot and killed one boy and wounded two girls and three boys at a Winnetka, Ill. elementary school. She then took a family hostage and shot another man before killing herself.

  1. What has this child said?
  2. Do they have grievances?
  3. What do their friends know?
  4. Do they have access to weapons?
  5. Are they depressed or despondent?

No limits on video games, banning of high-capacity magazines or other ridiculous knee-jerk reactions were recommended. As I noted earlier, it isn’t hard to modify a couple, or even several, low-capacity magazines to manufacture high-capacity magazines. The individuals who perpetrate these heinous acts are the very personality type that would take the time to create such a work around to circumvent the law to create the tools necessary for an evil deed.

Are Guns Even the Biggest Threat?

Let’s look at the two biggest domestic terrorist acts in U.S. history. On October 19, 1995, two bombers were convicted of killing 168 people, including 19 children under the age of 6. The availability of guns was not the issue, but guns were not responsible for the deaths either. However, it was a gun that proved to be the fatal flaw in the Oklahoma City bomber’s plan.

Within 90 minutes of the explosion, Timothy McVeigh was stopped by Oklahoma State Trooper Charlie Hanger for driving without a license plate and arrested for unlawfully carrying a weapon. Where are the calls to ban or regulate racing fuel, rental trucks and fertilizer? Those were the instruments used to kill 168 people, not a gun.

That was the worst act of terrorism on American soil until the dark events on the morning of September 11, 2001 when terrorists with box cutters gained control of commercial airplanes, crashing into the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon killing thousands of people.

When will the lawmakers and anti-gunners in this country realize the evil that has attacked this country in the past, and threatens to do so again in the future, cannot be stopped by the passage of yet another law? We have over 20,000 gun laws in the country now. Will 20,001 or 100,001 laws that only the law-abiding citizens will heed really make a difference?

Share your thoughts with us in the comment section.

Tags: , , , , , ,

Trackback from your site.

The mission of Cheaper Than Dirt!'s blog, "The Shooter's Log," is to provide information-not opinions-to our customers and the shooting community. We want you, our readers, to be able to make informed decisions. The information provided here does not represent the views of Cheaper Than Dirt!

Comments (191)

  • DB Cooper

    |

    Hines,

    You really should stop looking down your nose at people like you do. Its not only very rude but it can hurt your neck. And, if you do it in a rain storm you will probably drown. I really do appreciate your comments Hines because when you do it allows others to see how deluded people like you. Probably a good bet no one in your family has ever served in this countrys armed forces.

    Its also very tragic that you chose to breed and have kids. It must be hard on your grandchildren to have to let people know they are related to you. If your grandkids have to settle fights with guns then it is only because it is what you have taught them to do. Its sad how liberals have so degraded our society that it is now acceptable in many places to just go around shooting people. You Hines should be ashamed of yourself for promoting that lifestyle.

    And you try to speak as an educated man but easily try to deflect from the truth at every turn. That indicates to me that you are a man of very low and weak moral character. You speak as though the Supreme Court is an all knowing politically neutral group of people which you and I both know is not correct. If it was, it would be full of strict constitutionalists which it definitely is not. If it were we would have a court that based its decisions on the actual words of the Constitution and not by inventing an inference. The Constitution is not a living growing document nor is it simple a piece of worthless paper for you to wipe your butt with. In a free country we have the right to protest a gov’ts attempt to take away our rights even by an activist Supreme Court.

    Gun violence in America is tolerated by politicians (mostly democrats) who refuse to demand the police and courts punish people for violating the well over 15,000 anti gun laws currently on the books. Even Obama said after Aurora that its time “we” stop tolerating gun violence. I wanted to ask him if he had a mouse in his pocket when he said “we” because no one I know has ever tolerated it. How about enforcing those 15,000 laws strange as that might sound! Stop trying to make criminals of most of the law abiding citizens of America! Strangely even police states have a high rate of gun crime so how is outlawing them here going to work out?

    You seem to want the nanny state for some odd reason especially since you can’t point out to it ever succeeding in any country its been tried in. I do have distaste for a gov’t that wishes to have complete control of its populace right down to whether or not we can drink a soda with our pizza.

    Have you sold that rifle yet? Of course you havent because you are like a typical example of a soviet communist party member – some people are more equal than others and thats how you see yourself. You truly believe you are our better (more equal) which, you certainly are not. People like you who want to throw away my and others Constitutional Rights are no better than the stuff I have accidentally stepped in while walking in a Barnyard.

    Reply

Leave a comment

Your discussions, feedback and comments are welcome here as long as they are relevant and insightful. Please be respectful of others. We reserve the right to edit as appropriate, delete profane, harassing, abusive and spam comments or posts, and block repeat offenders. All comments are held for moderation and will appear after approval.

Time limit is exhausted. Please reload the CAPTCHA.

%d bloggers like this: