Can you see the difference in the three M-4 type carbines shown below?
How about now? These guns are exactly the same except for barrel length and method of attaching the flash suppressor. Can you tell which gun is subject to control by the National Firearms Act (NFA) which requires additional forms be approved by the ATF, fingerprint cards, a $200 tax and an intense background check that takes up to nine months to complete before you can own it?
If you guessed number 3, with the shortest barrel and overall length, you would be wrong.
Number 1 is a standard M-4 type carbine with a 16” barrel, the shortest allowed for non-NFA controlled guns. The flash suppressor is threaded on to the end of the barrel and is easily removed. The flash suppressor adds 1-1/4” to the overall length of the gun.
Number 2 is the exact same gun as number 1 but with a 15-3/4” barrel with the same flash suppressor threaded on the end of the barrel. Because the barrel is less than 16” and the flash suppressor can be easily removed, it falls under NFA guidelines and scrutiny. This rifle is ¼” shorter overall than the legal gun above.
Number 3 is the exact same gun as number one, but with a 14-3/4” barrel and the same threaded flash suppressor. But in this case, the flash suppressor is permanently welded onto the barrel. By NFA guidelines, the flash suppressor length is added to the barrel length when welded onto the barrel. This gives the barrel a total length of 16” making it legal and not subject to NFA control even though its overall length is 1-1/4” shorter than gun number 1 and 1” shorter than gun number 2.
Make sense? Here’s some more government nonsense in action:
Under Bill Clinton’s 1994 Assault Weapon Ban, any semi-automatic rifle able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following features was considered an assault weapon and banned:
- Folding or telescoping stock
- Pistol grip
- Bayonet mount
- Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
- Grenade launcher mount
Based on the 1994 criteria, can you tell which gun would be legal and which gun is the evil assault weapon?
If you chose number 1 as the evil assault weapon, you would be correct. The bayonet stud allows an attacker to attach a bayonet to the barrel making it even more evil. There have been no murders committed in US in the past few years with rifle mounted bayonets. The flash suppressor reduces the flash signature of the weapon when fired at night reducing its effect on Night Vision Devices. It handy in a combat zone, but not so much in neighborhoods where NGV’s aren’t usually worn.
Fortunately for gun owners, when the 1994 Assault Weapon Ban was passed, it was only good for ten years, and then it expired. Several studies of the 1994 Assault Weapon Ban have since shown that it’s enforcement cost millions of dollars, but it had absolutely no effect on the rate of violent crime.
The above shows the insanity of defining and outlawing guns based solely on their appearance, parts or their accessories. A barrel that is 16” long is okay. A barrel that is 15-3/4” long has criminal intent written all over it. A gun with a bayonet stud and flash suppressor is somehow more evil than one without it and by extension, the user is evil and capable of the vilest acts possible.
Classifying guns by appearance ignores three important points:
1. It ignores intent. Millions of American Soldiers, Marines, Airmen and Sailors carry fully automatic M4 carbines with 14” barrels, flash suppressors, bayonet studs and 30 round magazines. They are also issued bayonets!! They are not committing crimes on a daily basis. Neither are the millions of private citizens who also own AR-15 type rifles.
2. Criminals don’t obey laws. Passing a law to stop the lawless from breaking another law is insane. All it does is make criminals of otherwise law-abiding citizens because a rifle they own has a pistol grip, a flash suppressor, a bayonet stud or folding stock.
3. Americans are an ingenious bunch. When faced with stupid restrictions that claim guns with pistol grips are inherently evil, they find legal ways around the restrictions. California is the most repressive State in the Union when it comes to gun ownership. They have been trying to legislate the AR-15 rifle out of existence for years. But California gun owners counter each new restriction with ingenuity to legally own the guns they like. To counter the pistol grip argument, they come up with outlandish, but totally legal designs like these:
An even more innovative design circumvents the main defining point of the assault weapon controversy, that it is semi-automatic. This new rifle by Troy Industries looks like an AR-15, but is actually a pump action rifle. The magazine looks like the standard 30 round magazine, but actually can only hold ten rounds. Because of these two design features, it is legal to own in all 50 States. In actuality, this design may be more lethal. Pump action rifles are much less prone to jamming than semi-auto rifles. Many shooting incidents have ended when the shooter’s semi-auto weapon jams.
The last key question is: Why is there such a push to ban so-called “assault weapons”? A review of a recent FBI Crime Statistics Report shows that:
12 states had 0 murders committed with a rifle.
4 states had 1 murder committed with a rifle.
7 states had 2 murders committed with a rifle.
7 states had 3 murders committed with a rifle.
The above 30 states (over half of the country) had a combined total of 3,378 murders, of which only 39 (1.15%) were committed with a rifle. And it’s very doubtful they were all ‘assault weapons’. For comparison, in the same 30 States, 203 murders were committed with bare hands. Data from: 2013 FBI Crime Report.
So if “assault weapons” were used in so few murders, why is there such a push to ban them? It is probably because they are sometimes used in mass shootings. They allow one shooter to do great damage in a short amount of time. Mass shootings draw a lot of attention in the media and provide fuel for gun control groups in the mistaken belief that if only the weapon wasn’t available, the tragedy would never have happened. Review of the last 63 mass shootings in the country shows that assault weapons were only used in ten of the 63 incidents. And that is using a very broad definition of assault weapon. The same data set of information shows that in 42 of the 63 incidents, there were prior indications that the shooter had mental health issues. Would we be better off increasing our efforts in the mental health arena instead of trying to legislate certain firearms out of existence?
The above information was extracted from a huge collection of data on mass shootings complied by Mother Jones.com, not exactly a Conservative News outlet, but the data is very complete. US Mass Shootings, 1982-2012
If you go to Mother Jones to check out the data, you’ll notice that 74.5% of the weapons were obtained legally.
Something that is rarely mentioned in discussions about banning assault weapons is that the ban is only on producing new assault weapons. The millions already in civilian and military hands would not be affected. Since criminals rarely go to gun shops to buy new assault weapons, the ban wouldn’t affect them. Other than putting gun industry employees out of work, what effect would it have?