The modern sporting rifle, based on the AR-15 platform, is probably one of the most misunderstood, misrepresented firearms. While the AR-15 may cosmetically look like military rifles, they do not function the same way. Historically, since the 19th century, civilian sporting rifles have evolved from their military predecessors. The modern AR-15 sporting rifle follows that tradition. The AR-15, in the end, it is just a sporting rifle…essentially a hunting gun. While due to its relatively small caliber, some would not recommend it for larger game such as deer, it is perfectly suitable for varmint hunting. Here are the main facts about AR-15s:
-AR-15-platform rifles are among the most popular firearms being sold. They are today’s modern sporting rifle.
-The AR in “AR-15” rifle stands for ArmaLite rifle, after the company that developed it in the 1950s. “AR” does NOT stand for “assault rifle” or “automatic rifle.”
-AR-15-style rifles are NOT “assault weapons” or “assault rifles.” An assault rifle is fully automatic — a machine gun. Automatic firearms have been severely restricted from civilian ownership since 1934.
-AR-15-style rifles look like military rifles, such as the M-16, but function like other semi-automatic civilian sporting firearms, firing only one round with each pull of the trigger.
-Versions of modern sporting rifles are legal to own in all 50 states, provided the purchaser passes the mandatory FBI background check required for all retail firearm purchasers.
-These rifles’ accuracy, reliability, ruggedness and versatility serve target shooters and hunters well. They are true all-weather firearms.
-Chamberings include .22, .223 (5.56 x 45mm), 6.8 SPC, .308, .450 Bushmaster and about a dozen others. Upper receivers for pistol calibers such as 9 mm, .40, and .45 are available. There are even .410 shotgun versions.
-These rifles are used for many different types of hunting, from varmint to big game. And they’re used for target shooting in the national matches.
-AR-15-style rifles are no more powerful than other hunting rifles of the same caliber and in most cases are chambered in calibers less powerful than common big-game hunting cartridges like the 30-06 Springfield and .300 Win. Mag.
Paul Plante says
As an Army infantryman in the VEET NAM period, I first trained on the M-14 rifle.
And I would note that I grew up around guns out in the countryside, and was trained on gun safety as a Boy Scout, and as common as guns were back then, you never heard of mass shootings, although i8n New York City, there likely were some, due to the gangster activity down there.
In infantry training, we were then introduced to the M-16, which truly, I always thought was a piece of crap.
They were jokingly termed Mattel toys, because they looked like a kid’s idea of a Martian ray-gun.
So why was the M-14 then replaced with a cheap plastic piece of crap known as the M-16?
The answer was demonstrated to us by filling three 5-gallon buckets with water and standing them one atop another.
First, an M-14 was fired into them, and all it did was make holes.
Then, an M-16 was fired into them and they literally exploded and flew backwards from the kinetic energy of the round.
And that is why the M-16 was invented for military use in Viet Nam, to break up human wave assaults, which is an Oriental way of fighting first witnessed in the Philippines, and then in Korea, and then in Viet Nam.
The M-16 was designed, just like the .45 in the Philippines, to knock people down, so the human wave coming behind them would be slowed down.
That was its purpose, and it was defensive in nature, just as the .45 was a defensive weapon.
As an aside, an old friend of mine had been a paratrooper in WWII, jumping into Normandy on D-Day and fighting through to Berlin, and his favorite weapon was a Tommy gun for house-to-house fighting such as was encountered in Europe in that war, and especially in Aachen, Germany.
The Tommy gun was a .45 caliber, not a 5.56 mm round like the M-16, or .30 like the M-1.
But getting back to VEET NAM and the M-16, that really was not the rifle knocking them down, it was the kinetic energy of the round.
And those were military rounds, not civilian rounds.
In the early days of VEET NAM, the M-16 was famous for jamming, and getting Americans killed as a result.
When I was there, you could only put 18 rounds in a 20-round magazine, because when you put in 20, the pressure would cause the magazine to bulge and two rounds would then jam the magazine, and you were done.
Rods to clear jams were actually issued to soldiers in VEET NAM, as if the NVA or Viet Cong would be gentlemen enough to hold their fire while someone was given time to clear his jammed M-16.
And the Viet Cong were using the famous AK-47 against our M-16s.
In bamboo, the AK-47 rounds, being around .30 caliber, punched right through, while the high-speed M-16 rounds were wasting their high kinetic energy smashing the bamboo.
The AR-15 version, which is a carbine, a shortened rifle, like the M-2 carbine, began to filter into VEET NAM while I was there, and they were at that time “officer’s weapons.”
As a rifleman, I carried a rifle, which was the M-16.
As officers, they carried carbines.
That “officer’s weapon” is what the civilian AR-15 looks like.
And never were they referred to as “assault weapons,” because they aren’t.
As a twice-wounded combat infantryman, I would call any rifle primarily a defensive weapon, especially when you have just been ambushed and are defending yourself by clearing your front and suppressing enemy fire, if you can.
The fact of over 50,000 dead in VEET NAM kind of gives the lie to the M-16/AR-15 as this “awesome” assault weapon.
The real infantry “assault weapon” is known not as a rifle, but as a bayonet.
That is why there was a military command to “fix bayonets.”
What I can’t believe is all this hysterical hype we are hearing about the AR-15 being an “Army weapon,” or a “military weapon,” because it is an “assault rifle.”
What hog****.
Sure, against unarmed children, or unsuspecting people at a rock concert, it is a formidable weapon in the hands of a maniac, but a shotgun would be even worse.
And I would like to see someone use a civilian semi-automatic AR-15 to assault a machine-gun position or fixed resistance such as is encountered in combat.
Good luck with that is my thought.
But by now, the stereotype of the semi-automatic civilian AR-15 as a “military weapon” is firmly fixed in the minds of the public-at-large, and any rational argument that the AR-15 is not a “military assault rifle” is not going to be heard in all the hysteria that has now been stirred up by the media and people like Charley “Chuck” Schumer, who was quoted in a February 19, 2018 commentary in the Albany. New York Times Union entitled “Better gun control needs Second Amendment repeal” by Bret Stephens, a New York Times columnist, as follows:
Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer condemned LaPierre’s comments and said the NRA was “once again spewing pathetic, out of touch ideas, blaming everything but guns”.
end quotes
There it is, people, in black and white and who can argue with a TOP AMERICAN POLITICIAN like Charley “Chuck?”
He is a dude from New York City who although he knows nothing about them, to the thumb-sucking members of the media, he knows all that can possibly ne known about them.
So it is not the fault of anything but the AR-15 for all these recent shootings, and there is where the argument now stands, all these facts above notwithstanding, because people like Democrat Charley “Chuck” Schumer are fueled by pure emotion, not facts.
And this is a crisis that is just too good for hack politicians like Charley “Chuck” Schumer to pass by without milking it for all it is worth, and exploiting the be-jaysus out of all these grieving high school students who actually are naïve enough to believe that the inept, incompetent United States government that Democrat Charley “Chuck” Schumer can protect them from anything, when as Congressman Joe “Joe the Drooler” Kennedy recently told us in the Democrat State of the Union address, that pack of morons, fools and idiots down there can barely keep the doors of the federal government open.
Howe disgusting is my thought.
Peter Parks says
I would prefer an Ak-47. That is a Real assault weapon. The AR platform is as worthless as the hind tit on a boar hog.
David Cowan says
There is nothing magical about an AR-15 that gives it any special power. I do not understand why those advocating its ban think that such action would make a difference.
First, consider the concept of a ban on something. We have been in a War on Drugs for 40 years, and what do we have to show for it? Nothing good, that is for sure. Earlier we tried a ban on alcohol. How’d that work out?
Assuming that a ban (whatever that would be like) is implemented, what about the rifles in circulation? Overall there are about 300 MILLION guns in circulation, and most cannot be traced to their current owners. There are about 10-13 MILLION AR-styled guns in existence. How will they be rounded up?
Let us assume that all the AR-15s go away, what then?
There are perhaps 20 MILLION functionally equivalent rifles in circulation. Un-related in design, but do the exact same thing, often with much more powerful ammunition.
There are perhaps 70 MILLION semi-auto pistols in circulation. Keep in mind that not only are handguns the most commonly used instrument in homicide, but that the VA Tech shooter used two 9 mm pistols with low capacity magazines to kill 32 people.
And what about shotguns? Up close (and all school shootings are “up close”), a shotgun is devastating. Each cartridge can hold up to 30 (or even more) pellets, each of which can kill an adult. Shotguns have been used by the military at least since the American Civil War, and are used today. Shotguns are the preferred weapon for clearing rooms and houses. Most pump-action and semi-auto shotguns hold at least 5 rounds, and can easily be modified to hold more. A standard shotgun could spew 150 pellets in 3-4, and in a crowd would cause massive casualties. I want to point out that when Australia confiscated guns back in the mid-1990s, most of the guns were pump-action and semi-automatic shotguns.
Some people advocate a ban on “high-capacity” magazines. The first question is, what does “high-capacity” mean? It means whatever the speaker wants it to mean, and therefore, it means nothing. But assume there were banned. What then? Let’s assume there are 2 for each pistol and for for each rifle. That is a LOT of magazines in circulation. Magazines are not number or dated, and some do not even have the manufacturer’s name on them. Any sheet metal shop can make them by the hundreds a day.
And finally, what if all guns were “banned”? Would that stop a person intent on mayhem? Consider this one event: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Land_fire He used gasoline. Gasoline that continues to be available on street corners all over the nation, with no ID, no minimum age, no amount restrictions, and no waiting period required. It is just a matter of when, not if, another horrible event is caused by a bad person with access to gasoline.
Paul Plante says
The AR-15 has become a bastard child here.
It has no supporters that I can find.
And not surprisingly, according to an article out today in THE HILL entitled “Dems introduce bill banning assault weapons” by Jacqueline Thomsen, 26 February 2018, the end of the AR-15 may soon be at hand, to wit:
Reps. David Cicilline (D-R.I.) and Ted Deutch (D-Fla.) formally introduced a bill on Monday to ban assault weapons.
The legislation, called the “Assault Weapons Ban of 2018,” was introduced less than two weeks after the mass shooting at a Parkland, Fla., high school that left 17 people dead.
The gunman used an AR-15 assault rifle during the shooting, one of the many firearms that would be banned under the bill.
The legislation would make it “unlawful for a person to import, sell, manufacture, transfer, or possess, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, a semiautomatic assault weapon.”
Deutch had promised to introduce such a ban during a CNN town hall event last week.
The new legislation is the latest attempt by Democrats to implement a ban on the guns since the Federal Assault Weapons ban expired in 2004.
The White House has already come out against such a ban, which is strongly opposed by the National Rifle Association (NRA).
end quotes
Why that ban is opposed by the NRA has never been articulated in a manner that resonates with people in America, including gun owners who are veterans, and now, the tide of public opinion is swinging against them.
Whatever it might have been intended for, the AR-15 has become known as the school shooter’s favorite weapon of choice, just as the Tommy gun was the favorite weapon of the American gangster.
As there was no sympathy for gangsters, there is similarly no sympathy of any kind for school shooters, so as the Tommy gun was outlawed because of gangsters, the AR-15 looks to follow suit because of deranged school shooters.
Will anyone mourn its passing?
Seems not to me, anyway.
Note: Estimates are that there are over 4 million AR-15 sporting rifles in circulation. It is for many, a very popular gun, some magazines have called it America’s most popular. But is is also not a powerful gun, basically just a .22 (.223) caliber. For me, they seem too pricey, but to each his own. As for the Hill, and Cali, they should check because assault rifles were banned in the 30s…Al Capone you know. Machine guns can be obtained, but you have to have a very good reason to own one now.
David Cowan says
Me. I’d miss it.
The estimates I have read have been about 10-12 MILLION AR-15s.
But as I noted in my comments earlier, there is nothing magic about the AR-15. There are plenty of other guns that will kill school children just as well, and guns are not needed to kill large numbers of people in a short time, as New York learned in 1990. 87 young people killed in a matter of minutes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Land_fire
Paul Plante says
I was speaking about all of this to a young friend who is a hunter, and I asked him that question about who would miss the AR-15.
His comment was interesting, and follows what Wayne is saying above – in a lot of ways, the AR-15 is like showing up at a Harley-Davidson bike rally on a 50-cc moped and revving your engine like you are sitting on a thousand horsepower, instead of just a handful.
There are simply bigger and better guns out there that make far more noise and are far more destructive.
So the AR-15 becomes old in a hurry, just as does the mo-ped.
How these posturing politicians who want to ban them are actually going to accomplish that frankly eludes me, but that is not my problem, since I don’t own an AR and wouldn’t want one.
Were I to own a rifle, it would be the Model 94 Winchester 30-30 lever-action carbine, not the AR-15.
And none of us in here is going to get very far with rational arguments, because we are confronted with hysteria.
This morning on the news, I heard some shrieker screeching about how we have to get these “military weapons” off the streets of America.
So what makes the AR-15 a “military” weapon?
Nobody really knows, but so what?
It reminds me of a quote from Joseph Goebbels as follows:
“It is a mistake to believe that the people cannot take the truth.”
“They can.”
“It is only a matter of presenting the truth to people in a way that they will be able to understand.”
end quotes
The truth as I know it, having actually been in combat as a rifleman, is that the rifle is a tool.
The real weapon, if there is any weapon, is applied psychology.
In that sense, the rifle, or “gun” as these shriekers and screechers call it, is as much to intimidate your opponent and cause him to surrender or cease fire or disengage, as it is to “kill people.”
You don’t win wars by killing people.
You win wars by destroying your opponent’s will and ability to continue the struggle.
The best victory is the one where no shots were fired at all.
And in fact, in the military sense, and the Viet Cong in VEET NAM were masters at this, oftentimes, you shoot not to kill but to wound, and to cause casualties that will tie up the other side, and to affect morale, because somebody down and dead is simply that, they get passed by and are left to lie there, while somebody gutshot and screaming is a demoralizing psychological factor to have to contend with.
And in terms of striking fear into an enemy or opponent, the AR-15 is like the 50-cc moped.
But hey, what could I possibly know about it – I’m not a Democrat politician, afterall, so it can’t be much.
Laurie Wolpert says
Wayne, you seem like you could be reasonable and open to the compromise necessary for democracy to flourish. However, please note the trajectory that too many conversations follow on gun control.
Person A: Maybe we could limit assault weapons
Person B: No, any gun could be used to kill.
Person A: Well we could limit magazines.
Person B: No, there are too many in circulation already. Plus, you can make any weapon fire more rounds.
Person A: Well then, we could try to raise the age limit on owning guns.
Person B: No, there are plenty of law abiding 18 year olds.
and on it goes. It seems like too many of the people who know the most about guns are the least likely to want to do anything about them. It’s not too surprising then, when an emotionally charged 19 year old is able to get his hands on one.
Also, please note the silliness of acting as if weapons are a defense against tyranny. At best you can say they are used for self-defense. The civil war in Syria, whose government had a fraction of the weapons the U.S military has, is not arriving at doors on mounted Calvary. They are bombing their civilians into submission. Revolution in the time of increasingly advanced technology would have to be fought under very different conditions and AR-15’s are not going to help you when your house is targeted by GPS satellite.
Note: Yes, I agree. I’m for any efforts that can make things better and safer (30 day waits for purchase, ammo tracking, justifying why and how you plan to use a semi-automatic weapon, raising the purchase age to alcohol limits of age 21, and others). There must be something in the middle for everyone…I hope!
Paul Plante says
The “trajectory,” as you call it, Laurie, goes the way it goes because there is no other way for it to go.
THERE ARE NO ANSWERS, Laurie!
That is why you can cite that same trajectory over and over and over and over until you are blue in the face and people are sick of listening and nothing is going to change.
After one of the many “gun tragedies” that hack politicians like Charley “Chuck” Schumer and Young Andy Cuomo of New York state like to exploit for political points, Young Andy, pretty much by executive fiat or decree, as if Young Andy were in fact the royal governor he fancies himself to be, enacted his SAFE Act, which according to The Blaze article “New York’s SAFE Act Allows Police to Seize Firearms Without a Warrant: Lawsuit” on Apr. 9, 2014 by Jason Howerton, provides as follows:
New York’s hastily-passed gun control law “mandates that law enforcement personnel seize, without a warrant, probable cause or hearing” some firearms, a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in New York’s Eastern District alleges.
end quotes
Now, consider that under Young Andy Cuomo, New York State is very much a “police” state where dissent is not tolerated, so in a “police” state like New York, you would think a weapons ban such as that imposed by Young Andy Cuomo, where in fact the police can without warrants seize weapons, would work flawlessly.
But if you thought that way, history would prove you wrong.
But getting back to the politics of gun control, which is a silly game the Republicans and Democrats play with each other as they both pander for votes, The Blaze tells us as follows:
“Several bills seeking to repeal the SAFE Act were squashed in committee two days ago,” the Free Beacon adds.
“New York State Rifle and Pistol Association (NYSRPA) President Thomas King announced that all bills calling for the repeal of the SAFE Act were killed in the Democrat-dominated Codes Committee and would not be brought to the assembly floor for a vote.”
end quotes
So much for dialogue on the subject – King Young Andy Cuomo has made a decree, and that is the end of the subject.
Except it isn’t.
Google what happens when a restrictive law like Young Andy Cuomo’s SAFE Act are decreed:
“California’s ban on standard semi-automatic rifles leads to surge in sales” 12/30/16| Opinion by Greg Camp
“Surge in gun sales after Sandy Hook shooting led to spike in accidental gun deaths, study says”, By William Wan | The Washington Post PUBLISHED: December 8, 2017 at 12:22 am
“Why do people buy guns after a mass shooting?” By Michael Nedelman, CNN, Updated 5:47 PM ET, Mon May 1, 2017
end quotes
So by trying to get guns off the street, Young Andy Cuomo caused people to buy more of them, instead, and to stockpile ammo, as well.
And then we come to this New York Times article entitled “Sheriffs Refuse to Enforce Laws on Gun Control” by Erica Goodedec on DEC. 15, 2013, as follows:
GREELEY, Colo. — When Sheriff John Cooke of Weld County explains in speeches why he is not enforcing the state’s new gun laws, he holds up two 30-round magazines.
One, he says, he had before July 1, when the law banning the possession, sale or transfer of the large-capacity magazines went into effect.
The other, he “maybe” obtained afterward.
He shuffles the magazines, which look identical, and then challenges the audience to tell the difference.
“How is a deputy or an officer supposed to know which is which?” he asks.
Colorado’s package of gun laws, enacted this year after mass shootings in Aurora, Colo., and Newtown, Conn., has been hailed as a victory by advocates of gun control.
But if Sheriff Cooke and a majority of the other county sheriffs in Colorado offer any indication, the new laws — which mandate background checks for private gun transfers and outlaw magazines over 15 rounds — may prove nearly irrelevant across much of the state’s rural regions.
Some sheriffs, like Sheriff Cooke, are refusing to enforce the laws, saying that they are too vague and violate Second Amendment rights.
Many more say that enforcement will be “a very low priority,” as several sheriffs put it.
end quotes
In Young Andy Cuomo’s police state of New York state, the state police told Young Andy that they were not going to put their lives in danger trying to take weapons away from people who were made criminals by Young Andy’s gun law.
So, Laurie, who then is going to do the dirty work of taking all these weapons away from the people who now have them?
All well and good to screech and holler for gun control, but who gets to die trying to enforce it?
And you are a teacher, I believe, Laurie.
Don’t you recall that the American Revolution began in Lexington and Concord, Massachusetts, when the British Army attempted for disarm the people of that area with over-powering military force?
How many troops did the Brits send to disarm those people?
It was around seven hundred (700) crack British troops, was it not?
And weren’t some 250 Redcoats killed or wounded in the attempt?
Getting back to that NY Times article:
The resistance of sheriffs in Colorado is playing out in other states, raising questions about whether tougher rules passed since Newtown will have a muted effect in parts of the American heartland, where gun ownership is common and grass-roots opposition to tighter restrictions is high.
In New York State, where Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo signed one of the toughest gun law packages in the nation last January, two sheriffs have said publicly they would not enforce the laws — inaction that Mr. Cuomo said would set “a dangerous and frightening precedent.”
end quotes
But outside of New York City, which is Young Andy’s powerbase, given the huge population down there, nobody really gives much of a damn about Young Andy Cuomo and his gun laws, as can be seen from this New York Times article entitled “Cuomo’s Gun Law Plays Well Downstate but Alienates Upstate” by Thomas Kaplan, OCT. 24, 2014, as follows:
In large stretches of upstate New York, it is the reason Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo is deeply unpopular.
To many voters in New York City and its suburbs, it is one of his crowning achievements.
Mr. Cuomo, a Democrat, made New York the first state to pass a broad package of new gun laws after the mass shooting in Newtown, Conn., in 2012.
Seizing a singular political moment, he called it the Safe Act, and he implored Congress to follow his lead.
Nearly two years later, as he seeks a second term, Mr. Cuomo presents the act to his supporters as one of his greatest successes, and Democrats are assailing the governor’s Republican challenger, Rob Astorino, for being lax on guns.
end quotes
Politics, Laurie, always politics.
Getting back to the NY Times:
It remains one of the most far-reaching pieces of gun-control legislation passed in response to the Newtown shooting.
But in pushing for passage of strict new gun laws, Mr. Cuomo alienated a vocal constituency across upstate New York, a region he has otherwise wooed.
In court, gun owners have challenged the constitutionality of the laws; on lawn signs and bumper stickers in places like the Catskills and western New York, they demand their repeal.
Counties, towns and villages have passed resolutions denouncing the laws, and some counties have even demanded that their official seals not be used on any paperwork relating to them.
end quotes
Yes, Royal Governors like New York’s Young Andy Cuomo, who styles himself as a modern-day Lord Cornbury can make decrees that there shall be no more guns, but who is going to listen to him?
Getting back to the NT Times:
“The calculation when it was passed was people were going to get mad for a little while and then get over it,” Stephen J. Aldstadt, the president of the Shooters Committee on Political Education, said.
“I don’t think people are getting over it.”
end quotes
And they still have not gotten over it yet.
Back to the NY Times:
Despite its scope, the Safe Act was not everything it was originally intended to be, and there were stumbles.
A provision limiting the size of gun magazines, for example, turned out to be unworkable.
Thirty-two days after the shooting in Newtown, on Jan. 15, 2013, Mr. Cuomo signed the act into law.
The measure included an expanded ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, as well as a broader requirement for background checks, and tougher penalties for gun crimes.
end quotes
But since nobody has a clue as to what an “assault weapon” really is, the ban did nothing, and it certainly did not take the AR-15 off the streets.
Back to the NY Times:
The legislation also sought to keep guns out of the hands of people with mental illnesses by requiring mental health professionals to report to the authorities any patient who was likely to be dangerous.
As a result, about 34,500 people in New York are now barred from having guns; some mental health advocates have expressed concern that too many people have been categorized as dangerous.
end quotes
And there is where it all begins to break down again.
As to the cost of this legislation, the NY Times provides as follows:
So far, New York lawmakers have allocated $34 million to cover the costs associated with the laws, such as information-technology upgrades, according to the state budget office.
end quotes
That was just the start, and what, pray tell, has that money bought us?
Here is what the NY Times tells us:
Some gun owners have complained that the process that produced the legislation moved far too quickly, and state officials have run into legal hiccups and technological challenges since the laws were enacted.
Critics also say the Cuomo administration has not been transparent in putting the laws into effect.
One provision included in the act was struck down by a federal judge because of a spelling error.
Another, which limited the size of gun magazines to seven rounds, had to be revised after the governor conceded seven-round magazines were not widely available.
A requirement that ammunition sales be subject to background checks, another aspect of the laws, has not been put into effect, because the state has not yet established a system for conducting the checks.
And there are lingering questions among officials as varied as sheriffs and county clerks about what the laws require of them.
“It’s been a long and difficult road since January of last year,” said Alex M. Wilson, a lawyer for the New York State Sheriffs’ Association, which has filed amicus briefs asserting that the Safe Act violates the Second Amendment.
end quotes
That is the trouble with all of these “GET THE PUBLICITY NOW WHILE THE CRISIS IS FRESH” laws like Young Andy Cuomo’s SAFE Act – they are so poorly written that they end up being just stupid.
And stupid laws earn contempt.
And getting back to Young Andy’s SAFE Act:
One of the most controversial elements of the Safe Act was its requirement that the owners of firearms defined under the laws as assault weapons register them with the State Police.
Many gun owners said they would not comply; the deadline for registering passed on April 15.
The State Police have refused to say how many gun owners have registered; a spokeswoman, Darcy Wells, said that such information was exempt from disclosure under New York’s Freedom of Information Law.
The State Police have received requests for aggregate registration data from numerous people, including Michael Genier, an engineer from Horseheads, N.Y.
His request was denied, as was a subsequent appeal. In an interview,
Mr. Genier said he suspected that Mr. Cuomo did not want the data publicized because it would show that few people had registered.
end quotes
That should read “damn few” as opposed to just a few.
As to enforcement, the NY Times continues as follows:
Through late September, when data was most recently available, the state’s Division of Criminal Justice Services said no arrests had been reported to the agency for the misdemeanor of failing to register an assault weapon — the requirement that many gun owners have openly defied.
end quotes
Yes, they have defied Young Andy and his law, just as the Americans in Lexington and Concord defied the 700 British troops come to disarm them.
And back to gun politics:
As he campaigns for re-election, Mr. Cuomo has trumpeted the Safe Act in some, but not all, of his appearances.
At a rally in the Riverdale section of the Bronx in September, he spoke of his work on gun control, same-sex marriage and abortion rights to show how he was trying to restore New York as “the progressive capital of the nation.”
“We said, let’s take those tough issues and solve them and show leadership,” the governor said.
“Let’s take the issue of gun violence, where too many innocent people have died, and let’s pass sensible gun control once and for all, and don’t tell me it can’t be done.”
“I’ll show you it can be done.”
“And that law is going to save lives.”
At a speech three days later in Buffalo, Mr. Cuomo discussed only same-sex marriage and abortion rights, not gun control.
In a poll conducted by Siena College in March, the Safe Act drew support from 63 percent of voters statewide.
But opinions varied significantly by region: 79 percent of voters in New York City and 63 percent in the city’s suburbs approved of the laws, compared with only 45 percent in upstate New York.
On a Sunday in late September, more than 400 gun-rights advocates crowded into a hotel ballroom on Long Island to hear Mr. Astorino and others criticize Mr. Cuomo and the Safe Act.
“It literally made criminals out of law-abiding citizens overnight,” Mr. Astorino, the Westchester County executive, told the crowd at the Firearm Civil Rights Conference in Hauppauge.
“Governor Cuomo took away your rights.”
“Take away his job.”
That sentiment was echoed by James W. Porter II, the president of the National Rifle Association, who, at the same event, called the Safe Act “pure government-sanctioned lawlessness,” which attracted loud applause.
“Y’all are on the front lines of defending our constitutional rights and protections,” Mr. Porter said.
Several of those in attendance said that with the Safe Act, Mr. Cuomo was focused only on regulating responsible gun owners.
“If you keep changing the laws and think it’s going to stop violence, I just don’t understand that,” Candace Dein, 62, of West Islip said as she flipped through a magazine about handguns.
“I don’t understand why they’re going after the people who have legal guns.”
end quotes
There is the trajectory, Laurie.
Tell us how to break the pattern.
I for one would like to hear.
In the meantime, I do not believe that my law-abiding neighbors some 2500 miles to the north of Florida should be made into criminals for owning guns because of a massive failure of responsibility and authority starting with the administration of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in the tony city of Parkland, Florida, and continuing with the authorities in the city of Parkland, and the County of Broward and the state of Florida.
In an article entitled “Survivors urge Trump to act” in the February 22, 2018 Albany, New York Times Union by Dan Freedman, a “distraught parent” who lost a daughter in the mass shooting at Stoneman Douglas named Andrew Pollock was quoted as saying:
“We as a country failed our children.”
end quotes
And you know what, Laurie?
That is BULL**** and passing the buck.
Am I sorry his daughter died?
Of course, but not more so than anybody else who died that same day of any cause.
But it is NOT “the country” that failed those children.
It is that community that failed those children, and because this dude is “distraught,” that gives him no right to pin the blame for their failings down there in Parkland and Broward County and the state of Florida on honest people in the other 49 states in this nation.
My thoughts, anyway.
David Cowan says
Paul and Laurie,
For all the reasons stated above, gun control is not a viable approach to reducing the risk of school shootings.
I am a medical researcher, a PhD epidemiologist. Just because I can prove that wearing a crystal around your neck will not cure your cancer does not obligate me to find a cure for cancer.
It is extremely naive to think that controlling access to a specific instrument will correct a situation when there are literally millions of other instruments that will do the job.
Any proposal must be Constitutional, show great promise if being effective, and be doable/affordable.
Paul Plante says
Believe me, David, and let me be quite plain about this, in no way, shape or manner am I an advocate for gun control.
In another thread in here, I posted the story of Albany, New York Police Lieutenant John Finn who was killed in December of 2003 by Keshon Everett of Albany, an ex-convict with a lengthy criminal history and who was then on federal probation for a 1996 drug conviction, who was using an outlawed rapid-fire pistol — a knockoff of the banned TEC-9 assault pistol – a gun holding 20 rounds that can fire a spray of bullets.
So much for gun control.
You would think that a federal parolee, of all people, would know it is against the law to use outlawed automatic weapons to kill cops with, but apparently somehow, the message just didn’t get through.
Again, so much for gun control.
And as I have said elsewhere, I do not believe that my law-abiding neighbors some 2500 miles to the north of Florida should be made into criminals for owning guns because of a massive failure of responsibility and authority starting with the administration of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in the tony city of Parkland, Florida, and continuing with the authorities in the city of Parkland, and the County of Broward and the state of Florida, nor do I believe that you and Wayne Creed should be made into criminals because you own guns.
When I say “Ban Them,” David, I am being very facetious.
Paul Plante says
However, David, I also just realized that we do not have a common basis for serious discussion here, as in New York state, the AR-15 is a BANNED weapon and has been that way since 2014.
And Progressive Democrat Young Andy Cuomo, never one to let a good crisis go to waste without milking it for all it is worth, who expects to be our next president, is now jumping on the political bandstand to tout his AR-15 BAN as the model for the nation as he ramps up his political campaign for the presidency.
Consider the New York Daily News article “Cuomo touts SAFE act as model for U.S. after Florida shooting” by Kenneth Lovett on Thursday, February 15, 2018, 7:00 PM, to wit:
ALBANY — A tough 2014 gun control law enacted in New York has resulted in 75,000 mentally ill people being dubbed by the state as too dangerous to own a firearm, Gov. Cuomo announced Thursday.
Cuomo pushed through the SAFE Act in the aftermath of the 2012 Sandy Hook elementary school massacre that resulted in the deaths of 20 children and six school staffers.
Among the provisions was the banning of assault weapons like the AR-15 used in the Florida school shooting this week and a requirement that mental health providers report to the state if they deem a patient a serious threat to the public or themselves.
end quotes
That was four years ago, and that law was rammed though with no real discussion, just one day, there it was, and there is a case of people in New York state being criminalized for something that happened in Connecticut.
Getting back to the Daily News and Young Andy Cuomo milking this crisis in Florida for political gain like he milked the shooting in Connecticut, we have:
“The horrific shooting at a school in Florida once again has this nation asking how Congress can in good conscience continue to turn a blind eye to the dangers of gun violence,” Cuomo said.
“It’s time this nation followed New York’s lead and passed smart gun safety legislation that keeps guns away from those who will use them for evil.”
“Too many children have died because of Washington’s failure to act.”
end quotes
It is about good and evil now, David, and how do you make a rational argument about that?
If guns are used for evil, then any rational arguments for guns are interpreted by the hysterical who take their cues as to what they should think from people of authority in their lives like Young Andy Cuomo are going to dismiss you as being for evil, just like being against Barack Obama made you a racist and being against Hillary Clinton made you a misogynist.
And then there is the POLITICO article “After Florida school shooting, Cuomo again touts SAFE Act” by Jimmy Vielkind on 02/15/2018, as follows:
ALBANY — Gov. Andrew Cuomo responded to Wednesday’s mass school shooting in Parkland, Fla., with the same basic message he’s employed in the past: The gun control law he pushed in 2013, the SAFE Act, should be adopted nationwide.
Cuomo, a Democrat who is positioning himself for a possible presidential bid in 2020, pushed the SAFE Act in the first weeks of 2013 — about a month after 20 children and six adults were fatally shot at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn.
“Tears are not enough,” Cuomo said in a statement.
“How many more children must die before this nation acts?”
“How many more times must we grieve before politicians put the safety of their communities before the financial contributions of special interest groups?”
end quotes
That last sentence is interesting in the light of a federal trial up this way involving his top aides and alleged bribes from special interest groups who wanted Young Andy to put their interests ahead of those of the community, but that is just the way politics works, Young Andy would respond.
And here we come to the AR-15:
The SAFE Act, NY S2230, broadened the definition of banned “assault weapons” in the state — semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines and one of a list of features — and restricted their resale.
The AR-15-style rifle allegedly used by Cruz is no longer legal for sale in New York.
end quotes
So for me, David, it is a moot argument whether AR-15s are banned, because here they already are.
As to the politics, Politico gives us the following:
Rep. Chris Collins (R-N.Y.) is carrying a federal bill, H.R. 3576 (115), that would undo the SAFE Act’s limits on rifles and magazines.
“This legislation would protect the Second Amendment rights of New Yorkers that were unjustly taken away by Andrew Cuomo,” Collins said last year when he unveiled the legislation.
“I am a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment and have fought against all efforts to condemn these rights.”
“I stand with the law-abiding citizens of this state that have been outraged by the SAFE Act and voice my commitment to roll back these regulations.”
end quotes
But Young Andy is just as much of a politician as that dude is, as we can see from Politico:
Cuomo has previously said the SAFE Act “saved lives,” and urged Congress to act on similar legislation.
“In the aftermath of Sandy Hook, New York did more than send our thoughts and prayers,” Cuomo said in his statement.
“We stepped up to pass the strongest gun safety legislation in the nation.”
“The SAFE Act didn’t affect sportsmen, hunters or legal gun owners — but it reduced the risk to our children, to our families and to our communities.”
“It banned assault weapons like AR-15s and kept guns out of the hands of dangerously mentally ill people.”
“It’s far past time that the rest of the nation follows suit.”
end quotes
Just a bit of background, David, so you can more clearly see where my perspective in this discussion comes from.
Paul Plante says
And shades of VEET NAM all over again here, as we are told in a story just in from the Miami Herald entitled “Florida school shooter’s AR-15 may have jammed, saving lives, report says” by Nicholas Nehamas and David Smiley on 28 February 2018, as follows:
MIAMI — Nikolas Cruz’s semiautomatic rifle may have jammed during the massacre at a high school in Parkland earlier this month, according to Miami Herald news partner CBS4.
Cruz then dropped the AR-15 and fled with other students, CBS4 reporter Jim DeFede tweeted Tuesday afternoon, citing three sources familiar with the investigation.
end quotes
The AR-15, like the M-16 before it, is a finicky sensitive weapon that I would rate low on the reliability scale, which was to the benefit of these high school students in this instance, it appears.
Getting back to the Miami Herald:
A source not authorized to speak on the record confirmed to the Herald that Cruz struggled with his gun during the onslaught, either due to the weapon jamming or because he fumbled trying to reload it.
Several state legislators who visited the school with crime-scene investigators said they learned from police that Cruz’s rifle was not top-of-the-line, perhaps explaining the malfunction.
The “weapon and bullets were not high quality and were breaking apart,” one of the legislators, state Sen. Lauren Book, D-Plantation, told the Herald.
end quotes
So much for that hi-tech “military” weapon, as we are informed as follows by the Miami Herald:.
Michael Limatola, a weapons expert and consultant based in New Jersey, said jamming is a weakness of rifles like the one Cruz used.
They “are prone to this type of problem if not cleaned thoroughly,” he said.
end quotes
And that takes us back to the massive failure of responsibility and authority in Parkland, Florida and in Broward County, to wit:
If Cruz’s rampage was stopped only because his gun jammed, the response of Broward Sheriff’s Office deputies will likely come under even more scrutiny.
The first deputy on the scene, school resource officer Scot Peterson, did not immediately enter the building to confront Cruz, Broward Sheriff Scott Israel announced last week.
Three other BSO deputies may also have waited outside.
Peterson has defended his conduct, saying he thought the shooter was somewhere outside.
Paul Plante says
And while we are on the subject of hype and hysteria and partisan politics controlling this “gun debate,” this morning, NPR led off with a RAND study which shows that there are few facts supporting the arguments about gun control being hurled at us by either side of the political spectrum here in the opioid-addicted and mentally-ill United States of America.
According to the NPR article “Science Provides Few Facts On Effects Of Gun Policies, Report Finds” on March 2, 2018 by Rebecca Hersher, an analysis published Friday confirms the state of American gun policy science is not good, overall.
The nonprofit RAND Corporation analyzed thousands of studies and found only 63 that establish a causal relationship between specific gun policies and outcomes such as reductions in homicide and suicide, leaving lawmakers without clear facts about one of the most divisive issues in American politics.
end quotes
But let’s face it, people, when has a posturing, grasping hack politician, whether Democrat or Republican, ever needed facts about anything?
How can you whip up a crowd into a frenzy with facts?
Facts are dry, afterall.
So it is about bombast, high-sounding language with little meaning, used to impress people, and not facts, at all.
Feelings, not facts!
Getting back to the NPR article:
For decades, social scientists and other researchers have pointed to a profound, and purposeful, lack of federal funding for gun research and a lack of federal data-gathering on guns as enormous impediments to studying gun violence.
The federal government has spent much less on research into gun violence than on similarly lethal issues, such as motor vehicle crashes, liver disease and sepsis.
“Most of the effects that we were looking for evidence on, we didn’t find any evidence,” says Andrew Morral, a behavioral scientist at RAND and the leader of the project.
They found, for example, no clear evidence regarding the effects of any gun policies on hunting and recreational gun use, or on officer-involved shootings, or on mass shootings or on the defensive use of guns by civilians.
end quotes
But again, since this an emotion-driven argument, “Oh, I don’t like guns so nobody should have them,” should facts really matter?
Which takes us back to the RAND study, as follows:
The RAND team also surveyed 95 gun policy experts from across the political spectrum about what they thought the effects of 15 different gun policies would be on 12 outcomes.
The policies included universal background checks, bans on the sale of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, expanded mental illness prohibitions, minimum age requirements and required reporting of lost or stolen weapons.
Many of the policies are now being considered by state and federal lawmakers, after a man used an AR-15-style rifle to kill 17 people at a Florida high school in February.
The vast majority of the specialists RAND surveyed agreed that the primary objectives of gun policies should be reducing suicides and homicides, and that protecting privacy, enabling hunting and sport shooting and preventing mass shootings were secondary priorities.
“That was a surprise, actually,” says Morral.
“I think people on either side of gun policy debates think that the other side has misplaced values — or that it’s a values problem, in any case.”
“But that’s not what we find.”
“We find people prioritize the same things in the same order.”
However, those surveyed varied widely in their predictions about how different policies would affect each outcome.
“Where they disagree is on which laws will achieve those those objectives.”
“So this is a disagreement about facts,” says Morral.
“And the facts are sparse.”
end quotes
But again, people, when it is an emotional argument on both sides, what good are facts?