Can Our Society Implement a De-Escalation of Force? Part Two

Can Our Society Implement a De-Escalation of Force? Part Two of Four

By CompanyFirstSergeant

Link to Part One: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172189947

Part Two –

• Background information on the AR-15
• Federal Assault Weapons Ban 1994-2004

THE AR-15

Technically, the AR-15 rifle is described as a lightweight, intermediate cartridge, magazine-fed, air-cooled, semi-automatic rifle with a rotating locking bolt.

The AR-15 rifle is was first built in 1959 by ArmaLite for the United States armed forces. Because of financial problems, ArmaLite sold the design to Colt. After some modifications, the redesigned rifle was adopted as the M16 rifle. In 1963, Colt started selling the semi-automatic version of the rifle for civilians. Although the name "AR-15" remains a Colt registered trademark, variants of the firearm are made, modified, and sold under various names by multiple manufacturers. (Wikipedia)

The term Assault Weapon is attributed to firearms industry advertising:

Phillip Peterson, the author of Gun Digest Buyer’s Guide to Assault Weapons (2008) wrote:

The popularly held idea that the term 'assault weapon' originated with anti-gun activists is wrong. The term was first adopted by manufacturers, wholesalers, importers and dealers in the American firearms industry to stimulate sales of certain firearms that did not have an appearance that was familiar to many firearms owners. The manufacturers and gun writers of the day needed a catchy name to identify this new type of gun.

So the origin of the term assault weapon is attributed to gun-industry hype. Let’s take a look at a real term, ‘assault rifle.’

The similar but technical term assault rifle refers to military-issued rifles capable of selective fire - automatic (full-auto), semi-automatic, and burst fire. Assault rifles are distinguished from battle rifles (such as the M-1 Garand) in that they are lighter, more maneuverable and lend themselves better to a transition from woodland to urban combat and vice versa.

The military version of the AR-15, known as the M-16/M-4, fulfills this definition.

You callin’ my gun ugly?

To sell these guns, the gun industry had to get past a major sales problem – customers did not want them at first. In a gun store, the ‘old-school’ deep-blue steel and darkly stained walnut firearms of years past – which evoked awe in the eyes of a potential buyer – were not selling very well anymore.

Hunting, nationwide, was on the decline, and self-defense was of primary importance to most customers. Gun stores had become, in effect, mini-museums of old-looking rifles in which to spend some time while purchasing a handgun.

Compared to the (in the eyes of gun enthusiasts) beautiful old-style rifles on the store's shelves, modern military weapons (or their civilian counterparts) are, for the most part, very unattractive pieces of hardware.

They do have two things going for them, however…

• They are endlessly re-configurable:

Scopes, flashlights, lasers, forward grips, etc. Once a gun-store sells an AR-15, they can expect return customers to spend two to three times the original price on accessories. For example, an ACOG scope costs more than any AR-15. These rifles have earned the nickname ‘the Barbie doll for men.’

• They are everywhere in the media:

Photos of police officers guarding Wall Street after 9/11, National Guard soldiers on train stations, cops in Ferguson pointing their rifles directly at protesters. Will Smith’s character carried an AR-15 every time he left his house in I Am Legend, full-size cardboard cutouts of soldiers holding M-4s grace the lobbies of military recruiting offices across the nation.

Pushing these things to the customer became easy. And lucrative.

The Shoulder Thing That Goes Up.

If an inanimate object is ugly and menacing looking, but we don't really know what it does... let’s take a look at what makes it so ugly.

It came down to a handful of relatively useless features.

The definition of an assault weapon became one of cosmetics, not of functionality. Parkerization (a military grade rust-resistant coating) may cause a rifle to become an unattractive dull gray, but it does not increase its deadliness. Same for aluminum anodizing, and cheap plastic handgrips.

What really matters are the features that make this a truly deadly weapon. Can you legislate against these features...?

• Semi -automatic? No, many hunters use semi-automatic rifles (one trigger pull = one bang) for quick follow-up shots.

• Detachable magazine? No, many fine sporting rifles have detachable magazines.

Let’s take the above two, and add the following…

Assault weapons – as defined by law: rifles and shot guns that had the above two features were considered assault weapons if they also had any two of the following: folding stocks, pistol grips, bayonet mounts, attachable grenade launchers, flash suppressors, or threaded barrels designed to accommodate a flash suppressor.

So pistol grips, which just make the rifle more comfortable, were considered an evil feature. Same for bayonet mounts. Bayonet mounts? Are we re-fighting the Civil War?

THE FEDERAL ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN

The Federal Assault Weapons Ban, enacted in 1994, had a 10-year ‘sunset clause,’ in that it was a law destined to expire in ten years if not renewed. The ban restricted the manufacture, transfer, and possession of semi-automatic ‘assault weapons’ except for those already in lawful possession at the time of the law's enactment. It also ‘protected’ a list of firearms and features that fell outside of the definition, some by name, some by feature.

The ban also defined the term "large capacity ammunition feeding device," which is commonly shortened to "large capacity magazine," or high capacity magazine. These were defined by the assault weapons ban as magazines, belts, drums, feed strips, or similar devices with a capacity of more than 10 rounds.

I will leave it to factcheck.org to bring you the results...

Both sides in the gun debate are misusing academic reports on the impact of the 1994 assault weapons ban, cherry-picking portions out of context to suit their arguments.

* Wayne LaPierre, chief executive officer of the National Rifle Association, told a Senate committee that the “ban had no impact on lowering crime.” But the studies cited by LaPierre concluded that effects of the ban were “still unfolding” when it expired in 2004 and that it was “premature to make definitive assessments of the ban’s impact on gun violence.”

* Conversely, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who has introduced a bill to institute a new ban on assault weapons, claimed the 1994 ban “was effective at reducing crime.” That’s not correct either. The study concluded that “we cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence.”

Both sides in the gun debate are selectively citing from a series of studies that concluded with a 2004 study led by Christopher S. Koper, “An Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003.” That report was the final of three studies of the ban, which was enacted in 1994 as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994.

Whatever the case may be...

AR-15s have become the largest selling model of firearm in the United States. 1.5 million sold in the past 5 years. Over 30 companies manufacture them. The market for AR-15s and accessories is over one-billion dollars per year.

The AR-15 is notoriously difficult to write legislation around. The 'lower receiver' is machined from a block of aluminum approximately 5 inches by 9 inches. On it, are the model name and serial number. This part is the legal firearm, so the majority of the rifle is just parts, unaffected by law.

The AR-15 has been re-branded as 'America's Firearm' or the 'Gun of the Good Guys' despite it's frequent use in notorious and tragic mass shootings recently.

To Be Continued...

Up next in Part Three:
* Implications for Personal Self Defense
* The Militarization of Police