A Response to Yet Another Knee Jerk Reaction to the Orlando Shooting

Predictable, perhaps, in the wake of the Orlando nightclub shooting, my local dead tree newspaper had an editorial: "Ban AR-15s, and do it now."
So little time, so much error!

Mark Twain asked,

"How many legs does a dog have, if you call his tail a leg?"
"Four. Just because you call a tail a leg, doesn't make it one."

Hence, the dilemma of gun control advocates: They keep calling semi-automatic rifles "assault weapons" and "weapons of war", when they are not. Assault rifles are capable of what is called "select fire". Semi-automatics fire one time with each pull of the trigger. Genuine assault rifles have a lever that will switch from semi-automatic to either three round bursts with a single trigger pull, or fully automatic. I've seen a number of news organizations that will have a story about a semi-automatic weapon, which they dishonestly narrate over the video of a fully automatic weapon. We do not send our soldiers to war with semi-automatic rifles. I do not know what pathology motivates people to lie about this. Particularly in connection with public tragedies.

You mention that the Second Amendment was "written for guns such as muskets". That's a little like saying that the First Amendment was written for hand cranked printing presses. The Founding Fathers also could not have imagined the high speed presses that mass produce your newspaper every morning. Does that mean that you have to abandon your "assault presses" for a hand cranked model in order for the First Amendment to apply to you?

In the interest of accuracy, the gun used in Orlando wasn't an AR-15. It was a Sig Sauer MCX. Now before you say, what does it matter, they're very, very similar, practically identical, think hard about it. An insert in the paper where your "Ban the AR-15" editorial appeared, was advertising a Ruger Mini-14 semi-automatic "Ranch rifle" chambered in .223 cal. In functionality and lethality, the Mini-14 is virtually identical to the AR-15, the weapon you say is "not needed to protect your family...not needed for hunting...not needed for recreation"...but is "made for killing. Period." The primary difference between the Ruger Mini-14 and the AR-15 is the Ruger has a walnut stock, and the AR-15 is black and scary looking. Period.

As far as not needing such a weapon for protection, see if someone in your newsroom is old enough to remember the Watts riots. You may even have a picture in your archives of Korean shopkeepers on the roof of their building, after the police had abandoned the area, protecting their lives and livelihood from arson & looting with their...AR-15 type rifles.

Some people use them for self defense, some people even use them to hunt small game, and recreation? Yes. Some people shoot because they enjoy it. All types of guns. Banning AR-15s to prevent mass shooting is like banning Chevrolets to prevent drunk driving. And yes, some people drive Chevys because they enjoy that, too.

BTW, no one put their name on this editorial. I don't blame them.

And if AR-15s aren't used for recreation, why is this woman smiling?