Since they’re dead, it’s kind of hard to ask them. But these guys do seem to favor dressing up in “tacticool” garments in preparation for their shooting sprees, and they seem to favor black guns rather than functionally identical models with wooden or wood-colored stocks. I doubt that’s entirely accidental. Maybe they would be put off if all civilian AR-15s were only available in “Hello Kitty” and “My Little Pony” models?
The arms industry is a business; it could also have just been added to make the gun look good to a potential buyer, or so the manufacturer could justify charging more for the weapon.
“Tacticool” is a cute neologism I’ve run into for that sort of thing.
Edit: And artemis beats me to the term!
I mentioned this in another thread but this is good graphic example. They’re probably both the same gun as the top is a stock Ruger mini-14 which can be stripped down to the lower receiver and then rebuilt with custom parts - legally, even with an assault weapons ban - to look like any gun you want. Until you start regulating components beyond the lower receiver, banning or even trying to define what an assault rifle is is probably pointless.
In terms of what functionally makes something an assault rifle, I think that generally boils down to a few basic features. First, it has to have a short barrel since it will be used in tight, probably urban environments. A long barrel, needed for accuracy isn’t necessary and will just get in the way. You also want something that uses a fairly small round such that the gun produces little recoil and a full magazine doesn’t add a lot of weight to the rifle. The .223 round is perfect for this. It should be select fire meaning that in addition to full auto there should be a setting for 3 round bursts. The last thing I can think of is rails. You want the gun to be as flexible as possible and that means not only interchangeable stocks but also rails for accessories like scopes and sights.
The Ruger Mini-14 is a real workhorse by the way, and a good example of practical semiautomatic rifles. I actually own one that came from a family member out West who used them to plink nuisance animals on his property.
It has been done.
There really is no “utility” for civilian purposes. These guns were originally designed as fully automatic for battlefield uses. Pistol grips, flash suppressors, barrel shrouds, and the prohibited things all have uses on the battlefield but zero uses (good or bad) in real life.
Some people have affection for the, say M-16, because they carried it in Vietnam, or they see pictures of guys carrying them in Vietnam. So, a manufacturer remakes it semi-auto only in the AR-15 variety with all of the other bells and whistles of an M-16 so it can be as close to the real thing as legally possible.
I don’t think anyone argues that, say, a flash suppressor, (or any of the other features) improves or hinders criminal activity. But it is a way to distinguish between guns that were specifically designed for the civilian market and ones retrofitted from military weapons.
wow.
Clearly, #2 is an “assault weapon”. Once you get done telling me they are “the same gun” you can explain why no modern military rifles look like #1. it’s the same gun, why don’t I see soldiers or SWAT team members carrying them?
kevbo suggests there are utility reasons for the style, customizability, some better ergonomics, etc. I’m interested in understanding why one form factor dominates in military rifles, because I don’t believe it’s just a style thing.
The straight line stock on the military rifle reduces muzzle climb during full auto fire. The pistol grip is because with the straight line stock, the firing hand/wrist is placed in a very awkward angle.
Another advantage of the adjustable stock is the gun is easily adapted to different sized soldiers rather than custom ordering a specific sized wood stock.
The carry handle/rear sight and tall front sight are needed due to the high sight line caused by the straight stock.
- both fire the 5.56mm/.223 Remington cartridge
- both are semiautomatic
- both have detachable magazines, and both can be had with up to 30-round magazines
The first is a Ruger Mini-14, the second is an AR-15. they’re not the same gun, but they’re functionally equivalent.
The Mini-14 is used by police and military worldwide. Also, the Mini-14 is a scaled-down take on the Garand-descended M-14 and M1 Carbine.
my first post in this thread explained why it isn’t “just a style thing.” did you bother reading it?
To the OP,
As mentioned there is a utility to almost all of the modifications you can add to a gun. The idea that this is the driving force for these modifications is up for debate. I wouldn’t underestimate the ‘it looks cool’ aspect. Lots of folks get skull tattoos because they look threatening or cool, there are any number of modifications you can get for your car that, although were invented for a specific logical reason, a lot of enthusiasts get just because they look cool or threatening. The list goes on to clothing, haircuts, etc.
There doesn’t have to be a"purpose" in the traditional sense, the purpose for a lot of gun owners is that it looks cool. And let’s face it, as a defense weapon looking threatening is a good thing.
Wow. That reminds me of the Mona Lisa Vito testimony in My Cousin Vinnie.
When can we expect the AR-15 3rd Grader Special Edition?
This is inaccurate. First of all, none of the features you list qualifies as a “prohibited thing” on the national level in the US. Secondly, these features absolutely do have utility in contexts other than shooting enemy soldiers. Due to the compact design of the AR-15 the absence of a protruding (i.e., “pistol”) grip would force the user to use an awkward and uncomfortable hold and accuracy would suffer. A flash suppressor and a compensator are nearly if not entirely identical in nearly all cases, and even the relatively low recoil impulse of the 5.56mm/.223REM round the AR-15 usually fires is significantly improved with these devices, allowing better control of the firearm. Barrel shrouds are of obvious utility, and I write this as one who has burned himself by carelessly touching the barrel of a firearm immediately after use. Firearms get very hot when fired, and barrel shrouds or equivalent safety devices are a simple solution that has zero impact on the lethality of the firearm.
The only feature prohibited by the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, the law that gave us a definition of “assault weapon” for the ten years it was in effect, that seems superfluous is the bayonet lug. Other than having a slight and probably negligible effect on the firearm’s balance, I daresay the bayonet lug serves no purpose off the battlefield. It also seems to serve no purpose on the battlefield, unless bayonetings are more common in combat than I’ve been led to believe. Either way it seems a feature not worth prohibiting given the absence of bayonet crime since the AWB sunset in 2004.
If you go back into the history (especially in the case of the AK) the purposes were
a) reduced cost/time to manufacture
b) reduced weight
c) ease of care and maintenance in the field
d) combination of the above combined with general utility and function
A semi version of the Chipmunk? Maybe the 10/22 Ruger with the full tactical kit on it?
http://modernsurvivalonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/ruger_banner.jpg
The characteristics of an assault weapon according to the law banning them were a foldable stock, a protuding pistol grip, ability to hold a flash suppresor, and a bayonet mount. A foldable stock is to make the gun lighter, smaller, and thus more easy to carry long distances. The protuding pistol grip is to make it more comfortable to shoot for longer so your hands don’t get tired. The flash suppresor is to make it harder to spot when firing. The bayonet mount is so the gun can still be a weapon even if you run out of ammo.
Nice - and you can probably build that even AFTER an assault weapons ban too.
I’ll bite - I own both. They’re both assault weapons if used to assault. They fire the same .223/5.56mm round. Given my druthers, I’d prefer the mini-14 (if necessary, I’d rather use wood over plastic to club someone).
Otherwise, they’re no more dangerous than a hammer. The hammer doesn’t choose to kill, it’s operator does. By logical extension, my spork (dammit! I don’t own a spork!) could be an assault weapon.
I know that everyone is upset about the recent tragedy in CT. I get that. But the firearms didn’t commit the crime (unless we go alin reml on the subject. The guns did what they were made to do - which is simply to fire bullets. It was a disturbed person who committed the crime. Had there been a sane person comparably armed at hand, we would likely have had a lower toll.
My apologies if that became a hijack. I just think that we have a tendency to focus on the wrong subjects. Food poisoning kills more people than firearms.
To capitalize on your hijack, tactical shotguns are actually a lot better than assault rifles for a lot of situations and although I’m not that familiar with what most SWAT teams carry, I know that for many LEO’s, shotguns are often in the mix and for good reason. They carry a low risk of penetration and reduce the need for precise aim. In a confined space with multiple targets they are devastating - much more so that an assault rifle.
So for long guns, let’s say that we ban everything but single shot, bolt action rifles. Does anyone really think that solves the problem? And how many people are aware of the fact that you can still buy black powder weapons with no license or background check of any kind. That may sound innocuous enough, but I believe that would include such things as early ball and powder six-shooters.
I’m reaching with the black powder example but the point is that the focus needs to be on people and not on guns. The kid here was out of school for 3 years - theoretically he was being ‘home schooled.’ His parents where rich enough that they could have easily skirted any measly requirements of state home schooling regulations. THAT is the sort of thing people should be focusing on. WHAT went on during those three years that turned this kid into a monster and not what guns did he have access to.