There’s a company out there, Wolfe Publishing, which publishes books and magazines about outdoor sports, which means hunting and sport shooting, in case you didn’t know. If you scroll through the Wolfe website, you’ll notice that it’s almost entirely focused on hunting and sport shooting, the latter subject covered by articles and books on handloading ammunition, customizing hunting rifles, discussions about where and how to hunt different species of game.
Ever hear of paper-patching ammunition? I just bought a book on the subject from this website – I didn’t think there was anyone still alive who knew anything about paper-patching ammo at all.
This website and the products it sells would be typical of the gun business were it not for the fact that the United States is the only country in the entire world which allows law-abiding residents to purchase, own and walk around the neighborhood with guns that are designed and used as weapons of war, i.e., guns whose sole purpose is to be carried into battle by military troops.
Now I can understand how and why a military trooper isn’t going to patrol a street in a place like Kabul or Baghdad without carrying an AR-15 or a Sig M-18, which happen to be the guns currently issued to U.S. troops but can also be bought at any gun shop that you choose.
Of course, gun makers like Sig, Glock and Bushmaster will tell you that such weapons are necessary for civilian ownership because we have the God-given ‘right’ to protect ourselves and use a gun for armed, personal defense. The only problem with this nonsense is that title notwithstanding, the Bill of Rights doesn’t grant any ‘rights’ at all. In this country, ‘rights’ are defined not by God but by laws.
Want to live in countries where God has the last word when it comes to ‘rights,’? Move to Afghanistan or Iran.
The fact that our legal system and the laws covering gun ownership doesn’t differentiate between guns as ‘sporting’ products versus guns being designed solely for the purpose of killing a human being is what yesterday’s decision about Remington and the Bushmaster AR-15 is really all about.
What the gun industry has been hiding for years is the idea that a gun specifically designed and used by the military in combat situations doesn’t represent a danger to society when placed in civilian hands.
If you think the AR-15 manufactured by Remington didn’t represent a danger when it was shot more than 150 times in less than three minutes and killed 26 adults and children who happened to be sitting in a public school, then I suggest you open up your dictionary and see what the word ‘danger’ really means.
Yesterday, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, which happens to be located in the same town where the slaughter at Sandy Hook took place, had the balls to announce that Remington would have been found innocent if the case had gone to trial in open court. They can’t be that dumb. No – not that dumb.
What yesterday’s agreement really represents is the possibility that gun makers who sell weapons of war as ‘sporting’ guns may find themselves facing similar lawsuits in other states which hold sellers liable when they sell a product which they know is too dangerous to be sold or owned. I mean, how difficult would it be to find a couple of families in any state who have lost loved ones to gun violence and initiate a lawsuit against Sig or Glock?
Actually, the guns currently manufactured by companies like Sig are being used exactly the way they were designed to be used. Ditto the companies which manufacture assault rifles like the AR-15 that was used at Sandy Hook.
The truth is that every gun which shoots real ammunition can be used to end a human life. But that’s like saying that every car rolling down the highway can be used to smash into another car and end lives in both cars.
But cars are made to get the driver and/or the passengers from here to there. And many guns are designed to put some venison stew on the dinner table or knock a bird out of a tree.
What the Sandy Hook versus Remington case may mean is that the gun industry should consider getting out of the business of making products which punch holes in human beings rather than holes in paper targets hanging downrange.
Feb 17, 2022 @ 16:28:01
Unless I missed it, that WW II semiauto battle rifle, the M1 Garand, is never implicated in mass shootings. The only thing I ever shot with my AR-556 is 200 yard gongs and some sight-in targets with those little one inch squares. Oh, and a few empty tin cans.
Thing is, CT lets you keep your grandfathered AR if you register it. So it seems that if a state lets a person license and possess an AR, it must have agreed that these are acceptable guns in at least some civilian hands as long as the person signs a form with the local police and jumps through whatever hoops are required. So if the lawsuit says Remington was selling a gun too dangerous to be allowed to be in civilian hands, I would have subpoenaed all those states that still allow them. Or sue the state for not knowing which civilian hands are acceptable risks.
Heck, we let just about anyone get a drivers license in a Civic and then go out and buy a Hummer, Suburban, or F-350 and careen through urban streets filled with pedestrian crossings, bike lanes, and people driving Corollas. No one, to my knowledge, is suing GM or Ford for terminal misuse although I think these gargantuan vehicles have no business in urban use when driven by the average driver.
If one is talking about risks, one has to talk about the unintended consequences of ownership rather than just “the intended use”. Civilian ownership of ARs is not intended for murder, just as driving a Hummer is not intended to smash little cars or hit people causing crushed chests due to their high front profile. But both happen. I wouldn’t mind a licensing scheme for “military style firearms” if we could actually define what we are talking about (Anything with an external bottom loading magazine designed for the military? I already see loopholes.). But for that matter, I’ve always been willing to jump through weird hoops for Uncle Sam in return for a pretty good living.
Let’s see where this ends up. If we want to talk about risk and hazard, then whether its God or the thinkers of the Enlightenment that gave us the idea of rights, they are not unlimited. Your right to falsely scream fire stops at my crowded theatre, right?
Feb 17, 2022 @ 16:31:11
p.s. I was aware of patching muzzle loaded bullets, but this was the first I heard of doing it with modern bullets, I guess, to reduce leading?
Feb 18, 2022 @ 11:58:59
I know a guy who lives in Massachusetts who claims to have sold more than 200 “assault rifles” like the AR-15 in his gun shop (or maybe it’s a pawn shop) between 2001 and 2015. Wonder if those 200 “assault rifles” were sold as ‘sporting’ guns or as weapons of war. Should this gun store/pawn shop owner be facing similar lawsuit as Remington?
When it is said, “In this country, ‘rights’ are defined not by God but by laws” I suppose that’s correct, afterall if we had God-Given rights, we would all be equal.
Feb 25, 2022 @ 08:17:01
I am a bit confused. You have been involved with firearms since 1964 and you think the AR-15 is the same rifle our military uses in combat? I will agree that you can purchase a Sig M18 as a civilian, but you cannot, under any circumstances legally purchase or own the M4. While it is based on the AR platform, it is a select fire rifle. The AR-15 started out as a sporting rifle before the military used the full auto variant, the M16. The AR-15 is not an assault rifle. I expect this kind of confusion and mis-information from some mainstream media, but not from someone considered an expert in firearms. Why would you write such things with your background?