I’ll preface my answers by saying that I am very, very pro gun-rights. I have carried open and concealed for the better part of the last decade for several reasons. For one, I have held the engrained belief of the old-school cowboy. As the man-of-the-house, it is my responsibility to protect the ones around me that I love, as well as the innocent ones who may be in harm’s way. The U.S. Judicial System has upheld this belief numerous times in recent years. If you search for it, you will find cases in the Supreme Court that have upheld the ruling that Police are not required to protect you. There is no civil or criminal liability when an Officer is not there to ensure your protection when a crisis or criminal act is occurring. It is each person’s individual responsibility.
That said, I have spent the better part of the last decade working in Law Enforcement. As one of the very few pro gun-rights people who is willing to hold a respectful, worthy conversation on the topic, I have had some excellent conversations with pro gun-control advocates. I have learned a lot from them, although I have come to realize they are largely misguided and naïve when it comes to the foundation of firearms. I’ll explain that in a bit.
The main reason, believe it or not, is because America as a whole has become ignorant and naïve when it comes to firearms. It past generations, it was not only common, but required of the children to grow up firing rifles. It was mandatory that they learn to hunt and/or protect their livestock. Recent generations, though, have become immune from that standard of living with the advent of commercialized food. They no longer respect the firearms as a require to survive and to live. It’s a play thing. Just look at how many children are running around with Nerf guns and AirSoft guns shooting each other. It’s become a toy that desensitizes them of the realities of life.
The secondary reason for the focus on assault rifles has been the media, movie and television industries. The popularization of the assault rifle in Hollywood has made it a main-stream idea. When you see movies like Rambo, S.W.A.T., or Rocky, it’s hard to think of them using a single-round bolt action hunting rifle in the middle of a war scene. It just doesn’t fit the scene. Likewise, you don’t see bank robbers going in with a snub-nose Colt revolver anymore, either. Those have been banned to the old-school Western genres.
Hollywood and the media takes real life events and glorifies the perpetrators. Take the North Hollywood Shootout from 1997, for instance. To this day, it is still used and referenced in numerous films, including the opening to S.W.A.T. In addition to that, the media focuses almost entirely on the suspects: who were they, what was their past, why did they do it, etc. I bet you could tell me more information on the shooters at Virginia Tech, Columbine, Newtown, or the shooting in Tucson. Now, with Tucson being the exception, name a single victim in any of those tragedies. Tucson was the exception to that rule because Gabriel Giffords is a political figure that survived a shot to the head. In many, many ways, she has become a martyr to the gun-control advocates. A person who is striving for infamy and fame knows they only have to take out a couple of the most precious lives on our Earth and they will make it in to the history books. The tales of Jared Loughner or James Holmes are more commonplace today that Adolf Hitler, Julius Ceasar or Pol Pot. And what better weapon to use than the ones that they’ve seen in all their favorite violent action movies: the AK-47 and the AR-15.?
Again, this answer goes back to the ignorance and naivety of the American Population. With the exception of high capacity magazines, the other features hold no real tactical benefit. Likewise, removing those features adds no real form of gun-control. I’ll detail the major ones below and include explanations of why they are “feel-good measures.”
-High capacity magazines: Obviously, the high capacity allows for more shots to be fired in succession without reloading the firearm. And while this is true, what most of America fails to realize is that defining a high capacity magazine as one which holds 10 rounds or more will effectively ban nearly 90% of the semi-automatic pistols carried today. The single major semi-auto that will still be legal would be the 1911 models, primarily made by Colt, Kimber and Springfield and followed in the distance by the Beretta. All double-stack magazines hold at least ten rounds, with few exceptions. Glocks are completely banned, as I am not aware of any magazines that hold fewer than ten rounds. Springfield XDs follow immediately behind them.
A popular political ploy to “ban” high capacity magazines is to allow the manufactures to simply put a rivet in to the magazine that limits the follower’s travel, effectively capping the magazine at a pre-determined round count. Others who have chosen to invest a bit more time and effort have added unstretched lengths of spring to prevent additional downward travel, while still others have extended the “legs” of the follower to prevent it from moving all the way down. All three methods or very easily remedied in a matter of seconds. This was the single biggest problem with Canada’s ban of high-capacity magazines. Most manufacturers used the rivet method. With a standard drill, drill bit and five seconds of time, that limiting factor was removed and the full capacity was restored.
Even with the gun advocates, you will find few that are opposed to limiting true “high-capacity” magazines. A 30-round magazine for a Glock, a 50-round drum for a shotgun or a 100-round drum for an assault rifle is ridiculous. And no, there is no real-world situation where a civilian would have a legitimate reason to carry those. But those are not the magazines that the politicians are actively pursuing. Sure, they’ll be included in the ultimate decision, but they are focusing on the every day limit that an overwhelming majority of Americans would be affected by.
- Collapsing Stocks: This was originally included to ban the AK-47. A very popular rendition of the AK features a “folding” stock that swivels either up or around the side of the gun to lay flush against the barrel and stock. It effectively cuts the total length of the rifle down to between 1/2 and 2/3 of its original size. This is the one situation where Hollywood may have had the “concealed gun” idea accurate. The design of the AK, unlike the AR-15, allows the stock of the rifle to be completely removed and maintain full functionality. The movie scene where a person pulled a sawed-off shotgun from inside their trench coat and fired it single-handed is more realistic with an AK than an AR.
The design of the AR does not allow this. The true AR-15 is designed with a buffer tube extending from the back of the upper receiver in to the stock. This buffer tube uses a heavy load spring to cycle the bolt carrier assembly and helps to manage recoil. It essentially makes the rifle easier to shoot and allows for better accuracy. That buffer tube must be present and properly attached in order for the rifle to cycle properly, however. The standard stock only extends between 4” and 6” beyond the end of the buffer tube. A collapsible stock on this style of rifle only allows a slight decrease or increase in distance from the shoulder to the trigger, which is beneficial to smaller profiles including children. In the military, where they issue standard fixed-length stocks, the popular fix for smaller soldiers was a hacksaw and just cutting down the end of their rifle. This is the main reason you’ll never see an AR used in that classic Hollywood trench-coat scene.
While the ban may theoretically inhibit the sale of the AK-47, it is still far from certain. Not only is the swivel stock extremely easy to make from spare parts out of a Home Depot or Lowe’s, it’s even easier to simply cut off or remove any “fixed” or “permanent” stock that they add to the ban’s wording.
In terms of the AR-15, it is a completely pointless portion of the ban. It is simply a feel-good measure that America accepted. Again, this all goes back to the ignorant or naïve statements I’ve made. A majority of American’s do not understand the intrinsic workings of a single assault rifle, much less multiple styles.
- Pistol Grips: Again, this goes back to Hollywood and the trench-coat scene. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s character in Terminator was a prime example. He was able to carry a pistol grip shotgun with no stock at all. He fired it, then manage to re-rack the gun and fire it again, all using a single hand. I believe, although it’s been a few years, he’s even walking around with one of these in each hand. Theoretically, it prevents the criminals and would-be mass murders from concealing these types of weapons.
Realistically, I don’t know anyone who is able to repetitively shoot a shotgun using only a pistol grip, at least not with truly damaging rounds. Sure, you can do it with lightweight bird shot, but Dick Chenney shot Harry Whittington in the face, chest and neck with minimal injuries. He did have a non-fatal heart attack three days after the incident, but again, it was non-fatal at close range to vulnerable parts of the body. I dare anybody to try shooting a regular slug like that more than once. They have some serious recoil to them and after about 20 of them, my shoulder starts hurting. I’d venture to say many would break a hand.
The shotgun discussion is a moot point, however, because it is not included in the bans. It holds a maximum of 8 rounds using an extended shell tube and does not classify as an assault rifle. Unfortunately, this is the type of movie scene that many of the people I’ve had the discussions refer to when pistol grips are brought up. Honestly, I am not positively sure how a semi-automatic shotgun works. If it is like the AR-15, and I believe they are, it has the same style buffer tube that extends in to the stock, effectively preventing you from removing the stock and only using a pistol grip. The semi-automatic shotguns do have a significantly less amount of recoil. The same round-limits apply, however. On very rare occasion, there are some drum-fed shotguns, but they are rather expensive and far less realistic for using in a mass-casualty situation. I have never heard of one used in a crime, period.
In contrast, returning to the AK-47, it is an intrinsic part of the design with the folding stock version I explained above. By not using a stock at all and utilizing a pistol grip, the shooter is able to use a significantly shorter version of the weapon and maintain a high-capacity magazine. Essentially, you could easily pull off the trench coat scene. Your accuracy, however, suffers significantly. We did an experiment at the range once with veteran shooters and at 10 yards or approximately 33 feet, more than half of the shots missed. Now, if you leave a regular, full-length fixed stock in place on the AK, you could easily remove the pistol grip and have an accurate, fully functioning assault rifle. In fact, it would feel very much like shooting a regular hunting rifle.
Returning to the AR-15, the removal of the pistol grip would make the weapon less comfortable, but would not prove to be impossible to shoot. The lower section of the lower receiver is designed to fit against the webbing in between your index finger and thumb. With the extremely low recoil of this system, coupled with the stock placed against the shoulder, theoretically, your trigger hand does not have to apply any forward pressure to stabilize the gun. During weapons training, we have had occasion to have the trainee hold the rifle in position while the trainer pulled the trigger. The trainee had their hand at their side during that exercise.
So again, this is a “feel-good measure” as you can fire all both major types of assault rifles without the pistol grip, so long as they have a stock. Under these rules, a fixed-length stock without a pistol grip would be a perfectly legal weapon. Even with a ten-round magazine, I could still do significant damage. I carry only 1911s with 8-round magazines and can do an empty-gun or speed-reload in under a second.
- Flash Suppressors: I have never had anyone ever give me a good reason that flash suppressors should be banned. Even without a suppressor, a rifle does not generate enough flash on a moonless night to blind the shooter. To make the situation even more of a “feel-good measure,” how many of the mass shootings over the last decade have happened at night, in an unlit area? People hear the term “suppressor” and sub-consciously substitute “silencer,” therefore it must be bad.
I now have a mere six hours before I have to be up for work, ready to pull a 12 hour shift, so I'm headed off to bed. I thought it was very important to answer your questions based on the discussions I've had with many, many gun-control advocates and their beliefs. Knowledge is power, and we are in a very delicate time in terms of personal and national protection. The current Administration has failed to pass gun-control through Congress, therefore they plan on circumventing the system. This is the same philosophy they have with their plans to sign the U.N.'s Arms Trade Treaty. As soon as they had "won" the election, they were back at the tables to talk about it again. Make no mistakes, they are trying to slowly whittle away at our rights to protect ourselves. It's clearly evident in the news.
That said, I have spent the better part of the last decade working in Law Enforcement. As one of the very few pro gun-rights people who is willing to hold a respectful, worthy conversation on the topic, I have had some excellent conversations with pro gun-control advocates. I have learned a lot from them, although I have come to realize they are largely misguided and naïve when it comes to the foundation of firearms. I’ll explain that in a bit.
The main reason, believe it or not, is because America as a whole has become ignorant and naïve when it comes to firearms. It past generations, it was not only common, but required of the children to grow up firing rifles. It was mandatory that they learn to hunt and/or protect their livestock. Recent generations, though, have become immune from that standard of living with the advent of commercialized food. They no longer respect the firearms as a require to survive and to live. It’s a play thing. Just look at how many children are running around with Nerf guns and AirSoft guns shooting each other. It’s become a toy that desensitizes them of the realities of life.
The secondary reason for the focus on assault rifles has been the media, movie and television industries. The popularization of the assault rifle in Hollywood has made it a main-stream idea. When you see movies like Rambo, S.W.A.T., or Rocky, it’s hard to think of them using a single-round bolt action hunting rifle in the middle of a war scene. It just doesn’t fit the scene. Likewise, you don’t see bank robbers going in with a snub-nose Colt revolver anymore, either. Those have been banned to the old-school Western genres.
Hollywood and the media takes real life events and glorifies the perpetrators. Take the North Hollywood Shootout from 1997, for instance. To this day, it is still used and referenced in numerous films, including the opening to S.W.A.T. In addition to that, the media focuses almost entirely on the suspects: who were they, what was their past, why did they do it, etc. I bet you could tell me more information on the shooters at Virginia Tech, Columbine, Newtown, or the shooting in Tucson. Now, with Tucson being the exception, name a single victim in any of those tragedies. Tucson was the exception to that rule because Gabriel Giffords is a political figure that survived a shot to the head. In many, many ways, she has become a martyr to the gun-control advocates. A person who is striving for infamy and fame knows they only have to take out a couple of the most precious lives on our Earth and they will make it in to the history books. The tales of Jared Loughner or James Holmes are more commonplace today that Adolf Hitler, Julius Ceasar or Pol Pot. And what better weapon to use than the ones that they’ve seen in all their favorite violent action movies: the AK-47 and the AR-15.?
Again, this answer goes back to the ignorance and naivety of the American Population. With the exception of high capacity magazines, the other features hold no real tactical benefit. Likewise, removing those features adds no real form of gun-control. I’ll detail the major ones below and include explanations of why they are “feel-good measures.”
-High capacity magazines: Obviously, the high capacity allows for more shots to be fired in succession without reloading the firearm. And while this is true, what most of America fails to realize is that defining a high capacity magazine as one which holds 10 rounds or more will effectively ban nearly 90% of the semi-automatic pistols carried today. The single major semi-auto that will still be legal would be the 1911 models, primarily made by Colt, Kimber and Springfield and followed in the distance by the Beretta. All double-stack magazines hold at least ten rounds, with few exceptions. Glocks are completely banned, as I am not aware of any magazines that hold fewer than ten rounds. Springfield XDs follow immediately behind them.
A popular political ploy to “ban” high capacity magazines is to allow the manufactures to simply put a rivet in to the magazine that limits the follower’s travel, effectively capping the magazine at a pre-determined round count. Others who have chosen to invest a bit more time and effort have added unstretched lengths of spring to prevent additional downward travel, while still others have extended the “legs” of the follower to prevent it from moving all the way down. All three methods or very easily remedied in a matter of seconds. This was the single biggest problem with Canada’s ban of high-capacity magazines. Most manufacturers used the rivet method. With a standard drill, drill bit and five seconds of time, that limiting factor was removed and the full capacity was restored.
Even with the gun advocates, you will find few that are opposed to limiting true “high-capacity” magazines. A 30-round magazine for a Glock, a 50-round drum for a shotgun or a 100-round drum for an assault rifle is ridiculous. And no, there is no real-world situation where a civilian would have a legitimate reason to carry those. But those are not the magazines that the politicians are actively pursuing. Sure, they’ll be included in the ultimate decision, but they are focusing on the every day limit that an overwhelming majority of Americans would be affected by.
- Collapsing Stocks: This was originally included to ban the AK-47. A very popular rendition of the AK features a “folding” stock that swivels either up or around the side of the gun to lay flush against the barrel and stock. It effectively cuts the total length of the rifle down to between 1/2 and 2/3 of its original size. This is the one situation where Hollywood may have had the “concealed gun” idea accurate. The design of the AK, unlike the AR-15, allows the stock of the rifle to be completely removed and maintain full functionality. The movie scene where a person pulled a sawed-off shotgun from inside their trench coat and fired it single-handed is more realistic with an AK than an AR.
The design of the AR does not allow this. The true AR-15 is designed with a buffer tube extending from the back of the upper receiver in to the stock. This buffer tube uses a heavy load spring to cycle the bolt carrier assembly and helps to manage recoil. It essentially makes the rifle easier to shoot and allows for better accuracy. That buffer tube must be present and properly attached in order for the rifle to cycle properly, however. The standard stock only extends between 4” and 6” beyond the end of the buffer tube. A collapsible stock on this style of rifle only allows a slight decrease or increase in distance from the shoulder to the trigger, which is beneficial to smaller profiles including children. In the military, where they issue standard fixed-length stocks, the popular fix for smaller soldiers was a hacksaw and just cutting down the end of their rifle. This is the main reason you’ll never see an AR used in that classic Hollywood trench-coat scene.
While the ban may theoretically inhibit the sale of the AK-47, it is still far from certain. Not only is the swivel stock extremely easy to make from spare parts out of a Home Depot or Lowe’s, it’s even easier to simply cut off or remove any “fixed” or “permanent” stock that they add to the ban’s wording.
In terms of the AR-15, it is a completely pointless portion of the ban. It is simply a feel-good measure that America accepted. Again, this all goes back to the ignorant or naïve statements I’ve made. A majority of American’s do not understand the intrinsic workings of a single assault rifle, much less multiple styles.
- Pistol Grips: Again, this goes back to Hollywood and the trench-coat scene. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s character in Terminator was a prime example. He was able to carry a pistol grip shotgun with no stock at all. He fired it, then manage to re-rack the gun and fire it again, all using a single hand. I believe, although it’s been a few years, he’s even walking around with one of these in each hand. Theoretically, it prevents the criminals and would-be mass murders from concealing these types of weapons.
Realistically, I don’t know anyone who is able to repetitively shoot a shotgun using only a pistol grip, at least not with truly damaging rounds. Sure, you can do it with lightweight bird shot, but Dick Chenney shot Harry Whittington in the face, chest and neck with minimal injuries. He did have a non-fatal heart attack three days after the incident, but again, it was non-fatal at close range to vulnerable parts of the body. I dare anybody to try shooting a regular slug like that more than once. They have some serious recoil to them and after about 20 of them, my shoulder starts hurting. I’d venture to say many would break a hand.
The shotgun discussion is a moot point, however, because it is not included in the bans. It holds a maximum of 8 rounds using an extended shell tube and does not classify as an assault rifle. Unfortunately, this is the type of movie scene that many of the people I’ve had the discussions refer to when pistol grips are brought up. Honestly, I am not positively sure how a semi-automatic shotgun works. If it is like the AR-15, and I believe they are, it has the same style buffer tube that extends in to the stock, effectively preventing you from removing the stock and only using a pistol grip. The semi-automatic shotguns do have a significantly less amount of recoil. The same round-limits apply, however. On very rare occasion, there are some drum-fed shotguns, but they are rather expensive and far less realistic for using in a mass-casualty situation. I have never heard of one used in a crime, period.
In contrast, returning to the AK-47, it is an intrinsic part of the design with the folding stock version I explained above. By not using a stock at all and utilizing a pistol grip, the shooter is able to use a significantly shorter version of the weapon and maintain a high-capacity magazine. Essentially, you could easily pull off the trench coat scene. Your accuracy, however, suffers significantly. We did an experiment at the range once with veteran shooters and at 10 yards or approximately 33 feet, more than half of the shots missed. Now, if you leave a regular, full-length fixed stock in place on the AK, you could easily remove the pistol grip and have an accurate, fully functioning assault rifle. In fact, it would feel very much like shooting a regular hunting rifle.
Returning to the AR-15, the removal of the pistol grip would make the weapon less comfortable, but would not prove to be impossible to shoot. The lower section of the lower receiver is designed to fit against the webbing in between your index finger and thumb. With the extremely low recoil of this system, coupled with the stock placed against the shoulder, theoretically, your trigger hand does not have to apply any forward pressure to stabilize the gun. During weapons training, we have had occasion to have the trainee hold the rifle in position while the trainer pulled the trigger. The trainee had their hand at their side during that exercise.
So again, this is a “feel-good measure” as you can fire all both major types of assault rifles without the pistol grip, so long as they have a stock. Under these rules, a fixed-length stock without a pistol grip would be a perfectly legal weapon. Even with a ten-round magazine, I could still do significant damage. I carry only 1911s with 8-round magazines and can do an empty-gun or speed-reload in under a second.
- Flash Suppressors: I have never had anyone ever give me a good reason that flash suppressors should be banned. Even without a suppressor, a rifle does not generate enough flash on a moonless night to blind the shooter. To make the situation even more of a “feel-good measure,” how many of the mass shootings over the last decade have happened at night, in an unlit area? People hear the term “suppressor” and sub-consciously substitute “silencer,” therefore it must be bad.
I now have a mere six hours before I have to be up for work, ready to pull a 12 hour shift, so I'm headed off to bed. I thought it was very important to answer your questions based on the discussions I've had with many, many gun-control advocates and their beliefs. Knowledge is power, and we are in a very delicate time in terms of personal and national protection. The current Administration has failed to pass gun-control through Congress, therefore they plan on circumventing the system. This is the same philosophy they have with their plans to sign the U.N.'s Arms Trade Treaty. As soon as they had "won" the election, they were back at the tables to talk about it again. Make no mistakes, they are trying to slowly whittle away at our rights to protect ourselves. It's clearly evident in the news.
Last edited:
