More on the AR-15
Neight Kelly, a student from Ohio who posts his thoughts on a Tumblr blog called Anti-Government Extremist (which was formerly called Evil Teabagger)*, took note of the AR-15 semi-automatic assault rifle post I published last year and reblogged yesteday. He didn’t care for my use of this photo:
This is misleading.
You post the picture because it looks scary but you don’t know anything about the functional capabilities of the firearm. Just so we’re clear an AR-15 generally has a 30 round mag and shoots a round smaller than a .45. Many people also believe that they are fully-automatic which is not the case.
This is a good example of someone who likes guns twisting himself into knots in an attempt to refute a point about guns that isn’t in need of refutation.
I didn’t post the picture because it looks scary. I posted the picture because it’s a picture of the AR-15, which is the weapon in question … both in this year-old story from Lincoln, Nebraska and from last week’s mass murder in Colorado. I suppose I could have scoured the internet for a sky-blue AR-15 with flowers coming out of the barrel … but that would have been misleading.
Kelly then explains that the AR-15 isn’t a particularly good weapon and that he’d prefer a more powerful and more deadly weapon:
AR-15s are, in my opinion and experience, incredibly inefficient and I would rather have a .45 with an extended mag. More stopping power and much easier to conceal than an AR-15.
This might very well be true … and, if so, we can all be grateful. Apparently the notoriously inefficient AR-15 jammed during the murderous rampage in Aurora, Colorado (though not as a result of the weapon itself but due to a malfunctioning add-on magazine). As a result, fewer people were killed.
But nowhere does Kelly explain why someone needs a semi-automatic weapon with an extended magazine; he just notes that those who want them should be sure to purchase .45s instead of AR-15s.
Before all the fans of the Second Amendment and all those who fear the government jump all over this post, let me be clear that I don’t have any desire to ban guns or prevent people from exercising their constitutional right to bear arms and to join a well-regulated militia. I am well aware that most gun owners don’t leave their semi-automatic rifles in their unlocked cars, as did the negligent owner in Lincoln, Nebraska last year. And I know that most gun owners don’t walk into a movie theatre and open fire on the crowd.
But some do.
And the ones who are negligent and homicidal have the same easy time legally purchasing these semi-automatic weapons with extended magazines as the non-negligent, non-homicidal folks who just want to go duck hunting or to feel safer.
I just can’t understand the need for a semi-automatic weapon with an extended magazine that’s easy to conceal and that has serious “stopping power.” And let’s be clear that there’s a big difference between wanting something and needing it. So what I’d like is for someone to explain to me the reason that we can’t adopt the seemingly reasonable position that allows responsible adults to own certain guns without allowing absolutely anyone who feels like it to own absolutely any sort of weapon.
Have at it.
*These are blog names that Kelly has apparently chosen for himself.