The Other Side of Demetriou

I am under the impression that Kevin Boatang (hopefully I'm getting that right) is the other half of the pair referred to on their blog.

His style is ...different.

He posted a comment on the article that started in on this. I decided that a reply warranted a post rather than in comments.

Can we clarify something here. An ‘assault rifle’ is simply a term, it doesn’t mean we think that people are running around with full blown army weapons.

"Assault weapon" and "Assault rifle" are not the same thing. I state that so there is no confusion. An "assault weapon"is the media and political term for semi-automatic rifles styled after military rifles. They are functionally identical to more traditionally appearing hunting rifles.

An "assault rifle" is a selective fire (meaning semi and fully automatic) rifle or carbine firing ammunition with muzzle energies between those typical of pistol and battle rifle ammunition.

To illustrate the confusion, here are two "assault weapons":

The top rifle is a Ruger Mini-14. The bottom rifle is a Stag Arms Model 4 AR-15 carbine.

What is the difference between them?

Nothing, practically speaking, other than how they look.

Both rifles fire the .223 Remington (5.56mm) cartridge, both acceptable detachable box magazines with capacities from 5 to 30 rounds, both are semi-automatic in operation.

The only difference is the bottom one has a pistol grip, collapsible stock, flash hider and bayonet lug. And it's black.

But in terms of lethality and effectiveness against whatever target they are pointed at, they do the exact same thing in the exact same way with the exact same number of shots.

So, you're correct, people aren't running around with "army weapons" because neither of these guns have been or are used by any army. They are civilian firearms.

The politicians banned the configuration of the lower rifle but the upper one wasn't even mentioned. And yet, the 2004 USA Today article you reference uses the upper rifle as an example of "death machine" that was suddenly available for civilian sale.

It was never banned in the first place.

The ban was about appearance, not function.

Also this ownership thing, under the Firearm Owners Protection Act 1986 people were allowed to have any ‘assault weapon’ before the date registered and kept, so there are all these things all over the place, we know that.

Sorry, Kevin, you're confusing the issue. FOPA'86 dealt with machine guns, not the semi-autos listed above, via the Hughes Amendment. So if you had an actual full-auto M4 carbine then you were subject to registration and could keep it up until May 19, 1986. Any gun made after that date couldn't be registered or owned by civilians.

The semi-autos covered under the 1994 AWB had nothing to do with FOPA'86. You've confused appearance with function, a common thing among those who don't understand the firearms in question.

Yes, this debate is about guns. It is also hard to discuss this reasonably and rationally unless you know something about the subject.

Why do you need a gun like that at all? You say the police don’t have to protect you, but protect you from what that needs a weapon like that!

Which one? The Mini-14 or the M4? Both are identical. Both can be used for self-defense. Or target shooting. Or hunting small game (smaller than deer). If the Mini-14 doesn't bother you but the Stag Arms M4 does, you need to ask yourself "Why?".

why is it a God given right to own a gun? In that case, I might start walking around with a sword, that’s been around for years.

The right to preserve oneself transcends government and law. It is wired into us by Nature whether we choose to acknowledge it or not. Some believe rights originate from God, others see them as natural rights. Whatever you believe, when backed into a corner, you will revert to your basic survival instincts. Fight or flee.

Guns are simply one tool useful for preserving oneself. So are swords. Guns work better. If a sword is all you have, it is better than nothing. But unless your foe is at close range, the old adage "Don't bring a knife to a gunfight" applies. Guns are more effective tools for preserving life and limb against a foe than any other weapon.

If I choose to use one type of gun over another, does it matter? All throw projectiles accurately at high speed in a given direction. All that varies is the speed, size and shape. At the end of the day, that is what it boils down to. If I prefer one over the other because it is lighter and more comfortable to shoot despite its menacing appearance, so what?

And if it makes you uncomfortable because I would prefer the black one over the wood one, that is an issue you need to resolve with yourself. I can't do it for you. But projecting your issues, lack of knowledge or fear of certain types of weapons does not give you a moral basis in which to restrict my choices.

Especially in a free country.

Your argument would stand up if people didnt get shot. If you have a gun and he has a gun, then by your argument, neither of you would get shot because you both have guns. But you don’t, you both get shot. So what exactly was the point in having the gun? If you didnt, you would both be alive.

You are placing all gun uses by all people as equivalent. This is simplistic and not reflective of reality. There is a difference between "violent and predatory" and "violent and protective" behavior.

If both parties have a gun, criminal and victim, then your scenario is one possible outcome. But certainly not the only one.

What is the criminal doesn't know I have a gun and attempts to victimize me? Even if he has one, pulls it on me, he may not expect the victim to draw on in return. He's expecting an easy victim and the opportunity to run away to victimize another day. A victim fighting back in any way is not in the plan.

If the gun-toting criminal isn't expecting an equal response, the victim can get the drop on them and at that point odds are likely only one person is getting shot and it won't be the victim.

Just as likely, the criminal could simply step out and shoot you dead. If they didn't know you had a gun, it wouldn't matter in the end anyway. You're still dead.

You're making broad assumptions about people having guns without looking into how and where they can be used. It is not black-and-white. The possession and usage of firearms covers many shades of grey and they do overlap.

And this founding fathers crap, pah-leese. They intended for militias to be formed so the state didn’t require a standing army, not that every home and car have a machine gun. That’s just stupid. The state still controls you whether you have a gun or not, you pay taxes, you have an army that would beat the shit out of you, so how does the gun make you anymore of an individual against the state? It doesn’t, you just want it to because you’re paranoid. If it wasn’t guns you were militant about it would be something else.

Where you there at the ratification of the US Consitution? Unless you were, don't make assumptions about what the Founders intended.

In fact, you don't have to. You can read their intentions leading up to the ratification of the Constitution in their own words.

But to educate you, the Founders did intend for the people to form militias when called using arms supplied by themselves. Hence why the 2nd Amendment exists. It exists to protect the right of the citizen to have arms. The Founders felt that if the citizens couldn't organize with arms of their own as a check against a standing army (the existence of which they felt was a threat to a free people), then the standing army could be used in conjunction with other Government measures to impose tyranny on the populace.

Yes, the state controls who can have a gun. And the fact we pay taxes. Even the 2nd Amendment didn't stand in the way of the State of imposing harsh gun controls (so far only tried by a few cities with dismal results), guns are part of the cultural fabric of this country.

The fact that British Government legislated away the same birthright you used to possess doesn't mean the USA should give it up as well. People here will not give it up so easily. And if the State were to try, that would be seen by many as a tripwire scenario that leads to tyranny.

And yes, in case you ask, armed citizens could hold off the most powerful army in the world with just our semi-auto lookalikes and hunting rifles. Examine places like Vietnam and Afghanistan where guerrilla campaigns were successful by foes far less technologically advanced.

If you want to discuss the realities of what enough pissed off citizens with nothing to lose could do against the US Army, we can speculate if you wish. It all depends on numbers.

So Kevin, what is the argument about guns you refer to? What is it you feel banning certain type of rifles based solely on their appearance would accomplish? Is it crime control or is it people control? Or is it for the sensation of feeling safe?

I'd like to understand what the end result would be.

(Images from Ruger and Stag Arms. I will remove them if they object.)