"You Can Keep Your Hunting Rifle But..."

I've been spending a lot of time trolling various left-leaning forums that discuss gun rights. Naturally, the places I am going have a very strong bias against gun ownership and where they find it acceptable, they want it subject to a variety of restrictions, regulations and controls in order for them to feel safe.

I find this view interesting that they are so willing as so-called Progressives (not be confused with true Progressives like PGP) to hand more control of their lives to the Government in one area while at the same time protesting against the Government intruding into them in another. And then somehow believe that if their people were in control, this won't be an issue in the future since their people are benevolent and good and those currently running the show in Washington are evil and vile.

As you read through their various arguments and objections to firearm ownership, their version of a moderate viewpoint emerges with some regularity. This is the view that those who want to have guns and need them for barbaric rural activities can keep them but all those other deadly, "serves no purpose but to kill" handguns and high-powered, deadly, military assault weapons need to be controlled or banned outright.

Understand that many of these people believe the 1994 "Assault Weapon Ban" actually banned something.

It is this argument that your hunting rifles are ok but these other types of guns are too dangerous to be in society and must be controlled I want to examine.

First off, anyone making the statement "You can keep your hunting rifles but..." argument in 90 out of 100 cases probably knows nothing about firearms. They are acting out of emotional fear and have absolutely no desire to actually acquire any rudimentary knowledge on the subject.

Which is unfortunate because those who make the best debaters against a particular thing are ones that actually know something about it. If for no other purpose than to help them make a reasoned, rational, telling and memorable argument. Being armed with knowledge helps you immensely in such cases and prevents you from looking like a fool.

The other 10 percent of people in this category are gun owners themselves who are traditionalists by nature and simply have no desire to own rifles without wood on them, can't understand why anyone would want to and will happily throw the majority of gun owners under the bus to allow them to continue in their time-honored traditions. Theirs is a case of ignorance that is more likely to be corrected.

If not, all I can say to them is they will be the last ones to be handing their guns in and when they are forced to, I won't be able to help them anymore because they'll have disarmed me a long time before.

Given this, I am focusing on the 90 percent who call for restrictions on guns other than hunting rifles. And when this demand is made, it is often in the company of another demand. This is the demand that the Government also needs to restrict guns that can penetrate body armor such as high-powered, deadly "assault weapons". This usually happens when a police officer is killed in a rare incident involving a rifle.

Ok, I can understand the knee jerk reaction that fuels the chasing of that ephemeral ghost known as safety.

This is for those who do.

What follows next is a photograph. It is a disgusting and revolting photo. It is a photograph of the very things that you despise. If you feel that we need to eliminate the deadly weapons on our streets and restrict citizens to owning hunting rifles, I ask you to set aside your disgust and study this photo.

Here it is...

I know, I've asked much of you. Thank you for coming this far.

For you, I have a simple question. Using the photo above and ignoring the two huge rounds (what these items are called but you may call them "bullets" since that is probably what you know them as) behind the front row, tell me which of these bullets are those fired by "deadly assault weapons" and are meant to do nothing but kill?

Take your time. Point them out in your mind counting in from left or right.

When you're ready, scroll down for the answer.

In this photograph, the "deadly, high-powered assault weapon" bullets are the fourth from the left and the last two on the right.

Huh? But they are small!

If you selected anything in the center from those tall and massive rounds, you have selected both hunting rounds and "deadly high-powered assault weapon" rounds meant solely for weapons of war.

I'll bet you're confused now.

You see, this photo plays on psychology (at least, I hope it did). It is my assumption that you focused on the tall, powerful looking rounds in the center where your eyes would be naturally drawn. I wanted you to ignore the smallish looking bullets on the ends as insignificant and weak.

But, in fact, those three rounds I have identified are all presently used in combat operations today in the hands of our military and those of our enemies around the world today.

They are:

The 5.56x45mm NATO round (fourth from the left) fired by the M-16/M-4 carbine and used in primary infantry rifles in service with our NATO allies.

The 7.62x39mm round (second last on the right) used by the venerable Kalishnikov AK-47 assault rifle the world over.

And lastly, the Remington 6.8SPC intermediate round used by our Special Forces and as a possible replacement for the smaller, weaker 5.56mm round.

But I said all of the others are used by "deadly assault weapons" as well and were meant solely to kill?!?

Yes, I did. You see, all of the rounds shown above, with the exception of the first three on the left, either now or at one time or another were all used by militaries in one conflict or another throughout the last 100 years in combat by soldiers.

Yesterday's battle round is today's target or hunting round. Often, the various roles were performed at the same time. There is a long history of military rifles being used in civilian hands and vice-versa since before World War I. And when conflicts ended, military rifles were often sold on the civilian market as surplus and these "weapons of war" were turned towards more peaceful pursuits of plinking cans, taking game and defending lives and families from predatory harm.

Here are the rounds above, listed from left to right:

1. .22LR
2. .22Mag
3. .17HMR
4. 5.56x45mm
5. 7.62x51mm
6. 8mm Mauser
7. .30-06
8. .303 British
9. 7.62x54R
10. 6.5x55mm Swedish
11. 7.5mm Swiss
12. 7.62x39mm
13. 6.8SPC

Rear: 20mm and .50BMG

The two rounds in the back are a 20mm cannon round used in fighter jets for dogfighting at close range and the .50BMG. Yes, the one on the right is the famous "50 caliber" round that everyone says is so deadly and can shoot down planes with a single shot.

I show these to provide a sense of scale. All of these rounds with the sole exception of the 20mm are legal for civilians in this country to own and shoot with no special permission from the Government required. This despite the fact people are trying to have the .50BMG placed in the same category of "destructive device" that the 20mm is in. The 20mm requires registration, safe storage and a tax paid on every round you possess. (The 20mm pictured here is an inert dummy round using for training and novelty purposes and can be bought at any gun show for a few dollars).

Now, what do you think of just restricting civilians to hunting rifles? I'm sure this doesn't fit with your expectations of what is suitable for use only by the military.

For the record, there are two rounds shown here other than the three I identified that are presently in frontline military use. These are:

The 7.62x51mm NATO round next to the 5.56mm round. This was the primary combat round of all NATO nations including the United States until it adopted the 5.56mm and the rest of NATO had no choice but to follow suit. The 7.62x51mm is used today primarily as a sniper round.

The 7.62x54R is a Russian round that is over 100 years old and was their primary combat round until the end of World War II when they switched to the 7.62x39mm and the AK-47. However, the venerable 7.62x54R remains in use to this day as a sniper round fired by the SVD Dragunov rifle (itself a variant of the AK-47) and by World War II-era Mosin-Nagant sniper rifles in the hands of guerillas and insurgents.

Which leads me to the related issue that is raised of body armor.

If you feel that we need to ban bullets that can penetrate body armor, then you are calling for a ban of all the rounds above save for the first three on the left.

By making this demand, you are showing ignorance of the subject. Most people blithely assume that body armor is body armor. That the armor our police wear isn't that different except for coloration from that worn by soldiers in battle.

This is not true. There are, in fact, six different types of body armor in use today. Each for a different purpose.

"But if we ban the bullets that kill cops, we will save lives!" goes the cry. Hence why all of the above except for the ones I have mentioned would be banned.

Cops do not wear the same armor as soldiers. Theirs is far weaker.

You see, police wear what is called Type IIa body armor. This is soft armor made of Kevlar worn over or under a uniform. This type of armor is meant to stop pistol bullets, not rifle bullets. This is only logical as handguns account for the vast majority of firearms used in crime and against police. In many cases, it is the officer's own gun used against them.

But all of the rounds shown above are rifle rounds. Hunting rounds. They will go through police body armor as if it didn't exist.

Soliders wear heavier armor. Usually Type III or IV. The "a" in body armor designations, by the way, denotes "soft" armor. There is a Type IIIa armor that some officers wear (usually SWAT) that can stop powerful pistol rounds and some rifle rounds. However, that armor would not stop any of the rounds listed above (except for the first three).

Soldiers wear "hard" armor. This armor consists of hard ceramic or steel plates. Only this type of armor can stop rifle rounds. Type III will stop the 5.56x45mm and 7.62x39mm "assault weapon" rounds for a little while.

Hunting rounds will likewise go through Type III armor. It might stop some hunting roundse but it won't stop them all. The likewise venerable .30-06 will go right through Type III hard armor and leave a neat hole to mark its passage.

Only Type IV armor is meant to stop the full spectrum of hunting rounds. Which would include armor-piercing versions of the .30-06 and the Russian 7.62x54R. One shot only. Beyond that first shot, protection diminishes rapidly.

Against bigger hunting rounds like the .338 Lapua and the aptly named .577 Tyrannosaur, Type IV armor would be worthless.

Type III and IV armor are also very heavy. Typically on the order of 20 to 40 pounds for a set depending on desired coverage. This is before any other equipment. Soldiers wearing such armor along with their equipment are generally carrying 50 to 80 percent of their body weight. The armor weight alone is more than the full combat load including weapon and ammunition of an standard light infantryman.

Do you see the contradiction in the position of advocating for a ban on ammunition that can penetrate body armor? Almost every hunter in the United States today has the ability to defeat body armor. At a minimum, the body armor of every single police officer on duty everywhere today.

As will those smallish "assault weapon" rounds in the hands of non-hunters.

The bigger rounds mean no soldier is safe if they are used with murderous intent. The best armored soldier against an African big game hunter stands no chance. His or her armor will fail.

In essence, anyone calling for a ban on "armor piercing" ammunition that can penetrate body armor is calling for a nationwide ban on every rifle except for .22s and .17s (the three rounds on the left) and rifles that fire handgun rounds.

Still want to let us keep our hunting rifles while banning the "dangerous" ones?

It's impossible and any politician making it known they wish to do knows nothing of the subject at hand.

Unlike you now because you have been told the truth.

At the end of all this, your desire to ban "assault weapons" is nothing more than emotional reaction to the rifle's appearance. I can show you hunting rifles that fire the exact same bullets as the M-16 and AK-47 that are just as capable at defeating body armor as their "scary looking" counterparts.

And the more traditional hunting rifles used in this country for over 100 years before body armor even existed will defeat it all.

That's the long and short of it. Just be aware of the law of unintended consequences in making your demands. What appears to be reasonable on the surface to the uneducated is in fact tyranny driven out of fear. The fear that these bullets might be used to do harm. Yet, rifles of all types including ones that fire the rounds shown above account for less than 3% of all firearm crime nationwide.

Maybe they aren't the problem.

You are.