Even If the Navy Yard Shooter Did Not Use an AR-15, His Crime Shows Why AR-15s Should Be Banned

Senate Judiciary CommitteeSenate Judiciary CommitteeYesterday Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) jumped on reports that one of the weapons used by Aaron Alexis to kill 12 people at the Navy Yard in Washington was an AR-15, which in her view is suitable only for mass murder even though it is the best-selling rifle in America:

There are reports the killer was armed with an AR-15, a shotgun and a semiautomatic pistol when he stormed an American military installation in the nation’s capital and took at least 12 innocent lives. This is one more event to add to the litany of massacres that occur when a deranged person or grievance killer is able to obtain multiple weapons—including a military-style assault rifle—and kill many people in a short amount of time. When will enough be enough?

Last night CNN talk show host Piers Morgan was similarly outraged, telling gun control critic John Lott:

You and I have debated this after almost every mass shooting in the last three years....You guys just never accept that the gun itself [can] ever be part of the problem....The Washington Navy Yard is heavily secured. It is crawling in armed security, people, arms, police. And yet it was still infiltrated by a man with a legally purchased AR-15, who just committed the same kind of atrocity as we saw at Sandy Hook and Aurora. And yet I’m sure, John Lott, you're going to explain to me now why the solution is not to deal with that gun which keeps being used to do these atrocities but is to arm even more people in that building.

Whoops. Today CNN reported, based on information from FBI officials in Washington, that Alexis did not have an AR-15 after all. He was instead armed with a shotgun (the firearm endorsed by Vice President Joe Biden for all legitimate self-defense uses), which he brought with him, and a pistol he seems to have taken from a guard at the Navy Yard. "Contrary to previous reports that had been widely circulated," says the Los Angeles Times, Valerie Parlave, assistant director in charge of the FBI’s Washington field office, "said Alexis did not use an AR-15 semiautomatic weapon." According to CNN, "Military personnel that were responding to the shooting were carrying maybe one or more AR-15s, and that's where the confusion came from, initially from law enforcement. That's why that was reported."

Does it really matter? CNN says no, and here's why:

It has been called the most popular rifle in America, and it briefly returned to the spotlight after Monday's shooting at the Navy Yard: the AR-15....

Federal law enforcement sources told CNN Tuesday that authorities have recovered three weapons from the scene of the mass shooting, including one—a shotgun—that investigators believe Alexis brought into the compound. The other two weapons, which sources say were handguns, may have been taken from guards at the Navy complex.

The sources, who have detailed knowledge of the investigation, cautioned that initial information that an AR-15 was used in the shootings may have been incorrect....

Regardless, the massacre pushed the AR-15 back into the gun-control debate. 

That regardless is doing a tremendous amount of reality-denying work. Thus does inaccurate reporting justify yet another round of ill-informed demands for an "assault weapon" ban like the one Feinstein failed to pass last spring. CNN is right that the exact model Alexis used is irrelevant: Whether or not his weapon was on the list of scary-looking guns Feinstein would like to ban, his victims would be equally dead. But that fact merely illustrates the folly of trying to save lives by banning the weapons allegedly favored by mass murderers.

Speaking of which, a survivor of the 2009 Fort Hood massacre told Morgan last night that the AR-15 is "the preferred mass shooter's weapon of choice." In fact, mass shooters are more likely to use handguns than any type of "assault weapon." But even if every mass shooter used an AR-15, it would not follow that eliminating AR-15s (something Feinstein's bill does not purport to accomplish) would eliminate mass shootings, or even make them a little less common or deadly, since equally effective alternatives would still be readily available. 

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • William of Purple||

    Kuz Guns are scary dontchaknow

  • ||

    Had the same argument with a friend who is going to law school in DC. Smart girl all around but when it comes to gun control, she goes full retard. We have a myriad of laws concerning guns but yet shootings (despite the DOJ research showing that mass shootings has actually gone down) still happens. I live in Chicago and we have all of these wonderful gun laws but yet people especially in the lower class areas are getting shot like hot cakes.

  • Paul.||

    Smart girl all around but when it comes to gun control,

    Then she's not a smart girl all around. She's a smart girl some of the way 'round.

  • General Butt Naked||

    I've heard of eating and selling hot cakes, but never shooting them.

    Illinois is weird.

  • tarran||

  • General Butt Naked||

    So that's why they call a flintlock a chicago-donut-maker.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    In fact, mass shooters are more likely to use handguns than any type of "assault weapon."

    A fact that will become relevant to the left the second after they use mass shootings to get other guns banned. The "assault weapon" ban is to use scary appearance to ban some rifles, then later act shocked when "guns that are just as, or more, dangerous than ones we had to ban are legal" and ban hunting rifles.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    Yes. Scary guns are just the thin edge of the wedge. Handguns are next.

  • From the Tundra||

    I won't link to it, but Piers Morgan had a tweet today saying something to the effect that the type of gun doesn't matter to the victims. Funny, that, last night it was all AR, all the time.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    He said the type of gun doesn't matter to the victims? So, the method of death doesn't matter?

    Ha ha. Awesome.

  • ||

    yeah, Piers doubled-down on his stupidity and even included a #GunControlNow hashtag. which leads to the question: if the type of gun doesn't matter, what sort of gun control is he advocating? and I think we all know that answer.

    he's a douche on stilts.

  • Killazontherun||

    The whole business about it being an AR-15 was a media driven misinformation campaign in the first place.

  • ||

    And the worst part is that they don't know what an assault rifle or weapon really and that those phrases are nothing more then an invention by the gun control lobby to scare the shit out of people. If you are going to ban something then at the very least know what in the hell you are talking about.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    I have been told an "assault rifle" is a real thing, whereas "assault weapons" is just made up.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Assault rifle = select fire rifle of intermediate cartridge and a removable magazine

    Assault weapon = scary black (racist!) gun that enshittens the pants of liberals everywhere

  • Paul.||

    Assault rifle = select fire rifle of intermediate cartridge and a removable magazine

    Ruger 10/22 = Assault rifle.

  • R C Dean||

    Woah, your Ruger is select fire? Awesome.

  • Generic Stranger||

    Yeah, no...select fire means it is capable of firing both semi and full automatic (or in three-round bursts).

    Unless you've modified it illegally, no 10/22 is capable of that.

  • LiberTarHeel||

    AND

    .22LR is to "intermediate cartridge" as Biden is to "firearms expert"

    Bazinga!

  • Wizard4169||

    True, there is a fairly specific definition of "assault rifle", which most of the SBR's (Scary Black Rifles) DiFi and company want to ban don't meet. The term "assault weapon" has been applied so broadly and inconsistently that its only accurate definition is "any gun we think we can use to scare the sheep into supporting more bans". Then when they get a ban, they just move on the next category.

  • Tejicano||

    Well, yeah.

    Is there any kind of weapon which cannot be used to assault somebody or something? The term was and is ludicrous.

  • Paul.||

    It's called a "Patrol Rifle".

  • ||

    Actually I thought you were wrong...

    Then i just looked it up.

    The AR in AR-15 stands for Armalite the company who first developed the weapon.

  • RussianPrimeMinister||

    "Assault" in nearly every state is defined, basically, as someone being the slightest bit concerned that you may perpetrate violence upon them.

    By that definition, anything anywhere that could possibly be used for violence is an "assault weapon". And if anyone, anywhere is frightened by guns then that automatically makes the gun liable for damages, and suitable to be brought up on charges.

    Prosecute the guns!

    Viva 'la prohibition!

  • Being Waterboarded||

    I believe that most folks that want to impose restrictions on their fellow man (e.g., gun control) do not take their ideas to their logical conclusions... and those of us that are liberty-minded do not push them there often enough. If guns are outlawed, such a law must be ENFORCED or be pointless. How do you enforce such a law? What if I don't want to give up my AR-15? Are you willing to violently take it away from me? Shoot me to get it? How does that reduce violence, or is it ok if the state is doing it? All laws, at the end, require enforcement by a state thug with a gun, and have the potential to end in violence.

  • CE||

    A nice thought, but it won't help. They want the state thugs to be armed, and all of us to be unarmed, and never see a valid reason to resist the state's armed thugs, despite centuries of evidence against states of all types.

  • some guy||

    According to CNN, "Military personnel that were responding to the shooting were carrying maybe one or more AR-15s, and that's where the confusion came from, initially from law enforcement.

    I wonder if it was one of those AR-15s that ended this guy's shooting spree...

  • tarran||

    My understanding is that he had a shotgun and two hand-guns. The latter came from guys he had shot.

  • radar||

    Since when does the military use AR-15s? I was under the impression that they carry M-16s (or M-4s).

    Shocking - the media still can't tell one weapon from another.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    They are effectively the same.

  • R C Dean||

    Except for the select fire, of course.

  • entropy||

    Except for the fact that one is actually 'military style' (full-auto, select fire) and the other is not.

  • ||

    Piers Morgan ‏@piersmorgan 2h
    Lots of confusion over exactly what guns Wash Navy Yard shooter used. But do you think it matters to the victims? #GunControlNow
    Expand

    What pisses these people off the most is that they intend banning scary black rifles to be a first step to much more gun control - handguns, semi-autos, any magazine over 3 rounds, pump actions, whatever, they want to ban it all, and they're failing utterly. And as long as we keep saying FUCK YOU to their first step, we'll be stuck on their first step. So, Piers, FUCK YOU.

  • General Butt Naked||

    That's why I get so mad at the people that want to compromise with the banners. They say that if we give the ban boners a small stroke in the form of background checks they'll leave us alone.

    Hogwash and horseshit. Why compromise when your winning and why give the enemy traction?

  • ||

    My Road to Damascus moment concerning gun control came this summer when I took a trip to Indianapolis. I've always been very lackadaisical towards gun control and always thought that perhaps both sides should compromise. I had a friend who told me that the reason why people like him will never compromise because even if you do give them what they want, they will always want more. Their endgame is the abolition of guns from civilian use. i never thought of it like that until my trip. So yeah, tell these assholes to fuck off.

  • Tejicano||

    Exactly. Just try to figure out what kind of gun every one of the gun ban crowd would truly be OK with. It does not exist.

  • General Butt Naked||

    I think they'd be okay with forceful confiscation and any resistance met with deadly force.

    You know, for the children.

  • playa manhattan||

    Here's some more confusion for Piers: CNN reported that the killer used an AR-15 Shotgun
    http://danaloeschradio.com/cnn.....5-shotgun/

  • R C Dean||

    But do you think it matters to the victims?

    Yet it seems to matter a great deal to the gun controllers. Except, of course, those few who are openly calling for a total ban.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    Given that Morgan's "solution" is supposedly based on what gun it was, it would most certainly matter.

    But that would be giving him credit for honesty, something I'm disinclined to do. To him, I'm sure all that matters is getting all guns banned as soon as possible, by increments if necessary.

  • plusafdotcom||

    You're being WAY too polite to an asshole like Morgan...

  • ||

    AR-15 is "the preferred mass shooter's weapon of choice."

    I mean, it doesn't even make any sense. Generally, if you want to conceal something so you can walk into a public space before blasting away, why the fuck would you choose an AR-15 over a handgun?

  • R C Dean||

    My choice would be a legal minimum shotgun, with a pistol grip stock. Surprisingly portable/"concealable", maximum lethality at close spree killer range.

  • playa manhattan||

    If you are going to spree kill, why bother with the legal minimum?

  • Generic Stranger||

    Exactly. Another 10 years on a life sentence/death penalty is meaningless.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Er, why is the hypothetical mass shooter caring about the legal minimum barrel length? Assuming you're talking pistol-grip only stock (ie, no buttstock) those things are probably hard to fire rapidly and repeatedly with (not that I've ever tried, but it looks like handling recoil is going to be seriously difficult).

  • Tejicano||

    For the purpose stated here a pistol-grip-only shotgun would do just fine. Maybe even better at ranges under 5 yards or so since they are a bit easier to shift to new targets than a full stocked version. At that range accuracy would be a wash.

  • General Butt Naked||

    I have an 870 that I put a folding stock on and you can become quite proficient with the pistol grip with very little practice.

    That's with 3" buckshot loads too.

  • CE||

    And who is the preferred mass shooter? I don't like any of them.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    White, conservative, with a CCW.

    But that's not as important as the victims; you just know the grabbers are pissed that the youngest victim was 46 and all the rest were 50+.

  • MOFO.||

    "White, conservative, with a CCW."

    [CITATION NEEDED]

  • Michael Price||

    He said that was the preferred mass shooter, not that it was a mass shooter anyone ever got.

  • ||

    In GTA V I would go with Micheal over Trevor for a killing spree.

    The slow time mechanic is far more effective then whatever it is that Trevor has for a special ability.

    As to the weapon...well all of them of course.

  • ||

    Gun control advocates are possibly the most clueless people I have ever encountered. I am not an expert on weapons but I do try to learn and ask as many questions as possible. There's no excuse for ignorance.

  • fish||

    You and I have debated this after almost every mass shooting in the last three years....You guys just never accept that the gun itself [can] ever be part of the problem....The Washington Navy Yard is heavily secured. It is crawling in armed security, people, arms, police. And yet it was still infiltrated by a man with a legally purchased AR-15, who just committed the same kind of atrocity as we saw at Sandy Hook and Aurora. And yet I’m sure, John Lott, you're going to explain to me now why the solution is not to deal with that gun which keeps being used to do these atrocities but is to arm even more people in that building.

    Fuck you Piers....you don't like the way things are here you can just simper back to Euro Disney.

    Fuckin fop!

  • tarran||

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but the AR-15 was used in Newtown and that's it.

    It wasn't used in Aurora, Georgia Tech, Columbine, or Fort Hood. In Georgia Tech and Fort Hood, the shooter only used hand-guns.

    What am I missing.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    You're missing Morgan's sleight of hand with the facts.

  • eubes||

    What am I missing?

    Virginia Tech* Not Georgia.

  • Jon Lester||

    Virginia Tech

  • Generic Stranger||

    It was used in Aurora, but because the shooter used a non-standard mag it jammed up on him before he could fire more than a few rounds. He did most of the shooting with a shotgun.

  • tarran||

    Do Heckler and Koch manufacture an AR-15 variant?

  • Gray Ghost||

    Do Heckler and Koch manufacture an AR-15 variant?

    It's a piston variant, but they do make the HK 416. I hope you brought the Visa card, as this article claims a cost (for the "civilian variant", MR556A1.) of $3295.

    That strikes me as a little high, but perhaps it's in line with some of the sportier AR versions out there?

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    The Washington Navy Yard is heavily secured. It is crawling in armed security, people, arms, police. And yet it was still infiltrated by a man with a legally purchased AR-15

    Not a single word of that is correct.

  • ||

    It's in Washington, right. C'mon, give him props for something.

  • Michael Price||

    He didn't say it was in Washington, he said it was the Washington Navy Yard. Lots of things are called "Washington" something that aren't in Washington.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    Speaking of which, a survivor of the 2009 Fort Hood massacre told Morgan last night that the AR-15 is "the preferred mass shooter's weapon of choice."

    But Nidal Hasan didn't use an AR-15 either.

  • Generic Stranger||

    Right; he used an FN Five-seven, which is chambered in a round that isn't much more energetic than a .22 magnum.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    22 Mag is actually a decently powerful round (some readers may confuse it with 22LR - sorry if I'm being pedantic, blah).

    FN 5.7x28mm gets in the same neighborhood as 45 ACP and 9mm with some loads.

  • Generic Stranger||

    22 Mag is actually a decently powerful round

    Compared to what? It's on the low end of the vast majority of cartridges in common use. It's better than a .22LR, certainly, but not by much.

    FN 5.7x28mm gets in the same neighborhood as 45 ACP and 9mm with some loads.

    Maybe (and I'd really like to see that load data), but not likely out of a pistol like Hassan used. You'd almost certainly need a rifle like an FN P90, along with some custom loaded cartridges. I don't know of any commercial cartridges that develop that much power.

    And even if true, all handgun rounds, .45ACP and 9mm included, are still anemic compared to even intermediate cartridges like the 5.56x45mm. They're absolutely pathetic compared to a 12 gauge or even a smaller full sized rifle cartridge like the 7.62x51mm.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Going by da wiki, which takes data from the Encyclopedia of Handheld Weapons, there's a 35gr load for 5.7 with muzzle energy 534 J. Which is in the same range as 115-124gr 9mm loads (not +P of course) and 230gr 45ACP loads.

  • Gray Ghost||

    534 J is almost 394 ft. lb. Required velocity for a 35 gr bullet is 2250 ft./sec. They ain't getting that out of a 5 inch pistol. I couldn't find handload data in a brief look that came near that kind of energy. I could see the P90, and its 10.5 to 16 inch barrel maybe getting that kind of performance.

    The listed KEs for similar SS rounds are 260-320 ft. lb, which sounds a bit more likely. Still zippity-doo-dah compared to the .22 Mag, and in line with a lot of 9mm rounds. Of course, the proper projectile will zip through armor better than all of them. And most of the good ones are illegal for the hoi polloi, right? More numbers at the following link.

    I wonder what the terminal ballistics on it look like? I don't imagine it expands all that well, if at all, and it's still not doing rifle velocities.

    Hasan found it powerful enough, though, I suppose.

  • Bobarian||

    The 5.7 is a 'tumbler' at impact, so it can carry very high pistol velocities without over-penetrating.

    The most interesting thing is I've seen people shoot targets at more than 100 effectively, with the pistol. You need to be a good shot, but you can't do that with a .45.

  • Bobarian||

    100 meters

  • Generic Stranger||

    Going by da wiki, which takes data from the Encyclopedia of Handheld Weapons, there's a 35gr load for 5.7 with muzzle energy 534 J. Which is in the same range as 115-124gr 9mm loads (not +P of course) and 230gr 45ACP loads.

    Looks like the test barrel length on that is 10.35", which means they're shooting it out of the P90. You don't get that performance out of a pistol with a 4 or 5" barrel.

  • LiberTarHeel||

    Certainly not the neighborhood of the Holy Grail of ballistics, e.g. stopping power. Nor the neighborhood of ballistic coefficient, for that matter.

    "Neighborhood"? Don't talk to me about "Neighborhood"! "Neighborhood"?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    And the Tucson and Va Tech shooters didn't either.

    Among the high-profile events, the only ones where the murderer used an AR-15 were Sandy Hook and the Aurora theater. The one at the theater jammed after a couple of rounds and the shooter didn't know how to clear it; most of the damage was done with a shotgun in that case as well.

  • ||

    Also, just because you are an unfortunate victim of a shooting doesn't mean you have the knowledge and moral authority to try and dictate policy concerning my Second Amendment right.

  • wingnutx||

  • Jon Lester||

    Let's all ask gun control people what they think a "common sense" mandatory retirement age for senators should be.

  • plusafdotcom||

    Predictions:

    Gun Controllers' answer: 95 yrs old or more.

    Many of the rest of us: About 40-45 or so.

  • G-dub||

    "That regardless is doing a tremendous amount of reality-denying work. "

    You might say the AR-15 "infused" the incident.

  • R C Dean||

    It LOOMS LARGE, apparently.

  • Calidissident||

    Is Piers aware that very few people carry on military bases?

  • Loki||

    Piers Morgam isn't aware of a lot things.

  • Loki||

    I don't about anyone else, but all this anti AR-15 hysteria just makes me want one even more. Because fuck gun grabbers, that's why.

  • fish||

    ....all this anti AR-15 hysteria just makes me want one even more.

    No shit! I don't have one and have no immediate plans to get one but everytime DiFi, Sugar Frosted Barry O's or big titted Charles Schumer rail against them I seriously think about picking one up!

  • Redmanfms||

    This is what is driving gun sales, the one still very robust retail marker of the Obama economy.

    Most of the new firearms owners (as in, purchased their first gun) I've been meeting are buying ARs. A fair number of them have told me that they were never previously inclined to buy any firearm, but with all of the talks of increasing gun regulations they decided they better get one now. ARs make up the majority, with the bulk of the rest being pistols with "large" magazine capacities.

    It's pretty clear to me that a very large number of people in the country have absolutely no intention of obeying a gun ban if they are buying firearms they think will be banned in the future.

    I see it as a ray of hope, maybe more. The only dickheads who are losing their shit over guns are the usual suspects. Generic gun control, even when presented as common sense and limited, polls soft. Couple that with the flocks of "new" buyers specifically purchasing guns they expect to be banned and the future actually looks pretty good.

  • Gray Ghost||

    Most of the new firearms owners (as in, purchased their first gun) I've been meeting are buying ARs. A fair number of them have told me that they were never previously inclined to buy any firearm, but with all of the talks of increasing gun regulations they decided they better get one now. ARs make up the majority,

    I don't have one, but I'm looking for one as soon as the prices get a little less crazy. The modular nature and very light recoil are appealing, especially given I'm trying to get the GF involved in appreciating shooting. Already have a .22 pistol, and she seems to like that.

    I think more people would lose their shit over a national AR ban than they would a handgun ban, and that just blows my mind. I don't think you could say the same if you were postulate that 10 years ago.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    It's pretty clear to me that a very large number of people in the country have absolutely no intention of obeying a gun ban if they are buying firearms they think will be banned in the future.

    In the case of the '94 ban and the Feinstein proposal earlier this year, people who already owned one of the banned guns would be able to keep them. Part of the controllers' rhetoric that "we're not coming to take your guns."

    A lot of people were just buying as speculation. Which came back to bite them, so far at least.

  • ||

    Worst case scenario you still wind up with an AR and maybe a new hobby, so it's a no-lose situation.

  • Tejicano||

    Just get a lower through a gun shop or kitchen table FFL then order the parts for a version which tickles your fancy through any of the dozens os kit makers (Rock River, Model 1, M&A, etc). Total cost should be under $900 - depending on the charges for the lower.

    There are on-line tutorials to help you put them together with good tips on he details. I could probably do it blindfolded by now.

    I would recommend 6.8X43mm rather than the standard 5.56X45mm but that's just me.

  • General Butt Naked||

    That's good advice for building a reasonably priced AR. The only thing is that I haven't seen many stripped lowers since last december. That is, for a reasonable price. I saw a polymer one for $300 once.

  • Tejicano||

    Browells' web page shows 4 AR lower types - two stripped and the assembled - in stock for a decent price. $129.99 was the lowest. You still need your local FFL to complete the deal and that will tack on fees and taxes. So probably $200 max.

    Kits are still going for under $600 depending on the options. Seems pretty easy to get something nice with magazines for about $900.

  • Tejicano||

    "two stripped and two assembled "

    Bleah..

  • General Butt Naked||

    It appears they do. To be honest, I quit looking in may. I was in the market but got sick of not finding anything.

    Might have to start a build.

  • Tejicano||

    I already have all the AR's I need so I'm on to other things now.

    3 Carbines - one each in 7.62X51 (AR10), 6.8X43, and 5.56X45 - 1 retro "A1"-type like I was issued (minus the happy switch), and a 6.8X43 handgun with a 11.5" barrel.

  • General Butt Naked||

    I have a mini-14, but wanted an AR because of the modular design. I decided to build one around november of last year. The shit then hit the fan, so I shelved that idea.

    I got a bunch of other guns in the interim and now need a place to put them all before I get any more.

  • Tejicano||

    I really need to get a few acres way off the beaten path in NM or AZ and set up a bunker - kinda like the one in T2. I have a number of friends who would pass the hat to have somewhere to stash extra hardware.

    Logistics and secrecy are tricky but possible. One of the old missile silos would be great but a bit pricey.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Fuck the fuck yeah, man.

    It's the goddamn american dream to have a fully stocked arms bunker.

  • Tejicano||

    I really need to get a few acres way off the beaten path in NM or AZ and set up a bunker - kinda like the one in T2. I have a number of friends who would pass the hat to have somewhere to stash extra hardware.

    Logistics and secrecy are tricky but possible. One of the old missile silos would be great but a bit pricey.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Make sure to stock some shotguns for skwirl huntin'.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    That's always been the cheapest way historically, but this time might be different. There's likely to be a flood of cheap ARs coming from the people who bought high earlier this year thinking there was going to be a ban. At some point you have to factor in the time you spend building the thing; is it really worth it to save $100?

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    I just witnessed a guy argue against gun regulations but he did it with "living document" logic. What an idiot.

  • Biden's Scroteplugs||

    The only person shot by an AR-15 at the Navy Yard was Aaron Alexis.

  • Killazontherun||

    Liberal Gun Control Laws Go into Effect -- Military Bases and Naval Yards Hit Hardest

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Well at least they're not calling every long gun an AK-47 or an Uzi anymore. Baby steps.

    Nitpick: Biden's self-defense advice was for a double-barreled shotgun, while the gun used at the WNY almost certainly was either a pump or a semiauto shotgun.

  • Bobarian||

    I believe it was a Remington 870 (Pump).

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Really? The way the witnesses described the cadence of the shots it sounded like they were pretty rapid. I know that you can get pretty fast with a pump with practice, but it sounded like this guy just bought a shotgun recently.

    Shows how much you can rely on the witnesses, I guess.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    According to CNN, "Military personnel that were responding to the shooting were carrying maybe one or more AR-15s, and that's where the confusion came from, initially from law enforcement. That's why that was reported."

    If they want to ban law enforcement from having AR-15s and M-16s, I think we should hear them out.

  • mr lizard||

    If you think about the timing this would've been perfect if they'd gotten their assault weapons ban. They could've seamless moved on to banning pump shotguns

  • General Butt Naked||

    "Banned Gun" Raffle

    NRA is raffling the guns that Obama et al don't want you to have.

  • plusafdotcom||

    Piers Morgan really doesn't give a shit what the facts are; any report of anything that's in his crosshairs (pun intended) will get the same sophomoric and idiotic babble out of him.

    He's completely useless in any such "debate." There is no brain operating behind his eyes. Maybe a read-only memory and voice synthesizer, I suspect...

  • Duelles||

    I can't believe the arrogance and stupidity of the Feinstein type gun weirdos. The 2nd does not give me the right to be armed. Guns knives, aircraft, cannons, whatever. All to protect myself from Feinstein's of this world. . . . Oh ! Now I get it.

  • Bucktooth Wookie||

    I fully realized yesterday that no matter what, these people won't stop until we are all totally disarmed. I had always thought that "regular" people who don't like guns could probably be persuaded with logic. So yesterday I was talking to an acquaintance about why I carry. I used the analogy of the wolf, the sheep, and the sheepdog. She actually said THIS: " I really think even if someone was raping me I could never perpetrate violence on another person. ". Wtf. It is totally clear now. They can never be persuaded and they will never stop.

  • ||

    a pistol he seems to have taken from a guard at the Navy Yard

    That would be a sig right?

    Or does the Navy use something different?

  • ||

    On a side note GTA V does not have the AR-15 any more. They call it a "Carbine" instead.

  • Libertarius||

    If you guys want a great value on an M4, check out the Colt LE6920. It's a bonafide Colt M4, complete with the heavy M16 bolt and chrome-lined barrel, and you can buy it at Walmart.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement