Mass Shootings

The Media's Obsession With Boulder's Blocked 'Assault Weapon' Ban Defies Logic

The suggestion that the ordinance could have prevented Monday's mass shooting is utterly implausible.

|

Since Monday's mass shooting in Boulder, Colorado, gun control advocates have repeatedly noted that a state judge blocked enforcement of the city's "assault weapon" ban 10 days before the attack. The implausible implication is that the ordinance, had it been allowed to take effect, might have prevented this crime.

"Boulder's assault weapons ban, meant to stop mass shootings, was blocked 10 days before [the] grocery store attack," The Washington Post noted on Tuesday. "Boulder's Pain Is Deepened by a Lost Fight for Gun Control," says the headline over a New York Times story published yesterday. "Less than two weeks" after Boulder County District Court Judge Andrew Hartman concluded that the local "assault weapon" ban conflicted with state law, Times reporters Mike Baker and Lucy Tompkins note, "a man armed with an assault-style weapon walked into a Boulder supermarket and opened fire, killing 10 people."

The connection between those two events may seem superficially plausible. After all, at least one of the weapons that the gunman apparently used, a Ruger AR-556 pistol, would have been covered by Boulder's ordinance.

Among other things, that ordinance prohibits the sale of "all semiautomatic center-fire pistols" that "have the capacity to accept a magazine other than in the pistol grip" or "have a protruding grip or other device to allow the weapon to be stabilized with the non-trigger hand." The AR-556 pistol, which resembles a short-barreled rifle but does not legally qualify as one, has a stabilizing brace and a magazine port that is separate from the grip.

If the local "assault weapon" ban had been in effect, the perpetrator of this week's attack would not have been legally allowed to buy that gun in Boulder. But he lived in Arvada, a city about half an hour's drive from Boulder. The arrest warrant affidavit says the suspect purchased the pistol on March 16. It does not say where he bought it. Still, even if Boulder's ordinance had not been blocked, he could have bought the gun pretty much anywhere else in Colorado.

The ordinance also prohibits possession of "assault weapons" in Boulder, except for previously owned firearms registered with the city's police department. But it defies logic to suggest that a man bent on mass murder would have worried about that rule, even assuming that he knew about it.

Even if this man was for some reason keen to follow local firearm regulations as he set out to kill a bunch of strangers, he could have accomplished the same horrifying end with a gun that did not fit the ban's criteria. Would it really have mattered that his pistol lacked a stabilizing brace or that its magazine was attached to the grip?

"AR-style weapons, first developed for battlefield use, have for years been a growing target of gun control advocates as such firearms repeatedly are deployed during mass shootings," the Times says. But the perpetrators of such crimes are actually more likely to use ordinary handguns or long guns that don't qualify as "assault weapons," which have figured in several of the deadliest mass shootings.

As usual, the Times does not delve into the question of whether the arbitrary distinctions drawn by "assault weapon" bans make any sense. But Baker and Tompkins do concede that "the gunman could have purchased his weapon in another town" even if Boulder's ban had taken effect. "A person wishing to buy an assault rifle would only need to leave city limits to legally purchase one," they note.

Still, Baker and Tompkins say, "there has been a particularly keen sense of dismay and frustration in a city that tried, and failed, to prevent one of the most horrific kinds of gun violence." They illustrate those emotions with a quote from Jill Adler Grano, the former city council member who introduced Boulder's "assault weapon" ban. "My heart is broken," she says. "We tried so hard to prevent this from happening, yet here we are."

Again, the implication is that the ordinance could have "prevent[ed] this from happening," even though that is plainly not true. In their 27th paragraph, Baker and Tompkins come close to acknowledging reality. "In some ways," they say, "local ordinances such as the one Boulder passed are statements of political conviction as much as they are effective prohibitions on guns." But that formulation still implies that such ordinances are in some unspecified ways effective at accomplishing the avowed goals of the politicians who support them.

The Times laments "the limitations of a patchwork, city-by-city approach to gun policy." It notes that gun rights advocates also object to that approach, "arguing that local ordinances like Boulder's are a nightmare for gun owners who must navigate varying restrictions from city to city." That is why Colorado, like many states, has a law that preempts such local restrictions—the same law that Judge Hartman cited when he blocked Boulder's ban.

"I can't tell you how angering that is," Rachel Friend, a current city council member and local gun control activist, tells the Times. "I'm supporting and advocating for us to appeal."

Toward what end? "Our country has gone through mass shooting after mass shooting for decades now," Grano says. "I have a son in high school, and it just felt like, 'We have got to do something. If the federal government is not going to take action, we're just going to keep talking around in circles.'"

In other words: We have got to do something, whether or not it's likely to have any impact on mass shootings or on gun violence generally. That is the logic endorsed by national politicians such as President Joe Biden and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D–Calif.) as well as local politicians like Grano and Friend. More should be required to pass any sort of legislation, let alone laws that impinge on a right guaranteed by the Constitution.

NEXT: Shooting a Fleeing Suspect Who Escapes Still Triggers the Fourth Amendment, Says SCOTUS

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.

  1. Sources: Secret Service inserted itself into case of Hunter Biden’s gun
    https://www.politico.com/news/2021/03/25/sources-secret-service-inserted-itself-into-case-of-hunter-bidens-gun-477879

    On Oct. 23, 2018, President Joe Biden’s son Hunter and daughter in law Hallie were involved in a bizarre incident in which Hallie took Hunter’s gun and threw it in a trash can behind a grocery store, only to return later to find it gone.

    Delaware police began investigating, concerned that the trash can was across from a high school and that the missing gun could be used in a crime, according to law enforcement officials and a copy of the police report obtained by POLITICO.

    But a curious thing happened at the time: Secret Service agents approached the owner of the store where Hunter bought the gun and asked to take the paperwork involving the sale, according to two people, one of whom has firsthand knowledge of the episode and the other was briefed by a Secret Service agent after the fact.

    The gun store owner refused to supply the paperwork, suspecting that the Secret Service officers wanted to hide Hunter’s ownership of the missing gun in case it were to be involved in a crime, the two people said. The owner, Ron Palmieri, later turned over the papers to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, which oversees federal gun laws.

    …POLITICO obtained copies of the Firearms Transaction Record and a receipt for the gun dated Oct. 12, 2018.

    Hunter responded “no” to a question on the transaction record that asks, “Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?” Five years earlier, he had been discharged from the Navy Reserve after testing positive for cocaine, and he and family members have spoken about his history of drug use.

    Lying on the form is a felony, though prosecutions for it are exceedingly rare.

    Neither Hallie Biden nor George Mesires, a lawyer for Hunter Biden, responded to requests for comment.

    The gun-store incident occurred during a period after Hunter Biden’s administrative discharge from the Naval Reserves for his positive cocaine test and his subsequent divorce from his first wife, Kathleen. At the time of the gun incident, Hunter was in a romantic relationship with Hallie, the widow of his late brother, Beau.

    1. The Secret Service has denied the claim that their agents visited the gun shop. It would be interesting if the store owner happens to have video saved or remembers names.

      1. Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than CCS regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
        on this page…..VISIT HERE

      2. This has all the hallmarks of a Russian Hoax. Debunked. Come on Man!!!

    2. Wait, what? We can lie on those forms? Best just to ban ’em all, outright.

      1. I figured I’d just do a Bill Clinton and answer the question in the present tense, which would technically be the truth in that moment.

      2. Spent my stimulus on a Glock. Joked with the gun store employee, asking him how many people check “yes” for the question “Are you a fugitive from justice?”

        1. Congrats. I love them, staplegun trigger and all. Which one did you end up getting?

        2. I don’t have my ammunition long enough that I need to keep it in Tupperware.

    3. ATF defines “current user” as within the past year.

      1. Well there you go. Hunter thought it was asking if he was high when he was filling out the form.

        Which he likely was, but who cares, right? Hilarious.

  2. >>”Less than two weeks”

    fits the narrative to well. they’re not even trying anymore.

    1. Do they have to?

  3. “Logic” and “Gun-control” very seldom belong in the same sentence – at least when uttered by a politician.

  4. They’re freaking out because they thought turning the city into a “gun-free zone” was going to be as effective as turning into a “nuclear-free zone.”

    Fuck Boulder. I wonder how many prog-shit residents there were saddened when the learned the killer was an Arab and not a “fucking white male” they could blame the incident on. Now they know what it’s like to live around the minority-dominated Park Hill neighborhoods every day.

    1. “They’re freaking out because they thought turning the city into a “gun-free zone” was going to be as effective as turning into a “nuclear-free zone.””

      And they were right. The effectiveness of their “nuclear-free zone” was 0.0000000.

      1. Actually worse than 0.0000000. The killer drove 1/2 an hour from his local supermarket to get to Boulder where he could be assured no local idiot would be carrying one of those nasty guns to defend themselves with.

        Their actions actually made the situation worse by provoking the guy to come visit a place where he knew he could kill more people.

    2. “I wonder how many prog-shit residents there were saddened when they learned the killer was an Arab…”

      Cue the Gary Oldman, “Everyone!!!,” clip.

    3. Indeed, quite a lot of left-wing people are genuinely sad that the shooter was the wrong race.

  5. I don’t know about all this gun banning stuff. Wouldn’t it just be simpler to make murder illegal?

  6. After all, at least one of the weapons that the gunman apparently used, a Ruger AR-556 pistol, would have been covered by Boulder’s ordinance.

    So you’ve got proof the gun was purchased in Boulder? Might want to let the FBI/ATF know. Assuming they don’t already know, because they know to the day when the gun was purchased, they didn’t disclose in the affidavit where it was purchased.

    Otherwise, the gun would *not* have been covered under the ordinance.

    1. Would, could, is there really a difference?

      But serious question because I don’t feel like looking it up myself: why is that Ruger a pistol and not a rifle? Pardon my ignorance, but it certainly looks the part.

      1. Shorter barrel length and no fixed stock.

      2. A rifle is a firearm designed to be fired from the shoulder.

        Rifles with a barrel less than 16″ are classified as “short barreled rifles” and subject to additional regulation such as registration and a $200 tax.

        Now, what if you want an AR-pattern firearm with a barrel less than 16″ and without the muss and fuss? You make an AR-pattern handgun (pistol) that does not have a stock, is not designed to be fired from the shoulder and therefore can have a shorter barrel without being classified as an SBR.

        Genius, right? But AR pistols are unwieldly and difficult to shoot.

        So, a few years ago a genius came up with the idea of a “brace” that allows the pistol to be strapped to your arm. It’s a “pistol stabilizer”, registered with the ATF to help amputees fire the pistol with one hand. There are a number of variants with similar intended purposes.

        It is entirely coincidental, and NOT THE INTENDED PURPOSE, that these braces are vaguely stock-shaped and are sometimes accidently shouldered by the owner.

        I predict these will go the way of the bump stock if congress critters start thinking too hard about this. The braces were already under scrutiny and the subject to conflicting ATF enforcement letters.

        1. Personally I think it would be possible to re-design the pistol braces to they are less stock like and less readily used for shouldering the weapon they are used with.

          One idea would be to have the solid part of the brace where it’s supposed to be strapped to the forearm go over the top of the forearm and not along the inside.

          At that point, trying to shoulder it would be like shouldering a rifle sideways. It would be extremely awkward to shoot that way.

      3. It’s a matter of definitions and other legal requirements in the National Firearms Act.

        1. By definition a rifle or shotgun has a shoulder stock. Without a shoulder stock it’s not a rifle.

        2. Short barrel rifles and shot guns are prohibited (minimum barrel lengths are specified in the NFA).

        3. If it doesn’t have a shoulder stock, legally it’s a pistol and it is legal to manufacture pistols that take rifle rounds, or even smooth bore pistols that fire shot gun rounds. However, it’s important to note that the minimum barrel lengths for rifles and shot guns do not apply to such pistols.

        4. The Ruger AR-556 Barrel is considerably shorter than the minimum barrel length specified in the NFA.

        5. The Ruger AR-556 does not have a shoulder stock. If you look closely at the picture of what looks somewhat like a shoulder stock, you will see that there is a strap around it.

        It may look a bit like a shoulder stock and be useable as a shoulder stock, but that is not the intended to be used as a shoulder stock.

        The actual manufacturer intended use of the pistol brace is to use that strap to secure the brace to the shooter’s forearm, not to press it into your shoulder the way a rifle shoulder stock would be used.

      4. 5.56 pistols are just plain stupid. You take a weapon that was designed for 300m to 400m shots and reduce it’s effective range to 25 yards by removing the stock and shortening the barrel. They are only good for one thing, “posing at the range” and gunning down unarmed people at close range.

        1. If you think a 5.56mm NATO pistol is stupid, how about a .50 BMG pistol.

          1. Ok, I’m going to want an arm brace for that, and a face shield for the muzzle bloom.

            1. At least the .50 BMG pistol is single shot. Imagine that with a 30 round magazine and full auto. 🙂

  7. “The Media’s Obsession With Boulder’s Blocked ‘Assault Weapon’ Ban Defies Logic”

    No it doesn’t.
    The establishment wants to take your guns away so that they can farm you like cattle. It makes perfect sense for them to use any tragedy to achieve this.

  8. Has anyone even bother to ask whether the shooter purchased his weapons in Boulder during the 10 days between the striking down of the ordinance and the shooting?

    1. Can’t destroy the narrative by asking the simple questions. It wasn’t a Magahat white shooter, so finding out that a gun sales ban in a specific area wouldn’t have helped at all…they can’t even.

    2. “Ahmad Al Aliwi Alissa purchased the weapon six days before the shootings in which 10 people were killed, according to his arrest warrant affidavit.”
      https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/24/us/boulder-colorado-weapon-ruger-ar-556/index.html

      1. That article says nothing about where he purchased the weapon.

        For all we know from that he could have bought it in Dallas Tx.

    3. The suspect … of Arvada, Colorado

      There is zero reason to think he purchased his weapon on Boulder, or that if he did, he wouldn’t have simply purchased elsewhere.

      1. Negative reasons. They know precisely when he purchased it. They know this because he passed the background check. The background check that was submitted to the feds and that the Feds know who submitted him for a check. The idea that they don’t know where he bought itratehr than knowing precisely where he bought it and just aren’t saying is ludicrous.

    4. He bought it at a gun shop in Arvada, not Boulder. Arvada’s a suburb about 20 miles south of Boulder, and still has the legacy of being a relatively conservative area even though Jefferson County as a whole has gotten a lot more leftist in the last 15 years with all the tech goons moving to the state.

  9. Syrian guy murders 10 white people, press is up in arms over a defunct law. Figures. Talk about whitewashing. Democrats are filthy racists.

    1. “CAn’T mEnTiOn HIs NamE!!!”

      LOL. Our media really is the worst at this point.

    2. Syrians sure are committing crimes at a high rate per capita, arent they?

      Its almost like this was predicted when Obama forced Americans (EU forced Europeans) to accept Syrians refugees without any vesting.

  10. “Our country has gone through mass shooting after mass shooting for decades now,” Grano says. “I have a son in high school, and it just felt like, ‘We have got to do something. If the federal government is not going to take action, we’re just going to keep talking around in circles.'”

    “Our country has gone through automobile fatality after automobile fatality for decades now. I have a son in high school, and it just felt like, ‘We have got to do something. If the federal government is not going to take action, we’re just going to keep talking around in circles.'”

    “Our country has gone through war after war for centuries now. I have a son in high school, and it just felt like, ‘We have got to do something. If the federal government is not going to take action, we’re just going to keep talking around in circles.'”

  11. The fact that that one bill didn’t pass is not a big deal. It’s the fact that we continue to have shootings and do jack shit about it. Call it ease of getting a weapon, mental health, whatever- no one does a thing about it- ever.

    Then we wonder why it keeps happening.

    1. Same reason we keep having wars.

    2. Maybe you could get on your local elected official to enforce violations of existing law instead of demanding additional useless symbolism.

    3. Yet people like you never want to talk about the cultural factors that make untreated mental health issues worse for some.

    4. Some states have been doing something about it: allowing concealed carry. It gets nowhere near the same level of press, but I always appreciate a good article where some mass shooter-wannabe finds out he isn’t the only armed one there.

      I know that in Texas, the standards for a concealed carry are strict enough that CCP holders are far less likely to commit a crime than the general population. For a while, CCP holders could bypass security checks to get into the legislature, like an ultimate TSA Pre, so the legislaters were willing to put their own skin on the line that the CCP process works.

    5. All gun control is banned by the constitution. Commies keep trying to hurt Americans and destroy the constitution, so you get the current america in civil war.

    6. Congress did do something about shootings back in 1994.

      https://reason.com/2016/04/08/bill-clintons-mendacious-defense-of-the/

      Maybe you should show some fucking gratitude.

  12. From other coverage, it’s my understanding that the Boulder ordinance also allowed for those who don’t live in Boulder to transport legally owned weapons (including those types subject to the ban) inside their vehicles. If the ordinance (which was never once enforced in the two years before it got overturned) had still been in force, the shooter wouldn’t have been in violation until taking the weapon out of his car, presumably just before entering the store where the murders occurred. Any preventive value to the city ordinance would have to have come during the time the shooter spent walking from his car into the store (assuming he was carrying the weapon in some clearly visible manner rather than having it concealed inside a jacket or a bag/pack of some kind), and this is during a time of year when there’s nothing at all suspicious about someone wearing a light to midweight jacket in the Colorado foothills, and near a major campus where something like a messenger bag or backpack also wouldn’t have been drawn any amount of scrutiny.

    I suspect the media fixation on the ordinance is connected to the “suspect” being identified as an Arab-Muslim, and so much of the media have conditioned themselves to believe such people to be incapable of significant violence (or at the very least, violence done at their hands can’t be reported unless the reporter is engaging in “islamophobia”), but they haven’t yet figured out a credible way to alter the story to reflect a version in which 10 people simply spontaneously ceased to be alive with no knowable explanation.


    1. but they haven’t yet figured out a credible way to alter the story to reflect a version in which 10 people simply spontaneously ceased to be alive with no knowable explanation.

      And yet, they seem more than capable of it when it involves a police firearm discharging itself. I guess that’s being chipped away at, which is a good thing, but it does show they are capable of lying in that very specific way.

  13. So when has “plausible” ever had anything to do with the left’s thinking? The left’s thinking always has and always will be pure fantasy.

  14. I’ve got the answer, let’s just make murder illegal. That’ll stop the killing.

  15. Why would it defy logic? Your fucking journalists and have none.

  16. Boulder is a fucking suburb of Denver. Look at a fucking map.

    Now ask yourself if any regulation in Boulder, in particular, would have any effect whatsoever when the guy didn’t live in Boulder, and probably couldn’t have afforded to live there even if he wanted to. Also, the motherfucker drove all the way to Boulder to do the deed. This suggests to anyone with a brain that he was capable of getting a gun in any number of other places with completely different gun laws.

    You’d have to be talking about a statewide ban to be making any fucking sense. They aren’t talking about that, so there is your answer.

  17. Look at who the media are….tend to be very representative of certain groups..who always push the same woke narrative…western civ bad, liberty bad, property bad, success of real folks bad, Federal Reserve good, Wars good, social “scientists” experts who should always be listened to, keynsian economicts..Ivy League always know best (Bernacke, Greenspan, Yellen)..do I really need to go on? The media hates real non cosmo Americans and taking away their rights is their objective…again look at who is pushing this…

    The NYT is driven by bigotry and sunk costs (old world grudges)…
    The war on guns is a war on rural folks and has nothing to do with making anyone safer. Its the old Bolshevik game they play

  18. Who calls them assault weapons? The media, and probably not the manufacturer. And that fantasy probably explains why the bans make no sense in terms of differential weapon qualifications.

    The killer made a choice to buy a weapon. were
    The killer decided that he shall buy a gun.
    The killer decided upon a popular type of gun with certain traits.
    The killer decided where to keep the gun.
    The killer decided to bring the gun into a public place.
    The kIller decided to unload the gun by discharging it.I
    The killer chose to fire the gun at live targets.
    The killer conspired to use the gun in an unresponsible, seditious manner.

    Each decision made by the man with his gun means that yet another choice was made, and then another, and then another, and so on until he has gotten away with committing a most deliberate crime.

    Classifying the guns, media terms or otherwise, breaks up the monotony of carelessness and jadedness (that some suspect to be induced by desensitization to violence portrayed purely vicariously by hundreds of hours of screen action) establishing that, over time, analysis & tracking by the public can, without direct hands-on experience, appreciate depth to events of occasions involving guns out in the field wherever & however used, appropriately or amateurishly, or like an adult who regressed into an idiotic mental condition for an uncertain but nonetheless objectively definable period of time. Some gun consumers make choices, and some choices can be so deliberate, by them, as to be premeditated.

    Time after time a proper response has stumped a representatively majoritarian response.

    The only response that I would recommend would be early detection. Cold steel has got to be the easiest metal on the planet to detect, via electromagnetism.I

    Detection reaches a compromise even if it doesn’t stop the maniac dead in their tracks. Storeowners can respond to early detection by hitting a lockdown switch, which many employ today to trap a thief inside the building. Such an automatic lock device can also prevent entry into a place of business.

    One of the old codes that still applies today was that bars on doors and windows in buildings of a town or city suggests a known crime problem. Bars help preclude the breaking of windows by a panicking or desperate rapscallion.I

    The upside would be that the successful foil does not obligate the would-be perpetrator to any reason for arrest, but then that gives them a chance to make the right choice. An impulsive killer could change their mind if too many things go wrong while trying to implement & execute instructions of evil.

    In this case, apparently the murder spree was nothing personal inasmuch as nearly anyone in the place at the time would had sufficed for the wielderman’s intended target?

    1. There are weapons manufactures who do make, name, and market their long guns as an assault rifle. My take is IWI (Israel Weapon Industries) is the best of the bunch but their are plenty of other good choices. The thing is almost no one but the military and some LEOs buy them. As a rule they will run around $US3,000 for starters and can run up to $US10,000 with optics and accessories most folks would agree are needed.

      On the other hand cheap knockoffs like the Boulder shooter used would get laughed at by the military and LEOs. They are not really even close to what a real assault rifle is capable of.

      Until fairly recently an assault rifle was reliably fully automatic, fired a 30 caliber round, and was able to produce minimum accuracy at at least 200 meters (and often much longer distances). When the smaller 22 caliber round was introduced in Vietnam there was a lot of blowback and lots of peeps in country were using personal weapons they thought were superior.

      My biggest gripe is that what ever one things about AR15s or cheap knock offs they are responsible for a very low percentage of gun deaths. Truth be told rim fired .22 are responsible for the most deaths.

  19. Sullum’s obsession with getting rid of the POTUS who would have vetoed the upcoming ban defied logic.

    1. Unreason staff are commies so they must oppose Trump who opposed communism.

  20. KE = 1/2 MV^2

    That is all I can say about it.

  21. The 2nd makes all gun control illegal. In other words void. Background checks are not necessary. Making bombs and machines guns is perfectly constitutional no matter what the traitors in the media or government say.

    The commies trying to run this banana republic are traitors and treat them as such.

  22. The shooter was taking Jujitsu classes. His instructor and all of his classmates had heard him talking about being followed. They all knew that he was a nutjob. What could they do about it? Not a damn thing until it was too late.
    The only thing that will stop a nutjob with a gun is a man/woman with a gun. In most towns in Colorado, half the people are packing. In my town, open carry is very popular and almost everyone has a gun in their car. We have at least a dozen ranges so most people practice. Not Boulder though, they have decided to ignore the danger and embrace “wishful thinking”.
    A few years back, a nutjob tried to enter a church in Colorado Springs. He was gunned down by an armed female, posted near the entryway, before he was able to enter the church. That incident did not get much airtime.

    1. Seems like what you’re saying is that the reason no mass shooting was stopped by a good guy with a gun was because they were stopped before it qualified as a mass shooting. What’s the percentage of mass shootings in gun free zones again?

      1. Nah, they simply look at their app that maps out where paranoids hang out and drive around the very ballpark.

  23. “AR-style weapons, first developed for battlefield use”

    The Times is either lying or is about to be severely cut by Hanlon’s razor. The patent for “AR-style weapons” very clearly shows what appears to be a very drab hunting rifle.

    1. No, ArmaLite (AR is ArmaLite Rifle not Assault Rifle) did develop the original AR-15 with the intent to sell it to the DoD. While the original prototypes were 5.56mm it was designed to be modular for easy change out of uppers to different calibers and barrel lengths for mission specific configurations.

      One small problem. the DoD didn’t want it.

      The DoD did however take ArmaLite’s original AR-15 design and use it to design the M16.

    2. That patent you link to is not for “AR-style weapons”.

      The patent is only for a gas-operated semi-auto action. The type of rifle it’s built into is irrelevant to the patent itself.

  24. “In other words”: Three words indicating that the author will misrepresent the original quotation, twisting the cited words to further his agenda.

  25. The two factors which make it easy to kill more people in a short time are the muzzle velocity of the bullets and the ability to fire lots of bullets quickly.

    When the Founding Fathers gave us the right to bear arms, a typical weapon of that time was the French made Charleville musket. With a range of 50 yards and two shots per minute, it would be hard to kill even one person, let alone pull off a mass shooting.

    If the Government were to confiscate all guns and then allow any one who wishes to own a modern replica of the Charleville, gun deaths would drop.

    I am making an extreme example to illustrate a point; trauma surgeons say that high velocity bullets are a completely different animal inside the body.

    In China, a man went crazy at a school and stabbed about 18 children with knife. They all survived. The children in many Chinese schools are more closely packed together than here in the U.S. on average. With some of the weapons the citizenry can buy here, he could easily have killed 40-50 children.

Please to post comments