PHOENIX — Military-style semiautomatic rifles have been used in at least four high-profile shootings in the past year. Bushmaster variations of the weapon have been used in two recent attacks, including the Newtown, Conn., school shootings and the Christmas Eve ambush slayings of two New York firefighters. While commonly called the AR-15, Colt and Armalite have been the only companies to make weapons by that specific name. Many other manufacturers, however, now sell similar versions of the rifle largely styled after the military's fully automatic M-16.
A look at the guns, their history and why they're so popular:
HOW WERE THE WEAPONS DEVELOPED?
Armalite first built the so-called AR-15 rifle for military use, but the design was later acquired by Colt, which produced the M-16 automatic weapon for the U.S. military. In the early 1960s, Colt then began marketing the semiautomatic AR-15 rifle largely as the civilian version of the fully-auto M-16. Many other companies have since begun manufacturing and selling AR-15-type rifles, but under different names, including the Remington Arms R-15, Bushmaster X-15 and Carbon 15 and the Smith & Wesson M&P15. The AR-15 has become the commonly-used generic term for all similar rifles.
WHAT ARE THEY USED FOR?
The AR-15-type rifles and .223-caliber ammunition are largely used for hunting small game like coyotes and prairie dogs. They also are extremely popular in shooting competitions due to the light weight of the gun and ammunition and the weapon's accuracy.
HOW DO YOU PURCHASE ONE?
Most military-style semiautomatic rifles were restricted for sale under the 1994 assault weapons ban that expired in 2004. However, the ban made an exception for weapons that were made before the law took effect. Today, such weapons can be purchased in gun stores across the country except in some states, like California, which has a law that bans the sale outright of specific varieties of semiautomatic military-style rifles.
ARE THERE ANY LIMITATIONS ON SALES?
Licensed dealers must first run a background check on the buyer to determine whether they are eligible under state and federal laws to own the weapon; convicted felons, for instance, cannot legally own firearms. However, private sellers of such rifles are not required to perform background checks. This would include a person selling their private collection to a buyer from their home, as well as private sellers hawking their weapons at any number of dozens of gun shows that occur nationwide every year.
practical posted at 9:53 am on Sat, Dec 29, 2012.
we don t need assault rifles . Period.
We give up so many rights (privacy, not to be touched at the airport, legal representation is a joke if you are without money), what is bad in having tight monitoring of where these guns are sold, who buys them, in reducing magazine sizes, in marking the bullets to be traceable or better outright BAN of their sale.
Enough has happened to warrant some grown up talk and not knee jerk nonsense.
Pills are more monitored than Guns. Loopholes for guns are ridiculous.
az2008 posted at 10:13 am on Sat, Dec 29, 2012.
A limit on magazine capacity may have merit. For example, the Giffords shooter was stopped when he paused to switch magazines.
But, focusing on the military *appearance* of these firearms is pointless. Functionally, there is no difference between these and any other semi-auto rifle. A pistol grip, flash suppressor or bayonet lug don't make the gun more lethal.
In '87-'94 a great deal of effort was expended to ban these firearms. The only thing that happened was: flash suppressors were removed, pistol grips converted to a "thumbhole stock." And, bayonet lugs were ground off.
Leon Ceniceros posted at 10:16 am on Sat, Dec 29, 2012.
These guns didn't walk into the school by itself. It didn't aim itself at a defenseless child huddled on the ground..........A HUMAN BEING DID THAT.
IF YOU WANT TO STOP THESE MASSACRES FROM HAPPENING...SPEND A BILLION DOLLARS TO DEVELOP A MENTAL OR DNA TEST FOR THE HUMANS THAT COMMIT THESE ATROCITIES........CUT THE "CANCER" OUT OF SOCIETY.
Juggernaut8000 posted at 11:31 am on Sat, Dec 29, 2012.
Speak for yourself practical, and take your rant elsewhere. It is the over medicated youth who are to blame, not a piece of metal.
All these fabricated 'disorders' are the cause for the recent tragedies. ADHD, bipolar disorder just to name a few BS 'illnesses'. The medication to treat these made up issues pushed Holmes, Loughner and Lanza to commit their crimes.
Believe me, I am not defending these monsters. If it was up to me, they would have been already decapitated.
Arizonan posted at 11:41 am on Sat, Dec 29, 2012.
Thank you for the article written useing common sense. I use my AR-15 for predator control and target shooting. I've also taken Javelina and put meat in the fridge. I am no more dangerous having an AR-15 than I am with any other firearm. The "big black gun is scary" mentality is getting a little old. Calling for their ban has placed millions into society and they won't be given up so that only criminals have them. Any shooting is horrible and I don't mean to downplay them but, take the number of these firearms and average them by number of shootings. Once that is done perhaps you'll see that they aren't the problem.
Lastly, common sense is never used by mobs or those with an agenda. Hopefully Congress will see that because I'm sure the ink pens in the Oval Office won't.
mikedurham posted at 1:53 pm on Sat, Dec 29, 2012.
An additional use of these weapons appears to be mass murder. The author failed to include that information. I'm tired of these so called educational articles making a weapon designed to kill people as a benign agricultural/sport tool only.
mikedurham posted at 1:57 pm on Sat, Dec 29, 2012.
Also, was this article written by staff or was it a news release from the NRA, a gun retailer, gun manufacturer, or a pro-gun individual/group? The reason I ask is that it doesn't include victim counts or the use against criminals.
Hear Me Now posted at 4:03 pm on Sat, Dec 29, 2012.
Assault Weapon Definition:
An assault weapon is anything used as a weapon to assault someone with. Pencil, boiling water, frying pan, etc.
Assault is an action, not a thing.
The Federal Assault Weapons Ban started on September 13, 1994 The Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired on September 13, 2004. The massacre at Columbine High School happened April 20, 1999. The So called Assault Weapons Ban was in effect and did not prevent the massacre.
Gun Control Defined:
The theory that people who are willing to ignore laws against rape, kidnapping, theft, and murder will obey a law that prohibits them from possessing a firearm.
Arizonan posted at 4:11 pm on Sat, Dec 29, 2012.
Dale, I get tired of the comparison of vehicles and drunk drivers and banning cars argument no matter how close it is to the truth. With that said, how many people have trucks used to haul items that they use only to get back and forth to work. Any firearm that I have has absolutely no cost to return from use value. I enjoy the AR-15 and have enjoyed that configuration since I was in the military. Comfortable, light and easy to handle. It came with 30 round magazines but I only use them at the range so that I can limit the time to reload during timed shooting.
My point is that the anger and frustration being directed at an inanimate object is beyond reasonable. Regardless of what bans are inacted the only thing they will serve is to make criminals out of already honest people. They will not, in any way, make criminals and mentally disturbed people more law abiding. If the time and effort wasted on demonizing certain firearms were placed towards the real problems there may be some progress.
Masterrogue666 posted at 4:34 pm on Sat, Dec 29, 2012.
Dale: The same argument can be made about the fish I catch. By the time you factor in the cost of the boat, gas, fishing license, et al, it's expensive. However, it's MY CHOICE, and MY RIGHT. You like to walk your dog (sans leash- against the law). To each his own....
Dale Whiting posted at 7:49 pm on Sat, Dec 29, 2012.
OK boys,
We are told that assault weapons include frying pans if and when used to assault people. We are told that catching fish is a right just as is killing Javelina. Nice to hear that Arizonan does not use his 30 round magazine on Javelina.
We are to undrestand that primarily it is the mentally ill who go "postal." And it would appear that Second Amendment rights trump the rights to domestic tranquility for the majority. Boy if Jefferson could hear this argument now! No, boys you need to explain this if you can.
Why is it that on a per capita basis so many Americans the victims of gun violence? Is it because we have so many crazy nuts? Or is it because the crazy nuts we do have find it so easy to exercise their Second Amendment rights to commit mass murders? Where one nut with a knife might kill a half dozen, one nut with an assault rifle kills two dozen. That's the picture you all fail to address! ! ! !
Let's outlaw and buy back multi-round magazines and improve the physical security of our schools. Shooting out windows hardly qualifies as soundly engineered security. I spent 7 years on adtive duty in the Army and fired both my M-16 and my M1911A1 as an expert. I never saw or heard of extended round magazines used with side arms on active duty. What well regulated militia has them? None! So just how does the Second Amendment guarantee any right to own them? It does not!
Dale Whiting posted at 7:50 pm on Sat, Dec 29, 2012.
P.S. Notice how the Trib exercised my original comments. Will they do it again? Had I not drawn responsive comments, one would not know I made any originally! And some of you NeoCons complain about Tribune bias to the left!
Daggerdave posted at 9:30 pm on Sat, Dec 29, 2012.
If you think the availability of these firearms are the problem, simply Google gun laws or gun violence in Switzerland. They have the 3rd highest ratio of guns per household on the planet and one of the very lowest gun violence statistics. This includes the fact that nearly EVERY male age 18-46(I think) is considered part of the military and KEEPS HIS MILITARY ASSAULT RIFLE at home. It is the law! Gun murders are almost nonexistant. Home invasions are the same way.
Here are a couple stats:
Guns per 100 people: US 88, Switzerland 45, Mexico 15
Homicides per 100,000 people: Mexico 42, US 2.9, Switzerland 0.77
Pretty simple to see that law abiding people owning any type of firearm is not the problem.
Arizonan posted at 10:18 pm on Sat, Dec 29, 2012.
And here I thought I may have found someone that would discuss this issue with an open mind. Calling men boys is a cheap shot Dale. The snide remark about Javelina and 30 round magazines was also uncalled for. Finally, anyone, and I mean anyone, that uses the phrase "NeoCon" displays a closed mind and the inability to discuss something rationally without bias. We're done here. Thanks for your service from a DAV.
az2008 posted at 10:28 pm on Sat, Dec 29, 2012.
Dale, we have high rates of violent crime, not merely firearm-related. If we could ban all firearms overnight (which isn't going to happen), homicides may fall, firearm-related violence will definitely fall, but non-firearm violence will likely increase. That's been the experience in other countries which essentially criminalized the use of firearms for self-defense (i.e., restricted firearm ownership to "sporting" uses).
The reason we have more violence is because we have such a culturally diverse population. Also disparate wealth and income opportunity. And, a lack of social institutions. Advocates of control usually say "look at Britain, France, Sweden... no guns.. less firearm violence." But, those countries have greater income/wealth equality, better social services, and traditionally more homogenous cultural values.
(continued due to this site's uninformative sp@m error)
az2008 posted at 10:29 pm on Sat, Dec 29, 2012.
(continued...)
That's starting to change for those model nations. After 20 years of immigration, they're starting to share more of our traits. Violence is increasing, including some very well-known cases like France's repeated episodes of riots. At the same time, their experiment with a common currency is failing. Many nations are imposing austerity measures, reducing social services and increasing wealth/income disparity.
Anyway, sure. Guns could be banned, but the result wouldn't be less violence. It would likely be more (as criminals are less likely to encounter resistance). Whether that's good or bad probably depends upon whether you're a strong, young male. Women, the elderly, etc., would be at a disadvantage.
The puzzling thing about people obsessing over high rates of crime is that crime is actually *way* down in the US. Even during the recent Great Recession. (Usually crime rates track the economy). This during a period of widening gun ownership (the periods around the '89 and '94 bans put a huge amount of firearms in private hands). And, in the past 20 years CCW has literally *exploded* across the country.
(continued due to this site's uninformative sp@m error)
az2008 posted at 10:29 pm on Sat, Dec 29, 2012.
(continued...)
To put this in context: Back in the 80s and 90s all we heard was that there would be gun fights in the streets if people were allowed to carry, and the availability of so-called "assault weapons" would lead to more crime. Vastly more people carry weapons today, and there are far more "assault weapons" in private ownership (due to the panic caused by bans). And, crime is down. Not just a little, a *lot*.
I wish we could discuss productive controls (like background checks, perhaps mandatory training to own a gun, etc.). The problem is, the anti side dwells on pointless minutia as if their only goal is to punish a "scapegoat." They squander huge amounts of political capital over things like bayonet lugs. For any control to be successful it requires the support of gun owners. Treating gun owners like they're part of the problem, equally inclined to criminal acts as the 1% of the population who abuse guns, only pushes them further to the opposite extreme of resisting *any* suggestion of control.
Ned Babbey posted at 5:45 am on Sun, Dec 30, 2012.
Ah yes. Assaulting through action and not actually the device is to blame. Nothing like the .223 caliber bullet to be compared to a frying pan. This bullet tumbles through a six-year old body and 'Here Me Now' excuses failure due to those who may ignore the law and possess such a firearm. Sir, the failure was to allow 'pre-ban' inventory of such ammo clips to be continually sold on the internet, gun shows and private citizens during those ten years. This (.223 caliber) round was found to delay death at best or at least wound enemy combatants requiring the enemy to exert resources to remove injured (wounded) or dying soldiers from the battlefield. This bullet is NOT a hunting/harvesting caliber but a militarily strategically designed 'frying pan'.
Dale Whiting posted at 8:21 am on Sun, Dec 30, 2012.
Cheap shot? Not hardly!
I know many gun owners and have known most for years, some all of my life. There are the few true sportsman whose ownership is solely for hunting. My father was one. There are the target shooters, an odd breed who enjoy noise and competition. My eldest brother was one of these. Then there are those who own for self protection, typically those few who have experienced threats in their lives. And of course some touch bases in more than one area. But all have something in common. As a former gun owner myself, I see that one ought naught take these "Toys away from us boys!"
Then there are the militiamen. Not unlike the insane who commit mass murder, these hold weapons, ammunition and multi-round magazines thinking that some day they will save us from totalitarians. "Irrational" hardly describes these people. "Insane" is closer. NRA is their savior organization.
Dale Whiting posted at 8:24 am on Sun, Dec 30, 2012.
P.S.
I do not seek to ban all firearms. I seek to outlaw and buy back multi-round magazines. And doing so is no slippery slope!
And I seek to improve the physical security of schools, particularly elementary schools. There is no better way. Hiring more gun toters to man the hall ways is another form of insanity.
Ateam1 posted at 10:59 am on Sun, Dec 30, 2012.
dale; What do you propose? Maybe our kid's need to be put in a prison type building? I see nothing wrong with armed personnel.You are not going to stop these FREAKS by banning ASSAULT TYPE guns,high cap. mag's,etc. People like you worry me with your socialist/dictatorship thoughts,and i don't care what is outlawed,you liberals don't have enough common sense to understand you are not stopping the lawbreakers!!! I forgot,their is no reasoning with OBAMA'S SHEEP!!!
az2008 posted at 12:02 pm on Sun, Dec 30, 2012.
Ateam, what is the rationale for NOT limiting the capacity of magazines? The 2nd Amendment isn't absolute (just as the 1st isn't, with its time/manner/place restrictions). We already have limits on min. barrel length, max bore diameter, full autos are virtually impossible to obtain (either due to the federal license, or the way their values have increased due to capped number of full autos in circulation).
The "slippery slope" works both ways. If you see limits on magazine capacity as a slope, then don't you face your own slope concerning what limits you'd role back? Would you honestly have no limit on bore diameter? Anyone could possess a howitzer? A sawed off shotgun?
(continued... due to this site's uninformative sp@m error)
az2008 posted at 12:03 pm on Sun, Dec 30, 2012.
(continued...)
I'm mostly on your side concerning the importance of a right to arms for self-defense. But, I don't feel that's impeded by, say, a limit of 10 rounds for long guns, and the maximum quantity which would fit in a handgun's grip (i.e., no extended magazines sticking out of the grip, but I wouldn't neuter Glock's magazines to 10 round. Their native 12-14 rounds don't seem problematic since they're contained in the grip.).
My feeling is: If people think a limit on capacity impedes their ability to defend themselves, it supports the opposing view that a limit would slow down an offender. Perhaps a license to own one, like full autos.
(I wouldn't do anything to so-called Assault weapons. They're just cosmetic.).
Ateam1 posted at 4:24 pm on Sun, Dec 30, 2012.
az2008; I have many guns that are semi-auto, as far as howitzers and things of that nature NO ONE should have those.As far as 30 round mag's , i have them but choose for yourself. I understand peoples concerns about guns but you will never change the problem of these FREAKS getting them. The crooks, murders,etc dont abide by the law! We unfortunately have some dishonest people in the military that will steal and sell guns that are full auto/grenades,etc. Some states already have laws on magazine capacity but the problem is once the government starts,they dont stop,especially the AMAZING LIBERAL SOCIALISTIC FANATICS!!!
az2008 posted at 2:45 am on Mon, Dec 31, 2012.
Ateam, why shouldn't people have howitzers? In 1796, Ira Allen (Major General of the Vermont militia) traveled to Europe for the purpose of selling his lands and purchasing large quantities of arms to resell to militiamen. The ship, the Olive Branch, was seized by the British with Allen's 20,000 muskets and 24 canon were seized. At trial, Allen argued that it was perfectly normal for individuals to own artillery pieces, "any who have property and choose to sport with it, may turn their gardens into parks of artillery, and their houses into arsenals..." (Ira Allen, Particulars of the Capture of the Olive Branch, Laden with a Cargo of Arms, at 408).
It seems a bit arbitrary how you're drawing lines, willing to ban something the founders were fully familiar with and allowed to be privately owned. But, staunchly defending as a constitutional right 60-round drums when the founders knew nothing of rapid fire weapons nor any inkling of a "magazine."
I'm just trying to prompt you to think about it. You say that regulating high-capacity magazines constitutes a slippery slope. But, your refusal to entertain such a control creates a similar slippery slope for yourself. (Where you draw the line, and more importantly, the logic you apply to what's included and excluded.).
Cheers.
Ateam1 posted at 12:46 pm on Tue, Jan 1, 2013.
az2008;I guess what you think is common sense is different from me. There is a huge difference between a high cap. mag. and a howitzer,come on! I do understand where you are going with this but what do you propose? Where do you draw the line? Once the gov. gets their foot in the door they wont stop.
az2008 posted at 1:40 pm on Tue, Jan 1, 2013.
What do I propose? I recognize life is about compromise. Like your admission that "common sense" dictates artillery has no reasonable purpose relative to the potential for harm, I think the same could be said for high capacity magazines.
In the former case, your choice to exclude artillery is not merely utilitarian but also political. You know that defending private ownership of canons (and unlimited bore diameter) would weaken your position to keep what is currently deemed legal. You'd be seen as part of the irrelevant fringe. You and those who favor "reasonable" controls would talk past each other. You would focus on ideological purity ("the framers protected canon!") while everyone else would operate in the realm of how weaponry meets a modern need.
In the later case, I fear that defending high capacity firepower is having the same effect. Defenders tend to recite founding rhetoric about militia uprising to thwart government tyranny. But, the average gun owner is concerned with private crime. High capacity firepower isn't necessary for that. Shotguns and 6-round revolvers would be adequate. Perhaps 6-12 round semi-auto handguns.
(Continued due to this site's uninformative sp@m error)
az2008 posted at 1:41 pm on Tue, Jan 1, 2013.
(continued...)
I'm just saying your decision to cut field pieces from private ownership is largely political. Compromising a bit of purity to have more impact on areas you feel are more important. (I.e., wanting to be part of the "common" of sense, not the literal sense from the founding generation.). It's not a stretch to apply the same criteria to high capacity.
The fact of the matter is, the collective purpose of the 2nd Amendment never had much traction. By 1903 it was almost entirely abandoned. As modern (non-agrarian) individuals, we own guns for private defense. I think we should emphasize the utility of that, not an ideological purity which reduces the impact we can have on something that makes a difference for millions of people today.
I'm not opposed to the 2nd's goal of an armed population ready to oppose government. I think reinvigorating that *duty* would do *a lot* of good. But, that's a separate topic. We're not going to cause that to happen by defending high-cap magazines just because it should happen. All we're going to do is sound like we're defending something that has no significant usefulness except to those who go on shooting sprees. (The same thing that would happen if we defended private ownership of canon. Nobody would have any real occasion to use a canon, just like nobody has any real occasion to use a 90-round drum magazine to defend themselves against private crime. But, like high-cap magazines, there would be the occasional whack job who fires a ball into a neighbor's house -- or local school.).
(Continued due to this site's uninformative sp@m error)
az2008 posted at 1:41 pm on Tue, Jan 1, 2013.
(continued...)
In many ways I don't think we're too far apart. It's just that you're stuck in black/white (splitting) thinking. It's either/or to you. Like you're insistence that giving up on high-cap magazines means "the government won't stop." Canon was given up a century ago. I'm sure there were people who said "it won't stop." But, today 70% of households possess a firearm. Obviously it did stop.
I do agree that anti-gunners who don't recognize any legitimate reason to own a firearm (and who see any restriction as one step toward their ultimate goal of banning all firearms) don't help either. They justify the black/white pro-gunners like you. Then the debate becomes dominated by two polar extremes, neither of which represent the 70%. I think that's the greatest threat to the right to arms. The polarized forces dominate the discussion, leading to ineffective controls, leading to continued cases of misuse, leading to a larger segment of the population who see guns causing more harm than good. (Just their own "common sense" observation.).