Fudds (Part 2)


“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

~Benjamin Franklin

“Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.”

~William Pitt (the Younger)

“The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”

~Samuel Adams

Among the many things I see daily on social media, the news feeds etc. are the emotional appeals to strip law abiding Americans of their constitutional rights. As shown above, these Fudds seem to come out of the woodwork to spout their nonsense.

As with my last entry, there are Fudds and others using arguments like, ‘I was in the military, but…‘ These are nothing more than appeals to authority to justify demanding these measures, this abrogation of our rights to government bureaucrats, hell bent on enslaving the average American citizen, by stripping us of our rights.

These are both the types of arguments that demand a response. Often these same appeals are filled with inaccurate information, half-truths and outright lies that are repeated Ad-Nauseum and the uneducated gobble it up like a child with Ice Cream.

Often, these same people, when called out, get angry and respond with insults and accusations of things like racism or wanting to see more children die.

Again, Stay the course and do not back down from these attacks. The Data, the Stats and Truth are on our side. I can’t begin to address all of these lies but I am going to try to address as much as I can. I want to start with one of the most popular myths, that the average citizen has no need to own a military grade weapon.

First of all, AR15 Rifles have never been used by ANY military in the world. Ever. Before some Fudd says it (and I know they will) AR in AR15 does NOT stand for Assault Rifle. It stands for Armalite Rifle. Literally every rifle produced by this company bears the AR label whether the AR5 (.22 Hornet bolt action Survival Rifle), the AR7 (.22 LR semi-automatic Survival Rifle) all the way to the AR30 which is a Bolt Action rifle in sever calibers. Every Rifle made by Armalite has AR in the name.

Another commonly heard myth is that the AR15 has the most powerful round on the civilian Market. It’s not, but I’ve seen so-called doctors argue this very line. The AR15 is the most powerful rifle. No. No, it’s really not. It’s not even the most powerful military round and it’s definitely not the most powerful on the civilian market.

Compare the .223 with some of the most popular deer hunting rounds available. The chart below shows the comparison between the .223 and some of those rounds.

CaliberVelocity (FPS)Energy (ft·lbf)Power (Joules)
.223 REM314812541.79
5.56 NATO314812541.79
.243 Winchester317919522.77
.30-30 Winchester237318883.58
.308 Winchester268126174.4
7mm Remington Magnum302431064.63
.30-06 Springfield281529204.67
.270 Winchester353637754.81

As we can see, of the six popular deer rifle calibers, the AR15 is actually less powerful than any of them, delivering the least amount of energy, despite having the third highest muzzle velocity.

When we compare that to popular handguns, it paints an even sadder picture of that argument used by so many graboids. In the table below, I compared the .223 and 5.56mm to several popular pistol calibers.

.380 Auto9801940.89
.38 Special8762351.21
9mm Luger (Parabellum)11383571.41
.40 S&W10744231.77
.357 Magnum12945281.84
.45 ACP9374031.94

While none of the pistols comes close to the velocity or the energy of the .223 or 5.56mm, 4 of the most popular handgun rounds are comparable (.40 S&W) or more powerful than the .223 or 5.56mm. These are commonly used cartridges and the .357 magnum is a revolver round.

As for the debate about semi-Automatic, Bolt action or lever action; many of the calibers I mentioned are designed for all types of actions or as single shot. Most modern hunting rifles are semi-automatic. This fact is unlikely to change, despite the hue and cry of the graboids.

Another common myth is that the AR15 is the preferred weapon in most mass shootings. While it is true that AR15’s have been used in some of these shootings (Southerland Springs, Margerie Stoneman Douglass High School, San Bernadino and the Pulse Nightclub) most of these shootings are carried out with handguns.

According to the FBI, Handguns are used in more mass shootings than Rifles and Shotguns combined. Trouble is, the FBI lists only Rifle, not the type of rifle so it’s difficult to pin down the exact number of mass shootings with an AR-15.

Another problem is, that often the media and Law Enforcement agencies will conflate the shooting being carried out with an AR-15 with the shooter having an AR-15 with them. That said, some of the worst mass shootings have been conducted with handguns or a handgun and a rifle. The infamous Columbine massacre, the shooters were armed with Tec 9 Pistols, A hi-Point carbine, 2 shotguns (pump and double barreled) and explosives.

At Thurston High School, in my back yard, the shooter used a 9mm pistol, a Ruger 10/22 rifle and a Ruger Mk II pistol. These are hardly the evil assault weapons the gun control lobby claims.

Finally, the Virginia Tech shooter used two pistols to gun down 32 people, wounding 17 others. But alas, this doesn’t meet the favored narrative against ‘Weapons of War’.

The Chart below shows the relation of Handguns v. Rifles in Mass Shooting incidents.

(Source: TheTrace.org)

According to the FBI Crime Stats, Rifles (of any type) are used in fewer homicides per year than knife attacks or hammers. It is a myth that ‘assault weapons’ are the preferred tool for these or any other criminal.

Another myth I see (and here repeated) is that a ban on assault weapons or high-capacity magazines will save lives. This myth is one that we can analyze in an historical context.

You see, this has been tried before and here in the United States. In 1994, the Clinton Gun Ban was passed. It remained in effect until it sunset in 2004. For ten years there was a ban on the sale and production of Scary Black Rifles, accessories and limited magazines to 10 rounds.

Among the provisions of the ban were accessories that changed the appearance of the weapon but not it’s power or functionality. For example, if I had a Ruger 10/22 with a composite stock that was collapsible and a 50-round magazine, it was an assault weapon. But a Ruger 10/22 with a wood stock and a 10-round magazine was legal.

A Chinese made SKS rifle with a bayonet was illegal while the Russian made SKS with Bayonet wasn’t. I could have a 30-round magazine on my Chinese SKS, so long as it was not detachable, but a detachable magazine made it an assault rifle.

Same thing with Flash suppressors, muzzle brakes, pistol grip stocks, etc. None of these things did a single thing to reduce crime or the homicide rate. All it served to do was make ordinary law-abiding folks into felons.

This shit sandwich of legislation was just a piece of feel-good legislation with no real basis in fact, just an emotional appeal to have the appearance of doing SOMETHING.

As it wound its stinky way through the halls of congress, the Clintons, Diane Feinstein et al. continued to claim, loudly, that this piece of legislation would save lives and reduce the number of homicides across the board.

In 2004, this bit of Infringement Pie finally sunset and was thankfully, not reinstated. Subsequently several studies have been done on this and the general opinion is that the Assault Weapons Ban was not effective in reducing gun crimes, homicides, suicides or gun deaths.

When we analyze the truth, we find that the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban had little if any effect on violent crime, mass shootings or homicides. According to Rand Corporation “We found no qualifying studies showing that bans on the sale of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines decreased any of the eight outcomes we investigated.”

Several fact checkers have also stated that claims that the AWB reduced homicides is inconclusive at best. This has been looked at repeatedly and the general consensus is, there is no proof that it worked as intended.

Thomas Jefferson said, “The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are of such nature. They disarm those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the Assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man…”

This statement should be common sense to most thinking people. We have seen this play out time and again where we have seen gun control enacted. When we look at mass shootings, a disturbing pattern invariably arises. Dangerous, mentally disturbed people with histories of violence, arrests and mental health issues gaining access to weapons because those issues were not properly reported.

Equally disturbing is that these people committed these horrible acts in places designated as ‘Gun Free Zones’…places where they knew they’d have little chance of being confronted with an armed person ready to defend themselves and others.

We also know that some of these ‘Mass Shooting’ incidents are actually acts of Terrorism that have been reported as simple mass shootings for political reasons. In the case of San Bernadino, it was two Muslim assailants attacking a Christmas Party with guns and bombs…yet was referred to as a mass shooting for weeks before they finally called it an act of terrorism.

Gun Bans will not prevent these incidents either. The Problem isn’t a lack of ‘Common Sense’ gun control Laws. We have those and those that aren’t based on sense at all. We don’t need to pass more legislation to combat it. What we need to do is enforce extant laws and impose stiff penalties for those who don’t enforce them.

I wept after Sandy Hook, I was horrified at Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School and I was angry after Southerland Springs. I have had a dear friend of mine, and fellow security officer murdered by a felon with a gun. But I will never advocate for the infringement of the rights of anyone. My experience and expertise do NOT give me the right to strip others of their constitutionally protected rights. I know something the graboids will never admit…Criminals have no respect for existing gun laws and they won’t respect new ones either.

The right to keep and bear arms is vital. It is this right that protects the others and it is this right that empowers a person to protect themselves if attacked. Because of this, I will ever support it.

You Fudd’s can sit there and wring your hands about ‘Military weapons’ or ‘Weapons of War’. You don’t have to own them or buy them. That’s your right. But it is not your right to strip others of their right to own or use an AR-15 simply because you’re too afraid to own one yourself…because it’s a scary black rifle.

But don’t you DARE try to strip me of the right to own my AR-15.