Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Does Martin O’Malley Even Know How Guns Work?
“Martin O’Malley,” The New York Times reported yesterday, “a Democratic candidate for president, called for a new national assault weapons ban and other gun control measures.” O’Malley reportedly touted his record in Maryland for “passing laws ‘that banned high-magazine weapons, increased licensing standards and required fingerprinting for handgun purchasers.’”
Does this guy even know what an “assault weapon” is?
Does he even know how guns work?
Is he completely clueless — or is he just pandering to his completely clueless Left-wing base?
I ask for several reasons.
First, I’ve often been astonished by leftist ignorance about guns. News reports regularly mistake automatic (generally illegal and very rare) and semi-automatic (generally legal and very common) weapons. They repeatedly fail to clearly report the type of weapon used.
I’ve read several reports of the terrible Charleston shooting. None have clearly identified the weapon used. I’ve read reports that the Charleston shooter used a .45 caliber handgun, that he had a Glock 41 that he purchased legally; that .45 caliber shell casings were found at the crime scene, and that he reloaded five times during the shooting. (There were early reports that the shooter had been given the gun by his father as a birthday gift, but this appears to have been incorrect.)
The Glock 41 (41 is the model number) is a new, semiautomatic handgun made by Austrian manufacturer Glock in caliber .45 ACP. Glock’s literature suggests that it uses a 13-round magazine (which is big for a .45 ACP pistol – older .45 ACP Glocks, like the model 21*, used a 10-round magazine). Note that “.45 ACP” stands for .45 caliber “Automatic Colt Pistol,” and is a round designed for the original Colt M1911 pistol.
There are other .45 caliber pistol rounds, including the .45 Long Colt, which is typically a revolver round. Revolvers typically hold six rounds.
Left: a Glock 41, .45 ACP (semi-automatic)
Right: a .45 Long Colt revolver (a Ruger Vaquero)
Now, I initially thought it would be strange for the Charleston shooter to have reloaded five times, as reported, if he had been using a Glock 41. That would imply that he fired more than 50 bullets. Perhaps he did. But I initially suspected that perhaps he used a .45 Long Colt revolver, which would imply that he fired between 25 and 30 rounds. Perhaps one of the news organizations will get around to giving us this detail. What I really wish, though, is that newspaper reporters knew enough about guns to ask the question.
But back to O’Malley. Look at the two pictures above of .45 caliber handguns. Now look below, to the left, at this AR-15 semiautomatic assault rifle, which is an assault weapon:
Do you see a little difference? So will someone, please, tell Mr. O’Malley that a .45 caliber handgun is not an assault weapon?
Second, the definition of an “assault weapon” is often more a question of aesthetics than functionality. Check out the picture to the lower-right. An “assault weapon” is often defined by cosmetic features, such as whether it has a collapsing stock, a pistol grip, a barrel shroud, a flash suppressor, or a bayonet lug. Really. As if there’s a rash of people being stabbed with bayonets.
Now, a pistol grip may be helpful in controlling the automatic version of an assault rifle, but it’s 99.9 percent cosmetic for a semi-automatic. I’ve seen a diagram explaining that the “barrel shroud” (the perforated metal surrounding the barrel toward the front of the rifle) allows the user to hold it without burning his hands during rapid fire. Gee, like the wooden stock on traditional rifles. And muskets. This has been true, at least, since the War of the Spanish Succession (which was in the early 17oos).
Generally speaking, other than magazine capacity — discussed below — the difference between an “assault weapon” and a normal, semi-automatic hunting rifle is that the “assault weapon” has cosmetic features that look scary to suburban soccer moms east of the Mississippi or west of Arizona — oh, and maybe to left-wing demagogues like O’Malley. (There are some states that are technically east of the Mississippi, but probably home to suburban soccer moms made of sterner stuff. Most of the South, probably, and Wisconsin. Maybe New Hampshire, too. Oh, and maybe they’re also scary to suburban soccer dads east of the Mississippi, many of whom apparently have never touched a gun.)
Granted, there is one other substantive difference between “assault weapons” and hunting rifles. The hunting rifles typically use a larger, more powerful, and more deadly round.
Third, there are advantages and disadvantages to high-capacity magazines, and they seem to make little difference, in any event, if you allow any removable magazine.
I will grant that in principle, a higher-capacity magazine increases the danger of a semi-automatic weapon, whether it’s a handgun or a rifle. Note, though, that the Charleston shooter was reportedly able to reload five times, so it seems unlikely that he was restricted by magazine capacity. Nor do we even know at this time, whether he used a 13-shot semi-automatic, a 6-shot revolver, or some other weapon.
Moreover, living in Tucson, I’m more familiar than most with the drawbacks of large-capacity magazines. By which I mean drawbacks for the shooter, which are good for the rest of us.
As some of you may recall, there was a mass shooting in Tucson on January 8, 2011, in which Congresswoman Gabby Giffords was critically wounded, six were killed (including Chief Judge John Roll of the US District Court), and 11 others wounded. The Tucson area is home to about a million people, but in many ways it is still a small town. One of those killed was my father’s friend. One of the men who helped subdue the shooter was my former doctor. These connections are not unusual for Tucson.
The Tucson shooter was stopped largely because he used an aftermarket, high-capacity magazine — which jammed. He was then taken down by three men and a woman (including Bill Badger, a heroic 74-year-old retired Army colonel who had already been shot). The point is that things might have been even worse had the Tucson shooter not used a high-capacity magazine. Such magazines are inherently more likely to fail (because a longer spring must be used).
Gun control should mean using both hands. If you think you need to.
I look forward to hearing your thoughts.
Published in General
Why not both?
Umm, since “assault weapon” is more of a political term of art vs. an actual description, does anybody actually know what one is?
Would this qualify?
Reminds me of “The Judge”
Some great info here, thank you.
I think what frustrates many gun rights advocates (myself included) is that the debate too often starts and ends with emotion and ignorance. These are powerful obstacles to overcome and the stakes are very high. Were folks to do good and know truth rather than feel good and remain clueless the world would be a very different place.
Unsurprisingly, government nomenclature for small arms does not include the term assault weapon or rifle. The M16, like its predecessors the M14 and the M1 are denoted as Rifle, caliber X, M!!.
When I first worked the streets as a police officer I carried a Smith and Wesson 686 revolver. I could fire six shots just as fast as anyone with a semi-auto pistol could fire six shots. My reload time was slower but with a revolver I didn’t have to worry about a jam. I carried the Glock 17 with the 17 round magazines later on.
Let me move on to the Gifford case. The shooter was excluded from Pima Community College because he was considered dangerous. What stuns me is that exclusion was not shared with Tucson PD, at least to the best of my knowledge. No one conducted a follow-up interview with Mr. Loughner. By the way during that time I watched interviews with the Tucson Police Chief and he was the typical grant-writing politically correct putz that some police chiefs have become. Tucson is small in the sense that you have noted so I hope my comments do not offend you.
Just one bit of nitpicking. The first .45 Glock was the 21, and it uses the same mag as the 41 – 13 rounds (or rather the 41 uses the same mag as the 21). Models in the 1990s were sold with 10 rounders due to the Clinton AWB, which expired in 2004, but the pistol was originally sold with (and designed for) 13 rounders. The Model 21 is still made and quite popular. The big difference with the 41 was in making it “Service Length” – giving it a similar length to the Colt 1911.
The model 19 is a compact 9mm pistol, and probably Glock’s best selling model every year. Its magazine can hold 15 rounds.
https://us.glock.com/products/all
But otherwise you are spot on in your analysis.
Actually, the tone of his article presumes he endorses the definitions officially included in the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban.
There are some who are currently pushing to add to that list all weapons capable of penetrating police body armor. While the public pictures a decked-out SWAT cop, what will be meant is police with no greater level of armor than that which will stop a normal pistol round. The desire is thus to be able to ban all rifles above a .22 plinker.
That idea met nuclear level reaction when it has been floated, but that’s the direction they are headed.
Well, let’s admit it, their real desire, towards which they are still working non-stop, as stated by a certain prominent Gummint official, is “Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ’em all in…”
The legal definition of “armor penetrating” rounds is so vague that I could don a paper sack with the word “armor” written in crayon on its back, then claim everything as armor penetrating.
Sorry but you failed the definition of an assault rifle.
An assault rifle is a military rifle that can fire on full auto or semi auto using an intermediate size cartridge, and usually includes a bayonet mount.
Yeah, next step is every deer rifle will be designated a “sniper rifle”.
“How quaint…” Hillary Clinton
“Assault” is an invented description used by politicians. You confuse function with use. The Winchester rifle that won the west was a repeating rifle that held up to 15 rounds. The difference? Gas tube or lever.
Why make a revolver? One shot is all you’ll need. After that, you’ll be out cold from the recoil.
I happen to own one of these classic “assault weapons”:
Sorry, but the term was used initially to refer to a new class of weapons pioneered by the Germans in the STG 44 the “Sturmgewehr” ie Assault Rifle 44, and later broadened to include any weapon with the characteristics I listed above.
Does Martin O’Malley Even Know How Guns Work?
Answer: No, no he doesn’t. And he probably has no interest in finding out.
I’m a big fan of Larry Correia, a fantasy writer and a huge gun aficiando (he spent years as a weapons instructor). After the Michael Brown incident he did a blog post, “The Legalities of Shooting People,” that included this anecdote:
Ignorance is bliss, and for some a political necessity.
Kozak is correct. “assault rifle” and “assault weapon” are two different definitions, with the latter designed so that it would be confused with the former.
I have a Vaquero with interchangeable cylinders, one for the long 45, and one for 45 ACP. I just leave the 45 ACP cylinder in. It has way more stopping power. It shoots sweetly, but then, I think revolvers do. My favorite is a .38 police revolver. On a good day, you could probably put two bullets in the same hole.
I thought about a Judge, but my father, who’s the Leather half of Guns & Leather gun store outside of Nashville, said the recoil was too much for him to handle. He IS 87, so I’m still thinking about it.
And generally meant to mean any Scary Black Gun….
“Assault weapon” is a wonderful term for leftist demagogues, for two reasons: (1) It has no actual meaning; and (2) It sounds really scary. I’m guessing that to Mr. O’Malley, an “assault weapon” is a gun that fires, you know, bullets. Or BB’s. I’m sure he wants to ban them all.
We also need to get rid of all those guns that can just “spray” bullets. (You must say the word “spray” with a sense of disgust and derision.) Jerry, check yer six! (Hey, I made a Dime-like pun.)
And therein you have the problem
The Judge is so cool for home defense. I keep mine loaded and locked with the first two rounds 410 gauge self-defense with large pellets, then the last four rounds are 45 Long Colt for serious threats.
I live in Maryland and O’Malley has turned me into a criminal by virtue of legislation. He banned having magazines with more than ten round capacity for “assault” rifles, but I have chosen the civil disobedience route and maintained mine. In fact I purchased more through outside channels after the ban. He also made it mandatory for people with “assault” rifles to register them and get finger printed. I have done neither of those things. Luckily I purchased my 9mm S&W MP before all of this nonsense and am thus “grandfathered” in having it without the state snooping around and badgering me. I have guns for two reasons: home protection and use against a dictatorial state when the time comes. If O’Malley wants to know what kind of weapons I have, he can run the risk of trespassing on my property because he sure as hell is not welcome here.
Emotions and ignorance are equal-opporunity obstacles to doing good and knowing truth. It isn’t just weenies and soccer moms who think guns look scary. Gun nuts do too–another word for “scary” being “cool.” There’s a reason that first-person-shooter video games don’t arm players with imaginary hunting rifles, a reason advertisements in gun magazines emphasize the scary-cool, and it has nothing to do with a rational appraisal of the value of the Second Amendment.
I’m not a gun person, so I can’t feel the enthusiasm of gun enthusiasts —I just believe you when you say you like—even love—guns and expect you to return the favor when it comes to things I like/love. Like, say, books. Or yarn.
Guns are fascinating machines, and there are good reasons to be found in evolutionary psychology for why human beings (especially males, perhaps?) might find instruments that allow us to efficiently kill stuff —animals, people— pretty darn attractive. I get why hunting is fun. Since I eat, and since I expect men with guns to come running when I need protection I am disinclined to be judgmental about the emotionalism of the gun nut per se. I do, however, think gun enthusiasts and Second Amendment purists don’t do themselves any favors by pretending that a gun is just like a knife or a baseball bat. At least as far as I’ve been given to understand here on Ricochet, it is only the possibility that I am armed with a gun that deters (that is, scares) the hordes of desperate criminals who would otherwise be victimizing me, right?
I was a reluctant 2nd amendment supporter in my 20’s viewing it as the least bad option. I’ve become more and more pro-second amendment as I’ve grown older and purchased my first guns – I now have 2 hand guns and a rifle — in the last 5 years or so. I hired an ex-LEO to train me in their safe use before buying them and try to practice regularly to hone my skills.
To Kate’s point, in my 5 years among gun enthusiasts, the best argument for gun control is about half the dudes one finds at the shooting range on a typical Saturday afternoon.
Back to the point of the post, the typical reporting done on shootings is abysmally bad. It was crime reporting that encouraged me to look a little deeper into stories an realize just how bad MOST reporting is. Regardless of topic.
To Kate’s point, in my 5 years among gun enthusiasts, the best argument for gun control is about half the dudes one finds at the shooting range on a typical Saturday afternoon.
Thank you. Exactly. (Not that I’m advocating taking away all your guns…just sayin’)
If you were an aspiring mass murderer and you were choosing between two possible venues, one of which had a sign posted, “Gun-free zone”, and another which proclaimed, “Open and concealed carry zone”, which would you choose to attack?
I suppose it would depend on my motivation. Aspiring murderers deliberately attack police officers who are—obviously—openly carrying, and presumably trained in the use of, firearms. There is a horrible video of a young man doing exactly this, and as he fires away with his assau… that is, the might-as-well-be-a-baseball-bat rifle he legally acquired, he’s yelling “kill me! Why don’t you kill me?”
If I was Jared Loughner it might make no difference whatsoever. After all, the obvious presence of armed men made no difference to John Hinkley.
If I was Adam Lanza, and Sandy Hook Elementary proudly displayed signs reading “The Teachers Are Armed With More Than Chalk” I would probably go around the corner to the daycare center (there was one, by the way) and shoot little kids there. Or take my chances at the elementary school—action always beats reaction, and the chances would be very good that even if the principal at Sandy Hook had been armed, she wouldn’t have had time to recognize the threat and use the gun that—statistically speaking—was far more likely to sit unused in her desk drawer or, God Help Us, be discovered by some second grader left alone for thirty seconds in her office.
Someone who is not a gun person by inclination—and as I’ve mentioned elsewhere, I have shot guns, and spend my working life with guys with guns, and I still find them unpleasantly loud and yes, scary. Someone like me—only without the experience of hanging out with gun-totin’ pals—looks at all of the above and thinks: the solution can not be that I must learn to use and then carry a gun all the time. The solution has to be that there are fewer guns around. That’s no more irrational than reflexively looking at the situation in Charleston/Sandy Hook/Columbine and thinking: the ability of nuts to get hold of guns has nothing to do with this.