Another Gun Control Debate

This past week has proved again that "thoughts and prayers" are neither bulletproof nor comforting.  Another set of tragedies, another renewed gun control debate, another round of sound and fury signifying nothing.  I've seen way too many calls to "OMG, BAN THE AR-15 - IT SAYS AUTOMATIC ASSAULT RIFLE IN ITS NAME!" on Twitter and Facebook and have seen the predictable counterarguments of "criminals don't follow the laws!"  Nobody seems to have any realistic ideas on how to move forward.  Seeing as how California has tried to ban the sale of new "assault weapons" and that the entire statutory scheme has been thwarted by a $30 part, I'd like to offer my thoughts about how we <i>might</i> save a life or two.

As a center-left gun owner (and I do have an AR-15-type rifle in my collection), the calls to ban the "AR-15" make my blood boil.  First off, "AR" does not stand for assault rife or automatic rifle.  It comes from Armalite, the original manufacturer of the rifle.  It shares a significant part of its DNA with the military M-16 and, now, M-4  service rifles.  The biggest difference, though, is that the military versions have a "select fire" mode, which allows the rifle to fire in bursts (usually 3 rounds per trigger pull) or full-auto (as many rounds as are in the magazine per trigger pull).  The AR-15 is now, and always has been a semi-auto rife (one pull of the trigger = one round fired).

The problems with "BAN THE AR-15" are legion.  First and foremost, "AR-15" is a name of one specific rifle.  The name "AR-15" originally belonged to Armalite and is now owned by Colt.  Banning the "AR-15" would only take one specific model from one specific manufacturer off the market and the Colt AR-15 amounts for, at most, maybe 10% of the AR-15-type rifles out there.

So, if banning the "AR-15" won't accomplish diddly shit, we have to go after a larger class of "assault weapons," right?  Not so fast.  There is no magic definition of "assault rifle," so the law will have to create that definition.  Usually, these laws are championed by legislators who have never held a gun in their lives and stir fear about <a href="https://www.theblaze.com/news/2014/01/21/anti-gun-senator-is-being-mocked-relentlessly-after-he-warned-of-30-caliber-clip-in-embarrassing-video"> ghost guns firing 30 magazine clips in half a second</a>, so they will inevitably fuck up the wording and those who actually know how guns work are usually from the other side of the aisle and have no motivation to help correct the wording of the laws.

We tried this in California.  It utterly failed.  California defined an assault weapon as a semi-automatic, center-fire rife with a detachable magazine* and one or more of the following features: 

A. A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon.

B. A thumbhole stock.

C. A folding or telescoping stock.

D. A grenade launcher or flare launcher.

E. A flash suppressor.

F. A forward pistol grip.

So, prior to this law becoming effective (January 1, 2017, IIRC), it caused a massive run on what would soon become "assault weapons," significantly increasing the population of "assault weapons."  After the ban went into effect, the gun industry began offering "featureless" rifles, which were the same basic rifle, but with a traditional "hunting rifle" stock and no flash suppressor (which makes no difference in daytime anyway).  Still capable of firing the exact same bullet at the exact same velocity at the exact same rate.

Another way the gun industry took the piss out of the new California law was to create a product that makes the magazine non-detachable.  See, the law defines "detachable magazine" as one that cannot be removed without disassembling the action of the weapon.  So, creative types made an easy-to-retrofit product which rendered the magazine incapable of coming out unless the action of the rifle was opened just a teeny-weeny bit.  This product, one of which is called the "hellfighter kit" and sells for about $30, makes this process just as fast as changing a magazine on a prohibited "assault weapon."  So, because the rifle no longer has a "detachable magazine," it can have a pistol grip, grenade launcher, velociraptor launcher, or a freaking chainsaw bayonet. 

So, does that mean we just have to live with things the way they are?  I don't think so.  Most all mass shooters are male.  Many states allow anyone 18 and older to buy guns.  However, Schizophrenia (which is blamed in many mass shootings) doesn't always develop by age 18.  Also, let's face it, 18 year-old dudes are dumb as hell.  As far as I know, both the Atlanta and Boulder shooters were under 25 and bought their guns legally.  Both could have been prevented - or at least made more difficult - if we restrict the sale of semi-automatic rifles and pistols to persons 25 and over.  Bolt-action, lever-action, or break-action long guns and revolvers could still be purchased by younger people.  A mental exam would be nice as well, but that probably toes the line of violating the 2A.

Thoughts?  Anyone have better solutions?