The difference between 'assault weapons' and 'patrol rifles'

     Oleg Volk photo

A bit of a "blast from the past," for people who may not have seen this before.

Way back in October 2007 (long before I wrote for Examiner), I wrote about an . . . interesting distinction made in an editorial in the South Florida Sun-Sentinel.  The editorial was, for the most part, fairly unremarkable.  On the one hand, there were the nearly mandatory (for Big Media) clucks of disapproval about the expiration of the ban of so-called "assault weapons."

And with each shooting, there is one unmistakable truth — the average person has absolutely no need for an assault rifle. They have one purpose — to hurt or kill people, namely cops. And the assault weapons ban needs to be reinstated by Congress.

[ . . . ]

The federal assault weapons ban sunsetted in 2004, and the National Rifle Association and others who supported the expiration will do everything in their power to make sure legislators don't revive it.

Police officials have justifiably been critical of the fact that the ban was allowed to expire.  Those officials should have more sway than the gun lobby.

As I said, fairly typical stuff.  Dead wrong, but when the subject is guns, "dead wrong" is typical for the mainstream media.

The editorial also referred to the fact that area police departments were equipping their officers with just the same types of firearms.  Oddly, though, the editorial board approved of police having these weapons that, according to them, "have one purpose--to hurt or kill people, namely cops."  Is that a police function now?  My--how "to protect and serve" has evolved over the years.

Officers in Miami-Dade can, for the first time, carry assault-type rifles. Deputies with the Broward Sheriff's Office must take a 16-hour training course in the weapons, and take yearly qualifications tests. Some deputies have spent up to $1,800 to have specially-equipped, semi-automatic Colt AR-15s. And they have to be able to justify when they handle one on duty. The Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office and city agencies like Delray Beach have also started training more officers to use the rifles.

People shouldn't be opposed to cops having these weapons.

What people should oppose — strongly — is the guy across the street having one.

The obvious implication here is that merely by virtue of the lack of a badge and other trappings of government power, a private citizen ("the guy across the street") is to be viewed with suspicion--as being unworthy of trust in his ability to possess certain useful (they must be useful, else why issue them to the police?) firearms competently, responsibly, and morally.

Oddly, though, that would seem to mean that "the guy across the street" is less trustworthy than "Only Ones" like these (to examine the tiniest tip of the vast proverbial iceberg)--those examples, by the way, are just a few of the cases of firearms negligence by those we are to trust with fireams--outright criminality, some of it heinous (remember Deputy Tyler Peterson, in Crandon, WI?), is far from rare, also.

Again, though, such wrong-headed thinking is nothing new; we see it every day.

What makes this editorial special is the slick rhetorical gymanastics displayed in this sentence:

Understandably, officers in more South Florida police agencies have been arming themselves — at their own expense — with patrol rifles to be on more even footing with criminals — particularly gangs — they encounter.

Get that?  An AR-15, for example, that in the hands of "the guy across the street" is an "assault weapon," magically morphs into the much more benign-sounding "patrol rifle" when in the hands of a cop.

I mentioned Tyler Peterson a bit earlier.  The firearm he used was, I believe, an AR-15.  Here's the tricky question: was it a "patrol rifle," or an "assault weapon"?

The South Florida Sun-Sentinel took that editorial offline long ago, but here's a screen capture, for those interested in perusing it in its entirety.

(click to enlarge)

-----------

In Memoriam

I would be remiss if I failed to address, however briefly, the solemn significance of this day.  Memorial Day is a time to give thanks for the extraordinary courage and sacrifice of those who gave all in making our way of life possible.  I cannot quite wrap my head around our incredible good fortune for the existence of such men and women.

On a personal note, I will be remembering 1st Sergeant Ernest Utt, killed in Iraq in 2004.  Way back in the 90's, he was a Staff Sergeant, and section chief of the artillery crew on which I served.  He was a good man, a good soldier, and a superb American.

Thank you, Chief.  You are not forgotten.