This article originally posted by TOM WHITEHURST:
Tom Whitehurst Jr. is viewpoints/opinion page editor of the Corpus Christi Caller-Times. Contact him at whitehurstt@caller.com.
The anti-gun people who say the AR-15 isn’t a hunting rifle should try convincing the deer in my freezer.
I’ll admit the AR is different from other rifles I’ve used for hunting, with their bolt actions and pretty wood stocks. The AR is downright ugly in comparison, biased more toward function than aesthetics. I don’t whine as much if rain gets on it because it’s all metal, with an outer body of heavily coated, non-rusting aluminum. On hunting trips, sometimes I take long walks for exercise and I take a gun along. I like that the AR is compact and therefore easy to maneuver if ever I’m confronted by a mountain lion, which has never happened but is a remote possibility.
Its caliber, .223, is considered on the light side for deer hunting. All of the pretty, wood-stocked rifles I’ve used have been more powerful. But the deer in the freezer would tell you, if it could, that the AR is powerful enough.
None of what I’ve said so far is news to the typical Texas hunter. But it might be instructive to the anti-gun people who have scapegoated the AR-15 in response to the tragedy in Newtown, Conn.
I can understand their outrage. I share it.
But if there’s to be a lecture, it seems only fair that the lecturer should know more than the lecturee. And from what I’ve heard and read thus far, the tone has been more authoritative than the factual content.
For example, The Washington Post, in an editorial last week describing the AR-15 as a “frightful killing machine,” quoted the following AR marketing text for emphasis: “At home on the range and on patrol. … Take on the predators with devastating performance.”
Regarding “predators,” the .223 caliber is, of course, a popular choice of hunters of coyotes and bobcats. I say “of course” because hunters already know this. But I’m not sure if the editorial writer also knew this and deliberately emphasized the other half of the “predator” entendre, or didn’t. In other words, the reference to “predator” is either devious or ignorant, I’m not sure which.
I’m a bit more sure about what’s wrong with this statement in the editorial: “This is essentially a military weapon, a version of the M-16, capable in some cases of shooting bullets at more than 2,000 feet per second.”
Actually, it’s in all cases. The vast majority of .223 bullets travel more than 3,000 feet per second and some of them go 4,000.
I wouldn’t nitpick if the AR naysayers didn’t assume so much about ARs and whether their owners have any business owning them.
The AR-15 is not a gun I would have chosen for myself. It was a gift. But, as often happens with gifts from thoughtful, perceptive givers, it fit me better than I’d have imagined. They knew I’d like it for hunting — it’s durable, accurate, easy to use and barely kicks at all.
Shop owners in Los Angeles found another use for these so-called assault rifles during the riots.
They protected themselves and their stores without firing a shot, by stepping outside holding their guns where the looters could see them. The gun’s menacing appearance probably helped.
Again, I understand and share the motivations for the backlash against the AR-15. I only dispute the logic. Unlike probably most owners, I’d give mine up just to make a majority feel better and safer. Or, I’d turn in my clip that holds 20 rounds for a clip that holds only 10. Or five. I don’t load more than five at a time anyway.
Or, if the government offered a fair trade for a traditional bolt-action hunting rifle of similar value, I’d go for it. It would be an exchange of the kind of gun Adam Lanza used for the kind that Charles Whitman and Lee Harvey Oswald used.
I will not kid anyone that guns don’t kill people, or that a semi-automatic AR-15 with a banana clip doesn’t help a killer kill more people faster than with a bolt-action rifle with a four- or five-round capacity. This country needs a meaningful dialogue on this issue. All of the preceding is only an attempt to make the dialogue more forthright and less of the monologue it has been thus far.
Let safety and freedom ring, together.
