The AR-15: America's Mass Murder Weapon of Choice

An open letter to Colt Manufacturing…

Dennis Veilleux

President & CEO Colt Manufacturing Company

P.O. Box 1868

Hartford, CT 06144

Like it or not, the AR-15 is pretty much the gun that is associated with mass murders in the United States. Whether this is a formal or informal moniker, I can’t imagine it’s the type of association anyone would want for themselves or their business operations. And certainly if I knew of someone who owned such a weapon, I would undoubtedly steer clear of them under any circumstances given this weapon’s role in so many mass-murders.

After the events of today in Parkland, Florida (a place I’ve never heard of until today) involving the murder of over a dozen innocent victims at the hands of another deranged individual carrying another AR-15, I would like to believe that you and your board members would feel compelled to take some kind of public action that attempts to convince the general public that these events do not sit well with Colt (or any gun manufacturer).

I realize that several other manufacturers make their own versions (clones) of the AR-15 since the expiration of the patent, but it is the Colt name that has the greatest association and would ultimately make the most contribution in the weapon’s reduced role of slaughtered, innocent Americans.  

If this has not come up in conversation, I would ask you to consider it. Perhaps even read this. And, I would further challenge you to make a public statement accompanied with swift action—that Colt is undisputedly determined to rid itself of being the gun manufacturer that makes the mass-murder weapon of choice.

It’s a crazy idea, and probably not the best for short-term profits, but what if Colt denounced the AR-15 by ceasing its manufacturing immediately? Yeah, I know, not the smartest business plan, but surely you agree that even the life of one innocent person is more valuable than any decision that is best for business? You do, don’t you?

I dare you to announce to the world that a human life is more valuable than gun sales. I double-dog dare you.

And in making this simple statement and action, you could also apply some of your “Colt leverage” to the other AR-15 clone manufacturers. And, with any luck, suddenly the rightful demonization of this weapon of mass murders would commence. Oh sure, there will be those few who snatch up the remaining ones, but in the long run, the AR-15 will become the “Weapon of the Whack’o”—to the point that few would brag of having one or ever bring one out for show and tell. That might boost gun sales in a different—more responsible way. Imagine if that happened. Imagine Colt transforming from the manufacturer of America’s favorite mass-murder weapon, to the manufacturer of responsible gun ownership.

Ford quit manufacturing the Pinto when they were associated with blowing up from rear-end collisions… surely the civil-minded folk at Colt could do the same with the AR-15—America’s mass-murder weapon of choice until you do something about it.

Curing Mental Illness vs. Gun Laws with Teeth

“This American carnage stops RIGHT HERE, and stops RIGHT NOW.” —Fuckface von Clownstick.

(And the people clapped)

It’s been well over a week, so it would seem now is good time to start talking about gun laws—before another mass shooting shakes the country to its core again. (Never mind the everyday mass shootings that injure and kill only a handful of our fellow citizens.)

As authorities in law, psychology, and other professions sift through the evidence more than a week after the Las Vegas shooting, everyone remains dumbfounded in the case of Stephen Paddock, the Las Vegas shooter. Even those closest to him (family, the gambling and gun-selling communities) are clueless and never had a vibe regarding his character of darkness that he kept from everyone so well. He certainly was an anomaly, but that’s how distant we are to addressing mental illness as a solution to mass murders. Think about it: its been over a week after the Las Vegas massacre, and we still have zilch.

Its odd that those who advocate curing mental illness is the solution to preventing mass killings, have no particulars when it comes to how we get there. It’s just this vague, clouded idea—much like asking for directions to a location and your told, “Yeah, I know the place, but I’ve never seen it, but if you go up the road a distance, I’m sure you’ll find it.”

This seems like a good place/time to ask why gun violence is always linked to mental illness? I think our society has a tendency to make the two synonymous. As to say, gun violence is the result of mental illness and mental illness is the result of gun violence. One thing to keep in mind—based on research—the overwhelming majority of people with mental illnesses are no more violent than the overwhelming majority of people in general.

Simply stated, the mental health discussion to a safer community that carries firearms is nothing more than a smokescreen for the gun advocates of our society. It’s simply a diversion with an impossible solution that keeps as many people away from talking about real solutions. This is a quintessential example of “kicking the can” down the road.

Can you imagine what advances in mental health it will take to reach a point where outward-appearing everyday guys can be found-out before they reach their inward critical mass to do the unthinkable (which has materialized far too many times)? It will be nothing short of placing mind-readers in gun stores, the workplace, and the homes of everyone who is suspect. 

And how far do we go in lumping the various attributes that lead to violence with mental illness? Most agree that things like schizophrenia, bipolar disorders, and major depression can fall under the mental illness umbrella, but what about those with a history of child abuse, binge drinking, or simply being male—because those things are also linked to violence. Then there are those who have experienced resentment, revenge, social isolation, a tendency to externalize blame, a fascination with violent video games, and a passion for weaponry.

The immediate answer to reducing the number of mass murders in America  isn’t in wrestling and sorting out the far-off mysteries and fuzzy-logic of mental illness, but rather in implementing concrete, extensive and tougher gun laws that mirror the requirements of other dangerous operations such as the various levels of licensing in the operation of a vehicle.

When it comes to mental illness warning signs, it seems fair that anyone who has over, x-number of guns (a number agreed upon by a rationale-minded group) and a bunch of ammunition is a candidate for some kind of mental illness screening. And, short of legitimate gun collectors, those who possess vast arsenals of guns and ammo, might this passion be an extension of their army-playing days in their youth. (If that isn’t a form of mental illness, I don’t know what is.)

Should we make drastic improvements in mental health that allow us to identify a mass-murderer before they act, then we can talk about the elimination of gun laws. For starters, if you want to stop mass murders, require every person who has x-number of guns and ammo, or owns an “assault-style, non-hunting” gun to get regular screening.

Getting a driver’s license, a car license, and insurance is a true inconvenience when it comes to driving. However, it doesn’t prevent us from securing our right to drive, it’s just a precautionary to ensure that we can carry out the task without being a great risk to society. And so, owning a gun should be the same kind of inconvenience for anyone wishing to possess a firearm and/or ammunition. Besides, if you're a “good-guy-with-a-gun,” you shouldn’t object to a little inconvenience, right?

Despite all of this, I’m reluctant to believe that if the day should come when we can identify people with mental illness quickly, the NRA-gun lobby will likely still resist anything that prevents people from getting their hands on guns.

For the time being, America has long since disqualified itself when it comes to “greatness” in its tolerance for continuous massacres of its innocent citizens. Any great country would have addressed and solved this problem by now. Australia... now there's a great country. New Zealand... another great country. Japan... yes. Etc.

America’s Etheric Gun Laws

"N" If For "No Gun Laws"
Originally uploaded by mdt1960

Too bad 22-year-old Jarod-what’s-his-name in Tucson, Arizona hadn’t been limited to a cumbersome, bolt-action hunting rifle. He likely wouldn’t have taken so many lives. Better yet, even in his “unhinged” mind, he might have reconsidered his actions knowing how inefficient a hunting rifle would play out or how hard it would be to conceal in the implementation of his diabolical plan.

Instead, maybe he simply would have settled for posting another rambling tirade on YouTube.

But, thank God— and The Constitution—Jarod has/had the right to defend himself and our country with a semi-automatic weapon.

The saddest thing about this tragic debacle in Tucson is it will undoubtedly be repeated again and again.

My father asked, “How can a 22-year-old have anything to be that mad about given how much of life is in front of him?”

Even more poignant, another friend noted, “Funny, a guy can be unfit to join the army, but okay to own a gun.”

It shouldn’t come as a surprise that a touch of mental illness, combined with true vitriolic rhetoric in our media and easy access to lethal weapons is a concoction that can lead to nothing good.

Beyond pledging ourselves to curbing violent-implied speech and the ongoing plight to understand mental illness, I still find it odd that owning a gun is easier than obtaining a driver’s license.

I just don’t get it... how did something as lethal as a gun (and designed for the sole purpose of killing) end up so loosely regulated—compared to operating an automobile?

Jarod and I are required to pass a test, allowing us to operate a car which requires renewal on a regular basis. Why is that? Answer: For the safety of everyone—as in “general welfare.” Yet, in the purchase a a Glock, we simply have to wait an hour or two for a background check and if we’re clean, we’ll never be bothered about it again. No testing on how to use it (never mind psychological testing), no type of insurance is required, no renewal, nothing. We can even sell the gun to someone else without any kind of background check on them... talk about a Pandora’s ammo box.

Of course, nothing is fool proof... people will continue to be killed via cars and guns whether obtained legally or illegally. Yet, imagine the extra fatalities on the road each year if anyone could legally operate a car simply because they were of age—or worse—a loaded semi truck. Sure, maybe you and I wouldn’t let our inexperienced 16-year-old drive without going through a period of careful supervision, but consider the numerous dimwits that would.

Given we have different type of operator’s license for cars, busses and trucks, why can’t we do the same for guns?

If I want to own a bolt-action hunting rifle or single-shot shot gun for hunting purposes, a simple license (something like a normal driver’s license) is all I need apply for. However, if I want to possess a semi-automatic weapon or a large-caliber weapon suited for non-hunting purposes, then my background and character will require some serious scrutinization and on a regular basis—much like driving an oversized rig.

It is certainly true that thugs will continue to obtain guns illegally, but I do believe scenarios like the one that played out in Tucson this past week would be significantly reduced if there was something in place akin to what is required in possessing a driver’s license. And, as I see it, punishment would be severe for anyone in possession of a firearm without the proper license.

Oh fuck, my 2nd Amendment rights are going to be trampled!

The NRA would like us to believe that restricting access to firearms results in elevated crime rates (i.e., “only criminals will have guns”). However, this is not supported by a substantial body of data at the national level. In countries like Japan and Great Britain—where guns are greatly restricted—deaths from guns are low, especially compared to the United States. Sadly, but not surprising, the USA is a leader in gun-related homicides.

Of course, if my proposal here is so far-fetched, perhaps we should consider the other end of the spectrum such as the gun policies of Switzerland.

Until interpreted otherwise, it is our Constitutional right to own a gun, but it is also the Constitution’s role to “promote the general welfare” of all its citizens. I’d like to believe the latter of these two carries a little more importance.