Missouri Republican To Auction Off Gun Identical To One Used In Colorado Shootings
Regardless of what one thinks about gun rights, it strikes me that we can all agree that this is incredibly bad taste:
JEFFERSON CITY • A Missouri lawmaker is drawing attention for the unfortunate timing of his gun raffle fundraiser next month.
The Sunlight Foundation has posted an invitation for state Rep. John McCaherty‘s Aug. 27 fundraiser, which will feature the raffle of an AR-15 rifle. Unfortunately for the High Ridge Republican, the gun is the same model as one allegedly used in last week’s shooting at a Colorado movie theater that left 12 dead and 58 injured.
The Sunlight Foundation is a non-profit group that focuses on government transparency. The organization’s Political Party Time blog focuses on campaign social events and urges people to send event details and invitations to post.
Tickets for McCaherty’s raffle are $25 a piece, according to an event invitation that the blog posted online. The flyer also boasts that the gun is Missouri-made and only 200 tickets will be sold.
I’m sure all 200 tickets will be sold out shortly.
Well, this is the Show-Me state, and Holmes certainly did show us something.
Well, considering that the earliest post that I found on this subject (with about 15 seconds of effort) was dated July 20, 2012, I’d say the raffle was already scheduled before the Aurora shootings. Quite clearly, your judgment of “bad taste” is…well, flat out wrong, Doug.
Now, the question as to whether they should pull the raffle is debatable. I don’t know that I’d agree that leaving it in place is in bad taste, but it’s certainly a legitimate opinion.
Is this actually from the same model from the same manufacturer? There are literally hundreds of different AR-15s for sale from dozens of different manufacturers. Since this can include different round uses, barrel length, gas extraction system, etc, I would like to know if they are truly identical as claimed since the invitation that you link to makes no mention of the Colorado shooting.
If he’s not making the association with the Aurora shooting, so what? AR-15s are pretty common weapons.
Was it in bad taste to sell Ford Bronco’s or tight gloves after the OJ Simpson trial? I don’t think so, unless you make a connection.
@James: Those distinctions would be lost on the vast majority of people, James. As an example, here’s a “Journalist’s Guide to Firearms Identification” to illustrate how most folks think of various firearm models.
@gawaine: Now that you mention it, maybe the only bad taste here is the Sunlight Foundation dancing in the blood of the Aurora victims.
Yes, it’s in bad taste. There’s time to pull the item and substitute some other p*nis extender – er, sorry, I mean shootin’ iron – uh, wait a minute, I mean gun, yeah, gun is what I mean. But it totally doesn’t surprise me that they probably won’t.
@DRS: I’ve never understood the anti-rights crowd’s obsession with penises.
Agreed that high dudgeon mode here completely is unwarranted. Looks as though this shindig was set up a while ago. AR-15’s are a ubiquitous weapon. It’s a fundraiser. I don’t see any problem with it. What would be “bad taste” is if someone held a gun auction right outside the movie theater where the shooting happened. Apples, oranges.
@Boyd: That’s true, Boyd. I guess I was just expecting accuracy and thoroughness in reporting from here as opposed to another, “I don’t understand firearms and they scare me,” post.
@Boyd: I believe the DSM defines that particular pathology as “projection.” A hallmark symptom of leftism, of course.
In any event, the more I think about it this is a non-story about nothing. The Ford Bronco analogy from above I think sums it up precisely.
@James: I don’t think Doug was intending that, James. I believe that in the heat of finding stuff to post, he just didn’t follow all the links to figure out how old the auction actually is.
As opposed to me, who
was sloughing off at workhappened across the old-ish blog post mentioning the raffle.Whether it’s exactly the same weapon or not. Whether this idea was thought up before July 20th or not. It strikes me as being in incredibly bad taste to do this just as it was in bad taste for an Arizona Republican group to auction off a Glock shortly after the Giffords shooting.
@Doug Mataconis: You really need to clarify, Doug: do you think it’s in “incredibly bad taste” to have scheduled the auction, even before the Aurora shootings (in which case, you’ve lost all connection with that thing we like to call “reality”), or do you believe it would be in bad taste to continue with the scheduled auction (in which case, you’d merely be wrong)?
@James:
From Wikipedia:
Presumably the Republicans would honor Colt and the trademark, and presumably the reporters in the Aurora case were not referring colloquially.
@Boyd:
I think its in bad taste to go forward with the auction in light of events.
And, I honestly don’t understand, when this idea of auctioning off guns for a political campaigns became a thing. It’s weird
@Boyd:
Of course it’s bad taste.
On wonders why they took the risk and why something like the AR-15 was so evocative for their auction. I mean, they could have given away a nice walnut stock big game rifle.
Do you suppose that they chose an “assault weapon(*)” specifically because it was a bone of contention and a political motivator?
* – I am aware that Colt used their political power to escape the legal definition in 2004
@john personna: The distinction between an AR-15 and a clone is lost on many AR-15/clone owners. And while I can’t say I’ve noticed any problems in the Aurora reporting, it’s rather common for reporters to to mis-report this kind of stuff by a mile.
I’ve seen reports of such guns in the past as “an AK-47 revolver” and “an AK-47 Glock.”
IMO, it’s in bad taste because raffling off a weapon like that is in bad taste, period. Since this was set up before the shootings, meh, obviously it wasn’t intended as a big FU or anything.
I am not “anti-rights”, Boyd. I am totally pro-Second-Amendment, because there are hunters in my family including me. And did I advocate cancelling the event? No, I suggested that they quietly substitute another kind of rifle. Probably could get it from the same place they got this one. No big deal, would show some quiet consideration and tact. Almost guarantees they won’t do it, of course, because somehow the fate of the Republic would depend on not giving in or something.
And of course the event was planned before July 20 – all fundraising events need time to be organized and promoted, materials printed, tickets sold, etc. That’s so obvious it really doesn’t need explaining. But there’s time to make a switch with the item itself. And everyone would understand why – except for some people here, apparently.
@john personna: I’ll ignore your reference to “assault weapon” for now. That’s a whole nother
argumentdiscussion.But in response to you and Rob both, you’re out of touch with the majority of Americans these days. You’d be surprised how many people own military-pattern rifles. It’s an outstanding way to generate money (in the sense of, “it works”), whether it be as a raffle or as a “free gift” when making a large purchase, such as a car or a home.
@DRS: I think your reference to guns as “p*nis extenders” speaks for itself.
And the 2nd Amendment ain’t about hunting.
@john personna: And you’d be wrong, if you bothered reading the linked material you would see that the rifle up for raffle was made by CMMG, Inc and not either Colt Manufacturing Company or its military subsidiary Colt Defense.
Well, it seems to me, it would be problematic to refund for the tickets already sold. Therefore, not completing the raffle would be fraudulent. Money was taken for the chance winning a firearm.
Now, the campaign should have announce the option of the winner choosing a different firearm of similar value given the recent events.
@James:
Trademark law is very strict.
FWIW, owners discuss and acknowledge it at ar15.com
It would be very strange if Colt messed up and lost a Trademark. So either CMMG has licensed it or is in violation … or perhaps they skirt by giving their rifles a different designation and using the term “colloquially”
@Boyd:
I”m quite away of the size of the “tactical” market. It does seem kind of strange, but perhaps is only a generational difference. If we were raised on John Wayne we wan’t his guns, if we were raised on first-person shooters and we want to take that into the real world … ah, well
It was like 30 years ago that I helped a buddy at a gun show. I worked a table. Even then, the groups of guys who came in wearing tactical clothing and stayed together, in tight groups, with their alpha dog, as they walked through … a little strange.
I would really feel better if we were defending the rights of the bolt-action shooter.
Boyd, the reason GFWs are obsessed with the guns-as-sexual-equipment is straight out of Freud: He called it “penis envy”.
@john personna: And trademark law is also very specific. Go to any of the big AR-15 manufacturers’ web sites and you’ll find plenty of references to AR-15s, but since they don’t sell any rifles as model: AR-15 they are using it as a type rather than a brand name.
Now the flyer advertises an AR-15 made by CMMG not a specific rifle from their catalog but regardless of how you interpret the law they are hardly responsible for a flyer made by an unrelated 3rd party.
@john personna: Are the rights of the bolt action shooter in greater danger than EBRs (Evil Black Rifles) somewhere? I haven’t heard about it, so please share.
@James:
I did follow some of Doug’s links, but not that one until just now. Yes the flyer says CMMG AR-15,
but looking at the CMMG site I see other designations for their .223 rifles.
So it appears the GOP was “colloquial” or in another sense, violated Colt’s Trademark.
@Boyd:
This gets to the crux, Boyd. An “Evil Black Rifle” was just chosen, again, as the weapon of choice by a spree killer.
How long does the excuse “I don’t understand firearms and they scare me” work?
If a spree killer chooses an “Evil Black Rifle” every f’n yearm or two, from here on out, will you just claim that it’s non-shooters who don’t understand?
@James:
And of course we can’t blame the press for misreporting “AR-15” when that is what the flyer said.
@john personna: So which do you want to discuss, John? Do you want to tell us about how the rights of “bolt action shooters” are being infringed, or do you want to discuss how Evil Black Rifles are evil. And black. And rifles?
This guy in Aurora would have done the same amount of damage with any semi-automatic .223 / 5.56mm rifle. There’s nothing special about an AR-pattern rifle that makes it more dangerous than any other semi-auto rifle in that caliber.
But if you’re a shooter, I suppose it’s not just the non-shooters who don’t understand.
P.S. Colt didn’t use their “political power to escape the legal definition in 2004,” they eliminated the features prohibited by the legislation. Big difference.
@Boyd:
We could step back and discuss what happens in Every. Single. Thread.
In every thread gun advocates create a cascading series of defenses, but not strong ones. They fold on each one, and run the clock.
The first line of defense is that opponents are just emotional.
The second line of defense is that all semi-automatic weapons are the same.
The third is that OK, removable magazines are different.
Finally we can’t do anything about magazines now anyway.
It seems you are trying the second line now, would you like to move on?
(I own no guns but have shot various things with various friends. Skeet was the most fun by far.)
@Boyd:
We don’t have to argue this bit, because it may be something we both have firm beliefs on, but I am absolutely convinced that (like many laws) representatives of industry were brought in to give the thing “acceptability”. Colt was given a pass because they had political power. They certainly were not given a pass by the original proponents of the assault weapon ban.
Maybe I shouldn’t lay it on, but on this:
We can be sure that rapid change of high-capacity magazines was indeed a design goal.
@Doug Mataconis: “And, I honestly don’t understand, when this idea of auctioning off guns for a political campaigns became a thing. It’s weird”
I think it’s helpful to remember that the mainstreaming of asinine immaturity that happened on the left in the 1960s also happened on the right, just 40 years later. Guns are the conservative equivalent of hippie drum circles, though not quite as idiotically benign.
Mike
@john personna: Sure we can. It was miss reported, whether malicious or not. Basic knowledge of what they are trying to report on would have kept this from happening in the first place.
Even though evil black rifles aren’t even the most common weapon of spree killers? Typically they use pistols and hunting rifles.
@James:
The first thing isn’t too important. I think it’s funny that the GOP would get a pass for violating the Trademark, and the press should be more gun savvy and fix it. But that’s just me.
The second is important. If recent spree killers had been choosing (low capacity) pistols and hunting rifles, then it would be an argument against capacity-related bans.
I don’t really remember any low-capacity guns used recently though.
My favorite pistol to shoot used to be a good old 1911A (authentic Colt). I’d put 5 rounds in the magazine and that seemed about right for shooting and reflection. Filling up a Glock just seems … expensive.
@john personna: It’s more cost effectiveness and the ability to conceal (for pistols). Unless you can drive straight up to your targets then carrying around a rifle tends to attract attention. A bolt action hunting rifle, at the cheap end, costs less than a similar level AR-15 as well as being able to find the former anywhere.
As far as low capacity magazines, that depends upon your definition. My XD-45 is 13+1 and that is high for a .45 Auto pistol.
While I’m certainly in favor of gun ownership (I own a .22 caliber hunting rifle given to me by my father when I was a teen) I just can’t for the life of me understand why any sane individual needs to own an AR15 or similar weapon, and everytime I ask that question I get some BS answer about needing it when the world goes to hell.
@Vast Variety: For me, you could say it’s nostalgia from when I was in the Army.
@James: Do you really need a gun for that? I miss the days I was in the Air Force but I have no urge to find a C-5 Cargo plane to stick in my front yard or a K-loader to drive back and forth to work in.
@Doug Mataconis:
And, I honestly don’t understand, when this idea of auctioning off guns for a political campaigns became a thing. It’s weird
I don’t get it either, and generally the fetishization of a lot of guns. If your main hobby is a tool that, when used as intended, kills people, you are a creep. And I say that as a gun owner and collector of many other, non-gun things.
@john personna:
If you had more experience with such things, you’d understand that the time difference between firing 30 rounds from a single 30-round magazine and 30 rounds from three 10-round magazines is insignificant, less than a second.
@john personna:
So, it appears that it’s not Every. Single. Thread. Maybe it’s Every. Single. Thread. besides this one. Sorry, I know that’s just snark, but I couldn’t keep myself from bursting your pompous bubble with your own petard.
@john personna:
The differences are the size of the rounds and then the corresponding costs. .45 ACP is about 2/3 more expensive per round compared to 9mm, and the 9mm is smaller so you can fit more rounds in the same amount of space. So, no, you’re wrong. It’s much less expensive to shoot the same number of 9mm rounds through a Glock vs .45s in a 1911.
@Vast Variety:
“Need” has nothing to do with it.
@Boyd: Then they are buying it for no reason. In the video gaming world we call that stroking your epeen.
@James:
Surfing around I see that some range rules are still set around 5-6 rounds per magazine for pistols. That’s what I’d consider “low”
@James:
In California we only have official access (Arizona is near-by) to “fixed magazine” guns (apparently with a “bullet button” loophole, which is fine with me, because it’s about speed of reload).
Would the same gun with a fixed magazine ruin the nostalgia for you, or would it be an acceptable trade-off?
I really am looking things that work for as many people (non-criminals) as possible.
@Vast Variety: If I could afford say, an A-10, I would definitely put it in my front yard. But since the USAF, in it’s infinite wisdom, is phasing them out maybe the price will come down.
@Boyd:
Of course it is the pattern in every thread. You just gave the classic last claim:
You know that mattb, shooter and martial artist, disagrees right?
That was really sad Boyd, both an attempt at argument from authority, and a fulfillment of my prediction.
@Vast Variety:
Are you similarly cavalier about your other constitutionally guaranteed rights?
@john personna: Except, of course, that you’re avoiding the fact that your point #1 didn’t happen. Is that deliberate, John?
Sorry, maybe I should have added one more item on list in the sliding defense.
Close to, before or after:
We can add the claim that “all magazines are the same.”
And that really was the closing defense in this thread.
Bad taste to raffle off an AR-15 rifle a few days following the massacre? I don’t know – American culture brokers in bad taste all the time. I don’t see where this is an egregious departure from from our usual bad taste.
@john personna: I can honestly say that I’ve never been to a range with that kind of rule. Of course if 5-6 rounds is low capacity then that leaves out most pistols. I think size also matters to because I won’t put a 22 LR up against a 454 Casull.
@Vast VarietyOut of curiosity, do you own nothing that you don’t need?
@john personna: Try looking at this.
@Boyd: I haven’t once said I think they should be outlawed. I am only questioning the rationality of ownership of that type of weapon.
In fact I even stated eariler in this thread that I am in favor of gun ownership.
And as a gay man I take my contititional rights pretty seriously since the GOP seems intent on not letting me get married.
@Boyd:
I thought it did. That’s what “Evil Black Rifles” means to me.
And of course there was James’ “I don’t understand firearms and they scare me,”
@john personna: I forgot to address your fixed magazine question. I don’t know I’ve never seen or used on so I don’t feel that I can answer that.
@James: Of course I do, but none of those items have the potential of causing someone to die.
@James: Well except for the afformentntioned .22 caliber hunting rifle, but it actually stays down at the farm where my Father lives since the only time I use it is when we go hunting.
@Vast Variety: So, only guns can kill? Not knives, bats, pens, swimming pools or cars?
@Boyd:
That was an idea in the other thread as well, but I really thing it fails logic.
The fact that someone can become expert in switching magazines does not mean that everyone is fast at switching magazines.
FWIW, I mentioned archery girl as an example. If everybody could do that, gun bans would matter less.
@Boyd:
Seriously? Is that a rational argument?
Do you understand the boundaries set by the 1934 NFA? Are you proposing we should role them back because “swimming pools kill?”
@john personna: Joe Huffman is not an expert magazine switcher. He put on his video camera and went as fast as he could.
@Boyd: He asked if I owned anything I didn’t need. I don’t own a swiming pool, the only knives I have in thehouse are ones I use for eating, and those are pretty much needed. I don’t own a baseball bat but I do occasionally get the little black flying rodent kind that be a nusance and while I suppose an ink pen could be used as a weapon the chances of killing someone with the ball point I generally carry around is highly improbably, plus I kind of need a writting utencle of some sort.
But good try on twisting around my words there.
@James:
FWIW, the guns we have on sale now are kind of strange to my eye. That MKS Hi-Point 9mm Carbine Fixed would probably work for home defense … and I’m kind of glad that anybody who uses (a new) one gets stuck at one magazine.
@Boyd:
Empty deflection. The point is that not everyone is an expert and as mattb likes to remind us, the Arizona shooter was tackled as he attempted to change magazines on his Glock.
Seriously, when a spree killer was actually stopped at that point how RATIONAL is the argument that it doesn’t matter?
@john personna: I would say that it’s no more ridiculous than Vast Variety’s assertion that you shouldn’t buy anything you don’t need if it has the “potential of causing someone to die.”
@James:
OK, I missed that.
@James: That’s an asertion I did not make.
@Boyd:
Ironically, a huge surge in the sales of military style rifles was the primary outcome of the AWB ban movement. There’s few better ways to get Americans to want something than to tell them they can’t have it.
@Vast Variety:
Boyd says:
Thursday, July 26, 2012 at 10:42
@Vast Variety:
I just can’t for the life of me understand why any sane individual needs to own an AR15 or similar weapon
“Need” has nothing to do with it.
Vast Variety says:
Thursday, July 26, 2012 at 10:43
@Boyd: Then they are buying it for no reason. In the video gaming world we call that stroking your epeen.
James says:
Thursday, July 26, 2012 at 10:57
@Vast VarietyOut of curiosity, do you own nothing that you don’t need?
Vast Variety says:
Thursday, July 26, 2012 at 11:01
@James: Of course I do, but none of those items have the potential of causing someone to die.
I believe that you did.
@john personna:Interesting but I think if I had a fixed magazine like that I would prefer old school with an M1
@James:
It was awesome in Gran Torino. Kind of long for hallways though.
@Boyd:
It’s a lot more about hunting than it is about assembling personal armouries.
And you’ve now mentioned extensions more than I did. Personal issues, big guy? Hope she appreciated the effort.
@James: No I did not. There is a signifigant difference between questioning the rationality of something and telling them they can’t do it.
@Vast Variety: Just wait for the day your spouse uses that as a rational for why you can’t do something
@john personna: To stay old school, I would want a Thompson for that.
@Boyd:
Thank you for admitting that you have no need for a firearm, you just want them. Now tell us why we should let you have them given the risk they pose to everyone else…
Yeah, thought so. The special feelings you get in your junk is just not enough of a reason for you to be allowed such weapons, sorry. Get your kicks elsewhere.
Sorry, that stinkin’ “work” thing keeps interfering with my blog-commenting.
@Tlaloc: You have no authority to let me have a gun, you authoritarian bastard.
@Tlaloc: What threat? In civilian life I have carried a firearm daily for years and the darn thing has yet to leap from its holster and kill anyone.
@DRS:
If you think the 2nd amendment is about hunting, you really don’t know what you’re talking about.
My ability to use firearms to hunt is simply an unrelated benefit of the 2nd amendment.
In short, You’re either very misguided about the 2nd amendment, or you’re a liar. pick 1, there is no 3rd option.
@Tlaloc: “Now tell us why we should let you have them given the risk they pose to everyone else”
Thanks for demonstrating exactly why gun control has died on the political vine. Too many liberals have been too honest about the fact they simply want to take guns away from people.
I do find it fascinating how some of the liberals most paranoid about the government violating their rights are often also completely content with the idea of only the government having guns. Talk about not thinking things through.
Mike
@Tlaloc: LOL! I dare to attempt to ‘let me’ do anything. I am free because Physical force is synonymous with political force.
Why do you think the NRA holds so much sway over congress, on BOTH sides of the aisle?
Understand this: the right to self protection in parity with the government response is a NATURAL RIGHT, that is not given by you nor anyone else including the government..
It is a right that is unalienable and is recognized BY the government, not OF the government.
@DRS: actually you’ve got that completely backwards. It’s more about assembling personal armories, period.
Force that is in parity with anything the government can bring, is what the 2nd amendment is about.
@towerclimber37: In that case, why aren’t we allowed to own bazookas, mortar launchers, and other stuff (nukes) that would really even up the odds?
Face it, if the government wanted to put down a rebellion and didn’t care about the collateral damage, there’d be nothing left but a sheet of radioactive glass. Hold on to your gun-binkies if it makes you feel any safer…
(For my viewpoint, you get to have a gun as soon as you show yourself moral and mature enough to use it responsibly. Any instance of irresponsibly using a gun should cause you to lose the privilege for a good long period of time, until you can demonstrate you’ve learned better. The Second Amendment did not mean that every idiot should be carrying heat.)
Given that in the state of natural rights there is no government that is a completely nonsensical argument.
Towerclimber, you need to see the doctor about getting back on your meds.
@Boyd: Indeed a reporter correctly identifying a weapon in an article happens about as much as them correctly identifying a dog breed…
@john personna: An evil black shotgun that is similar to what i used to hunt with was used too. Matter fact when the evil black gun with the evil extended clip jammed as they tend to do the killer switched to the evil black shotgun. So what’s your point?