Oh, good catch! I hadn't realized that the aircrew Armalite was different from the base security Armalite.
And we're not supposed to at least minimally, sensibly regulate them and who can legally get their hands on and operate them? This isn't a Second Amendment issue and it never has been. It's a common sense safety issue dealing with devices specifically designed to smash, destroy and kill things and with rapid, lethal efficiency.
And we already do all that, with hundreds
of pages of regulations that have to be complied with, along with the maintenance of a federal database of prohibited persons (which anti-gun states often don't seem to bother updating). In case you've not noticed, pro-gun people really, really don't like criminals, much less armed ones. But every time the anti-gun crowd gets fired up, they try to pretend
that we don't have any regulations yet. Even politicians do this, often making themselves look insanely stupid.
The new regulations are always claimed to be "sensible" no matter how daft they are, or how onerous they might be. Heck, we're already past the point where very few liberals can buy a firearm without violating federal law, because almost all of them have used illegal drugs at one time or another, and like most crappy legislation written in a crisis to appease emotional needs, the wording is vague.
Among the recent bill's proposed amendments were ones that would've prohibited people who'd ever taken anti-anxiety medications or anti-depressants, along with intrusive medical record checks, which would probably have permanently barred gun ownership to any woman who'd ever had a baby, a miscarriage, or a worthless boyfriend. Apparently that qualifies as "sensible" in some circles.
Another proposal was to ban the private transfer of guns, defining transfer so badly that going on a one week business trip while leaving your gun in the same house as your spouse could get you both a five year stay in federal prison. Barrack Obama and his entire security detail would probably go to jail for the first Hawaiian vacation they took after Barrack signed the bill, because they probably don't take all their guns with them on every trip. That also was claimed to be "sensible."
There are limits to how effective any such system of regulations can be because criminals don't obey the law. If they did, our streets wouldn't be flooded with illegal drugs, often smuggled in from foreign countries. There are limits to how effective mental health screening can be because many of the violent episodes occur before any big warning flags manifest.
Now, why should things that cause fewer deaths than swimming pools or hammers be the focus of so much attention? Is it a desperate attempt at distraction? Is it some sort of tribal thing? Going after assault rifles would have the least
productive effect on dropping homicide rates of just about anything that could be done, so why was so much time and effort and political capital wasted on it? Why was virtually nothing
suggested toward things that might reduce the homicide rate, or at least specifically try to reduce the number of mass murders in public areas like schools?
We know who's committing most of the homicides, and just about all of them (and in many cities about 80% of their victims) have a long chain of prior arrests. Heck, in some cities would cut the homicide rate in half just by keeping the obvious victims-to-be in jail so they don't get murdered on the streets. Perhaps that wouldn't be "sensible" but it would be highly effective.
Most homicides involve alcohol or drugs, so there's another area where we're not
focusing. (It might be really interesting to compare a graph of US alcohol consumption, or some good metric for alcohol abuse, with the decline in the homicide rate, while making an allowance for the explosion in crack murders in the 1980's.) And those aren't just gun homicides, they're also knife and hammer homicides.
The increase in school killings seems to be driven by a copycat effect, so decreasing
the amount of press coverage, or at least somehow the press coverage kids are seeing, should help. For example, the Newtown shooter was obsessed
with the coverage of the previous school shooters. "Obsessed" as in newspaper clippings covering his wall, with circled parts and everything, just like in TV detective shows. So what did we do? We had PBS broadcast a two-part Frontline
biography of the shooter! You can bet that a half-dozen school-shooters-to-be were glued to their televisions, watching it in fascination as light bulbs went off in their heads.
Despite the ratings and public interest, the media should probably stop doing so much of that. If some future psycho kid realizes that guns are really a poor choice for inflicting mass casualties in a concentrated area, and instead uses a homemade flamethrower (which are oddly legal and useful for clearing brush), the media should just shut up and lie their little asses off because there's no way on Earth to stop any kid from making a homemade flamethrower, so let's pray they never start, and that the hobby remains just a harmless but awesome Youtube genre.
BTW, one of the largest public mass killings (32 dead), and the largest killing of LGBT people in US history, was done with nothing but a single bottle of Ronsonol lighter fluid. UpStairs Lounge attack