It came out the Terrorist in the Baton Rouge police ambush used an IWI Tavor rifle.  Some words were thrown out by some media sources.  “Assault Rifle”, “High Powered”, “Sniper Rifle”.
It’s not an assault rifle.  Sure, it’s similar to the weapon used by the Israeli Defense Forces… But it is not a select fire weapon.  The TAVOR doesn’t have a Shoulder Thing That Goes Up. It does not have a Bayonet Lug. It doesn’t have a Heat Shield. It doesn’t have an Adjustable Stock.  So by all definitions, it’s not an assault rifle.

It’s chambered in 5.56mm – which is .22 Caliber.  5.56mm Nato is based on the .223 Remington cartridge.   (Note the first two numbers after the decimal point is “22”) The .223 Remington was designed as a Varmint round.  Varmints as being small critters like Rabbits and Squirrels.   On many boxes of .223 ammunition, you’ll see images of small rodent type animals.  Not Big Game.  Not even a small White Tail Deer.   So it’s not a “High Powered” rifle.  Not even close.

What made the Tavor so deadly was the Man Behind the Trigger. Who was trained in the use of firearms, yes… But the man had EVIL intent.  This is the difference between the the Good Guys and the Bad Guys.

What he used as his tool is not important. In France, we saw the tool was a truck. In Boston, we saw the tools were Pressure Cookers. The tool doesn’t matter. It’s how it’s used.

In both cases – Extreme Hate was the catalyst for Evil thoughts to be turned into extreme actions and Evil was carried out.  The Tool doesn’t matter, where he got the tool, doesn’t matter. What matters is that it started with Hate.

Hate is where fingers should be pointed.

4 thoughts on “The IWI TAVOR”

  1. Well said. How is it that unassailable logic is completely lost on those with a political agenda?

  2. “So by all definitions, it’s not an assault rifle.”

    While I agree that banning weapons based on looks and due to what the wielder chooses to do with them is ridiculous, you’re factually wrong here, George.

    The absurd 1994 Assault Weapons Ban was specific in lumping in semiauto weapons with selective fire ones (so “But it is not a select fire weapon” is a meaningless point). The actual definition of a “semiautomatic assault weapon” according to the law included any that had a detachable magazine (Tavor: Check) and two of the following (folding stock, pistol grip (Check), bayonet mount, flash suppressor (Check), and grenade launcher mount. By my count the Tavor meets all the criteria. Hence “…by all definitions…” is demonstrably incorrect.

    Understand that I totally agree with your underlying stance but if we’re going to have any hope of successful advocacy we need to make sure that we’re arguing from a strong stance. Basing our talking points on statements that are just plain wrong weakens us as a whole.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *