Active Users:794 Time:23/12/2024 07:27:02 AM
His post was perfectly clear. Yours seemed like a response to an entirely different post. Narg Send a noteboard - 21/12/2012 10:53:39 PM
Hunting rifles may be better at taking down one human at a time, but they aren't as good at taking down a classroom full of 5 year olds and since the sniper-with-a-hunting-rifle problem seems much less relevant than the deranged lunatic walking into a public place and firing as many bullets as possible hunting rifles get more sympathy.

Just a guess, but that might be why.

A person's rifle selection is somewhat purpose based but also has a lot to do with arm-length. I've got the length, for instance, to present an M16A4 at midnight (aim perpendicular to my chest) but most don't and need a carbine for the task. That's only relevant in body armor and those trained without it would feel just as comfortable with a long stock and barrel. For short range a shotgun is always ideal though and that's the standard hunting weapon. If your intent was to leave hunting weapons intact but crack down on those favored by spree killers you'd not succeed, they're effectively identical. People do not hunt with actual sniper rifles much.

Ultimately, with nearly any vaguely modern firearm, time between shots in primarily aiming, so full auto or not is fairly academic.

The reason people (and I'm not one of them, I'd ban them all fwiw) have problems with the AR-15 and semi-automatic pistols like the Glock is because they were designed to fire lots of bullets quickly, something you don't normally associate with good hunting practice. I'm sure you can hunt with an AR-15 or a Bushmaster M4 but that isn't what people are referring to when they talk about 'hunting rifles' that should be allowed, there is a clear difference between the design intent of a semi-automatic weapon like the AR-15 and a gun designed for long range single shot damage. I guess most people don't have a problem with owning a Remington M700 for instance, which is in no way identical to an WASR-10 for the semi-automatic pistols these shooters frequently use.


FWIW, an AR-15 or pistol are like kid's toys compared to serious hardware, and most definitely do not 'shoot fast', compared to stuff like Mk-19's or M2's, which are still spitting distance from 'small arms'. Though admittedly the Mk-19 actually does shoot pretty slow, not that it matters.

As for hunting, nuts to that, I give a damn about hunting. I want a gun to defend myself from people, not deer, and people are stupid-hard to kill. I wouldn't give a snot if we outright banned hunting, I get guilty just chucking a rock at the deer who poach my tomatoes, but humans are another story. And frankly, if we had one of these schools shootings every day it wouldn't justify banning guns to me any more than free speech. Amendment 1 is the one that represents a free society, amendment 2 is the one that gives us teeth to protect it. And I know way to may cops, troops, judges, and legislators to ever trust them 100% to the task. You want total safety from the police, you need 3 cops for every single person, and then who the hell watches them?

I guess it comes down to respect. I respect most people to act sane with guns... albeit I've got no problem with mandatory (reasonable) training courses for them... and here's the key, if I didn't trust most people with the power of life and death, I sure as fuck wouldn't support a democracy. I mean, seriously, what is that, "I trust you with life and death decision for us all, but not those involving gunpowder"???
A little learning is a dangerous thing.
Reply to message
When guns are a big national issue, how do reporters & pundits not know facts about them? - 21/12/2012 05:33:14 PM 1554 Views
You don't hunt by walking into a classroom and shooting 20 deer - 21/12/2012 05:56:16 PM 1004 Views
You're actually not right on that one - 21/12/2012 07:49:53 PM 932 Views
That wasn't the point I was making - 21/12/2012 09:49:40 PM 875 Views
You should probably clarify it then - 21/12/2012 10:47:26 PM 1030 Views
His post was perfectly clear. Yours seemed like a response to an entirely different post. - 21/12/2012 10:53:39 PM 1186 Views
Explain that remark, it is not obvious to me *NM* - 21/12/2012 11:00:10 PM 536 Views
I think - 21/12/2012 11:13:34 PM 865 Views
Thats' easy, there is simply no such thing as a 'hunting rifle' - 21/12/2012 11:17:41 PM 870 Views
I'd say the expert gunsmith - 21/12/2012 11:28:02 PM 917 Views
I thought I was being perfectly clear. - 21/12/2012 10:57:35 PM 883 Views
Re: I thought I was being perfectly clear. - 21/12/2012 11:25:04 PM 935 Views
Oh I wasn't commenting on the standard of people here - 21/12/2012 11:29:36 PM 852 Views
you're largely correct, which is why we need stronger laws on ownership not guns per se - 21/12/2012 09:39:14 PM 843 Views
I can't think of a better reason than self defense - 21/12/2012 10:33:26 PM 906 Views
He is right about Australia - 21/12/2012 10:46:27 PM 880 Views
No kidding - 21/12/2012 10:59:28 PM 866 Views
If you knew all that - 21/12/2012 11:02:38 PM 893 Views
I think you are on the right track, but to the wrong destination; "lethal weapon" is redundant. - 21/12/2012 11:05:29 PM 873 Views
My read is that the 2nd Amendment not only allows, but mandates, cop-killer bullets. - 22/12/2012 12:45:04 AM 919 Views
Does the Second Amendment protect the rights of felons and the mentally incompetent to have guns? - 22/12/2012 02:35:16 AM 1083 Views
Yes the media is using terms incorrectly but the point still stands. - 22/12/2012 03:02:18 AM 807 Views
Re: Yes the media is using terms incorrectly but the point still stands. - 22/12/2012 04:12:30 AM 864 Views
umm... - 22/12/2012 12:41:31 PM 777 Views
1997 North Hollywood Shootout - 22/12/2012 04:07:39 AM 945 Views
Laws against murder failed to prevent that, too; clearly they are ineffective and should be repealed - 22/12/2012 06:02:24 AM 998 Views
Such laws were never intended for prevention, they define actions that will be punished. *NM* - 23/12/2012 12:57:57 PM 567 Views
So do laws against getting a gun without screening, training and certification. - 23/12/2012 02:01:32 PM 818 Views
Then CHANGE the Constitution, don't ignore it. *NM* - 26/12/2012 03:12:11 PM 499 Views
I am not suggesting either changing or ignoring the Constitution. - 26/12/2012 04:01:02 PM 928 Views
Yes you are. - 26/12/2012 08:06:01 PM 731 Views
Learn logic, and stop needlessly trying to teach me grammar. - 26/12/2012 08:55:25 PM 893 Views
Lear to read, and I won't have to - 27/12/2012 04:28:59 PM 950 Views
You are wrong. - 22/12/2012 12:14:40 PM 898 Views
That explains much; I read somewhere Brits are averse to it. - 22/12/2012 01:17:15 PM 830 Views
We're also averse to being wrong. - 22/12/2012 02:53:49 PM 900 Views
So you say... - 22/12/2012 03:32:16 PM 822 Views
guns r stpid *NM* - 23/12/2012 12:39:30 AM 584 Views
What bemuses me about this thing with Adam Lanza, is that his mother had 5 registered guns - 23/12/2012 07:10:26 AM 914 Views
She was asleep with him in the house. - 23/12/2012 02:24:47 PM 890 Views
LOOK, look, there is another one... - 26/12/2012 03:13:45 PM 831 Views
I find the absolutist ant/pro-gun positions equally dangerous and absurd. - 26/12/2012 04:20:37 PM 809 Views
So we should just *kinda* ignore the Constitution *this* time... But what about NEXT time... - 26/12/2012 08:08:12 PM 791 Views
No, we should enact gun regulation the Constitution explicitly empowers. - 26/12/2012 09:02:12 PM 811 Views
Which would be... NONE. *NM* - 27/12/2012 04:31:53 PM 506 Views
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state...." - 28/12/2012 05:14:49 PM 806 Views
*see previous grammar lesson* *NM* - 28/12/2012 10:31:43 PM 492 Views
The instant it becomes relevant, I shall. - 28/12/2012 11:45:01 PM 1001 Views
Your point being? - 27/12/2012 10:47:29 AM 791 Views
Facts are irrelevant when FUD is the order of the day. - 24/12/2012 04:34:18 PM 800 Views
It irritates me too. *NM* - 01/01/2013 01:55:05 PM 509 Views

Reply to Message