JimC wrote:Most hunters use bolt action rifles, competition shooting likewise...
Seriously? Do the police in Australia still use revolvers because they're "more reliable" than automatic - that is, semiautomatic - pistols, too?
I wonder what other US forum members think - generally, the ones that have posted in this thread so far are gun owners. Without being sure of the numbers, I suspect there would be a significant number of Americans who would advocate tighter gun laws (not that I think they have any hope of achieving such a goal; alea jacta est...)
I think most people have missed my point about semi-automatic rifles. Simply, it is much easier for some random nutter to go on a murderous spree with one of those than a bolt action rifle. If there are heaps of them around, then you is just counting down the days to the next mass shooting.
Of course, this doesn't eliminate the possibility of mass shootings in societies where they are rare, it is a matter of probabilities...
Hunters do not have to use semi-automatics to pursue their sport...
Oswald managed, using a mail order Italian war surplus, bolt action rifle, to get off three shots in something between 4 and 8 seconds, hitting his target twice (one a head shot), from a distance of about 150 feet (50 yards). Now I grant you, Oswald was a Jarhead rated as "sharpshooter", but as ZIlla can probably tell you, that means he could (probably) wipe his ass without soiling his index finger. At least that's what Squids claim. In any case - in the hands of a reasonably proficient shooter, a bolt action rifle is a deadly goddamned weapon.
laklak wrote:Oswald managed, using a mail order Italian war surplus, bolt action rifle, to get off three shots in something between 4 and 8 seconds, hitting his target twice (one a head shot), from a distance of about 150 feet (50 yards). Now I grant you, Oswald was a Jarhead rated as "sharpshooter", but as ZIlla can probably tell you, that means he could (probably) wipe his ass without soiling his index finger. At least that's what Squids claim. In any case - in the hands of a reasonably proficient shooter, a bolt action rifle is a deadly goddamned weapon.
Absolutely, which is why they should be the preferred weapon of all hunters...
Once, I had myself a bolt action Mauser, chambered in 303/250, with an 8x scope, and I wasn't too shabby a shot with it, before my eyesight went...
Remember, I'm not claiming that removing semi-automatics from easy access is going to prevent all assassinations or mass murders, simply that it will make it that much less likely
My point, Jim (which I know you understood) was that the type of weapon makes little difference. In the hands of a determined assailant a piece of PVC pipe is a deadly weapon. Banning semi-auto firearms is as useless as banning "assault rifles". Now, if you restrict gun ownership to single shot, break action pieces or muzzle loading black powder weapons then you might limit the casualty count in a few spree killing or multiple homicide situations, but you're not going to stop the "unacceptable" murder rate you claim is caused by handguns. It only takes one musket ball to blow someone's head off. That said, a handful of Boers killed 4000 Zulus at Blood River using muzzle loaders with negligible casualties.
Back when I did a lot of hunting I used a bolt action 30 06 for larger game, but a semi-auto for anything smaller than a deer, so it certainly isn't correct to claim that bolt action is the weapon of choice for hunters.
laklak wrote:My point, Jim (which I know you understood) was that the type of weapon makes little difference. In the hands of a determined assailant a piece of PVC pipe is a deadly weapon. Banning semi-auto firearms is as useless as banning "assault rifles". Now, if you restrict gun ownership to single shot, break action pieces or muzzle loading black powder weapons then you might limit the casualty count in a few spree killing or multiple homicide situations, but you're not going to stop the "unacceptable" murder rate you claim is caused by handguns. It only takes one musket ball to blow someone's head off. That said, a handful of Boers killed 4000 Zulus at Blood River using muzzle loaders with negligible casualties.
Back when I did a lot of hunting I used a bolt action 30 06 for larger game, but a semi-auto for anything smaller than a deer, so it certainly isn't correct to claim that bolt action is the weapon of choice for hunters.
More to the point, it could be, if there was no alternative, with little impact on one's ability to hunt...
In other words, hunters would still be able to do their thing in a society where private ownership of semi-automatics was banned...
And I'm not saying restrict to single shot, either.
JimC wrote:I think most people have missed my point about semi-automatic rifles.
That's okay, you're missing their points, too, so everyone's even.
Their points mainly consist of "I have the right to do whatever I want, and fuck the consequences..."
Yes, well, that's pretty much the case here. Law abiding citizens possessing semi-automatic firearms are not responsible in any way for the actions of deranged shooters, so it is improper, unethical and immoral to restrict their ability to exercise their 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms, particularly those suitable for military use like semi-automatic rifles, merely because someone else might abuse that right. If we operate society on that principle, we should first ban swimming pools, bathtubs, and automobiles, all of which kill more people every year than firearms do.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth
JimC wrote:I think most people have missed my point about semi-automatic rifles.
That's okay, you're missing their points, too, so everyone's even.
Their points mainly consist of "I have the right to do whatever I want, and fuck the consequences..."
Yes, well, that's pretty much the case here. Law abiding citizens possessing semi-automatic firearms are not responsible in any way for the actions of deranged shooters, so it is improper, unethical and immoral to restrict their ability to exercise their 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms, particularly those suitable for military use like semi-automatic rifles, merely because someone else might abuse that right. If we operate society on that principle, we should first ban swimming pools, bathtubs, and automobiles, all of which kill more people every year than firearms do.
I see. So there should be a militia in every enclave to protect the people from the government and the other militias around them with a different political outlook, and the government should have an army to protect itself against the militias, and the arms race should escalate. These militias, in my opinion, are for fucking retards. And anyone espousing them is a loser. Maybe they were necessary 240 years ago, but now we have instant communication and rapid response to invasion by enemy, and the only threat to stability is the presence of militias whose purpose seems to be circle jerks.
If women don't find you handsome, they should at least find you handy.-Red Green
"Yo". Rocky
"Never been worried about what other people see when they look at me". Gawdzilla
"No friends currently defined." Friends & Foes.
laklak wrote:Oswald managed, using a mail order Italian war surplus, bolt action rifle, to get off three shots in something between 4 and 8 seconds, hitting his target twice (one a head shot), from a distance of about 150 feet (50 yards). Now I grant you, Oswald was a Jarhead rated as "sharpshooter", but as ZIlla can probably tell you, that means he could (probably) wipe his ass without soiling his index finger. At least that's what Squids claim. In any case - in the hands of a reasonably proficient shooter, a bolt action rifle is a deadly goddamned weapon.
JimC wrote:I think most people have missed my point about semi-automatic rifles.
That's okay, you're missing their points, too, so everyone's even.
Their points mainly consist of "I have the right to do whatever I want, and fuck the consequences..."
Yes, well, that's pretty much the case here. Law abiding citizens possessing semi-automatic firearms are not responsible in any way for the actions of deranged shooters, so it is improper, unethical and immoral to restrict their ability to exercise their 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms, particularly those suitable for military use like semi-automatic rifles, merely because someone else might abuse that right. If we operate society on that principle, we should first ban swimming pools, bathtubs, and automobiles, all of which kill more people every year than firearms do.
I see. So there should be a militia in every enclave to protect the people from the government
Yup. That's precisely what the Founders intended. And, interestingly, that's pretty much the way it is today anywhere outside of New York, Chicago, Detroit and LA.
and the other militias around them with a different political outlook, and the government should have an army to protect itself against the militias, and the arms race should escalate.
No, the federal government should have an army to protect the people against external invasion. The states maintain state militias to defend the states against aggression from within.
These militias, in my opinion, are for fucking retards.
Ah, the slave mentality spews forth.
And anyone espousing them is a loser.
Well, there's that whole "we have the guns and you do not" thingy which, come the revolution, means YOU will be the loser.
Maybe they were necessary 240 years ago, but now we have instant communication and rapid response to invasion by enemy, and the only threat to stability is the presence of militias whose purpose seems to be circle jerks.
Nothing has changed in politics in the last 240 years (or 2000 years for that matter) that makes an armed citizenry redundant or undesirable.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth
What you're missing ,Seth, is that there will be no revolution. Maybe some small insurrections by some malcontents who never made it past adolescent fantasies about wild west, but they will be efficiently dealt with by the government as always. And, you seem to forget, your idealogy is only adhered to by a small percentage of people, you'd never survive. All around you would be other factions, including natives, who'd wipe your so-called militia off the map in a couple of years. I'd be fine. I live in Canada. Good fishing and hunting all around me, and no militias. I welcome your insurrection and bet you that I would have less difficulty surviving than you. Anybody who thinks they can survive by digging in will be buried in the hole they dug. All the militias in Colorado and Montana would be fighting amongst each other for control because they could not get along. It's you who is one of the sheeple, you just can't see it. And that would be your demise. Good luck, and don't let anyone piss in your airshaft.
If women don't find you handsome, they should at least find you handy.-Red Green
"Yo". Rocky
"Never been worried about what other people see when they look at me". Gawdzilla
"No friends currently defined." Friends & Foes.
See a pattern? Nixon (War on Drugs) took office in '69. The 18th Amendment (Alcohol Prohibition) took effect in 1920, however, bear in mind some states had already started passing their own prohibition laws a few years before Federal Prohibition. 18th Amendment was repealed in '33. The far left side of the graph shows a homicide rate at the turn of the previous century of 1.1 to 1.2 per 100k. At that time, there were almost no gun restrictions in effect.
Now, I know, I know, correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation, but if not drug and alcohol prohibition, then what? Why do the most violent periods in American history seem to coincide with prohibition?
Maybe I'm just a crazy gun nut wacko (Never in my life have I owned or even fired a gun, by the way), but I prefer to address the source of the problem, rather than the symptoms. Sure, guns make it easier to kill, but they do not provide people with incentives or reasons to kill.
On a related note:
The War on Drugs is a fucking abomination. It has been an unmitigated disaster in every respect, a national travesty of the highest order, and yet our President chuckles--literally laughs out loud--when asked a serious question about a very serious issue. Yes, Mr. President--organized crime, gang violence, high murder rates, obscene incarceration rates, shattered, devastated neighborhoods and communites--hilarious!
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." —Voltaire
"They want to take away your hamburgers. This is what Stalin dreamt about but never achieved." —Sebastian Gorka
