Gun control loons getting loonier

[dead0man]

link

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They want to ban a gun that costs more than the average car, that's never been used in a crime.....le sigh.

And they aren't above flat out lying, but we already knew that....link

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Except it's actually the exact opposite, they've halved.  FBI pdf link for 1996 (page 18 if you don't believe me) (546 rifle deaths, 673 shotgun=1219) and FBI link 2012 (322 rifle, 303 shotgun=625....and 678 people were murdered with no weapon other than fists and feet).

[bedstuy]

Why is this so crazy?

If we're talking about essentially military weapons, what is the point of owning them?  You don't go deer hunting with an M-16.  There is no legitimate purpose for consumers owning these guns.

And, you're correct that the risk in terms of volume of incidents is low.  Any gun that you can't conceal in your clothing is going to be fairly useless for most street crime.  I think the concern is something like the Port Arthur massacre.  If you have a maniac with a gun, you don't want them to have a fast-firing, long-range rifle.  The same goes for a terrorist incident.  You don't want Al Qaeda to legally purchase crazy weapons of war in this country. 

So, there it is, the risk is low, but it's not negligible either.  But, the benefit to allowing people to have these guns is practically nothing.  There's no reason to risk any incident so that some upscale redneck can pretend he's Rambo.  Or, what about this compromise, you can buy your crazy weapons, but they can't leave a secure, licensed shooting range? 

As far as your point about gun control people being loony, I think that's unfair.  I think people talk about these big, scary rifles because it's concrete and salacious.  It's easy to say, "ban these rifles," versus, more police foot patrols, more gun buybacks, more money for ATF agents.

[dead0man]

Why is this so crazy?

If we're talking about essentially military weapons, what is the point of owning them?  You don't go deer hunting with an M-16.

The civilian equivalent is an excellent hunting rifle, many many thousands of Americans use them every year.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Except that there is.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The gun in the article is NOT fast firing and isn't pick up and magically kill anything aimed at.  It takes training.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Rambo preferred automatics.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You can buy a Mustang, but they can't leave a secure, licensed race track.  You can buy a swimming pool, but you must provide a life guard for every 20² ft of pool, 24/7/365.  How's that sound?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, it's loony.  Banning these rifles will do nothing but make gun nuts (of which I'm not) say, "told you Obama was going to take our guns".  It won't reduce crime and it won't stop a lone nut hell bent on destruction.

[bedstuy]

You can play that game with any particular gun.  Sure, one boutique model of gun is probably not significant.  It's an issue of where you draw the line between legal and illegal. 

My argument is that you should evaluate any particular gun as a cost-benefit analysis.  Ultimately, consumers ought to be able to buy guns for hunting, target shooting and killing people.  But, if we're talking about some potentially dangerous gun, I don't see the harm in just buying a different gun for your purpose whether it's pheasant hunting or killing crips.

[Slander and/or Libel]

Also, for the aforementioned gun nuts, everything is a piece of evidence that Obama is going to take their guns. Literally everything.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The gun nuts are the crazy ones. Senator Pryor voted against the extremely popular background checks, and yet the NRA is still attacking him.

[memphis]

I don't understand pointing out the weapon's cost. The fact that it is pricey means that it should be available to all who can afford it?

[Lief 🗽]

The loons are the ones that think military-grade deadly weapons should be legally owned by civilians.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If we're talking about essentially military weapons, what is the point of owning them?  You don't go deer hunting with an M-16.  There is no legitimate purpose for consumers owning these guns.

First off, this rifle is akin to an M21 not a M16. As dead0man already pointed out, sniper rifles are a completely different beast than automatic rifles.  And you know what, while I don't see the appeal personally, especially at the price, I can easily see some hunting enthusiast wanting one so as to be able to brag about bringing down a trophy deer with a single shot at 1000 yards.  So the no legitimate purpose argument can be quickly be discarded.  So can the anti-terrorist argument since actual terrorist groups such as ISIL and DPM already have access to military sniper rifles that serve the same purpose and are cheaper.

You can play that game with any particular gun.  Sure, one boutique model of gun is probably not significant.  It's an issue of where you draw the line between legal and illegal.

True, but there is no bright line separating this gun from a "legitimate" hunting rifle, so trying to ban it will arouse a whole lot of heat from the pro-gun nuts, and even if the anti-gun nuts were to win such a battle, it's doubtful the win would end up having saved any lives as even if a genuine nut were to make use of it, that nut would likely have killed and wounded more people with a different gun.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

[7,052,770]

So the CEO of some organization nobody's ever heard of and nobody cares about makes some statement that no one will listen to advocating a law that no one will pass ... and this deserves a thread?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

So the CEO of some organization nobody's ever heard of and nobody cares about makes some statement that no one will listen to advocating a law that no one will pass ... and this deserves a thread?

We need something to do while waiting for the Scottish referendum results.

[dead0man]

I don't understand pointing out the weapon's cost. The fact that it is pricey means that it should be available to all who can afford it?

The price of the gun sh**ts on the theory that it's going to be gun used only by "insurrectionists, terrorists and hate groups".  Why would those groups drop nearly 30 large on something when they can get the exact same effect for $100?  Make no bones, this is a gun for rich folk (or otherwise people willing to drop a butt ton of money on a singe firearm), but that doesn't mean it should be illegal either.

So the CEO of some organization nobody's ever heard of and nobody cares about

They got Starbucks to reverse their gun policy (in the wrong direction).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I heard about it, as did you.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is true, thank Og.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sure, why not?

[bedstuy]

So the CEO of some organization nobody's ever heard of and nobody cares about

They got Starbucks to reverse their gun policy (in the wrong direction).

Why does Starbucks have a gun policy?  Are they standing in they way of sovereign citizens defending themselves against over-roasted coffee and Norah Jones CDs with lethal force?   

[AggregateDemand]

The definition of insanity: people who've never owned a gun or fired a gun, telling Americans the proper way to buy, own and use firearms.

If people believe you can just point a laser at a target and then shoot it, I've got a bridge to sell them. The variables are vast, and the programming work is intense. Everything is custom in precision shooting, except for the most expensive mil-spec equipment, which costs as much as the PGF system and isn't necessarily available to civilians. PGF sells weapons systems, and the specify that the gun can only shoot certain types of cartridges.

The PGF is good for helping novice marksmen hit the broad side of a barn. If any of you have seen the Motherboard documentary, the long PGF kill was 1099 yards about 1 year ago. Youtube has videos of 12 year old kids making kills at that distance without PGF.

This is a tempest in a tea cup.

[DemPGH]

Oh, I was prepared for something that was actually restrictive. That's a high tech, cutting edge sniper rifle. Yeah, needs to be banned. And if no one can afford it, so what?

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

My thoughts summed up:

[Lief 🗽]

Of course I believe only the government should have guns.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

Of course I believe only the government should have guns.

Why?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

My thoughts summed up:

In some places, such as Great Britain, the police usually do not have guns.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Except that there is.

What is a private citizen going to use a $27,500 sniper rifle for?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Of course I believe only the government should have guns.

Since we have a government of the people, doesn't that mean that the people should have guns?  In a democracy, all the citizens are the government.

[Free Bird]

Of course I believe only the government should have guns.

Because that totally hasn't caused any problems in other countries before, Ms. Feinstein

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

And you know what, while I don't see the appeal personally, especially at the price, I can easily see some hunting enthusiast wanting one so as to be able to brag about bringing down a trophy deer with a single shot at 1000 yards.  So the no legitimate purpose argument can be quickly be discarded.

It's nothing really to brag about if the gun is doing all the work.

[Iosif]

Of course I believe only the government should have guns.

Why?

The same reason only the government should have fighter jets and armoured tanks.