Gun control loons getting loonier

[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.

[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.

[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?   

[bedstuy]

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.

I don't think you got my point.  With any gun, there's a regulatory question: Do the benefits of commercial sale of this gun outweigh the danger and risk to the public?  I think that's a technical discussion that I'm ill-equipped to weigh in on.  If it's essentially the same as any other rifle people commonly use, I would agree with you.

In the case of this gun, I just don't really see why it's so terribly important that people have access to it.  People can go hunting whether it's legal or not.  I don't see how we could justify any risk to human beings because some high class redneck wants to brag about shooting a deer from really far away.  Sure, maybe the risk of this gun is no different from other legal guns.  But, I certainly don't understand why we need to credit someone's desire to shoot something in a very specific way.  What if someone wants to be able to kill the deer with mustard gas, a machine gun or with dynamite?  Do they deserve access to all those weapons because they have very specific killing fetishes?

And, I suppose you're correct about the danger of a long-range rifle for mass shooting incidents.  However, you could also make the argument that a very long-range, accurate gun could be a danger when it comes to assassinations.  Or situations like the Beltway sniper case.  Maybe at some point you just need to say a gun is deadly and accurate enough for anyone to play with.  It might be a somewhat arbitrary line, but we don't need to make deadlier and deadlier guns available to the public just because we can. 

[bedstuy]

This is getting kind of silly, and proving the point I was trying to make in the first place. Unabashed gun nuts will claim that anything is a gun grab, even an executive order putting financial pressure on an autocratic regime invading another country. Insane.

The EO is clear. The inclusion of arms manufacturers is conspicuous. I've explained why these Russian firearms are not closely-related (if at all) to the Russian defense industry or to the tribulations in Ukraine.

You're not doing your side any favors.

They didn't ban any guns though.  They put specific Russian corporations including arms manufacturers on the OFAC list. 

[bedstuy]

If you're an American consumer, you can still own these Russian guns, you can buy and sell them on the secondary market, ergo, they are not banned.  Business dealings with certain Russian corporations are being regulated by OFAC and in this case you can't do business with a major Russian arms company. 

Why?  It seems like there are a few obvious reasons.  The US imposed economic sanctions on Russia and this company is supplying arms to combatants.  Seems like reason enough.  On top of that, these guns are apparently a significant Russian export to the US and thus one of the few ways that non-banking related sanctions can have teeth.  So, right there, we don't want to be supporting a major Russian arms corporation, while that corporation is complicit in the events in Ukraine. 

Gun nuts want to turn everything into either a conspiracy or a pity party about their toys.  These people are such babies.  We're supposed to structure US foreign policy around their stupid hobby of collecting toys.  Can't gun nuts just collect pogs or something?