This is why there will never be a solution to our gun problem and why there will never be a rational discussion or even a compromise. No one wants one. No one will question any of their beliefs or examine the real risks or even consider how well previous bans have done to reduce those risks. It's a religion, not a cause. No one wants a description of the previous AW ban because it actually didn't ban them or their magazines and had no effect except to raise prices and raise demand. Of course you don't believe me and won't even listen. You wouldn't be holier than me if you did.
There's a real fear of facts in the loudest ranks of the chorus. Tell them that printable receivers for your AK are ridiculous since you can make one out of sheet metal for free using a hand drill, and can buy one already made for $29.95. Any small machine shop can make guns and the process is so automated all you do is load the software. Tell them that no, you're not going to shoot down an airliner with a .50 caliber single shot rifle and you'll be called a liar. Minds must not be changed or the zealot will have to admit error and can no longer be a zealot and wear the cape and tights.
So Mr. know-it-all, what would I do to reduce the number of weapons you can use to clear a room? Well you can try to ban those 100 round drum magazines that in fact do exist to kill people. That actually doesn't run afoul of the Second Amendment or require Farmer Brown to trade his ranch rifle for a fly swatter. But who's going to listen? Minds have long since been made up. Actually handguns do a very fine job in close quarters and the constitution doesn't protect your right to own one. But no, we're not gonna back down on our words - dad's hunting rifle is a weapon of war that "sprays bullets" and we don't care who laughs at us because we're not trying to convince anyone who's not already convinced.
Fact is, many hunters in the frigid north who feed their families with modern, plastic stock firearms use these "assault rifles' because they are light and very durable -- but a 5 or ten round magazine would work quite well, but as I said, we can't have this discussion because the game is played from the fringes, the margins and after all it's not whether you win or lose it's how righteous you are.
4 comments:
I never realized that the assault weapon was mechanically identical to modern hunting rifles.
So the difference is the Rambo Factor - the feeling of power gained through the use of high capacity magazines?
Semi-auto is semi-auto. What makes something an assault rifle in the eyes of the public has mostly to do with appearance. The Ruger pictured is one example. My point is that such weapons as we're calling by that name are not the automatic weapons used by the military any more than the Nissan Sentra is just like a race car, as the commercials tell us.
But the large magazines make them better for mayhem, heavy as they are and cumbersome. Why any hunter would need a 90 or 40 or even a 20 round magazine I don't know. Perhaps detachable magazines at all need to be questioned.
They are plenty deadly, but so is any rifle and you can assault people with any firearm. In my opinion the terminology is used to make them seem frightening. Any discussion of firearms seems to be so loaded with hyperbole it goes nowhere.
I disagree the terminology is meant to make them seem frightening. I've seen the industry (manufacturers and publications) use the term Assault Rifle before they figured out it wasn't that great of an ad slogan.
Maybe you're right. "Intimidating" might be a better word anyway. It's just that all the focus on banning these things seems misguided to me.
Post a Comment