Thunder1 wrote:Good Afternoon Mr. Hawk...
As an effort in educating the populace, I contend it w/b a poor effort…for w/b hunters, state run gun safety courses that involve hands on experience are better efforts and in Texas, are affordable for most…as for self-defense, private courses held at gun ranges, again including hands on training, are better education tools…
It's educational value would be limited to enlightening some of the populace to the fact that regulations, in fact, exist. To judge by
Mother Jones there's a significant number that remain ignorant on this issue. Beyond that I would concur that its educational value would be minimal. However, educating that portion of the population that truly believes Teddy Bears are more regulated than guns is still worthwhile.
I can’t question either the ARs’ place in gun sales or its’ accuracy in the hands of the trained...its’ just been my past experience that if you haven’t hit a deer w/ the 1st shot, you’re wasting $ trying to hit one on the run…this experience negates the advantage a large capacity magazine might have…
Agreed on the deer but this is one of those times where I agree with those that suggest that it's irrelevant. "Needing" something for Bambi isn't what this is about. That might sound "absolutist" but I haven't been convinced restricting standard capacity magazines would result in any meaningful reduction in what you're attempting to address.
You have to know that the Garand is at once both much heavier, bulkier than an AR or AK…coupled with the extra kick from the .06 cartridge, the Garand(or the 7.62 M14) are much less suited for hosing down crowds of people in a closed environment(I would think)…the 3 or 4 round mag capacity of a BLR and its’ Remington counterpart are evidence that they were designed for hunting and not as assault weapons…
However George S. Patton called the Garand "...the greatest single battle implement ever devised by man." And I tend to agree. The amount of additional training required for proficiency with the Garand is inconsequential in my opinion. On a tangential note, does this mean you would exempt the Garand from your preferred legislative schemes?
With respect to the BLR and the Remington 742, well, you should get out of the house more often. If I can find it and know of their existence you can bet anyone wishing to do harm also knows.
http://www.cabelas.com/product/Triple-K ... 706747.utsI’m not asserting that the answers are easy to digest, but with both theoretical and ‘Right to Bear Arms’ considerations set a side, and if the following 2 statements are generally accepted as true:
1)For self-defense, the average American does not need more than a 12 gauge pump shotgun loaded w/ buck shot and,
2) Large capacity magazines are useless in a hunting environment, then
What rational argument is there for the future sales of AR,AK, and SKS styled assault weapons to the general public if one or more innocent American lives might be saved with their banishment from the retail environment?
I acknowledged previously that a 12 Ga is probably preferable for home defense and standard capacity magazines don't enhance hunting but these are largely irrelevant because "need" or "hunting" has never been on the table in these discussions. We could put them on the table but, at least thus far, I've seen no evidence that lives will be saved with their banishment. It seems intuitively obvious to those who have not delved deeply into the matter but being appealing to one's sensibilities does not make it a fact. The AR-15 is the most common rifle extant in the US hence will be the most common rifle to turn up in unfortunate contexts. Remove it and I'm not sure you've accomplished much. Speed loaders with revolvers, a photo bag full of Garand clips, you name it. The Cali shooters killed 14 and wounded 17. Assuming a Garand was in play the total of 31 might have been reduced but the number of dead might well have increased. Thus immense political capital and money would have been expended to accomplish what, exactly?
It might seem harsh but one needs to look at the ROI of various schemes. For the trillions that would be involved in a "buy back" might that money be better spent on treatment or education or something else?
Hope you and yours have a wonderful afternoon/evening...
Without a doubt one of the more civil discussions I've had on the topic - same to you and yours.
