Good read from USA Today, "Shooting an 'assault weapon' helped..." (illegal, soldiers)

[mike1003]

Shooting an 'assault weapon' helped me understand the gun debate.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...ate/606902002/

[Floorist]

"the stock kicks into my shoulder".....From a 22 ?. What a wimp.

[spankys bbq]

Not all that bad of an article.



.22s don't kick. Well, don't kick much. That's really the only part of the article I ind a whole lot of fault with after only a quick browsing of the article.

[phinneas j. whoopee]

More profoundly, holding this firearm is immensely empowering. I understand how it would give its owner a sense of strength in protecting himself and his family.

Or empower a psycho to finally mow down all the bad guys tormenting his twisted mind. Who might take the form of children in a school yard the particular day he snaps.
The very fact he finds it "empowering" and thinks about protecting family is disturbing. When he is firing bullets at targets and thinks about protecting his family, what scenario does he have in mind? Who fits the description of the threat he imagines?
Even without race baiting being introduced the obvious answer is that he and others practicing "sport shooting" go out and hone their skills in anticipation of KILLING PEOPLE. Lots of them.
If a democratic society feels the need for this hobby to continue then so be it.
However if the will of the majority through elected legislators say the negative consequences outweigh the rights of a few to continue a dangerous pastime, its going to have to end and the 2nd amendment isnt all that relevant here. It envisioned black powder rifles to be used against imperialist occupiers and wasnt intended to empower grown adolescents fulfilling Rambo fantasies.
If constitutionality becomes the final metric its likely the SCOTUS will rule the pursuit of life liberty and happiness of the majority takes precedent over the hobbies of a minority.
That said there is no reason to ban rifles intended for hunting use including semi automatic rifles. The ones designed to resemble modern military arms, and the whole industry surrounding them, best summarized by Soldier of Fortune magazine, are what seem to be an issue. Just think about it. Isnt it a problem when a civilian goes target shooting, becoming enthusiastic and empowered by it... and those targets represent people?
Most sane people could keep it in its proper perspective. Many can not.

[1AngryTaxPayer]

Originally Posted by phinneas j. whoopee

More profoundly, holding this firearm is immensely empowering. I understand how it would give its owner a sense of strength in protecting himself and his family.

Or empower a psycho to finally mow down all the bad guys tormenting his twisted mind. Who might take the form of children in a school yard the particular day he snaps.
The very fact he finds it "empowering" and thinks about protecting family is disturbing. When he is firing bullets at targets and thinks about protecting his family, what scenario does he have in mind? Who fits the description of the threat he imagines?
Even without race baiting being introduced the obvious answer is that he and others practicing "sport shooting" go out and hone their skills in anticipation of KILLING PEOPLE. Lots of them.
If a democratic society feels the need for this hobby to continue then so be it.
However if the will of the majority through elected legislators say the negative consequences outweigh the rights of a few to continue a dangerous pastime, its going to have to end and the 2nd amendment isnt all that relevant here. It envisioned black powder rifles to be used against imperialist occupiers and wasnt intended to empower grown adolescents fulfilling Rambo fantasies.
If constitutionality becomes the final metric its likely the SCOTUS will rule the pursuit of life liberty and happiness of the majority takes precedent over the hobbies of a minority.
That said there is no reason to ban rifles intended for hunting use including semi automatic rifles. The ones designed to resemble modern military arms, and the whole industry surrounding them, best summarized by Soldier of Fortune magazine, are what seem to be an issue. Just think about it. Isnt it a problem when a civilian goes target shooting, becoming enthusiastic and empowered by it... and those targets represent people?
Most sane people could keep it in its proper perspective. Many can not.

So if we got rid of pistol grips, flash hiders, upper rails, bayonet lugs we'd rid ourselves of mass shootings?

I think what we have left is the Ruger mini 14 or mini 30. Other than the looks they function the exact same way as the scary ones. Not following you here.

[chucksnee]

So, I started to read this and then I got to this paragraph:

A gun control advocate can believenobody should have magazines with more than ten bullets, but a gun owner knows how hard it is to hit a moving target in broad daylight, let alone in the dark while your fight-or-flight instinct is in high gear.

Then...well...this just shows why a .22 hurts his shoulder.....

[Joey2k]

Originally Posted by chucksnee

So, I started to read this and then I got to this paragraph:





Then...well...this just shows why a .22 hurts his shoulder.....

I'm not sure what you mean. I was just about to note that the quoted paragraph was rather insightful.

[chucksnee]

Originally Posted by Joey2k

I'm not sure what you mean. I was just about to note that the quoted paragraph was rather insightful.

That paragraph undermines all hunters......we don't continue to shoot because we missed. That paragraph put's 2 completely separate situations in the same scenario, one person shooting at a animal that can be hunted versus a "flight-or-fight" situation which means they are talking about someone breaking into you house/home/business....etc....which is a completely 100% disingenuous.

A gun control advocate can believenobody should have magazines with more than ten bullets, but a gun owner knows how hard it is to hit a moving target in broad daylight, let alone in the dark while your fight-or-flight instinct is in high gear.

As for the .22 hurting his shoulder....well, the .22 is one of the smallest rounds and 6 years olds shoot larger calibers...and don't complain.

[NY_refugee87]

[https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/05/14/shooting-assault-weapon-helped-me-understand-gun-debate/606902002/]

Bolded and underlined. OPINION

And everyone is taking this opinion like it is factual or end all be all fact.

Let's break it down piece. By piece.

I pull the trigger. There is a sharp cracking sound, and the stock kicks into my shoulder. Fifty feet in front of me, the paper target shudders, punctured with another bullet-hole.

Stock kicks into shoulder? Someone doesn't know what they're doing. You're supposed to draw the stock in snug against your shoulder. ARs and AKs don't "kick" into your shoulder. A 30-06 on the other hand...

I'm shooting too low, punching a cluster of shots just beneath the three-inch-wide orange circle at which I'm aiming. It has been years since I last shot a gun, and I've never used one like this.

Front sight base is too high for 50 feet... turn the sight post down...

Some people would call it an "assault rifle," and it certainly looks like one. It is a Smith and Wesson M&P 15-22, a .22-caliber semiautomatic. It is a smaller caliber look-alike of the controversial AR-15.

LOL wait.... WHAT?! A 22lr kicked into his shoulder? LOL
In other words folks. He's never fired a rifle.

The gun in my hands could be made illegal if the Delaware General Assembly passes Senate Bill 163 — the "assault weapons ban" that has become the most fiercely-contested legislation of this session. It would be a felony to buy, sell or transfer it — even to own it, unless you could prove you bought it before the ban took effect.

Yes, make it a felony to possess an otherwise legal firearm. Because the prison system isn't bursting at the seams already...

This particular gun is owned by Jim Bowman, president of the Delaware Rifle and Pistol Club outside Wilmington. He and another club leader, Roger Boyce, graciously invited me to come shoot so I could get a better understanding of why gun owners like them oppose SB 163.

I support taking closed minded know nothings to the range. I converted quite a few and even bought NRA member ships for them if they would buy an AR.
4 new members and 6 CCWs.

The gun is fitted with an electronic sight, so, even as a relative novice, it doesn't take long before I'm rapidly cycling between five different targets, the bullets chewing big holes in the orange circles.

LOL you just said it's a .22LR, big chunks? Pencils make a larger hole in paper than .22s

There is a trance-like feeling to concentrating utterly on a target, focusing on the minute muscle movements that separate a hit from a miss. I can quickly understand the appeal of sport-shooting.

Fun isn't it? We are guaranteed pursuits of happiness under the bill of rights are we not? A civil liberty to keep and bear arms too.

More profoundly, holding this firearm is immensely empowering. I understand how it would give its owner a sense of strength in protecting himself and his family.

If a 22lr is empowering... try standing with a 24 inch barreled 338 Lapua and connect a shot at 1500 yards.

Shooting this gun, I soon get why gun owners are winning the battle over so-called "assault weapons" in Delaware.

Even as the General Assembly makes bipartisan progress on other gun safety legislation, it hasn't even been able to get SB 163 out of its first committee. The reason is simple: At the grass-roots level, opponents of an assault weapons ban have turned out in far greater numbers and with far greater fervor than proponents.

Because a civil liberty should not be a felony...
Conflating mass murderer with general public = horrible decision.

Why is there such an enthusiasm gap? I think it's because, for most gun control supporters, "assault weapons" are an abstract concept. For gun owners, they are concrete personal property.

A supporter of an assault weapons ban can think these guns are unnecessary, but a gun owner has felt the kick of the stock into the shoulder, has held its re-assuring weight in his or her arms.

They are personal property that we either built or bought with our own money. We don't get on our soap boxes and dictate you can't spend your money on something I don't like. Assault rifles are clearly defined as being capable of selective rates of fire. What is sold to the general public is not an assault rifle nor assault weapon.

Assault is an action. A verb.
Weapon is a thing. A noun.

If I assault someone with a screw driver. Does it become an assault weapon?
How about a baseball bat? A golf club? A car? Going by your fast and loose definition of what an assault weapons is, yes. Anything that can be used to assault is by your definition an assault weapon. Want to ban anything that can be used as an assault weapon? Get used to having padded walls floors pre cut food etc because you can't be trusted with an assault knife an assault fork an assault car, an assault 2x4 unless you have a license and undergo a psychological background screening and criminal history screening etc...

Manipulation of the English language to make something that it isn't to help your agenda by using that seductive inflammatory phrase, is just hyperbole and doesn't make it what you want it to be. It is perverse and down right immature.


No butter cup. I have felt the kick from a 338 Lapua a 50bmg. 22s don't kick. Stick to knitting.

There's an enthusiasm gap because there is a thing called mental instability that causes conflation of American firearm owners = heinous murderous individuals.

A gun control advocate can believe nobody should have magazines with more than ten bullets, but a gun owner knows how hard it is to hit a moving target in broad daylight, let alone in the dark while your fight-or-flight instinct is in high gear.

Unless you precisely load each and every cartridge to the exact same tenth of a grain... that helps with connecting precise shots on moving targets. The risk of fliers is minimialized significantly with the exact same primer, powder charge, projectile weight, and cartridge crimp.

Distance depending, it isn't difficult at all, to alot of practice to connect with a moving target with cross winds down range. Difficult for me might be easy to someone else. Don't ever assume.

Regardless a miss is a miss.
More than 10 rounds ensures you can have another chance at thwarting the immediate threat.

Of course there are some gun owners and even ex-soldiers who support SB 163. But, by and large, most who support the ban have never touched the guns they want to ban.

They're called Fudds. They, like most anti gun advocates, believe the 2nd only pertains to hunting.

These types of weapons are almost never used in crimes in Delaware. Supporters of a ban argue we shouldn't wait for a shooting to happen but, as a practical political matter, there just aren't that many Delawareans who have a personal reason to support a ban — and there are plenty who have personal reasons to oppose it.

Exactly. There is no logical reason to ban or oppose ownership of a firearm for any reason other than to score political points.
That's how you escalate civil unrest. Tell a person they can no longer do what they used to and make it illegal. While it is a Constitutionally Protected Right.
Apply your BS gun control to the 1st 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th amendments. Then become subject to those same measures. See how much you take for granted and how much you enjoyed that civil liberty...

Visiting the Rifle and Pistol Club also reminded me just how obsessively cautious most gun owners with their firearms. Even when backing up only a few meters to a new shooting position, Bowman and Boyce removed the magazines from their guns, put flags in the chambers and put everything back in their cases.

So much for that stereotype of carelessly muzzle sweeping, leaving weapons lay about, loaded etc.
Go to any range and you will get tossed and potentially banned if you do not exhibit safe practices.

If my finger moved to the trigger unconsciously, or if my gun dipped down away from the target, even for a moment, they would immediately correct me. Joining their club requires an eight-hour training course and a grueling 3-hour qualifying test, and I could fill a column listing the safety measures it employs.

Moved to the trigger unconsciously?
What? You dozed off while handling a firearm?
The phrase you wanted to use was, "If I wasn't paying attention to what I was doing, moving my finger to the trigger or aiming above below or to the side of the target."

Is it any wonder that responsible gun owners like these would bristle at the notion they can't be trusted with these firearms? Can you blame Boyce for grimacing when people label his property an "assault weapon," when all he's ever used it for is harmless target shooting?

Because projection, if I can't trust myself with a firearm, therefor nobody should be trusted with a firearm. What I perceive to be dangerous then everything and everyone involved is dangerous.

Because conflation. If someone used (insert firearm here) in a heinous fashion, everyone else who owns (insert firearm here) is a murderous scumbag.

I personally support most of the gun control bills in the General Assembly this year, but I was conflicted about the assault weapon ban even before I went to the Rifle and Pistol Club. I'm even more conflicted now.

One thing is clear to me: Second Amendment rights are far more than an abstract concept to those who defend them. And I have a hard time seeing how its supporters are going to get around that.

Wrong. You're not conflicted. You've been exposed to reality. Where everyone else lives. Your little dystopia head in clouds, unicorn, rainbow, puppydog, gun free everything indoctrination has taught you NOTHING but to incessantly fear firearms.
A small dose of reality has shown you everything you've been led to believe is a bald faced lie. A stereotype conjured up out of ignorance.

What you are experiencing is the same thing a vehement racist experiences once they've come in contact with those that are different from them.
A shocking 180 from what they've been led to believe out of ignorance.
The word isn't conflicted.
It should be, enlightened, however you still support gun control measures... so it's not enlightened...
Confused would be more fitting.

1984 is a fictional novel not a goddamn instruction manual.

[Joey2k]

Originally Posted by chucksnee

That paragraph undermines all hunters......we don't continue to shoot because we missed. That paragraph put's 2 completely separate situations in the same scenario, one person shooting at a animal that can be hunted versus a "flight-or-fight" situation which means they are talking about someone breaking into you house/home/business....etc....which is a completely 100% disingenuous.

I didn't read that as any kind of slight toward hunters, he was just saying that sometimes there might be a legitimate reason to have more than ten rounds, that a blanket statement that no one ever needs more than ten rounds under any circumstances was ignorant.

As for the .22 hurting his shoulder....well, the .22 is one of the smallest rounds and 6 years olds shoot larger calibers...and don't complain.

I have to agree with you there.